Ex Patria, or a Clean Break

I haven't posted in ages, and I don't feel like getting into the whether-tos and why-fors, so suffice to say the only reason I'm posting today is because the illustrious Blake Stacey posted a meme that I think is pretty damned fun:

My First Album

• The title of your album is the last four words of the last quote listed on this random quote page.


• Your band name is the first article you get by visiting the Wikipedia random article page.


• The album background is a (dubiously legal) derivative of the third image on Flickr’s last seven days of interestingness.

View mine ( behind the cut )

(EDIT: When I originally wrote this up, the article's headline was the far more absurd "Faithful pray for collapse victims." The new headline is somewhat more informative, and the article has shifted slightly to focus on the main memorial event rather than prayers in general. My critique still applies, to some degree, and I don't want to waste an entry when I write them so infrequently :-P )


I have a question:

Why is THIS AP story news? Why is it on the front page of Yahoo?

Before I continue: The bridge collapse is, without ANY doubt, a huge disaster and a terrible thing, and I would hate for anyone to think I'm trivializing that. It's a scary thing, even if it's a terribly UNLIKELY and freakish thing to happen. I have nothing but sympathy for the families involved.

That said, WHY do we need to know that the faithful are praying? Isn't that what we would ASSUME them to be doing anyway? It'd be a far more interesting story if it were reversed: "Faithful not praying for collapse victims." Or if it were slanted to a slightly different audience: "Atheists, Agnostics wish collapse victims well." Neither of those would be terribly newsworthy, I admit, but I think you get my point.

Honestly, who cares what the faithful are doing in this situation? I'm more interested in what's actually happening than in what people are saying to their mystical sky-daddies. What are engineers learning from the collapse? How preventable was it? How likely is another such incident? Instead, we get this pablum, a galling attempt to turn a terrible situation into a feel-good human interest story... "Jeez, it's awful bad about dat der bridge, donchaknow? But we're all prayin' for ya, real hard, der!" (apologies for my poor attempt at Minnesota nice)

I'm so tired of the way media handles this sort of hokum. Yes, I understand, America is largely a religious nation, and this sort of story sells papers/gets click-throughs from that religious population. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to feature stories like that. But what's the NEWS value? What's the TRUTH value? Do either of these things matter? I didn't learn any new facts about what happened, didn't get any insight into whether there is cause for concern elsewhere...nothing. Only a profile of a bunch of grieving people seeking results from faith, a glimpse at what religious folks do WHENEVER this sort of thing happens.

It's that shameless banality that galls me. The article is an attempt at shilling, a reference to a recent tragedy that grabs people's attention by ostensibly discussing an event that's still on many of our minds. Yet, it's utterly nondescript. By changing the location and maybe 50 words, I could make this same article be about ANY event. That's how empty and uninformative this shallow bit of journalism comes across to me.

And, as if the emptiness of the article weren't bad enough, it's not as if what these people are doing is HELPFUL in any realistic way. Why not have a story about rescue/recovery workers? It'd be interesting to hear what the people who may actually find the missing/deceased have to say about what they're doing. Why not a story about, say, charitable funds set up to aid victims and families? No. Instead, the front page story is a bit of pandering to the masses, with no informational content, discussing people doing something that has never been proven efficacious in any way.

Now, I'm not totally heartless. I realize that religion and prayer can help some people overcome grief, can make people feel like they're doing something in moments when they otherwise feel powerless. And all of that is FINE. I may disagree, but if that's what you want to do I'm all for your doing it. What I'm NOT all for is using that social function of religion as an excuse for tolerating such vapid journalism. No one is helped or informed by this story.

There weren't people somewhere in Des Moines, say, waiting with bated breath for the answer to the question "What are the faithful doing about the Minnesota bridge collapse???" I even doubt that anyone was made to feel better by this knowledge. "Ah, well, the faithful in Minneapolis are on that one...I can relax now and not worry about the bridge in my own town."

Yes, I know, I'm a curmudgeon. But I make no apologies for it. This is simply not news and I cannot understand why people accept this sort of non-story from their media. Have we really run out of important, informative, and useful angles from which to cover this story? Or is this simply a mediated version of "preaching to the choir," so to speak, spinning the story towards the religious and reaffirming their faith while counting the ad views?

Well, I mentioned that I had a Mystery Science Theater 3000 Episode of the Whenever planned, but I may not have mentioned that this is, in fact a SPECIAL episode.

In fact, you can't even technically call it an "episode": were you to do so, you would, in fact, be incorrect. For, you see, what I have for you today is, in fact, a movie.

Not just any movie, nor a non-MST3K'd version of a movie once featured on the show. No, today I offer you, in its entirety (and all in ONE part, for a change!) Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie!

( Optional extra Info behind the cut )

Some key moments include: any time a mutant (pronounced "mewt-ANT") is on screen, the early mockery of Joe, Cal's nebbish sidekick, and far, far more. As always, feel free to post any of your favorite moments in the comments below. And yes, I will say that every time even though NO ONE takes me up on it!

Now, enjoy the film!



PS: If you didn't already know this, clicking on the "Google Video" menu in the lower right-hand corner takes you to the movie's Google video page, where you have the option of downloading it in .mp4 format. Meaning that, if you own a video iPod, you can download the film and watch it wherever you go. I watched it while waiting in line for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, though unfortunately my time in line FAR exceeded the duration of the film. Even if you don't have a video iPod, you can download the film and watch via Quicktime/iTunes, allowing you the luxury to watch at your own pace. Enjoy!

Even before I sat down to watch The Simpsons Movie, I found myself struggling to figure out how best to approach my review. Should I treat the film as a discrete animated feature and disregard the TV series I grew up watching? Or do I allow the weight of its nineteen-plus year existence to pressure my review? In many ways, it's impossible not to bring that baggage into the film, and most spectators will no doubt be, at the very least, passingly familiar with Homer, Bart, and Co. The Simpsons are, at this stage, familiarity incarnate. Some people know far more about Bumblebee Man, Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, and the other characters crammed into Springfield's periphery than they know about their own neighbors.

( More shorts for your eating pleasure, under the cut! )

Well, I should apologize for my scarcity here of late, although admittedly I'd feel less badly about it if I actually had more than five readers and addressed matters of any significance. Regardless, I've been having a strange couple of weeks here worrying about my dissertation yet not really DOING much about it aside from that.

Last week I put a semi-moratorium on many forms of internet usage, particularly those involving comments, to avoid being spoiled about the details of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows prior to its release. I went to the big midnight release event here in London, but was so far from the front that I missed out on a lot of the more interesting activities. Nonetheless, I got to see a man playing the Hurdy Gurdy, which always counts for something in my book.

I will most likely post thoughts on Deathly Hallows at some point, and of course those thoughts will be full of SPOILERS so if you are planning on reading it and have not yet done so, that's one post/discussion you'd best skip.

Anyway, this week has been a combination of really, really bad sleeping habits, a really poor diet bordering on fasting, and worrying, all of which must be good for my heart. I've sort of got it in my head that I can't write anything if it isn't my dissertation, and since I'm just NOT writing that, it looks like other writings (such as this blog) will continue to suffer.

But, the "good" news, if you consider it such, is that I have an MST3K EOTW ready to go, and still have a couple more 'Fighting with Monsters' strips prepared, so I could always post those things when I feel the urge. So yes, the frequency of posts is likely to be low from this point on until late August, barring anything major that I HAVE to talk about. Then it's back to the states, where I may or may not post much until I return to the Boston area, tentatively sometime in mid-to-late September.

Speaking of that return, while I've seemingly got some short-term work lined up, I really have no idea WHAT I'll be doing when I get back, and I also HATE searching for apartments, which I've been doing via CraigsList. I want a decently priced, tolerable-to-live-in studio/efficiency, but that's asking a lot for Boston. I just dread the idea of "roommates" in such a college-filled town, and I'm not much for getting along with people. I mean, I COULD do it, but it's such a crapshoot in terms of finding good people and a decent apartment. So we'll see what happens there.

Well, that's it from me for now. Perhaps I'll see you soon with an MST3K EOTW? Yes. Perhaps.

You honestly have no idea how thrilled I am. Not quite thrilled enough to agree with the clip's jesting claims of god's benificence, but still...thrilled :)

Well, I was sitting here racking my brains trying to come up with something to blog about today, until I remembered that I'd dedicated Fridays to lame comics! Since I've got a bunch of them 'in the can,' as they say in Hollywood, that means today's post should have involved no brain-racking at all! Without any further ado, I present the second installment of Friday Fighting. Enjoy...

( A lesson in party politics... )

On the heels of its record-setting first day in US theaters, the fifth installment in the Harry Potter saga, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, opens today across the UK, only a week in advance of the final book's release date. Needless to say, anticipation has been high for some time amongst fans of the series (such as myself), so much so that it can be difficult, at times, to keep the necessary critical distance required to craft a fair review. That said, I will do my best to treat the film as fairly as I can from a critical, not a fanatical, point of view. The good news is that, for the most part, Order of the Phoenix (or OOtP) is a successful film and should satisfy both casual fans and the sort that have been chomping at the bit for another Potter film since 2005's disappointing Goblet of Fire.

( More under the cut... )

In my post about our LAST Mystery Science Theater 3000 Episode of the Whenever, I mentioned that the episode featuring Space Mutiny was "quite possibly my favorite episode of the series." Well, to be honest, it was ABSOLUTELY my favorite episode for a long time, with very few challenges to its crown.

Recently, however, I encountered a particularly brilliant, Joel-era episode that vies with Space Mutiny or any other episode of the show. The film featured in that episode is called Pod People, which makes sense since the film features neither pods NOR pod people of any sort. And that's about as well-thought-out as anything else appearing in the film.

( More exposition under the cut! )

Other things to watch for: the poorly dubbed child actor, a lot of fog, much mockery of New Age music, and (most of all) TRUMPY! Enjoy Pod People, and as always feel free to discuss favorite bits or anything else in the comments below!

'It's a Web 2.0 site with an emphasis on sharing video content, but that's not important right now...'

If you caught that reference, you might know that I'm talking about the classic comedy Airplane!. Well, today the folks over at the IMDb posted a link to a YouTube video comparing Airplane! with Zero Hour, the film it most obviously parodied. I've never seen Zero Hour, though I'd heard that Airplane borrowed from it quite heavily. Now, thanks to the wonders of teh Intertuboweb, we can ALL see a well-put-together comparison of the two, gaining a new perspective on a comedy many of us grew up watching. Enjoy!

I've recently come to realize what is, perhaps, my least favorite cliche in children's entertainment. Ever since the media decided to start selling different programs to different demographics, something that took place far more recently than you'd think (1950s or so, really), one of the responsibilities taken on by creators of children's entertainment is trying to make films and programs enjoyable for children yet bearable for the adults who are forced to watch as well.

One way that they do this is by including a number of jokes, gags, and references that are intended to go over the heads of children, yet be perfectly comprehensible to adults. For a more scholarly analysis of a similar phenomenon (how classical Hollywood coded films with multiple layers of meaning), I refer you to Richard Maltby's piece, ‘A Brief Romantic Interlude’: Dick and Jane go to 3 ½ seconds of the Classic Hollywood Cinema' in Bordwell and Carroll's Post Theory. Maltby's concept of 'innocent' vs. 'sophisticated' spectators is of importance here. The 'innocent' children either miss these 'sophisticated' gags or characters entirely or interpret them variously as silly, nonsensical, or (occasionally) beyond their reach.

( More under here, bro... )

Well, here's another new recurring feature: Despite the fact that no one seemed to care about the comic I posted a couple entries ago, I had a lot of fun making it. As I said then, I've already made a few more, and they're easy enough to do that I think I'll make/post one each week on Friday**.

So, for the first edition of Friday Fighting, featuring a semi-obscure and pointless Everlast reference, I invite you to look:

( Under the cut... )

**Yes, I realize that this entry's posting date technically makes this 'Saturday Fighting,' but most of you are reading this from the US, where it's still Friday for nearly another five hours. So...THERE.

After my post about Rudy Giuliani, which was admittedly quite negative, I thought it might be nice for me to post about one of the GOOD things to come out of all this pre-election hoopla:

The awesome barrel of crazy that is Mike Gravel.

Now, I realize that his campaign videos have been making the rounds lately, appearing over at Dvorak Uncensored and Reason's Hit and Run blog, but I want to get in on the action and post them here as well.

First, we have 'Rock,' the shorter and better of the two:


There's just something so utterly pleasant about this video, despite it's high creep-out factor and potential pretentiousness. Perhaps this pleasure stems from the fact that I've secretly been waiting my whole life for a legitimately, yet harmlessly, crazy mainstream presidential candidate. Honestly, haven't you? And nothing says crazy like a video of a grumpy old man staring at you for over a minute, then randomly picking up a large rock and heaving it into a pond before slowly walking away with his back to the camera. At some point, after watching the clip for the third or so time, with Gravel's disgruntled, squinting eyes glaring back at me, I was compelled to call my family and weep. Is that strange?

Next we have 'Fire':


Now, see, while the last clip might have FELT excruciatingly long and slow, 'Fire' actually IS excruciatingly long and slow. However, 'Rock' is comprised of a single take (no doubt owing a debt to the great Andrei Tarkovsky's technique of 'sculpting in time'). 'Fire,' showcasing a new awareness of cinematic style, features a few cuts. The first takes us from a shot of Gravel gathering firewood to a close-up of Gravel, sitting opposite us across the campfire. The next cut, interstingly, brings us to a point-of-view shot from Gravel's perspective. Now, we're looking down at the campfire as it crackles and burns. And we CONTINUE looking down at the campfire, from Gravel's point-of-view, for the next 7+ minutes. My theory is that, by allowing us to share his gaze as he stares, unblinking, into this fire, Gravel is communicating to us that he is, in fact, the type of crazy S.O.B. who stares, unblinking, at fires for long periods of time. Honestly, he could be a pyromaniac, which would certainly be an interesting quality in a Commander-In-Chief.

The only other possibility of which I can conceive, after watching these two clips, is that Mike Gravel has become a performance artist and is merely performing an installation, not actually running for president. And, in all seriousness, that's just as good in my opinion. I'm only disappointed that he can't use the corpse of Marcel Duchamp as a running mate, since Duchamp was born outside of the US. Also, as a corpse, he may not qualify; I'll have to check the Constitution. Edit: No dice

Be sure to take a look at the various parodies and video responses to these Gravel clips, particularly 'Rock.' I'm half motivated to make one myself, although my idea would involve tossing the rock into the water, watching it for a moment, then calmly walking out into the water, submerging completely and remaining under the water until it's safe to assume I've drowned. Given the generally filthy state of the bodies of water near me, and my own personal aversion to coming down with bizarre water-borne diseases, I'll probably have to give that a pass.

The other night, as sometimes happens to me, a random bad joke popped into my head nearly fully formed. This particular bad joke could, in my estimation, only be told in comic format. The problem is that I'm no artist, have no scanner, and little to no skill drawing in the GIMP. But that didn't stop me, so peek under the cut if you'd like to see the results of my little experiment in bad webcomic humor.

( Superhero Comics? )

This summer, perhaps more than any other that comes readily to mind, has been filled with sequels, many of which are the third (or later) film in a franchise. Some people tend to bemoan this lack of originality, and perhaps rightly so, though I hardly blame the studios for attempting to ensure a return on their investments by giving 'the people' what they think we want. Some of these 'threequels' improved on less entertaining second acts (Ocean's, Pirates) while others have been big let downs (Spider-Man). Into this mix rides Shrek the Third, the next installment in Dreamworks' MASSIVELY successful not-just-for-children franchise. Unfortunately, what was a fresh and funny take on fairy tales the first time around in 2001 feels like one-too-many trips to the well six years later.

( Review under the cut )

For the second installment of my new feature, "The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Episode of the Whenever," I've decided to present what is quite possibly my favorite episode of the series, Space Mutiny.

( Lengthy expository remarks under the cut )

Anyway, this episode features above-average host segments for the Sci-Fi Era MST3K, and much hilarious riffing throughout the film. Some of the best moments include the running joke of re-christening Ryder various generic action-hero names (Smoke Manmuscle, Flint Ironstag, etc), and all of the railing kills. So sit back, relax, and enjoy Space Mutiny, and feel free to let me know what you think and post any favorite bits in the comments section.

Today was the second in my 3x yearly series of suddenly realizing that I have to launder ALL of my clothes at once. This occurs when, despite my normally thorough rotation system, I inevitably forget when I last wore and/or washed each individual item. The whole thing is compounded by my habit of lazily piling clothes up someplace at the end of the day, convinced that I'll hang them up in the morning when it NEVER happens.

Basically, when I'm living somewhere that has its own washer and dryer that cost me no additional money, this isn't a big deal and can be spread out over a couple of days. But here in London, the nearest usable washer and dryer are far off and cost quite a bit (£2/wash, £1 per dry). That means a ton of lugging back and forth and typically a full day spent working on it (depending on w&d availability), an effort I like to concentrate into one day if at all possible.

Today was just such a day, and I have washed EVERY piece of clothing I own that I'm likely to wear in the two months I've got left here. The issue, now, is that I'm so sick and tired of laundering that I am hesitant to wear any of my freshly-cleaned clothes or sleep on my freshly-cleaned sheets/pillows. Not to mention my shellshock at the UNGODLY amount of money I spent on the whole affair.

Therefore, be it resolved immediately that for the remainder of my time in London I shall go naked at all times, no longer spend money, and sleep hanging upside down like Batman.

I've got a couple of posts in mind for today/tomorrow/whenever I get over all the exertions of walking/lugging/climbing/folding, so stay tuned :)

While Rudy Giuliani and I may share a similar heritage and have extremely similar last names, neither thing is sufficient for me to want him in charge of my country. Nor is anything else he has ever done.

For starters, he's a strong leader...autocratic, some might say. For someone like me who, speaking generally, does not ever want too much power in the hands of one person, an autocratic streak is a big warning bell.

Secondly, his main qualifications seem to be the following:
1) He was a hard-ass prosecutor
2) He was the mayor of a city that got attacked
Neither is particularly compelling. And though he may have the most agreeable views on abortion and gay rights of any Republican candidate whose name is not Ron Paul***, is that really a suitable reason to vote for someone?

No, I've never been terribly pro-Rudy. But the reason I'm posting this today as opposed to any other point during this campaign is a certain headline I pulled off of the CNN ticker:
Giuliani cites Glasgow attack in call for immigration policy

( It gets a bit ranty below )

#1 - From the BBC: Japan speed-eater's jaw arthritis

I know you're all just as sad as I am to hear that Kobayashi has opened his mouth for so many wieners, he's gone arthritic. Honestly, I don't quite comprehend competitive eating and really do see it as emblematic of all of the things the poorer and/or snootier parts of the world hate about the rest of us. The fact that this guy has done something to his jaw in 29 years of living that most senior citizens don't even manage, well, that's an achievement.

But of course, I mentioned some woo in the title, and I'd hate to leave you hanging (emphasis mine):

Already I can't open my jaws more than just a little bit," he wrote. "There's no pain only if I open my mouth about enough for one finger. More than that is painful and I can't open it."

A specialist had diagnosed him with arthritis of the jaw, said Kobayashi, from Nagoya in Japan.

"To tell the truth, I'm desperate about healing completely before the 4 July contest," he said, adding that he had begun receiving treatment at a hospital and from a chiropractor.

Yes...a chiropractor. Because CLEARLY a subluxation in his back is blocking the flow of innate intelligence and causing distress and swelling in one of the joints of his jaw. That's practical, reasonable medicine. Make sure you get back out there and keep on downing those dogs, Kobayashi! The repetitive hyperextension of your temporomandibular joint's probably got NOTHING to do with it.

#2 - From CNN: Hilton opens up on drugs, jail and God

I don't usually talk about Paris Hilton here, mainly because there's not really a very good reason for anyone to talk about Paris Hilton, pretty much ever. And even if there were, the guys from South Park said just about all that needed to be said.

But this story was too much for me to pass up. It's not just that she claims to have never done drugs, though that's reason enough to be skeptical. It's not just that she states that being strip searched was the most humiliating experience of her life (the percentage of people who HAVEN'T seen Paris nude in one form or another is actually smaller than the percentage of people who HAVE seen ME naked). It's not even that she STILL doesn't believe she belonged in prison, according to the current law.

No, what amuses me most is here:

[...] and although she feels her incarceration was unwarranted, God had a reason for putting her there.

"Don't serve the time; let the time serve you," Hilton said. "I have a new outlook on life."

Oh, I'm sorry... GOD put you in prison, Ms. Hilton? Sheesh, I'd like to believe that, if there were a creator of all things, he/she/it would have more important matters to attend to than ensuring that a nasty, spoiled Earth-skank spends less than a month in a prison not quite as dismal as most college dorm rooms.

But the best part of the story is here (emphasis mine):

During her 23 days in jail, she said she meditated, read letters from fans, talked to other inmates through the vents, wrote in her journal and read the Bible, though she couldn't cite a favorite passage when asked.

Such dedication! A REAL new outlook, and a real commitment to religion. I don't know what's worse, attempting to placate the sky-father by FINDING him when you're in prison, or invoking him superficially, solely to make it seem like you're not as unredeemable a piece of human waste as you seem. Considering, of course, certain records of HIS deeds, he may not be the best source to use as proof of your own newfound rectitude.

I know I'm something of a minor tech geek. Granted, I've never been much of an early adopter, and I've had limited funds for as long as I can remember, so I don't run out and buy everything that comes out. I just try to find out as much as I can about games, gadgets, and the like so that when I DO make a purchase, I can reasonably anticipate satisfaction.

But there is one thing that I simply do not care about, and it's the one thing that seems to be on everyone's mind these days. So, since the device is already ubiquitous, I felt the need to head it off in advance and say:

Frankly, my dear iPhone, I don't give a damn.

I'm already tired of hearing about it and the thing doesn't even come out until Friday. PvP has been running a storyline involving resident Mac fanatic Brent's attempts to acquire one, DiggNation's Mac zealot Kevin Rose has been talking about it a bunch, on his own show and on TWiT in recent weeks (and it was also a top story on this week's TWiT even without Rose). It was even front-page news over on Yahoo! who, in fairness, also presented an anti-iPhone piece.

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to a few key things. First and foremost, there's no way in hell I'd EVER pay $500-$600 for a phone that doesn't perform sexual favors for me AT MY COMMAND. Look, I realize that it's meant to be an all-in-one device, replacing Smart Phones, iPod shuffles/Nanos, Palms/Blackberries, and what have you. I also realize that it's got a really neat interface and can do some fun tricks (huzzah, Google Maps!) But I just don't CARE. I don't NEED any of those features in my pocket, and certainly not at that price.

I could furnish a room at IKEA, or purchase a Wii with accessories and any number of games, for that price. That's three years of Netflix or WoW. That's an $11.50 NY Strip steak every week for a year. I could also get a decent phone free with the same two year contract, paying in the $40/mo range, and get almost a year's worth of service for the cost of JUST the iPhone (saying nothing of it's $58/mo plan).

For some, it's a matter of capacity: 4 or 8 GB isn't a lot. But that makes little difference to me. With Apple's intrusive DRM and the issues it can cause, I wouldn't feel secure trusting my music to a multitasking device where SO MUCH can go wrong, even if the thing held 80GB. It's annoying enough, I'm told, when your stand-alone iPod goes batty and needs to be reformatted (it DOES happen, despite the assurances of Mac fanciers). Add all of the potential issues associated with the new interface, the camera, phone/SIM card problems, and any of the myriad other things that can go wrong with a new piece of tech, and my confidence gets knocked back significantly. And I'm SURE that people at AT&T stores aren't going to know how to service the device yet, perhaps not even those at an Apple store. That means that, in all likelihood, any issues that come up will force you to send away your little all-in-one money pit and leave you with all-in-none for weeks.

And let's ask a frank question: how much of the iPhone's interface is made for function, how much for flash, and how much for that typical smug Mac cache? Seriously, does it matter if I have to navigate through menus or dial with buttons, or by tapping on a glass surface? Does it make much difference if I can turn my phone sideways to get a wider viewing area, or if I have to flip it open? I don't think either is terribly important. While I'll admit these features are COOL, I honestly don't think they go much deeper than that. At this stage, I'm not willing to spend a ton of cash simply on COOL. Apple's created an object of desire, but like most such objects, it's largely dependant on its aura and mystique, things which fade away a lot faster than the hole the money you spend on it will burn in your pocket.

Which is not to say that I think the phone won't work. I'm sure it will, even if there are bugs. I'm also sure that people will buy this thing like mad, and that most reviews will be positive. I'm sure plenty of people will be extremely happy with their iPhones, and they'll be a big convenience to those who use them to condense their array of gadgets into one slightly clunky thing. But how many of us are REALLY looking to do that? Not as many as those who want it just BECAUSE.

The fact is, however, that this device simply isn't designed for me. I carry a bag around, so I don't mind having more than one device in it. In fact, I'd PREFER to have a fully functional camera, fully functional mp3 player, and fully functional phone, rather than a half-assed version of each in one device that's cool looking. I'm not interested in being smug about my tech, and really never have been, so I'm lost on the bragging rights side, too. In the end, the iPhone is irrelevant to my lifestyle, and is also likely irrelevant to the lifestyle of MANY who WILL be seduced by it. I won't pretend that I wouldn't play around with it if a friend bought one. But that's all it is: a bunch of hype for a flashy toy, and I just can't be bothered with it all. This is the last you'll hear me talk about it.

Besides, I'd MUCH prefer an rPhone. Wouldn't you?