praise be! thank the cinephile god for dave white, who not only writes a hysterical listing of the top 10 best worst movies of 2005, but also includes "crash" amongst them. i thought i had entered a parallel universe after finally renting this movie at the beginning of december and not coming out it with anything more than the very nuanced concept that "racism is bad" and "hollywood can fix this!" but it was so difficult to simultaneously know that EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD that i remotely respect thought it was a layered, brilliant film. lord. white, does not so much:

"Crash" - Kids, racism is really really really bad and wrong. Look, just watch this heavy, important movie about how everyone who lives in Los Angeles -all 12 of them - is super racist and awful. There. Did you watch it and pay very close attention? Good. Do you now understand the message? Because if you don't then you're going to have to watch it again. With Oprah. She thinks it's as good as "Citizen Kane." She said so on her show.

Why you should see it anyway: Because it's really funny when Hollywood decides to tackle a serious moral issue and throw star-powered weight behind something that everyone but Neo-Nazis agrees on already. To ice the Let's Pat Ourselves on The Back Cake, they'll probably give it Oscar too. I know the scene where Racism pushes Sandra Bullock down a flight of stairs deserves some kind of award.

so, obviously, i've had a lot of time over this winter break thing. it's been great. to be honest, i've spent a lot of it on the internet (my new media advisor would be so proud), and much of that internet time going back through fun blogs' archives to see things i haven't read before. (believe it or not, the fresh stuff on the internet runs out after approximately four browsing hours per day). i especially recommend susan's archives, and unfogged's, where i found ogged's list of women he won't date.

lists are great, and i find a list of who you won't date more or less reasonable. after all, i once upon a time had a list of 100 Things I'm Looking for in a Man. it was done a little tongue in cheek, but with a glimmer of naive hope. also, i was 19, and probably drunk on wine coolers with my dormmates when i did it. i can't find the list, but i can remember a few traits, and i think they'd probably still hold: must love radiohead was, at the time, number one. athletic was another. tolerant of high amounts of bullshit wasn't on there, but probably should have been.

anyway i'm alone in the apartment (tommy is down in cville and charles is working) and i've had two glasses of white wine, and apparently that is my cue to a) start stealing year-and-a-half-old ideas from other people's blogs and b) make my own list (all hypothetical, of course, because i'm obviously very happy in current situation. but you never know when you might have to, uh, cut and run!).

men i would not date:

1. those who do not like the generally same kind of music that i like, and by that, i do mean the dreaded indie rock. i'm not asking that you're all up in largehearted boy's shit or whatever, but a general knowledge and appreciation of the music i love is a good thing. i do like to go to concerts, after all, and having to go to a show with somebody who didn't like or know anything about the band would grate.

2. fatties. sorry, i'm fattist. you've got to be in good shape and like working out or playing a sport or SOMETHING. a running or tennis partner is preferable.

3. shorties. just not physically attracted. i'm near 5'9", and a guy has to be at least 6'1".

4. somebody who does not understand blogging. can you even IMAGINE trying to have to explain all of this crap?

5. people who think they are too good for a) television b) pop culture. i understand that tv is evil and rots your brain, and pop culture is throwaway trash for the intellectually unable, but. come. on. if there aren't at least a couple of tv shows and pop-culturey things you enjoy, then you probably take yourself too seriously.

6. those without a college degree. does this make me evil? i'm not quite sure. anyway i'm sure there are exceptions.

7. teetotalers

8. conservatives (though i have to admit i'd probably be willing to bend on this a little bit if the person in question were an extremely moderate conservative)

9. religious people. not saying it's bad; it's just not my thing.

10. vegetarians (stolen from apo's list in the comment's of ogged's post)

and you?

most of you'll already know this, but it's still worth a look: kottke's got his best links of 2005 up. hours and hours worth of internet fun.

i know, i've preached the love for veronica mars one too many times on this here blog. but i just can't help it. even if you don't think you'll like it, you will. guaranteed. unless you have no eyes. i wanted to share this brief example with you of how VM can transform a non-VM lover into a slave for kristen bell. exhibit a: my brother. doesn't watch much tv (though is obsessed with nip/tuck, one of the few shows he does watch). never got into buffy the vampire slayer. not generally interested in chick-centered shows. but this is how we spent christmas afternoon.

sister and i: please, can we start watching the veronica mars dvd we got for xmas, pleeeeeease? PLEASE!
brother: christ. ok.
watch watch watch the first episode.
brother: gets up, stretches, says, well, i know what i'm doing for the next 18 hours.

(note to slow: he meant he was going to watch VM. AND HE DID. at this rate, he and my sister must be done with the first season by now.)

additionally, yesterday my sister let slip a disturbing spoiler she read on the internets for VM. i have no idea if it is true or not, but i think, based on other clues i've read elsewhere, that it may be. i'll post behind the cut; tell me what you think. and by you i mean kathryn, because she is the only other blogger i know who reaches my level of VM obsession.

i saw king kong with my family the day after christmas as part of my sister's 18th birthday celebrations. has anybody else seen it? what did you think? the divide in my family was astounding. anybody under the age of 55 - that is, my brother, my sister and myself - completely adored the movie. everybody 55 and up - my parents and my mother's parents - thought it was a wretched, wretched film and was basically a masturbatory exercise in special effects for peter jackson.

i agreed a little bit with that sentiment - there are at least two or three scenes where the special effects seem to go on, and on, and on, just for the sake of showing us what amazing creatures jackson can design; at least 30 minutes could have been effectively cut from the film (but who the hell is going to tell peter jackson to cut down his film?). but the story was genuine; the acting was amazing (naomi watts literally glows. there are so many loving close ups on her, and she's really heart-wrenching in the scenes with kong. it's even more amazing to think about it knowing she's reacting to a green screen. adrien brody is good, too. i have never seen the pianist, but in every one of his public appearances after his oscar win, he came off as a complete shallow hollywoodesque jackass. A DIET COKE COMMERCIAL, BRODY?!?! but in the film, he has real gravitas and is very winning and all noble-like. and kind of weirdly hot. huh. as for jack black: he was okay, but he can't really act that well. same shtick and expressions over and over. and, oh yeah - the ship captain is HOTT); kong is AMAZING. his facial expressions are wonderful and the rest of the special effects will do their best to blow you away. i was particularly breathless during the brontosaurus stampede. the score is gorgeous, as well. it's a movie movie - you know? like, king kong is why people still bother going to out to theaters.

but no. the geezers in my family would have none of it. and i can't for the life of me figure out why. i thought maybe the length, running over 3 hours, could have something to do with it - but i'm officially the Andrews with the shortest attention span, and it didn't bother me a whit. it was all-around agreed that the acting was overall superb. in the end, it seems the special effects, and their potential overuse, turned my grandparents and parents off. but DON'T THEY LOVE THE FUTURE?!?!1

i really just don't get it.

Catherine has been nice enough to lend me her car for my trip down to Charlottesville to see my mom (for Christmas 2: Son Of). Last night we picked it up and brought it here, into the land of two hour parking. So all day I've been playing hide and seek with the parking enforcement people.

But when I set out for my last trip, I found feathers — feathers! — all over our front door and stoop. I have no idea how they got there, and there's no bird in evidence. But I was immediately reminded of this, and thought I might as well link to it. If you, too, were once a young and cruel freshman with a high-speed internet connection, you've probably already seen it.

In other news, I think YouTube is pulling away from the other video Flickr wannabes. There's a creepy MySpace-ish undercurrent going on there, but there's no denying that their tech is fairly slick.

The fact that I have multiple friends who will probably be interested in this link is completely dumbfounding to me.

• Typographica's Best Fonts of 2005