Here it is 2008 and the MySpace blogging tool still doesn't fully work with Firefox. What's up with that, Tom?

Given how "young" and "cutting edge" MySpace is, I would've thought Tom and his cabal would make their blogging tool work with more browsers than just stodgy IE (and maybe Safari, but I doubt it). [UPDATE: It doesn't fully work in Safari either.]

Anyway, this blog post is just an excuse to try out the podcast enclosure feature and see if it actually works. [UPDATE: Which it doesn't. Thanks, Tom!]

EVEN LATER: All right, mea culpa. The podcast enclosure works -- just not in any way that people would know about unless they open a blog's RSS feed. Even then, the whole process is a little cryptic. A casual reader would have no idea there's an enclosed podcast unless the poster specifically mentions it.

I'm surprised at MySpace. It's been an Internet phenomenon for more than two years, but they still can't get their blogging tool to fully work in Firefox. For shame, Tom. For shame.

On the subject of blogging, I wanted to announce the newest and coolest blog to hit my profile in the past 10 minutes. I've started up a pop-culture entertainment blog on NorCal Blogs. It's the Buzz Blog. It's sorta like my old pop-culture column, but slightly more frequent and vastly more banal.

To keep tabs on all of my blogging endeavors, I've added a little widget to my profile. All of my blogs are now squeezed into a tiny space.

Enjoy.

We'll rejoin the regular "On Pop Culture" column in a minute, but first we'd like to take a moment of your time to ask you to call in with your pledge of support for this publication.

As you may have heard, our publication faces a tightening budget due to advertisers deciding that newspapers aren't going to be the new MySpace. I know we're not MySpace -- the newspapers are like CraigsList, but with news and classifieds you have to pay for.

Because of the cutbacks, we're now turning to you — the reader — for your support. For the cost of a submarine sandwich a month, you can help keep this column going. We will take your generous donation and buy our columnists sub sandwiches.

Since the inception of the "On Pop Culture" column last year, the average age of our publication's columnists has been lowered by about 20 years. Without it and the "Starving Student," the average age of the columnists jumps back to 67.

That includes Wm. Jameson T. Cornballer, our 93-year-old phonograph reviewer who thinks that "McPheever" is a disease his young fiancee died from in the 1930s. Thanks to your ongoing support, we have a vaccination for the most fatal and virulent forms of McPheever.

I know "On Pop Culture" can't be as timely as the entertainment blogs or even weekly TV programs. Instead of going for instantaneous gratification, every two weeks our column goes for timelessness.

Remember where you were when he tried to explain the culture significance of the phrase, "Time to make the doughnuts"? Recall the good times when we tried to discuss the impact of the Disney Channel phenomenon "High School Musical" without actually seeing the program.

Who else but an overweight, out-of-touch columnist can shed insight on the things that you can hear and see with your own ears and eyes?

Call now. As our way of saying thanks, with your pledge at the level of $75 a year, we'll give you a special premium — the voice of columnist Ryan singing a TV theme song on your phone answering machine. I'm a fan of "Electric Company" and "Speed Racer," but can just as well sing the themes to "Lost" or "Heroes."

We're going to rejoin our regular programming in a minute, but we just want to let you know that we've got a lot of great things lined up for the next few months. April Fool's Day is around the corner. We've got more "Secret Shames," including a look at local karaoke bars.

With your generous pledge of support, we can … Uh, one second.

We've just received word that no one has called in during the past five minutes it's taken you to read this column. I'm hearing from my manager that this will be the end of "On Pop Culture."

Thanks for your support. It's been a blast these past four months. And, please, buy a newspaper once in a while. It's good for you (and me).

---

Due to budget cutbacks, the size of the Enterprise-Record's "Buzz" entertainment section was halved. "On Pop Culture" was among the items cut to save space.

This MySpace-only column is my reaction to the news. The Dude abides and I hope I do too.

By RYAN OLSON - The Buzz

What more can be said about Anna, Britney, Lindsay and Paris?

Weeks go by between my columns. In that span, a million stories and jokes are told about these ladies, nearly always at their expense.

- Britney Spears shaving her head before checking in and out of rehab repeatedly.
- Lindsay Lohan checking into rehab, repeatedly.
- Paris Hilton apparently marked her birthday with two parties shortly before getting arrested for driving without a license.

The thing that's starting to get me is that these young women are constantly in the spotlight. To be sure, many of their actions are their own doing. I'm guilty of having a laugh or being slightly horrified whenever I hear of their latest snafu.

However, the media coverage seems to have reached new levels of excess. Everyone ultimately seems to lose by focusing too much on these people.

Media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death is particularly disheartening. I understand why news outlets would want to cover her death — a shocking and sudden conclusion of a former Playboy playmate's life that was constantly in the limelight.

It was especially irksome watching CNN two weekends after Smith's death. After some breaks for news, it was "all Anna, all the time." It seemed like many other cable news networks and entertainment channels were dedicating swathes of time to Smith and her macabre post-mortem circus.

Everything has been over the top — the million "fathers" of her baby, the crying judge and the battle over where she would be buried. I knew things had gone too far when people were comparing Smith to Princess Diana.

The coverage was so constant that "Saturday Night Live" even made mention of it with a sketch depicting CNN's Wolf Blitzer being overwhelmed by a growing "ticker" of Anna Nicole items.

I haven't been this disappointed in the pop-culturesphere since that disgusting fixation on the Olsen twins turning 18 years old.

What does it say for us to dedicate more than a few minutes of our attention to these self-destructing stars? It's especially weird to be interested in a celebrity even though they have no other discernable talent. I'm looking at you, Paris Hilton.

After speaking with colleagues, I feel a small twinge of sympathy for these ladies. They're constantly under the spotlight, being scrutinized by an unseen horde. I imagine it would be difficult to have one's personal lives picked apart instead of their professional efforts, which are often lacking in many stars' cases.

Others have mentioned that young girls may be soaking up some of the barrels of ink about the celeb's bad habits.

In the end, this coverage brings up one of the greatest quandaries of journalism. In the news business, we're supposed to find the balance between giving readers what they want and what they "need." Covering these celebrities seems to fill the "what readers want" category.

But do readers really "want" this endless, tasteless smorgasbord? Given how scattered peoples' interests are these days, one may argue that only a sizable segment of the population is truly interested in these celebrities' lives.

It seems like it's gotten to the point where no one can stop these runaway freight trains. The Associated Press attempted to back off of its Hilton coverage for a week, ending its experiment shortly before she was arrested. I doubt anyone noticed unless they knew about the AP's project.

Tragically for our well-informed population, it may be more economical to provide endless coverage of these celebrities instead of doing more in-depth reporting into more relevant topics — like anything else.

Staff writer Ryan Olson can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.

So, the Razzies were Saturday. I was _way_ off on my predictions, which is sadly par for me. I was correct in my prediction that "Little Man" would end the Wayans Brothers' Razzie losing streak, but that's poor consolation.

Eh, here's the "winners" list from Razzies.com. Til next year, Razzies. Next year.

By RYAN OLSON - The Buzz

Every year around this time, my sister sends me an innocent e-mail asking me for my Oscar picks for the family pool.

It shouldn't be a big problem to pick the award-winning films, right? I'm reasonably plugged into pop culture and the cinema, although I don't always see all of the Best Picture nominees.

For whatever reason, the Academy always disagrees with my choices and I wind up toward the bottom of the list.

Perhaps I'm a little jaded after my frequent losses, but I'd rather use my bone-and-rock fortune telling skills to predict the worst films of 2006.

On Saturday, the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation will bestow the dubious honor of a "Razzie" on the dreck-iest of Hollywood's dreck.

This year, there are some particularly fragrant nominees listed on the Razzie Awards Web site at www.razzies.com. In a strange personal parallel between the Oscar and Razzie lists, I haven't seen many of the best or worst that Hollywood's putting out.

Nonetheless, I'll put as much effort into my picks as some of the filmmakers apparently spent on their flicks. A small part of me wonders if there's a Razzie "boost" in DVD rentals akin to the one for Oscar-nominated films.

There's a diverse class of films up for Worst Picture including "Basic Instinct 2," "Bloodrayne," "Lady in the Water," "Little Man" and "Wicker Man."

Most of my money for Worst Picture is on "Little Man," that crabapple from the Wayans Brothers that used computer effects to slap Marlon Wayans' head on a small child and expected it to stick. After being shut out in the 2004 Razzies for "White Chicks," I believe this could be the Wayans' year. They've got seven nominations including two for Worst Screen Couple.

While "Little Man" failed to measure up, I'm leaning toward another "loser" to dominate most of the other awards.

"Basic Instinct 2" was apparently so dreadful that it was not only nominated for seven awards, it's also referred on the site as "Basically, It Stinks, Too." I expect the Sharon Stone film to perform well in most of the categories, including a nod for Stone's "lopsided breasts" as Worst Screen Couple.

The Razzies seem to single out the films that aim higher than bland family fare, which is probably another point in favor of "Basic Instinct 2." In each of the past two years, Jenny McCarthy's "Dirty Love" and Halle Berry's "Catwoman" landed four gongs apiece.

Aside from the big bombs, it looks like the Razzies enjoy spreading the wealth. Looking past the dominance of "Dirty Love," the five remaining awards of 2005 were handed to five different films including "Bewitched" and "Star Wars, Episode III."

That doesn't mean that family films don't get their fare share of disdain. The Razzie group created a new category this year targeted right at kid flicks. Most of them seem forgettable, but I cast my vote for the needless sequel "Garfield 2."

Here's my round-up of Razzie picks (for whatever they're worth):

Worst Picture -- "Little Man"
Worst Actor -- Nicolas Cage, "Wicker Man"
Worst Actress -- Sharon Stone, "Basic Instinct 2"
Worst Supporting Actor -- Ben Kingsley, "Bloodrayne"
Worst Supporting Actress -- Jenny McCarthy, "John Tucker Must Die"
Worst Screen Couple -- Sharon Stone "lopsided breasts," "Basic Instinct 2"
Worst Remake or Rip-Off -- "Pink Panther"
Worst Prequel or Sequel -- "Basic Instinct 2"
Worst Director -- Ron Howard, "The DaVinci Code"
Worst Screenplay -- "Basic Instinct 2"
Worst Excuse for Family Entertainment -- "Garfield 2: A Tail of Two Kitties"

Ryan Olson can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@ chicoer.com.

I try to be funny from time to time. It doesn't always work (hence, why my mom says that). Some people laugh, but I'm always afraid it's pity laughter.

Now you can judge for yourself. I'm reposting my twice-monthly "pop culture" column on my MySpace blog after it's published in the newspaper (and on ChicoER.com).

Here's my latest, skipping the usual moaning about Valentine's Day and focusing on what comes next -- marriage.

New service to give weddings an extra boost

Background

When I wasn't dreaming of becoming a diplomat (like they were on "Star Trek"), one of childhood fantasies was to save "Saturday Night Live." Given how bad some of the episodes were back in the day, I figured I help out and save the show.

Although SNL emerged from that slump and has mired itself in a new one, I've moved on from that dream and turned to news writing.

My new position as an online editor gives a chance to stretch my legs a bit. One direction is a twice-monthly "pop culture" column where I have fun looking at our society from different angles.

Instead of focusing on Britney Spears' latest f-up, my column strives to be longer lasting than tabloid tissue.

So please feel free to poke around and let me know what you think. Do _you_ think I'm as funny as I think I am?

By RYAN OLSON - The Buzz

Valentine's Day is just around the corner. As your humble pop culture observer, I could prattle on about love on the tube and silver screen. I might mention my desire to be part of a name combination such as TomKat or Brangelina like many A-listers.

Aside from singing my heart out at karaoke on the big day, I'm opting to skip this minefield and all the loaded baggage of clichéd commentary this topic holds.

Using the horrifically mean children's taunt that starts off with "Person A and Person B sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G" as a road map, I'm moving past love and looking at marriage. Baby in a baby carriage will be addressed later.

A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that actress Eva Longoria and her beau Tony Parker are getting married on July 7, 2007 or 07-07-07. Like many others, this high-powered couple reportedly picked that date because of the repeated use of lucky number 7. Others picked the day thinking it will be memorable.

First of all, I think most pop numerology is silly. Like the whole 06-06-06 that got some people in a tizzy. The world didn't end then, and I sadly don't foresee July 7 being the harbinger of any great fortune for the vast majority of people.

I don't quite understand why people pick a specific date to tie the knot hoping to bring luck or some enhanced memories. If the wedding day isn't one of the luckiest and memorable days of a couple's life by default, I would be seriously concerned.

Nonetheless, I can see that many couples are looking for that added kick of notoriety as they exchange vows. My services can help couples craft a wedding that'll get guests buzzing and create hundreds of stories they can tell their grandkids.

First off, everyone probably recalls the part of a wedding ceremony at which the reverend asks if anyone objects to the couple getting married or to forever hold their peace. For the right fee, I'll object.

As the maid of honor wrestles me to the ground, the crowd will gasp as I shout out my objections chosen in advance by the bride and groom. Possible objections include the bride's "mannish hands," the groom's inability to put the toilet seat down and concerns about the appearance of the couple's future children.

Most weddings are deathly dull for children. One way to perk kids up is to scatter Lite-Brites throughout the wedding and reception location. Not only would it be fun for kids, maybe the Boston bomb squad will investigate. The wedding party would need to be prepared to pay for that though.

Despite what some groups say, the tradition of marriage has evolved over the centuries. One tradition that has fallen by the wayside for most is animal sacrifice. For those couples looking for an added blessing, I'll find the appropriate animal and instruct the party on the proper method.

Some, including myself, might squirm at the idea of ritually killing an animal. For those, I can offer a stuffed animal substitute. I'll do my best to make sure the animal doesn't look like a Muppet.

The list of services I can possibly offer a wedding party are endless. Other highlights include "kidnapping" the bride or parents just before the ceremony. Imagine the hijinks and chaos as the wedding site is "condemned" by a building inspector or if another event, such as a clown college, is held at the same time.

As couples sit down to figure out their wedding costs, I hope they'll scratch out the cost of rice and pencil me, and notoriety, in.

Staff writer Ryan Olson can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.


(c) 2007 Chico Enterprise-Record. All rights reserved.

By RYAN OLSON - The Buzz

Valentine's Day is just around the corner. As your humble pop culture observer, I could prattle on about love on the tube and silver screen. I might mention my desire to be part of a name combination such as TomKat or Brangelina like many A-listers.

Aside from singing my heart out at karaoke on the big day, I'm opting to skip this minefield and all the loaded baggage of clichéd commentary this topic holds.

Using the horrifically mean children's taunt that starts off with "Person A and Person B sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G" as a road map, I'm moving past love and looking at marriage. Baby in a baby carriage will be addressed later.

A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that actress Eva Longoria and her beau Tony Parker are getting married on July 7, 2007 or 07-07-07. Like many others, this high-powered couple reportedly picked that date because of the repeated use of lucky number 7. Others picked the day thinking it will be memorable.

First of all, I think most pop numerology is silly. Like the whole 06-06-06 that got some people in a tizzy. The world didn't end then, and I sadly don't foresee July 7 being the harbinger of any great fortune for the vast majority of people.

I don't quite understand why people pick a specific date to tie the knot hoping to bring luck or some enhanced memories. If the wedding day isn't one of the luckiest and memorable days of a couple's life by default, I would be seriously concerned.

Nonetheless, I can see that many couples are looking for that added kick of notoriety as they exchange vows. My services can help couples craft a wedding that'll get guests buzzing and create hundreds of stories they can tell their grandkids.

First off, everyone probably recalls the part of a wedding ceremony at which the reverend asks if anyone objects to the couple getting married or to forever hold their peace. For the right fee, I'll object.

As the maid of honor wrestles me to the ground, the crowd will gasp as I shout out my objections chosen in advance by the bride and groom. Possible objections include the bride's "mannish hands," the groom's inability to put the toilet seat down and concerns about the appearance of the couple's future children.

Most weddings are deathly dull for children. One way to perk kids up is to scatter Lite-Brites throughout the wedding and reception location. Not only would it be fun for kids, maybe the Boston bomb squad will investigate. The wedding party would need to be prepared to pay for that though.

Despite what some groups say, the tradition of marriage has evolved over the centuries. One tradition that has fallen by the wayside for most is animal sacrifice. For those couples looking for an added blessing, I'll find the appropriate animal and instruct the party on the proper method.

Some, including myself, might squirm at the idea of ritually killing an animal. For those, I can offer a stuffed animal substitute. I'll do my best to make sure the animal doesn't look like a Muppet.

The list of services I can possibly offer a wedding party are endless. Other highlights include "kidnapping" the bride or parents just before the ceremony. Imagine the hijinks and chaos as the wedding site is "condemned" by a building inspector or if another event, such as a clown college, is held at the same time.

As couples sit down to figure out their wedding costs, I hope they'll scratch out the cost of rice and pencil me, and notoriety, in.

Staff writer Ryan Olson can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.


(c) 2007 Chico Enterprise-Record. All rights reserved.

By RYAN OLSON - The Buzz

I received a bewildering e-mail from an awards show "outsider." He wrote saying he's intimate with all the celebrities at the big awards shows and was willing to dish. Intrigued, I readily agreed to meet him at a local outlet of a national chain of coffeehouses. After just a few minutes with this well-grounded character, I could see he was legit even if his presentation was a little flat.

This is his tale:

It's not easy being who I am.

It's so, so frustrating to constantly hear Joan Rivers and her hellspawn ask celebrities who they're wearing. It would make my day to hear them once, just once, ask who they're walking on.

The answer is pretty clear. They're walking on little ol' me — the red carpet.

Before every awards show, carpets like me are in the spotlight. There's a lot of pressure as all the celebrities stand and take their turns in front of photographers and Ryan Seacrest.

Who's got the best outfits? It's hard to tell because of my bottom-up perspective. You might think all the men in suits are generic, but at least they're wearing flat shoes for the most part.

It's women who wear spiky heels that get to me because they press into me like needles. But after a while, it starts to feel like acupuncture and I relax.

Of course, I've got to be professional at all times. Sometimes I want to "accidentally" trip a celebrity because they're wearing a ridiculous costume like Bjork and that stork she wore a couple of years back.

Don't stop me now. I'm on a roll. Sorry — carpet humor.

Being the red carpet at an awards show is a mixed bag. At the beginning, everyone's talking about you and what everyone's doing on the red carpet. It's so great being so close to the stars. My father, a retired Oval Office rug, gets a kick out of all the photos of his boy with the beautiful people.

Once the show begins, I'm out of the limelight and pretty much forgotten. Plus, we don't get invited to the after-parties, which is a darn shame. I really enjoy dancing.

I'll bet you were expecting me to say "I like to cut a rug." Tough, I don't believe in self-mutilation.

After the show, they pack me up and ship me off to storage where I'm lucky to see daylight again after a few months. Man, the only thing more boring than being in storage is being the red carpet at the People's Choice Awards.

I kid. Most of my carpet colleagues are happy for the work.

Still, even I can see that "30 Rock" was robbed as Favorite New TV Comedy at the People's Choice Awards and I have no eyes.

The awards show biz is a tough one, especially because work is hard to come by. I know a lot of carpets fresh from the factory back in Georgia working school proms, just scraping by while they're waiting to be "discovered." Most won't make it. Some veer off course and become shag carpeting in some retro '70s film.

Some award shows are passing us by, opting for differently colored carpets or worse, walls littered with corporate sponsors. It's gotten so bad, we're thinking about joining up with the ice statues and lawn ornaments union.

All in all, it's not a bad life for a carpet. For a few nights a year, I'm living the dream.

Staff writer Ryan Olson can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.


(c) 2007 Chico Enterprise-Record. All rights reserved.