the space-time continuum.

so how dumb am i that i don't understand the whole letters-traversing-a-two-year-span mechanic of this movie?

good thing oxygen is airing it back-to-back so i can catch it again.

also kudos to sandra bullock because honestly, how good of actress do you have to be to actually have on-screen chemistry with keanu?

update: guessing i'm not the only perplexed viewer, in light of this wikipedia bullet point -

The essential plot point, therefore, boils down to this: Alex only knows Kate is at Daley Plaza in the beginning because she warns him — and asks him to wait — at the end, but for Alex to be alive to meet Kate in 2008 he must first be killed in 2006. Even in the case of parallel time lines, for it is an established fact that these must eventually meet if they are to be parallel in the first place (although higher entropy results in more information, not less). So, which came first in time? Valentine's Day, 2006, or Valentine's Day, 2008? It is, in point of fact, neither and both — at the same time. Though not a paradox as such, it is indeed a working contradiction, as neither retrocausality nor duality inherently apply.

hilarious.

what i'm currently debating.

for pretty much all of september, i've had to attempt to contain a raging internal debate. i submit my arguments / rebuttals / redirects for your consideration.

so after watching (wasting?) eight hours (minus commercial breaks, so really more like 6.67 hours), i can't tell which cw show is better. and by better, i mean horrifically, train wreck-rubberneckingly awful.

in one corner, there is one tree hill featuring the utter douchebaggery of chad michael murray, which, when combined with his atrociously amazing dramatic acting skill(z) is a potent force to be contended with:

honestly there were SO many pics to choose from to illustrate my point, but this was an immediate fave. anyway, i sincerely feel that i could write for this show. furthermore, my brother's dog could write for this show. one of their current plotlines involves brooke, who started her own clothing line in high school. in tree hill, north carolina.

anyway, clothes over bro's has clearly evolved into a giant lifestyle empire but brooke chooses to keep it real by running the conglomerate from her boutique in tree hill. i know. and then this season, she gets viciously mauled by some random robber at her store, but now brooke's mother is being fingered as the conspirator who sicced the perpetrator on her own daughter. yes, really.

WHAT? i don't even know what i just said. sometimes the words just flow from my fingers.

so in the other corner, we have the young upstart, 90210 (like you're even surprised i'm watching). not only does it lack any histrionic, hilariously poorly acted teen angst like the original, but sadly chris lorenzo (of silk stalkings fame, i.e., the BEST OPENING CREDITS on tv EVER and don't pretend you didn't watch it on USA during summer break) and aunt becky just do not begin to measure up to jim and cindy walsh.

everyone else and their mom has commented on how painfully tiny the 90210 girls are and so i will just add, why does everyone (and their corresponding maternal figures) think eating a sandwich / cheeseburger / other variant of meat between a consumption vehicle composed of two bread products will solve this problem? i don't particularly enjoy that food group all that much, but i clearly don't have the if-i-turn-sideways-i-become-invisible issue plaguing this show.

also, would kelly taylor really be a guidance counselor? AND brenda just happens to be a drama teacher? REALLY? if they bring donna martin back, she better fucking be a special ed teacher, otherwise the whole premise of bring back the old guys will totally be shot to hell.

i will offer kudos for the inclusion of an andrea-zuckermanesque high school student in the 21-going-on-38 character of naomi:

so both shows are currently among my dvr-ed series (in HD, nonetheless!) and i really think i have to cut at least one of them from the roster. you have no idea how busy my dvr is going to be this week (thank god for the vp debates preempting a somewhat significant portion of my queue on thursday). i literally won't be surprised if it becomes overheated from exhaustion.

btw m is always somewhat surprised to discover the dvr light on at 3:00 a.m. on a tuesday night, to which i am like, what? as there's no chance i'm wasting precious primetime recording slots on the latest real world / road rules challenge, though i wholly support the whole mtv-producers-withholding-food-but-still-supplying-contestants-with-booze initiative.

as you can tell, i am quite passionate about the whole thing. so much so that i'm considering adding this to my list of "activities + interests" on my resume. i suppose these run-ons / stream of consciousness are the results of not doing a tv brain dump since the beginning of the fall premiere season.

what? i've been busy.

a collection of ridiculous. or ludicrous, as the case may be.

{ exhibit a : wsj's take on kendra from the girls next door }

{ exhibit b : just really, REALLY unfortunate (read: awesome) timing. and gesturing. and facial expressions. }


{ exhibit c : my new bff ludacris and me. obvi i was the lame corporate asian lady at his hawt dinner party }

i swear that is not a wax figurine, people! if only i had a $500 for every time someone mentioned that. i would be a five hundred-aire.

{ source 2 }

back from hiatus.

i was waiting to return with a splash and here's what i came up with:

i'm sure hermes is completely pleased with this gratis product placement.

also, i totally met ludacris last night. HE TOUCHED MY ARM.

carry on.

{source}

i watch the olympics for the patriotic ads.

i bow down to the brilliant sports marketing machine that produced the following:





jesus. no one does inspiring, patriotic, i-should-really-get-off-my-ass-after-watching-the-olympics-for-six-straight-hours quite like the badass folks at nike. i heard the second ad before i saw it and the music itself was enough to get me to stop what i was doing and pay attention to the entire ad. in this, the third decade of my life and more importantly, the era of dvr, that's powerful shit. i am proud to be an american.

...unless they are kind of losing or not in the running altogether, in which case i will root indiscriminately for pretty much any asian (team) in the running. those chinese kids really know what they fuck they're doing. my money's on them. unless it looks like they are going to lose.

cnn strikes again.

a terribly awkward sentence in an otherwise sad article about the american olympian battling testicular cancer:

He also has the support of his girlfriend... who played the key role in discovering the cancer.

alas. i have the maturity of a four year old boy.

{source}

how many things are wrong with this picture?

in some instances, not necessarily this one, but in some instances, INFINITY is the right answer.

{source}