headline stupidity

I love reading the New York Times, but sometimes even the Times goes a little wacky. Here's the front page headline for this story: MTA Failed During Flood, Report Says. Really? The subway flooded and people couldn't use it, so the people who run the subway failed? Wow. That's some awesome reporting there, New York Times. [end sarcasm]

By the way, this reminded me of the time they had a huge fire in a subway station in Lower Manhattan a few years after 9/11. We were supposed to have a safer subway system, you know, because of terrorists and stuff. Despite that, apparently a homeless person's shopping cart caught on fire and shut down the entire C line for months. Good job, MTA.

Sometimes, I don't mind having to deal with traffic on the 405 if I don't have to deal with these crazy people.

vma train wreck

Every year, I watch the MTV Video Music Awards hoping this year will be different. This year is going to be better than last year. This is the year that MTV will prove that all those past horrible shows were just a fluke.

Every year, I am proven wrong.

Seriously, the whole show last night was a train wreck and you knew things weren't going to be good when Britney Spears opened the show. Her "comeback" performance was awful. She half-assed the singing, the dancing, the wardrobe, and the hair weave/wig on her head. The only good thing about the performance was her make-up. I don't know who her make-up artist was, but if that person had been in charge of that entire performance, it probably wouldn't have been the debacle it was.

People, if you make a comeback during your career, you should follow in the footsteps of John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Now, THAT was a comeback! Britney's crappy gyrating and horrible lip syncing? Not so much.

Did anyone else watch this horrid awards show? The only good thing about it was when Justin Timberlake performed at the end. I mean, Justin was awesome last night! He was the only one.

rated s because it sucked

So the motion picture board watches movies and then decides what to rate them. The thing is sometimes they give a certain reason for the rating. Most times, this would be normal. But there are occasions when it's bizarre. Alien vs. Predator got a PG-13 for slime and Twister got a PG-13 for "intense depiction of very bad weather" [scary!]. I still sometimes movies need to be given a rating to warn people that the movie is crap and you shouldn't see it. Like Glitter or Gigli or something. Those movies need special ratings just for the scariness of them.