My Reply To A Pro-McCain Letter From Someone Close To Me

Dear (McCain Supporter),

You raise some really good points here and you’ve clearly thought this over thoroughly. I know that you have an open mind about these things and are willing to look at all sides. I certainly agree with you, that don’t know if Barack can deliver what he promises any more than I know that John McCain can deliver what he promises. If history has told us anything, the answer is “probably not”. Although Scott McClellan Bush’s former press secretary and someone who has been there and seen what it takes to be president first hand said in his endorsement of Obama that he “has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done”, its perfectly understandable and probably a little wise to be skeptical and cynical. You would be naïve not to be. I completely agree that Obama won’t be able to deliver exactly what he promises. And I say that as someone with his poster on my wall. But the real problems we will face, the crises that will arise, and the events that will transpire that will define the next four to eight years are likely things we have no inkling of now. In 2000 voters were asked to list the issues that were most important to them. Defense/national security came in 10th. That of course went on to be the driving issue of the entire Bush presidency. In 2004 there were no questions that I remember asked about how either candidate would respond to a natural disaster or what they would do if the financial market collapsed. Yet those are the events, along with the war, that will define Bush’s second term in the history books. We have no way of knowing yet what will happen in the next four years, what challenges will define this presidency. We do know a few things though.

We know that when the bailout crisis hit McCain famously suspended his campaign to head back to Washington right away (of course only after appearing on the CBS News that night, having a fundraiser dinner at the ritzy 21 Club in New York, speaking at a conference the next day, and then arriving in Washington AFTER Obama who had managed to both keep his campaign going and go to Washington). Once McCain arrived in Washington a deal that had seemed imminent immediately collapsed. Both Obama and McCain attended a meeting at the White House with President Bush. Obama dominated the conversation asking specific direct questions to a number of different people present and engaging in a vigorous back and forth. McCain didn’t say a single word until 43 minutes into the meeting and even then his comments were by all accounts minimal at best. Even though McCain had vowed to stay in Washington until the crisis was solved, he then left Washington with the crisis far further from being solved than it was when he arrived. Of course after he left, a deal soon came together and even though McCain called the deal a “disgrace” and even though he had vowed not to sign it if it was loaded with pork (which it was) he signed it anyway. In the major crisis of this campaign season did McCain demonstrate the leadership that this country needs? Did he show an understanding of and an ability to solve our financial crisis?

And as it continues to change and evolve who do you think has the better judgment to handle our complex financial crisis – someone who finished 894th out of 899 in their class in college and has said in the past year “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” or someone who held the most prestigious position possible while at Harvard Law School (President of the Harvard Law Review) has written complex papers on economic theory and counts amount their advisers and supporters Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Warren Buffet?

Now, I hear that McCain understands the military better than Obama. But what is understanding the military? Is sign of understanding the military receiving the endorsement and personal guidance of Colin Powell, Wesley Clark and over 70 recently retired generals and admirals, or is a sign of understanding the military when people from your own party say things about you like “the thought of John McCain being commander and chief sends a cold chill down my spine” as Sen. Thad Cocharn did or “his temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him” as former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire said? Is understanding the military pushing for the country to enter an unnecessary war in Iraq and then claiming that in that war we will be “greeted as liberators”? Or is it opposing that war and saying from day one that it will be a quagmire that will be near impossible to control? For someone that understands the military so well McCain sure showed bad judgment in the run-up to the major military conflict of our time. Even Richard Clarke, Bush’s first counterterrorism czar, said, “the fact of the matter is McCain’s judgment about what to do in Iraqi was wrong. We’re at risk because of the mistaken judgment of people like John McCain.”

And if Obama would leave Iraq in a state of mass genocide as you say, then why do President Bush, General Petraus and the Iraqi President all support Obama’s plan for a withdrawal timetable?

And while we’re at it, what exactly is this change McCain has affected?
One example will suffice.

You say McCain is able to resist influence. If this is true then why in his running mate selection process after state GOP chairs said they would withhold funding and members of his campaign staff threatened to quit unless he changed his mind on choosing his personal favorite pick Joe Lieberman, did he do just that, and instead choose the exact person Karl Rove told him to pick even though he had only briefly met her once?
And if he is able to resist influence and his entire image has been built around standing up to lobbyists, why does he now employ 170 of them in his campaign?

You say McCain has a lot of character, but what is character? Is character leaving your wife after she suffered a deforming injury in a terrible car crash for a rich much younger woman you picked up at a bar while you’re still married, or is character sticking with your family through good times and bad? Is character continuing to run robocalls, calls McCain himself described as “hate calls” in 2000, even after numerous members of your own party have pleaded with you to stop saying the calls are “disgraceful” and “beneath your dignity”. Is character running a campaign that even Karl Rove (Karl Rove!) says has “gone too far” and whose ads he says “fail the truth test”? I always thought character was having integrity and principles. And if that’s what character is tell me how this story displays character - In 2000 after the South Carolina primary in which Tucker Eskew spread the stories about McCain’s wife’s pain killer addiction and tried to insinuate that he had fathered an illegitimate black child, McCain said “there’s a special place in hell for Tucker Eskew”. But who did McCain hire this time around as one of the senior officials of his campaign? That’s right – Tucker Eskew. Is that the “lot of character” you were referring to?

Look it’s a shame really. I used to love McCain. Back in 2004 I even claimed that I was going to vote for him in 2008 if the Democrats nominated Hillary. There’s proof of this online somewhere. But I can’t vote for McCain for the same reason I’ll never vote for Hillary – because he sold out everything he believed in just to be president.

In 2000 he called Jerry Fallwell an “agent of intolerance” and then in 2007 he went to speak at his college. He made a career out of opposing torture, for obvious reasons, but now he is in favor of it. He was famously risked his political future by being one of two Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts and now supporting them is one of the key elements of his campaign. In March he told the Wall Street Journal “I’m always for less regulation” but told the same paper in September “We’re going to enact and enforce reforms and regulations to make sure these outrages never happen in the first place”. On September 16 he said “I do not believe the American tax payer should be on the hook for AIG” and then on September 18th he voted to bailout AIG. During the campaign he has also repeatedly renounced the McCain-Feingold Act and the McCain-Kennedy bill two of his signature achievements during his time in Washington. Two things he felt strongly enough about to not only write, but to put his name on. He’s also completely changed his stance since declaring his run for President about offshore drilling, the estate tax, storing nuclear waste, the GI Bill, hunting down terrorists in Pakistan, teaching intelligent design, funding No Child Left Behind, and immigration. It’s a shame the McCain I used to love isn’t still around because then this election would have been interesting

But in the end it doesn’t matter, because this election isn’t about McCain. And it isn’t even about Obama. It’s about a transformational moment in American history. Just like Kennedy and Reagan before him Obama is more than one man - he is the face of an entire political moment, a new chapter in American life. After living through eight years of an administration that promoted fear, mistrust and divisiveness, we now have the chance to be behind someone that promotes hope, inspiration, inclusiveness, and the best qualities that America has to offer. This is our chance to define our generation and to change the world. Will it work? I don’t know. But I do know one thing - you are planning to actively oppose it with your vote because you don’t “trust” it and you aren’t “convinced”. And that’s your right as a voter. And I understand. Change is never easy and great progress never comes without great risk. But safe and comfortable candidates only get you safe and comfortable results. Extraordinary times such as these call for extraordinary people. And extraordinary people are never going to seem safe. Barack is admittedly a risk. Sometimes though, as you well know, you just have to base your decisions on faith. And I can’t convince you of my faith any more than you can convince me of yours. I can’t know that Barack Obama wont be the worst president in history any more than you can know there is a God. Sometimes though in the absence of proof one way or the other you have to do the hard thing - you just have to have believe. And I believe Barack can be a transformative figure in American life. I believe he can bring people together. I believe he can make the world a better place. And I believe because I’ve seen it.

Two days after Hurricane Ike I was at the park here in Astoria. It was full of people of all ages and races and types. Now a while back I, like everyone I know, had donated money to Barack, so periodically I would get texts from his campaign about various events and such. Well this day, laying out in the park I suddenly began to hear phones go off all around me. It was like a symphony of phones. Bizarre and very surreal to say the least. And then sure enough I felt my phone vibrate as well. I looked down and it was a message from Barack. It said that if I would like to donate $5 to help hurricane relief all I had to do was text “yes” back to a certain number. I did and I had donated $5 for a good cause just as simple as that. I looked around the park and saw a sea of people all texting away on their phones doing the exact same thing. And I realized that scenes like that were happening all across the country at that exact moment. This story wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the media and I never once heard Barack bring it up. I have no idea how much money was raised that day and it doesn’t even matter. Because what I got to see that day was the best of America. Each of us doing our own little part to help our fellow man. I got to see our potential as a people and the better angels of our nature. That is what you can be a part of. That can be the legacy of our generation. You can make that happen. You can choose to doubt, or you can choose to believe. I can’t make that choice for you but what I can say is this - when I pull that lever on November 4th that will be the proudest moment of my life so far. That night when the results are announced I can guarantee you that every person I am with will openly weep tears of joy. There will literally be dancing in the streets. And there will be hope and joy and pride like we’ve never known before. These things are guaranteed to happen because of Barack. And I love you and care about you and I want all those things for you. I want you to be a part of history with me. It’s not too late.

Sex and the City: The 1998 Pitch Meeting

As all of the attention of the world this weekend focuses on the second coming…of the “groundbreaking” social phenomenon that is Sex and the City I thought it would be interesting to read the recently discovered transcripts of the pitch meeting for the show.

HBO Headquarters 1998
Darren Star: I’ve got a great idea for a groundbreaking new female driven show! It’ll be about a modern 30-something single woman and her friends trying to balance career and relationships in the big city.

Chris Albrecht: So like The Mary Tyler Moore Show?

DS: But more about the women as a group

CA: So like Designing Women?

DS: But more about dating and relationships. And the main character writes a column about her experiences as a single woman in the city

CA: So like Suddenly Susan?

DS: But we’ll deal with other issues occasionally too, like pregnancy and cancer and stuff

CA: So like Murphy Brown?

DS: No…

CA: The Golden Girls, Kate & Allie, Felicity, Cybill, Ally McBeal, Friends…

DS: No, no, no…there’s going to be nudity and explicit language and stuff…its gonna be groundbreaking okay, don’t argue with me on this. Just take it as fact because I say so. Its gonna feature women in a whole new light. Like they’ve never been seen before - as catty materialistic socialites obsessed with men and fashion.

CA: Umm that sounds horribly offensive. And that’s actually the very stereotype usually pushed by the media that the modern woman has had to fight against for years.

DS: But I’m gonna get around that problem by calling this new show “post-feminist”.

CA: So you’re going to use the characters on the show as a way to deconstruct feminism and help define what it means in today’s world?

DS: Okay, I have no idea what any of those words are you just used, but I have a good feeling there wont be any of that as this show is gonna be a comedy.

CA: Oh that’s great! Who doesn’t love to laugh?

DS: Well its not gonna be a comedy in the sense that it has jokes and elicits laughter, but it’ll be a comedy in the sense that its not a drama and there will be wacky music.

CA: But the characters will still be written as nuanced and complex people and not just broad archetypes right?

DS: Whoa, with all the big words again! This is a show aimed at women. We can’t be challenging them like that. We just need to treat them how Hollywood always treats them - by pandering to them with clichés, cheap sentimentality, and bright shiny pretty things.

CA: That might be the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard, but I guess as long as this thing is well written…

DS: Oh it will be, cuz who better to write about a woman’s experience than a gay man?

CA: Umm, a woman?

DS: Yeah but other than that?

CA: No one

DS: Oh you shush. Soon there will be a whole generation of women aspiring to be clichéd versions of gay men and it’ll be fabulous. They’ll love high fashion, cosmos and meaningless sex with a multitude of partners. On the show, one of the characters in particular will be known for using her blatant love of sex to reclaim her sense of sexuality from the confines placed on it by a male driven society…

CA: Now that character sounds really interesting if done well. Who are you planning on getting to play her?

DS: The woman who agreed to star in Porkys

CA: (Bangs his head against desk) Frankly this show sounds beneath her. Plus she can’t act. Like not even a little bit. This pitch keeps getting worse by the minute. I am pretty desperate for a hit show though…Okay, I'll buy it. But on one condition: At some point one of the women needs to say something to the effect of, “How does it happen that four smart women can talk about nothing but boyfriends? What about us? What we think, we feel, we know? Christ! Does it always have to be about them?”

DS: (Sigh) Okay. But only if the very next scene features them shopping

CA: (Picks up hammer hits himself repeatedly in the face) Sure. Whatever. Sold.

Who Wants to be Played Out?

Dear Judd Apatow,

I have a story for you.

When “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” premiered in the summer of 1999, as you may recall, it got huge ratings and was a national phenomenon. Everyone loved it. I mean how could you not like it? It was trivia, money and Regis Philbin? That’s like not liking puppies, rainbows and Chipotle burritos. One of the things that made it such a beloved phenomenon though was its schedule. It was aired for several consecutive nights and then went away to be unheard from for a while, until it would magically appear again for a week or so and then once again disappear. This cycle repeated until January of 2000 when ABC added it to the schedule full time as a several night a week show. Even as a teenager at the time I remember thinking, “that doesn’t seem like a very smart idea.” And sure enough, as almost anyone with even a half a brain could have predicted, within a year what once had been the most popular show on television was off the air altogether. Ever since then whenever someone or something so clearly oversaturates the marketplace in such a clearly detrimental manner I call it “pulling a Millionaire”. Now you could of course simply call it “too much of a good thing”, but I think “pulling a Millionaire” is something slightly different. When someone is “pulling a Millionaire” its quite clear to people outside the situation what’s bound to happen, but yet due to greed, hubris, or just plain shortsightedness, the entities involved seem quite oblivious to what they are doing. Like how as a 16 year old I could clearly see that airing Millionaire three nights a week every week would kill the series, but highly paid executives whose jobs it was to understand the television medium could somehow think this was a good idea. Oftentimes though, when you’re so “inside” a phenomenon like that it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. And that’s why I have a message today for you: STOP!

Stop putting your name on every piece of crap anyone you have ever met is even remotely involved with. Stop having seven movies with your name on them coming out in a year and a half. And stop being such a lenient judge of quality. You’re devaluing your brand and oversaturating the marketplace. Do you know nothing about human nature? Let me fill you in on two fundamental truths:

1.) Backlashes are inevitable
2.) What goes up must come down (I believe Newton said something similar)

And now with the Internet those things are infinitely more true.
So please I’m begging you, for your own good, cut it out.

Look, Freaks and Geeks is one of the greatest shows of all time and Undeclared is pretty great too, but you know what one of the main reasons they’re so great is? They only lasted one season. You told the stories you wanted to tell and then got out before anyone had a chance to get sick of them. Plus since they were never overly popular no one felt the need to try and knock them down a level.

(As a side note, I firmly believe that no TV show should be allowed to last more than two seasons unless each episode is entirely 100% self contained - Seinfeld, Law & Order, etc. - or the creators can make a convincing case from day one as to why it should last longer – Lost. This will never happen because the networks are too greedy, but name one series that doesn’t meet one of those two criteria that wouldn’t have been better served by only lasting two seasons. You can’t do it. I will argue this to the death. And you don’t have to take my words for it. Ask Dave Chappelle and/or the BBC if you don’t believe me. (As a second side note, this is why I’m never investing myself in a David Chase series ever again. But that’s a whole other rant…))

Now on one level I completely get it. You were a dorky unattractive guy your whole life and now you're rich, popular and everyone loves you. It goes to your head and you want more of it. I understand. But, there are few things more self-destructive than a dorky guy who starts getting too popular. The examples of this phenomenon are endless. And that’s why it’s even more important for someone to save you from yourself. And so I’m taking that job on myself.

I firmly believe you’re a good guy with good things to say. You have an increadable gift for mixing humor with heart without sacrificing one for the other. You make mainstream comedies and yet are a critics darling. And I vehemently stand by the statement that Knocked Up was the Graduate of our generation. But you’re already starting to piss it all away. Your box office is declining. The backlash is beginning. The charges that you’re latently misogynistic are starting to gain real traction. And your first movie came out only two and half years ago, yet people are already able to write things like this. (Which is funny because it’s painfully true. Much like your comedy itself)

So take a lesson from Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Day-Lewis, Radiohead and many others. Don’t just pump out product because you want to get your friends jobs. Only put your name on something when you really truly believe in it. And limit how much that is. That way the name “Judd Apatow” still stands for something and has value. And for the love of all things holy, give Linda Cardellini another role already. The fact that you haven’t already is a real disgrace.

Follow all this advice and there's hope for your empire yet. Otherwise prepare to join the Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Americans, and the John Hughesians in the annals of ex-empires.

And THAT is my final answer.

Sincerely,

FredtheOnlineJournal

Death of a Salesman

My junior year of college Eliot Spitzer was that year's commencement speaker. At the time I had only a vague idea of who he was, but his speech was so inspiring, so intelligent, and delivered with such passion and humanity, that I declared then and there that I would vote for him in all future elections he was involved in. (Its worth noting that I had the exact opposite reaction to the speech given by my year’s commencement speaker, Hillary Clinton.) After going home and finding out more about Spitzer and his accomplishments I felt even more firm in my beliefs that this man was a bright shining hope in the world of politics. I thought, between Spitzer and Obama, the Democratic Party would be an unstoppable force for the next 10-20 years. When his brilliant and inspiring gubernatorial campaign commercials started airing I spent a considerable amount of time trying to design an Obama-Spitzer ’12 logo. Well now one half of my theoretical dream ticket is about to be forced to resign in a scandal that, frankly, even I can’t defend. This wasn’t a witch-hunt and this wasn’t the media making something out of nothing. Spitzer did the very thing he built his reputation crusading against - he broke the law. And it hurts.

My mom, who's a staunch Republican, sent me a taunting email after the story broke saying “now you should think twice about Obama”. And I have to say, that thought has crossed my mind today. In one week Hillary got me to start losing hope in the idea of hope and now Spitzer has me questioning the very existence of genuine goodness. So all in all, not a great week. Existentially speaking.

I know in this day and age I really shouldn’t be so surprised. Maybe I was being too naïve and idealistic. Maybe I shouldn’t have gotten so attached, so emotionally invested in something that was ultimately always going to leave disappointed in some way. And maybe I should stop talking about Eliot Spitzer like we were dating. But that’s how much this hurts.

I feel like such a fool now for getting involved in the first place. For buying what he was selling. I feel played and used and a little dirty. But it’s not just the betrayal. And its not just now and forever losing the moral high ground (although that REALLY stings). Its that something I loved and was passionate about and that brought me joy and happiness is over, forever, and there’s nothing that can ever happen to make it right again. Thats the worst part.

And now sadly next time I wont be so trusting, I wont be so invested, I wont throw myself into things so wholeheartedly and with such abandon. And I hate that. I hate having my cynicism justified. And I hate that the fact that Eliot Spitzer hired a prostitute has me hating the world. For those who say politics doesn’t matter, I say I envy you, I really do. But for those of us who still don’t know better, and foolishly think that one person can change the world, this feels like when Ralphie found out that Annie’s secret messages were really just ads for Ovaltine. Only 500 times worse.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go eat a pint of ice cream and listen to depressing music.
And maybe pour out a 40 on the curb for idealism.
That’s just how I roll.

The Sound of Settling

After Eminem lost to Steely Dan for Album of the Year I swore I would never watch the Grammys again. It was one of those defining moments of young adulthood where you realize life isn’t fair and existence is meaningless. To recognize this fact I went out the next day and bought an Eminem shirt and wore it to school. "Life showed me its purely random and meaningless nature and all I got was this lousy shirt", is, in retrospect, what I was trying to say. But at the time I believe my thinking went something more like “Eminem is God, fuck the Grammys”

And so I really shouldn’t be here eight years later cursing out the Grammys for fucking up their awards. And yet I am.
I just can’t leave well enough alone.

They say the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. By this definition (or by any definition really) watching the Grammys is insane. And yet I do it. I could say I watch for the performances, which are often really great and memorable. And this statement would be true. But it wouldn’t be the whole truth. Because deep down I also watch because I do legitimately care who wins. Now, yes, the Grammys are not relevant in any serious way. Yes, their choices are notoriously out of step and laugh inducing. But they also have gotten it right a fair amount of times (Sgt. Pepper, Songs in the Key of Life, Rumours, Thriller, Joshua Tree, etc.). And in fact if you really get down to it, they’ve probably gotten it right as many times as the Oscars have. And ever since they reformed the nominating process in 1995, the nominees have been pretty solid too. And that’s what makes it so frustrating. Every year it seems like “this is the year they’ll get it right”. And every year I end the night swearing drunken profanities at my TV.

But I keep hanging on because what the Grammys claim to be about is what I am all about:

When art and commerce join without sacrificing one for the other. When everyone, young and old, black and white, rich and poor, can agree that this thing, this piece of art is indisputaby the best. When something is simultanously the best and the most popular. The Beatles, The Godfather, The Sopranos, Tiger Woods. This is what all of humanity strives for. This is where I aim to live my life. This is why I care about the Grammys.

Also, I’m addicted to awards shows.

And so my Grammy thoughts begin:

* My one wish is to hear T-Pain accept an award so I can hear him speak in his real voice. I feel like hearing T-Pain speak without his vocoder would be as disconcerting as hearing Hugh Laurie speak without his American accent.

* If I never hear "Before He Cheats" again for the rest of my natural life I will be more than okay with that. And by the way Carrie, before you go tearing up peoples cars maybe you better look in the mirror. Because I think if I was dating a girl with your level of jealousy and anger issues I might cheat on her too. And don’t take my word for it. Ask Tony Romo.

* Has an incredibly attractive person ever looked worse than Rihanna did during that “performance” of "Umbrella"? And while we’re on the subject, can someone explain to my what’s so good about "Umbrella"? I mean it won Pazz and Jop for Gods sake. What am I missing here? I find it mildly tolerable at best. Someone really needs to help me to understand this.

* Okay on a scale of 1 to 10 how threatened do you think Beyonce is by Jay-Z and Rihanna? I’m guessing at least a 13. All I gotta say is don’t do it Jay. Listen to that Carrie Underwood song before you do anything rash.

* How does a TV show prominantly featuring Beyonce not come with a viewer discretion advised warning? I mean what’s more harmful to America’s youth – violence and nudity or Beyonce?

*It’s really disheartening to see Beyonce doing Revlon ads isn't it? So sad to see her sell out like that.

* Okay folks, not to be the asshole here, but its really not necessary to give Stevie Wonder a STANDING ovation. I’m just saying…

*Say what you will about the Grammys but any organization that gives an award to both Barrack Obama and Flight of the Conchords in the same night cant be all bad.

* A meeting I would have like to have been at:
Executive #1: Okay so who do you think the best people would be to present the award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration?
Executive #2: How about Taylor Swift and that dude Juanes who barely speaks English
Executive #1: Perfect!

*Hey did you know Akon was once a con? Yes, a real life convict. So when it was time to chose a moniker it was either 'Akon" or "Areallyshittyrapper". True story.

* Okay if you’re not standing for the Beatles tribute then you don’t deserve to be there. That might have been the best thing to ever air on CBS. Speaking of which…

*Holy shit! Cirque du Soleil performing to "Day in the Life" on CBS! Middle America just got very confused. What’s next DAFT PUNK?

* Holy shit! It's Daft Punk!! Live on CBS!!! Hurry up kids, get in the fallout shelter, the apocalypse is nigh!

*Ah, George Lopez introducing Brad Paisley. That’s more like it. You can come out now kids….

* Alicia Keys and John Mayer together! If I was black or a woman I would have just came right now.
(I just realized I don’t know the proper conjugation rules for the verb “cum”. I know F. Scott Fitzgerald used to have the same problem.)

* Speaking of my black girlfriend Alicia Keys…
Top 3 Reasons to Listen to the Radio
1.) “No One” - Alicia Keys
2.) “Love Song” – Sara Bareilles
3.) “The Pretender” – Foo Fighters

Top 3 Reasons Not to Listen to the Radio
1.) A loss of faith in all humanity
2.) The soul crushing sound of utter ineptitude
3.) Fergie

* Shockingly, SHOCKINGLY, Will.I.Am’s performance was painfully awful. I didn’t see that one coming.

* You know who I trust with my retirement savings? The crazy dude from Blue Velvet that’s who.

(I wish I could go back to 1969 and tell audiences coming out of Easy Rider that one day Dennis Hopper would be doing ads for a large financial corporation. The 60s would have ended right then and there)

* Wow Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman are in a movie together. That would be huge if only it were still 2003. Alas, it is not.

* I wonder how they cast the finger for the iPhone commercials. Is it the same finger for all the ads? Is someone the official finger of iPhone? And what was that audition like exactly? Were they looking for someone from Julliard?

*Kanye is the MAN. I cannot possibly make that word bold enough. You know what we were talking about earlier about being both the best and the most popular. Watch this video and youll see what I mean. Looks like that time spent hanging out with Bono is really paying off.

(As good as that was, his acceptance speech moments later was even better)

*Speaking of acceptance speeches...

Id never heard her talk before but wow shes really British isnt she?

*Now I know there are those who will make jokes about her performance or her speech or her general state of semi-coherence, but I found the whole thing strongly moving in a way I cant quite articulate. I mean you gotta be rooting for her, even more so after last night. I make jokes about literally everything, but even I dont feel right touching this one.
(I will say though that I've watched that clip at least five times now and every time "ray RAY" cracks me up.)

* Okay so before I go I have to address the Herbie Hancock fiasco. Yes my jaw did literally drop. Without exaggeration it took about 30 seconds to even register what had just happened. That is what shock feels like. And that is also what pounding the last nail in coffin of relevancy feels like. Congratulations Grammys. I hope you’re proud of yourselves. I think that undoubtedly goes down in the annals of Grammy lore along with Milli Vanilli, Christopher Cross, and Tony Bennett MTV Unplugged. You also ended my string of outrageously premature yet accurate Grammy predictions. In the past I predicted Speakerboxxx/Love Below would win Album of the Year and that Future Sex/Love Sounds would be nominated for Album of the Year months before either album was even released. This year I said Amy Winehouse would narrowly beat Kanye for Album of the Year back in March. Well to get my self back on track here’s my prediction for next year. The song Kanye does about his mother’s death will not only be his best song ever but it will be the first hip-hop song to win Record of the Year. And 4th time will be the charm, as he’ll finally win Album of the Year. And while we’re making predictions, Heath Ledger will also be nominated for Best Supporting Actor for The Dark Knight. Take it to the bank, and remember you heard it here first.