I used to be bitter about Valentine's day, hell I blogged all about it. This year I woke up in a different mood. Not because I'm not single, but because I look at the day differently. In general, Valentine's day has become a day for couples. Everyone else is left to ponder what they don't have, in an uninvited-to-the-party sort of self-pity. However, it's all wrong! This mutant step in holiday evolution shouldn't be so third eye focused on the mated pair. We would all feel so much better, the world would be all the more comfortable, if people took the day to show someone, anyone, that they love them. I don't think chocolates are the answer. For all the same reasons that I previously stated. A box of chocolates is a lazy married couple's courtesy fuck. In it's 30 seconds of pleasure-able gratification that stems from 30 seconds of thought and effort; it is a complacent business hand shake that leaves the world colder than how you found it.
I propose that people be creative, personal, and sincere in the simple effort to share some love, with someone they do. I just bought a bag of bagels from Bagel Broker, a pack of cigarettes, and a bag of green beans from Whole Foods, and left them in a basket on the special plural someones' door step. I could have stolen some keys and taken a car to get washed and detailed. Whatever it is for you, however you choose to spell the word LOVE, the act itself is a metaphysical hug and a kiss that has the under appreciated power to brighten a day, heal a lonely wounded heart, or bring a giant rock full of billions of individuals that extra little bit closer. My Valentines Day epiphany is probably common sense that I wouldn't have been blind to, if I hadn't been so focused on my self. I don't usually take Bjork seriously, but she was right when she said it. "ALL IS FULL OF LOVE"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjAoBKagWQA
All is Full of Love Lyrics
Happy Valentines Day Everyone
-MM
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Basterds are Inglorious: Inglorious Basterds Analysis
"Quentin Tarantino is such an overflowingly talented maker of films that you wonder when he's going to grow up into a real filmmaker." - Kurt Loder
"In short, "Inglourious Basterds" is not "Pulp Fiction." It's not even a war movie. It's a movie about other war movies — a riot of references with no stabilizing core. Yet again." - Kurt Loder
Kurt Loder's Full Article Here
I've read review after review of Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglorious Basterds that has more to say about their opinions about Tarantino's style then they do about the film's merits as a story. Like it or not Tarantino is like a filmmaker's version of a literary historian who cannot tell a story without consciously alluding to what has existed prior. Just because you recognize a shot or a reference or two doesn't mean you can disregard the entire statement as being theft or an homage. The point was for you to recognize the reference. With Tarantino it seems to be an intentional part of the discussion. Unfortunately it is a minority that is capable of adequately participating in that discussion. However, I'm admittedly not well versed enough to invite the entire internet to bombard me with a film history pissing contest. This isn't the kind of article where we debate whether or not the Cabin was a reference to John Ford's the Searchers and whether it was an appropriate choice. My intent is to contribute an interpretation of the film's intent.
(*SPOILERS: DO NOT READ further if you do not want to know what happens)
I think Inglorious Basterds was about Glorification.
On one side you've got The Basterds, on the other is SS Colonel Landa (Christopher Waltz). Both have been glorified by legends that precede them. Each of the Basterds has an infamous nickname Such as "The Apache" or "The Bear Jew", while Landa is called the "Jew Hunter". Both sides have gained a sort of glorification as in they benefit from larger than life personas as a result of their violent actions.
The story lines converge at one major plot event...
"In short, "Inglourious Basterds" is not "Pulp Fiction." It's not even a war movie. It's a movie about other war movies — a riot of references with no stabilizing core. Yet again." - Kurt Loder
Kurt Loder's Full Article Here
I've read review after review of Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglorious Basterds that has more to say about their opinions about Tarantino's style then they do about the film's merits as a story. Like it or not Tarantino is like a filmmaker's version of a literary historian who cannot tell a story without consciously alluding to what has existed prior. Just because you recognize a shot or a reference or two doesn't mean you can disregard the entire statement as being theft or an homage. The point was for you to recognize the reference. With Tarantino it seems to be an intentional part of the discussion. Unfortunately it is a minority that is capable of adequately participating in that discussion. However, I'm admittedly not well versed enough to invite the entire internet to bombard me with a film history pissing contest. This isn't the kind of article where we debate whether or not the Cabin was a reference to John Ford's the Searchers and whether it was an appropriate choice. My intent is to contribute an interpretation of the film's intent.
(*SPOILERS: DO NOT READ further if you do not want to know what happens)
I think Inglorious Basterds was about Glorification.
On one side you've got The Basterds, on the other is SS Colonel Landa (Christopher Waltz). Both have been glorified by legends that precede them. Each of the Basterds has an infamous nickname Such as "The Apache" or "The Bear Jew", while Landa is called the "Jew Hunter". Both sides have gained a sort of glorification as in they benefit from larger than life personas as a result of their violent actions.
The story lines converge at one major plot event...
The burning of a crowded theater with nitrate celluloid while playing a propaganda film by goebbles that glorifies the famous exploits of sniper turned war hero zoller.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Sharing is Caring
Jump Here
A friend posted this on facebook.
I Love it because it's the Tarantino Movie of Purses. The backstory is that this purse used to be a Balenciaga until someone murdered its entire Family. The remaining leather was lazer-cut into this Bad Ass MOFO of feminine storage on a mission to settle the score.
SICK! This video is on the same Psycho-tropic liquid creativity that brandnewschool.com milked from Salvador Dali's left breast (Which happened to be floating above a desert and growing out of a stereo speaker at the time)
Sunday, July 5, 2009
In Dependance Day
I have never gotten food-poisoning (knock on wood), but today I find my self forced to purge the poisonous taste of a specific type of girl. I am ill with disgust for an ugly manifest of human nature I have often observed and experienced, but never had the misfortune of wrapping my brain around its full detail, until being forced by the actions of a few fallen angels of my recent metaphysical passing. All human experience has the potential to leave us unaffected or forever changed in its wake. Sadly, I fear that after the last 6 months and todays ruined celebration of the birth of democracy, I will be hence forth tainted by the ugly stench of feminine vanity, and left all the more personally ugly and jaded.
Specifically, my Independend Day was soured by catering to the whims of a girl for 6 hours straight. I changed my holiday plans for who I thought was a friend and for the promise of a bigger more impressive party. I normally subscribe to the party philosophy of "the more the merrier". Why go with my roommate to one holiday shindig when we can go to another with a larger group. What initiated my diatribe began as the demand for a coffee with no offer to pay for it. As an isolated incident, this is rude but the price of a latte is not worth the effort to complain. As the start of a list, this serves as a microcosm for an ugly bigger picture. Being subject to a full days worth of equal or greater annoying events is insufferable. Now, I must explain that there is no sexual desire between me and the said girl. Our relationship is plutonic and I would easily purchase a beer for a buddy with a thin wallet as food or drink for a girl/friend with no job. However, when generosity is not reciprocated with genuine appreciation and in its place exists an observable scheme meant to service their own egotistical pride in their ability to manipulate, one regrets fore mentioned giving and is left unforgiving. The idea that her plot was not obvious is offensive. Nobody likes feeling hustled especially by a bad magician with middle school coin tricks that further demand generosity of attitude in order to prevent awkward bickering and allow them the belief that their trick was successfully masked. We knew she had no intention of paying for her coffee and were discussing it as she conveniently disappeared while we paid for it. I don't like being subjected to such discomfort and dislike being in the company of such ill-mannered un-classy female specimens. Interspersed between the 4 hours of errands and driving through holiday traffic under the constant bombardment of name-dropping, annoyingly uninformed assertions, and personal mis-representation were sporatic warning flags that this was going to be a bad day. For example, she told us that she didn't want her roommate to come because she didn't like his girlfriend, and asked us what she should say or shouldn't say to get out of inviting him. She resolved just to ignore him and pretend like she didn't have service. She made demand after demand without courtesy or regard for what we wanted. The list of minor cruelty goes on, but is not as relevant or necessary. The point is that the day was not fun. The reason was having to spend time with such an unpleasant spirit. My roommate was so pissed and in a bad mood, that we went home and skipped fireworks or partying. By the time I got home in disgust of a wasted day, I could not escape evaluating the root of such evil.
Recently I lived with a girl who never paid rent for 3 months. Admittedly I take responsibility for being duped by the elaborate spiraling web of lies and being naive to the untrustworthiness of false friendship. Her constant promises to get money from her parents or what other resource were all resolutions which did not involve realistic ways of actively earning the money reliably. Most of her time or effort was spent worrying about boys, going out to clubs to hang out with boys, acquiring clothes to look good for boys, or the creative ways to express her individuality through hair style and make-up for boys. Ultimately these girls are a specific breed of female with no firm aspirations that are independant of Men.
It begins during puberty, when the hormonal shifting of heavenly bodies transforms the otherwise gender neutral girl into the curvy menstrual object of male jaw-dropping voice-squeaking disarmament. For most, this is a natural process of sapien attraction that is eventually equalized by other desirable developing social qualities. Yet for some, it becomes the sole over-compensation by which a woman takes personal pride and identity. To some degree or another every woman is aware of their sexual desirability. This is no more hideous than a man's flexing of physical or societal power as a means to achieve. However, in an environment that places such commodity upon the quantity and quality of female hotness such as the Hollywood club scene where the female ratio and degree of physiological wealth are the fee of entrance, woman potentially continue their womanly transformation into something different. Something beautiful becomes something ugly. They become entitled and manipulative. They wield their sexual power as a power over men, and that power over men as a social power over other women. Like all power, sexual prowess should come with an intrinsic responsibility to respect others and do no harm. Instead, the under-personally-developed girls wield their sexuality with selfish malicious intent.
I am ruffled by the arrogance of this specific vanity and am irked by the delusion that this is a form of independence. In actuality, this is a dressed up overly-lip-glossed form of laziness. What happens all too often, is that these starry-eyed hometown champions step fresh off the bus, only to be showered by impressive expense and empty promises. However, their translation of value is jet-lagged and misconstrued. If their hometown quarterback on a retail job budget or their trust fund business major ex-boyfriends were to share $450+ bottles of alcohol and bestowe $2000+ purses and dresses upon them, than their feelings of specialness and importance might be valid. Here the C or D-lebrity treatment is actually a matter of excess and merely a shared surplus leveraged as an advantage to take from them as opposed to a gift that is given. These girls often grow jaded or empowered or both. Either way they become assimilated by the system.
Don't get me wrong, I am also a part of this system and am equally cliched. The world I am describing is adventurous and fosters friendships and social bonds like any other social system. My complaint is far more specific than the system that fosters the behavior. What I loathe is what potentially happens to these girls. I don't necessarily see any harm in female sexual desirability. To the contrary, I value and enjoy physical beauty. I am not talking about the models, actresses, and fashion gurus that are portrayed as objects by the magazines that create the desire to not work. Modelling, acting, and fashion is a respectable career that is a lot of work. The use of Ass-sets is part of the business here. I admire those that utilize their talents with responsibility and pursue their careers and dreams.
The subject of this discussion is what happens to that F.O.B girl when she gives up or gives in to the idea of not working for those career goals or dreams. I can't stand the presence of self-entitled expectation without the desire to earn worthiness. Just because their hotness entitles them to entrance to a club or a seat next to a celebrity, they are not entitled to money, a cup of coffee, or being a bitch. If they are going to ask for those things, then they should at least conduct themselves with respect and self-respect. They convince themselves of their own princess-ship and demand platters of pleasure to be handed to them. What I pity is that they are unaware of the fact that they are not princesses but beggers asking for handouts. Rather than cultivating their own potential, they live as gatherers and foragers of bottles, fashion, and fashionable men. They are the "table service rats" that scurry across the dance floor looking for crumbs that fall from deep pockets. I wish that they could see that they are destructive to society and that they are self-destructive. They think that living without working makes them independent, instead they are living in dependance.
Happy In Dependance Day,
MM
Specifically, my Independend Day was soured by catering to the whims of a girl for 6 hours straight. I changed my holiday plans for who I thought was a friend and for the promise of a bigger more impressive party. I normally subscribe to the party philosophy of "the more the merrier". Why go with my roommate to one holiday shindig when we can go to another with a larger group. What initiated my diatribe began as the demand for a coffee with no offer to pay for it. As an isolated incident, this is rude but the price of a latte is not worth the effort to complain. As the start of a list, this serves as a microcosm for an ugly bigger picture. Being subject to a full days worth of equal or greater annoying events is insufferable. Now, I must explain that there is no sexual desire between me and the said girl. Our relationship is plutonic and I would easily purchase a beer for a buddy with a thin wallet as food or drink for a girl/friend with no job. However, when generosity is not reciprocated with genuine appreciation and in its place exists an observable scheme meant to service their own egotistical pride in their ability to manipulate, one regrets fore mentioned giving and is left unforgiving. The idea that her plot was not obvious is offensive. Nobody likes feeling hustled especially by a bad magician with middle school coin tricks that further demand generosity of attitude in order to prevent awkward bickering and allow them the belief that their trick was successfully masked. We knew she had no intention of paying for her coffee and were discussing it as she conveniently disappeared while we paid for it. I don't like being subjected to such discomfort and dislike being in the company of such ill-mannered un-classy female specimens. Interspersed between the 4 hours of errands and driving through holiday traffic under the constant bombardment of name-dropping, annoyingly uninformed assertions, and personal mis-representation were sporatic warning flags that this was going to be a bad day. For example, she told us that she didn't want her roommate to come because she didn't like his girlfriend, and asked us what she should say or shouldn't say to get out of inviting him. She resolved just to ignore him and pretend like she didn't have service. She made demand after demand without courtesy or regard for what we wanted. The list of minor cruelty goes on, but is not as relevant or necessary. The point is that the day was not fun. The reason was having to spend time with such an unpleasant spirit. My roommate was so pissed and in a bad mood, that we went home and skipped fireworks or partying. By the time I got home in disgust of a wasted day, I could not escape evaluating the root of such evil.
Recently I lived with a girl who never paid rent for 3 months. Admittedly I take responsibility for being duped by the elaborate spiraling web of lies and being naive to the untrustworthiness of false friendship. Her constant promises to get money from her parents or what other resource were all resolutions which did not involve realistic ways of actively earning the money reliably. Most of her time or effort was spent worrying about boys, going out to clubs to hang out with boys, acquiring clothes to look good for boys, or the creative ways to express her individuality through hair style and make-up for boys. Ultimately these girls are a specific breed of female with no firm aspirations that are independant of Men.
It begins during puberty, when the hormonal shifting of heavenly bodies transforms the otherwise gender neutral girl into the curvy menstrual object of male jaw-dropping voice-squeaking disarmament. For most, this is a natural process of sapien attraction that is eventually equalized by other desirable developing social qualities. Yet for some, it becomes the sole over-compensation by which a woman takes personal pride and identity. To some degree or another every woman is aware of their sexual desirability. This is no more hideous than a man's flexing of physical or societal power as a means to achieve. However, in an environment that places such commodity upon the quantity and quality of female hotness such as the Hollywood club scene where the female ratio and degree of physiological wealth are the fee of entrance, woman potentially continue their womanly transformation into something different. Something beautiful becomes something ugly. They become entitled and manipulative. They wield their sexual power as a power over men, and that power over men as a social power over other women. Like all power, sexual prowess should come with an intrinsic responsibility to respect others and do no harm. Instead, the under-personally-developed girls wield their sexuality with selfish malicious intent.
I am ruffled by the arrogance of this specific vanity and am irked by the delusion that this is a form of independence. In actuality, this is a dressed up overly-lip-glossed form of laziness. What happens all too often, is that these starry-eyed hometown champions step fresh off the bus, only to be showered by impressive expense and empty promises. However, their translation of value is jet-lagged and misconstrued. If their hometown quarterback on a retail job budget or their trust fund business major ex-boyfriends were to share $450+ bottles of alcohol and bestowe $2000+ purses and dresses upon them, than their feelings of specialness and importance might be valid. Here the C or D-lebrity treatment is actually a matter of excess and merely a shared surplus leveraged as an advantage to take from them as opposed to a gift that is given. These girls often grow jaded or empowered or both. Either way they become assimilated by the system.
Don't get me wrong, I am also a part of this system and am equally cliched. The world I am describing is adventurous and fosters friendships and social bonds like any other social system. My complaint is far more specific than the system that fosters the behavior. What I loathe is what potentially happens to these girls. I don't necessarily see any harm in female sexual desirability. To the contrary, I value and enjoy physical beauty. I am not talking about the models, actresses, and fashion gurus that are portrayed as objects by the magazines that create the desire to not work. Modelling, acting, and fashion is a respectable career that is a lot of work. The use of Ass-sets is part of the business here. I admire those that utilize their talents with responsibility and pursue their careers and dreams.
The subject of this discussion is what happens to that F.O.B girl when she gives up or gives in to the idea of not working for those career goals or dreams. I can't stand the presence of self-entitled expectation without the desire to earn worthiness. Just because their hotness entitles them to entrance to a club or a seat next to a celebrity, they are not entitled to money, a cup of coffee, or being a bitch. If they are going to ask for those things, then they should at least conduct themselves with respect and self-respect. They convince themselves of their own princess-ship and demand platters of pleasure to be handed to them. What I pity is that they are unaware of the fact that they are not princesses but beggers asking for handouts. Rather than cultivating their own potential, they live as gatherers and foragers of bottles, fashion, and fashionable men. They are the "table service rats" that scurry across the dance floor looking for crumbs that fall from deep pockets. I wish that they could see that they are destructive to society and that they are self-destructive. They think that living without working makes them independent, instead they are living in dependance.
Happy In Dependance Day,
MM
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Show Me Where The Wild Things Are
So the trailer for Spike Jonze's long awaited project "Where The Wild Things Are", just dropped. You can find it apple.com.
The film has long been delayed due to complaints by Warner Bros that the film is too dark and inappropriate for children. Which I'm sure thwarted the whole reason the green lit a children's book. The rumor was that Jonze was going to remove his name from the project, which seemed to me to be a completely tragic turn of events to to my excitement that his former girlfriend Karen O from the Yeah Yeah Yeah's was doing the soundtrack. Forest Whitaker who plays Ira the lead "Wild Thing", was very vocal about the importance of the dark scenes and that kids need to see some of that stuff. Regardless of what happened between Jonze and the Studio, the film is finally ready to be released. Currently scheduled for Oct. 16, 2009.
You can see in the trailer that the feel is much different from the current over saturation of Dreamworks/Pixar animation ventures. It is a combination of live-action, CGI, animatronics and enormous puppets.
The clip below is from a test that leaked onto the internet years ago which Jonze conducted to pitch his creative direction to the studios. What I love most is that depite its brevity, it contains within it larger suggestions. For a short scene, I love how it subtley contrasts Ira's (the Moster) physical invulnerability, with his major emotional vulnerability. As he walks away muttering that "robots are the best", you can feel his disappointment.
Robots are the best,
-MM
Monday, March 16, 2009
Elizabeth Gilbert: Creative take on Creative Genius
Being that I spend five days a week deep in the threos of creativity, I have come to conclude that creativity is much more of a process than it is magical or divine inspiration. However, being that I have long thought that art is the fingerprint of the soul, that process is very definitive of who we individually are on a metaphysical level. To elaborate, a creative decision is the nexus point between processed past realities and intended future states of the real world. We essentially attempt to sculpt reality by drawing upon the memories that we deem relevant. The lines of causality drawn between who we were and who we want to be, intersect at the moment of creative decision. This place is vast and immeasurable, and perhaps magical or divine. We are re-created every instant. Each one, a laborless work of art.
My water broke,
-MM
Friday, March 13, 2009
Cramer vs. Stewart: political satire becomes watchdog journalism
I have long been a fan of the Daily Show with John Stewart. However, after last night's heroic verbal performance, my respect and admiration has risen to a new level just below obsessed paula abdul fan.
After a week long media dubbed "feud" between Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer of MAD MONEY, the two titans clashed in a hyped for ratings verbal brawl that brought the audience to an uproarious cheer which later evolved into awkward mixed feelings of sorrow and anger. Like a medieval public sentence, you almost had to feel sorry for Cramer as he squirmed, yet simultaneously I found it somehow slightly sadistic to enjoy his public lashing as the symbolic embodiment of journalistic irresponsibility and financial "Shinnanigans" (His words) that have brought us to such dire economic digression. In all fairness, Cramer is not to blame, but the attitude and behaviors that he shares with the culture that he is a part of, is a large peice of the puzzling sign of the times.
Stewart was better prepared and more mentally agile. His references to Sherman's march and Carly Simon's your so vain to illustrait larger points attribute to his sharp wit and quick intelligence. Cramer doesn't even seem to understand the issue, defending himself by saying it's about making good calls and bad calls and implying the impossibility of always being right about the market. Stewart corrects him by explaining the issue is about "Real Market" and "Fake Market". Cramer should have watched the episodes of Stewart's show to know what critique Stewart was making. If he did, then he didn't understand the commentary. Stewart argues that the issue is about false presentation and Wallstreet side betting, because it feels like the general public is "Capitalizing their adventure" and that the practice is dubioius, dangerous, disengenuous, and criminal. However, what I find most interesting, is that somewhere in the moment is the epic comic book story of a court-jester-political satirist's rise to a Robinhood-superhero-watchdog journalist. Although those that he fights for, should on their own see through the shrowd of media "dupe"-ery that is a ridiculous show like MAD Money, Its great to see such a widely watched comedy central show, play the role of media whistle blower balancing branch.
Ultimately, what began as commentary about commentary has become a notable media event where at the least, Jim Cramer and the people of CNBC have been challenged to do better. I think the fact that the wake-up call came from a comedy show, says more about our society and our media than anything else.
It all began here:
John Stewart coments about Rick Santelli's fingershaking.
"Why bail out the "Losers" with failed mortgages?
They are to blame for not being responsible and for not seeing the warning signs."
Stewart calls him out and the network he is a part of, for thier fallibility and irresponsible financial reporting.
In what I perceive to be a self-defensive move, Cramer attacked Steward by calling him a Comedian. Stewart no doubt took to the offensive.
The back and forth continues
The battle was so widely downloaded and talked about, that it was immortalized by someecards.com
Comedy Central makes fun of themselves for hyping the event
THE INTERVIEW
Obviously, Cramer was under-prepared. I like to imagine that his agent assured him that they would end the feud and make nice after negotiating with Comedy Central's people. I wonder who the first person he called was when he left the interview? His wife? His Agent? His Boss? I'd give my appendix to hear that conversation.
Good morning,
and in case I don't see ya,
good afternoon,
good evening,
and good night!
-MM
After a week long media dubbed "feud" between Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer of MAD MONEY, the two titans clashed in a hyped for ratings verbal brawl that brought the audience to an uproarious cheer which later evolved into awkward mixed feelings of sorrow and anger. Like a medieval public sentence, you almost had to feel sorry for Cramer as he squirmed, yet simultaneously I found it somehow slightly sadistic to enjoy his public lashing as the symbolic embodiment of journalistic irresponsibility and financial "Shinnanigans" (His words) that have brought us to such dire economic digression. In all fairness, Cramer is not to blame, but the attitude and behaviors that he shares with the culture that he is a part of, is a large peice of the puzzling sign of the times.
Stewart was better prepared and more mentally agile. His references to Sherman's march and Carly Simon's your so vain to illustrait larger points attribute to his sharp wit and quick intelligence. Cramer doesn't even seem to understand the issue, defending himself by saying it's about making good calls and bad calls and implying the impossibility of always being right about the market. Stewart corrects him by explaining the issue is about "Real Market" and "Fake Market". Cramer should have watched the episodes of Stewart's show to know what critique Stewart was making. If he did, then he didn't understand the commentary. Stewart argues that the issue is about false presentation and Wallstreet side betting, because it feels like the general public is "Capitalizing their adventure" and that the practice is dubioius, dangerous, disengenuous, and criminal. However, what I find most interesting, is that somewhere in the moment is the epic comic book story of a court-jester-political satirist's rise to a Robinhood-superhero-watchdog journalist. Although those that he fights for, should on their own see through the shrowd of media "dupe"-ery that is a ridiculous show like MAD Money, Its great to see such a widely watched comedy central show, play the role of media whistle blower balancing branch.
Ultimately, what began as commentary about commentary has become a notable media event where at the least, Jim Cramer and the people of CNBC have been challenged to do better. I think the fact that the wake-up call came from a comedy show, says more about our society and our media than anything else.
It all began here:
John Stewart coments about Rick Santelli's fingershaking.
"Why bail out the "Losers" with failed mortgages?
They are to blame for not being responsible and for not seeing the warning signs."
Stewart calls him out and the network he is a part of, for thier fallibility and irresponsible financial reporting.
In what I perceive to be a self-defensive move, Cramer attacked Steward by calling him a Comedian. Stewart no doubt took to the offensive.
The back and forth continues
The battle was so widely downloaded and talked about, that it was immortalized by someecards.com
Comedy Central makes fun of themselves for hyping the event
THE INTERVIEW
Obviously, Cramer was under-prepared. I like to imagine that his agent assured him that they would end the feud and make nice after negotiating with Comedy Central's people. I wonder who the first person he called was when he left the interview? His wife? His Agent? His Boss? I'd give my appendix to hear that conversation.
Good morning,
and in case I don't see ya,
good afternoon,
good evening,
and good night!
-MM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)