Thursday I got to work around 10 AM. I was already planning my evening: leave work around 8/8:30, go for a run, make myself something healthy for dinner, do some writing, go to bed at a normal hour.
At 10:30 PM it was clear we weren't going to be able to sell the ES350 we had spent the last hour trying to push out. I got in my car thinking how I could salvage my evening, and figured I could get a burrito (there goes the healthy dinner), go straight home (there goes the exercise), and write (at least one of the three).
A burrito would make everything better, because burritos are delicious, and I was in a bad mood.
I got to the taco truck nearest my home and parked in what passed for a "parking lot," but it was just a bunch of cars next to each other without much structure. I got out of my car to make sure it's situated in a place where other people can still back out - going so far as to even ask a gentleman if I'm blocking his way (to which he replied that I was not) - before going to pay for the burrito.
The employee spoke to the customers before me in Spanish before easily transitioning to English when I got to the front of the line.
"You're about to make my night," I told the employee while handing him some cash.
I was getting some sauce to put on my burrito when a gentleman announced, "whoever has the Honda Civic, someone just ran into your car!"
Well fuck. I have a Honda Civic.
I hurried over to the parking lot and saw the damage. My driver's door was caved in, and three dudes in a beat-up Nissan were about to drive off. I stood between their car and the driveway and took a good look. They hit my car, and they were just about to run.
"Are you fucking kidding me?" I shouted. "You do that to my car and you're just going to fucking BOUNCE?"
So maybe this wasn't the best way to go about it. I mean, starting the conversation with an accusation is bad, and it's not like it's going to make them want to work with me to fix my car. But I had had a long day, and I was angry these people were so shameless as to damage my car and then drive off without paying any consequences.
I continued to yell, my vocabulary laced with profanities, until they finally got out of the car.
"I'm so sorry," the driver apologized.
"I'm more upset you were about to drive off than about the actual damage. I mean, I'm upset about the car too, but... whatever, I want your insurance information."
"Ahh..."
"Are you insured?"
"Yes. But this is my brother's car."
"Is your brother's car insured?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Well let's do all the insurance information. Whatever you have, let's do it."
The boys hesitated. I wasn't sure why. That's the next step, right? Trading insurance information? I took a picture of the license plate while the boys deliberated.
"We know a mechanic," the driver tried.
"No. Absolutely not. I don't have fucking time for this."
"We'll buy your car from you."
"What?"
"How much for your car?"
"It's not for sale. It's a piece of crap that's going to run another 100,000 miles. I want to fix it."
"How much for your car?"
"$5,000."
"Your car isn't worth $5,000."
"I got it appraised for $5,000; it's worth $5,000."
"We don't have the money here-"
"I don't want your money, I want your insurance infor-"
"-but we can go home and get it! It's at our home, let us go home and get it!"
"Absolutely not! I want to take my car to a body shop, see how much it costs, and bill you for the damage."
"I'm sorry, my English isn't so good. I don't understand."
At this point, it's important to note that up until now we had been conversing easily enough in English that we had no trouble understanding what the other was saying. I was so emotional, however, that I didn't focus on the stupidity of pulling the language barrier card at that time - I was focused on finding a solution.
The taco truck employee spoke both English and Spanish. He could translate.
"Well let's find someone to translate," I responded. I lightened up. I began to feel bad. Maybe they were confused about how to act after a car accident. Maybe they really didn't understand. So I motioned for them to come with me but they stayed put.
"Come on," I tried again.
Still nothing. I was back to being irritated.
"I'll help you," a man in his car said. The same man I had asked earlier if I was in his way when I parked.
So we repeat our conversation, only this time with a translator. Nothing changes.
"Hey," a man pulling out of the parking lot called me over. "If I were you, I'd call the cops."
"Really? Do I really need to do that?"
"Yeah. Because they're not going to give you their insurance information."
"That IS shady, right? They're acting shady, right?"
"Yes. Call the cops."
So I called the cops. I have never really done this before - I've never had to resort to the police. The emergency operator tells me to turn on my hazard lights. I did so.
"I'm so sorry," the driver continued to apologize.
"It's cowardly," I told him. "You were about to leave."
This is the point in the story where I wish I had been more accepting of their apologies. But I was too angry, their apologies seemed too insincere, and they were still not doing the only thing required of them at this point - giving me my insurance information.
A tow truck guy - Keith - showed up and asked what was going on. Two of the guys leave. The third told us they went to the bathroom. Bullhooey.
The third finally walked off as well, carrying a backpack. I waited another 40 minutes for the police before I finally gave up.
"Nobody has left to come meet you yet," the emergency operator said.
"I mean, I think at this point there's a legitimate crime here. They just walked away from their car. That's weird."
"That is strange. They left their car? The doors open?"
"Yeah."
"Huh. Well, I think you have all the information you need. You can just go to a police station in the morning and report it."
Fine. Fine fine fine. I was tired enough as it was. I canceled the call, went inside the car for identification purposes, and made plans to make a police report at the station in the morning. I also took a picture of an empty can of Bud Light in the passenger seat.
Going through people's cars when they're gone is illegal, apparently.
You can't take things out of another person's car. It's a felony. So when I showed the cops the license plates in the trunk that I pilfered, along with the insurance documents I took (I was going to just take a picture, but Keith told me I should just take the actual copy), they told me this was the weirdest case they'd ever seen - specifically because I had committed a major crime, not because these guys were acting so strange.
This is probably the dumbest and most entitled I've ever felt. People get in hit and runs all the time. I mean, people don't have the perpetrators offer to buy their cars and then walk away from the situation with their OPEN CAR left behind, but I am not the first - and certainly will not be the last - person to be involved in this kind of accident.
(Well, except for a few minor, strange details.)
Was I always such an angry person? Why the yelling without stopping to listen to how ridiculous the boys in front of me were being? Is this a new development? Why can't I be calmer? I see flashes of my mother shouting at airline employees when we were kicked off a three-hour delayed flight because there wasn't enough room to the point that they threatened security, and I wonder about the role genetics plays in how we respond to stressful situations.
Next time, I need to take a breath and consider the situation. Calm is always always always better - because calm allows you to make the more rational and smarter decision.
My mom has told me multiple times that I could have gotten myself killed that night, and that I need to watch my temper. I agree with the second half of the sentence, but I don't think those boys were going to hurt me. They were idiots, out for a drunken munchie stop at a taco truck, not giving a single thought to why driving drunk is illegal.
Thursday was exhausting from start to finish, but for right now I'm in a Nissan Altima rental, which is sweet because it comes with automatic locks and windows, and I feel like a freaking Rockefeller driving that thing around. The body shop can take its time with my car. I'll be just fine.
I really like those burritos, man. I hope I can muster the wherewithal to return some time soon.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The Superhero Movie: or In Defense of the Status Quo
Superman has a perfect jawline and is so unbelievably macho, he makes spandex look hetero. Captain America wanted only to serve his country in the military but was deemed too scrawny - until a machine made him the physically perfect specimen. Batman is so wealthy it's actually stupid and defends the criminally corrupt Gotham City from the many villains who would change it. Iron Man is Batman with a sense of humor and a better suit.
We know these superheroes. We watch their movies. Most of them are entertaining - a few of them are actually good. But I've noticed in recent movies that although the morality of the lead players has gotten more ambiguous, the morality of the message of the movie has remained stagnant - which creates a very confused message in its final product.
Duh, there's good versus evil, and duh, it's on a global scale. In more recent years, however, the bad guy has a legitimate gripe, and the good guy finds himself teaming up with some pretty unsavory people.
Let's look at a couple scenarios in recent superhero movies, starting with the least morally ambiguous conflicts and ending with a story that makes the audience wonder if the wrong guy won.
Conflict: Iron Man vs. Obadiah Stane
Stark Industries is in the defense business, which means they make weapons for money. This arguably makes the world a less safe place (Jim Porter would disagree), but Tony Stark was too busy being a party-town playboy (Robert Downey Jr. was really the most inspired casting choice) to have anything to do with the business besides a bullshit "face of the company"-type role. Then a terrorist group called the Ten Rings attacks and kidnaps Tony in Afghanistan. Using his super brain, Tony not only saves himself but makes a superhuman heart and an iron suit to escape - only to decide Stark Industries will not manufacture weapons anymore.
Obadiah Stane, who as acting head of the company while Tony was off being a playboy sold weapons to the Ten Rings, insists on continuing to make weapons for profit. Then plot happens (this movie is truly great, but I'm not about to do a recap) and there's a showdown between Obadiah and Tony, and Tony wins.
Also he reveals his true identity to the world, which makes him the MOST badass superhero.
Greedy Obadiah, careless with people's lives if it means more money, versus unlikely savior of the people party animal Tony Stark? Iron Man for the win!
SIDE TO TAKE? IRON MAN - DEFINITELY.
2. The Dark Knight
Conflict: Batman vs. the JokerThis one makes it pretty easy. The Joker may be fun to watch, but he's also an insane mass murderer with no goal beyond total chaos and destruction. Batman doesn't want people to die.
SIDE TO TAKE? BATMAN - DEFINITELY.
Conflict: Batman vs. Two-Face
Two-Face is a little more complicated of a bad guy - Harvey Dent is a perfect human being before the accident, and Two-Face spends a fair amount of time exacting revenge on the people who killed his fiancée, and revenge is basically why Batman gets out of bed in the morning - but when he threatens Gordon's family it's pretty clear he's got to go.
SIDE TO TAKE? BATMAN - DEFINITELY.
(But still feel bad for Harvey Dent.)
3. Thor
Conflict: Thor vs. Loki
Thor is aggressive and arrogant, and when he confronts the Frost Giants, he destroys his race's peace with them and is stripped of his godly powers by his father Odin as punishment. Loki, his brother, was never slated to be the next king because Odin adopted him, meaning he's not really Odin's blood. Loki takes over while Thor is on Earth and Odin is in his deep "Odinsleep" to prove to his adopted father that he can rule - only he's, like, super evil. Convincing his real father Laufey to try to kill Odin, attempting to destroy the Frost Giants despite a truce, killing his actual father Laufey... he's a shitty leader and a terrible human being. So when Thor comes back to end Loki's rule, and Loki falls into the abyss after being rejected by a now-conscious Odin, and Thor admits he's not ready for rule, it's pretty clear that Thor rules and Loki totally drools.
We're now on the 4th example and it's still clear who is the good guy and the bad guy. This is just a touch more ambiguous, because Loki may be a total dick, but he's striving for something he was never given - something Thor took for granted - a strong father figure who is what he says he is.
SIDE TO TAKE? THOR - DEFINITELY (moved up from "mostly" to "definitely" through growth of character).
Conflict: The Avengers vs. The Chitauri
The Chitauri, under Loki, want to take over Earth. The Avengers want to save it. Pretty clear cut, but S.H.I.E.L.D. is considering using the Tesseract to develop weapons to save America against future invasions. On the one hand, this makes sense. On the other, these weapons are dangerous and maybe shouldn't be created? I mean, isn't this using the Tesseract for the exact same reason the bad guys want it?
SIDE TO TAKE? THE AVENGERS - MOSTLY.
Conflict: Captain America vs. HYDRA
Dr. Arnim Zola and Johann Schmidt of the HYDRA organization find the Tesseract, which allows them to harness energy to complete their Nazi experiments. Steve Rogers is an underdeveloped weakling not worthy of serving in the military to fight the Nazis in 1942 America when he undergoes Dr. Abraham Esrkine's controversial "super soldier" experiment and transforms into an insanely strong human in peak physical condition - Captain America. Heinz Kruger, working for the HYDRA organization, immediately kills Dr. Erskine, who is the only person with any information on the super soldier formula. While touring for the American troupes Italy as a super soldier to raise morale (rather than, say, fighting Nazis), Captain America finds out his friend Bucky has been killed. Captain America refuses to believe the news and searches for him. He finds Bucky in a HYDRA base and rescues him, along with several other soldiers. Together they decide to attack the other HYDRA bases. Team America wins, HYDRA loses, Schmidt dissolves in a bright light after handling the Tesseract personally, and Captain America crashes in the Arctic and wakes up 70 years later under Nick Fury's supervision.
Nazis? Always bad. But the superhuman experiment Steve Rogers went through is creeptastic - and if you're going to go through all that trouble, American government, you should really have the dude fight instead of traveling around like a circus freak. Captain America has a tough choice - fight for a somewhat shady and idiotic American government, or fight for the Nazis.
SIDE TO TAKE? CAPTAIN AMERICA'S - MOSTLY (points taken off for idiocy).
Conflict: Iron Man vs. Aldrich Killian
OKAY. NOW WE ARE GETTING TO MY POINT.
Tony Stark at a 1999 New Year's party in Switzerland is a total dick to disabled Aldrich Killian while planning on getting down and dirty with Maya Hansen. Fast forward to 2013, with Aldrich Killian now fully abled (and looking damn fine) and offering Extremis, a formula that regenerates its subjects when they are injured. However, the formula is still in its development ages, and when a person reacts badly to it, they explode. Aldrich is using terrible actor Trevor Slattery to pretend to be The Mandarin, a terrorist who hates America's excess and finds the country to be a destructive force on other nations. At one point, Trevor kills an innocent oil bigwig executive live on television to prove a point. Tony figures out a way to confront Aldrich and his Extremis goons while saving both the President's life and his girlfriend Pepper Potts's life.
The issue, then, is that when The Mandarin aims a gun at this "innocent' oil executive's life, he has a point: this man's greed has probably contributed greatly to the suffering of a lot of impoverished people. Obviously killing him isn't the answer, but it's hard to see the guy as a victim. The Mandarin may be a terrorist, but he's making some pretty solid points about the liberties America takes with poorer nations.
Besides, Tony can be a dick (see: first scene of the movie).
But also, Tony is legit and I love Robert Downey Jr.
SIDE TO TAKE? IRON MAN'S - BARELY.
Conflict: Spider-Man vs. The Lizard
Peter Parker is a super nerd who gets picked on by Flash Thompson. He finds out his late father was working to cure diseases by combining human and animal DNA with Dr. Curt Connors. Curt is pressured by his dick of a boss Dr. Ratha to speed his research along in order to save the terminally ill Norman Osborn (their boss at Oscorp). Peter gets bitten by a spider and uses his newfound powers to beat up his old bully Flash. Then he refuses to walk his aunt home and lets a convenience store thief run off - allowing the thief to murder his uncle. Meanwhile, Dr. Ratha demands that Curt try the serum they're working on before it's ready and subsequently fires Curt when he refuses. Curt, desperate, tries the serum and transforms himself into The Lizard and starts terrorizing the city. Peter gets him the antidote, but not before The Lizard mortally wounds Captain Stacy, father of Gwen Stacy (Peter's love interest). Captain Stacy asks Peter to stay away from Gwen for her safety (considering he's a target and half spider, half man), but Peter doesn't because he is an impulsive dickhead.
Honestly? Dr. Curt Connors is a tragic figure, and Peter Parker is a teenage asshole.
SIDE TO TAKE? TIE BETWEEN SPIDER-MAN AND THE LIZARD.
Conflict: Batman vs. Bane
Gotham City is insanely corrupt. That's a huge part of Batman mythology - Gotham City is run by terrible people who allow a ridiculous amount of psychopathic villains to run rampant, which is why Batman is necessary to begin with. Batman is wealthy, and defends the status quo so people may continue with their lives in relative peace. Up comes Bane from the sewers, railing against the injustice of the city and demanding the government be held accountable for its actions.
From the upper crust, a class that keeps the Banes of the world down, comes Bruce Wayne. The city is mostly destroyed, some very confusing plot twists happen (the more you think about this movie, the less it makes sense), and you leave the theater wondering if this wasn't some giant "fuck you" to Occupy Wall Street - courtesy of Christopher Nolan.
(Also, it's some serious bullshit that Batman survived in the end.)
SIDE TO TAKE? BANE'S - MOSTLY.
I love that superhero movies are allowing themselves to have more morally ambiguous bad guys - people with interesting motivations that end up going down an unfortunate path. It would just be nice if the movies themselves started acknowledging this fact.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Somebody always pays for it
I work at a dealership in Santa Monica. About a month ago, I got promoted - from working as a product specialist on the floor to working as an Internet specialist in the Internet department. My pay plan completely changed. I tell other people's customers how their cars worked instead of my own, and I make appointments for other salespeople instead of myself. Sure, I can still do some of my own stuff - but on the side, and ain't nobody got time for that anymore, because I'm already working 65-70 hours a week.
I love it. I love everyone in my department. I calculated my next pay check and I love that. I love my new relationships with old bosses. I love going to work - I just wish I didn't always have to stay so long, but even that I don't even mind because I'm making money and I'm learning a lot.
Today I signed off on my new pay plan officially. But my pay plan wasn't the only one to change.
The other guys in the department - the people I'm paid to help - got their pay plans too, and it's less than it used to be.
And it is directly related to the fact that I've been moved here.
On the one hand, it's definitely not my fault that their pay plan went down. And they know that. On the other hand, they're not exactly happy about it, and it IS directly related to my presence.
Doug is in his 30s with a kid he pays child support for. Paul is in his mid-60s.
"Complaining won't do anything about it," Paul tells Doug. "You'll just antagonize the managers. This is the powers that be that decided on this."
"The pre-owned part is what I hate the most. That's how I make my money. I'm a used car guy. This is the sixth time in one year and eight months I've had my pay plan changed."
"Stop bitching about it. That changes nothing."
"I'm not bitching about it. I'm bitching to you and Caitlin."
"Well that's fine. Just don't bitch to anyone else."
"Is it really that much worse?" I ask.
"No. In some ways it's better," Paul tells me.
"Are you happy with it?"
"No, I'm not happy! I work weekends and holidays - I never get to see my family. I'm going to be 65 this year, it's too late for me to do anything about it. I'm stuck. For years I wanted to be something here, and it never happened. You" (he's referring to Doug) "have your whole life ahead of you. You can do whatever you want."
"I know that," Doug says.
"If they paid us for hourly on top of commission, I'd be fine," Paul explains. "I'm going to ask for that."
Paul is one of the nicest guys in the dealership. He works hard and is consistently one of the top salesmen. He's the easiest person in the department to work with - he gives great advice, he remains calm, and he genuinely loves the product he sells. His excitement is infectious, and his customers across the board love him.
He could have been a great manager. And before he said anything tonight, I just assumed he wasn't interested. Well, of course he was - he was just never given the opportunity.
Not to mention - Doug has his whole life ahead of him? He's 34. They're right, though. 34 - you have your whole life ahead of you.
I know I can't worry about it, or I'll always be worrying about shit like this. All that's left for me is to do the best I can and be nice to everyone else.
I just wish everyone was happy and nobody ever died or got old and high fives were a form of currency.
I'd be so rich.
I love it. I love everyone in my department. I calculated my next pay check and I love that. I love my new relationships with old bosses. I love going to work - I just wish I didn't always have to stay so long, but even that I don't even mind because I'm making money and I'm learning a lot.
Today I signed off on my new pay plan officially. But my pay plan wasn't the only one to change.
The other guys in the department - the people I'm paid to help - got their pay plans too, and it's less than it used to be.
And it is directly related to the fact that I've been moved here.
On the one hand, it's definitely not my fault that their pay plan went down. And they know that. On the other hand, they're not exactly happy about it, and it IS directly related to my presence.
Doug is in his 30s with a kid he pays child support for. Paul is in his mid-60s.
"Complaining won't do anything about it," Paul tells Doug. "You'll just antagonize the managers. This is the powers that be that decided on this."
"The pre-owned part is what I hate the most. That's how I make my money. I'm a used car guy. This is the sixth time in one year and eight months I've had my pay plan changed."
"Stop bitching about it. That changes nothing."
"I'm not bitching about it. I'm bitching to you and Caitlin."
"Well that's fine. Just don't bitch to anyone else."
"Is it really that much worse?" I ask.
"No. In some ways it's better," Paul tells me.
"Are you happy with it?"
"No, I'm not happy! I work weekends and holidays - I never get to see my family. I'm going to be 65 this year, it's too late for me to do anything about it. I'm stuck. For years I wanted to be something here, and it never happened. You" (he's referring to Doug) "have your whole life ahead of you. You can do whatever you want."
"I know that," Doug says.
"If they paid us for hourly on top of commission, I'd be fine," Paul explains. "I'm going to ask for that."
Paul is one of the nicest guys in the dealership. He works hard and is consistently one of the top salesmen. He's the easiest person in the department to work with - he gives great advice, he remains calm, and he genuinely loves the product he sells. His excitement is infectious, and his customers across the board love him.
He could have been a great manager. And before he said anything tonight, I just assumed he wasn't interested. Well, of course he was - he was just never given the opportunity.
Not to mention - Doug has his whole life ahead of him? He's 34. They're right, though. 34 - you have your whole life ahead of you.
I know I can't worry about it, or I'll always be worrying about shit like this. All that's left for me is to do the best I can and be nice to everyone else.
I just wish everyone was happy and nobody ever died or got old and high fives were a form of currency.
I'd be so rich.
Friday, April 19, 2013
We can't hang out anymore
Dear That Guy Who Broke Up With Me (Even Though We Were Never Official) But Still Totally Wants To Be Friends,
Listen, I totally want to be friends. You're super cool, and you're easy to hang out with, and we still get along really well. You say you can't hook up with someone when you know you're going to leave and that's why we ended it, when I remember you telling me it was because you didn't have time to date ANYONE, you weren't in that place right now, you needed to focus on your studies. But maybe your words came out one way and you meant something else, or maybe I heard what I wanted to hear and twisted it all in my paranoid little brain. It doesn't matter - as far as I'm concerned, both ways of looking at are true - that you didn't have time for me, for anyone, and that you weren't able to deal, emotionally, with hooking up with someone with whom you couldn't have long term plans.
And honestly, I was fine with you not having time for me. Well, okay, not fine with it, but I got it. That's a valid reason to break up. Any reason to break up is a valid reason to break up - if it's not working, it's not working, and I'd rather you broke it off then continued to hook up with me when you weren't really into it. Especially when we were only three months in.
Look. This wasn't even that serious. We never became official. Neither of us wanted to have that conversation. I almost brought it up a couple times, but I knew we were just not long term material. I never thought about our wedding day. I never thought about our children. I just really, really fucking liked you, liked spending time with you, liked hooking up with you, and I wanted to enjoy that until you left.
I get obsessive, and I know that. I wanted to hang out all the time. I get excited. Everything made me think of you - posters of Tom Cruise, Drumsticks at the grocery store, people driving Jeeps. I was thinking about you all the time. Outside of work, I neglected almost everything else. I wanted you to meet my friends. I wanted you to meet my family. I wanted you to be a part of my life. Sure, it would suck when you left, but why did that mean we couldn't enjoy what we had in the mean time?
But we couldn't hang out all the time. I had stopped writing. I stopped keeping my apartment neat (still working on getting back into that). I didn't take care of basic errands. I stopped going out with friends (but also, I didn't have much money, so that wasn't all because of my feelings for you).
You, though. You were more responsible, and that's great. You took the time to take care of your studies, to do things outside of work and us. And I was more excited about... whatever the fuck it was we were doing.
There were times I wanted you to be there for me but didn't get around to asking. One night in January - when I was doing very poorly at work - I was alone in my apartment, with the gas shut off because my old roommate and I never got around to turning it on (I blame him because the bills were his job, but I also know that's not totally fair), and my oven was making a buzzing sound that wouldn't go away no matter what I did, and I felt so helpless, like I was so terrible at this adult thing, and I thought maybe if you sat next to me it would make everything better, but I knew you were busy with your roommate that night and so I never asked. And that was fine - I got the gas turned back on, I got the buzzing to stop, I got back on track at work, and everything fell into place.
It didn't matter you weren't there for me, because I never asked, and I didn't need it, and you were busy with previous plans anyway.
We would stay in and watch TV and movies and youtube videos together. Sometimes we'd venture out to eat at a cheap restaurant for pancakes or burgers. And that was all fine - I didn't want to do much more. You were right to break us up though - that can't be all we do, outside of work.
But the one time I did need you to be there for me, you failed. You were very clear that you couldn't be bothered - that you needed to study for a test three months away, that this was a big burden for you, that my problems were not that a big of a deal, that you could be - should be - studying right now instead of sitting here with me. After you had decided you were done, you made your way to the door, and I sat on the couch with my head in my hands, trying to make myself into a ball and maybe disappear.
And you said, "I'm glad you're feeling better," even though a six-year-old with Asperger's could see I was, if anything, feeling worse.
And the next day I called you out, said that wasn't okay, said you needed to do better, that any friend of mine would have done so much more, but that this time I wanted it to be you who was there for me, and you didn't do it.
You said you couldn't do this anymore.
Well, if being there for me was what it took to break us up, then I say you're right - we couldn't do this anymore. And I do still want to be friends, just like you proclaim to want as well.
We've hung out a few times since then, and two of the three times I felt so upset afterwards. (The third time I was tired and went straight to bed, so I didn't feel much of anything outside of fatigue.) And I ask myself why I spend so much energy chasing after someone's friendship when he, quite frankly, doesn't seem to care.
I know you care. I know you do. I know you want to be friends. I know you enjoy hanging out with me, because it's easy, because conversation has never been a problem, because if we don't feel like talking, then we don't talk, and that's awesome. But holy shit do you suck at friendship. At any form of relationship.
I know the issues I have with you are because you just don't think things through. And I know you don't mean anything by your carelessness - I do. But I'm so fucking tired of reminding myself "he just doesn't think about things like that, he's just bad at that sort of thing, he doesn't mean it that way, you're reading too much into it."
If I feel bad after we hang out, I feel bad after we hang out. I'm done making excuses, and I'm done trying to be friends. I know eventually you'll text me to see a movie - you have so few friends here, you'll come around to asking to see a movie with me at some point or another - but I'm done worrying about whether or not we hang out.
You hurt me. And you've made no effort to make me feel like you're, well, making any sort of effort. I feel weak, I feel stupid, I feel silly, I feel like a girl who's just not getting the fucking hint. And I know you don't want me to feel that way - I know you don't mean for any of this. You want me to be happy, you want me to succeed, you want us to be friends - you want all of that.
But holy shit do you suck at friendship.
You'll torrent shows for me if I ask, and that's great. You agreed to drive me to the airport when I asked (and then eventually I changed my mind, realized what a terrible fucking idea that was), and I appreciate that. You're good at doing things that are asked of you, provided I give you a few days heads up.
But holy shit. You suck at friendship.
You could be so much better at people. You have so much potential to be a good person - you're reflective, and introspective, and constantly bettering yourself in the ways you think matter most.
It's the effort you put in, you know. And I know you're an introvert, and all that bullshit. But I get anxious in social situations too. I hate meeting people for the first time. I used to suck at all forms of social interaction. I just decided that it was something I wanted to be good at - that being a good friend was important to me - and I fixed that part of myself because I worked on it.
You don't make me a priority, as a friend or as a whatever. I hate that I'm still attracted to you. I hate that I want you in my life, that I want us to be friends as badly as I want it. Because you? You don't care. And me? I have people in my life who do care, and I really should be focusing on them.
I want to be friends. I do. But I just don't think we can be.
And I really fucking hate that.
With love,
An Ex-Doormat/Hook-up Buddy/Friend
Listen, I totally want to be friends. You're super cool, and you're easy to hang out with, and we still get along really well. You say you can't hook up with someone when you know you're going to leave and that's why we ended it, when I remember you telling me it was because you didn't have time to date ANYONE, you weren't in that place right now, you needed to focus on your studies. But maybe your words came out one way and you meant something else, or maybe I heard what I wanted to hear and twisted it all in my paranoid little brain. It doesn't matter - as far as I'm concerned, both ways of looking at are true - that you didn't have time for me, for anyone, and that you weren't able to deal, emotionally, with hooking up with someone with whom you couldn't have long term plans.
And honestly, I was fine with you not having time for me. Well, okay, not fine with it, but I got it. That's a valid reason to break up. Any reason to break up is a valid reason to break up - if it's not working, it's not working, and I'd rather you broke it off then continued to hook up with me when you weren't really into it. Especially when we were only three months in.
Look. This wasn't even that serious. We never became official. Neither of us wanted to have that conversation. I almost brought it up a couple times, but I knew we were just not long term material. I never thought about our wedding day. I never thought about our children. I just really, really fucking liked you, liked spending time with you, liked hooking up with you, and I wanted to enjoy that until you left.
I get obsessive, and I know that. I wanted to hang out all the time. I get excited. Everything made me think of you - posters of Tom Cruise, Drumsticks at the grocery store, people driving Jeeps. I was thinking about you all the time. Outside of work, I neglected almost everything else. I wanted you to meet my friends. I wanted you to meet my family. I wanted you to be a part of my life. Sure, it would suck when you left, but why did that mean we couldn't enjoy what we had in the mean time?
But we couldn't hang out all the time. I had stopped writing. I stopped keeping my apartment neat (still working on getting back into that). I didn't take care of basic errands. I stopped going out with friends (but also, I didn't have much money, so that wasn't all because of my feelings for you).
You, though. You were more responsible, and that's great. You took the time to take care of your studies, to do things outside of work and us. And I was more excited about... whatever the fuck it was we were doing.
There were times I wanted you to be there for me but didn't get around to asking. One night in January - when I was doing very poorly at work - I was alone in my apartment, with the gas shut off because my old roommate and I never got around to turning it on (I blame him because the bills were his job, but I also know that's not totally fair), and my oven was making a buzzing sound that wouldn't go away no matter what I did, and I felt so helpless, like I was so terrible at this adult thing, and I thought maybe if you sat next to me it would make everything better, but I knew you were busy with your roommate that night and so I never asked. And that was fine - I got the gas turned back on, I got the buzzing to stop, I got back on track at work, and everything fell into place.
It didn't matter you weren't there for me, because I never asked, and I didn't need it, and you were busy with previous plans anyway.
We would stay in and watch TV and movies and youtube videos together. Sometimes we'd venture out to eat at a cheap restaurant for pancakes or burgers. And that was all fine - I didn't want to do much more. You were right to break us up though - that can't be all we do, outside of work.
But the one time I did need you to be there for me, you failed. You were very clear that you couldn't be bothered - that you needed to study for a test three months away, that this was a big burden for you, that my problems were not that a big of a deal, that you could be - should be - studying right now instead of sitting here with me. After you had decided you were done, you made your way to the door, and I sat on the couch with my head in my hands, trying to make myself into a ball and maybe disappear.
And you said, "I'm glad you're feeling better," even though a six-year-old with Asperger's could see I was, if anything, feeling worse.
And the next day I called you out, said that wasn't okay, said you needed to do better, that any friend of mine would have done so much more, but that this time I wanted it to be you who was there for me, and you didn't do it.
You said you couldn't do this anymore.
Well, if being there for me was what it took to break us up, then I say you're right - we couldn't do this anymore. And I do still want to be friends, just like you proclaim to want as well.
We've hung out a few times since then, and two of the three times I felt so upset afterwards. (The third time I was tired and went straight to bed, so I didn't feel much of anything outside of fatigue.) And I ask myself why I spend so much energy chasing after someone's friendship when he, quite frankly, doesn't seem to care.
I know you care. I know you do. I know you want to be friends. I know you enjoy hanging out with me, because it's easy, because conversation has never been a problem, because if we don't feel like talking, then we don't talk, and that's awesome. But holy shit do you suck at friendship. At any form of relationship.
I know the issues I have with you are because you just don't think things through. And I know you don't mean anything by your carelessness - I do. But I'm so fucking tired of reminding myself "he just doesn't think about things like that, he's just bad at that sort of thing, he doesn't mean it that way, you're reading too much into it."
If I feel bad after we hang out, I feel bad after we hang out. I'm done making excuses, and I'm done trying to be friends. I know eventually you'll text me to see a movie - you have so few friends here, you'll come around to asking to see a movie with me at some point or another - but I'm done worrying about whether or not we hang out.
You hurt me. And you've made no effort to make me feel like you're, well, making any sort of effort. I feel weak, I feel stupid, I feel silly, I feel like a girl who's just not getting the fucking hint. And I know you don't want me to feel that way - I know you don't mean for any of this. You want me to be happy, you want me to succeed, you want us to be friends - you want all of that.
But holy shit do you suck at friendship.
You'll torrent shows for me if I ask, and that's great. You agreed to drive me to the airport when I asked (and then eventually I changed my mind, realized what a terrible fucking idea that was), and I appreciate that. You're good at doing things that are asked of you, provided I give you a few days heads up.
But holy shit. You suck at friendship.
You could be so much better at people. You have so much potential to be a good person - you're reflective, and introspective, and constantly bettering yourself in the ways you think matter most.
It's the effort you put in, you know. And I know you're an introvert, and all that bullshit. But I get anxious in social situations too. I hate meeting people for the first time. I used to suck at all forms of social interaction. I just decided that it was something I wanted to be good at - that being a good friend was important to me - and I fixed that part of myself because I worked on it.
You don't make me a priority, as a friend or as a whatever. I hate that I'm still attracted to you. I hate that I want you in my life, that I want us to be friends as badly as I want it. Because you? You don't care. And me? I have people in my life who do care, and I really should be focusing on them.
I want to be friends. I do. But I just don't think we can be.
And I really fucking hate that.
With love,
An Ex-Doormat/Hook-up Buddy/Friend
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The Internet and the American Third Party
The three Republican-Democrat Presidential debates and the one Vice Presidential debate were covered incessantly. Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central (yes, for the sake of the argument, I'm including it), CBS, MSNBC, whatever - we heard every possible, stupid angle on every possible response.
Factcheck.org pointed out that both sides told lies, or at least untruths. Each news source praised the side they lean toward while lambasting the other. If their preferred candidate did worse, there were other factors at fault - the moderator, the altitude, the questions asked.
Neither of these candidates represent me, and I often find myself surprised at people who allow either candidate to represent them either.
This isn't to say either candidate is bad (although that is my opinion, I respect that others may disagree). It's to say that people who are self-professed liberals will blindly follow President Obama, and people who are self-professed conservatives will blindly follow Mitt Romney. A voter will decide that the other candidate is so hateful and so awful that she forgives faults in the candidate she decides is the lesser of two evils, even if these faults are beliefs or practices that go against everything she stand for.
Obama supporters will focus on Big Bird and ignore the drone attacks. Romney supporters will focus on a confused definition of socialism (seriously, shouldn't you have to define socialism before you use it on national television?) and ignore the seriousness of rape.
During his recap of the third debate, Jon Stewart praised Obama's performance and pointed that Romney would do everything Obama is doing concerning foreign policy. At no point did he mention that Obama's foreign policy often did, in fact, mirror Bush's - a foreign policy he used to tear to shreds. But Stewart is liberal and therefore supports Obama, because the only imagined alternative is too loathsome to imagine.
How, in an age of information overload, in an age where we can barely keep track of how many choices to share ideas we have, do we still only allow ourselves the option of either Democrat or Republican? And how, in the age of the internet, do most of our news sources ignore everything that isn't a part of the two major parties?
Here's where some asshole brings up money and corporations, like I'm some naive child that needs a pat on the head. But sometimes doing the right thing IS the right political move. Barack Obama finally endorsed same-sex marriage, for example. So for us to further democracy (and therefore continue to ensure a thriving middle-class, considering a democracy is the form of government most well-suited to the middle class), we need to make sure we have options, to make sure we can vote for someone we actually believe in.
I know the candidate I'm endorsing has ideas that may be impractical, but she is 100% opposed to drone attacks while also being 100% opposed to transvaginal ultrasounds. She's against drilling for oil (which apparently both Romney and Obama support), and she has a different idea of how to approach education.
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate. I'm trying to say that there are other options. In an era where we have countless ways to communicate and share ideas, it's mind-boggling that, in the political sphere, we limit ourselves to two schools of thought.
It won't always be this way. It can't. The internet has transformed the way we socialize (Facebook, online dating, Instagram), transformed the way we receive our news (Newsweek is almost out of print), and transformed the way we watch movies (Netflix) and read books (Kindle). There hasn't been an information revolution this drastic since Gutenberg invented the printing press. It is only a matter of time that, with more access to more information than ever before, we widen our options.
The internet will save us all, if we let it. I guess I have to be patient, as difficult as that is. Long live democracy. But only if we, as a society, embrace the change the internet has made possible.
Factcheck.org pointed out that both sides told lies, or at least untruths. Each news source praised the side they lean toward while lambasting the other. If their preferred candidate did worse, there were other factors at fault - the moderator, the altitude, the questions asked.
Neither of these candidates represent me, and I often find myself surprised at people who allow either candidate to represent them either.
This isn't to say either candidate is bad (although that is my opinion, I respect that others may disagree). It's to say that people who are self-professed liberals will blindly follow President Obama, and people who are self-professed conservatives will blindly follow Mitt Romney. A voter will decide that the other candidate is so hateful and so awful that she forgives faults in the candidate she decides is the lesser of two evils, even if these faults are beliefs or practices that go against everything she stand for.
Obama supporters will focus on Big Bird and ignore the drone attacks. Romney supporters will focus on a confused definition of socialism (seriously, shouldn't you have to define socialism before you use it on national television?) and ignore the seriousness of rape.
During his recap of the third debate, Jon Stewart praised Obama's performance and pointed that Romney would do everything Obama is doing concerning foreign policy. At no point did he mention that Obama's foreign policy often did, in fact, mirror Bush's - a foreign policy he used to tear to shreds. But Stewart is liberal and therefore supports Obama, because the only imagined alternative is too loathsome to imagine.
How, in an age of information overload, in an age where we can barely keep track of how many choices to share ideas we have, do we still only allow ourselves the option of either Democrat or Republican? And how, in the age of the internet, do most of our news sources ignore everything that isn't a part of the two major parties?
Here's where some asshole brings up money and corporations, like I'm some naive child that needs a pat on the head. But sometimes doing the right thing IS the right political move. Barack Obama finally endorsed same-sex marriage, for example. So for us to further democracy (and therefore continue to ensure a thriving middle-class, considering a democracy is the form of government most well-suited to the middle class), we need to make sure we have options, to make sure we can vote for someone we actually believe in.
I know the candidate I'm endorsing has ideas that may be impractical, but she is 100% opposed to drone attacks while also being 100% opposed to transvaginal ultrasounds. She's against drilling for oil (which apparently both Romney and Obama support), and she has a different idea of how to approach education.
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate. I'm trying to say that there are other options. In an era where we have countless ways to communicate and share ideas, it's mind-boggling that, in the political sphere, we limit ourselves to two schools of thought.
It won't always be this way. It can't. The internet has transformed the way we socialize (Facebook, online dating, Instagram), transformed the way we receive our news (Newsweek is almost out of print), and transformed the way we watch movies (Netflix) and read books (Kindle). There hasn't been an information revolution this drastic since Gutenberg invented the printing press. It is only a matter of time that, with more access to more information than ever before, we widen our options.
The internet will save us all, if we let it. I guess I have to be patient, as difficult as that is. Long live democracy. But only if we, as a society, embrace the change the internet has made possible.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Post Birthday Thoughtzz
Two days ago I turned twenty-three.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
Monday, October 1, 2012
In Defense of Saturday Night Live
For a month of summer when I was 12, I watched nothing but reruns of old Saturday Night Live episodes. I learned two things. Saturday Night Live makes me laugh. And Steve Martin is a god.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
This sketch was funny the first time. You forget it wasn't funny after that because your childhood memories are warped.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)