wildyams

I often wonder if I'm more nostalgic than most people. I frequently find myself looking backwards at the way things used to be, and remembering them fondly. I suppose everyone does this (I would assume everyone does, anyway), but I wonder if I do it more than most. I can remember the first time I felt nostalgic, too. I must have been maybe 12 years old, it was the end of the summer. I was over at my friend Browder Morrisey's house, and we watched "Terminator" for my first time. The movie didn't make me nostalgic at all, I just have a vivid memory of that day, and I remember that's what we did. I remember looking back on the summer that was almost finished, and already missing it. I had swam all summer at ATCC and our team had won our league finals maybe a couple weeks earlier. Every year there was about a month, to a month and a half after that was over before we had our awards ceremony and team dance. This time was in between those two periods, and I was looking back fondly on how much fun the summer had been, thinking about the friends I'd been around every day, doing what kids do. Thinking about a girl on the team that I had a crush on (not that I would have ever admitted it to anyone). Just thinking about what seemed like better times. They still seem that way.

Towards the end of my Junior year of high school, I had a great time. All of my friends were Seniors, so I almost felt like a de facto Senior myself. I got all excited for the oncoming summer, hung out with my friends who had no cares at all for schoolwork, went to a big party that Dave threw (that we all still talk about to this day, over a decade later), and even went to their grad-night celebration with them. I had a great summer with all those guys, then in the fall, they all went off to college. Me, I went back to high school, of course. I had another year to go. But I remember walking onto the campus that first day of school feeling decidedly different than how I envision most Seniors feel on their first day at school. I'm sure most of them feel like "its my turn to be king of the school" or something. But me, I simply felt like "what am I still doing here?" That first semester of my Senior year was without a doubt the most emotionally difficult semester I had my whole high school life; but my second semester was arguably my most favorite, and both of those semesters went a long way to changing the course of my outlook on things.

Driving onto the lot at work yesterday, I had a strong sense of deja vu: I felt almost EXACTLY like I did that first day of my Senior year. With John gone, and after all the goodbyes and parties and celebrations and whatnot the last couple weeks, it almost made me feel like I was saying goodbye, not John and Kate, much in the same way I felt like I was graduating as a Junior just by going through everything my Senior friends did. Going back to work after all that, it felt like I'd finished a book, and somehow kept on reading it. See, the work is the same, the workplace is the same, and yet somehow everything has changed. We've been so busy the last two days its been hard to tell for sure, but its just like the social dynamic has changed, and I can't help but wonder what life will be like at work from this moment forward. Everyone else is still there, and in some ways I think the work will actually maybe even run a bit smoother once we all get used to the changes; and yet there is definitely something missing. John and Kate, I miss you guys already and you haven't even left the state yet. I have the utmost admiration and respect for you guys for having the courage to leave what you had with your solid careers here because even though it was steady and known, it wasn't really what you wanted. I'm envious of that kind of courage, believe me.

In the end though, they're gone, and I still have to go to work in the morning. That chapter of my life and life at work has ended, but a new one has begun, even if I'm not sure I'm ready to start on it yet. What I've found about nostalgia, with as much of it as I've partaken in over the years, is that its easy to look back on the good times behind you and enjoy them, but that enjoyment is somewhat hollow. Its much more fulfilling to focus on what's going on now and enjoy the time and the people and the things you're experiencing as they happen, and I strive every day to try to live in that moment. Because the truth is, one day, probably sooner than I think, I'll look back on all this with nostalgia.

Man, thank god this is a short week, I don't think I could keep this up for a full five days. Monday I was at work from 9 am till 11:15 pm. Tuesday I was at work from 8:30 am till 7:45 pm. Today I was at work from 8:30 am till 8:15 pm. Tomorrow's only a half day, and I think a bunch of us are gonna go see "T3" after work. We figure either it will be surprisingly good and we'll enjoy it, or we'll get to laugh at another big, dumb Ah-nold movie

Anyway, I'm beat, and I don't have a whole lot to say. I'm watching this rather interesting documentary called "My Generation" which compares and contrasts all three Woodstock festivals. Its pretty depressing, actually, just watching yet another example of the corporatization of everything, and just the depravity of people. I definitely don't want to be preachy, or feel superior or anything like that, but its hard to watch stuff like this (which is no doubt slanted as all hell) and not just feel ashamed. Anyway, kind of a bummer to end on, but I'm wiped, so I'm gonna go to bed.

So I just saw "T3" with a couple of the guys from work (and Paola, who of course is not a guy). While it was not on the same level as the first two (both of which I consider to be two of the truly few great action movies of all time), it was still quite good. It didn't take itself too seriously for the most part, which definitely worked in its favor. Arnold was alternately funny (usually not on purpose), and also somewhat good at times (he has that "playing a robot" thing down). I won't get into spoilers at all, but it ends in something of a cliffhanger, and I would virtually guarantee there will be a 4th movie. I would really look forward to a 4th movie, provided it continues in the franchise tradition of being a big-budget action film, and not some half-ass knockoff attempt to just cash in while there is still blood to squeeze from this particular stone. I gotta say though, Arnold shouldn't be in any more of these movies, and the whole "one person to protect someone and one person to hunt them down" theme needs to die already. Make the next movie just about the war between man and machine already and quit worrying about fate and destiny stuff and changing the course of the future. Just let the war happen and show us what goes on. Really, that's all they can do at this point anyway. Well, I'm off work till Monday and I'm gonna enjoy it. I'm gonna go relax now

So back to work today, and it wasn't too bad. This week is already shaping up to be a lot better than last week was in terms of how nuts it looks like its gonna be. I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night, and am pretty beat, but I wanted to post a couple pics I took in the last 2 weeks or so that I thought were kinda funny. Enjoy

I know its the offseason, but there's been some interesting Laker developments that I feel I should say something about. First off, Kobe Bryant was arrested last weekend on a sexual assault charge in Colorado. After he was accused by a 19 year old woman, the Sherriffs there decided there was enough evidence to have a warrant issued, so Kobe turned himself in, got booked, then posted $25,000 bail and went back home to LA. Yesterday, the DA said he was not yet convinced if there was enough evidence to pursue anything against Kobe, and that he would make a decision on whether anything does in fact happen as a result of this. Kobe, in the meantime, maintains he is innocent. My take on all this is that obviously I have no way of knowing whether Kobe did this or even if he's the kind of person who would do this. All I know is he's a good basketball player, but never being around him personally I have no idea what he's capable of. I hope for his sake, and for the sake of the Lakers and the families involved that the allegations aren't true, but you never know. If he is guilty of doing this, then he should be punished same as anyone else, even though that hurts my team. Most likely, however, even if he is guilty, he'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist just like every other NBA player who gets in trouble. Its most likely a case of either a big NBA superstar thinking he should get whatever he wants, even if he has to use force to do it; or its a case of a woman who is an opportunist who sees a potential for a big payday by going after Kobe and his deep pockets. Personally, if the DA does pursue this and the woman accepts a lot of cash in a settlement and that's the end of it, then I'll feel that she was lying and just wanted the cash, because someone who attacks you probably wouldn't be able to buy you off afterwards (it just makes her story less credible in my eyes). But if she's not after money, and just feels she was wronged by Kobe, then that will make me think he probably did it. I have no special allegiance to any NBA players, because I think in the end they're more than likely millionaire crybaby egomaniacs, even if they play for the Lakers. I don't believe the media about most things, and I know that someone like Kobe no doubt has his team of image consultants who try to make everyone believe what a great guy he is, but until I know someone personally I'm not going to take for granted that they are the way their commercials make them out to be. Just seems like common sense, you know?

In other big news for the Lakers lately, reportedly Karl Malone, the second leading scorer in NBA history, and a 14 time All Star (or something like that) has told the Lakers that he will play for them next year for the MINIMUM amount they are allowed to offer. However, there is a catch: he will only do this if the Lakers are able to somehow lure Gary Payton (also something like a 10-time All Star, and former Defensive Player of the Year winner) to also play for the Lakers. This is an almost unprecedented move in the history of NBA free agents. Gary Payton's agent has said that the Lakers are his first choice, and that he is 100% sure he will play for either the Lakers, Portland Trailblazers or Miami Heat next season. Payton is expected to make an announcement about this some time this week. If the Lakers do get Gary Payton, it will most likely be as a free agent, since they have little to trade for him. The Trailblazers are reportedly trying to work a trade deal for Gary Payton, but having looked at the situation myself with the salaries and whatnot, I think that is not very likely (its fairly complicated, so I'm not gonna get into it here). Miami has the ability to offer Payton more than twice what the Lakers have to get him, but from what I've read, Payton is not Miami's first choice, and do not want to give him as much as he is asking. Plus, Miami is a pretty bad team, and if Payton wants to win, he probably will not do it there. I'm almost scared to even think about the possibility of the Lakers signing both Payton and Malone, because it would arguably make the Lakers the most talented team in NBA history (maybe even by an absurd amount). They would have 4 players in the starting lineup who are all shoo-in Hall of Fame players, all of which are superb on both ends of the floor, and who are really excellent all around players. On top of that, all 4 play different positions: Shaq (center), Malone (power forward), Kobe (shooting guard), Payton (point guard).

In addition, the Lakers did not pick up Robert Horry's contract, meaning he is a free agent. The Lakers supposedly still want to sign him for next year, just for about half as much as he would have made if they'd picked up his contract option. This has not pleased Robert Horry, who thinks he is as good as some other power forwards the Lakers were supposedly going after for more money, however, he said that he would understand them going after Malone and recognizes that Malone is a much better player, and would have no problem playing behind him. So, if it all works out, the Lakers will be returning essentially the same team they had last year (minus a couple guys at the end of the bench), and will have two other Hall of Fame players in their starting lineup. I gotta say though, my opinion concerning free agents in the NBA is that they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go to the highest bidder. This right away eliminates the Lakers from going after Payton OR Malone, because of the salary cap structure in basketball. So I am not assuming anything. If it happens, then that will be fantastic. But I've been burned too many times as a fan while expecting free agents to take less for a shot at a title on the Lakers, I'm not going to fall for it again and have my heart broken all over. So my belief will be that somehow none of it happens, that way I won't be disappointed. But of course, I'll be ecstatic if I'm wrong

Just FYI, wanted to post a couple things to back up what I just posted below. This is from the LA Times last Friday:

"Malone, it appears, has made the Lakers the perfect offer: his services for as low as the veteran's minimum exception ($1.5 million for the first year), or whatever rate they agree would be necessary to top off their roster with Payton."

Ok, then add to that what was just posted on ESPN.com minutes ago:

"Aaron Goodwin, the agent for Gary Payton, told ESPN's David Aldridge Tuesday afternoon that Payton has chosen to sign a free-agent contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, despite L.A.'s financial limitations."

Ok, now while I said that I was expecting the deals to not happen, it is important to note that neither Malone nor Payton can be signed till July 16th, the first day that free agents are allowed to sign. Apparently Payton has a handshake agreement at this point, and its assumed that Malone will follow suit, probably tomorrow. But handshake agreements are not binding, and it won't be done till their names are on the dotted lines. So the next week may be a little tense, but this does in fact appear that the impossible is going to happen, and the Lakers will have 4 Hall of Fame players starting for them next year. Most amazingly, unlike the Yankees in baseball, the Lakers have not acquired this talent by simply outbidding everyone else, as the Lakers will not be one of the most expensive teams in the league next year. Lets just say that Spurs fans and Kings fans will be crying themselves to sleep tonight.

I've been around a long time. As I look out at all of you graduating today, I think back to my graduations. All the kids in my graduating class from elementary school are dead.

All the people in my junior high school graduation are dead.

All the people in my high school graduation are dead.

The people I graduated from college with are all mostly dead.

Are you all feeling okay?

You will soon be the Hollywood of tomorrow, and I'm here to give you a little taste of the past. And my sense of the future you face.

Hollywood was once a small company town, where everybody knew everybody, and if you dropped your pants at a party or punched a reporter or danced with a prostitute in the parking lot, it wasn't on Entertainment Tonight-tonight. It was even hard to get arrested. Every studio had a publicity department which paid the Los Angeles cops to stay away from show business people. The police didn't arrest movie people. They drove them home.

We all went down to the film factories every day-at Warner Brothers even actors, directors and writers punched a time clock until the mid forties. We ate in the studio commissary, where the writers' table was preferred seating because the jokes were better there. If the New York writers were in town, slumming, sneering at the movies and cashing big fat paychecks you found yourself sitting next to Dorothy Parker or F. Scott Fitzgerald. You could wander off to a sound stage and watch John Huston or Willy Wyler shooting a scene with Bogart or Hepburn or Peck. No security. We all knew each other.

It was up close, and personal.

In the thirties screenwriters formed a union. Their first and only demand was that producers give writing credit only to writers who actually worked on the film. They were denounced on the floor of Congress. Variety said they were Communists. Darryl Zanuck, the head of Twentieth-Century Fox, dictated a letter for all of his contract writers to sign. It was on their desks when they arrived for work; a letter of resignation from the new Guild. With it was a note from Zanuck ordering them to join a union Twentieth -Century Fox was forming especially for them. If anybody refused they were fired.

Philip Dunne, an ex-New Yorker writer, and one of Fox's major talents, went to Zanuck and told him nobody was quitting the Guild. Furthermore, he pointed out that if Zanuck fired all the writers who were Guild members, he would be firing the front line of his championship polo team.

It was the start of the Writers' Guild.

Up Close and personal. We knew the boss. And we certainly knew who was boss.

Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia, was a legendary bully, who admired Mussolini and had his office designed to resemble Mussolini's-with a long approach into blinding lights, and himself behind a desk, raised a foot above the floor, ranks of Oscars his studio had won behind him.

He said he made only pictures that he wanted to see, and once the public stopped wanting to see what he liked, he'd quit. Not for him delegating decisions to demographers, pollsters and marketing experts. Nobody knew what a demographer was in those days.

In the sixties, when the old glove salesmen and carnival touts who built the studios began to grow old and retire to play golf or try to gamble away their fortunes, their grip on the business loosened. For a while independent producers flourished. New companies, new writers and directors burst the bonds of studio imposed style and discarded the habits of the stage.

In this fluid and diversified atmosphere there was freedom and creativity, and a minimum of bureaucratic control. The sixties and the seventies produced movies now looked upon as a Golden Age, The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dr. Strangelove, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, Clockwork Orange, Annie Hall, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Midnight Cowboy, Mash, All the Presidents' Men, Network, Bonnie &Clyde, and a couple I like, Dog Day Afternoon and Cool Hand Luke. Even Easy Rider a wild card that symbolized the anarchistic spirit of that drug ridden time was a Columbia Studio release.

Then, on Wall Street, it began to be noticed that a single blockbuster movie could make in a weekend what a substantial business made in a year.

Warner Brothers was bought by Seven Arts, Seven Arts was bought by Kinney Services, which consisted of a chain of mortuaries and liveries, and the whole mess now is owned by America Online/Time/Warner along with HBO, Warner Books, Turner networks and CNN. Viacom owns Paramount, CBS, Showtime Cable and the Blockbuster chain of video stores. Of the 100-odd primetime shows that will premiere on the four networks this fall and winter, more than 30-including CBS newsmagazines-will be made by one or another company owned by Viacom. Another 25 or so will be made by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, which owns Fox network. That is almost fifty percent of the new shows controlled by two companies, one owned by a man notorious for his micro management, narrow right-wing political philosophy, and his willingness to use his ideological power.

We had been having too much fun to notice -the barbarians were inside the gate. The polo games, the writers' table, Jack Warner's lunch time tennis matches with Errol Flynn, the cops as our friends, all were a thing of the past. We began to see Harvard Business School MBAs sit in on story conferences.

Lawyers multiplied.

As the huge debt created by mergers was added to the rising costs of making little but blockbusters, the risks of making a film forced the businessmen to be risk averse, to play to the least critical audience:

Teen-age boys with disposable income.

The problem is how to keep this "average" moviegoer, male, 16 to 25, high school education at best, doesn't read books, gets his news from the eleven o'clock news if he bothers at all, never heard of Mussolini and thinks Korea is another part of downtown LA-this couch potato, this pimply undereducated oversexed slob with the attention span of a chicken-how do we keep him awake and interested, while staying awake and interested ourselves.

We have to remind ourselves that this viewer is only another aspect of ourselves, that we have also in us-as he does-a better part, that needs to be cultivated and to express itself. There is no single audience with a single personality. There is the larger audience-currently under-served-that has vast variety of appetites that we can, we must, satisfy.

We do manage every year to make a few films that satisfy both the lower appetite for thrills and excitement and at the same time provide the deeper satisfactions of art and truth for the viewers who are equipped to experience it.

To reach and touch the angel in the beast.

Everything else is just working for wages.

In justice there are great things that have been achieved by these companies-in 1960 to see a black, a Latino on the stage floor except as an occasional supporting actor would have been unthinkable. Now the mid level of the corporate bureaucracy and the working place are far freer and inclusive.

What has happened in Hollywood has happened to us all, because the focus of international business has shifted from production to distribution. And further-whoever controls distributions shapes what is produced-to what will fit under the seat or in the overhead compartment.

Agribusinesses have Kamikaze researchers trying to produce cube shaped tomatoes easier to pack in boxes (and that will taste like the boxes if past experience teaches us anything) And of course we already have milk that all goes sour the same day. Watch the odd, the old, the personal, the traditional, the idiosyncratic, the family made or the regional disappear from supermarket shelves that are rented by the foot to international companies that then stock them with their own water and sugar products.

Our defense is the farmers' market, the yard sale, the auctions. We had hopes for the Internet, but that's being turned into a marketing tool. In the field of entertainment and the arts our last defense may be Tivo and the remote control.

Liberal critics have raised the alarm over corporate censorship, the exclusion from theaters and TV of anything except what seems marketable and the eliminations of anything that might offend somebody anywhere. But the danger of censorship in America is less from business or the religious right or the self righteous left, than to self-censorship by artists themselves, who simply give up. If we can't see a way to get our story told, what is the point of trying? I wonder how many fine, inspiring ideas in every walk of life are strangled in the womb of the imagination because there's no way past the gates of commerce?

This has not happened to us without warning. A rancorous idealist living in London during the Industrial Revolution wrote the following:

"Corporate globalization has left remaining no other connection between man and man than naked self interest, than callous 'cash payment.'. in place of chartered freedoms [it] has set up a single unconscionable freedom called Free Trade. . It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the Priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers.

By the immensely facilitated means of communication, corporate globalization draws even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls.

This constant change, uninterrupted disturbance of all social relations, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the present from all past times."

I've cheated a little. In this "quote," I have substituted the phrase "Corporate Globalization" for the word "Bourgeoisie." The actual quotation is from Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto.

Marx's idea of how to solve the problems he raised we now know to be fatally flawed, establishing as deadly a repressive society as the one it briefly replaced, and as dull and one-size-fits-all as the one globalopoly threatens to smother us with now.

Marx went on to say this: "All that is solid melts into thin air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober sense the real conditions of life and his relations with his kind."

Could any conservative preacher state the case more clearly or with more passion?

You can seize the opportunity to set about meeting Marx's challenge-to do something about it.

You are now our future, and this is the challenge you face. It is a bigger challenge than it seems because you cannot recapture something you never knew. It is your gargantuan task to create this spirit out of thin air, in the face of resistance and lack of interest, in your own style and out of your own imagination. Something new and as yet unknown.

To the studios the art of film and TV is a by product of their main business, a side effect, and like side effects, more likely to be a noxious nuisance than a benefit. I cry out to you to become a noxious nuisance, to make a personal investment of passion. It is a moral responsibility that arises from the role of movies in society.

Movies are more than a commodity. Movies are to our civilization what dreams and ideals are to individual lives: they express the mystery and help define the nature of who we are and what we are becoming.

You must become writers with ideas and passion, who write with force and conviction; you must become directors who have minds enriched by your lives and not a library of stunts and special effects. Be critics centered in you feelings and ideas in the culture and society, not in comparing grosses and applauding computer generated ballets of violence.

Go and make a cinema and TV that express our history and our ideas, and that foster respect for a civilization in real danger of self destruction. Be decision makers with dreams and hopes instead of raw ambition. Tell stories that illuminate our times and our souls. That waken the sleeping angel inside the beast.

We need this from you as we need clean drinking water and roads, green parks and libraries; it is as important as the breath of democratic life. Somehow we need to keep alive in our hearts the vision of community, shared interests and understanding of our neighbors' needs, the sense of connection this fractionated society is losing.

We need to recapture the spirit of Main Street. Up close.

And personal.

That is both your challenge-and your opportunity.

God speed and good luck.

We count on you.

So after the gracious invitation by Koga today, I went to see "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Hmm... Well, I was honestly hoping to just see tons of schmaltz from Connery, and to hear him talking about "the rules of the game" in yet another movie (he does say "let's play the game" at one point), but I guess surprisingly Connery didn't have himself in every scene (he did help produce it), but then again he's in with a group of people who are all basically in their 20's or 30's, and he's this ass-kicking badass who is probably the best marksman ever and who can apparently beat up anyone (even though he's like 70 years old or something). Some aspects of the movie weren't so bad, some of the characters were interesting and even well acted. However, the plot was unfortunately pretty similar to that of "Wild, Wild West" (not a good sign), the characters seemed very loosely based on their literary counterparts, if at all (THAT was Tom Sawyer? In what way?). And its a movie that requires EXTREME suspension of disbelief, but I'm not gonna get hung up about the fact that the Germans are dressed like Nazis, there are race cars, automatic weapons, tracking systems, underwater explosives, tanks, submarines and surface to air missiles in 1899, any more than I'd get bent out of shape about a guy who drinks a liquid and turns into the white Hulk, or a guy who's invisible, or a vampire, or a guy who's invincible or any of that stuff. But suffice it to say, if you're looking for realism, this is not the movie for you. Honestly though, I just suspended disbelief on all that rather than nitpick on it (but it was funny to type it all out like that lol). So was the movie good? No. Was it bad enough to be fun because it was bad? No. But it was kinda good in a guilty pleasure kind of way. However, I can already tell that with repeat viewings it would get old quick. I gotta say this though: I've been reading a lot about how great the effects are, and how realistic Mr. Hyde looked and all that, and I have to say "what?" I thought the CG was pretty poor myself, but maybe that's because I never saw "The Hulk" and so haven't had my standards lowered like everyone else or something (the CG in that movie is notoriously bad from what I hear). I do have to say, there was one part that I found very disturbing. Seeing a guy OD on Dr. Jeckyl's "Hyde potion" or whatever it was, was just... I dunno, it was very disturbing to me. I dunno though, I have a feeling the movie's not gonna do very well this weekend, but I could be wrong. All in all I had very low expectations and it barely measured up to them, if at all, so I can't recommend the movie. But it was worth seeing for free

I think most people feel like if they don't get out and do a lot of stuff on the weekend, like they missed out. Like the weekend is the time to hurry up and do all the stuff during the week that you can't do cause you have work or what have you. Me, I look at the weekend as a time to do as little as possible. I just like to sleep in and have no plans at all. For me it doesn't get much better than that. Occasionally its nice to have some good stuff planned that you can look forward to, but honestly I generally prefer to go into the weekend with a totally clean slate, and then just take the time to figure out what I'm going to do with myself (if anything). I just figure the rest of my week is so planned out already with work every day, that its just nice to have as little to worry about as possible on the weekends.

Click the Pic

Karl Malone is considered by many to be the greatest power forward who has ever played the game. He is a 14 time All Star, 11 First Team All NBA player, 2 time league MVP, 3 time First Team All Defense player, a member of the original "Dream Team" 1992 US Olympic Gold Medal team, and a selection as one of the 50 Greatest Players of all time in NBA history. He is the second leading scorer in NBA history, and expects to break Kareem Abdul-Jabaar's record for most points ever by an NBA player some time in the next two to three years. He is also the all time leader in free throw attempts and free throws made. He will turn 40 in a couple of weeks, but in 18 years of playing time in the NBA, he has never missed more than two games in any season, only missing 10 games total for his career (out of 1,444 possible). Last year he played for about $19 million while averaging over 20 points per game, almost 8 rebounds per game and almost 5 assists per game while also being #11 in the league in steals. This year he is going to play for $1.5 million.

Gary Payton, while not having quite as impressive a resume as Karl Malone, has still put together a rather incredible career. Payton is a 9 time All Star, a 2 time All NBA First Team player (4 time Second Team), 8 time First Team All Defensive player (8 consecutive seasons, second only to Michael Jordan's 9), the 1996 NBA Defensive Player of the Year (the only guard to win the award since Michael Jordan did in 1988), and member of two US Gold Medal Olympic teams (in 1996 and 2000). He will turn 35 in a couple of weeks, but in 13 years of playing time in the NBA has never missed more than 3 games in any season, only missing 7 games total in his career (out of a total of 1034 games). Gary Payton made almost $13 million last year while averaging over 20 points per game, over 8 assists per game (2nd in the NBA) and over 4 rebounds per game, while being #10 for minutes played in the NBA and #13 for steals in the NBA last year. This year Payton will play for $4.9 million.

A couple weeks back I wrote this entry where I expressed concerns about how companies are becoming more efficient at tracking their employees every move, and how if they are expecting us people to have utmost productivity in the same way that machines do, they're just going to be disappointed and frustrated. However, because in our society its all about the bottom line and lowering your expenses or be damned, its just a matter of time before we really are replaced by machines for virtually everything that can turn a profit. I firmly believe this, and know that just based on the values of our society, that this is almost inevitable. Anyway, I came across this memo from eBay which says essentially that eBay employees are forbidden from talking OF ANY KIND while they are at their desks. It says if they need to talk for any reason, they should secure a conference room, and that any talking at their desks will be investigated, and will be cause for disciplinary action.

Its a bizarre world we live in, and it keeps getting weirder. As I stated in my other entry, technology is a double-edged sword and while it may improve certain aspects of our lives, it certainly makes other things worse. Check out this story about a man who was dating a woman, then decided to try to find out if she would cheat on him by trying to hit on her under an assumed identity online. What happened was he was successful in flirting with her online; he was so successful in fact that eventually she dumped him in real life because she had fallen in love with this person online who turned out to be he himself. The man was so upset about this that he killed himself. There are many lessons to be learned from this, and many questions to be asked. Did this man do this to himself? If he hadn't actively tried to make his girlfriend fall in love with himself under a different identity, can you really say she would have found somebody else eventually? In a court of law that would be entrapment and wouldn't stand up. It also makes you wonder why she would be more in love with the same person when she couldn't see him or touch him, as opposed to when he was really there. Then, of course, naturally you have to wonder if this kind of thing would have happened fifty years or a hundred years ago. I don't think so, but maybe that's just me.

"I am innocent of the charges filed today. I did not assault the woman who is accusing me.

"I made the mistake of adultery. I have to answer to my wife and my God for my actions that night and I pray that both will forgive me.

"Nothing that happened June 30 was against the will of the woman who now falsely accuses me.

"These false allegations have hurt my family. I will fight against these allegations with all my strength. My wife is the strongest person I know. She is willing to stand by me despite my mistake. That means everything to me.

"I have so much to live for. And by that I do not mean the contracts, or the money or the fame. I mean my family. I will fight for them.

"I appreciate all those who have supported me. Thank you for believing in me. My family and I are going to need your support and prayers now more than ever."
- Kobe Bryant's statement in response to being charged with felony sexual assault today

I'm watching arguably the most irritating, offensive and stupid movie I've ever seen. Why watch it then, right? Ok, I remember when "40 Days and 40 Nights" was being advertised, we discussed at work how Josh Hartnett appeared like he was ready to go the way of the Swayze by doing this dumb movie. See, Patrick Swayze was trying to be this badass in movies back like 15 years ago, and then he did "Dirty Dancing" and "Ghost" which made him a huge star, but simultaneously alienated his entire male audience by making limp films like those. Josh Hartnett has been playing these "I'm a badass, I'm super cool" guys in movies like "O" and "The Faculty", and then recently he turned up in "Pearl Harbor" (christ what a disaster that was), and now this hideous piece of dung, "40 Days." The premise of "40 Days" is really offensive to me, and probably to most guys. Its about this guy (Hartnett) who decides to go without sex, any kind of physical intimacy, or masturbation for 40 days (and 40 nights).

Now, as I may have stated here before, its my contention that women are actually hornier than guys are. See, women have "the power" when it comes to sex (and I put that in quotes cause its referred to like that in the movie), in that they are the ones who ultimately decide when sex is gonna happen. Guys pursue, women assent. Its because of this "power" that men are the ones who end up coming across as the hornier sex because they have to put forth the effort. Its like if you have two people, one has a whole bunch of food, and the other one does not. After a while the guy with the food will take bites, have a meal, whatever, you know, to keep himself from going hungry. The other guy, however, will start to ask the guy with the food if he can spare some, and the longer he has to go without food, the more aggressive he'll become with his asking. Women are like that guy with the food, and men are the other guy. See, both guys get hungry, but only one ends up LOOKING like he's hungry. Now, what if the guy with the food gave the other guy a little bit here and there, just enough to keep him going, all the while having food himself whenever he wanted. This would condition the starving guy to get by on less food (although he'd still crave it more than the other guy, cause he's going without it to a greater extent), while it would simultaneously condition the guy with the food to expect to be fed. If food was taken away from both of these people, and only doled out in very small portions, who do you think would have a harder time adjusting to it? See, this is men and women in regards to sex. Men WANT sex more (not just because they can't have it as often, but also because its human nature to want what we can't have), but women NEED it more. Men are accustomed to thinking that when sex comes along, its a gift and you should take it. Guys don't expect it to happen, cause they know they have to work to get it, and so they're more appreciative when it happens. Women, on the other hand, expect it to happen, cause they know they can always find someone if they really want to.

Ok, now, because of all of that, this is why it is totally absurd to think that going 40 days without sex for a guy is like this incredibly impossible thing. Many guys HAVE to do this all the time whether they want to or not, and for some it can last a lot longer than 40 days. The only guys who would thing this is an obscenely, insanely difficult task would be guys like Josh Hartnett who probably have women throwing themselves at him all day long. However, for the rest of us "regular guys" we do not have women throwing themselves at us. I would assume this is not new knowledge for most people, but evidently the ad wizards at Big Studio Productions figured most people wouldn't be aware of this, cause they went ahead and made this movie.

So there you go, that's all the reasons to not see this movie (oh yeah, I forgot one: that girl from "A Knight's Tale" was in it, and in that particular movie she turned in one of the worst performances of all time. So add that to the list of reasons to NOT see the movie). Now, why see it, right? Well, first and foremost it was free and I had nothing else to do (it was on cable when I sat down to eat dinner in front of the tube). But also because Mary told me once that she saw it, and loved it so much that she was inspired to try this same thing with her roommate (I don't think either of them made it a week though, I can't remember). So I watched it, and it was horrible, like I figured it would be, and was even more irritating and offensive than I would have predicted. I think I can understand why women might enjoy it though (I mean, aside from painting men as even more sex-crazed then they think we are): cause they're hot for Josh Hartnett. Its the same reason that Swayze rocketed to fame in the aforementioned limp films.

The morale of the story is to avoid Josh Hartnett movies, even if Ben Affleck is not in them.

Click the Pic

Work was busy today. Personally I'd prefer to kinda ease into the work week with a nice calm day, but I don't get to pick these things. Anyway, it was Mario's birthday today, but we were too busy to do a birthday lunch (we had cake though), so we're gonna do that on Friday. We were all asked if we could do overtime tonight, but I already had plans to meet with my Dad, my stepmom, my stepsister, her fiance and my stepmom's friend for dinner. Dinner was fantastic, but afterwards I came home and did a whole lot of nothin. While I was doing nothin, I came across this hilarious webpage which was talking about something that I myself have noticed:

eXtreme aDvertising!!!

Work was maybe a teensy bit easier today, but its still pretty nuts. However, on my major project some other company fucked up the materials they had to deliver to us and will have to re-do that, so it kinda buys me some time at their expense, which is always kinda nice. After work, I went to dinner with Rebecca at Hamburger Hamlet (I had potatoes and onion soup and a big ass piece of cake for dessert). It was nice to see Rebecca again, it had been a couple weeks. She seems like she's doing really well, and got a job at a dog grooming company so that is great news for her. Afterwards we went to Tower cause she wanted to see if they had "They Live" cause she was in the mood to see it. However, Tower was out, so we ended up getting nothing.

Ok, couple interesting tidbits for you:

First, who knew there was like this cult of "Big Lebowski" followers, let alone a Lebowskifest?

Second, was anyone broken up by the fact that Mariah Carey only was met by eight people when she arrived in Tokyo last week? I thought not.

"Do you see me jumpin' around all nimbly pimbly from tree to tree?"

I just read this article and found out that yesterday the world freediving record had been broken by a British woman, Tanya Streeter. Its a pretty interesting article because she dove to a depth of 400 ft. without the aid of any type of breathing apparatus or a protective suit (she wore a wetsuit because water at that depth is very cold), and without any kind of buoyancy aids. If you've ever tried to dive to the bottom of a pool, even if its not very deep, then you'll appreciate this (if you've tried to dive to the bottom of a deep pool, maybe 15 feet or more, then you'll REALLY appreciate this). I am very interested in this news because one of my all time favorite movies, "The Big Blue", is about two world champion freedivers. However, in the article it was interesting to note that diving to that depth can cause blurred vision, makes your lungs contract to the size of a fist, and slows your heart down to 15 beats per minute. What is also very impressive about this record being broken is that it was accomplished by a woman (she broke the men's world record by about 7 feet, but broke the woman's world record by almost ninety feet). I wouldn't assume there are a whole lot of world records for physical feats that are held by women (I'm not just being sexist, I looked it up on Google). Anyway, congrats to Tanya Streeter for that, it is a truly remarkable accomplishment.

If Stanley Kubrick hadn't died a little over 4 years ago, he would be 75 years old today. Stanley Kubrick, as you may know, is my favorite director, responsible for such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Dr. Strangelove", "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", and (my favorite) "A Clockwork Orange". Anyway, seeing as how he is, in my opinion, one of the great artists of all time, I wanted to wish him a Happy Birthday, wherever he is

"There's always a bigger fish."

In other news, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks Star Trek is dead.

Nothing like seeing the fact that "Tombraider 2" bombed this weekend to make Monday mornings more enjoyable, huh? I think this summer may be showing us that the studios just can not burn audiences twice with the same stupid movies. "Charlie's Angels 2" cost $160 million to make and market, and is looking like it won't even crack $100 million (which means that's a flop as well), so maybe the mainstream movie-going audience is realizing you need a good story to go with those special effects, as this article points out. Maybe the big studios, in becoming so dependent on big CG special effects to carry their movies, have inadvertently made audiences tune out the big effects and request good stories instead. Man, wouldn't that be refreshing!

Even though Metallica is still around (somebody get rid of them when they pull the plug on the RIAA, please), its good to see that even the idiots who pay money to go see Metallica play still have some standards, as you can see here:

"It was easy to predict a rough reception for the rap-rock has-beens when a significant segment of the crowd booed a mention of the band by previous openers Linkin Park. When Limp Bizkit actually appeared around 7 o'clock, the boos intensified, and some fans pelted the stage with garbage.

The famously brainless Durst only fanned the flames, first encouraging the catcalls and flying trash, then swerving into a bizarre tirade against the crowd and city. Ranting that he'd fight anyone in earshot and spluttering explicit sexual putdowns, uncreative curses and ludicrous homophobic slurs, Durst simply self-destructed. Had the villain in "The Wizard of Oz" been a vile little boob like Durst rather than a snarly old lady in greenface, the movie's "I'm melting!" scene might have looked like this.

The crowd, perhaps stunned, calmed down, and Limp Bizkit played a few more songs (including a sarcastic, gay-bashing cover of George Michael's "Faith" with potty-mouth lyrics that would embarrass a fourth-grader). But then the band left the stage and Durst resumed his vulgar invective from the wings until, mercifully, he was relieved of the microphone.

The aborted set left fans to wait more than 90 minutes for Metallica, but the mood never turned ugly--maybe because a lengthy delay was better than suffering through any more Limp Bizkit."

I'm guessing that Fred Durst's 15 minutes of fame are just about over

I've been doing a lot of work lately. Just seems there is an endless amount to do. It could be worse though, naturally, I could be unemployed, so I'm not complaining. Extra work means extra money (I get overtime). Besides, what the hell else am I gonna do?

Just wanted to give a synopsis of what my typical day is lately, in case someday I wanna look back on these times and wistfully remember good ol' 2003. On the weekdays I sleep till the absolute latest I can, get up, get ready for work, then go to work. I'm at work from about 9 am till maybe 7 pm on the average (lately that's probably more like 7:30 or 8 pm on the average). After work, I usually hit a drive-thru on the way home, then come home and eat while watching a movie on cable. Afterwards I answer emails (if I have any), make blog entries such as this one, read a couple sites online (mainly Fark, Daypop and Lakersground), talk on the phone, then watch some more TV in bed before going to sleep. On the weekends, I frequently stay up till almost dawn doing nothing (more movies or internet), sleep in till 3 in the afternoon or so, and if I don't have plans to hang out with any friends, I just lounge around all day.

The weird thing is I know I'm supposed to feel worse or a lot more bored with this than I actually do.

I wanted to kind of weigh in a bit here on the whole Kobe Bryant case. I have before, but I've been largely keeping out of it here, and also in the Kobe Bryant vs. the State of Colorado forum that I go to just about every day to see if there's any new info on the case. I don't know how much other people have been paying attention to that whole case, but its gotten pretty ugly. The evidence was all sealed when the arrest warrant for Kobe was first signed, and the judge in the case recently ordered a gag order on all parties from speaking with the media about the case. The parties involved haven't said much anyway though: the DA held a press conference to say Kobe was guilty of rape, Kobe held a press conference to say he was innnocent, but that he had cheated on his wife, and that's all the "involved parties" have had to say on the matter. The name of Kobe's accuser has still not been released, so obviously she hasn't said anything, and Kobe hasn't said anything since the day he was charged. But a lot of other people have said plenty. The media has been hounding the population of Eagle, Colorado for any info on the accuser, and they've been trying to dig up what they can on Kobe. Now Kobe's been living in the spotlight since before he could vote, so his secrets (if there are any) are well guarded, and really the most they've come up with for him is that he bought his wife a $4 million diamond ring recently, that Kobe and his accuser may have had anal sex, and that one of the accuser's friends says that he can still see marks of Kobe assaulting her on the accuser. As far as the accuser is concerned though, there have been a multitude of rumors and stories that have been circulated. She was evidently taken to the emergency room for attempting suicide once in the last year (a Colorado police department revealed that to the press), and she was rumored to have been taken to the emergency room another time for trying again to kill herself. There are rumors that she was seen at a party bragging about being with Kobe three days after he allegedly raped her. There are stories about how she tried out for "American Idol", how she "craves attention", how she is a well known "basketball groupie", etc, etc, etc...

So lemme give you my thoughts on this whole mess. I like Kobe Bryant as a basketball player. He's arguably been my favorite player for the last 3 years or so, and in no small part because he plays for my favorite team, the Lakers. He's helped the Lakers win three championships in the last four years, he seems like he's a very hard worker, and he often delivers the goods for me as a Laker fan. However, just because he does all of that doesn't mean I know anything about what he's really like as a person, and it certainly doesn't mean I have any idea what went on between Kobe and his accuser. I feel like there is just as good a chance that she's a golddigger with an agenda as there is that Kobe is a rapist. Spending much time debating this at this point in time is much like debating whether there is a god or not. There is no evidence either way, so why pretend that having an opinion about it really matters? The only difference between this case against Kobe and debating whether there's a god or not is that there probably is some evidence out there on whether Kobe did it or not, its just sealed for now.