‘Real Housewives’ Cleared In 85% of U.S.

‘Real Housewives’ Cleared In 85% of U.S.: "NBC Universal has cleared its off-Bravo Real Housewives franchise in more tha..."

Aha.
I'm late. But aha. I'll share the full extent of the "aha" once I've done a little research, but this explains a lot about the sudden now-you-see-Nene-next-season-you-won't speculations. 'Sheree's-friend-Tania" is cute, and Victoria Rowell is too, but...uh...

Not to mention--another tardy revelation (hehehehe): what in the heck does this Comcast-NBCU mean for RHoA?
Clearing 85%, eh?
If greater distribution, only--great.
If it means some show scrubbing for the ATL ladies...mm. mm. some dare them. including me.

cuz WHO GON' CHECK ME, BOO?

Golden Globes' Black Newcomer Guilt

Gabs HEARTS NSync, so t'was only fitting for JT to say her name.

If you Tivo'd last Tuesday's Leno, you can check the Precious star's (Gabourey Sidibe) insane *NSYNC trivia skills demonstrated as she sat with Lance Bass.

Not hating, but brief sidebar:

With the Golden Globes being a somewhat reasonable predictor of Oscar season nominations and all...does anybody suspect/think [*cough, sputter....cough] that H'W'D and the "Hollywood Foreign Press" make attempts to mask their [oh-so-apparent] prejudice with Black newcomer nods?

Reference J-Hud in '07.

NOT--REPEAT--NOT HATING! i'm jus'sayin.

Heart Gabs and J-Hud. But can-a-Black-vet get some love? (GO MO'!) How'z'about'a Black DIRECTOR?

Anybody?

Anyone?

i know we have to save room for Meryl Streep, who could get nominated without helm-ing anything, but dang homie.

7 days and counting!!

GET EXCITED.

Dec 25th I'm all...

GRITS.

GRIT.

GLITTER.

The appetizer taste of bytwenty8's re-launch.

Jan 1st we're going beta.

This will be the place where Black cine gets its due. All Black & Brown. All the time. TV & Film. And someday stage.

classical film theory?

eat said {heart} out.

CreativeControl.com on Artistic Integrity

http://www.creativecontrol.tv/www/: A mini-series that looks at how artists fight to maintain their integrity without giving in to WACK WORLD!!!

bootLEG CORNER: When Art Worked, Roger Kennedy & David Larkin

"Art is dangerous. It is one of the attractions, when it ceases to be dangerous, you don't want it." --Countee Cullen

While Obama gives his speech on jobs, Roger Kennedy is talking to Diane Rehm about how FDR, through the WPA, saved a place for artists in the New Deal.

Kennedy and David Larkin have just published a reminiscing text about how art--from post office murals to theatre projects to this to that and the third--created an opportunity for artists to get to work.

However, there is the ominous question of censorship--to which Kennedy answers with artistic commentaries of the tenements and sweatshops of the 1930s--graven enough into the national imaginary that we might not flinch, but "Bred'ren can we candidly speak?"

Many are calling in to ask how such a "wonderful program" could dissipate so quickly. Well...I think this may be the answer. As it applies to Black artists, subsidized art has always been the source of great contention and debate. Resources have always been slim, hence the theorem of eternal gratitude --within the history of Black art and literature-- to the Lomaxes, and van Vechtens, and lest we forget the "godmothers."

That being said, there's a strong resistance to the concept of democratically-sponsored art in the first place. But if it weren't for the humble "handout"...<*crickets...> would Black art--much of which risks co-optation (and has suffered co-optation) by public and commercial interests--have the visibility (and vulnerability) it currently enjoys?

There have to be crickets, because at the end of the day every subsidy is owed. Period.

So the real concern I'm having, then, I guess is this:

how do you maintain a critical politcs of Empire, make sure your art never loses its infidelity to Empire, and still spend Empire's so-called money to produce your critiques?

Child, please.

In the meantime, go read this book. And then read about the writers who would ultimately create the Memory project through the WPA's Federal Writers' program. When I find the name of this other book, I'll repost it. It covers the "Harlem Renaissance scene" so to speak, and this is the book that first taught me about rent parties. ;-)

See...that's what Wall Street should've had.

BTW, since we're also facing this Comcast-NBCU deal down its barrel, who senses some juice for independent film, TV, and LIVE theatre???? Anybody? Anybody??

theARCHIVES: Yeah...about that 'Semiotics, Structuralism & Television' by Ellen Seiter

on ELLEN SEITER's
“Semiotics, Structuralism, and Television”

nineteen eighty-seven, 4/2009

I raised the ‘signs’ conversation in writing on [Manthia] Diawara’s piece about identification. More than merely identifying with the characters, the context that that character exists in, the context the program exists in and, drawing from E. Ann Kaplan, how all those elements are constructed must be taken into consideration. Contextualizing the entire unit and the signs represented in the unit—whatever that unit will be—seems directly related to the matter of identification and resistant spectatorship.

Ellen Seiter sums up the ideas of Saussure and Peirce by saying that they “recognized that some signs have no ‘real’ object to which they refer: abstractions (truth, freedom) or products of the imagination (mermaids, unicorns). More important, they wished to argue that all signs are cultural constructs that have taken on meaning through repeated, learned, collective use” (p 34).

Roland Barthes, she says, believed verbal language closes down the number of possible meanings the image might have. She quotes Barthes as saying, “It is not very accurate to talk of a civilization of the image—we are still, and more than ever, a civilization of writing, writing and speech continuing to be the full term of the informational structure. (…) [T]he text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image causing him to avoid some and receive others; by means of an often subtle dispatching it remote-controls him towards a meaning chosen in advance” (p. 44).

So if the sign is a collective configuration, and if I employ the five channels of communication that Seiter will modify for application to television, the verbal is indeed informing what denotations I should embrace in receiving the sign of, say, ‘Black female character’ located on ‘XYZ primetime comedy.’ But given the greater context or paradigm of primetime comedies (with Black female characters…), my ‘collectively-informed’ reading of a Black female character is, likely, going to be constructed by very similar “speakers” of the text (McDonald’s interludes), or very similar syntagms (back-to-back ‘urban’ comedies on TV schedule or, over a period of seasons: cancellations - re-airings - unannounced appearances on different nights, etc).

In other words, I have a feeling, via a convenient sampling (2006, The CW, Sunday nights: Everybody Hates Chris > All of Us > Girlfriends > The Game > (America’s Next Top Model) and the sponsors of this programming, plus Mara Brock Akil, Kelsey Grammar, and Debbie Allen) that all the same things are informing the Black female character that I am ‘unconsciously’ attracted to on the television. The first signification—skin color—is what will probably draw me, because the second signification, “Black woman/woman of color” is what is denoted to me. The connotation will probably include a sense of her rarity on the television screen.

But, if I knew/cared to examine who “speaks” the text –whether at the level of production, commerce, or current events/public advocacy—I think I’m bound to find patterns that reflect why this image is marketable for those creating her—and what’s more—why I’m hard-pressed to find too much variation among these Black women, in terms of class, mostly, and why I know they won’t last long. (Only The Game is left.)

Of course, this doesn’t mean I won’t watch (I definitely did). Of course, in my viewing, my ‘gaze’ may still be an oppositional one—I’ll interpret the signs on my own personal-communal collective terms, since the ‘reality’ is a dearth of representation behind the screen as well as on the screen—where the so-called ‘collective’ builds the signs for highest maximum return. However, this kind of engagement with the signs I ‘should’ be identifying with is, arguably, characteristic of a ‘niche’ television viewing audience.

Later in the essay, Seiter recasts Emile Benveniste’s remarks about ‘discourse’ saying, this is the “medium” through which we come to know television. Seiter says that, “In its current usage, discourse carries the stronger implication of speech governed by social, material, and historical forces, which disallow certain things from being said or even thought while forcing us to say certain other things” (p. 67).

Seiter notes that discourse “is not ‘free speech.’” She cites how censure played out in the children’s viewing of Fangface. She cites Hodge and Tripp as saying, “Verbal language is also the main mediator of meaning. It is the form in which meanings gain public and social form, and through discussion are affected by the meaning of others” (p. 62).

This suggests that while Barthes may have a point where his ‘civilization of writing’ is concerned, there are still a very select few (globally) who are positioned in such a way to be about the business of dictating the ‘informational structure.’ As long as film and television are such corruptible, colonizing and dangerously popular worldwide exports via the image (constructed and informed by such a small minority) how can the discourse of television not function as censorship in and of itself? I knowingly paint with a broad brush, but television and film as a medium of (global) social ‘discourse’—and as a capitalist construct—keeps so-called minority and niche audiences out of the community that informs sign creation.

theARCHIVES: Yeah...about that 'Feminist Criticism & Television' by E. Ann Kaplan

On E. ANN KAPLAN's
“Feminist Criticism and Television”
nineteen eighty-seven, 4/2009

I think it interesting that to merit critical attention one must still engage these very rigid identities. Because while the conversation of Madonna—and salutation given to her “Blond Ambition” phase—at the conclusion of the essay is meant to point to her obstruction of the presumably (patriarchally) gendered lens, and complete awareness of the ‘televisual apparatus’ and the politics it engages, there’s still, ultimately, a reification of the identity she’s employing as an ideally desirable identity.

To return to the discussion of signs, specifically Ellen Seiter’s reference to connotation and denotation, I feel it useful to repeat her breakdown of connotation:

“On a connotative level, shades of hair color (the first level of signification)
are used to produce signifieds such as ‘glamorous,’ ‘beautiful,’ ‘youthful,’
‘dumb,’ or ‘sexy’ on the second level of signification. These connotations,
widely known through their repeated use in film and television, are ones that
have a specific history in the United States, one that stems from glorifying the
physical appearance of Anglo women (based on their difference from and presumed
superiority to other races and ethnicities). But they are also subject to change
or revision over time” (p. 40).

Seiter also points to Madonna’s music videos citing an instance “in which she deliberately ‘quoted’ Marilyn Monroe’s hairstyle and what it connotes: sexiness as a costume).” Which is really to confirm the ‘signifieds’ associated with the connotative significations: shades of hair color, shades of lip color, shades of skin color, etc.

(My first beef)
I am in no way a Madonna-hater, and actually would echo Kaplan’s sentiments about the ways in which her ‘filmic’ literacy constructs her performances as a violation of hegemonic patriarchy at work on the so-called idiot box. I would especially echo Kaplan’s statement that Madonna “challenges constructs of both genders because it understands gender as a sign-system that does not necessarily coincide with identity.” And I would go on to say that this statement is where I wanted Kaplan to go much sooner in her breakdown of feminist criticism of television—an awesome essay in such a short space of Allen’s complete text.

As a Black female (wannabe) filmmaker, already interested—if not necessarily competent—in the convergence of sexual politics, film and television, and what that convergence means, I will say I missed Kaplan’s reference to ‘womanism,’ coined, actually, by Alice Walker, and entering the lexicon of at least wom(e/y)n-of-color feminist thought(s) in the 1980s. Womanism came to be viewed as a necessary space for Black women in the absence of a feminism that spoke to their plight at the intersection of race and gender and non-normative sexual identification in an only recently post-Jim Crow era at that time. While these feminisms have their shortcomings and do overlap with the feminisms Kaplan has already laid out, I think I’ll still use ‘womanism’, Kaplan’s (Althusserian) Marxist-feminism, and the concept of post-structuralist feminism (specifically because she identifies post-structuralist feminism as an anti-essentialist theory) to build my response to her essay on the whole.

Kaplan references Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” piece in order to recast the ideas of ‘fetishism’ and ‘voyeurism.’ She uses these to give us a way of understanding the “three basic ‘looks’” that Hollywood uses to satisfy desire in the male unconscious. The first voyeuristic look is entirely dependent on the ‘scopophilic’-indulgent presumably male camera technician; the second is the perspective of the males in the narrative, meant to objectify the women within their gaze; and finally the look of the actual spectator, which is forced to mimic either previous gaze. A few sentences later (p. 263), Kaplan would go on to identify the whole female body as “’fetishized’ in order to counteract the male fear of sexual difference, that is, of castration,” and if the spectator is female, these are positions she is forced to inherit.

This would be all well and good if it weren’t for the fact that we are assuming a lot about the spectator and the film-er. For one, we’re assuming they identify as ‘heterosexual’ and; two, in assuming a female objectification, we are forced to dis-imagine a non-heterosexual-male objectification. We haven’t fully problematized patriarchal-hegemonic constructions of the masculine side of the binary in our (albeit revolutionary, but short-sighted) feminist-analyses. While ‘womanism’ might recognize and beg an account of the racist-sexist lens (and likely include an analysis of the otherization and fetishizing of any woman-of-color presence, and non-every-American-is-middle-class presence), and (Althusserian) Marxist-feminism may recognize how these constructions obey the maximum-possible-return rules of capitalism even as they inform these identities and are informed by ‘real’ manifestations of these identities (Kaplan’s and Meehan’s “goodwife, harpy and bitch display[s]”), it appears to me that the post-structuralist-anti-essentialist approach is missing.

The very thing Kaplan will praise MTV and Madonna for is lost, because we’re assuming the very gender-specificity that Kaplan argues MTV and Madonna destroy. Perhaps, the root of the problem is what language “won’t allow” us to do when we’re having these conversations about these kinds of ideas. However, I’m feeling there’s an awesome body of work that’s been left untouched by television critics because of these same conservative bents and assumptions.

For example, I would greatly appreciate a similar analysis of Sri Lankan singer/rapper M.I.A; Even more dangerous, an analysis of rapper, Lil’ Kim or Jamaican dancehall DJ Lady Saw. These women, through their performances, and by their identification as women of color already ostracized by dominant forms of media and culture, are excellent examples of what Madonna may never be able to do for little girls of color, like myself, where reclamation of agency is discussed. How these women work the televisual-apparatus—with all of its rules and presumptions, and faithfulness to normative significations where race, historically/racially/morally constructed sexualities, and colonial relationships between the U.S. and the so-called Third World are concerned, and constructions of Black masculinities and men of color masculinities are concerned (something that Kaplan completely ignored, but was entirely relevant to her discussion of Madonna’s Cleopatra performance (p. 275))—is an area of ‘feminist’-deconstruction of film and television that I would love to see.

Okay....look--Hug? Hug, please?

Chocolate City wants to say yes to 'same-sex marriage.'

So does that mean we can put these ugly accusations behind us? (That-desperately-heinous-70%-statistic-when-a-ridiculous-trace-amount-of-Black-people-even-voted-at-all-in-the-California-elections-the-day-Barack-Obama-was-elected???)

I would love it if we could go back to the way we were.

Because this is just silly...

I can't keep divvying myself up like this. Female interests. Black interests. LGBTQ-Ally interests. Faith interests....it's a little exhausting.

lollllLOOOLLLLLL >> Going Rouge Book Signing...

Cinematic Epiphany: Mid-YUP Crisis? Let Dorothy and Neo Cheer You Up!

The Matrix and The Wiz. (Or The Wizard of Oz...that's fine, too, I guess...)

So, this hotshot 20-something writes of the fear of turning 20 in a 2006 WAPO article, right?

And I can't describe how appropriate the article was on my 20th birthday spent in the land of a billion snowflakes. It was very Britney Spears, y'know? Not a girl...not yet a woman...

Not really 20. More like twenteen.

And here I am, post college lamenting about the fear-of-adulthood en total--along with my friends who have also recently graduated from 4-year institutions.

The timing of all this really, couldn't be more depressing.

Besides the fact that I don't feel anywhere near capable of managing my own money, telling somebody else what to do (como mis hijos...oy ve...), feeling capable of getting anything done--like...why should people listen to me? In my own case, I'm all of 5'1 and appear to be about the same size as the average 13-year-old in Black America.

Let's be serious. I'm not fooling anybody whether I put bass in my voice or not. Whether I MAC it up or not. Whether I throw on heels or not. I still feel like I have the self-efficacy of a kindergartener!!!!

And now I have bills to pay? I know people who are...married?? I need a full-time job, and instead of waxing liberally and in poetic stanzas about economic recessions, I need to...find a FT job in said economic recession???

Homes. Homes. Demasiado.

And then, somebody said, "Let's watch The Wiz!"

And yours truly said, "Okay!" Because I love Black musicals, and I've never seen it, and that's, like, heretical to say in the right circles. So, I'm watching it with new eyes, as I consider my predicament: I'm a loser who's supposed to be a "grown woman" now and yet, feels no more capable or confident about the future and my ability to affect it than a gnat in winter--not summer. Not spring. Winter.

Guess what Dorothy does for a living? (Akha!)

And as the story goes, whether you watch that Kansas chick or Diana Ross, they each have this sense of fright about the outside world. Hence the reason there's no place like home. Why? Initially, because there's comfort there, and control of surroundings and circumstances (to a degree).

And then they'll come across the Scarecrow without a brain, who's actually quite genius.

Then the Tin-Man without a heart, who's really emotional.

And finally, the Lion without courage, who beats the subway's r-ass.

Then they come to The Wiz--Richard Pryor--who really can't give them anything they haven't discovered already within themselves.

Hm.

So now I've subjected myself to a Matrix marathon, because (1) I've never seen any of them. (2) It came about because I was at a pre-Thanksgiving broo-ha-ha, and the hosts were watching The Prisoner on a cable net. Because I don't get much tv viewing in as of the last several years, I was sort of rapt by how it was nothing like I expected. That's when they told me it was supposed to be sort of Matrix-like in nature. And then I decided I was intrigued enough to go figure out the connections and overlaps for myself. (YAY! A film sequel study!! I guess?)

I'm watching it, and Neo (Keanu Reeves) is told, upon his return to the 'real world', "Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore."

Get it Dorothy.

And how appropriate for such a (melo)dramatic time as this? Unplug me from the Matrix that I might discover my purpose again. PLEASE. Help me find peace, Jesus. Please. And empower every single one of us feeling less-than at a time where we can't afford to.

heehee Weird movie pairing, I know. Technicolor and your Philosophy professor's favorite sci-fi flick. But that's the cinematic epiphany I had these last two weeks.

Because Race is So Last Century...

(...and after Massa sets off bombs in Mumbai, Puff 'll make it rain from Wall Street's sky...)

(original appearance in The Black Voice, Syracuse, NY, February 2009)

I could’ve wasted my time digging up political cartoonists, FOX News reels and KKK addresses to prove we are nowhere near done with this ‘race’ thing, but it would’ve been too easy.

Even so, some deluded liberals would annoyingly maintain that that’s simply the work of an ignorant minority. Sean Delonas isn’t the tip of an iceberg. He is the iceberg. Calm down, Blackgirl.

So, instead of squaring up against radical extremists—the honest among us—I’ve decided to show down a more lukewarm cadre of thought control experts: the Fourth Estate and the Ivory Tower.

Leading up to Barack Obama’s inauguration, the New York Times pondered about the future of race relations: Does a Black man at the helm cleanse all our crimson stains?

(The hell.)

“During his campaign, Mr. Obama almost entirely avoided the topic of race (…) continuing a tacit understanding (…) that race is just too explosive an issue for public discussion,” writer Sarah Kershaw penned.

Syracuse University history professor, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, added, “This shakes up the status quo because here we have someone who is willing to talk about race, but doesn’t talk about it in the usual ways. Once we have one person doing that, we now have a model for how other people can do that.”

But what is “the usual way”? [Lasch-Quinn]

In his remarks to SU’s African American Male Congress last fall, Tavis Smiley of the “Tavis Smiley Show”, shared his concern that Obama’s celebrity would minimize Black outrage to a so-called “politics of grievance.”

That means the racist expansion of the prison industrial complex, for example, becomes a moot point. If I acknowledge that one in nine Black men between the ages of 21 and 34 are already in prison, If I say that Black women have only recently been trumped by Latina women as the fastest growing prison population, If I simply state what the American Public Health Association already has, my utterances are regarded as nothing more than the rants of an embittered Colored person.

I might lament that Ivory Tower statistics only point to the Otherness of Black life—and, ironically, legitimize one’s lack of care. Case in point: media’s overuse of what, author, David Wilson calls an invented term.

“Black-on-Black violence” built the idea that such ‘savagery’ is somehow peculiarly Black and separate from State accountability, save hyper-surveillance and imprisonment (and cheap labor, CXW stock jumps…).

However, I’m afraid, without a body of information that reveals patterns of extra-oppression among peoples of the same raced heritage, without some bigmouths—Reverend Sharptons, Jacksons, Minister Farrakhans— to talk about race in Lasch-Quinn’s “usual ways,” we are bound to forget that this omission of ‘aggressive’ race-talking worked our country into a lull about racism—and difference, period—in the first place.

Because bleeding-heart liberals weren’t bringing revolution any quicker.

Kershaw called Barack Obama the “omnipresent icebreaker.”

Fine.

But if that means I can’t call attention to racial injustice without, God forbid, implying ungratefulness for my Black President—by all means, send me to last century.

Interview with Sapphire, Author of "Push"

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Sally Sue, Jonny & Sex Tourism, Part 2 (MAD LATE!)

I can recall rather vividly the first time Rio really began to mesh.

As a place, yes, it's in South America, more specifically the country of Brazil. A country name I know better than most in this Hemisphere. I know warmer weather must abide there.

I know there's a large amount of melanin thanks to the Middle Passage. I know there are beaches. I hear about enough to assume people 'vaca-y' there. I know there's something significant about soccer, or true futbol. I'm tempted to murder some poor athlete's name once I've made that connection to land, sport, and culture but beyond that there USED to be little emotional response to the idea of Brazil.

That is, until Essence.

Until T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting.

Until Pharrell. Snoop Dogg. And until "Blame It On Rio!" DANGIT!

Beautiful/I just want you to know/you're my favorite girl

Like any music video, this one irked me, but no more than any other video with videomodel chicks who look better, rotund-er, donk-ey-er and glossier than you. Unfortunately, however, feminist theory and Black feminist theories--the formal courses--would volunteer the vocab to decipher what heretofore had only been mild brushes of discomfort.

My brain heard something like this:

transnational sex capital ethnically ambiguous tourism sex tourism
crossingbordersexoticOtherfetishizefetishizationcrossingbordersforsexadvertisingfor tourismforsexforsextourismforexoticOtherethnicallyambiguoussexcapital

...DANGIT!!

"Beautiful" is no longer a song with 'video girls,' it's a dissertation prompt about Black male capital--via mainstream hip hop's enabling (another convo to itself)--funding transnational excursions to a very specific site (Brazil) where exotic Other, [postmodernist-friendly] 'ethnically ambiguous' women may be found (Brazilian women) for the purpose of sexual and capitalistic "exploitation"--because ain't nobody stupid...she won't come cheap.

And while the frenzy around this notion was enough to drive a notsoambiguously Black woman mad--hence the extended Essence dialogue--I'm extremely tempted to reverse the scenario for lil Sally Sue's sake.

You must understand how deep it goes--there are websites where men give advice about "how to" herd a Brazilian woman.

Something like, if you bring her back to the states, don't let her out of the house, lest she meet other Spanish/Portuguese speaking women and get her own life sans Teena Marie's romanticisms. (I'm paraphrasing but the actual is so much worse.)

If I put this in the context of centuries' worth of rape, decimation, violation, and thorough devaluing of Black female bodies, and if I re-remember the positioning of Black women as the original sex tourism attractions throughout and beyond acknowledged slavery, I'm left wondering how could BLACK men engage in such 'debauchery'?

The socioeconomic realities of the women in question is a salient point.

The irony of Black men engaging this transaction given their placement in terms of a racialized socioeconomic hierarchy, and the racialized economy of desire is a salient point.

We could definitely tag on the unmarriageable Black man statistics, and the middle class/elite Black woman's pity party as coded by the U.S. But I think the point is made.

Yes, "Beautiful" shows us how depressing a place Brazil can be if you're not an estadounidense Black male.

BUT it also shows us how in tact the sex industry is for the so-called heterosexual male consumer.

If Jonny ever gets tired of his computer (domestic), there's the local strip club (local)...or corner (illegal?). If ATL, Vegas, Miami or NYC eveer get old (national), he can always hightail it to Rio (global)!

...Sally Sue, on the other hand, isn't nearly as connected. Her greatest hope is the really awkward situation she could end up in with a hairless stripper in a man-kini.

And THAT'S the bottom line.

Sorry fellow fem-stars. But this isnb't really about how outrageous sex tourism is. It's about how Black women feel inferior when discussing this foolishness. It's not about how anti-progressive, anti-feminist, or anti-anything sex tourism is, actually.

It's about how Black men, and men PERIOD (particularly 'heteros') get to reboot their esteem during these flesh sesh-es, and Black ('hetero') women find few--if any--such outlets for their unsunny esteems. Despite how 'oversexed' and 'lascivious' we--and our internationally coveted Brazilian sisters are supposed to be.

Man-kini's...

that is SO unfair!

HAD TO BLOG ABOUT THIS VIDEO!!! Kid Cudi and Nez Khammal Make Me Fall in Love...

For the full scoop--since somebody at Esquire already beat me to it--check out this guy's article on the revolutionary split screen effect that makes me so remember how much i love editing.

ha!

(or...at least half a 'ha!' because i really do love to edit, it's just...y'know...tedious...)
"...Making Split-Screen Cool Again" by Paul Schrodt


I'm currently sick as a dog, and slightly swimming (oh, i'm a comedienne...) in responsibilities. I feel entirely ineffective right now, and there's so much more on that later at an offline address. But in the meantime, nothing could possibly make me happier than this here bottle of Pedialyten (X-p) and Nez Khammal's ridiculous eye for symmetry and pastels.

Fug loneliness. Give me a mattress.
...and a T.V. (with cable).
And nothing lower than a Basic iLEAP score for all three classes.
That's it.
Wait, I left something out. And jobs for everybody. Breakthrough ratings for The CW's remakes. Friends that can pay their rent.

goodness.

Make Her Say, Kid Cudi ft. Kanye West & Common

(did you notice how i said absolutely nothing about the content of said song?)