Tips for Writing a Blog About Dating Tips

When writing about dating tips, there are a few things to keep in mind. Luckily, for the blogosphere, I have taken the time out of my busy day to help you.

Tips for Writing a Blog About Dating Tips:

1. Do not write blogs about dating tips.
   

If you write a blog about dating tips, you will come off as a moron. I just read one and, aside from the author sounding like a know-it-all/God's gift to women wannabe, there is a huge contradiction to his advice.

His "research" consists of his own personal experiences which, for me at least, completely discredits him. But in his "studies" he compiles ten tips for men to follow in order to get the proverbial girl.

The one that stuck out for me was #2: Don't convince her to like you. And I suppose that is good advice because if a woman likes a man, she likes him and if not, then she doesn't. This seems easy enough to understand but it also makes the entire blog pointless. The tip should have just been: If the girl likes you, then she likes you. Way to go.

The rest of the blog includes points about not being too nice a guy, and not completely submitting to her will, and not buying her affection with gifts, and blah blah blah. But like I said, if a woman like you, then she does. There is no other way to "get" the girl. This is not to say that men have no control in whether or not a woman will like him, but the things that would keep a woman a way are obvious truisms that need not be mentioned. And that's all this list was: completely obvious statements that everyone already knows like "don't be too submissive". Well of course don't be. I mean, that's advice for anyone in any situation.

The advice should come after you get the girl. It should be in how to not screw up a relationship. I don't think men have trouble "getting" the girl. The trouble is "keeping" her around. Because let's face it, men are idiots. But even then, most of the tips would be obvious like "don't cheat on her" or "Tell her you feel warm inside when she's around". But as I said, men are idiots and maybe we need to be told these things.

Click here to read the one guy's blog about "dating tips"

A Fun Fact for Teenagers and Literature Buffs

Because of wikipedia, the word research has lost much of it's meaning. 

Regardless, I was researching Ernest Hemingway and, for one reason or another, I read about his suicide via shotgun blast to the face in 1961. As gruesome as that is, I read a bit more that just added to the grotesqueness of it all - he purchased the shotgun from Abercrombie & Fitch. 

I'm going to let that last part marinate for a bit. 

Apparently, Abercrombie & Fitch, the now hip clothing store for tweens, was once an elite excursion and fire-arms retailer up until the late 80s before it was bought out by The Limited and turned into what it is today. 

How weird is that? A popular clothing store with a legacy of self-inflicted shotgun blasts to the face. Although it's kind of appropriate - everytime I go into an Abercrombie & Fitch I want to kill myself. 

Expensive Virals and My Reality TV Idea

I wanted to talk about two things and I thought it would be ok to just combine them into one post. But it doesn't really matter because no one reads this. 

I just watched the new SNL digital short "Jizz in my Pants" for the 48th time. It is one of the funniest videos they have done, even more so than "Dear Sister" and "Dick in a Box". 

And I'm glad for one thing about the video - it has solid production value to it. This is good for two reasons. 

1. It adds to the humor of it all because it looks so much like an actual music video. 
2. I don't have to worry about all the YouTube wannabes remaking it. 

I'm fine with movie remakes and I'm actually excited to see The Day the Earth Stood Still but for some reason, I fucking hate it when the YouTube crowd finds it appropriate to make their own version of a funny skit on SNL  or whatever. They are piss poor and have no redeeming value. I think I've made a post about this before. 

But because this video has some much production value, no one in their bedroom is going to decide to remake it. And that makes me sleep better at night, knowing that their aren't fifty horrible remakes. 

It might be the volume of the YouTube remakes that pisses me off. If Hollywood decided to send out fifty remakes of The Day the Earth Stood Still, I think I would get upset. 

The next thing I want to talk about is my Reality TV show idea. Although, it probably wouldn't work as a Reality TV show, I think it was a cool thought experiment. 

So in the show, regular folks would come together and form small groups (4-5 people) and write a movie script. These people would be mechanics, businessmen, housewives, nurses, students, what have you. All walks of life. Basically, you can't be involved in the movie industry in anyway. And they write a script. Now I know what you're thinking, "They would probably write a terrible script," and that's the point. The worst it is the better. I want plot holes, paper thin characters, no structure, just a flat-out terrible script. I wouldn't want it to be made outside of the show. 

So this terrible, terrible script, a script that would defile any kind of artistic credibility that film is desperately clinging to, would be brought to a visionary director of today like Steven Spielberg or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers. They would take this God-forsaken script and direct it with perhaps struggling actors looking to make a break into the industry. 

The main idea behind it is to see if they truly possess the talent to tell even a horrible story in a way that would be generally acceptable to a modern audience. Two films would be made, by two groups and two different directors. The best film, judged by a panel of film critics and regular folks, would win. What they win, I haven't decided. 

But like I said, it would never happen because it would cost so much money to make and waste a lot of important people's time. 

The Hills and Metaphysics

For one reason or another, there was an issue of Us Weekly on my kitchen table.

This is strange because I hate Us Weekly and celebrity magazines in general and my roommate is an uber-masculine ex-cop who I'm sure feels the same.

Regardless, there was the latest issue on the table and the cover story was about the elopement of two "characters" from the "reality show" The Hills. The quotations are not meant to be sarcasm rather they are a foreshadowing of the topic at hand.

The two people who got hitched were Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag. They're lives were featured on the hit show The Hills and it seems they fell in love on the show. In the story from Us Weekly, Pratt talks about the elopement to Mexico, the wedding, etc. The newelyweds even shared their vows with the magazine, which was too much for me to handle. But he also went into his mother-in-law, Darlene Egelhoff. She obviously disapproves of her daughter's decision to get married and her choice in husband. She claims that "it won't last six months". And by Hollywood standards, that's probably a compliment.

But what struck me as interesting, in an otherwise completely dull and meaningless article, is how Pratt described his mother-in-law's motivations for her disapproval.

He says, "I think she thinks she's being funny and, like, playing into her character (on The Hills) - that she hates me."

This seemingly innocuous comment has a lot of weight in the world of metaphysics and media studies. The Hills is supposed to be a reality TV show. From my understanding, there are no "characters" rather just real people in real situations. But it seems like Pratt is shedding some light on this mysterious TV fad. Maybe being on a reality TV show makes one a character on the show. You would be you playing you. You wouldn't just be you.

If I had a reality TV show, my character would be myself and I would be playing that role. I'd be my own cameo in my own show.

Now, I've never watched The Hills, but I can extrapolate the kind of character that Heidi's mom portrayed. She was the typical mother of a teenage daughter who never approved of guys her daughter dated. Now, I believe this to be fairly accurate because I believe what Chuck Klosterman has to say about reality TV and what it does to people: it turns them into stereotypes (Klosterman, p. 30).

So Pratt says that his mother-in-law is "playing the character" in "real life". So what does that mean? Was she a completely different person outside of the show? Or did she somehow transform into her character, which was herself. It's like reverse method acting - instead of preparing for a role by assuming a role in the real world, she is assuming the role she already played after the show is over.

Now I want to know just who the hell this woman is. Has she assumed a different personality or identity because of this show? It makes you ask yourself, how real is reality or reality TV at least. Is it really real or is it somehow even more real than reality in that the facade or artifice of it all (relationships, personalities, the world in general) is so apparent?It's pretty strange to think about. And what's really strange is that a fucking stupid gossip magazine is making me doubt my very existence and the nature of reality.

Klosterman, Chuck (2003) Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs. Scribner, New York.

The Evolution of the Action Movie and Some Thoughts on Film Violence

Today, I watched a movie called Demolition Man (1993) with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. It was a personal favorite of mine growing up and today I came to the hard realization that it's a terrible movie. It's full of embarrassing one-liners and quasi-science fiction fare. But that's not really what I want to talk about. I want to compare it to The Bourne Ultimatum (2007). After watching Demolition Man, I realized how much action movies have changed in the last ten or twenty years. 

I'm choosing these movies not because they are the best of the action genre but because they perfectly represent the formula of their respective styles. 

I'm glad I didn't grow up in the 80s because I probably would have hated myself. The 80s was full of homophobic movies starring uber-buff male leads like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. I think it's easy to say that they were, not only, the epitome of action star during their time, but also for maleness in general. Everyone wanted to be big and oiled up. This cultural obsession with size is still prevalent, if not growing. But most action films emphasized this type of character up until the end of the 20th century. 

So now let's get a deeper look at the Action Movie of the 80s and 90s:

80s and 90s Action Movies feature:

• Physically impressive male lead 
  

1. Stallone in Demolition Man, Judge Dredd, 
2. Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, Predator, Commando, The Running Man

• Attractive female love interest 

1. Bullock in Demolition Man
2. Tommy Chong's daughter in Commando
3. Maria Conchita Alonso in The Running Man
4. Rachel Ticotin in Total Recall

• Quirky funny sidekick/Comic Relief

1. Rob Schnieder/Dennis Leary in Demolition Man
2. Rob Schnieder in Judge Dredd
3. Johnny Cab, Three-Boob Lady, and the various midgets in Totall Recall
4. Anytime Arnold or Sly make a comment after killing someone a la "Stick around" counts in my opinion

• Outlandish Central Villian

1. Wesley Snipes' hair and tire-armor in Demolition Man
2. Richard Dawson in The Running Man (most unthreatening villain in history?)
3. The Predator in Predator - Outlandish in the most literal of terms
4. Rico in Judge Dredd - Outlandish only in the fact that it's Armand Assante and his over-acting
5. Bennet in Commando - He's outlandish because he wears a metallic mesh tank top, fingerless gloves, and is not gay. 

• Science Fiction Attributes

1. Brave New World inspired psuedo-utopia in Demolition Man
2. Future dystopia in The Running Man and Judge Dredd
3. Alien Hunter in Predator
4. Aliens, Mutants, and Mars setting in Total Recall

• Ridiculous Over-the-top Ultra-Violent Climax 

1. Snipes' Frozen Head decapitation in Demolition Man
2. Richard Dawson killed by rocket car in world's first Reality TV inspired political coup in The Running Man
3. Arnold activates ancient alien technology which gives Mars a breathable atmosphere but only after Cohaagen's head explodes in Total Recall
4. Arny drops a two-ton wooden pillar on the Predator, prompting him to activate a neutron bomb which destroys everything in a three mile radius except for Schwarzenegger in Predator
5. Arnold throws a ten-foot steaming pipe through Bennet and drolly tells him to "Let off some steam" in Commando

While I can only draw upon two movies that epitomize action  movies of today (Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum) I think it's safe to say that those movies will be the template for future action films. 

Action Movies of Today Feature:

• Physically Ambiguous male lead 

1. Matt Damon shows about as much skin as a devote Shiite woman in The Bourne Ultimatum
2. With the exception for a brief shot of Craig in the Bahamas, he is always dressed up in Casino Royale

• Chase Scenes as Action Center Pieces and a de-emphasis of violent action

1. Bourne giving cues to the British journalist are as captivating and thrilling as any gun fight. 
2. Bond leaping around the construction site like a Russian gymnast. 
3. It should be noted that more people die in the "Hologram Shoot Out" scene in Total Recall than in all the Bourne and Bond movies. Yes, all of them. 

• No humor whatsoever 

1. Bourne never even smiles
2. Bond turns the franchise on it's ear with the "Does it look like I bloody care?" response to the "Shaken or stirred?" question. 

• Intricate network of villians 

1. It's the CIA in Bourne
2. It's an unidentified crime syndicate in Casino

• Espionage Attributes

1. It's pretty obvious to point these out. 

• Symbolic Low Key Book-end Climax 

1. Bourne ends up in the East River (I think) in a way very similar to the first scene in the first movie, where he loses his memory
2. Bond meets up with the man responsible for his love's blackmail and he makes mention of events that happened at the beginning of the film, namely his recently achieved Double-Oh status. 

So we have very distinct evolution. It appears the spectacle of the human form has been put on the back burner in recent action movies (with the exception of sword-and-sandal epics like 300 and Troy). Humor has also been put away but I can't imagine that will last. The success of Live Free or Die Hard is an interesting movie to note because it's franchise has roots in subversion, which shows, but it also embraces the excessiveness of the genre at the same time (like McClane leaping forty feet from a jet fighter to a crumbling freeway). 

I think the biggest change in action movies is the way violence is portrayed. In the 80s, violence was excessive and over-the-top to almost comic degrees. I mean, Wesley Snipes was in a movie where he gets frozen and Stallone swings in and drop kicks his head off. That kind of comic violence would never be in a movie nowadays and I suppose I'm glad. I think of that as a sign of progress. 

Violence in film now is taken more seriously. It's just as, if not more so, graphic but it's more meaningful. I think David Cronenberg has perfected cinematic violence. While he's not an action director, I could totally see him making and action movie. In a Stallone movie from the 80s, you cheer when he shoots some guy or kicks some guy's head off. In a Cronenberg movie, you don't. You see the reality of violence - it's ugly, nauseating, and generally off-putting. Stallone's character in Demolition Man says, "Violence isn't a good thing. Hurting people isn't fun. Well sometimes it is." And it's a crowd pleaser and everyone laughs. But if a character in a Cronenberg movie said that, the audience would jeer and probably feel disappointed in themselves because they probably laughed and cheered when Stallone said it. 

The point of this isn't that action movies of the 80s and 90s were bad or that they were morally unaccountable but that they saw violence in a totally different way as they do now. Violence in action movies of today, generally speaking, is akin to violence found in dramas. Now the violence is handled in the same way as the violence of a husband slapping his wife for being unfaithful. It's got the same tone. It's dark and uncomfortable. Casino Royale was different than the other Bond movies because the violence shaped the character into something terrible. It was gritty and real. And the Bourne movies are the same - he never smiles. He never jokes around. Bourne lives in a world of violence. His life is completely devoid of any kind of joy because of it. That's why there aren't any Jason Bourne action figures. No kid wants to be like Jason Bourne, not in the way they want to be like Dutch from Predator or John Spartan from Demolition Man. The violence in their lives never changed them. Beating up someone for John Spartan or Dutch is like doing the laundry. It happens and it happens so frequently it's as banal as doing your laundry. Of course the audience loves it because they live without that constant violent element and they see how "cool" those types of characters are. They are just like us - except they beat the shit out of the bad guys. They're funny and good natured and you would invite them to your kid's birthday party. In action films like The Bourne Ultimatum, characters ask each other questions like, "Look what they make you give" and we get a sense that beating the shit out of "bad guys" isn't all it's cracked up to be. The violence consumes them and leaves them hollow, lonely, and with a sense of regret for getting involved in that kind of life. 

So if this is the direction of violence in action films, then I sincerely endorse it. 

A Low Blow for the All-American Rejects

I just heard the new single (and watched the music video) from the All-American Rejects, "Gives You Hell", in it's entirety and I have to take a shower now. I am completely disgusted by it.

The song is about how being a rock-star makes you better than regular people. In the video, the front runner of AAR plays both role of rock-star and yuppie douche-bag. The setting is an idyllic 50s inspired suburbia. The yuppie's house is colored with bright colors and they have a fence and pink flamingos and all that shit.

The rock-star's house is edgy with stripes and no fence. Look out. But the fact that he lives in the same neighborhood as the yuppie douche-bag, all his edge and coolness is lost like any credibility this song has.

The yuppie douche-bag is such a yuppie douche-bag. Polos, sweaters, plaid pants, the works. If the video was about this guy or this archetype American, then I probably wouldn't have cared as much. I'd probably even like the song. But no, this song is simply about a girl who chooses to live a non-rock-star life and ultimately breaks the front runner's heart. She works eight hours a day, has a husband or boyfriend who probably lives a similar life, a home, and The All-American Rejects hate her for it. And not only that, but they hope it "Gives Her Hell" knowing that the AAR can sleep in and have parties and have sex with anonymous partners.

But because it's a "Break-up Song" I suppose people will relate to it. Unfortunately, it's from the perspective of the band. And how many people are in a huge rock band? Who can relate to that? Here's some lyrics from the terrible song:

When you hear this song and sing along
And never tell
Then you're the fool
I'm just as well
Hope it gives you hell
When you hear this song
I hope that it will give you hell
You can sing along
I hope that it puts you through hell

It's a very spiteful song. Rock isn't about spite, is it? To sum up, I know rock-stars think they are better than working class or regular people. They live exciting lives, they get paid boat-loads of money, they have attractive people throwing themselves at them all the time. But to make a song about how stupid one should feel to not accept that lifestyle fucking sickens me.

Why It's Hard to Be a Democrat

After watching Barak Obama try to describe his tax plan and alleviate the woes of Joe the Plumber, it dawned on me that being a democrat is a tough egg. 

Joe's problem was Obama's tax plan for businesses with incomes of over $250,000. Joe was going to buy the company he toiled over for 15 years. He wanted to know why he should pay more taxes for working so hard. Obama responded with compassion and insight but Joe wasn't convinced. And why should he? 

First, let's discuss the things that were created by the media to stereotype the modern day Democrat.

Pop Culture View

1. Traitor - Well not exactly like Benedict Arnold but the modern Democrat is viewed by the media and popular culture as a callow wimp because they generally don't want to go to war, especially with Iraq. This is one of the easiest reasons to hate Democrats and love Republicans. America is a nation of victory and the only victory that matters is in war. Sure, we'll get pumped for our son's win on the ball field but we'll have raging hard-ons if we watch some Central Asian wave a white flag from his cave. 
2. Hippie - Stereotypes are fun because they allow us to define someone in the most basic of terms. While I'm convinced that the hippie that everyone is familiar with doesn't actually exist anymore, many consider Democrats as  hippies. And it's not even about caring about the environment anymore (I guess they were right about that) it's really about maintaining the difference. If you don't support the war, then you're a hippie, mainly because we haven't invented a word to describe you and I'm not creative enough to do so. 
3. Elitist - The "Liberal Elitist" identity is one that really confuses me. How can someone who supports welfare be an elitist? It just doesn't make sense to me. But, to the average joe, in the stereotype encyclopedia Democrats are elitists. They are educated, they are rich, and they belong to a class above the plebeian. There aren't any Palin-esque Democrats. And that's the appeal of Sarah Palin and John McCain - they remind us of people we know. Most people know a veteran and most people have a mom and that's what McCain and Palin are - at least that's how the media pegs them. But what the hell is Obama? "Um, he was an attorney. A WHAT?! BOO! Does he even drink beer?"
4. Socialist - In the interview with Joe the Plumber, Obama's socialist persona was cemented by Fox News. His "spreading the wealth" rhetoric was translated to "we'll all be wearing the same shoes soon". The first thing people ask themselves when a democrat is running is, "Okay, how much is this going to cost me." And I understand the question because many people work very hard for what they have. But again, this viewpoint is really encouraged to further the divide, further the stereotype. It's a way to make Democrats different from Republicans. Democrats are Marxists communists while Republicans are hard-working small business owners. How can you argue with that? (I think I should note that this is essentially the modern Democrat's most altruistic trait but no one really sees it that way.)

And these are the things that people just think about when a Democrat goes on the air. Really, these characteristics aren't real. But when you think about the things that define a Democrat, it's hard to ask yourself, "Why would anyone listen to them?"

If a Democrat had some kind of bullshit detector or language simplifier, this is what one would say if running for public office:

• I'm going to raise taxes.
• I'm going to try to stop the war.
• I'm going to make abortions legal. 
• I'm going to try and save the environment.
• I'm going to make the government bigger. 

Intrinsically, why would anyone vote for such a person? Granted this is a wildly over-simplified vision (stereotype) of a Democrat, but it is the essential agenda of one. 

So the point of this post is that Republicans have the easiest rhetoric in the world of politics. You don't need to be a smooth-talking, hyper-intelligent, suave politician if you are a Republican. Everything that Republicans believe is agreeable:

• I'm going to lower taxes.
• I'm going to win the war.
• I'm going to save all the babies.
• I'm going to make gas cheaper. 
• I'm going to make the government smaller. 

Of course save the babies! How can you argue with that? Thomas Jefferson said that a government should never be bigger than the people it governs. Totally. Make gas cheaper? That's great! I drive all the time! How can you debate that? How can you say to "NO!" to any of that? How have we had ANY Democratic presidents? It's so simple. It's so easy to understand. 

But there in lies the problem. Life isn't simple. Maybe this is why stereotypes are bad. Everyone's had a moment where they witness a stereotype fulfilling itself and we say, "Figures," under our breath. But these stereotypes are misleading rather than enlightening. A Democrat is, if broken down into a stereotype, a horrible weakling traitor who wants to let people kill babies. And the Republican stereotype is a person who is the Uber-American Patriot and Savior of the World. There's no truth to it. Maybe this is why there are so many undecided voters for this election. The stereotypes we are feed aren't living up. 

The world isn't a stereotype - it's full of vastly different people and difficult circumstances and random events and tragedies and heartbreaks and hard decisions and ups and downs. Stereotypes don't work because they put a overly-simple thing into an infinitely complex system. It just doesn't work. 

So here's the problem - the media, and the candidates themselves probably, perpetuate these stereotypes. They want people to see them in simplified terms, not complex and organic, like the world they inhabit. 

Maybe they do it because it's easier for us, maybe it happens as a result of the mass media editing and shaping their identity, or maybe they are just lazy. Maybe it's to further the divide. Either way, it's definitely hard to be a Democrat.