Noone is going to read my blog.
But that's ok because I shalt have this meager plane of the internet to get some ideas out.
Most likely ideas that will lead my girlfriend to either growl and/or criticize my inability to accept various things.
But genetically speaking, the music world is a mess.
Hidden among layers and layers of utter bullshit lie the diamonds of the various genres and non-genres of the aural universe, waiting for the greedy drill of the true music fan to penetrate and recover.
But until then we are left standing on what ostensibly appears to be crap.
Why is it that people insist on shunning perfectly good, well-crafted songs to pursue what has now because the 10 commandments of the Satanist's Book of Music, the Billboard charts? (Probably an insult to Satanists). What exactly happened to the 60's? Much like a parent of a runaway rebel, where the bloody hell did the music industry go wrong? It seemed to be that the Beatles were, for the longest time, the most popular artists out there. You know it from the first note: culturally significant, experimental, introspective, music, with all of the coveted "catchiness" you could want. But instead we turn to, say...
Who do I get to pick on now?
Britney Spears.
It wouldn't make any sense to compare Britney Spears to the Beatles. But there are loads of girls who write music that sounds a bit like Britney Spears' stuff, but you know, with depth. Rule 1: Noone is ever allowed to write a song about their lives if we've all read it in the shitty tabloids. That includes you, Lohan, you whore. Rule 2: someone needs to unplug ever goddamn turntable and mixer that isn't being used to produce original beats and/or hooks. Hitting a trashcan in 7/4 would make me want to kill myself less than hearing the repetitive, lame beep-beeping of some of these songs.
In fact, the only popular artist right now I can probably commend is Justin Timberlake, for having the balls to associate with black artists and music that much, without looking like a moron. In fact, he's probably blacker than Michael Jackson by now, which, to be fair, isn't saying much.
Is it socially acceptable to say that popular black music went from revolutionary to a cesspool of toxic waste? Or does that make me racist? While the Mos Defs and the Talib Kwelis of the world are sitting in relative obscurity, we have retarded, retarded songs like Hypnotized that girls apparently find oh-so-charming, which makes me think that either the artists who create these kinds of songs are either complete fucking idiots or complete fucking geniuses for wooing over a bunch of white girls with lines involving a whole fucking lot of fucking.
I would like to be reborn in a generation where music was progressive.
Please.
Without political reform to ban some of this stuff, I may die from a musical cancer.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, May 4, 2007
director - exodus/lit circle
For my lit circle on Exodus, I chose to be a director. Exodus would be an interesting chapter to direct because of all the different settings (the characters all get split up.) I chose to do a scene with Leah because she's in the most exotic place. My second choice would be Rachel because she's also in a pretty different place (compared to the rest of the book.) Adah and Orleanna are pretty boring in terms of blocking a scene, however.
The scene I want to portray is the chapter when she is in Bulungu. She is escaping the Congo with Anatole, her mother, and Adah, and I think the way I would film the scene (starting from when she gets into the truck - "The truck was orange. I do remember that...") would be to mount the camera using a headpiece onto the actor playing Leah (in the style of Darren Aronofsky's "snorri-cam"), which allows for a freer close up shot without having the boring, rock-steady lock-down shot of a tripod or crane. The colors used would portray a somber environment to the point of being almost frightening - think the latter segments of "Apocalypse Now" (haunting) mixed with "the Mission" (lush, but muted).
The next part would begin with a long shot showing the width of the river, then cutting to the situation with the ferry and the truck battery. I would track the camera (as hard as it would be) alongside Leah one or two inches under the water, with a lot of "sloshing" to reflect the conditions that Leah is experiencing. It would cut between these shots and shots looking towards the canoe from a boom attached to the bow, to parallel the camera style of the earlier truck scene.
The scene I want to portray is the chapter when she is in Bulungu. She is escaping the Congo with Anatole, her mother, and Adah, and I think the way I would film the scene (starting from when she gets into the truck - "The truck was orange. I do remember that...") would be to mount the camera using a headpiece onto the actor playing Leah (in the style of Darren Aronofsky's "snorri-cam"), which allows for a freer close up shot without having the boring, rock-steady lock-down shot of a tripod or crane. The colors used would portray a somber environment to the point of being almost frightening - think the latter segments of "Apocalypse Now" (haunting) mixed with "the Mission" (lush, but muted).
The next part would begin with a long shot showing the width of the river, then cutting to the situation with the ferry and the truck battery. I would track the camera (as hard as it would be) alongside Leah one or two inches under the water, with a lot of "sloshing" to reflect the conditions that Leah is experiencing. It would cut between these shots and shots looking towards the canoe from a boom attached to the bow, to parallel the camera style of the earlier truck scene.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
What the freaking hell is going on here?
I woke up that morning to finish up my math homework and to catch some CNN, as I always do on mornings where I wake up early. I was expecting some news on Iraq, some on political campaigns, etc. Instead, I got 40 good minutes of some basketball coach talking.
This was annoying enough, especially because the same footage was playing on both CNN AND CNN Headline News.
Of course, at this moment I had no idea what was going on. A few seconds later I would find out that Don Imus, famous radio personality, had called the Rutger's Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos".
Uhm.
Ok?
I was bewildered by the ensuing controversy. I did not know why controversy existed. What Imus said in the beginning held true for me till the very end - "some idiot comment meant to be amusing." So ok, it's offensive that he called them nappy headed hos. It was wrong. I thought "well, maybe 2 weeks suspension is more than enough punishment for him".
...Then he got fired.
At this point, I was pretty flaming pissed off.
We live in a vulgar world. No other way to get around that fact. In the TIME magazine article about Imus and the cultural lines that exist (and that he stepped over), the author points out a lot of things. For instance, Lenny Bruce used to repeat the word nigger (I'm not going to censor that...) over and over again until it had no real meaning to him or his audience. Lenny Bruce was considered avant-garde.
Carlos Mencia trots onto a set every week and, in front of a live audience, talks about stereotypes of spics and the subtle difference between niggERS and niggAS. He is considered funny. He gets paid a healthy sum by Comedy Central.
Countless numbers of rappers talk about pimipin' hos and slappin' bitches and all that other crap. Three Six Mafia won an Oscar for their song, It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp. Uhm.
So, yes, there is a difference between a rapper saying that and, well, Imus saying that. But how much of a difference?
By even creating this much controversy in the first place, aren't we acknowledging racial differences in our culture? Oh, it's ok for a black guy to say the N-word but when a white guy says it, holy sh*t call jesse jackson and al sharpton, it's going down. Is this really the example we want to create for the younger generations to come who would otherwise be ignorant to the idea of race?
What do lines do? Lines separate things. Creating different lines (that cannot be crossed) for different cultures and different people merely amplifies the fact that we're different. Great. Just what we wanted.
So why isn't there a standard? Isn't it arguable that Don Imus was merely trying to be funny in the same way that Carlos Mencia is? What would have happened if Imus was twenty-something years old? Would it make a difference? What if he was black? I'm willing to bet that the fact that he is a 66 year old white male had a lot to do with this. A lot.
It appears MSNBC is just trying to wash their corporate hands of this controversy, but it's so ironic because these are the same corporations which are defining the "trendy", the "allowable", the "funny". Damn. Imus already apologized once. Was it really, truly necessary to fire him?
It just seems to me that this logic is laced with so much BS that it's hard to see what's what. America might be a great place to live, but damn, it seems there are more than a few hypocritcal assh*les in here.
This was annoying enough, especially because the same footage was playing on both CNN AND CNN Headline News.
Of course, at this moment I had no idea what was going on. A few seconds later I would find out that Don Imus, famous radio personality, had called the Rutger's Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos".
Uhm.
Ok?
I was bewildered by the ensuing controversy. I did not know why controversy existed. What Imus said in the beginning held true for me till the very end - "some idiot comment meant to be amusing." So ok, it's offensive that he called them nappy headed hos. It was wrong. I thought "well, maybe 2 weeks suspension is more than enough punishment for him".
...Then he got fired.
At this point, I was pretty flaming pissed off.
We live in a vulgar world. No other way to get around that fact. In the TIME magazine article about Imus and the cultural lines that exist (and that he stepped over), the author points out a lot of things. For instance, Lenny Bruce used to repeat the word nigger (I'm not going to censor that...) over and over again until it had no real meaning to him or his audience. Lenny Bruce was considered avant-garde.
Carlos Mencia trots onto a set every week and, in front of a live audience, talks about stereotypes of spics and the subtle difference between niggERS and niggAS. He is considered funny. He gets paid a healthy sum by Comedy Central.
Countless numbers of rappers talk about pimipin' hos and slappin' bitches and all that other crap. Three Six Mafia won an Oscar for their song, It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp. Uhm.
So, yes, there is a difference between a rapper saying that and, well, Imus saying that. But how much of a difference?
By even creating this much controversy in the first place, aren't we acknowledging racial differences in our culture? Oh, it's ok for a black guy to say the N-word but when a white guy says it, holy sh*t call jesse jackson and al sharpton, it's going down. Is this really the example we want to create for the younger generations to come who would otherwise be ignorant to the idea of race?
What do lines do? Lines separate things. Creating different lines (that cannot be crossed) for different cultures and different people merely amplifies the fact that we're different. Great. Just what we wanted.
So why isn't there a standard? Isn't it arguable that Don Imus was merely trying to be funny in the same way that Carlos Mencia is? What would have happened if Imus was twenty-something years old? Would it make a difference? What if he was black? I'm willing to bet that the fact that he is a 66 year old white male had a lot to do with this. A lot.
It appears MSNBC is just trying to wash their corporate hands of this controversy, but it's so ironic because these are the same corporations which are defining the "trendy", the "allowable", the "funny". Damn. Imus already apologized once. Was it really, truly necessary to fire him?
It just seems to me that this logic is laced with so much BS that it's hard to see what's what. America might be a great place to live, but damn, it seems there are more than a few hypocritcal assh*les in here.
defined as the purest and most concentrated essense of something...
There are a lot of things I believe are quintessential. The one I want to focus on for the purposes of this blog is the Quintessential Guitar. This is one of those common questions that are explored in massive arguments on forums. The two packs -gangs, if you will, are the Gibsons v. the Fenders. After a long (long) time of deliberating, I've decided that I'm going to go with the Fenders.
Ah, the Fender Stratocaster. One of the earliest electric guitar models, it was thrown into the spotlight after being adopted by many a famous rock star. It is the quintessential electric guitar because, for one, it is arguably the most classic design, and two, because it's been copied SO MUCH!
Developed by Leo Fender in the early 50's, the guitar sported many revolutionary features, including the ubiquitous guitar shape and the single-coil pickups. Just one feature that was copied exponentially from the moment the guitar was created was the spring-tensioned tremolo bridge, known to non-guitarists as "the whammy bar thing that changes the pitch".
The guitar's 3 single-coil pickups allowed for numerous tone-changes simply by flicking the 5-way blade, which allowed for versatility. Even today, a Fender can be used for practically any genre ever created: blues, rock, soft rock, pop, country, progressive, indie, even head-bashing metal (with some pickup changes). By simply changing the pickups to those of a heavier output or by modifying small things such as the type of bridge, a Strat can be made to play anything you can think of. This versatility is what makes the Fender Strat so quintessential. It can be found all over the music scene.
Ask a random stranger on the street about what first comes into their mind when you say the word "electric guitar". Generally, most people will say "Fender" or "Strat". Just this fact alone is evidence of how big the Stratocaster really is. The guitar has been adapted so much that it can be made to be perfect. And really, what more could you ask for?
Ah, the Fender Stratocaster. One of the earliest electric guitar models, it was thrown into the spotlight after being adopted by many a famous rock star. It is the quintessential electric guitar because, for one, it is arguably the most classic design, and two, because it's been copied SO MUCH!
Developed by Leo Fender in the early 50's, the guitar sported many revolutionary features, including the ubiquitous guitar shape and the single-coil pickups. Just one feature that was copied exponentially from the moment the guitar was created was the spring-tensioned tremolo bridge, known to non-guitarists as "the whammy bar thing that changes the pitch".
The guitar's 3 single-coil pickups allowed for numerous tone-changes simply by flicking the 5-way blade, which allowed for versatility. Even today, a Fender can be used for practically any genre ever created: blues, rock, soft rock, pop, country, progressive, indie, even head-bashing metal (with some pickup changes). By simply changing the pickups to those of a heavier output or by modifying small things such as the type of bridge, a Strat can be made to play anything you can think of. This versatility is what makes the Fender Strat so quintessential. It can be found all over the music scene.
Ask a random stranger on the street about what first comes into their mind when you say the word "electric guitar". Generally, most people will say "Fender" or "Strat". Just this fact alone is evidence of how big the Stratocaster really is. The guitar has been adapted so much that it can be made to be perfect. And really, what more could you ask for?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
SAT Practice Essay
Here is the SAT practice essay we did in class. The first line should give a decent enough outline about what it's about. I think my downfall is that I don't like to think in concrete examples but more via rhetorical means. Oh well.
In a quote, a writer states that “I am concerned that learning for learning’s sake is no longer considered desirable, that everything we do and think must be directed towards the solution of a practical problem.” This is true in many ways, and even is evident in the hectic atmosphere of high school. It can be seen in classes of all types; many students are apathetic about anything that does not contribute to them getting an A. Why is this, exactly? When did the love of learning, which the majority of us had in our younger years, begin to dissipate?
In English class, we are all assigned literature to read and discuss in class and for homework. Many times, students admit that the books we read are generally enjoyable. But even with that response, does it mean that they would have read that book in the free time? The Poisonwood Bible is a good example of this. It is a well-written book that is dramatic, riveting and well-paced. However, if this book was not assigned as a text, what percentage of the Sophomore class would go borrow or buy it? It is most likely that majority would ignore even the most extravagant acclaim for the book and go on doing schoolwork.
The reason for this is probably because of our constrictive high-school environment. In school our grades are emphasized, not our discovery of new and novel information. Sure, we might learn something unique off hand in a class, but most of our academic lives are spent worrying about our exams and our GPA. Because of this expectation or goal hovering above our heads, it is an inherent fact that there is a tendency for students to ignore “frivolous” information that, in real life, can be very enriching. For much of our lives, we have goals to reach on a constant basis. It is not only in high school that we are pressured to be efficient and pragmatic. We all have necessary actions, such as doing well on a test, paying off a loan, etc. that restrict the learning of things not related to these tasks. In the chaos of attempting to streamline our lives, the will to learn new things also get thrown out.
The problem with this, however, is that it can be taken to extremes. Technically speaking, nothing is really necessary but the skill set needed to work in a specific occupation. This provides the money in order to live without going destitute. It would also be the most efficient route of living. From birth, kids could be placed on a specific track towards an occupational goal. But could you imagine that? What an Orwellian existence that would be! We would be more like robots from a factory than humans. It is simply human nature to be curious about the unknown. Through this learning, we have created the world we know today. Without this curiosity, we would become solitary, single-minded beings, ignorant to the world around us.
Of course, it is important to prioritize and question the necessity of the things that could potentially complicate our lives. The modern world is complex and in the search to find purpose in our lives, many people shut out things they deem do not apply to them. However, it is important to realize that our understanding and learning of things outside our own lives is what makes us human. So yes, maybe reading a new book or exploring art or anything like that might not give us an advantage in the future. And yes, people might say that it is necessary to focus on practical skills in order to succeed in life. But there will always be time to knick back, pick up a novel, and explore a completely foreign world. Life is not always predictable, efficient, and pragmatic. In the same way, we should not lock ourselves in a world where practicality reigns. The question here is not one about if we are pressured to learn practical skills – this is an inevitable fact in a world where working is the primary method of living happily and successfully. The real question is: Will you spend your days in accordance to what practicality dictates, or will you go out and live, learning for learning’s sake?
In a quote, a writer states that “I am concerned that learning for learning’s sake is no longer considered desirable, that everything we do and think must be directed towards the solution of a practical problem.” This is true in many ways, and even is evident in the hectic atmosphere of high school. It can be seen in classes of all types; many students are apathetic about anything that does not contribute to them getting an A. Why is this, exactly? When did the love of learning, which the majority of us had in our younger years, begin to dissipate?
In English class, we are all assigned literature to read and discuss in class and for homework. Many times, students admit that the books we read are generally enjoyable. But even with that response, does it mean that they would have read that book in the free time? The Poisonwood Bible is a good example of this. It is a well-written book that is dramatic, riveting and well-paced. However, if this book was not assigned as a text, what percentage of the Sophomore class would go borrow or buy it? It is most likely that majority would ignore even the most extravagant acclaim for the book and go on doing schoolwork.
The reason for this is probably because of our constrictive high-school environment. In school our grades are emphasized, not our discovery of new and novel information. Sure, we might learn something unique off hand in a class, but most of our academic lives are spent worrying about our exams and our GPA. Because of this expectation or goal hovering above our heads, it is an inherent fact that there is a tendency for students to ignore “frivolous” information that, in real life, can be very enriching. For much of our lives, we have goals to reach on a constant basis. It is not only in high school that we are pressured to be efficient and pragmatic. We all have necessary actions, such as doing well on a test, paying off a loan, etc. that restrict the learning of things not related to these tasks. In the chaos of attempting to streamline our lives, the will to learn new things also get thrown out.
The problem with this, however, is that it can be taken to extremes. Technically speaking, nothing is really necessary but the skill set needed to work in a specific occupation. This provides the money in order to live without going destitute. It would also be the most efficient route of living. From birth, kids could be placed on a specific track towards an occupational goal. But could you imagine that? What an Orwellian existence that would be! We would be more like robots from a factory than humans. It is simply human nature to be curious about the unknown. Through this learning, we have created the world we know today. Without this curiosity, we would become solitary, single-minded beings, ignorant to the world around us.
Of course, it is important to prioritize and question the necessity of the things that could potentially complicate our lives. The modern world is complex and in the search to find purpose in our lives, many people shut out things they deem do not apply to them. However, it is important to realize that our understanding and learning of things outside our own lives is what makes us human. So yes, maybe reading a new book or exploring art or anything like that might not give us an advantage in the future. And yes, people might say that it is necessary to focus on practical skills in order to succeed in life. But there will always be time to knick back, pick up a novel, and explore a completely foreign world. Life is not always predictable, efficient, and pragmatic. In the same way, we should not lock ourselves in a world where practicality reigns. The question here is not one about if we are pressured to learn practical skills – this is an inevitable fact in a world where working is the primary method of living happily and successfully. The real question is: Will you spend your days in accordance to what practicality dictates, or will you go out and live, learning for learning’s sake?
A Critical Response
In the beginning of the Poisonwood Bible, in Leah's chapter, we find out that Tata Ndu demands an election from the people to vote whether they should worship Jesus or not. I found this ironic to the point of comedy that Tata Ndu used the democratic process, which is generally known as a concept from the "western civilizations". I felt it was a bit of clever social commentary.
In the end, of course, Nathan's church of Jesus loses out to the tradtional deities. I thought Nathan had it coming, basically, since the villagers weren't exactly enthusiastic about praising Jesus in the first place, and only really started believing in Christianity as a gimmick (thinking it would give them good luck).
I felt that there was a certain bit of hypocrisy in it all, because the Price family came to Africa in order to try and convince the people of the village that Christianity could save them, instead of being happy with what the democratic process creates.
In the end, of course, Nathan's church of Jesus loses out to the tradtional deities. I thought Nathan had it coming, basically, since the villagers weren't exactly enthusiastic about praising Jesus in the first place, and only really started believing in Christianity as a gimmick (thinking it would give them good luck).
I felt that there was a certain bit of hypocrisy in it all, because the Price family came to Africa in order to try and convince the people of the village that Christianity could save them, instead of being happy with what the democratic process creates.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Carlos Mencia and our SAT Practice...
We wrote our practice SAT essay today in class, and it dealt about if people put too much emphasis on practical skills in our lives. I, of course, agreed with the quote/statement, because it is obvious that our environments our fueled by the need to simply get through the day in the most efficient way possible. But another big idea present in statement, however, was one of how we are influenced by our surroundings. Both of these ideas connect to popular stand-up comic and Mind of Mencia host, Carlos Mencia. Many of you know him as the 'provacative' comic who deals with racial issues.
I used to think that Carlos Mencia was funny. This was when his first stand up special was on Comedy Central. I remember laughing at his joke about a US tank full of black guys being basically a giant drive-by machine. This lead to slight disappointment when I realized his jokes were starting to get recycled. Hah-hah, beaners jump fences, h-ok. White people are chraaaayzheeee. Got it.
I have officially lost all respect for Carlos Mencia.
Those of you who don't know him won't care. Those of you who know him probably still won't care. But those of you who love him will be perplexed.
The reason I have lost all respect for him is not only because I realized his jokes were basically all the same, but also because he did the one thing that really, truly offended me:
He insulted the death of Steve Irwin.
Now, Carlos' signature style is where he makes fun of people doing stupid things. But when I was listening to him tell this "joke" about Steve Irwin getting killed, I was mostly just getting pissed off. Why? Well, for one, Mencia made it sound like Steve Irwin was playing frisbee with the damn stingray. He went on to mock what Steve Irwin had done on his TV shows, implicating that all he did was go around playing with dangerous animals, saying "Now I'm gonna go touch it's balls".
How does this relate to the SAT?
I was walking away from english when it came to me that Carlos Mencia is influenced solely by practicality.
He doesn't have the sophistication of a comic like Christopher Titus or the true edginess of someone like Richard Pryor. Instead, he takes the most superficial information from sources with a lot of depth and uses shock value to get laughs. For instance, he had a segment where he made fun of what he believe to be retarded headlines. An example? "Ethanol gas, produced from corn, goes up in production".
What was his mastermind joke?
"When I eat corn, I make gas too, ahahahah."
Fantastic.
The worst part of it all, though, was the audience. I was just blown away by the fact that someone didn't stand up and say "Dude...you're sort of wrong". Really? Steve Irwin died from literally playing with a sting ray? Really? He DESERVED to die? He literally said that! "The Croc Hunter deserved to die!"
So what was wrong? Was the audience brain-dead? Is the average group of Americans really as ignorant as some foreigners say? Maybe it was just a bad batch, but I was just reeling from this. I guess it was mob-mentality? How are we this influenced by our environment? Maybe the crowd really did enjoy Mencia screaming "He deserved to die" about a man passionate about helping animals. But I doubt it. In every audience member there HAD to be a little bell going "ding-a-freaking-ling, that was inappropriate...right?".
Carlos knows that he can get laughs. And I really do think he manipulates whatever he can to get those laughs. But honestly, is being this pragmatic about humor necessary?
This blog post is probably just showing how two things, practicality and influence, connected in our essay question, can be negatively seen in real life.
Or maybe I'm just pissed off at Carlos, I don't know.
I used to think that Carlos Mencia was funny. This was when his first stand up special was on Comedy Central. I remember laughing at his joke about a US tank full of black guys being basically a giant drive-by machine. This lead to slight disappointment when I realized his jokes were starting to get recycled. Hah-hah, beaners jump fences, h-ok. White people are chraaaayzheeee. Got it.
I have officially lost all respect for Carlos Mencia.
Those of you who don't know him won't care. Those of you who know him probably still won't care. But those of you who love him will be perplexed.
The reason I have lost all respect for him is not only because I realized his jokes were basically all the same, but also because he did the one thing that really, truly offended me:
He insulted the death of Steve Irwin.
Now, Carlos' signature style is where he makes fun of people doing stupid things. But when I was listening to him tell this "joke" about Steve Irwin getting killed, I was mostly just getting pissed off. Why? Well, for one, Mencia made it sound like Steve Irwin was playing frisbee with the damn stingray. He went on to mock what Steve Irwin had done on his TV shows, implicating that all he did was go around playing with dangerous animals, saying "Now I'm gonna go touch it's balls".
How does this relate to the SAT?
I was walking away from english when it came to me that Carlos Mencia is influenced solely by practicality.
He doesn't have the sophistication of a comic like Christopher Titus or the true edginess of someone like Richard Pryor. Instead, he takes the most superficial information from sources with a lot of depth and uses shock value to get laughs. For instance, he had a segment where he made fun of what he believe to be retarded headlines. An example? "Ethanol gas, produced from corn, goes up in production".
What was his mastermind joke?
"When I eat corn, I make gas too, ahahahah."
Fantastic.
The worst part of it all, though, was the audience. I was just blown away by the fact that someone didn't stand up and say "Dude...you're sort of wrong". Really? Steve Irwin died from literally playing with a sting ray? Really? He DESERVED to die? He literally said that! "The Croc Hunter deserved to die!"
So what was wrong? Was the audience brain-dead? Is the average group of Americans really as ignorant as some foreigners say? Maybe it was just a bad batch, but I was just reeling from this. I guess it was mob-mentality? How are we this influenced by our environment? Maybe the crowd really did enjoy Mencia screaming "He deserved to die" about a man passionate about helping animals. But I doubt it. In every audience member there HAD to be a little bell going "ding-a-freaking-ling, that was inappropriate...right?".
Carlos knows that he can get laughs. And I really do think he manipulates whatever he can to get those laughs. But honestly, is being this pragmatic about humor necessary?
This blog post is probably just showing how two things, practicality and influence, connected in our essay question, can be negatively seen in real life.
Or maybe I'm just pissed off at Carlos, I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
