Ween have (has?) broken up. One of my favorite current bands now has to be moved to the "defunct" column. I am starting to run out of current bands to really dig. Ween was one of those bands I could always listen to, since so many of their albums had a mixture of styles (like Zappa, The Beatles, or They Might Be Giants). I shall now listen to Ween's albums for my own personal tribute. I know there's far far worse things going on in the world and I am shallow, but this news is really bumming me out. At least I got to see them play live (in Asbury Park three years ago) and they were awesome that night (apparently they got somewhat spotty in later years due to possible personal issues).
The Grey is one of the best movies of the year. It is so much more than a simple "wolves attack people" movie. It has interesting characters (who are actually allowed depth and development), beautiful cinematography, a literate screenplay (dare I say Hemingwayesque?), and some thrilling action scenes. It's a shame it came out so early in the year, because the movie and Liam Neeson both deserve awards attention. See this movie!
I wish to lose weight. I am not trying to be overly ambitious with it (no miracle diet). Now that it is warmer out, I have no excuse to be out of doors and far more active than I have been. I think if I can get more active and avoid sugary and/or fried foods I can not only not gain weight, but can reduce my current tonnage. If only losing weight was as easy as gaining it. Stupid metabolism! When I was twenty, all I had to do was not eat excessively and weight would slide off and stay off. Now that I am nearly twice that age(!) I can only look back with fondness of them old days.
In any case, I am off now for a five mile walk. Not a jog, not a run. I am not going to be "that guy", you know, the one who works out hardcore for two days and lectures everyone about what they're doing wrong. I think a reasonable goal would be to take off somewhere in the 5-10 lbs range in a month or so. I can do this. But will I? I want to at least get down to a weight I wouldn't be embarrassed to admit to. That's not going to be for a while, though...
Right now, I am not healthy. I am also displeased with my appearance. So, vanity and a need for self-preservation should be incentive enough.
In any case, I am off now for a five mile walk. Not a jog, not a run. I am not going to be "that guy", you know, the one who works out hardcore for two days and lectures everyone about what they're doing wrong. I think a reasonable goal would be to take off somewhere in the 5-10 lbs range in a month or so. I can do this. But will I? I want to at least get down to a weight I wouldn't be embarrassed to admit to. That's not going to be for a while, though...
Right now, I am not healthy. I am also displeased with my appearance. So, vanity and a need for self-preservation should be incentive enough.
Here's a review I wrote for my website, moviepodpie.com Give it a shot!
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B
I was going to write a whole "thing" about how I just plain don't seem to have even the most rudimentary understanding of women. I decided not to, since it would likely be a bore to read. It's doubtless true, however. I haven't often managed, in my nearly 40 years on the planet, to correctly guess when a member of the opposing sex is/is not interested in me. I have an almost flawless track record for guessing incorrectly (so, maybe it is more like I have a "very flawed" track record, come to think of it).
There's a woman in particular who I am almost certain knows of my interest in her, and yet I cannot seem to get my foot in the door (metaphorically speaking). She occasionally will do something that would, to my aforementioned poor judgment, express a reciprocation of interest, but then somehow manage to make a reversal on it. This, of course, confounds me. It is strange, and it makes me feel not unlike being back in High School (like Kurdt Cobain sang, "You're in high school again"),
I am not sure what to do, when I do something it is wrong, but when I do nothing, that also seems to be wrong. Ay yi yi. Anyhoo--
Two things. I don't know why I wrote "not unlike" earlier instead of just "like". Pretentious? I also hate when someone writes/says "anyhoo".
In two days I am seeing Barry Manilow at Radio City Music Hall. Perhaps hearing "Daybreak" live in concert will act as an oracle and unlock the mysteries that are tantalizingly outside of my grasp.
There's a woman in particular who I am almost certain knows of my interest in her, and yet I cannot seem to get my foot in the door (metaphorically speaking). She occasionally will do something that would, to my aforementioned poor judgment, express a reciprocation of interest, but then somehow manage to make a reversal on it. This, of course, confounds me. It is strange, and it makes me feel not unlike being back in High School (like Kurdt Cobain sang, "You're in high school again"),
I am not sure what to do, when I do something it is wrong, but when I do nothing, that also seems to be wrong. Ay yi yi. Anyhoo--
Two things. I don't know why I wrote "not unlike" earlier instead of just "like". Pretentious? I also hate when someone writes/says "anyhoo".
In two days I am seeing Barry Manilow at Radio City Music Hall. Perhaps hearing "Daybreak" live in concert will act as an oracle and unlock the mysteries that are tantalizingly outside of my grasp.
If a restaurant named The Heart Attack Grill, which prides itself on selling intensely unhealthy hamburgers, has patrons being felled by titular heart attacks on the premises, can this be considered "thinning out the herd"? When did eateries start priding themselves on selling insanely caloric fat gram-filled food? I have never eaten something notorious for its indulgence factor, and I cannot say I am too sympathetic when someone who does ends up having health problems because of it. Same with smokers, drinkers, and druggers. Look, I got quite sick when I was 29, due in part to too-heavy drinking. I didn't blame anyone but myself for the stupidity of my choices and actions.
I can't wait until we start to see a flood of lawsuits aimed at the fast food industry by sick overweight people. Don't put me on the jury if you plan on suing, 'cause you'll lose.
Sorry if this all sounds judgmental. I just think if you make a choice to eat at a place called The Heart Attack Grill, you acknowledge its inherent unhealthiness and assume the risk eating a week's worth of fat and sodium in one sitting can put you at.
I can't wait until we start to see a flood of lawsuits aimed at the fast food industry by sick overweight people. Don't put me on the jury if you plan on suing, 'cause you'll lose.
Sorry if this all sounds judgmental. I just think if you make a choice to eat at a place called The Heart Attack Grill, you acknowledge its inherent unhealthiness and assume the risk eating a week's worth of fat and sodium in one sitting can put you at.
Tell me if this is weird. A few nights ago I was at Ruby Tuesdays (I fully admit to a love of chain restaurants--that's not the weird part) with a friend and he asked me how my sister's kids (triplets, aged five) were doing. I told him fine but that they can really drive you crazy. I said, in a normal "inside voice" level (I am not known for being loud and/or boisterous) that little kids can push your buttons, they know they can push your buttons, and that they, in fact, enjoy pushing your buttons to get a rise out of you. I then said I understood where the anger can come from to want to hit a kid. I then, important to the story, said that while wanting to hit a kid is probably normal, it would definitely not be OK to actually act upon that feeling. This woman from the next table then turned to my table and said "Could you keep it down?" This threw me since I was, as mentioned, speaking in library level tones to start with. "You're talking about how its ok to hit kids, and that's not cool," she said, quite annoyingly. Well. I simply replied, in my normal measured respectful tone, that that was not at all what I said. She then mumbled something and turned back around.
Why do people only hear what they want to hear? I am pretty sure what I said was on the safe side of offensiveness (again, I specifically said hitting a kid is wrong). Her self-righteous tone was quite an irritant. My only hope is I ruined the rest of her evening (probably spent going to see, like, The Hunger Games which depicts teens killing each other). People who make snap judgements and then feel secure calling other people (strangers no less) out on it kinda sorta sickens me. I mean, it's Ruby Tuesdays, not exactly the proper venue for serious discourse.
I did fight the urge once she turned around to mockingly say that it would be OK to kick a kitten, but her boyfriend looked kinda big and bikery and I admit to an unwillingness to get popped in the mouth. It was definitely sort of a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" moment.
Why do people only hear what they want to hear? I am pretty sure what I said was on the safe side of offensiveness (again, I specifically said hitting a kid is wrong). Her self-righteous tone was quite an irritant. My only hope is I ruined the rest of her evening (probably spent going to see, like, The Hunger Games which depicts teens killing each other). People who make snap judgements and then feel secure calling other people (strangers no less) out on it kinda sorta sickens me. I mean, it's Ruby Tuesdays, not exactly the proper venue for serious discourse.
I did fight the urge once she turned around to mockingly say that it would be OK to kick a kitten, but her boyfriend looked kinda big and bikery and I admit to an unwillingness to get popped in the mouth. It was definitely sort of a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" moment.
I go back and forth whether or not I think the death penalty is a good idea. I mean, it's been around for a long long time, and doubtless will be around for longer still. Not having been the victim of a violent crime or (thankfully) being close to anyone who has either, I cannot say I understand what a victim or a victim's loved ones go through when they agitate for it. There are some truly evil people in the world, and certainly many of them would make the world a better place in their absence. I, for one, not only did not shed a tear when Bin Laden was killed, I admit it felt pretty damn great when I heard the news.
That all said, I ultimately have to say we shouldn't have state sanctioned executions. Not because I am morally conflicted (though I kinda am) but more because there is always the chance, however slight, that we will mistakenly execute someone innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
Basically, I would be willing to bet the average person who is pro death penalty would say that OJ Simpson was guilty of the crime he was acquitted of. To that person, I would argue that if a jury can be fallible and find a guilty person innocent, then you have to assume the opposite (an innocent person found guilty) is a real possibility. The minute we execute someone later found to be innocent, the whole death penalty system needs to be abolished. I would imagine in the course of history it has happened.
To members of the Religious Right, most of whom seem to favor the death penalty, all you have to mention is that Jesus Christ was himself an innocent man executed by the state.
That all said, I ultimately have to say we shouldn't have state sanctioned executions. Not because I am morally conflicted (though I kinda am) but more because there is always the chance, however slight, that we will mistakenly execute someone innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
Basically, I would be willing to bet the average person who is pro death penalty would say that OJ Simpson was guilty of the crime he was acquitted of. To that person, I would argue that if a jury can be fallible and find a guilty person innocent, then you have to assume the opposite (an innocent person found guilty) is a real possibility. The minute we execute someone later found to be innocent, the whole death penalty system needs to be abolished. I would imagine in the course of history it has happened.
To members of the Religious Right, most of whom seem to favor the death penalty, all you have to mention is that Jesus Christ was himself an innocent man executed by the state.
Through immense amounts of frustration and patience, I was able to get a ticket (one) to see the re-formed Van Halen and a ticket (one) to Bruce Springsteen. It was not a fun day. Ticketmaster put too many high profile shows on sale at the exact same time this morning. I am surprised the site didn't just completely crash. This should have been planned out better. I know they have things in place to stop brokers from being able to buy multiple tickets for resale, but the simple fact remains that a majority of tickets (for seats both good and bad) end up there while the lowly music fan (me) ends up being either shut out completely or stuck with seats closer to the ceiling than the stage. If you plan to see an A+ level show (which I would imagine Springsteen falls into), expect to pay through the nose, or get not great seats, or miss out entirely. If I try buying a ticket literally the second they go on sale for a place as big as Madison Square Garden, I should reasonably expect to get a ticket easier than I was able to this morning. Yet, if you go to one of the ticket broker sites, seats a plenty are already available. That is quite fishy to me.
Just finished reading "The Panic Virus" which is about the now-discredited link between Autism and vaccinations. A very gripping book, one I was glad to read. It was written in enough layman's terminology to not lose me. It is pretty amazing to me that people still refuse to acknowledge there is not strong (or even weak) evidence to link Autism and vaccinations. But then, historically, there has always been at least a measure of distrust about vaccinations dating back to much earlier than the current controversy. I am now reading "Inside Scientology" to keep the controversial streak going. It too is a good read, though I am only about 20% through it thus far. After this, something light. I have the Hunter Thompson Rolling Stone Anthology on my Nook and am thinking of getting "Crackpot" by John Waters, though I have read it many times.
