Today marks the second anniversary of this blog, a project I began on a whim at the behest of some readers. Blogs were just becoming the rage in those days, and since I was no longer writing a weekly column, it seemed like a good outlet for my thoughts that didn’t fit in movie reviews.

In February 2004, however, I began writing “Snide Remarks” again, publishing it online for subscribers only. I immediately became wary of the blog: Why write something funny and put it in the blog for free when I could save it for “Snide Remarks” and get paid for it? Blog entries became sparse as I was less and less inclined to “waste” my efforts on it. I mean, I only get a few good ideas a month. If they’re all going into the blog, what’s left for the column?

To alleviate this problem, I briefly toyed with making the blog a perk for “Snide Remarks” subscribers, available only to them. With the blog viewed as an extension of the “Snide Remarks” experience, there was no longer a dilemma over where to publish whatever humorous content I managed to come up with. In the blog or in the column, it was now essentially the same thing.

However, the response to this move was so negative that I feared I would be pursued by townspeople bearing torches and pitchforks. I expected the non-subscribers to hate it, of course, and I didn’t really care what they thought. But even some of the subscribers were opposed. Some felt it was presumptuous to think anyone would pay to access a blog. I countered that they were paying for “Snide Remarks” and the blog was simply a freebie that came along with it, and that besides, it’s kinda presumptuous to think anyone would want to read your blog anyway, free or not.

But I got the sense that I had taken the name of “blog” in vain, that a blog, by definition, must be free, open and accessible to all, and viva la blog! I considered changing it from a “blog” to a “web journal,” to see if the name really did make such a difference, but the damage was already done. I made the blog public again and went back to my previous policy of simply never posting in it for fear of squandering my few “Snide Remarks”-worthy good ideas on it.

Eventually, as I settled into a comfortable rhythm with “Snide Remarks,” I was able to easily discern which items should be saved for that feature and which I could put in the blog without stealing from myself. The blog has also been a useful place to post my daily entries from the Sundance Film Festival, to make announcements about upcoming shows, to talk about new TV series, and to publish angry letters and e-mail exchanges with illiterate people.

Sometimes people ask what blogs I read. The answer is that I really only read those written by people I know. I’m sure that many strangers write blogs that would also amuse me, but I’m afraid of finding any more ways of spending time on the Internet than I already have. (It’s why I’ve avoided watching “Commander-in-Chief”: I hear it’s good, and the last thing I need is another TV show to watch.)

Hypocritically, then, here are some blogs of people you don’t know, but who I know, that I find very entertaining. It’s possible that if you don’t know them, you won’t find their writings funny. But maybe you will. Anyway, here are a few of the ones that are updated frequently and have a lot of good general, not-just-for-friends content.

The Jolly Porter, written by my friend Chris (aka Monty, father of notorious “Snide Remarks” characters Miles and Owen). Chris is well-known in some circles for being a master storyteller. And because the gods of comedy respect his talent, they are always seeing to it that things happen to him that will make good stories. Some event will befall him, and we’ll think, “Of course that would happen to Chris. It would be wasted on someone else.” Anyway, he’s also a good writer, and his blog’s archives are full of amusing anecdotes and observations.

The Craig Report, by my friend Ken Craig, known in “Snide Remarks” as Pants. (I don’t know why.) For October, he has shared several spooky stories of things that happened to him. Like Chris, he is great with a story and has several classics in his repertoire. I’ve known Ken longer than anyone else I’m currently friends with, going back to my freshman year at BYU, when he was in the original Garrens Comedy Troupe cast with me. When we get together, we usually talk about movies for a while, and then we remind each other of Garrens stories, like the time we were all at church together and Jason fell asleep and slumped over and looked really funny. (You had to be there.)

Downstage Left comes from California and my friend Emmie, who is such a close friend that I don’t even remember what her last name is now that she’s married. Perhaps I am in denial of the fact. She is a fine actress, and she also writes exceptionally well, as her blog demonstrates.

Hailey Track, by my friend Hailey Smith. Like Emmie, she is a lovely, talented and married actress, and also a fun blog-writer. It is also lots of fun to watch “Lost” and “Alias” with Hailey and Brett over at Lisa’s house on Wednesday nights, especially if you have a box of little chocolate donuts from Wal-Mart on hand. Then I moved to Portland, and “Alias” moved to Thursdays, and now life isn’t the same. So sad.

On the same day, I saw the following people in downtown Portland:

- A man with a hook for a hand. He was not a pirate, as you might suspect. He was dressed in ordinary business attire, with a suit coat and everything. But he had a hook for a hand. If I were a businessman in need of a new hand, I would consider getting a ballpoint pen rather than a hook. That would be useful.

- A man with no hands. He seemed to have been born without them, rather than having lost them through carelessness or misadventure, and the interesting thing is that he was smoking a cigarette. I sort of admire that. I know that if I didn’t have any hands, I would try to find FEWER activities that required hands, not more. So I respect this guy for taking the opposite approach: “No hands? Bah! I’ll do everything a handed person can do, and more!”

So men without hands, I salute you! With my foot!

“The Work and the Glory: American Zion,” the latest Mormon film to hit theaters, opened to a pretty impressive box office last weekend. It grossed $524,698, which is more than many LDS films make in their entire run.

It opened on 204 screens, making it the widest LDS opening yet. (”The Other Side of Heaven” eventually expanded to 306 screens, but not until well into its run.)

The average take was $2,572 per screen — approximately the same as “Wallace & Gromit,” “The Fog,” “North Country” and “Elizabethtown,” to name a few. Those movies all made a lot more money total, of course, because they played on more screens. But the point is, the average “American Zion” theater was about as full as the average “North Country” theater last weekend.

(I saw “American Zion” Friday afternoon in Portland, and I was one of maybe 15 people in the theater. So I’m guessing packed houses in Utah bumped up the average.)

The question is, can it turn a profit? It is a sequel, of course, to last year’s “The Work and the Glory,” which cost $7.5 million to make and grossed only $3.3 million. Video and DVD sales recouped some of the loss, but not enough to actually become profitable.

The good news for Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller, who ponied up the money this time as well as last, is that “American Zion” was filmed back-to-back with Part 3 in the series, to be released next year. Shooting the films as part of one extra-long project instead of two separate ones brought the costs down considerably. At a press conference earlier this year, the filmmakers said Parts 2 and 3 combined would cost about what Part 1 cost on its own.

With an opening weekend of $500,000, it’s possible “American Zion” will eventually gross $3.75 million. And by playing in so many theaters in so many parts of the country, more Mormons (and heck, non-Mormons too, if they’re interested) can actually see it without having to wait for the DVD.

Someone calling himself “BOB” sent this terse e-mail:

Liberalism is pretty much the same as AIDS.

I had no idea which article of mine, if any, he was responding to, but I was intrigued by his statement. So I sent this reply:

Do you mean liberalism is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids? Do you mean liberalism is often considered a homosexual disease, though in the U.S. it is increasing at an alarming rate among heterosexual black women? Do you mean liberalism is rampant in Africa? I’m sorry, you’ll have to explain what you mean before I can possibly begin to take you seriously.

He replied, his e-mail address this time betraying his real name (Tom A.):

Well all homosexuals are liberals and their dangerous lifestyle puts them at great risk for AIDS! Pretty much if you are sick in the head to some degree and you can’t see things for how they really are you are a liberal.

Ah! Now we had something we could work with. I replied:

Ah. Obviously I have said something that leads you to believe I am a liberal. Your comparison is still not apt, though.

First of all, not ALL homosexuals are liberals, though it’s probably true that most are.

Second of all, as long as we’re talking about “not seeing things for how they really are,” I’m sure you know it’s a gross exaggeration to say that a gay person’s “dangerous lifestyle” puts them at great risk for AIDS. ANY person who has unprotected sex with a lot of partners puts himself or herself at great risk for AIDS. Not all gays lead dangerous lifestyles, though. For that matter, lesbians are at practically zero risk for AIDS, regardless of how many other women they fool around with.

Third, I’m still not making the connection between liberalism and AIDS. Are you saying that all gays are liberals and all gays also have AIDS? Surely not, for that’s ludicrous.

Are you saying that liberalism, like AIDS, spreads quickly when people do not understand the facts? That makes a little more sense, at least from a rhetorical standpoint. But then there’s you, apparently a conservative, suggesting that all gays are liberals and that all gays are also at risk for AIDS — thus making you guilty of the same thing you accuse liberals of (i.e., not seeing things for how they really are).

I suspect liberals feel the same way about conservatives: If they knew more facts, they’d become liberals. It goes both ways, see? Everyone thinks the other side is wrong.

I’m curious, though, what I said that made you think I was a liberal. Or was there nothing, and you just wanted to point out the liberalism/AIDS thing to me?

He came back with this:

Oh I was just poking around on the web and somehow came across and article you wrote on the Michael Moore deal at a Utah College. [He is probably referring to my review of "This Divided State," a documentary about the incident.] Honestly I do not disagree with you that much, and from your writting you seem to be well educated and fair. Obviously I believe liberalism to be disgusting and wrong. I know my e-mail about all homosexuals are liberals is inncorrect but just bairly. I do agree with Michael Savage and his medical views of liberals. Anyways Sir I wish you a good day and thank you for your reply.

P.S. Are you a liberal?

For those fortunate enough to be unaware of Michael Savage, he is an uber-right-wing radio personality who believes (or at least pretends to believe) that liberalism is a mental defect. He gained notoriety in 2003 when MSNBC fired him for telling a gay prank caller that he “should only get AIDS and die.” (What if the guy DID get AIDS and die? Could his family sue Michael Savage for wishing it on him? I’d love to see “Law & Order” tackle that one.)

I’ll be in Utah to visit friends the weekend of Nov. 11, and I thought, what the heck, why not do a show while I’m there?!

So on Monday, Nov. 14, at the ComedySportz venue in Provo, I’ll be doing my little show where I play the piano and sing “funny” songs. We’ll be recording it, too, and hopefully get enough stuff to put out a new CD.

I’ve written several new songs since the last show I did (over a year ago), so there’s plenty of reason to come even if you’ve seen me before. Unless you saw me and didn’t like me, in which case there is little reason to try again.

Details on the show can be found here. I hope to see you there! (At the show, I mean, not at that link.)

I’m rather embarrassed to admit I only recently discovered McSweeney’s, a very funny and literate Web site that is connected with a quarterly publication of the same name. Each day something amusing, submitted by a reader, is posted on the site, and heavens, are some of them ever funny.

The one to kill me most recently was brought to my attention when it was republished in The Oregonian. It is a list bearing this title:

“State songs, if they all suggested the apathy of Idaho’s ‘Here We Have Idaho.’”

Do you follow? Idaho’s state song is called “Here We Have Idaho.” Clearly whoever wrote the song was not very enthusiastic about the place. It’s like you’re showing someone around the country, and you’re like, “Ooh! This is Utah! It has beautiful mountains and deserts! Oh, and Montana! A gorgeous place, with fine, hardy people! And … here we have Idaho. Hey, this way to Oregon!”

So anyway, the list (written by one Craig Robertson) is what other state songs might be called if they, too, were written with zero enthusiasm.

Read the list here, then come back.

* * * *

Done?

OK, this one — “I Don’t Even Know Why I Try With You, Arkansas” — has been making me giggle for three days now. I can picture someone wearily shaking his head in exasperation and defeat as he says it. “I don’t even know why I try with you, Arkansas.” Man, that’s funny.

Part three of the round table on Mormon humor, in which I participated, has been posted at By Common Consent.

You can read it here.

In 2003, I reviewed a very bad Jessica Alba film (pardon the redundancy) called “Honey,” a “Glitter”-esque trainwreck about a white girl who becomes a famous hip-hop dancer.

Last week, the review prompted an e-mail from someone named Allie, who had read it over at EFilmCritic.com. Allie made the mistake a lot of young and/or stupid people make, wherein she believes she is writing not to the film critic, but to the star of the film, or possibly to the film itself.

Yo this film is quality these got to be a honey 2 because this one was excellent I cant stop watching it I come home the I put it on over and over again

And ive lent some of your moves and they are classy you got to do a honey 2 and you got do do it up tide put more moves in it email me back dog

And tell me what’s going down. And say hi to benney for me k

For the benefit of my readers who do not speak Imbecile, I have hammered out a rough translation:

Hey, this film is high-quality. There has got to be a “Honey 2,” because this one was excellent. I can’t stop watching it: I come home, and I play it over and over again.

Also, I have learned some of your dance moves, and they are classy. You MUST do a “Honey 2,” and you must do it up “tight,” by which I mean full of more great dance moves.

E-mail me back, dawg! Tell me what’s happening with you. And say hi to Benny, a fictional character in your movie played by Lil Romeo, for me, OK?

Our next e-mail came from a concerned reader who had read a post I made on my message board regarding Hurricane Katrina and the South. The post was a few paragraphs long, but at one point I said: “Today in the paper there were harrowing accounts of people barely being rescued, and it’s supposed to be stirring, gripping to read — but one of the people they’re talking about is a woman named Fluffy Sparks. How am I supposed to take a story seriously when it’s about Fluffy Sparks?”

A few weeks later, the concerned reader wrote me this e-mail:

I read a comment you made re: the Katrina evacuees & the stories coming out of the disaster area. I understand the intent of your overall comments, and I sincerely mean this with no disrespect�.But please be careful with what you write. ‘Fluffy’ is a real person with a spirit and personality that is befitting of her nickname which she chose to use when she was interviewed. I’ve met her. The articles you read are a fairy tale compared to what she actually went through. And in looking for her family that is still missing in New Orleans, she read your comment. Despite the old saying about sticks and stones, words do hurt…they do….especially at a time like this.

I replied as follows:

Thanks for the e-mail. I am sorry if Fluffy was offended by what I wrote, and I do wish her and the other victims of the hurricane the best. But at the same time, you can’t tell a reporter that your name is “Fluffy” and then be surprised when people think it’s a funny name when they read it in the paper the next day. I mean, it IS a funny name, especially when it’s juxtaposed with something so serious as Hurricane Katrina.

But I assure you, my amusement is only at her name — and I maintain a person can’t go by the name “Fluffy” and not expect people to think it’s funny — and not at her situation, which of course has my utmost sympathy.

I do hope Fluffy is doing OK, of course. To reiterate: What happened to Fluffy = not funny. Fluffy’s name = funny.