I’m not a big fan of movies in general, but two recent movies (or at least their marketing and word-of-mouth, as I have not seen them) annoy me immensely: Brokeback Mountain and Nanny McPhee.

Nanny McPhee is being marketed as “The New Mary Poppins”. This may be potentially true as far as the story/plot goes (again, I’ve not seen it), but in terms of aesthetics, it is massively insulting to Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins was Practically Perfect in Every Way - Julie Anrdrews was gorgeous and stylish, with rosy cheeks and beautifully controlled hair. Nanny McPhee is self-consciously ugly - that seems to be a primary plot point, in fact. I assume the reason is that we are to be reminded that “looks don’t matter” (another misguided postmodern perception that no one ever takes seriously, I might add), but that alone should be a reason to avoid comparisons with Poppins, whose appearance alone was an important part of the story.

Brokeback Mountain’s mere existence has been pissing me off for months. I’ve skimmed past redundant reviews of the thing and seen numerous journalers comment on how “groundbreaking” it is… No - King of the Hill featuring the Gay Rodeo five years ago on prime-time TV was more ground-breaking, and even that wasn’t. I listen to sissy metrosexual straight guys talk about how important the movie is, thinking that it makes them seem sensitive and cosmopolitan. It don’t. I’m sick of these faggy coming-of-age-homo-martyr movies. If you want a movie about faggotry, fine. Just don’t try to act like it’s some huge important event. Fags have had movies for decades; Hollywood’s been out of the closet since the 50s. Homos aren’t victims anymore - just pussies who prefer to have people feel sorry for us than to stand up for ourselves, most of the time. The mere fact that every bit of commentary on Brokeback Mountain seems to play the ‘justice to sods’ card is proof that homos have a long way to go in seeing themselves as equals in society, a prerequisite for obtaining any semblance of ‘equality’.

Another jarring thing I came to realize last night is that there are now quite regular Spanish-language commercials on many English-language channels here in SF. The jarring part is that I didn’t even give it much notice until last night - either because the music of foreign tongues is one of the attractive parts of being in SF or because I’m growing immune to commercials in general (or at least the ones that don’t show some new shiny gadget I’m interested in).

A news story from the other morning: “Why staring can help you get a date - details on this new and increasingly popular technique” (italics mine). Now, pardon my stupidity, but isn’t this called cruising? And haven’t fags been doing it for decades/centuries? And didn’t straight people pick up on it quite a while ago as well? This ain’t news, especially not in Homo-Central.

I have more, but this entry’s too long already…

One thing most sods never manage to fully enjoy is the ability to mould their dwelling into something which matches their personalities as men - interior decorating is so soggy with femininity that even men who have absolutely no reason to use feminine ideas to treat their home tend to do it anyway, since pop culture gives them so few immediate alternatives.

I’ve never - NEVER - met a straight guy who had a masculine dwelling - even in the loosest sense of that term. Even the most misogynist wife-beating macho straight guys have flowery frilly master bedrooms and pastels pastels pastels everywhere. It seems to have gotten worse over the years - I remember growing up in the late 70s/early 80s when our home was all dark wood panelling and olive green carpet - it was at least marginally mannish.

My parents’ current home is all pastels and cream carpeting, blonde oak furniture and floral prints. It would be less alarming if I could convince myself it’s just homemaker trends which will pass with time, but I think there’s something more sinister under the surface…

Anyway, I decided long ago that when I had control over my abode (read: when I buy a house - hopefully within the next year), there will exist not a single intentional pastel in the place. I want a 60s mod house full of burnt oranges, pea greens and crimson reds. Dark wood panelling and shit-brown shag carpet. I’m fortunate to live with a man who equally values a more classical concept of a living space, and probably has some even more radical ideas than I on removing our abode as far as possible from frilly 90s suburban soccer momhood.

I won’t even go into the bastardizations of a powerful business environment that have happened to modern office spaces. If they aren’t non-functional post-modern disasters, they’re bland, whitewashed soccer-mom storage cabinets. The past few decades have seen a predominantly male business class replaced with a primarily female office class - even the half of the offices composed of men are composed of the sexless metrosexualized boy-things that belong more in Banana Republic ads than behind computer screens.

E! shares a channel with Bloomberg here. How much more inappropriate a pairing could there be? Luckily, E! is only on from 8am-2am, so I get to see my stock crack in the morning. Alas, that all changed this morning because we all know that live coverage of the Oscar nominations is more important than global finance and business news…

And why, oh why, is commercial news so addicted to live coverage? In 98% of all instances in which it is used, it is unnecessary. Live coverage is appropriate for major political speeches and breaking emergency news events, but it’s used for everything from minor interviews with non-celebs to being “live on the scene” hours or days after anything happened at said scene. How many times does one have to see a reporter in front of a dark store at 5.30am talking about the fact that it was robbed 18 hours ago?

Not only unnecessary, the addiction to live coverage makes news virtually unwatchable/unlistenable to me. I’d say about every 15 minutes of news I watch, I see at least one instance of the anchors having to interrupt those they’re interviewing or those on the street reporting because they’re ‘out of time’ - meaning they’ve lost control of their commercial fill. If they were pre-recording and pre-editing, their news cast would be glossy and professional, rather than jarring and annoying.

Oh, but I forgot. News is not about conveying knowledge and information, it’s about building celebrity and puffing up the self-importance of the reporter (or in the case of Fox News, the network). It’s not about the news, but about the newscaster’s relationship with the news. You don’t have to look any further than that skinny cracker piece of you-know-what Anderson Fucking Cooper, whose smirking mug is arguably more annoying than President Bush’s, not to mention the fact that it’s smeared on my TV more often than the President’s. That’s because he’s such an insightful reporter, able to whip up tears by patting the head of a Katrina survivor or whip up anger talking about the injustices in the world or whip up courage chatting with Iraqi soldiers (that’s called sarcasm, kiddies!).

Gawd, I hate commercial news. I want my fucking NPR. Or at least my fucking Economist.