–

art does not imitate life - it intimates it.

mpaa vs imdb, it’s a natural progression.

poor mpaa.  this will weaken them (this lessens their ability to resist simultaneous DVD/theatrical releases) - and pretty soon, or, rather, immediatekly, we’ll get all movies (not just mark cuban’s) burned wirelessly to our ipods while we’re watching them in theaters.  just like we’re promised in the constitution!

(you might want to make the first one a kid’s movie, so the pr move cannot be dismissed as one of those ”they just got mad that they couldn’t cut comfortably to an R / they’re “too sophisticated/artsy for rating submission” scenarios)

Step 2: DEMOCRATIZE RATINGS - Collect demographic and other statistical information from audiences.  Invent some arbitrary ranking system for them to participate within..
 
(you bill moviegoing as an opportunity for cultural revolution!  re-defining who we are as a country,  and what for which we stand - or sit for roughly 2 hours.)

(you’re not exhibiting movies anymore, you’re “determining the future of the nation”)

(sort of a “textbooks of tomorrow” feel to the whole thing - like one big paradigm shift
 that we all have a part to play in shifting…)

(imagine how this plays into certain mindsets - it’s cultural warfare!)

Step 3 (and this is the most important):  Don’t forget that the whole thing is just a marketing ploy / startup opportunity / industry destabilizer.

 

“stephen hawking is the happiest guy on the planet and doesn’t even know it anymore.”

–card sent to him ” cheer up, buddy:  it’s all (…) ”

“you know that ”yes” moment?  why can’t we engineer ourselves to be more conscious on that level?”  – (bringing an uproar)  (i am too nice a person to take the cheap shot by mentioning that i left during this discussion, but i will say it was a momentous moment)

“name standardization standardizing.  tenses as linguistic meta-narratives representative of different states of being/reality”

“on a quantum level:  two (the numeral concept “2″) = “one” (the numeric concept 1)”

“i’ll just pretend to quote you”  -t

my very good (and completely un(screwed) definition of the term: 

any theme which attempts to describe with accuracy AND certainty will necessarily fail, falling short this amount (this amount will be what we give in return:  interest) - (aka confusionism, which, in some ways means i always get to make an interesting decision, but i am (if not “right”-which i’m not saying), at the least “never wrong”.

you cannot have a transaction without having two parties (unless both parties are secretly only one party).  The exchange between these parties = the concepts which, in a physical sense, make up “time”) - (aka creationism)

you only justify the way you want it to be (aka sophistry) - (see also:  love(-ly) (/) bullshit)

the logical 50.1% probabalistic certainty (i call this surety) of 50.1% self-definition.

(one of an infinite spread of spectrum spreading spectrum spreads)^2

(those who can do those who can’t teach.)

those who can’t do.  those who can teach.

(those who can’t do those who can teach.)

— 

those who can should. should those who can’t?

those who can’t shouldn’t.  should those who can?

those who can should those who can’t?

those who can’t shouldn’t those who can?

who shouldn’t does, who doesn’t shouldn’t.

who shouldn’t does who doesn’t shouldn’t.

who doesn’t shouldn’t, who does should.

who doesn’t shouldn’t, who doesn’t should. 

—

teachers, teach.  -(t minus each)

photographers - do not take photographs unless given permission.

photographers - do not take photographs unless paid.

celebrities - when you give permission, let them.

celebrities - when they pay you, let them photograph you.

viewers rejoice.

(readers rarely notice)

—- wait, maybe better, maybe funnier:  someone makes a reality show out of following the paparazzi.   wouldn’t that fix it?  it’s like a completely whole OTHER super EXTRA layer of BULLSHIT all on its own!   You can then “product place” certain celebrities into the show within the show within the show…  the meta-bullshit show!  that’s fuckin value!  I’d love to see a shit-ton of money go into some things like that!   (what has happened!  I apparently just turned into George Carlin…!)

back to the pitch…

“Are you an overwrought actor/celebrity who hates having his every movement under scrutiny (while, no doubt, being just a wee bit oversensitive about the whole issue, in a “my business manager makes me do it” sort of way)?  If so, go produce this show.”

suddenly i .. do feel like turning on the tv.   hmm.

one is the road to revolution
one is the road to innovation

(assume people are dishonest)
(assume people are honest) 

(one is the road to innovation)
(one is the road to revolution) 

—
which one is which one is which one is which one?

(which one is which one)^2

(=which one)?

—

alternate title:  the four-square gospel / where’s my infinity key

if you can’t fix it, it’s not broken.

 

My initial thought was the above providing overview/granularity in the who’s who debate of 2-party politics - giving us a much clearer picture of where the two agree and disagree… data derived from this experiment would be very interesting.

So you (say) you want a revolution…  well, you know…

– update, moments later:

The funny version: where instead of elected representatives voting as ideological agents of their constituencies (as above), it is simply a cash based proxy bidding system… how different is this from what occurs now?  it’s not, so if there’s no moral judgment to be made, it’s at least a lot more efficient to go ahead and just make it into what it wants to be:  ebay.gov!