I'm pretty sure that the Tsunami(s) that struck in eastern Asia were the worst natural disasters in human history. There is talk that 100,000 deaths is on the low end of the fatalities. Currently, it is being reported that the Tsunami Death Toll Soars Past 77,000.

Usually, I don't feel much about the various disasters and acts of murder and terror that occur in the world. As I've mentioned before, I am much more easily upset about the killing of puppies and kittens than human deaths. However, this Tsunami situation is way out of control. When I think about the vast amount of destruction and death, I find it difficult to comprehend. I think, "Those poor brown people". No, I mean, I feel terrible about it.

Compared to 9/11, I feel much worse. I watched 9/11 in disbelief. I found the event to be surreal, as if I'd seen such things in movies so many times that I couldn't believe that what I was seeing on tv was real. In short order, our trusted major media outlets transformed the terrorist attacks into a Bruckheimer film. And our favorite politicians used it to grandstand and defame their opponents. Consequently, 9/11 seems abstract, trivial, and insignificant.

But this is just unbearably horrible. I used to wonder what America would do if there was another attack. For instance, after 9/11 there were concerts and tributes and endless post mortems, and it still goes on. Who else could be counted on for a better rock concert? I figured they'd have to get John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix and Keith Moon all together onstage in order to top the post-9/11 mania.

The tsunami is far worse than 9/11 in my estimation. I guess there could be another Live Aid, but other countries will have organize it. Uh, just like the first Live Aid. Really, for as bad as this natural disaster was and is, it seems like life goes on as usual in America. Girls are still going wild. "The Rebel Billionaire" continues to air. America is perfectly fine.

A further depressing point is that not only is America seemingly unconcerned, but the news coverage I have seen so far is myopically focused largely on such topics as "Could It Happen Here?" and "How Many Americans Are Missing?" Even worse, the "silver lining" stories are already starting to pop up. I have seen stuff like "The human spirit shines in times of crisis" and "The amazing miracle rescue of an eight week old baby gives us hope amidst despair". Y'know, thats bullshit, straight up and down, and I'll tell you why...

Over 100,000 people will die from this. Its fucking terrible. Does it really take mass disaster for the "human spirit" to "shine"?! Apparently, it does. Fortunately, we have no shortage of killing, terrorism, and natural disasters to give humanity an opportunity to show off its good side. Wonderful. And these little vignettes where stray individuals in wheelchairs survive are random lucky breaks. There is no hope to be found. I think that our media friends have to sugar up all of these bleak stories with this kind of shit in order to sheild us from the true random horror of these events. We just can't deal with it.

In a week or so (I'm assuming, at least one week), this won't even be news. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I will be. While even more people begin to die of disease, this "story" will be relegated to a spot in the nightly news' "The World In A Minute" features, in other words, an inconvenience.

Well, at least it isn't us, because we know how well WE do when it is.

This could be my last post of the year. You never know. What a year its been. Onward Christian Soldiers!

I have always maintained that most people who call themselves "Christians" actually live as Satanists. What this actually means is that aside from a minority of devout believers of Christianity, very few people actually live a Christian life.

I've come to this conclusion during a lifetime of knowing mostly people who consider themselves "Christians", and only a few who actually practiced it. Since the people I have met were random, I will deem these individuals a representative sample, and consequently, speak in broad generalities.

Most people are Christians only when it conforms to their preferences and choices. For most, this means they like the "heaven" and "life after death" aspects of Christianity and believe those things to be true. Then there are the basic rules like not killing people. Most people are able to follow this. Some people may go to church. But that is where it stops. If one wishes to have premarital sex, then they decide that "God probably didn't mean that one" or "Times have changed", or "she's drunk". And what about that illegal downloading? God probably sided with Napster on that issue. Right?

Most individuals live a life of sin. In fact, its quite reasonable to expect that most people's amount of sin is inversely proportionate to their age. In other words, in youth, Christians partake in a high level of gratifying and sinful activities, and these activities decrease as they grow older (and presumably close to death). Only then do they begin to live like Christians, in terms of more closely following more of the Ten Commandments, as well as living by the various behavioral restrictions and recommendations.

Is it fair to say "most"? I think so. In my experience, it IS most.

I'm no expert in Satanism, and I don't espouse it. And I certainly think that anyone who kills goats or chickens in bizarre sacrifice rituals is fucked up. However, what I've read about Satanism, as a "religion", seems to be a de facto rule book for how most people actually live. For instance, here is something from the Satanic Bible called The Nine Satanic Statements.

I. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
This statement should be written into the Constitution as its so basic and inherent to most people's lives. Talk about an unalienable right. To modify something Chris Rock said, most Christians indulge and accordingly abstain as much as their options will allow. You name it: drugs, drink, sex, lying, consumption, stealing, excess. These are man's goals in this life. And it only changes when it has to.

II. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
This is fairly appropriate. This statement is echoed mostly in the "live for today" sentiments shared by so many. A Christian life is not about living for today, but rather, about living for the expected hereafter.

III. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
Well, you can't win them all. This is certainly not something most people endorse!

IV. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
This is very much how most Christians live. Jesus urges kindness and acceptance of all people. The Christian religion professes very egalitarian principles. It urges us to not judge others. However, very few Christians expend much time to those who are different from themselves. In today's political climate, its perfectly okay for Christians to slander and defame even other Christians. Once again, Satanism is right.

V. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
Apparently, the Church Of Satan had a major role in defining U.S. foreign policy. Aside from the obvious examples of international relations, I have known very few individuals who have adopted this policy.

VI. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
I'm not really sure what this means to be honest.

VII. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development, has become the most vicious animal of all!
Here is another area where Satanism and practicing "Christians" depart. I'm pretty sure that most Christians believe they are much better than all other forms of life.

VIII. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
Wow, talk about a statement of intent for all of the practicing Christians of the world. This statement neatly captures the guiding principles of nearly all Christians. I'm pretty sure that Ohio State University should adopt this into their mission statement. When people are young, and death seems far off, your average Christian tries to live it up as much as possible! Again, adherence to this principle decreases with age, and is limited by opportunity (age, attractiveness, money, etc...). Personally, I don't find anything very redeeming in that. But apparently God thinks its perfectly fine, so long as you believe in him, and his son, and the holy ghost.

IX. Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!
This particular statement actually has very little to do with average Christians. Its the more devout and fundamentalist Christians who are concerned with Satan. Truly, where would Christianity be without the devil? Uh... why did God create a devil?

Well, there you have it. A fine way to end the year perhaps.

Once again, Christmas has come upon us. Its that time of year again. A time for cheer and so on. Last year's Christmas post was pretty damn negative. Although, it isn't written yet, I'm guessing that this year's Christmas post will be the same, only more so.


I remember, so many years ago, when I used to pray to Jesus Clause. I really used to be quite the believer. I mean, I was at least tring. And I used to pray, sometimes everday. I used to pray in the following manner:

Dear Jesus Clause, please make Lauren like me. Please. Is that asking too much? Is that wrong? I'm sure you know what you're doing, but it doesn't feel that way. I'm sorry. Oh and please bring me the Traveling Wilburies on cd. I just don't know what I'll do if Lauren won't like me. I'm sure you could make that happen and not be terribly inconvenienced. I would be ever so grateful. I'm not trying to make jokes. I mean, of course, I'd like for there to be peace, and for everyone to be healthy, but everyone wants that, so I won't bother asking. I'm sure you've already made your mind up about those things anyway. But I really think you should give this Lauren thing some serious consideration. Amen.

Yes, I summoned that prayer to Jesus Clause from my past, so many years ago it seems. And thats what it sounded like. Well, as it turned out, this "Lauren" individual never did "like" me (you know, in THAT way), so I guess Jesus had other plans.

And now, so many years down the line, I have forsaken Jesus, and the God whom he claims as his father. Yet, I have found myself in the somewhat odd position, of defending the world's first white revolutionary. Well, I'm not really going to defend him. He doesn't need it I'm guessing. What, he has Falwell and Robertson that, right? I'm just going to defend the holiday named for him.

Its true... Jesus put the Christ in Christmas. But who FUCKING cares??!!! What does Christmas have to do with Jesus anyway? Its all an orgy of parking lots, shopping, and waiting in lines. It doesn't matter. So here's my advice, broken down to the different groups who seem to having problems this year:

Christians: Shut the fuck up. This is your holiday. You people rule the world. You can have it any way you want it. This is what you've chosen. Stop complaining that the ACLU is trying to steal Christmas. They aren't and they can't. You people are fucking morons. If you don't want Christmas to be "stolen", don't shop this year.

Jews: I know its terrible to be a Jew, especially during Christmas. And we all know that Hanukkah isn't the same thing. But this Christmas thing doesn't change anything. You're surrounded on all sides. You can't win. Christmas is just a word. It doesn't matter what you call it. It could be "Fuckmas". It doesn't matter. The Christians botched this holiday years ago. Sit back and enjoy the time off.

Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Blue States: See Jews.

ACLU: Don't you see what is happening here? Those fuckers are dragging you into a pissing match just to discredit you on important issues. They want people to think that the ACLU is an anti-religious, devil worshipping organization that wants to steal Christmas. And people are dumb enough to believe it. Just stop it. It doesn't matter if people say Christmas in schools or have nativity scenes on federal property. Thats small time. Get out of this mess.

In conclusion, I'd like to give a belated thanks to Jesus Clause for being born and making sure that I'm able to have several days vacation at this time of the year. I'd rather not work, and YOU make it possible. Hell its 12:30 AM, and I'm still awake! Woo hoo!!!

No, this is not pro-Scott Peterson post. And this page is not about to become a Laci Peterson murder gab-fest. As usual, here is my cynical and angry take on the conviction and sentencing of Scott Peterson

I considered the Laci Peterson murder trial a bunch of crap and I didn't give a shit. So now that we've got that out of the way... Nevertheless, I couldn't and didn't completely block it out. And ultimately I learned a bit about the case and had some idea about the trial. And now I have "opinions".

A couple weeks ago, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing both Laci Peterson and their unborn child despite having no murder weapon, no cause of death, no witnesses, and not even a sensible motive. It was a completely circumstantial case. In my opinion, there was a great deal of reasonable doubt as to whether he killed her. It just didn't make sense that he would kill her and not divorce her. It could've been an accidental killing, but obviously that possibility didn't come out in the trial. On the other hand, Laci was such cute girl, and Scott looked like such a prick. Case closed, he's guilty, etc...

Then he was sentenced to death. This occurred despite legal experts prediction that it was highly unlikely. Circumstantial case, good looking guy, first crime... seems like a lifer, not a death penalty.

I wouldn't have cared if he DID kill her, since I don't support the death penalty, I wouldn't support it for Scott Peterson. I only support the death penalty in the case of puppy killers.

What I found truly distressing was the jury comments after the sentencing. These people, supposed a jury of Scott Peterson's peers, spoke out on why they convicted him, and then why they chose a death sentence. And their reasons? Pure fucking bullshit. Lets step through some of it.

"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," juror Richelle Nice said of Peterson

Is it expecting too much of people to decide cases such as this based on the facts, as opposed to their interpretations of the defendant's emotions? Apparently, it IS expecting too much. This woman evaluated her perception of Peterson's behavior in the court room, determined his emotional state based on her perception, and clearly let that perception determine whether she thought Scott Peterson was guilty.

"Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Conner's daddy -- the one person that should have protected them."

This is really even crazier than the previous comment. Here, she is expressing her own values, as opposed to the values held by Scott and/or Laci Peterson, of which she is totally ignorant. She is putting herself in the position of the deceased Laci Peterson, feeling the fear and dread, and projecting that emotion on Scott Peterson. Again, nothing factual about her statement. Pure speculation, and now he's sentenced to die.

"In the courtroom for the last six months, I didn't see much emotion at all. When I looked over there, it was a blank stare," Greg Beratlis said."

Another juror has decided that Peterson's "blank stare" is proof of his guilt. He also notes that the lack of perceived emotion is also important. I don't know about this Greg fellow, but my guess is that he's never been tried for murder in a death penalty case. Is it possible, just possible (let alone PROBABLE), that in such an extreme situation, any predictions or expectations of human emotion are completely meaningless. It seems just as likely to me that Peterson might pull his shit together and remain calm throughout the trial proceeding. Perhaps he didn't kill her (perhaps!), and he's being wrong accused, and he's acting proud and defiant. Is that impossible? Of course Greg the Juror is convinced that Scott killed Laci, and expects to see something. I think that even if he did kill her, there is no way to predict his emotions.


"Steve Cardosi said he would have liked to have seen a little more "expression of caring" from Peterson.

I don't have any idea what this means, and Steve didn't elaborate. Who is he supposed to care about? And why should express anything? There are clearly rules of conduct in these murder trials and Peterson didn't read the rule book.

"He lost his wife and his child, and it didn't seem to faze him. And while that was going on -- they're looking for his wife and his child -- he's romancing a girlfriend. That doesn't make sense to me at all. It just doesn't make sense," he said.

Okay now, have any of you ever been in a really fucked up situation. I don't mean killing someone! I mean, have you ever been involved in a situation where events seemed out of your control, you felt out of control, your emotions are confused, and your sense of judgement completely warped?

No? None of you?

Well, I've been in a few such situations. And it is severely off-putting, and I acted in extremely uncharacteristic ways. Now my situations were merely bad relationship drama. I can only imagine what losing my wife would be like. God only knows how I'd act. I know one thing I'd be feeling though. Scared! I'd be pretty damn scared that wasn't acting the right way! I don't find it impossible that Peterson was in denial that Laci was dead, and simply carried on as usual, assuming she'd turn up. And I'm just guessing that he wasn't expecting his every move to become the subject of worldwide public scrutiny.

Clearly, the jury wanted Peterson to put on a proper show. They wanted him to act in ways that made him appear very pained and contrite. The evidence? What evidence? It was circumstantial, and what appeared to convince jurors that he was guilty was how he acted. And it even pushed them to choose the death penalty. Not because of evidence, but because of their perceptions of Scott Peterson's emotional state.

Now, I think thats some fucked up shit. Maybe that WAS a jury of Scott Peterson's peers, and maybe he's an idiot too. Now, I DO realize that there was some compelling circumstantial evidence (the dyed hair, cash, and planned trip to Mexico stand out), but the jury didn't mention the evidence in their comments. One juror said that is wasn't "any one thing". Well, thats just plain disturbing.

Lessons learned: the moral of this story is "Don't Kill Anyone". And if you are intent of killing someone, don't kill a pretty white girl. But if you must, make sure she isn't pregnant. If you still can't help yourself, make sure you don't get caught. Very important - don't get caught. Because you WILL be on TV, and you WILL die.

For the record, I think he killed her by accident.

Rarely have I been so outraged. Seriously. No really. I mean it this time.

I couldn't believe what I was reading. But it is true. Check it out, a Marine sacrifices finger for wedding ring.

Okay if you didn't click the link, the basic premise is as follows: the man was injured in Iraq, and in order to save his finger, the doctor was going to have to cut off his wedding ring. Instead, the marine instructed the doctor to save the ring, and simply remove the finger. As an ironic joke, the ring was later lost. But that is a distraction to the main point (a hilarious distraction).

Don't you people see why this is dangerous? This man, supposedly out of love, would rather lose his finger, than destroy the wedding ring. His wedding ring people! A "symbol" of his love for his wife. Not his ACTUAL love for his wife, but a symbol. And what about this amazing woman? She'd have to be amazing right? People say things like "I'd give my left arm to F her just once" (well, at least in my circle that has been said), and that implies that the woman is really something else. Right?

Well, she was mildly appreciative: "I can't believe he did that," she said. "At first I was mad when he told me, but then I realized how lucky I am to have him in my life."

How "lucky" she is! The man had his FINGER cut off! What does that have to do with luck? And what does it say about HIM anyway? She views his choice to cut his finger off as indication that she is lucky? So let me get this straight, when a man preserves his wedding ring, but allows his finger to be destoyed, it is indicative of the woman's "luck". Luck, as opposed to HIS love for her, or his incredible stupidity, or her incredible misfortune because she married such a fool.

So what does this imply for the rest of us finger-loving saps? Well, it means we're all fucked. The bar has been raised to unprecedently ridiculous heights. Clearly, no man can love his wife unless he is willing to do something like having his finger cut off to save his wedding ring! I can hear it now. All over the country, "If you really loved me, then you'd blah, blah, blah... I mean that marine had his FINGER cut off, and you can't even blah blah blah!" Oh, okay better take out the trash then.

Now, as for me, while I AM married, I don't have a wedding ring. So I don't have to worry about that. However, all you other men better start thinking on your feet. Perhaps, you can have your finger removed on your wedding day. That way you can show your undying love for your wife (whom you have a 50% chance of divorcing one day), before you are in an emergency situation. Or perhaps an exchange of body parts could be arranged, say a finger for a pinky toe. And just to be sweet, you and your lovely wife could wear the removed appendages on necklaces. Thrills!

There actually is a deeply disturbing sociological side to all of this which I won't explore here. Y'know, the whole bit about the symbolism of the ring, the actual behavior in the relationship, the fact that the symbol is so important, and even the roles of men and women in marriage, etc... I'll leave that for the rest of you to ponder on your free time.

Okay, since this story is simply so crazy, here is what I think REALLY happened: the man's finger was fucked up anyway, and was probably going to have to be removed. The ring was stuck to his finger. The finger was removed, and this whole story was completely fabricated that he could've saved either his finger or the ring, and he chose the ring.

Damn, this category is thin. I'm going to assume that its for the better. Quite frankly, last year's award was a little creepy. Primarily because I actually knew who those people were. So this year? Who knows....

As I said above, there wasn't much to choose from this year. The only "new girls" I know about are the two nominees. I'm sure there are others, but they aren't registering (thank god). And now here we go...

1. Lindsey Lohan: I know she's been around for years, but it was only this year that she became a big deal. I think her first big movie was "Freaky Friday", which was out in 2003 I believe. Still, no one knew who she was. But this year, she was in that "Mean Girls" movie, and her boobs got real big, she did SNL, and she posed half-nude in a ton of magazines. In other words, she was a huge pain in the ass.

2. Evangeline LillyI don't watch the show she is on ("Lost"), but I hear its good. I never heard of her until I saw her on some magazine covers. And she isn't popular at all. A web search proves that. Still, since I know about her, and she's hot, and would never be my girlfriend even if was famous, rich, and not-married.

And the winner is...

Evangeline Lilly!

I really don't think she's even close to any of last year's nominees. But last year was a weird year, and even a little troubling. Ms. Lilly is actually over 20. In fact, she was born in the same decade as me. Thrills.

Since I'm done with this year's award a little earlier than I expected, I'd like to mention that last year's winner, Jena Malone truly distinguished herself over 2004. She was in a pretty good movie ("Saved"). See? Its not ALL bullshit over here!

This is the one time of the year when I can stand in judgement of actual famous celebrity girls and heap scorn or praise upon them (but mostly scorn). I know it doesn't matter and someday I'll have to outgrow all of this nonsense. Until then, however, boooo....

I'm not feeling too good about this category. There are several pretty good albums that are nominated, but each seems to be compromised in a way that last year's winner was not.

As I think about this category, I realize that there is a problem. If I had to choose the best album of my year, it would probably be Teenager Of The Year by Frank Black, which came out in 1994, but I only really listened to this year. And for a month or so, I listened incessantly. But surely I can't consider this the "Best Album Of 2004".

Then there are some albums I didn't really get into, or didn't get at all. I bought REM's new album but I only listened to it once, and that was in the car, with a crying baby. I didn't get The Beta Band's latest album, which I think would win this category, if I had actually heard it. U2's new album is supposed to be hot shit, but I can't imagine thinking that a U2 album in 2004 would be the best album OF 2004. And what about Ghostface's album "The Pretty Toney Album"? I only listened a couple times, and it didn't make an impact.

Anyway, on with the nominees...

It had been years since I have Morrissey much thought. But when this album came out, and got good reviews, I decided to bite. And it tasted gooood. Yep, Morrissey made a damn good record. And not only that, but this album prompted me to revisit the entire Smiths and Morrissey catalog (what I had, anyway), and plunged me into a Smiths phase for a couple months.

"Smile" in 2004? Amazing. But how can it be the Best Album of 2004 when it was originally recorded in 1967, and its main songs were released on subsequent Beach Boys albums, and bootlegs have been around for years? Still, its Smile, and it has been completed by its created, and the music is great, and it came out in 2004. Of course, Brian also put out a completely new album of "new" compositions called "Gettin In Over My Head". But most of the songs there were 10+ years old, and not as good as the old bootleg versions. And the totally new songs made me worry.

Masta Killa's "No Said Date" was a pleasant surprise. The album featuring production by RZA, Mathematics, and True Master, and featured all of the Wu-Tang Clan. And it was almost uniformly excellent. I never gave much thought to Masta Killa. I wasn't even sure he was actually in the Wu-Tang Clan. Still, this was a great album. But was it up to the quality of the classic Wu albums? No way.

Todd Rundren's "Liars" was a grower. At first I didn't get it at all. Why the hell did he make an album of 80s synth songs, which were all recorded in ProTools? I gave it more time because it was Todd. Then I realized that it all hung together quite nicely, synths and all. Still, I can't help but think that a more organic production would've been nicer.

The new Eminem album, Encore, was just that, an Encore. Mostly, more of the same, but with a little more pizzazz. The standout tracks are brilliant. But some of the themes get tiresome, and the cartoonish element weighs it down a bit too. Still among the best, but not as good as before.

And the winner is....

Smile. While none of this years current nominees had the same impact on me as last year's winner, I'm going to have to go with "Smile". Yes, "Smile". I have to go with "Smile" because even with the caveats I mentioned above, its still fucking "Smile", and its done, and it sounds great. Given the ridiculously high quality of the music, and the fact that none of the other nominees were consistently anywhere NEAR as good as "Smile", the winner has to be "Smile".

So many ridiculous celebrities, so little time. This was hard to narrow down, but I chose my personally most hated female celebs. Now, on with the nominations...

1. Lindsay Lohan: Recent star of Mean Girls, and general celebrity fame whore, Lindsay is an obvious choice for "Biggest Celebrity Douche of 2004". Lets see, she dated some dude on "That 70s Show", had a big hit movie, posed nearly topless in a variety of "laddie magazines", parties like its 1999, does a skit on Saturday Night Live that is all about her gynormous boobs, and THEN, releases a derivative generi-pop album called "Speak" (like we've been waiting for that. It should've been called "Strip").

2. Courtney Love: God, what a train wreck. I hate everything about her self-destructive fame slut persona, and I wrote at length about her in An American Asshole. I don't consider there to be a loss of talent in the music world because of her failings because I believe her only talent is being famous, and being Kurt Cobain's widow. Botched court appearances, arrests, drunkeness, and all with a little kid that doesn't know shit. Let me be the first to say it: "Frances Bean Cobain will be the female Eminem in 10 years".

3. Jennifer Lopez: I actually used to like her. But she is overexposed and for no good reason. She sings, acts, dances, raps, has her clothing line, and for godsakes she refers to herself as "J Lo". I'll never get over that. Anyway, in 2004 she graced us with movies such as Jersey Girl and Shall We Dance (yuck!). And of course there was the "benlo" breakup very early in the year. And then her marriage to Mark Anthony later in the year. She's certainly a keeper, that J Lo.

4. Britney Spears: Ugh... where to start. The 48 hour marriage, then announcement that she'll be retiring. Then another marriage, this time to her dancer, and another announcement of retirement. Of course, I say just do it already. No one cares anymore. I mean no one outside of pervs that want to see her finally get totally naked. Because her fan base is nil at this point. She released a Greatest Hits album - a sure sign that the record business has given up on her - called "My Perogative" (the Bobby Brown song, of course), which has 5 actual hits culled from four albums, and then a bunch of inconsequential remixes of those same songs. Wonderful. Truly amazing. Oh, and the retired Britney Spears will be appearing at the Billboard Music Awards Ah, ever heard of when John Lennon retired, and stayed in his house for five years? Thats retirement my child. Not showing up at awards shows.

And the award goes to... da-da-da-da-da... The gifted and ample Lindsay Lohan! Yes, with pictures like the one in the link, there is no doubt, we'll be seeing alot MORE of Ms. Lohan in the future. And what a future she can expect to have.

Anyway, why HER out of all the celebrity trash? Well, what really pushed her over the top, and temporarily above the others, was her song "Rumors". Here is an excerpt:

But I can tell that you're watching me
And you're probably gonna write what you didn't see
Well, I just need a little space to breathe
Can you please respect my privacy

Why can't you just let me do
The things I wanna do
I just wanna be me
I don't understand
Why would you wanna bring me down
I'm only having fun
I gotta live my life (like I wanna do)

Here we are, back up in the club
People taking pictures
Don't you think they get enough
I just wanna be all over the floor
And throw my hands up in the air to a beat like (what)


Lets get one thing straight. The fame business is bullshit. Thats just the way it is. However, she's been pursuing this since she was a kid. Further, she poses in all of those magazines flaunting her boobs, and then she asks why people are taking more pictures? "Don't you think they get enough?" No, no they don't. And they won't until they have taken enough pictures of your tits falling out that it becomes boring and they move on to the next teen tart.

Thus, since she is so fucking stupid that she doesn't see the connection between flaunting herself as a sexual object and then receiving the Hollywood treatment from those paparazzi fuckers, she is a douche! She is the biggest douche of 2004. For chrissake, she is very lucky. She's rich, famous, marginally talented, attractive, can date any guy she wants. So wa-wa-waaaaa! Poor Lindsey Lohan, winner of this years "Biggest Douche" award!

And now... the first non-rant Best Of list for 2004. However, this one is pure crap. Oops.

Well I never thought it would come to this. An award for "Best New TV Show", and all of the shows are based on reality tv (except one is animated), and two of the shows are about the same thing - makeovers. I'm really sinking to a new low. I'll redeem myself when I present the "Best TV Show Of 2004" as opposed to "new" shows only.

Okay, so here are the nominees...

1. The Swan: Dear Swan, oh god how I hate you. You represent the worst side of humanity, but you are ever so compelling. I hate you for making me stay up too late to watch you. I hate you for being so addictive. I hate you for all the horrible messages about physical attractiveness that you represent. In other words, I love you.

2. Extreme Makeover: This is the same as The Swan, except without any drama. They just do makeovers on this show. No competition. Everything else holds true though. This show is more technical. Thats a very relative comment of course. Basically they find moderately unattractive people spend thousands of dollars for plastic surgery, diet, exercise, etc... and then they look a whole lot better at the end. Interesting, but unfulfilling. Yet, watchable. Oddly watchable.

3. Drawn Together: The animated reality show I wrote about two posts ago. The show is vile, ridiculous, absurd, filthy and HILARIOUS. Oh god, I laugh my ass off to this show. I repeat, the pig actually takes a crap in the decapitated head of Toot. This is on TV. TV, I'm telling you!

4. Trading Spouses: I got snagged by this bit of silliness several weeks ago. Every week they take two families that are culturally very different, and then trade the wives. Every episode plays out the same way: rich liberal woman goes to live with hick family, judges them, tries to change them, and the family hates her. On the other hand, the poor redneck wife goes to live with the fancy family and they fall in love with her homespun ways. Then they don't like their own mother as much.

And the winner is Drawn Together! The makeover shows are terrible but I can't stop watching. But I hate myself and feel dirty when they're over. Trading Spouses has the same premise and IS basically the same every show. Drawn Together, on the other hand, is pure brilliance. Nearly every 5 seconds, there is something hilarious happening. I hope this show is on forever.

Here it is, the first entry in the 2004 awards. And its pure rant!

You know what I'm talking about; those damn "The 100 Most Outrageous Celebrity Moments", "Top 100 Loudest Farts", "Top 100 Male Singers". And now for the nominees. The filthy, filthy nominees...

1. 100 Most Outrageous Celebrity Moments: Its no secret that I hate celebrities, so what are the chances that I'd deem this list to be worthy of my viewing? This is just pure garbage. VH1 came up with this idea. No question, this is why TV was invented. For this.

2. Rolling Stone's Best 500 Songs: Ugh... another list of best songs, or best albums, or hardest rock star dicks. Seriously, this shit just makes me want to puke. What songs are eligible? All songs? Only fairly popular songs? And what is the criteria? Popularity? Social significance? Melody? Lyrics? Composition? Bullshit. Pure bullplop.

3. People Magazine's Most Beautiful People: Seemingly harmless, right? No! Harm-FULL. Who reads this shit! Who the hell in the world is beautiful? I saw a pretty hot chick the other day at the deli but she isn't on the list. So its "Most Beautiful Celebrities". Well, at least its something that we can all relate to. By "we", I mean everyone that doesn't work, and has five hours a day for exercise and massage, as well as a personal chef and a personal plastic surgeon. Oh, and good looking too. Very good looking.

4. E! Televisions Top 101 Crimes Of Fashion: How can I even include this on the list of bad lists? Isn't this list having a list of "Worst Bands" or something, and including "New Kids On The Block" and "Menudo"? There truly is nothing worse on cable than E!, so when they do a list of the "MOST" whatever, you know its going to be bad. And something like this is just... well, Lowest-Common-Denominator, barnyard TV.

And the winner is... Rolling Stone's Best 500 Songs!

I have to tell you, I found this more infuriating than all of the other lists. For one thing, those other lists are crap meant for crappy people with crappy interests. The Best 500 Songs purports itself to actually be relevant. Now that we all know that Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" is the best song ever, we can safely resume the wasting of our lives.

Also, I was reading the list and getting seriously pissed off. How can "Smells Like Teen Spirit" be "better" than "Bridge Over Troubled Water"? I mean, how is THAT possible. Yeah, its an okay song for 1991 or whatever, but better than BOTW? Or better than "God Only Knows", or better than "People Get Ready", or virtually every song by the Beatles (except their cover of "Mr. Moonlight"). And is "Satisfaction" really the #2 song? Its pretty average sounding to me. Almost every Rolling Stones song is better than that one. And no Gene Vincent? No Zombies? No "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me" by Culture Club?! Thats better than almost every song ever.

Then I realized that they tricked me. This is exactly what they wanted. They want music nerds like myself to get pissed and debate the list with other music nerds and bitch and moan about why such and such a song is not on the list or how could one song be higher on the list than another. They got me. And now they can suck it. They lose! I win. Damn them to hell fire!

Somewhere around this time last year I began to compile and post an incredibly successful series of "Best Of" and "Worst Of" lists and awards. Due to what can only be described as rabid demand for a similar guide to 2004, I am now announcing the coming of the 2004 Best Of Worst Of Lists And Awards!

You can expect some new categories this year, as well as some old favorites. No doubt, "Worst Bitch Move" will make a repeat appearance. Before starting the 2004 awards, here is a recap of the 2003 awards.

Worst Manager Of 2003: Brian Butler.

Worst Bitch Move Of 2003: Ex girlfriend breaking up with me on the phone and sticking me with theater tickets.

Best Album Of 2003: Phantom Power by Super Furry Animals

Lamest Thing I Did In 2003: Going out on a date with some girl then showing up at her work to say "hi".

Hottest New Famous Chicks I Wouldn't Have A Chance With Even If I Was Famous: Jena Malone (recently seen in the movie Saved!).

Biggest Bullshit Hype Music of 2003: The White Stripes

Worst Bodily Pain Of 2003: Pulling of Wisdom Teeth then getting "Dry Sockets".

Most Disappointing Musical Development of 2003: The demise of rap

Best TV Show Of 2003: Survivor

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 12/05/2004 03:38:00 PM

A couple months ago, Comedy Central started to advertise a new cartoon called Drawn Together that they referred to as "TV First Animated Reality Show". They played the ads over and over and over. It looked like crap. I didn't think anything of it.

Prior to the debut show, the reviews came out, and they were bad. Really bad. Basically the reviews said the show was juvenile, idiotic, in bad taste, crude, and not funny. So my initial thoughts were simply validated.

Yet, I was intrigued. I don't know why, but I was.

I watched the first episode and I was hooked. The premise is that the show is like MTV's The Real World, except with cartoon characters. Each character is a parody of a real character. "Toot" = Betty Boop, "Ling Ling" = Pokemon, "Wooldorf Sockbat" = Spongebob Squarepants, and so on.

I can't write a review to save my life, so I'll skip that and simply mention the hilarious highlights.

Toot cuts herself with a razor blade to deal with pain

Spanky Ham pisses on the couch

Toot tries to seduce Xandir by showing her boobs, then she cuts her head off, it rolls away, and Spanky Ham takes a shit down Toot's head. Yes, this was actually on TV.

Spanky Ham kills Princess Clara's wilderness friends and eats them.

God is in a confessional booth that also serves as the other side of a glory hole, and a little fellow pokes through the hole.

A chipmunk jumps out of Xandir's ass.

Ling Ling implores Clara to say his name three times so he can kill her and have sex with her skull.

Maybe its just my sense of humor, but that kind of crazy-ass sick shit cracks me up. So I have to recommend that everyone check this show out. Its on Comedy Central, Wednesdays at 10:30PM, and also repeated. Holy shit, that show is freakin' hilarious.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 12/05/2004 02:27:00 AM