Alot of us movie fans, we got this problem called "the Oscars." Every year we're pissed off by who they neglect or who they give it to. Akiva Goldsman?! Bitch, are you for real? But then we get involved in it anyway, rooting for the ones we like, against the ones we hate, fuming over how bad those assholes in the academy fucked up this year.

We say we don't care about the Oscars, because they're always wrong. Then we spend half an hour complaining about how wrong they are. Because of how much we don't care. So here's my thoughts on this year's nominations.

This year though especially, I think somebody needs to have a talk with that academy, because they seem to be confused about a few things. I mean for example did you know that a fictional movie about a camel counts as a documentary? (THE STORY OF THE WEEPING CAMEL was nominated for best documentary feature.) Listen up academicians, if you're gonna bump CONTROL ROOM that's your prerogative, but at least bump it for a fuckin documentary if the category's supposed to be documentary. Or if it doesn't have to be a documentary, why not just throw anything in there? How bout PUNISHER? That was a pretty good documentary I thought.

And I think they're confused about adapted screenplay too, since BEFORE SUNSET was nominated in that category. How did they figure that? What are they saying it was loosely based on Ethan Hawke's failed marriage?

That reminds me, another thing they fuck up - I mean they do this every year - they don't seem to know what's a lead actor and what's a supporting actor. For example, how the fuck is Jamie Foxx a supporting actor in COLLATERAL? Who's the lead then, the car? They're trying to say because Tom Cruise is the bigger star he's the bigger role, but that just ain't true. The movie starts with Jamie Foxx and he's in it maybe 15, 20 minutes before Cruise even shows up. The movie is mostly told through his point of view and it ends up with him at the end. He's the protagonist, the hero, the main character, the lead actor. They pulled the same switch on Denzel and Ethan Hawke in Training Day, and Sam Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. I think the category is actually up to the studios when they submit movies for consideration, but if they're gonna keep jerkin the oscars around like that the oscars should just say listen up studios, it's up to us now, quit fuckin around, Jamie Foxx is obviously the lead. Assholes.

You gotta feel for that Paul Giamatti, man. It was one thing when he got snubbed for AMERICAN SPLENDOR. A man can live with that kind of snub. But SIDEWAYS got nominations for best picture, director, adapted screenplay, supporting actor, supporting actress... and not lead actor! In a movie that's all about his character. At first I thought maybe they were confused, maybe they figured he wasn't acting, it was all 100% real. But if that was the case, they probaly woulda nominated it for best documentary.

What about Garfield, that was a pretty good nature documentary I thought. Very objective.

Anyway, that was a pretty brutal snub they did there. I thought it was kinda cool that they nominated my man Clint for acting, but Giamatti obviously deserved it more. (Plus Thomas Jane in Stander if the fuckers had even heard of it.)

I really hope Giamatti's out there somewhere tonight, downing some drinks with the makeup crew from Hellboy. I mean shit, I never saw that Jesus movie but what did they do, squirt some fake blood on the guy? I don't want to be sacreligious or nothing, but that demon out of hell, that was some good god damn makeup. And his fishman buddy. I never seen anything that good in years. At least now they don't have to worry about oscars anymore. If they didn't get an oscar for that it's not ever gonna happen. I mean if it was up to me, slim pickings this year, but I would put Ron Perlman pretty high up in the list of performances. But I'm realistic, I know that could never happen in mainstream society. But I really thought the makeup was a shoo in. Damn, if only they had jesus in that movie somewhere.

(When are they gonna do separate makeup and effects makeup categories, anyway? Isn't it kind of dumb to have latex monsters always competing against eyeliner and blush?)

Also, a quick note for all you cartoon animators out there. Remember when you were asking about why your medium don't get enough respect? Maybe a good place to start would be YOU JUST NOMINATED FUCKING SHARK TALE FOR AN OSCAR. I don't care if you had to work on the fucking thing in order to eat, that's not a good enough reason to vote for it. I don't buy the idea that some adult somewhere actually liked that movie and thinks it's worthy of even some kind of field day third place ribbon, let alone an oscar. If SHARK TALE really is the best you can offer then be a fuckin man and cancel the category this year. Bugs Bunny would be rolling in his fuckin grave he saw how you people are behaving.

But to be fair to the cartooners, it does seem like alot of the other categories aren't being taken too seriously either. For example, the appropriately named Taylor Hack-ford was nominated for best director! I liked that movie Ray but come on, at best it was real good TV movie directing. He shoulda been disqualified for the text at the end alone. That's to say nothing of the tv style white flashes he uses before flashbacks. That movie is all about the performance of Jamie Foxx and the music of Ray Charles. It's a triumph of just-good-enough-to-work, not virtuoso filmatism. Taylor Hackford does not, and never will, have a commitment to excellence. He has a commitment to getting lucky. I mean I should be nice to the guy, I liked his movie. But it's ridiculous to see this guy nominated over Tarantino, or Zhang, or some of the other fellas. Scorsese's finally gonna get his Oscar, but it's for the movie he did as a favor to Dicaprio, and against mediocre competition like this. Not as meaningful if you ask me.

And the best original song category is really living up to its tradition of terror. I mean I actually kind of liked that freaky ass Polar Express movie, but if the song they nominated is the one I'm thinking of, it's one of the most sickening, saccharine pieces of garbage this side of the dumpster behind the saccharine factory. And saccharine has caused cancer in lab rats so why you wanna give it awards? You trying to encourage cancer? Anyway it's another case where they single out the very worst aspect of an okay movie and offer an award for it. Way to protect the culture, assholes.

It really seems like they just pick out some movies they liked and nominated them for everything possible. I mean shit, you know how much I loved Million Dollar Baby. But no fuckin way Morgan Freeman deserves a nomination for that shit. I mean he is literally playing a character he could play in his sleep. I know it sounds like I just misused the word "literally" like people always do but seriously, I bet he talks in his sleep and it's the same down home wisdom narration stuff he does in this movie. This is exactly the character he plays in everything, the one thing different being the one contact lens he wears. Yeah maybe it's uncomfortable to sleep in a contact lens, I'll give you that, but still, not oscar worthy.

I don't think Hillary Swank really deserves it either but Morgan Freeman's nomination makes that seem more reasonable by comparison. I woulda liked to see David Carradine for Kill Bill and Mark Wahlberg for I Love Huckabees (he won the Cinemarati award, I'm happy to say).

And speaking of Kill Bill, and back on the topic of Ethan Hawke's failed marriage, that's the one thing I most woulda liked to see, even though I knew it was a long shot: I think Uma Thurman shoulda got nominated for Kill Bill. In that movie, even if you don't count the first volume, she's doing so much. She's doing badass action movie swagger, she's doing trauma and horror, she's doing the awkward Keds-wearing girl going up in the mountains to be tormentored by Pei Mei. And remember those heartwrenching scenes between her and the little girl? She does everything in this movie, and all that's fine for Oscars, but what I think lost it for her is that she's also fighting. Choreographed kung fu, street fighting in the mobile home, and the sword fights. I think physically she's spectacular in this movie, the ways she moves, but going that extra 85 miles loses her any serious consideration. That's bullshit, because Catherine Zeta Jones and Queen Latifah didn't get disqualified for singing and dancing in that Chicago movie a year or two ago. But give a girl a sword and suddenly the best female performance of the year doesn't count for shit.

OH well, it wouldn't be as cool if those squares were into the same movies we are. Fuck 'em.

But I love them though. And I want them to love me back.

But fuck 'em.

    thanks,

2/16/05

Why should we spend our money on your art project?

No, you don't understand, you're not spending a penny on this. It's my money.

But why should we spend our money on it?

No, I'm not asking you spend any money at all. No money whatsoever.

But why?

THE DAY I KNEW WHO DEEP THROAT WAS

Yesterday I was talking to a guy - I don't want to say his name, so we'll just call him BARELY LEGAL ALL STARS #3. And he asks me if I've heard "the rumor about Deep Throat."

You might assume he was talking about a rumor that the landmark pornographical work DEEP THROAT was getting an arthouse re-release to tie in with the already released documentary on its making and cultural impact, INSIDE DEEP THROAT. But I knew that was not a rumor, it was an actual fact, so it could not be what he was talking about. So I figured it was that rumor about that other Deep Throat, the mysterious whistleblower who gave Woodward and Bernstein the tips about Watergate, changing our country's view of government forever and creating an annoying suffix for all future government scandals. (Just wait until there's a scandal involving fences, so that every wiseass in the world will think they're the first one to call it Gategate.)

The rumors have been flying for a few weeks that Deep Throat is very sick, possibly near death, so his identity might be by Woodward upon his death. This has re-started the ol' speculation with this new clue, people looking at all the suspects, trying to figure which one might be sick. Popular suspects like George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan start to seem less likely.

"Yeah I heard the rumor," I says, "the one about Deep Throat is gonna die?"

"Well, yeah," Barely Legal says. "But that he did die." He goes on about a friend of his and a bulletin board and some guy from NBC and speculation that - for fuck's sake I can hardly believe I'm even repeating this - speculation that Hunter S. Thompson was Deep Throat.

Now my first reaction was of course, no way. Of course not. Doesn't make sense.

And then it was, holy shit, what the hell? I was surprised to realize how much it does make sense.

Hunter S. Thompson. Arch-nemesis of Richard M. Nixon. Friend and drinking buddy of Nixon speechwriter/prime Deep Throat suspect Pat Buchanan. Connected with many politicians and journalists. And, according to a piece reprinted in The Great Shark Hunt, actually having drinks in the Watergate Hotel at the time of the break-in that started it all:

Of course, that means nothing, but isn't it a strange coincidence that Deep Throat is about to die, and then suddenly we have the death of an iconoclast who was right there when it happened, who was intimately connected with both politicians and journalists, who was daring enough and certainly wanting to take down the Nixon administration if possible, and who regularly drank cocktails with one of the Nixon insiders who is widely believed to have had the ability and motivation to be Deep Throat?

Of course, in order for this to fit we have to also use more speculation and rumor, that the doctor's suicide came after severe health problems. We know that he had had some spinal surgeries and other problems, but it would probaly be a stretch to say he was "close to death," unless the problems were more severe than reported or unless it was known or assumed that if he couldn't walk, he would consider it his time.("When the party's over, you leave.")

Thompson fits some of the pieces of info given by Bob Woodward in his book. He definitely smoked and drank scotch, we know that. Maybe the book didn't mention peyote buttons, so as not to narrow it down too much. He obviously could've known about the DC trucker bar where he chose to meet Woodward, that's easy to see. He could've somehow had access to information from the White House, FBI, Justice Department and re-election committee, depending on who he was talking to, or what sort of Forrest Gumpian accidental discoveries took place while he was reporting in Washington. For that though you gotta suspend the ol' disbelief, obviously. The one part that would really make sense, as Barely Legal pointed out, he was the kind of guy who would give himself a code name from a porn movie, knowing it would eventually be repeated in every family newspaper in the country. Unfortunately that might be the most compelling piece of evidence to support this theory. But it was enough to halfway convince me for a few glorious minutes.

I didn't know a whole lot about Deep Throat, so later in the day I did a little reading and quickly learned how many gigantic sized holes there are in this theory. Actually, it really is more like a bunch of holes, with a thin film of theory debris around the edges. The most obvious hole is that Woodward said that in '72 and '73, Throat had a very sensitive position in the executive branch. Whoops, that's not Hunter. Woodward also said that Deep Throat was accused by his colleagues of being Deep Throat, and that he denied it. This doesn't fit HST, which is part of the beauty of the theory, that nobody would've guessed. Some people believe that Deep Throat in the book is a composite of more than one person (Thompson and Buchanan) but Woodward has denied this. Also, you'd have to wonder why Thompson would even be needed if he was just getting his information from Buchanan (unless Buchanan, or whoever, wasn't giving it on purpose). Or why Thompson wouldn't just report the information himself instead of giving it to "two third-string crime reporters," as he called Woodward and Bernstein (unless he thought nobody would believe him). Or if it was true, why he would keep it a secret his whole life (unless he actually was in a sensitive position in the executive branch, which would then make me wonder where ghosts and yetis and the reptilian agenda come into the picture).

For this to be true, we'd have to accept that much of what we were told about Deep Throat was actually not true. And if it was a composite, wouldn't Woodward have to wait until all of the pieces are dead before revealing the secret? If so that would rule out a Thompson/Buchanan tag team.

More importantly, Woodward has had a few days to reveal if Thompson was Deep Throat, and it hasn't happened. When the real guy (Rehnquist) does die, I'm sure there'll be an obituary the next day, or an hour later, that will reveal the secret.

But let's ignore all that for a minute - the pure lunacy and stretchin-it-ness of the theory - and go back to those first few minutes when I was trying to wrap my head around the possibility. Before the tyrrany of common sense and basic fact checking set in. In those heady days, it was the shocking third act twist of the idea that made it so appealing. I mean just imagine what it would mean if it was true. How great it would be.

It would mean that Hunter S. Thompson himself had taken out Nixon. That while writing beautiful, vicious reports from the campaign trail, he had stumbled across enough information that he was able to say fuck it, make some calls and get the story going. At first it would've seemed like a lark, since the story really didn't pick up at first, and the fucker got re-elected. But we know Thompson got a good laugh when it all came crashing down, and if he had started the ball rolling it would've been all the better.

Better yet, nobody had any clue. In all the years of speculation and investigation, nobody has come up with a suspect anything like Hunter S. Thompson. Okay, to be fair that's because he doesn't fit the profile at all. But wouldn't it be great? Something for him to chuckle about while playing with his peacocks in Woody Creek.

Thompson was pretty disappointed and embarassed when they released Nixon's enemies list, and he discovered that he wasn't on it. But if he was Deep Throat that would make it more of a victory. I took you out and I wasn't even on your list.

Plus, imagine all the revision that would have to be done. Going back through all the years of Deep Throat references and thinking, ha ha, that's Raoul Duke they're talking about there. It would be so much fun re-picturing it all with our man at the center of it. We just wouldn't be able to accept the voice in All the Presiden'ts Men anymore, they'd have to have Johnny Depp redub it.

And then the secrets would have to start coming out eventually. We'd have to find out that what really happened was alot crazier and funnier than previously revealed. The doctor's family, after firing his remains from the two-thumbed fist cannon in Woody Creek, would reveal the secret manuscript left behind, detailing the whole ordeal from Thompson's perspective. It would become the most popular and widely read book of his career, making him the Bruce Lee or Brandon Lee of this otherwise horrible new millennium. (Unless he had a whole bunch of unreleased books sitting around, which would make him the new Tupac.)

And anything would seem possible. People would start going back trying to figure out what else he was keeping secret, what else he was involved in. And what other crazy crossovers could possibly have happened under the radar. Did Sun Ra secretly stop a plot to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge? Did a young Jim Henson fake the moon landing with puppets? Who knows? Our minds would all have to shift like Rubik's Cubes, and we'd have to readjust reality based on the new aligmnent.

But best of all it would be one final laugh, one final shocking upset victory from beyond the grave for my man Hunter S. Thompson. One major jaw-dropping how the fuck did he do that joke, pulling the carpet from under our feet and dropping us hilariously onto our asses. Not only that he pulled it off, but then that he kept it quiet for so damn long, figuring we could appreciate it better later on. Saving it for a rainy day, like now.

Unfortunately nobody really gets that kind of ending. Bruce Lee was not a recluse for ten years to end a demon curse, Andy Kaufman did not fake his death as a prank, and Hunter S. Thompson, I'm pretty sure now, did not secretly punch the hole in the tire of the Nixon Administration. So the best I can offer the poor guy is the mildly amusing information that for some time yesterday, two dipshits in Seattle, and some guy from NBC on a bulletin board somewhere, really believed in the long-shot possibility that he had been Deep Throat.

Sorry Hunter, that's all I got for you. Wish you were alive. Thanks for the books.

your friend,

A few polite individuals out there told me they miss my political writings. It's true, I've been avoiding these columns. The fact is, this country has gone so far into cuckoo clock land that it's easier not to think about it or dwell on it too long. I don't think that's the right thing to do but it's what I find myself having to do to avoid having a spontaneous culturally afflicted coronary. You gotta be careful, especially these days. I mean who knows what could happen. Let me just make it very very clear... if I end up brain dead in some hospital somewhere, pull the damn plug. If your toaster don't work, you don't leave it plugged in, man.

I mean I understand that that Terry Schiavo business was complicated. The husband wants one thing, the parents want another, that's a tough one. And I haven't heard them say this in so many words but I figure with the gays going around unsanctifying marriage left and right, the republicans had no choice but to ignore the husband's point of view. It wasn't sanctified enough to stick. In a 100% ungay, sanctitiously married world, the republicans would've definitely sided with the sanctity of the marriage, states rights, small government, don't tread on me, etc. But all this fruitiness they saw on TV once makes them batty, they get confused and start having opinions that appear to us to be diametrically opposed to what they said was their opinion yesterday.

What I'm saying though is, I can imagine exactly one fate worse than rotting away over decades as an electrified cucumber, and that's becoming an unwilling prop for republican wacko-baiting. They're all pulling a Weekend at Bernies, pretending she's aware of what's going on around her. It wasn't very convincing, but let's say they were right. That would be even worse! What if somebody left a TV on and she had seen some of those speeches? Some hypocritical asshole up there pretending to be all choked up, talking about "this beautiful young woman" and calling her by her first name like he knew her personally, like he grew up with her, helped her set up her first lemonade stand. If that ever happens to me, please, FOR GOD'S SAKE, please give me the ol' Old Yeller.

I mean look, I'm not naive, I understand that those shitheads don't really believe all that bullshit they're spewing. "Err on the side of life," "culture of life," and all that coming from the monsters responsible for the Fallujah massacre? Good one, guys. But what I don't get is what the hell kind of political points they thought they were gonna score from that fiasco? I know it looks different on TV, but I don't buy this notion that euthanasia is an issue that average americans are all that concerned about. When their dog is sick they put him to sleep, and if their loved ones are braindead for 15 years... well, they'll cross that bridge when they get to it, which they probaly won't.

The belief that putting someone out of their misery is never an option... I don't think it's all that normal. Or if it is, most people aren't passionate enough about it to talk about it very often. Only guy I remember making a big deal about it in the ten or fifteen years before this mess was Michael Medved when MILLION DOLLAR BABY came out. And if these people are gonna hold up fuckin Michael Medved as an example of the average American, well, then that speaks for itself.

And of course it's okay to be in the minority or to not be normal. I know how that is. But I don't remember these assholes ever pandering to me. I just don't understand the strategy of putting on a circus only for a small sliver of the population. From what I've read, polls showed that the majority of Americans would want to be unplugged if they were in Schiavo's shoes, and a larger majority thought that Congress was completely out of line trying to get involved in the whole thing. And Congress's approval ratings are now at the lowest they've been since right after they impeached Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, the wackos swore vengeance on Jeb Bush for not personally rapelling through the skylight with a syringe between his teeth, hooking Schiavo up to a cable and helicoptering her to Dick Cheney's secret underground medical bunker where they would use alien technology to respark her consciousness.

So whatever they were trying to pull, it looks like they blew it pretty spectacularly. Nice try though, assholes.

Anyway, it's been a while, so let's hit a few different topics. This'll be the VERN TELL'S IT LIKE IT IS potpourri.

1. "THIS LITTLE COUNTRY OF OURS." I can't find any articles about this, but maybe someone else heard it or could find somewhere to verify it. Listening to CBS news on the radio a couple mornings ago, I swear on Christ's Holy balls that I heard Rumsfeld use that phrase to describe Iraq. I think it was on the 12th, he was addressing troops in Iraq and the point of the CBS story was that the troops were hoping to get news about going home soon but instead he condescendingly scolded them. I'd have to paraphrase what he said because I don't have it written down, but the soundbite was basically many of us would rather not be in this little country of ours, we would rather be home. But too fuckin bad. Shit happens.

Anyway, point is, that's how he thinks of Iraq: "this little country of ours." That's the one redeemable quality he has, he's so fuckin nuts that he can't stop himself from saying everything he's not supposed to say in public.

2. OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE.  Just like the stunt with the braindead gal, this social security scam seems like it's blown up in Bush's face. But I still can't let him get away with some of the propaganda catch phrases he actually gets them to repeat on the news. I heard them say that Bush was tired of democrats criticizing his plan for private accounts "without offering an alternative." Dumbass - the alternative is not having private accounts. It's like:

BUSH: I propose that we change RED traffic lights to BLUE!

DEMOCRATS: That's ridiculous, blue is too close to green, people would get confused. And why do we need to change it anyway? You're not making any sense at all.

BUSH: There you go again, criticizing my plan without offering an alternative.

DEMOCRATS: The alternative is to NOT change red to blue. Keep it red.

BUSH: That's not an alternative. That's what it already is, red.

DEMOCRATS: We don't want to change it to blue, there is no reason to.

BUSH: No reason? Innocent Americans are killed in traffic accidents every day! They should be changed to blue! Also I propose that we won't wear any pants!

DEMOCRATS: Not w-- you said not wear pants? I don't--

BUSH: Once again, the democrats are criticizing my not wearing any pants plan without offering an alternative.

DEMOCRATS: But... the alternative is... wearing pants.

BUSH: That's not an alternative. An alternative is like, we'll wear shorts, or we'll wear clownpants or something. I already said no pants.

DEMOCRATS: I don't... are you-- I mean I guess we could pull them down part way or something.

Within two months republicans will stop wearing pants and will always wear Jesus style robes. Only on the third Friday of the month (casual Friday) they'll be allowed to wear either a Passion of the Christ promo t-shirt or a giant yellow ribbon with a Frank Frazetta style painting of a shirtless Ronald Reagan pinned to the front.

3. That reminds me. THE NEW CUT OF PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I still haven't seen the old cut but I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool if the new one was called THE PASSION RENAILED? I think it would be cool.

4. POPE-MANIA. Look man, I don't want to be a dick, but now more than ever doesn't it look like the Pope should've accepted my proposal for him to go to Baghdad as a human shield before the bombs dropped? You see now how much everybody liked that guy, there's no way they could've dropped bombs on him. It would've been great! Worst case scenario, they do drop bombs on him - so he misses out on 2 frustrating years, but he makes it harder for the 24 hour cable eulogists to leave out the part about him calling the war illegal and immoral. Meanwhile, Catholics woulda raised holy hell and Bush probaly woulda been out of there last November. Fuckin Pope-killer.

5. BOLTON, NEGROPONTE, RICE, GONZALEZ, etc. It's kind of like an initiation at this point. Once you've proven yourself to Bush by being a right wing idealogue maniac, undeniably inept and unqualified, a human rights abuser and preferably an Iran-Contra felon, you are ready for your promotion. The initiation is, you go to a hearing and democrats may or may not point out some of the horrible things you've done and how scary it is that you are being rewarded for your failures as a public servant and as a human being. That's it, now you get confirmed. It's not even like fraternity hazing, it's more like when you become a cheerleader, they wake you up early, paint your face and make you go to school in pajamas. But the next day everybody forgets it and you're a cheerleader. This is the same thing, except thousands of people will die.

6. MEANWHILE, CONGRESS PASSES HORRIFYING NEW BILLS. While everybody's distracted by the braindead lady in the hospital, congress keeps coming up with horrifying new ways to punish you. For example, this new bankruptcy bill, which has no possible benefit to anyone except credit card companies. Or the drilling in Alaska, did you hear they passed that one? The one that will finally allow Big Oil to literally fuck the earth. These sickos have been drooling for years at the idea of sticking their big drill into the virgin soil of the Arctic Reserve, and now they finally get to do it.

I'm no environmental expert, I don't spend alot of time thinking about these issues. But it's just common sense that we, as humans, would like to still have, like, the earth to live on. In my opinion. Preferably with animals and plants and shit. And all concerned seem to agree that we're throwing away this untouched wildlife refuge for a very small amount of oil that will hold us over maybe six months.

What I'm saying is, this is not a plan you do for the oil money, because it just wouldn't be worth it for that. This is something you could only possibly want  to do just because you know it's insane. You know what it's exactly like is killing a homeless dude. You don't do it for the three dollars and forty-two cents change you find in his pockets afterwards. You do it because you're a sicko fuck who enjoys killing homeless people. That's exactly what these republicans are doing.

7. MICHAEL JACKSON. Man, that day the Robert Blake trial and the Scott Peterson trial wrapped up on the same day - I was praying Michael Jackson's charges would be dropped. Then every employee of Court TV would've shriveled up and disappeared like when you kill the queen alien, and the corporate offices would've been sucked into the wicked portal it came out of in the first place. And there'd just be a beautiful meadow there, with deer and birds and stuff. (until the republicans started drilling.)

Anyway, not to dwell on this freak show (I try not to even hear about it) but I happened to hear one story last week, some security guy for Michael Jackson testified that he saw Michael giving some kid a blow job. My question is, if Jackson is convicted, are they gonna put these people on trial too? Because if he's really been molesting kids, wouldn't it have been nice if the people who knew for sure it was happening would've, like, done SOMETHING? (SOMETHING meaning something along the lines of "reporting him," not something along the lines of "continuing to work for him because it pays well.")

8. And as long as we're getting away from politics, I want to gripe about FUCKING iPODS. Okay, I get it, I understand why it's an invention that people like. It's a cool idea to be able to store all the songs you want on a chip and basically have your whole record collection in your pocket. And they make them look cool too, Macintosh knows how to make all their gadgets look sleek and desirable. They know what the fuck they're doing.

But as digital as I try to be I gotta admit, my heart still has a couple analag ventricles in it. And I gotta lament for some of the shit that I think the ipod device is gonna kill. Number one and most important is the classic art of the album. Remember when you could sit down and listen to an album from beginning to end and the whole thing was a solid piece of art? Most people would give Sergeant Pepper as an example. Or Songs in the Key of Life. Or What's Goin On would be a good one also. Or Black Sabbath Paranoid. Lots of good ones.

There are still people trying to make good solid albums, just outside of the mainstream where it's all about the single. The one catchy song that makes you buy the album. They make CDs now that feel like mix tapes, every song has a different guy making the music and trying to imitate some different style. Or every other song has some guest star you hate and you gotta skip that track.

And I think the ipod only encourages that approach. Because what the hell kind of sense does it make to have an "album" when you're dealing with a computer file? The whole point of an album is, this is what fits on a record. Now the medium is a sortable list of computer files, a mix and match. If ipods is the way most people listen to music, it doesn't make sense to make art based on the limitations of the old format. Except that the old format was superior. In my opinion.

And along with the album goes the album cover. No more album art if it's just a computer file. Maybe they'll start working artwork onto the files to appease us oldtimers, but shit, looking at a screen doesn't hold a candle to holding a solid object in your hand. You know that, that's why you keep meaning to buy my book.

The other thing I don't like is dudes walkin around with headphones on 24-7. I know walkmans've been around for eons, but since ipods are smaller and less clunky and considered cool in some circles now, you see way more of the headphones. And this really makes me an old timer but I remember the days when people would walk around and like, notice the world around them. Or you could go up and talk to them or something. "hey how's it goin jack" and they're like "hey" and they nod or whatever. Not no more if the guy's wearing an ipod machine.

I don't know why I'm complaining. It's no skin off my balls. But it used to be if you're riding on the bus you're either 1) talking to somebody else on the bus or 2) (preferably) minding your own god damn business. Now days most people are either plugged into the ipod or (much, much worse) having a loud, inane conversation on their cellular telephone device. You always gotta have the stimuli, and looking out the window or reading a book doesn't count.

It just makes me sad because I see these people every day and I just wonder why they are so afraid to shut the fuck up for a minute, enjoy the quiet and be alone with their thoughts. What do they think will happen? Or do they get to think long enough to think about what will happen if they have to think for longer than that?

So I'm sad. I shed a tear for you. That is my gift to the bearers of ipods and cell phones. A single tear of sympathy.

Okay, I'm done, you can go back to listening to your computer files now.

thanks,

AUGUST 11TH, 2005

I get alot of emails these days asking for a new Vern Tell's It Like It Is column, with all the political business. Because there's so much going on and some people I guess want to know what I have to say about it. Except one guy. There was the guy who wrote to me to say I was good with movies but I need to never talk about politics because I just copy the "talking points" from moveon.org. I checked out that web sight and it was a good suggestion but I couldn't find a link for the talking points so I guess maybe that's why I haven't done a new column in a while.

KARL ROVE

Obviously the first order of business has to be this Valerie Plame/Karl Rove thing. But I mean, I don't got much to say that hasn't been said already. My reaction when I first heard about it obviously was like Roddy Piper in THEY LIVE when he sees all the rich ladies in fur coats and businessmen in ties are actually skeleton faced alien invaders, and he says, "It fuckin figures." I remember Joe Wilson saying way back when this thing started that he thought Karl Rove was the leaker, and I wondered why he'd say that if there wasn't more to it we didn't know about. But then he backed off from that statement and I was as surprised as anyone to see it actually come out into the open all this time later.

Those first couple press briefings with Scott McLellan were fuckin A+ comedy classics. Man he must've been surprised to find out that somebody had attached balls to the entire press corps over the weekend. And disappointed not to have Ashton Kutcher ever show up. Also of note, the recent incident with Robert Benedict Arnold Novak losing it on "Inside Politics." If you missed it, they were talking about Katherine Harris and James Carville made a little snipe at Novak about having to prove to the Wall Street Journal editorial page that he had backbone (not sure I totally follow that one), Novak said, "I think that's bullshit and I hate that." Then after a moment of contemplation he just got up and walked away like he was suffering from dementia.

I don't think he did it on purpose but I gotta thank James Carville for being the one to finally get Novak booted off of TV. I can't believe how long CNN was willing to pretend that dickhead was a worthwhile expert whose opinion we should listen to. I'm sure alot of you got grey hairs yelling at the TV during the election coverage every time he offered an opinion. WELL OF COURSE YOU'RE GONNA SAY THAT YOU ASSHOLE, YOU'RE THEIR FUCKING HENCHMAN. He outs a CIA agent for them, then he's supposed to turn around and give a fair assessment of the election? It's like Igor doing an analysis of Dr. Frankenstein.

Also I'm not surprised to see Judy Miller wrapped up in this whole mess. I got no idea if the theories about her involvement in the leak are true, but if so it'll be "It fuckin figures" again. It felt pretty fishy hearing about her as a great champion for journalists when she's probaly the biggest symbol of how far journalism has sunk. If you haven't been keeping score, she's the one who wrote all those stories on the front page of the New York Times about supposed proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The stories were obvious horse shit at the time, I'm sure I ranted about them in one of these columns if you go back and look. Her sources turned out to be Ahmad Chalabi and Curveball, completely discredited people who no reasonable person trusted at the time and whose claims in those articles have since been disproven and debunked twenty-six ways to Sunday.

Years down the line, regardless of how the leak probe goes, Judy Miller will be one of the villains of this whole fiasco. She was a willing pawn to the administration and without her or somebody like her willing to do that job, the war might never have happened.

Here's how it works:

1. adminstration sends Miller one crazy charlatan wanted for bank fraud who hasn't been in Iraq since he was a kid but who they plan to install as president. (That didn't work out, and then they accused him of being a spy for Iran. Long story.)

2. Miller prints obvious bullshit stories based on that one guy's made up stories.

3. Dick Cheney goes on talk shows and quotes the New York Times article as evidence of weapons.

4. All news channels now believe that it is a proven fact because Dick Cheney and the New York Times both said it.

5. Certain American suckers buy bullshit hook line and sinker.

So of course in the world we live in today, the chump who wrote those stories is declared a hero of journalism. I don't know if they do it on purpose or if they're just such horrible people that their involvement in anything turns everything backwards and rotten. They have people talking about journalists protecting their sources and comparing it to Watergate. But it's backwards. In Watergate, the anonymous source was a whistleblower. In this one, the anonymous source is somebody high up in the government, leaking information in order to punish a whistleblower. They got us twisted around trying to defend their right to abuse power.

STEROIDS

By the way, you gotta appreciate the irony of Bush's buddy Rafael Palmero testing positive for steroids. Remember during that state of the union speech when Bush talked about steroids being a problem in pro sports? And even back then, when everybody was bending over backwards to pretend he was doing a good job, people were scratching their heads. What the shit? Our buildings are falling, our freedom is eroding, nuclear weapons are growing like dandelions and you're worried because Bret Boone looks more muscular than he used to?

Of course, one thing politicians love is wasting their time on phoney non-issues like violent movies, rock music, video games, satanism, steroids, killer robots, etc. So next thing you know congress has decided this is more important than health care, not dying, etc. and congress holds hearings. And at these hearings, Bush's buddy Palmero, recent record breaker and legendary boner bearer, testifies that he does not use steroids. Which it turns out, may have been an exaggeration.

Whoops.

Good job, Bush.

MOVIE SLUMP

Ah, shit. Let's talk about movies now. I keep reading about this movie slump, I guess movies aren't making as much money as they did last year and that pretty much proves that movies are dead forever and everybody's just gonna read books, talk to each other, etc.

Well I don't know about all that but personally I thought this was the best summer for movies in a long god damn time. I mean I guess I avoided the ones that looked bad, but I didn't see too many pictures I didn't like this summer. I liked the Star Wars, I liked the Batman, I was really surprised by War of the Worlds, I loved Land of the Dead. More recently Devil's Rejects although that one's not for everybody.

(By the way, too bad about Matthew McGrory, who died Tuesday at only 32. In a great cast of crazies he was my favorite character, Tiny, the giant with the bag over his head. He also played a giant in BIG FISH.)

I gotta admit I even saw some kiddie movies that were good. Howling Castle was cool, Chocolate Factory was fun, Bad News Bears had kids swearing which is very realistic. Stealth wasn't good but then, I didn't want it to be good. Wedding Crashers was about the only thing I saw that was alot worse than I was hoping. So fuck money, man, I'm okay with the movie slump so far. More slump, please.

SNAKES ON A PLANE!

If there's one movie that's gonna turn the slump around though I guarantee it's SNAKES ON A PLANE. That's right, somebody tipped me off, according to fangoria.com I got my wish and they switched the title back. I loved that title because it is not a metaphor, it is actually a movie about snakes on a plane.

You would see that movie, right? Of course you would. But then they changed the title to PACIFIC AIR FLIGHT 121 or some stupid shit like that. I complained about it in my Ain't It Cool News review of Steve Seagal's SUBMERGED and it seemed like the people of America agreed with me. Just the other day I was telling somebody they'll probaly change it back because of RED EYE and FLIGHT PLAN. With Pacific Air 121 people would mix up the different airplane thrillers. But call it SNAKES ON A PLANE and everybody will forget about that other shit.
However, since the story on fangoria.com did not specify a reason for the switch, I will assume they read my review of SUBMERGED and have been having meetings about it for months trying to make it happen.

WHY MUSTARD?

One last thing. You see this picture here? What the fuck is this?

I'll tell you what it is. It's two people pouring mustard on a god damn Ruffle. Now I'm not trying to single out Newport. Only Kool rivals them in providing fine opportunities for prisoners to collect points and earn items such as t-shirts and hats. But come on, man. Pouring mustard on a Ruffle? Why would you do that? What does it mean? Why are these people enjoying it so much? And what does it have to do with cigarettes?

I know when two beautiful people are in love, and they're having some kind of barbecue with hot dogs and little chunks of unidentified meat, they tend to do crazy things. And you know, they got different kinds of flavors of chips in other countries. I know they got ketchup flavored in Canada. So maybe mustard on a Ruffle makes sense, I don't know.

But that still doesn't explain what it's doing on an ad for cigarettes. Is this a Freud thing? Maybe Freud said that if you dream about two people enjoying putting mustard on a ridged potato chip, it means buy Newports. The mustard could be a metaphor for menthol, maybe.

I figure this probaly means something, it's just over my head. So someone please explain it to me. thanks.

--VERN

UPDATE: I tried putting mustard on a Ruffle. It actually wasn't that bad. But it didn't remind me of Newports really at all.