I'm just that into her...

Last night I was crisp and decided to watch some HBO. A movie that some may describe as a "chick flick" - He's Just Not That Into You - was on the tube and I gave in. This film, based on a book that many young crazy women have read over the past several years, features a series of lightly intertwined stories of single folks, couples and married people in various stages of relationships. The premise is interesting because it aims to teach women what men think about dating them and how we tend to give obvious signs when we like them and blow them off when we don't. Solid advice.

The funny thing though was that the movie shockingly ends with all the women as powerful protagonists who get what they want. I don't know what the implication here is supposed to be. If you listen to the advice the filmmakers give you will be happy? Maybe that the authors are delusional and want the psychotic clinger female viewers to feel good about themselves when they leave the movie? Who knows.

What I do know is that Scarlett Johansson is in the movie and she is splendid. She is perhaps the sexiest woman since Helen of Troy with her luscious breasts, juicy cheeks and large lips. I had never heard her speak, but I found out she has a deep, breathy voice, which always does things to things in men's pants. Fellow fans should check out this movie, notably the scene in which she shakes her baby feeders in a pool and when she gets bent over a desk for some sexin'. Finger lickin' good!

Which is worse?

Hipsters are lame. We all know this. They misread what being "cool" actually is - a personality trait - instead dressing in the latest fashionable gear that just so happens to be what everyone else in a given area is wearing. This is no different than every other group, whose members identify characteristics in others they like and imitate them. This is not to be condescended upon. If we were all to try to be original all the time we would probably look like Lady Gaga. It is also functional in a society in which many different people and groups exist and it is too difficult to identify every person for who they actually are. When I was given a degree as a certified artist in sociology, I learned that this is called symbolic interaction.

Really though, my gripe with hipsters isn't the fixie, the deep v-neck, the tight pants, the dark color palate, the ironic hat, the lack of socks, the Ray-Bans or the topsiders. No, I like all of these things for what they are. The problem with hipsters is the couldn't-be-fucked attitude. These folks like to act like they are so much better than other people in a bar, at a show, in a coffee shop (where they also work as a barista), or in my house. You aren't that cool until you have something interesting to say.




AND then there's hippies. Hippies are the Hugo Chavez to hipsters' George W. Bush. They're at the opposite ends of the spectrum but they both suck. They are so into nature and organic food that they have to be militant dicks (see: city of Santa Cruz, CA). Give it up hippies. Nobody gives a fuck about the 40 bumper stickers on your Prius, untrimmed beard, horrid stench, pants that zip off into shorts, pseudo hiking shoes or the fact that you're constantly nibbling on something unidentifiable. There is no need to act like people are judging your appearance or political choices. They are judging you because you're a dick. A phony dick. If world peace is the solution, how about starting with the person you're talking to.

Verdict: Hipsters are worse in the short term, hippies are worse in the long term. Hipsters will go away soon because what they wear isn't going to be cool for much longer. Once hipster chic reaches critical mass the party will end. Hippies are more like weeds or asexual reproducing amoebas. They evolve to promote the issue du jour - from global warming to genocide in Darfur, from using corn as fuel to not using corn as fuel.

The actual worst is the hippie hipster, or the Latin Hippiesterus Veniceus.

Mathematics of Happiness

I find that:

Results - Expectations = Happiness

Sports Outrage

As a sports fan I am outraged. This is a great time of the year to be a fan, with the World Cup, NBA and Stanley Cup finals, baseball in full swing, a great French Open just completed, and summer full of action sports on the way, but the NBA and MLB are making it very difficult to enjoy.

Earlier this week, Armando Galarraga threw a perfect game. He didn't walk anyone, no one got a hit, and only 20 people have done this before him (Two this year, however, the odds of which are crazy low). There was only one problem - on the last out of the game the first base umpire called the runner safe on what was clearly an out.



The umpire apologized, but a man who threw a perfect game will not have his entry into one of the most elite clubs in sports. The fault here may lie in baseball and its older fans, who see instant replays as an affront to the sport's integrity. BS. Almost all sports use instant replays and retain integrity. Slow down the game? I'll watch an extra 5 mins to know a call will be the right one. Technology could replace umpires altogether in baseball. Would this be a better alternative? No unique "yerrrrrr out!" calls, but at least we would have clean games.

The real outrage comes with the NBA and its rules that allow for too much flexibility in calling fouls. This year's playoffs have highlighted this sore problem. Soccer players, long considered the Best Actor in a Sporting Role, now look like hockey players in terms of toughness and reluctance to accept a foul/ penalty in comparison to basketball players. You can't convince me that being touched on the arm or back by someone's hand will make a man fall on the ground time and time again.



It's pathetic and the league needs to change its rules so as not reward flops and acting and to reward hard play. Fans don't tune in to see the game stopped every 30 seconds for some chicken shit foul. We want to see players play the game and when a foul is committed it should be obvious. I won't go as far as to say I think the referees in basketball are biased toward a team or want the results of a series to go a certain way - I tend to shy away from conspiracy theories and I don't think they're even good enough to plan that out. I just think the league wants to promote a "clean" image for a sport that is often tarnished by its players' actions off the court. Wrong approach.

The World Cup is starting in a few days and I think the NBA should pay close attention to how fouls are administered. I risk eating my words, but fuck it.