Pages

12.31.2007

Legendary?

Maybe it wasn’t a great idea to publish our top five movie picks just before going out to see another movie. Oh well. It doesn’t matter anyway. The film now in question wouldn’t have made the list, if you ask me.

I Am Legend sounds like an interesting concept. A virus-based cure for cancer goes horribly wrong, killing most of the population of the earth and changing the rest into insane, hairless brutes who happen to like human blood. The movie follows Robert Neville, a military scientist who thinks he’s the lone survivor. Normally this isn’t the kind of movie I would go to see, but I was intrigued by the “last man on earth” idea, the film’s trailer, and an invitation from Josh.

I didn’t enjoy Legend. A film doesn’t have to be enjoyable to be “good,” of course. Heavy subjects often aren’t enjoyable, but that’s not why didn’t enjoy it. There are a few heavy subjects, I suppose, but they mostly fall into the background of the film.

Most of the time, Neville is alone in New York with only his dog, Sam which he understandably treats like another person. The first third of the film feels a bit like Cast Away as we follow a day in the lonely life of Neville. He takes joyrides around the empty city in any car he likes, uses an aircraft carrier as a driving range, and talks to mannequins at a video store to keep from going crazy. On a more serious level, he is attempting to find a cure for the virus and make contact with any other survivors, but after three fruitless years, he’s beginning to get discouraged. At night, he goes home, locks up tightly and tries to sleep despite the distant wailings from the infected zombie-like creatures who roam the city at night.

Zombie isn’t really the right term. The infected people or “dark-seekers” look more like Gollum when he’s at his meanest and behave like Robert Zemeckis’s Grendel. They’re fast, limber, deadly, and noticeably CGI. That being said, they still scare the snot out of you even when you see it coming. The scary bits in this film rely on old tricks like popping out from the shadows, or around the corner, or… right behind you! It’s actually a little bit annoying that these simple tactics continue to startle you for as long as they’re employed. I doubt it would be scary to seasoned veterans of horrors or thrillers or if viewed on a regular TV with a regular sound system. So, ultimately, the film fails to be truly frightening.

More resonant are the shots of an empty, lifeless New York City. They’re extremely eerie. Empty cars line the streets. Signs saying things like “God still loves us,” and “We’re still human,” were apparently painted by the infected people before they underwent complete transformation. Beyond that, the film makes little attempt to humanize the infected and chooses to rely on them as instruments of fear. It would have been far more interesting and disturbing to have seen the transformation of normal people into these monsters, but no.

If there was supposed to be a message or purpose to the film, I didn’t get it. There are a few mentions of God. Neville uses the old “how could God let this happen?” reasoning, though later it is subtly implied that he has changed his mind. In a flashback, Neville prays with his family and another character evokes God’s will as her reason for doing things. But there’s nothing there that can be construed as the film’s overall “message”. It might be suggested that “don’t play God” is the film’s message, but if that’s the case then it wasn’t presented well at all.

Because the back story was told in flashbacks the movie centered on Neville and his quest to survive and save the human race. Frankly, there’s not much of a story in there. This all leads up to a disappointingly sudden ending. I, for one, was left wondering what the point was. Somebody started to clap when the credits began to roll, but stopped rather sheepishly when they realized nobody else was going to.

It’s a real shame. I Am Legend had potential. But there is too much of Neville sneaking around and getting surprised by zombies for any lasting meaning to shine through. Unfortunately, the best thing this movie’s got going for it is Will Smith.



Rating:

12.28.2007

The Year in Review, and My Thoughts on Stuff

[Edit] This is depressing, so only read it when you're in a really bad mood already. Or, if you're in such a good mood that it won't make a difference. You know, the kind of "bunnies and daisies" mood?-- J.D.

I wanted to post on this question: "Looking back, what stories will define this year? Put simply, what will the Encyclopedia editors feel forced to include in their synopsis of this year, if they even have a choice by then?" But then, I rambled on about a lot of different things, so it's more of a hodge-podge post than anything else.

From what I can tell, 2007 was the year that the American public finally accepted global warming and rejected the War in Iraq, building on top of the groundwork laid in 2006. This year was highlighted by the growing disillusionment with the government. People mention Bush's approval ratings (has anyone ever stopped to wonder what the heck the word "approval" actually means?) without stopping to realize that Congress's is even lower. How ironic.

This was the year that Atheism really gained some credibility in the mainstream. Christopher Hitchens, with his book "god is Not Great" (punctuation his), helped catapult the "God discussion" into the forefront, at least in my mind. The oddness of Hitchens' atheism is that he considers himself a "neo-con" and agrees with many "Conservative" principles, but he is a self-labeled atheist and anti-theist. Chris, if I may call you that (even if I couldn't I would), are you also an anti-deist? Meaning, do you dislike only the idea of a loving God who is involved in your life, or just the idea of a God period?

2007 was the year of movies. My goodness, so many movies. Most of the ones I saw were really quite good as well, which is unusual. AMC, I want a refund for that movie I saw 10 years ago. You know, Godzilla? I believe the ticket price was $3.50, not adjusted for inflation.

On a light note, it was also the year of the feud between Kanye and Fiddy. Come on guys! Get along. Everyone knows who's more "gangsta" and who can't rap. Arguing about it's not going to help anything.

On a heavier note, Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. America still supports Pakistan, even though Musharraf is a...well, frankly he's a word I can't say on this blog. Let's just say I meant "little rabid joke of a man" and leave it at that.

The two surprising political stories of the year? Ron Paul's rabid internet following (pray that translates into actual votes!) and the Huckaboom. Really, Mike Huckabee is my second choice, although I'm concerned that if he continues to use religion so blatantly, he'll get burned in the general election. If neither of these candidates wins, I'm voting third party. Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of the politics that this country runs on. I might move to Tahiti and watch the Land of the Free continue to crumble into the Home of the Meek. Probably won't be able to buy anything there though, what with the dollar as weak as it is.

A great man once asked us, "What can you say of a society that says that God is dead and Elvis is alive." Piggy-backing on that, I ask, "What can you say of a society in which more people care who's voted off the island than who's voted into the White House?" Not much, except this: Idiots.

It's the best of times; it's the worst of times. Excesses accumulate; freedoms dissipates. Hate rises; love sinks. We are the herd, not caring if we're heard.

For any further thoughts of mine on the government, see this video:


This was the year of the Gas companies. When will we get off oil?

This was the year of Al Gore. Inconveniently.

Putin was the man of the year. I narrowly missed being selected. I knew I should've upped the bribe.

If you're depressed now, wait 'til the end of '08, when Hillary's president. Oh, just you wait!

P.S. Love conquers all. Maya Angelou said it, it must be true.

2nd P.S. "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul."-- A much better poet than Maya Angelou, Emily Dickinson.

12.27.2007

The Best of '07: Movies

Josh and I may be music "snobs" but we aren't quite elitist enough to be film snobs. In order to be a film snob you must adhere to the following guidelines:
  • Be skeptical of every single "popular" film that comes along. If the common folk enjoy a film, it is not fit for your snobbish consumption.
  • You must judge a film not on it's own merits, but the merits given to it by fellow critics.
  • You must never stray too far from the critical opinions of your fellow film snobs.
  • You must never enjoy a film. It is a piece of art to be taken apart, examined, put back together, and reviewed.
  • If the film's plot is strange, unpleasant, or otherwise made in such a way as will turn off the common people, you must favor the film.
  • You must watch the Academy Awards.
  • You must never refer to a motion picture as a "movie". That is a vulgar term used by the common people.
Neither of us could ever hope to be movie snobs - excuse me - film snobs. Unlike our music picks, you will likely recognize all the films we have selected here.

1.
Ratatouille

It was difficult to pick this year’s “best” film, but Ratatouille broke the stalemate between my top three primarily because it was the only stand-alone movie among them. As I stated in my review, I was skeptical about this movie when I first saw the trailer, but Pixar hasn’t let me down yet and Ratatouille is no exception. A unique concept, superb animated visuals, and compelling story make this a great comedy, drama, romantic-comedy—whatever it is—for all audiences. As cliché as that sounds it is true. There is something everyone will enjoy about this film if you allow yourself to get past the fact that it’s a cartoon about a cooking rat.


2. The Bourne Ultimatum

Of all the “three-quels” released this year, Ultimatum stands out as the best in my mind. Why? It got right what a lot of other “three movies” missed. A sequel should stay true to the core elements that people liked about the original. This means bigger is not always better. Sometimes bigger gets in the way. Indeed, Ultimatum doesn’t necessarily have “bigger” action sequences. Instead, it concentrated on giving fans of the first two films what they loved about the series. As a result, the Bourne Ultimatum was full of the extremely smart action found in Identity and Supremacy. Somehow, Ultimatum manages to be better without being bigger.


3. Spider-man 3

Although it had some problems, Spider-man 3 brought the trilogy to a very satisfying conclusion. The film has been heavily criticized as being having too many subplots, characters, and villains so I have a question. Since when is complexity a bad thing? It was complex, but not convoluted. I didn’t have any trouble understanding what was going on and I didn’t even feel like I needed to watch a second time just to understand it all as I did with the latter two Pirates of the Caribbean films. No, it isn’t a film you can just walk into without any prior knowledge of the series. It’s a sequel for crying out loud—a continuation. As a sequel, it performs marvelously. It is equal parts interpersonal drama and superhero action with bits of strange, but tasteful comedy thrown in. Finally, it ends on a bittersweet note giving the trilogy some necessary weight.


4. Amazing Grace

I have problems with a lot of “religious” movies. In general they’re too straightforward and preachy. Amazing Grace has a few problems, but it isn’t either of those. As this is the least known of all my picks, I feel like I should give a brief synopsis. Essentially, it is the story of William Wilberforce, a member of the English Parliament, and his crusade to end the slave trade. This might have made for a rather dull story had it been told in a strictly linear fashion. Fortunately it is not. The storytelling is rather clever, though some of the dots are too thinly connected making transitions awkward at times. The acting, however, is solid as is most everything else about the production. The writing is possibly the best part. Authentic British wit shines through making otherwise dull scenes in the House of Commons lively and subtlety humorous. It isn’t really a tear-jerking film, nor is it especially moving in a way that might be expected. In the end, it is more of a biopic or docudrama. One is not so much moved by how Wilberforce ended the slave trade in particular as by how he stood alone for a just cause when the entire political world opposed him.


5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

Josh and I agreed that, despite falling short of our expectations, At World’s End deserved a place on our top 5. If nothing else, Pirates 3 is impressive as a feat of modern special effects, but it is not a good “Pirates” movie. It’s not all bad, certainly. There are some very good, memorable scenes in At World’s End and, for the first half of the movie, it feels very much like a Pirates film. The conclusion is truly a conclusion. It is nice that closure is give to each of the characters stories. With such a large and diverse cast of characters the film could have easily left out or shortchanged some of them, but it didn’t. Unfortunately none of that ended up mattering. At World’s End has a big problem. It neglects what made the original Pirates of the Caribbean great. It wasn’t the battles or sea monsters or the quality of the special effects. It was… Captain Jack Sparrow! It was swashbuckling fun and hilarity. It never got too dark, nor too bogged down in back-story. So while At World's End was an interesting, exciting movie, it was a lousy Pirates film.

The Best of '07: Music

We here at the Vanishing Blog take our music seriously. We don't like very much of today's music, because all of the artists put out work that is so mind-bogglingly similar to one another. Put simply, we're musically snobbish. Having a snobby attitude regarding what music you will listen to is the first step to becoming a music critic.


The second step to being a music critic is having your own music awards. Along the lines of the BRITs, the Doves, and the Grammys. A crucial part of having your own music awards is having a good name, though perhaps these two examples don't quite illustrate that. Normally, that name is an acronym. The VBMAs? Nah. Sounds too much like the VMAs... We don't need an acronym! We'll just call them a word that has nothing to do with music. We'll call them the Selavis awards. [Note: this is subject to change]


Third, you hand out the awards.

Fourth, you listen to the music.

Those last two steps, while inherent to classical music awards, will be flipped here, so that we can actually say that we kind of know what we're talking about. A small disclaimer: you may never have heard of any of these bands.

The Ground Rules:
1. All entries must be from the Calendar year of 2007.

2. The Album of the Year Award must come from one of the categories already handed out. So, let's say Infinity on High won the Best Mainstream Crud Album. This album would also be eligible for the Album of the Year, but for no other awards excepting Best Album Art, which it wouldn’t win anyway. It couldn't also win Best Rock Album, Best Emo Album, etc.

4. The Song of the Year can come off of the Album of the Year, but does not necessarily have to. [confused yet? I am.]

3. There are 5 categories: Best Album by a New Artist, Best Instrumental Album, Best Rock Album, Best Christian Music Album, Best Album Cover…aww, wait. This is getting way too complicated. Scratch that. These are the best five albums of the year:

1. Disappointed by Candy by Disappointed by Candy
2. Fortnightly by the White Rabbits
3. Cities by Anberlin
4. The Ringing Bell by Derek Webb
5. Marry Me by St. Vincent

So many bands put out really good albums in ’06 that they deserve honorable mentions: The Hush Sound (Like Vines), The Classic Crime (Albatross), As Tall As Lions (As Tall As Lions), Jars of Clay (Good Monsters), Mute Math (Mute Math), Portugal. The Man (Waiter: “You Vultures!”), Matt Costa (Songs We Sing).

12.24.2007

Merry Christmas Eve!

Just a short video warning you to avoid certain people this Christmas season.

12.18.2007

Sacrilege!

Oh dear. Once again, Hollywood is poised to ruin another great piece of literature by making it into a movie. Today, Peter Jackson announced that he will produce (but not direct) "The Hobbit" and a sequel movie.

For those that don't know, Jackson and New Line Cinema have been fighting about profits from Lord of the Rings for the past few years which is why production on the Hobbit was not begun sooner. They've now resolved that issue. I guess they decided it would be better to go out and make another fortune rather than fighting over the one they already had.

Personally, I didn't want Jackson to be involved making "The Hobbit." Although I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films, I think he screwed them up a little too much with his "artistic licensing." Plus, I can't forgive Jackson for making what is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen in the meantime (that would be King Kong, by the way.) However, it seems that he is just going to produce these films. The director has yet to be announced, but Spider-man director Sam Raimi has expressed interest in filling the role which is an interesting prospect.

It was pretty inevitable that this film was going to be made so there's no point in me complaining about it. But TWO? What's with that? Although the news stories I have read are somewhat confusing, I believe the Hobbit is going to be presented as one film and then there will be a sequel of some kind thereafter. Production will begin in 2009, the Hobbit will release 2010 and the sequel in 2011.

So, hold on a second. Isn't Lord of the Rings the sequel to the Hobbit? What's up with this? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but according to this article, the second film will be made up entirely by Jackson and his writers.

As "purist" fan of the books and the author, I deeply offended and outraged by the notion that Jackson has the right to do this. For goodness sake, people get mad at George Lucas for changing Star Wars, so what right does Jackson have to make up a new story within Tolkien's universe? None! Absolutely none! That would be as arrogant and silly as if Michael Bublé tried to record a new album in Frank Sinatra's name or if an artist tried to paint an new Rembrandt or if Steven Spielberg tried to make a Stanly Kubrick film... oh wait... that happened (granted, Spielberg had Kubrick's permission for A.I.).

Hollywood is the only artistic industry with enough arrogance to rewrite and reinvent other artists' material without their approval or consent. Why? I don't mean to be a cynic but... it makes money! That is the only reason Jackson is called a "visionary." He makes money. Money is the main reason for all of these sequels and remakes now being produced. That, and nobody can come up with any good ideas. So normally I would be in favor of Hollywood coming up with something original for a change. In fact, if Jackson wants to write a fantasy film, that's wonderful for him. Go ahead. But get your own world. Stay out of Middle-earth Peter Jackson you have no right to change it.

12.13.2007

An Egocentric Post

If I was one of those pretentious, horrible writers who's vocabulary consists entirely of clichés, then I might begin this post by saying something like "You might have noticed something different about the blog..." but since I am not one of those people and I am more inclined to make fun of them, I have begun in this way.

So, yeah. New Christmas theme, finally. I'm not too pleased with it, but whatever. I don't have that much time to work on blog banners right now, so don't expect a New Years banner.

Oh yeah, and I changed the page background to white so we could have easier-to-read black-on-white text as requested by Fernando who I think I probably scared away by posting on the OLPC. Oh well... it's a change for the better, I guess.

I've noticed that all our posts this month have been pretty depressing. The Death Penalty, Despair, Inc... what's with that? It's Christmastime! That's gotta change. Anyways, I wish everybody a sufferable finals week if it is indeed your finals week.

12.08.2007

Death Penalty (part 2)

Alright. So, several people were confused by my last post on the death penalty. Mercedes brought up the typical pro-death penalty argument: that the death penalty deters murder.

The argument goes something like this: 1. The death penalty's usage has increased over such-and-such period of time. 2. The murder rates over that same period of time have decreased. 3. Therefore, the death penalty has deterred murder!

This is hard to argue for or against, because of a rather nasty thing called logic. Any argument that says, simply, that the death penalty was instituted and crime went down, therefore the death penalty decreases murder is fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (for those of you who haven't taken logic, that means this then that; therefore that because of this). So, in order to say that the death penalty was factor that decreased crime over that time period, you'd have to conclusively prove that all other factors did less to cause this decline.

This may be a little confusing, so let me use a ridiculous example to illustrate what's wrong with this argument method. Carbon Dioxide emissions increased over the 1990s, and murder rates fell. Therefore, murder rates fell because Carbon Dioxide emissions increased. Begin to see the problem? No one would make that argument, because in our minds, those two facts are entirely unrelated. We say, "Hey, the death penalty has to do with murder, therefore there must be correlation between these two trends!" Not so. A convincing argument can be made that murder rates have decreased because abortions have increased. There's less people, which means both less people to murder, and less people that murder.

There are literally millions, if not billions, of other trends. Anti-depressant medications were increasingly prescribed. Trees lost their leaves earlier each year. The sun set an average of .5 seconds earlier each year. I'm making up these trends, but once you realize how many possible causes for one effect there are, you begin to see the problem with cavalierly claiming that one particular trend had the most effect.

Murder actually occurs less in states with no death penalty (3.1 murders/100,000) than in states with a death penalty (5.1/100,000). This is a fundamental weakness in this argument.

Another problem is that premeditated murder is a minority of all murders committed. Murder is often a crime of passion. A person is not going to think, in a fit of rage, "Oh, if I kill this person I will be executed. So I should stop." Humans don't work like that. Someone who is angry enough to kill someone is going to kill them, with or without the death penalty.

That's why I believe that particular argument is flawed. I'll post again tomorrow on this subject, specifically addressing the Bible and what it says.

The News is a Joke

Oh my. When I saw this "news" story, I couldn't believe that anything so stupid could have been reported by anyone with more than half a brain. Seriously, it sounds like the Onion. The headline alone should make any self-respecting journalist feel ashamed of their colleagues. And the story is even worse.

Story summary:
Australian scientists have determined that kangaroo flatulence (eww!) is more eco-friendly than the flatulence of cattle and sheep which contains harmful methane gas (which is blamed for global warming). Therefore, these scientists came up with the brilliant idea of giving "kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep" by transferring a certain bacteria to them which would eliminate the methane gas.

Okay... So let me get this straight. These scientists want to preform an unprecedented transplant of bacteria into the stomachs of animals vital to the agriculturally-based economies of rural Australia which may work and if it does it will decrease emissions which may lead to global warming which may exist. Maybe Josh is right. The world has gone crazy.

12.07.2007

The Death Penalty

I have something I have to get off my chest. I recently did a presentation on the death penalty for a class. This post is going to lay out what I presented, and just my thoughts in general on the death penalty as it exists today. It's important to realize that, while I have major qualms about the death penalty's execution right now (no pun intended), I do not disagree with the concept itself. So here goes.

Only 2% of convicted murderers are given the death penalty--
This was pretty shocking to me. I had no idea that the number was that low. This seems, on a very basic level to be unfair to that 2%. Do we care? Many people have this to say on the topic of murderers: "Kill them. Fry them. We don't care at all!" It just seems to me that the number should be closer to 100%, if the system is to have any credibility.

The death penalty is used predominately on murders that occur in rural counties--
Well, this wasn't so surprising. I mean think about it. People in the "country" have more conservative values, generally speaking. One word here: Texas. Every county in Texas is rural, with the exception of the counties that hold Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Texas also executes the most people of any state.

But more than just Texas, this is a pattern that is present all across the United States:

About one-quarter of Ohio’s death row inmates come from Hamilton County, but only 9% of the state’s murders occur there- Willing R. and Fields G., Geography of the Death Penalty, USA Today, Dec. 20, 1999.

Baltimore City had only one person on Maryland’s death row, but suburban Baltimore County, with one tenth as many murders as the city, had nine times the number on death row- Montgomery L., Md. Questioning Local Extremes on Death Penalty, Washington Post, May 12, 2002.

In New York, upstate counties account for only 19% of all murders. However, they account for 61% of all capital prosecutions.- Capital Punishment in New York State: Statistics from Six Years of Representation, Report from the Capital Defender Office, Sept. 2001

This is systemic. Everyone needs to be tried in rural counties, or nobody should be. The fact is: rural juries are much more likely to grant the death penalty. You could tie this to any number of extenuating circumstances--lack of education (meaning the lack of liberalisation that occurs in many Universities), more "Christian"-- but it really doesn't matter
why it's happening.

Death penalty cases cost the tax-payers much more than life-without-parole cases--
Capital cases are almost twice as expensive than non-death penalty cases in Kansas.- Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections, State of Kansas, December 2003. link

The cost of the death penalty cases, when factoring in all costs and averaging them per actual execution (not just the number of inmates on death row), is $24 million dollars in Florida. Similarly high numbers occur in New York and California.– Dieter R., Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues, Testimony on House Bill 1094 before the Judiciary Committee, Colorado House of Representatives (February 7, 2007). link

The argument is made that tax-payers should not have to pay to house murderers for life, when their crimes are so dangerous to society. I shouldn't have to pay to execute them, then! If you look at it from a purely financial perspective, the death penalty makes no sense. If you want to ease the burden on the tax-payers, use a life-without-parole system (or stop spending money on bridges to nowhere, but that's another post).

New Jersey, for example, has not executed anyone since the death penalty was re-instituted in 1976. Meanwhile, a New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty system has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983.- New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January 2007. link

Poor New Jersians, or whatever they're called. That's arguably more wasteful than a bridge to nowhere...

The death penalty is too final; the government cannot ressurrect the dead--

124 people have been released from death row since the death penalty was re-instituted in 1976- Dieter R., Innocence and the Crisis in the American Death Penalty, A
Death Penalty Information Center Report, September 2004. link

This gets into proverbial gray area. The government says that they have never executed an innocent person. So, officially, there have been no innocents executed. This is kind of frustrating, because the government is not objective in this matter. They wouldn't, I believe, publicly admit something of that nature, because it would give the anti-death penalty advocates a leg to stand on.

This is going to end up being a mini-series--
I can't cover this subject in the depth needed in one post, without consuming too much time and without overloading people with information. That in mind, this has been renamed "The Death Penalty, part 1."

Next time, on "The Death Penalty"--
The justice system and crimes (versus the individual, or versus society?)

Arbitrariness (it's like being struck by lightning).

Crime and the death penalty (it does not stop murder).

The Bible and the death penalty (I wish Jesus had just said, "Lethal injections are cool and froody!).

Okay, that's a joke.

12.05.2007

Despair, Inc.

You know those motivational posters with dolphins and windsurfers on them that say supposedly wise proverbs like, "You can't discover new continents unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore"? Well, someone pointed me to this awesome website called Despair, Inc. which sells the opposite. They call them "Demotivators" and the site provides this explanation for them:

MOTIVATION. Psychology tells us that motivation- true, lasting motivation- can only come from within. Common sense tells us it can't be manufactured or productized. So how is it that a multi-billion dollar industry thrives through the sale of motivational commodities and services? Because, in our world of instant gratification, people desperately want to believe that there are simple solutions to complex problems. And when desperation has disposable income, market opportunities abound.

AT DESPAIR, INC., we believe motivational products create unrealistic expectations, raising hopes only to dash them. That's why we created our soul-crushingly depressing Demotivators® designs, so you can skip the delusions that motivational products induce and head straight for the disappointments that follow!

Hilarious, but not for everyone. I'm warning you right now: some of you will think these funny, others will find them too cynical. I've selected some of the funniest ones below.


So there you go! A little bit of de-motivation just before finals and a little bit of despair just before Christmastime. Everything in moderation.

EDIT

After browsing a bit more, I found this t-shirt.

Quite appropriate. It would make a great RamaHanuKwanzMas gift for the under appreciated blogger in your life.