Charlize Theron Hot? Really?

At around 1:30 last night, I caught a special on MTV2 about the upcoming Aeon Flux movie (coming to a theater near you, December 2nd) and was disturbed that the MTV idiot narrating (hosting) the special called Charlize hot every single time he mentioned her name.
Listen, I do believe she's damn hot, but this bothered me for multiple reasons:
1. They're relying on Charlize being hot to sell the movie, which means they aren't really confident about any other part of it.
2. I'm a dude. I can see that Charlize is hot. I don't need MTV alerting me to this fact. I do realize that most MTV viewers aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, but I would wager that they could figure this out for themselves. Which leads me to:
3. Goddamnit MTV, stop telling me how to think. If some people don't find her hot, then they're entitled to their opinion (they're wrong as hell, though...whoever they are). Don't inundate them with proclamations of her hotness. If they agreed, they'd have already seen it by now!
Anyway, off the rant...go and see the hot Charlize Theron in Aeon Flux. And watch the hot Charlize Theron on new episodes of Arrested Development...if they ever appear (Goddamn Prison Break! Get cancelled already!).
...oh, and I love Charlize Theron.

Wherein I rant about AOL

It's time to retire another holdover from the '90s.
No, I'm not talking about Courtney Love (that's a whole other post). I'm talking about America Online. Can't we all agree that their heyday has come and gone with the times of the slow, dial-up modems and grunge rock?
I wouldn't care (as I have never had AOL) but they've gotten jumpy about defending themselves in this new, broadband era. They're all pissy that they're no longer the premiere provider of mediocre internet service, and have started running commercials about how they block spyware and viruses, of course failing to note that these services are quite free elsewhere on the net. These commericals, much like AOL itself, are obnoxious and omnipresent.
Frankly, the only AOL service that's even remotely useful is Instant Messenger, but that's mainly due to the fact that everyone has the service, not to any particular good quality of the program itself.
AOL, there's a reason TimeWarner dropped you from it's name: you've outlived your usefulness. Can I please get a ruling from the judges on relegating this company to the dustbin of history?

Factoid (like a fact, but fewer calories)

Interesting concept I read about today...it's called Uncanny Valley.
To sum it up for the people too lazy to read a Wikipedia entry, it's a theory that as robots become more and more like humans, people will increasingly identify with them...until they are almost human, when we begin to react negatively toward them (see graph).
Not that I'm obsessed with robots or anything (robots must die), but I thought that was fascinating.
Does this mean R2-D2 is a more sympathetic character that C-3PO because he's a trash can whereas 3PO is a humanoid robot? (No. R2-D2 is more sympathetic because we can't hear the ludicrous dialogue George Lucas has written for him.)
The Wikipedia article goes on to theorize that the reason people didn't like the CGI Final Fantasy movie was that it fell victim to this phenomenon. It fails to take into account that the story sucked ass.
I heard about this concept from an article on ESPN lamenting the fact that the author doesn't like the XBox 360 Madden Football game. I'd also like to mention at this point that I'd be more that happy to take both off his hands for him.
Is Uncanny Valley real? Only time will tell.
Damn robots.

Wherein I discuss the decline of the WSJ

At home, I receive the Wall Street Journal, as I am a baron of industry. I wear a top hat and monocle, and am driven daily from my home in Newport to harass employees at my manufacturing plant.
Where was I?
Oh, yes....as such a prominent citizen, I wish to express consternation at the backward slide of the WSJ. They recently began to release a Satur-day edition in which they do precisely the opposite of everything the Wall Street Journal stands for. In today's printing, the lead story was about Mothers monitoring their childrens' web-logs.
Oh, what a sad day when one of the former great news-papers of the republic falls into tom-foolery.

...and back again

Those ringtone commercials on cable confuse me. Does anyone really want tinny, annoying-as-hell ringtones? Do they want them badly enough to pay for them? I mean, come on, it's not as if every cell phone user is a complete and total jackass, right?
...Anyway, I want to know just how these businesses earn enough revenue to stay afloat, and advertise so goddamn often on TV. I think it's a scam run by the people with good sense (they're around somewhere) wherein they track down everyone who orders one of their ringtones, and severely beat them. If that is the case, godspeed, you masters of trickery.

Wherein I discuss dancing robots and the benefits thereof

Supposition: We may all be subjugated by dancing robot overlords.
For the past few weeks, I have been assailed with robots.
Part of it was self-imposed. I went to a Star Wars exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science. At that exhibit, as an example of current-day robots, a Sony Qrio mock-up was shown. I was fascinated, but more fascinated by how shiny C-3PO is in person (It's true! He's damn shiny! I wonder who has the job of shining C-3p0...he obviously can't do so himself). I didn't think too much of it and returned to college.
Then, I saw this video.
Then, I saw Beck's "Hell Yes" video, featuring, yes, those robots again.
Conspiracy? Or concentrated effort by Sony to do to backup dancers what it did to Nintendo in 1995?
Not that I mind dancing robots, but where will this go next? Robots doing surgery? Robots arguing cases in court? Robots making smart-ass comments? They may replace us all.

Wherein I discuss the decline of the Simpsons

Law of later Simpsons episodes: All new episode plot summaries can end with the word "...again."
Ex. "Homer runs for public office...again."
Ex2. "Bart is expelled from Springfield Elementary...again."
If you are my age, there is one show that is simply more iconic than any other: The Simpsons. For many years, our favorite dysfunctional family has entertained, delighted, started new businesses, overthrown a summer camp, gone into space, gone on strike, met more celebrities than you can shake a 10-foot clown pole at, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
That being said, it's beyond time to put this one out to pasture.
Frankly, pretty much anything that could be done with the characters has been done. We all know Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Homer, and Marge well....almost better than they know themselves. The last few seasons have shown occasional flashes of what made the series great, but they are no heir to the absurdity of the early seasons (except for season 1. If you own season 1 on DVD, I pity you. Goddamn did season 1 suck).
Yes, I know that would make Sunday nights at 8 damn dull. They might even replace it with The War at Home, the show that's Married with Children without the funny. And yes, I know the Simpsons on a bad day is better than most shows ever get. But is there any sight more sad than a former great merely pulling along? Let us remember the good times without blemish. Let us cherish previous seasons...we have enough to get by.
Except for season 1. Season 1 sucks ass.