Don't. Just don't.

   Kinda weird week this week, I've been pretty busy at work and haven't had much of a chance to lift my head above water.  In other words, I don't have much to talk about... so here's a list of "celebrities" who definitely should not be famous:
   David Blaine: This guy has douche written all over him.  I remember the first time I saw a video of his street magic, I was actually impressed.  I thought the guy was possessed or something because of the way he acted.  Now I realize he's just and idiot.  Really a magician is the worst type of non-celeb, because their job description is basically crying for attention.
   Paris Hilton: Well of course she makes this list, but it's YOUR fault she's famous so don't look at me.  She's not smart.  She's not hot.  I don't get it... what is the fascination with this woman?  It's like a desperate cry for help from guys everywhere, a startling admission that no matter how stupid or ugly a person you are (inside and out), as long as you'll spread your legs and get freaky, you'll be popular.
   Flava Flav: At least this guy's funny.  Funny as in psychopathic.  Still, if the world has come to a point where the more ridiculous you act, the more famous you get... then we're in big trouble.  I blame VH1 for Flava Flav (and several others on this list), because even though their "celebreality" stuff is supposed to make fun of everything, it has the opposite effect when these people actually become famous.
   Lindsay Lohan: I can understand why this girl might have been famous at one point... at least she was in a couple of almost-decent movies.  But she went rapidly downhill to a point where I get an STD just looking at her.  Why is she famous?  I don't know.
   Jessica Simpson: Another case that should have ended long ago.  Jessica Simpson is hot, she was a popular singer, she was in a terrible movie or two, and she dated Tony Romo.  Big deal.  What has she done since then?  No reason to care.
   Tony Romo:  Here's a picture-perfect "shouldn't be famous" person.  A sub-par or par (at best) quarterback who's only claim to fame that I can think of is that he dated Jessica Simpson.  Wow.  And yet people bow at his feet.  Announcers talk about him like he's the next Brett Favre.  That's an insult if you ask me, but skill level aside, this guy has absolutely no reason to be in the spotlight.
   I could continue with this list forever, but I won't because I'm bored and my eyes/soul are hurting from having TMZ's website open.  Anyone you want to add to this list?  Leave  a comment...

Get Outta There
   Did you see that another earthquake hit Haiti?  I didn't even know there were earthquakes in that part of the world, and now two!  I haven't really talked much about Haiti because I know what I have to say will most likely make you think I'm an asshole... but chances are you probably think that anyway, so here goes:  I do feel sorry for Haiti, but not any more than I would feel bad for England, or India, or South Carolina if an earthquake hit there.  The way I see it, these are all people, and a lot of them died in this earthquake, which is tragic... but are the people of Haiti more worthy of your pity than anyone else in the world?  I say no.
   And you will most likely disagree with me.  You'll say "well Haiti is such an impoverished Nation," or "those poor people get the worst luck," or "you don't get it because you've lived in the United States your whole life so go punch yourself."  I will give you all of those points.  Haiti is extremely poor, and heavily populated, and their infrastructure just isn't up for taking an earthquake.  Haiti does get terrible luck, they're almost always in the path of any hurricane that sweeps through, and now top it off with earthquakes... awful.  And maybe I don't get it (though I absolutely refuse to punch myself, that's just silly)... but hear me out. 
   Haiti is impoverished, but is that my fault?  Is it yours?  You could say it's the Haitian government's fault for oppressing its people, but I argue that it's the PEOPLE's fault for not standing up to their oppressive government.  We had an oppressive government here in the US at one point, and what did we do?  Kicked their asses back across the Atlantic.  I think blaming an oppressive government for a country's woes is a cop-out, because the only ones who can fix that are the people who live in that same country.   If we went over there and stood up a new, democratic government, Haiti would depend on us forever.  Just look at Iraq.  Democracy may or may not be what Haiti needs, but no matter what government they wind up with, the responsibility has to fall with the people, otherwise it will never become as strong and solid a country as it should be.
   Haiti does have terrible luck.  They're right in the path of it seems like every hurricane, and now I guess they're on a fault line too.  So... get out of there.  Move.  Go to another country.  "Well they can't."  Why not?  Okay, so even if they can't, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  Go back up there to step one and create a government who builds with a better infrastructure.  Make your buildings hurricane proof and earthquake resistant.  It will take time and it won't be easy, but it's something that again, has to start within the country itself.
   So maybe I don't get it.  Maybe I'm a heartless bastard for saying this stuff.  I just think that while it's nice for America to come to the rescue down there (once again), it's not something we can get tied up in doing.  Look at what's going on around the rest of the world.  We've stopped so many conflicts, so many murderous leaders... we've brought peace to the world, and the world hates us for it.  Thanks France.  MAN I hate France.  Anyway, here's another example.  Americans, with our own country in turmoil and struggling thanks to the recession, is still expected to take care of the problems in Haiti.  Where's France?  Where's China?  Where's anyone else?  Our soldiers are over there distributing food, our doctors are over there giving them medicine, and here in the States there's been a flood of parents trying to adopt the Haitian kids who lost their families in this terrible tragedy.  I think it's wonderful that we're over there, and I think it is our duty as the most powerful and wealthy country in the world to help those in need... but I don't like that it's expected of us, and I don't think we should stay over there a second longer than we're absolutely needed.  Otherwise, we risk putting Haiti into a position where they can't stand up without our help.
   Incidentally, if you do want to help with Haiti, you should check out http://www.khou.com/.  We've got some great and easy ways for you to help those in need down there.

CES
   Does everyone know what CES is?  The Consumer Electronics Show?  Sounds nerdy if you spell it out, but CES really does have some of the coolest stuff you'll see all year.  It's kind of like a grown-ups version of E3 with less nerds and (sadly) less chicks dancing around in skimpy videogame character outfits.  CES is the place to watch if you're interested in technology, because you'll see some of the craziest stuff come out of there.  I was going to sit here and name you my favorite and least favorite things about this year's show, but C-Net does a much better job of that than I ever could.  So check them out for that... but stay here because I'm going to tell you what you should be caring about and what you should stay away from, and why.
   The big thing at this year's CES was 3-D television.  "Avatar's" success has definitely opened people's eyes to the brilliance that 3-d tv can offer, but this is definitely something you should stay away from.  3-d is cool, but it's in its infancy.  The first tvs and blu-ray players are going to come out in the next few months, but they will be EXTREMELY expensive, and probably not work very well.  I do believe this technology is the next step in entertainment, but I also believe it's at least 3 years away.  Buying a 3-d TV right now would be like trying to buy an HDTV in 1995... ridiculous.  There's not enough to take advantage of it, and there will definitely be mistakes in the technology on the way.  Wait a few years and I guarantee you won't have to wear glasses, your TV won't cost you an arm and a leg (and maybe a couple of other appendages), and you'll be happier for it.
   While we're talking about TVs, I think for all of you who have been holding out, this will be the year to buy big.  2010 will be the year when LED technology goes mainstream, making LCD and Plasma TVs "obsolete."  The problem with LED is that it's barely even out in the market and it's ALREADY obsolete!  That's right folks.  Just wait until O-LED TVs ("O" for "Organic") hit the market.  They're even slimmer, and they use even less electricity than their LED brothers.  But let's get back to the LCD and Plasma stuff.  LEDs get fantastic pictures, but a comparable (240hz) LCD can definitely hold its own in that same department.  Sure it's harder to hang (who does that anyway?), but the more mainstream LEDs go, the less expensive LCDs will get.  So that's where you should be looking this year.  Or if you can hold out even longer, wait until next Superbowl.  By then LCDs will be on clearance, making them a steal.
   The thing I'm most excited about this year is all the wireless technology being thrown around.  Wireless HDMI?  Awesome.  Wireless electricity?  Kind of scary, but also awesome.  It's all coming, and soon you won't have to have a home theatre set up with your tv 6 inches away from the wall so you can hide all the cables behind it.  Plus think about how much money you'll save if you're not having to stock up on HDMI and Optical cables.  It may wind up giving us all cancer, but if you ask me, wireless can't come soon enough.
   Finally, the touch screen thing is coming, whether we like it or not.  I know the iphone is fancy, but people I'm still not sold.  Do you have an iphone?  Do you know someone who does?  Go ahead and pull it out of your/their pocket and look at it.  Greasy as shit, right?  People are greasy, and I know even my flip-phone needs a wipe down at least a few times a day.  The more glass touch stuff we get, the more disgusting we're going to feel.  Top that off with the fact that almost no one has been able to master the touch screen.  Apple's is good, Microsoft's are good (on their Surface products anyway)... but so far I haven't seen anyone else who can touch that kind of interactivity and smoothness.  I think before we go touch screen, we need to explore voice-recognition... that will make everyone happy (even people without fingers).
   Regardless of what interests you, or even if you're not into technology at all... 2010 is going to be nuts.  Look at how far we came in 2009... the TV I bought went from 1400 bucks down to less than 800.  Crazy!  And sort of annoying.  But my point is, things are getting faster, cheaper, and easier by the day... and I can't wait to see where we go from here.

The Rocker
   Dwight Schrute was a master drummer, until his bandmates turned their backs on him and left him in the dust.  Now he's a washed up has-been, desperately trying to relive his dream of becoming a famous drummer.  He finds a bunch of kids who are struggling to make it big, and he vows to help them.  Throw in a cast made up mostly of NBC's Thursday Night lineup (actors from "The Office," "30 Rock," etc), and you've got yourself a sure-win scenario, right?  Wrong.  The first three sentences of this paragraph are more exciting and funnier than the entirety of this sad, waste of a movie.
   Surely that's a harsh assessment, right?  I mean there had to be SOMETHING good about this movie.  There were so many funny people in it, the concept was great (kind of a "School of Rock" meets "Mighty Ducks").  Well, there was that one part where... uh... and then there was that other part when... oh.  Yeah this movie just sucked.  It could have been an over-the-top Ben Stiller style movie full of wacky characters and ridiculous situations.  It could have been an inspirational, more children-oriented movie about perservering and overcoming the odds.  Instead, it tries to awkwardly straddle the line, and the end result is a movie that will make adults AND children uncomfortable.
   The ONLY thing this movie had going for it was Christina Applegate.  She's smokin' hot, and usually she's funny (Anchorman, anyone?)... but in this movie she's much more down to earth... which is fine, except that you have to watch her kiss Dwight Schrute.  I don't even care to know that guy's real name.  He's Dwight.  Period.  And unless they're making "The Office: The Movie," he really has no place on the big screen.  The kids in the movie were PAINFULLY bad, which is odd because two of them have been really good in other movies.  The third douche, I don't know where they found that guy.  Even the music they play is pussy rock at best... absolutely terrible.
   No, this is a sad case of too many different ideas trying to come together, and in the end none of them working.  It was a good try, but there are way more, better movies out there with similar concepts (except they are actually executed correctly).  Don't waste your time on this one.

Elegy
   On pretty much the complete other side of the spectrum from "The Rocker," is "Elegy."  A story about a college professor-slash-sex maniac, running his typical course of trying to bang his students, when he meets a challenge that he can barely keep up with: the smokin' hot Penelope Cruz.
   Alright, I have to be honest.  I don't get what people see in Penelope Cruz.  She's pretty, but she's now "wow" pretty.  She has a nice body, and I guess you could argue that, unless most other beauties on the big screen, she actually can act.  I'll give you that, but still, I'm not floored by her, and I wasn't in this movie either.  Ben Kingsley was, though, and he of course turned in a brilliant performance.  I was surprised to see Dennis Hopper in such a serious and intelligent role (whenever I think of him, it's either as the crazy reporter in "Apocolypse now" or as King Koopa in the "Mario Bros" movie).  So good acting all around then.
   The only thing that topped the acting was the beautiful writing.  I'm not sure how much of this movie was scripted, and how much of it was ad-libbed.  I'm also not sure how much I can blame the writing for being so good, or if it was Ben Kingsley and crew who really made it sing.  I can definitely see where in some cases it might feel a little over-the-top.  It's like watching a high school literature class novel played out on the screen (lots of big words and overly-dramatic scenarios)... and yet it works.  Maybe because everyone in this movie is an intellectual, I don't know.  Whatever it is, it's rare magic on the screen.
   So now comes the part where I tell you "Great acting.  Great writing.  Even a good soundtrack."  DON'T watch this movie.  That's right, I want you to stay away from it... or at least, stay away from it based on my recommendation.  Watch a preview or read a summary before you decide to pop this one into your DVD player, and if you don't like it, don't come crying to me.  This is one of those movies that I enjoyed, but I don't know if you're going to even remotely like.  Sort of like "Lost in Translation," except not as good (and Lost in Translation is good, I don't care what you say).  So yes, I do recommend this movie, but only on those conditions.  Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

   In closing, I just want to say briefly that I saw a commercial for Oxy-Clean tonight, and it didn't have Billy Mays fronting it.  When it ended, I was left with a hollow, empty feeling... a void in my life that only the great Billy Mays could ever fill.  So here's to you, Billy... now I guess the world will just have to settle for this guy.