Microwave: Cover burrito with paper towel. Defrost at 50% power for 2 minutes. Heat on high 1 minute.Yeah I could cook it in the oven. Or I could LIVE MY LIFE.
Oven: Pre-heat oven to 350. Remove burritos from package and wrap in foil and place on baking sheet. Cook burritos for 40 minutes.
December 15, 2008
How Do You Live?
So I'm cooking up a Trader Joe's burrito tonight, and it strikes me how rough it must have been in the days before microwave ovens. I mean, seriously?!
December 10, 2008
It Didn't Make Me Shake with Rage
I've spoken about my... hate-hate relationship with the NBC show "Heroes" before. Twice, even. The show is just stupid. It lacks the most basic fundamentals that any narrative arc requires: coherency and continuity.
Lately, the "heroes" (I use the term loosely because you give me a baseball bat and I could probably do a better job hero'ing my way around town than these idiots) have had their powers stripped, returned again, and are all playing some sort of power shifting, stealing, and sharing "Musical Chairs".
Monday's episode, however, wasn't a complete insult to the intelligence of a 3-year-old. I mean, it had plenty of idiotic parts (see below) but the storyline was tighter: one main story, one minor, and one... small stupid one. You can't win them all, I suppose.
Now, I consider this to be a brief oasis in an otherwise cancel-worthy season, but it reminded me of why the show used to have so much potential. The writers managed to keep the exposition to a minimum (a Heroes minimum being only 4 or 5 times an episode will a character literally narrate what he/she is doing) and the main story was actually fairly good.
But then, of course, they're still a bunch of morons. Five minutes with just ONE person's powers and I've got all their problems solved. But not them!
- Hiro can teleport through time and space, as well as stop time outright. So why does he let the bad guy steal his powers and fling him off a roof? Probably because his writers hate him.
- The speedy chick, name forgotten because I don't care, drags her friends from Iowa to NYC at super-speed? How would that not kill them? How is she strong enough to DO that? Lazy, stupid writers again.
- The bad guy, who possesses something like 4 different super-healing abilities, is killed with a bullet to the brain while his powers are being neutralized. Now, I liked that the neutralizing guy had trouble keeping him in check. But the show has already shown us, several times that the healing folks come back to life if they happen to die while being de-powered. Maybe he's just not dead. But why do the people responsible for his death figure it's all good? Especially when one of them had this exact thing already happen to him?
See, I thought it was a solid B- episode (they are usually D+ at best) and now I'm already rethinking it down to a C. But I really did like the Hiro-Momma Hiro story, and even Claire's story. Although, seeing her hold and coo at her 1-month old self (time travel, folks) was unbelievably creepy.
Of course I will watch next week's "2008 finale". I can't look away.
Lately, the "heroes" (I use the term loosely because you give me a baseball bat and I could probably do a better job hero'ing my way around town than these idiots) have had their powers stripped, returned again, and are all playing some sort of power shifting, stealing, and sharing "Musical Chairs".
Monday's episode, however, wasn't a complete insult to the intelligence of a 3-year-old. I mean, it had plenty of idiotic parts (see below) but the storyline was tighter: one main story, one minor, and one... small stupid one. You can't win them all, I suppose.
Now, I consider this to be a brief oasis in an otherwise cancel-worthy season, but it reminded me of why the show used to have so much potential. The writers managed to keep the exposition to a minimum (a Heroes minimum being only 4 or 5 times an episode will a character literally narrate what he/she is doing) and the main story was actually fairly good.
But then, of course, they're still a bunch of morons. Five minutes with just ONE person's powers and I've got all their problems solved. But not them!
- Hiro can teleport through time and space, as well as stop time outright. So why does he let the bad guy steal his powers and fling him off a roof? Probably because his writers hate him.
- The speedy chick, name forgotten because I don't care, drags her friends from Iowa to NYC at super-speed? How would that not kill them? How is she strong enough to DO that? Lazy, stupid writers again.
- The bad guy, who possesses something like 4 different super-healing abilities, is killed with a bullet to the brain while his powers are being neutralized. Now, I liked that the neutralizing guy had trouble keeping him in check. But the show has already shown us, several times that the healing folks come back to life if they happen to die while being de-powered. Maybe he's just not dead. But why do the people responsible for his death figure it's all good? Especially when one of them had this exact thing already happen to him?
See, I thought it was a solid B- episode (they are usually D+ at best) and now I'm already rethinking it down to a C. But I really did like the Hiro-Momma Hiro story, and even Claire's story. Although, seeing her hold and coo at her 1-month old self (time travel, folks) was unbelievably creepy.
Of course I will watch next week's "2008 finale". I can't look away.
December 4, 2008
I Told You So (Vol. One)
Obama has been all sorts of elected for a month now. He hasn't had much of a chance to do anything yet (what with not actually being President) but he has started picking the various members of his cabinet.
Do I whole-heartedly endorse every pick? Nah. But is he already proving to be a more capable and thoughtful leader than any we've had these past 8 years? Absolutely. His choices are diplomatic, nuanced, and by and large unarguably excellent. Well, maybe not "unarguably" but the argument is far above the arguments we've had about various Bush administration appointees.
Part of the argument for Obama during the campaign was, while he may be somewhat inexperienced, his thoughtfulness and ability to surround himself with people who both disagree and challenge his views more than make up for that perceived lack of experience.
And lo, it has come to pass.
Do I whole-heartedly endorse every pick? Nah. But is he already proving to be a more capable and thoughtful leader than any we've had these past 8 years? Absolutely. His choices are diplomatic, nuanced, and by and large unarguably excellent. Well, maybe not "unarguably" but the argument is far above the arguments we've had about various Bush administration appointees.
Part of the argument for Obama during the campaign was, while he may be somewhat inexperienced, his thoughtfulness and ability to surround himself with people who both disagree and challenge his views more than make up for that perceived lack of experience.
And lo, it has come to pass.
December 3, 2008
Let's Go Crazy, Bullet-Point Style
Except, I'm not sure how to make bullet points in HTML. So you get a cheap facsimile.
* I have a big set of new cases at work. They have kept me on the phone listening to depositions for about 70% of my time the last 2 weeks. This is a marked increase from the 0% I had previously had going. I think I might actually like attending depositions better than being on the phone. Jury is still out on that one, though.
* It has now become all kinds of chilly here in the Bay Area. Perhaps Thanksgiving was some kind of marker, or the beginning of December, but last night I slept IN a fleece. With blankets. I wasn't actually cold, but I didn't overheat either, and that's saying something. This morning in the apartment, it was 57 degrees.
* When I sneeze while sitting at my desk, I have a tendency to shoot back in my rolling chair, ala some sort of cartoon character. Few coworkers have caught me doing this, but I am fearing the day when they do. It is perhaps 90% an unconscious reaction.
* No politics on here for ages! Chambliss won in Georgia, to the surprise of approximately nobody. I still find it hysterical that Republicans, the sole party governing our nation for 6 of the last 8 years, now argue the necessity of a more balanced Congress. Also that they seem to routinely fail at 8th grade civics by forgetting we have three branches of government, and the Supreme Court is still 5-4 conservative.
* I get to go home for more than a few days at Christmas, after all. I am stoked. Whirlwind trips are a pain in the ass for so many reasons, and this year it was possible that my 4 days trips would also include (beyond the flights) a 16 hour car ride to Florida. It still includes that, but now stretches 9 days. Hooray!
* Saw Blood Diamond finally. It was a decent movie, but pretty much screwed over any potential girlfriends I may have from here on out. Sorry ladies, but no diamonds for you. And not just because of the movie; I've done the independent research. I don't trust those diamond-shilling bastards. It's all burlap gifts from now on. Because everybody loves burlap!
* It's foggy as all get out. I have "Desire" by U2 stuck in my head. And I'm tired of coming in early to work, even if my "early" is later than the rest of you people's normal start times.
* I have a big set of new cases at work. They have kept me on the phone listening to depositions for about 70% of my time the last 2 weeks. This is a marked increase from the 0% I had previously had going. I think I might actually like attending depositions better than being on the phone. Jury is still out on that one, though.
* It has now become all kinds of chilly here in the Bay Area. Perhaps Thanksgiving was some kind of marker, or the beginning of December, but last night I slept IN a fleece. With blankets. I wasn't actually cold, but I didn't overheat either, and that's saying something. This morning in the apartment, it was 57 degrees.
* When I sneeze while sitting at my desk, I have a tendency to shoot back in my rolling chair, ala some sort of cartoon character. Few coworkers have caught me doing this, but I am fearing the day when they do. It is perhaps 90% an unconscious reaction.
* No politics on here for ages! Chambliss won in Georgia, to the surprise of approximately nobody. I still find it hysterical that Republicans, the sole party governing our nation for 6 of the last 8 years, now argue the necessity of a more balanced Congress. Also that they seem to routinely fail at 8th grade civics by forgetting we have three branches of government, and the Supreme Court is still 5-4 conservative.
* I get to go home for more than a few days at Christmas, after all. I am stoked. Whirlwind trips are a pain in the ass for so many reasons, and this year it was possible that my 4 days trips would also include (beyond the flights) a 16 hour car ride to Florida. It still includes that, but now stretches 9 days. Hooray!
* Saw Blood Diamond finally. It was a decent movie, but pretty much screwed over any potential girlfriends I may have from here on out. Sorry ladies, but no diamonds for you. And not just because of the movie; I've done the independent research. I don't trust those diamond-shilling bastards. It's all burlap gifts from now on. Because everybody loves burlap!
* It's foggy as all get out. I have "Desire" by U2 stuck in my head. And I'm tired of coming in early to work, even if my "early" is later than the rest of you people's normal start times.
November 25, 2008
A Whirlwind Awaits
Being a lazy gadabout (look it up!) often means that I depend on those who visit the Bay Area to rouse me from my sloth-like lifestyle so that I can take in the wonders of Northern California. Although I have lived here nearly 3 years, there are still a few places I haven't been. Sadly, Alcatraz remains one of those places. Damn tourists bought all the tickets, even on a Monday.
But I still knocked a few more items off the list! My weekend in photos:
The view from the Marin Headlands. I had never been out to the point before, and since it wasn't buried under a mountain of fog, off we went! I can't believe I didn't go sooner.
But that's not all! Did somebody say... trees?
Yes, it's Muir Woods. A fairly gray day, but the trees are always great, so in we went. I had been here before (thrice!) but it's still impressive every time. You will of course notice that I took no actual pictures of the redwoods. Just random forest shots. That was totally 100% guaranteed on purpose, for reals.
There was the requisite stop at the big bridge herself:
And Saturday gave us a lovely sunset.
Of course, as always, you get no pictures of me. This is because I don't like you.
Nah, I'm just joshin' ya. It's because I don't want to.
But I still knocked a few more items off the list! My weekend in photos:
The view from the Marin Headlands. I had never been out to the point before, and since it wasn't buried under a mountain of fog, off we went! I can't believe I didn't go sooner.
But that's not all! Did somebody say... trees?
Yes, it's Muir Woods. A fairly gray day, but the trees are always great, so in we went. I had been here before (thrice!) but it's still impressive every time. You will of course notice that I took no actual pictures of the redwoods. Just random forest shots. That was totally 100% guaranteed on purpose, for reals.
There was the requisite stop at the big bridge herself:
And Saturday gave us a lovely sunset.
Of course, as always, you get no pictures of me. This is because I don't like you. Nah, I'm just joshin' ya. It's because I don't want to.
November 12, 2008
I Hope It Wasn't THAT Important
I have several email addresses. Many of us do. In fact, I have two separate Gmail addresses, one I created solely to reserve the name (first initial, last name @ gmail) and one I use daily.
The reserved email is rarely checked. Every two or three months, I pop in to see if anybody shorthanded my "normal" email incorrectly (The Machine used to do this a lot) but mostly I find spam and other incorrectly-addressed email from various strangers. Someone named Samantha (grrr) keeps trying to sign up to Western Union but apparently doesn't know her own email address.
Today, I saw this:
But I was amused.
The reserved email is rarely checked. Every two or three months, I pop in to see if anybody shorthanded my "normal" email incorrectly (The Machine used to do this a lot) but mostly I find spam and other incorrectly-addressed email from various strangers. Someone named Samantha (grrr) keeps trying to sign up to Western Union but apparently doesn't know her own email address.
Today, I saw this:
Subject: I Love YouIt was, of course, 2 months old. Just a short message from someone who shares my last name and lives in New York, to someone who shares my first initial and last name. Relative? Wife? It is hard to say.
...even if you are a pain in the ass.
But I was amused.
November 11, 2008
Hulk vs. Hulk, and Other Random Points
I watched the new "Incredible Hulk" movie (with Ed Norton) last night. I actually meant to watch in Sunday but stupidly bought the previous Ang Lee/Eric Bana creation. I don't hate the old one, like many did; I thought it was far more nuanced than most superhero movies, and appreciated the subtext that Lee brought.
This new Hulk was definitely more straightforward, but not stupid. At least, not Fantastic Four-level stupid. I think they were truer to the Hulk's "powers" in the Ang Lee version, though. He gets stronger as he gets madder. He has, to some extent, unlimited power as long as people keep pissing him off. That's why he beats Superman, because at the end of the day he is stronger that ol' Supes.
The new Hulk, Nortonified, is not quite as big or strong. He is a better Hulk in other ways (he doesn't have to fight "Hulk dogs", for one thing) but I wish they had alluded to the deep ocean of rage that fuels his strength. Still, solid B effort. B+ for including Iron Man at the end there.
........
I lost, sort of, in court yesterday. It was disappointing but valuable because it is the first time I lost when, really, I shouldn't have. The judge was just not open to hearing my argument, and not open to an objective review of the dispute. It is not a remotely important issue, but it stings. I don't like losing when the facts and the law are on my side, but it happens, and I'm glad it happened on this instead of on, say, something dispositive.
I am also a bit under the weather with a very mild cold. I don't really get sick, hence it is mild, but it is a pain in the ass. It did not stop me from completely rearranging my apartment on Sunday, though it did wear me out a lot faster than moving a couch 10 feet should wear me out.
This new Hulk was definitely more straightforward, but not stupid. At least, not Fantastic Four-level stupid. I think they were truer to the Hulk's "powers" in the Ang Lee version, though. He gets stronger as he gets madder. He has, to some extent, unlimited power as long as people keep pissing him off. That's why he beats Superman, because at the end of the day he is stronger that ol' Supes.
The new Hulk, Nortonified, is not quite as big or strong. He is a better Hulk in other ways (he doesn't have to fight "Hulk dogs", for one thing) but I wish they had alluded to the deep ocean of rage that fuels his strength. Still, solid B effort. B+ for including Iron Man at the end there.
........
I lost, sort of, in court yesterday. It was disappointing but valuable because it is the first time I lost when, really, I shouldn't have. The judge was just not open to hearing my argument, and not open to an objective review of the dispute. It is not a remotely important issue, but it stings. I don't like losing when the facts and the law are on my side, but it happens, and I'm glad it happened on this instead of on, say, something dispositive.
I am also a bit under the weather with a very mild cold. I don't really get sick, hence it is mild, but it is a pain in the ass. It did not stop me from completely rearranging my apartment on Sunday, though it did wear me out a lot faster than moving a couch 10 feet should wear me out.
November 9, 2008
"Your Honor..."
The day before oral argument, even at a fairly inconsequential hearing, it a pain in my ass. Every time I have a moment of silence, or am not actively engaging in some activity, I start rehearsing said argument in my head.
Or, out loud. In the shower, driving on the highway, drying off after the shower. Naked oral argument is weird, by the way.
It doesn't really prepare me, either. I will speak from a rough outline which has yet to be written, so all the pacing and practicing in my apartment is vaguely useless.
I do like this part of my job, though. And, the tentative ruling was not in our favor, which makes me the underdog, which makes me like it even more.*
*though note to self, write better briefs so you're not the underdog.
Or, out loud. In the shower, driving on the highway, drying off after the shower. Naked oral argument is weird, by the way.
It doesn't really prepare me, either. I will speak from a rough outline which has yet to be written, so all the pacing and practicing in my apartment is vaguely useless.
I do like this part of my job, though. And, the tentative ruling was not in our favor, which makes me the underdog, which makes me like it even more.*
*though note to self, write better briefs so you're not the underdog.
November 6, 2008
Yikes
In an attempt to gloat about the massive triumph on Tuesday, I went by a few conservative blogs and websites to drink down their sweet, sweet tears. Not so much to post things comments, but just to take it all in.
I don't really visit these sites with regularity, because while I enjoy a good debate, there is little to be found on most conservative websites. I mean, there is a debate with reality that most of these sites lose regularly, but not a debate with real people involved.
So I was sort of disappointed to see that not only are they sore losers--a minor sin that I have been guilty of myself, and can forgive--but some of these folks have LOST IT completely.
I won't go into details (because that's not the point, and because I said no more politics for awhile) but damn if I ever saw such hate-filled invective. More than angry, I became sad for these people. I firmly believe that Nov. 4 is a keystone day for our country, and will be historically reviewed as a perfect example of American excellence. And it is sad to realize there will be a significant, but small, portion of the country that has eternalized their hatred for this event in electronic form.
You people are old oats. You're betamax. You're the neanderthal, and the cro-magnons have arrived. The dustbin of history awaits.
I don't really visit these sites with regularity, because while I enjoy a good debate, there is little to be found on most conservative websites. I mean, there is a debate with reality that most of these sites lose regularly, but not a debate with real people involved.
So I was sort of disappointed to see that not only are they sore losers--a minor sin that I have been guilty of myself, and can forgive--but some of these folks have LOST IT completely.
I won't go into details (because that's not the point, and because I said no more politics for awhile) but damn if I ever saw such hate-filled invective. More than angry, I became sad for these people. I firmly believe that Nov. 4 is a keystone day for our country, and will be historically reviewed as a perfect example of American excellence. And it is sad to realize there will be a significant, but small, portion of the country that has eternalized their hatred for this event in electronic form.
You people are old oats. You're betamax. You're the neanderthal, and the cro-magnons have arrived. The dustbin of history awaits.
November 5, 2008
Armchair Quarterbacking the GOP
(Note: I am too pissed to write about Prop 8. It is a morally and legally indefensible ballot initiative that I am still hoping can be destroyed at the Federal level. But more on that when I've actually checked whether that's true.)
There is, by all accounts, going to be a lot of hand-wringing and "soul" (I used the term loosely) searching within the Republican party now that they've been so spectacularly defeated on so many levels. I would be remiss if I didn't offer my own 2 cents.
Forgetting Sarah Palin
It is said that Palin energized the GOP "base", but in reality, she energized only the very vocal, socially conservative minority. Many fiscally conservative Republicans were aghast at her selection, and eventually made their opinions known.
Now, the talk (and McCain's concession speech last night) is that Palin is a rising star in politics. I disagree. Not because she's not a good politician -- she clearly is -- but because her brand of politics is exactly what brings in less than half the country. Obama's win is a repudiation of the idea that America is socially conservative. Americans don't like being labeled one way or the other, but it is clear from last night that those who side with God and guns alone are not going to win. If Palin doesn't change her methods and viewpoint, then heralding her as the Next Big Thing will only mean continual defeats.
Few voters were brought into the GOP because of Palin. Far more were pushed out. The math is pretty simple.
Return to Your Non-Whackjob Roots
That doesn't mean that the GOP can't be "big tent" and include the fundamentalists and social conservatives. Democrats certainly don't want them (for the most part). But you can't let them control your party. You can't let them dictate a platform of backwards-looking social ideals. They can't be the most vocal wing. They have to shut up, sit down, and realize that they are far better off with a GOP government anyhow.
Democrats have done the same thing, for many years, with minorities. Yesterday's election notwithstanding, African-Americans have long been "assumed" Democrats because honestly, are they going to vote Republican? Not in meaningful numbers. It is not a policy of the Democratic party to do this, but rather laziness and a sense of entitlement by party leaders. I'm not endorsing it as a Democratic strategy, but Republicans might want to look at how it has worked out.
Fiscal Conservatism Isn't Terrible
I may have differences of opinion with conservatives about the role and size of the U.S. government, but I respect those opinions. I would like to argue those ideas with Republicans, but they seem far more focused on God, abortion, and gays. That isn't to say people shouldn't disagree with me on those issues, but if you put fiscal conservatism up front, you have a much stabler platform.
The GOP hasn't done that of late, because their "base" won't let them. That's why I said above that you have to make fiscal conservatism your base, and social conservatism your fringe. Argue economics and big government, and FAR more Americans will join up. Argue that all gays will burn in hell, and you're in for a long, cold political winter.
End Note: This may be the last political post for awhile. No promises, but I'm sort of exhausted. I am still angry about Prop 8, so I may have to tear Californians a new one, but overall I'm spent.
There is, by all accounts, going to be a lot of hand-wringing and "soul" (I used the term loosely) searching within the Republican party now that they've been so spectacularly defeated on so many levels. I would be remiss if I didn't offer my own 2 cents.
Forgetting Sarah Palin
It is said that Palin energized the GOP "base", but in reality, she energized only the very vocal, socially conservative minority. Many fiscally conservative Republicans were aghast at her selection, and eventually made their opinions known.
Now, the talk (and McCain's concession speech last night) is that Palin is a rising star in politics. I disagree. Not because she's not a good politician -- she clearly is -- but because her brand of politics is exactly what brings in less than half the country. Obama's win is a repudiation of the idea that America is socially conservative. Americans don't like being labeled one way or the other, but it is clear from last night that those who side with God and guns alone are not going to win. If Palin doesn't change her methods and viewpoint, then heralding her as the Next Big Thing will only mean continual defeats.
Few voters were brought into the GOP because of Palin. Far more were pushed out. The math is pretty simple.
Return to Your Non-Whackjob Roots
That doesn't mean that the GOP can't be "big tent" and include the fundamentalists and social conservatives. Democrats certainly don't want them (for the most part). But you can't let them control your party. You can't let them dictate a platform of backwards-looking social ideals. They can't be the most vocal wing. They have to shut up, sit down, and realize that they are far better off with a GOP government anyhow.
Democrats have done the same thing, for many years, with minorities. Yesterday's election notwithstanding, African-Americans have long been "assumed" Democrats because honestly, are they going to vote Republican? Not in meaningful numbers. It is not a policy of the Democratic party to do this, but rather laziness and a sense of entitlement by party leaders. I'm not endorsing it as a Democratic strategy, but Republicans might want to look at how it has worked out.
Fiscal Conservatism Isn't Terrible
I may have differences of opinion with conservatives about the role and size of the U.S. government, but I respect those opinions. I would like to argue those ideas with Republicans, but they seem far more focused on God, abortion, and gays. That isn't to say people shouldn't disagree with me on those issues, but if you put fiscal conservatism up front, you have a much stabler platform.
The GOP hasn't done that of late, because their "base" won't let them. That's why I said above that you have to make fiscal conservatism your base, and social conservatism your fringe. Argue economics and big government, and FAR more Americans will join up. Argue that all gays will burn in hell, and you're in for a long, cold political winter.
End Note: This may be the last political post for awhile. No promises, but I'm sort of exhausted. I am still angry about Prop 8, so I may have to tear Californians a new one, but overall I'm spent.
Yes We Can
I wanted to get my thoughts down now, before sleep dulls them.
There was nothing (at the national level) that didn't go perfectly tonight. My home state was the domino that called it for Obama. He has surpassed 300 electoral votes and may pass 350--a landslide. More than 50% of the vote--a mandate.
McCain was extraordinarily classy in his concession speech. His crowd was, well, the crowd that his campaign cultivated. They were not classy.
Obama was... pretty much as he always is. Amazing. Humble and exceedingly aware of the tasks before us. Inspiring, even. Did you see Jesse Jackson with tears in his eyes?
The coming weeks and months may dull this feeling, as "politics" takes over, at least to a certain degree.
But right now, I've got hope for America, for the first time in my entire life. That our country and our world might finally move in a positive direction, instead of scraping out an existence, trying not to slip back into the dark ages.
It is probably uncharacteristically naive of me. But look at what we did; in spite of our best efforts to screw this up, we elected the right man for the job. And more than that, we etched a permanent achievement in our history, one that cannot be undone no matter how the next 4-8 years turn out.
Thank you, America, for doing the right thing.
There was nothing (at the national level) that didn't go perfectly tonight. My home state was the domino that called it for Obama. He has surpassed 300 electoral votes and may pass 350--a landslide. More than 50% of the vote--a mandate.
McCain was extraordinarily classy in his concession speech. His crowd was, well, the crowd that his campaign cultivated. They were not classy.
Obama was... pretty much as he always is. Amazing. Humble and exceedingly aware of the tasks before us. Inspiring, even. Did you see Jesse Jackson with tears in his eyes?
The coming weeks and months may dull this feeling, as "politics" takes over, at least to a certain degree.
But right now, I've got hope for America, for the first time in my entire life. That our country and our world might finally move in a positive direction, instead of scraping out an existence, trying not to slip back into the dark ages.
It is probably uncharacteristically naive of me. But look at what we did; in spite of our best efforts to screw this up, we elected the right man for the job. And more than that, we etched a permanent achievement in our history, one that cannot be undone no matter how the next 4-8 years turn out.
Thank you, America, for doing the right thing.
November 4, 2008
A Few Thoughts on This Historic Day
First, and most obviously, you should go vote. Whether it's for Obama or the other guy, you should vote. The only caveat is if you would vote for Obama, but won't because he's not white, just don't vote at all. We'll look for you and your enlightened self in 2012, but for now, go ahead and stay home. It's the least you can do.
Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.
Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).
And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.
So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.
It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.
Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.
Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).
And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.
So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.
It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.
October 31, 2008
McCain's Catch-22?
People argue that McCain wouldn't be attacking Obama so much if he were winning. He has to go after him, they say, because Obama's out front!
But he can't be out front by attacking. Part of the reason, in my humblest of opinions, that Obama has done so well is that he doesn't go after McCain specifically. When he does, the two of them slug it out over a specific issue or attack, but the majority (the large majority) of Obama's speeches are focused on changing America. The attacks, when they do happen, are just as much against Bush as they are McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, hasn't spoken at length about his desire to change the country. He does now, at the 11th hour, because he has nothing left to lose. But "back in the day" (early September, when he was ahead) he didn't take the high ground. He stayed in the trenches and promptly lost his bounce-inspired lead. And unleashing Palin--who simply can't make positive remarks because she hasn't the ability--has driven this home.
McCain is an entirely negative campaign. There's no "here's what we will do for you" anymore; it's only "here's what Obama will do to you." And people aren't responding, because that's not the mood of the electorate.
Too bad for him. I am about 48 to 72 hours from actually being excited about this election, instead of worried. It will be a strange feeling if Obama wins.
Also of note: do you hear anything about Hillary supporters voting for McCain anymore these days? I've no doubt there are a few nutjobs left that are doing so, but the furor over their quisling movement has completely dropped off the radar. And I've been reading a LOT of political stories lately.
But he can't be out front by attacking. Part of the reason, in my humblest of opinions, that Obama has done so well is that he doesn't go after McCain specifically. When he does, the two of them slug it out over a specific issue or attack, but the majority (the large majority) of Obama's speeches are focused on changing America. The attacks, when they do happen, are just as much against Bush as they are McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, hasn't spoken at length about his desire to change the country. He does now, at the 11th hour, because he has nothing left to lose. But "back in the day" (early September, when he was ahead) he didn't take the high ground. He stayed in the trenches and promptly lost his bounce-inspired lead. And unleashing Palin--who simply can't make positive remarks because she hasn't the ability--has driven this home.
McCain is an entirely negative campaign. There's no "here's what we will do for you" anymore; it's only "here's what Obama will do to you." And people aren't responding, because that's not the mood of the electorate.
Too bad for him. I am about 48 to 72 hours from actually being excited about this election, instead of worried. It will be a strange feeling if Obama wins.
Also of note: do you hear anything about Hillary supporters voting for McCain anymore these days? I've no doubt there are a few nutjobs left that are doing so, but the furor over their quisling movement has completely dropped off the radar. And I've been reading a LOT of political stories lately.
October 28, 2008
Tipping Point
Notwithstanding some colossal polling error or a very, very late October surprise, Obama should win this thing next week.
What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.
I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).
But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.
It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.
So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.
I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.
What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.
I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).
But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.
It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.
So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.
I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.
October 27, 2008
No on Prop 8
A fairly obvious statement, given my previous entries on the subject of gay marriage. I'm all for it! Marry! Be happy!
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
October 24, 2008
Cabo San Lucas
It is a good place, this Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
It was: beaches, pools, lounge chairs, midnight swims, mosquito bites, mild sunburns, a sunset cruise, girls from Portland, a girl from Utah, a drunken family, doing shots upside down, simulated humping, tequila sunrises, margaritas, pina coladas, tequila shots, Coronas, Pacificos, Modelos, and one big pineapple drink thing.
Pictures, if there are any that I am comfortable putting up on the blog, will be put up this weekend. Or whenever my sister stops getting in bar fights long enough to send me what she took with her camera.
It was: beaches, pools, lounge chairs, midnight swims, mosquito bites, mild sunburns, a sunset cruise, girls from Portland, a girl from Utah, a drunken family, doing shots upside down, simulated humping, tequila sunrises, margaritas, pina coladas, tequila shots, Coronas, Pacificos, Modelos, and one big pineapple drink thing.
Pictures, if there are any that I am comfortable putting up on the blog, will be put up this weekend. Or whenever my sister stops getting in bar fights long enough to send me what she took with her camera.
October 16, 2008
Let's Clear This Up
I've been trapped in deposition hell for a few days, but am now finally free. The Lions are still awful, the last debate went well, and I'm going to Mexico in 2 days.
But let's talk about voter fraud.
That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.
So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.
You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.
But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.
ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.
But let's talk about voter fraud.
That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.
So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.
You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.
But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.
ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.
October 7, 2008
Eight-Year-Olds, Dude*
I've gone on rants against bad drivers before--who hasn't, really, unless you are one of those bad drivers--but today I thought I'd share the wealth and tear pedestrians a new one.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
October 6, 2008
Economic Apocalypses Are Boring
So, do we have a plan B?
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
October 3, 2008
The Inevitable VP Debate Post
"This was supposed to be a no rough stuff type deal!"
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
October 2, 2008
Hotels: Gateway to Hell
Why are hotels so scary?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
October 1, 2008
Jackass, Prophet, or Something In Between?
I watched Into the Wild last night. This will be a fairly spoiler-laden commentary on the film, so if you haven't seen it and don't know this guy's story, you should probably stop reading... now.
Anyway. To briefly summarize, this is the story of a kid (new college graduate) that takes off and bums around the country with little money, meeting people and trying to "take it all in" to a certain extent. I do not know the degree to which liberties were taken from the "real story" by the film's producers, so I am going to discuss the film as a stand-alone story, without regard to what may have "really happened".
At first, the main character (Chris) bugged the hell out of me. He reads Thoreau and wants to give up all his earthly possessions and live "pure" as Thoreau did, and to further this goal he gives thousands of dollars to OXFAM and heads for the hills.
As most college graduates can tell you, college kids are often idiots. They stumble upon a work of literature, or art, or historical account, and act like the rest of the world hasn't already experienced this "amazing discovery". It is insufferable and one of the few drawbacks of providing an education. Most kids who go through this phase grow out of it, and realize that yes, The Call of the Wild is a great book. Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer. But you have to add something new to the analysis--a far more difficult task than just "appreciating" the author--to be relevant.
Chris first comes across as nothing more than a whiny, self-involved brat. The film attempts to paint a sympathetic back-story--his parents are assholes--but since everybody butts heads with their parents, it rings a little hollow as an excuse for his behavior.
Later, he becomes a little less obviously jerky, and you do come to believe he really does think that living a ramblin' man life of poverty is the key to happiness. He is pretty happy despite being knocked around by railroad bulls and squeezing through drainage pipes. But the underlying purpose of his travels remains a dissatisfaction with his parents and with "consumerism".
I realize I've gotten a bit off track, because the anti-consumerist attitude was what I initially meant to talk about. The thing about anti-consumerism is that while I fully believe that a healthy dose of moderation is important, like any other ideology, anti-consumerism is extremely stupid when taken to the extreme. It's great that HE can go bumming around the country, working as much as he needs to get by. But someone has to build the grain mill he works at. Someone has to run the fast-food restaurant he (very briefly, in the film) works at to save money. People build the roads, and the cars in hitches with, and so forth. It is naive and insulting to use these tools to achieve your anti-consumerist goals, while backhanding those who provide them as "ignorant" and "superficial".
Furthermore, I take issue with the idea that, survivability aside, everybody should live simply. It is a waste of human possibility to have everybody living in a log cabin, getting by off the land. We have the ability to design and plan massive skyscrapers; to study and manipulate genetics; to write and paint and sculpt truly amazing works of art. If we all give up the tools to do those things, we are dong a disservice to our species.
As far as the film goes, it doesn't come out and push these "live simply" virtues to the degree that I attack them. It is never obvious that Chris wants others to live this way, but that he is doing it himself as part of a search for something bigger. But the film--until the last half hour--makes him into a hero for "kicking off the establishment" and the implication is that he is a role model for that reason.
Of course (Spoiler Alert Again! For Real This Time!) he dies because of his ramblin' man attitude. He starves to death in the cold nowhere of Alaska (the film implies that he mistakenly eats paralytic berries, but in real life it seems that he just plain starved). He realizes at the end that "happiness is only real when shared" and tries to go back to society, only to get trapped. It is a bummer, but how much sympathy can I really have? At multiple points in the movie he is offered friendship and family, and he turns them down to continue his solo adventure.
Overall, I suppose this was a good movie. It clearly left me thinking about a number of issues. And as the stand-alone story of this guy's misguided life, it does a great job as a film. As a "message movie" I'm not so sure how it fares; the message is muddled and unclear--if it's "Chris McCandless was right!" then it's crap. If it's "he died finding out his worldview was wrong" then it shoves that in a bit late to be effective.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? If you even read this far down?
And yes, I know he went to my high school. Graduated 10 years before me in 1986! He died right around the time I was starting at Woodson.
Anyway. To briefly summarize, this is the story of a kid (new college graduate) that takes off and bums around the country with little money, meeting people and trying to "take it all in" to a certain extent. I do not know the degree to which liberties were taken from the "real story" by the film's producers, so I am going to discuss the film as a stand-alone story, without regard to what may have "really happened".
At first, the main character (Chris) bugged the hell out of me. He reads Thoreau and wants to give up all his earthly possessions and live "pure" as Thoreau did, and to further this goal he gives thousands of dollars to OXFAM and heads for the hills.
As most college graduates can tell you, college kids are often idiots. They stumble upon a work of literature, or art, or historical account, and act like the rest of the world hasn't already experienced this "amazing discovery". It is insufferable and one of the few drawbacks of providing an education. Most kids who go through this phase grow out of it, and realize that yes, The Call of the Wild is a great book. Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer. But you have to add something new to the analysis--a far more difficult task than just "appreciating" the author--to be relevant.
Chris first comes across as nothing more than a whiny, self-involved brat. The film attempts to paint a sympathetic back-story--his parents are assholes--but since everybody butts heads with their parents, it rings a little hollow as an excuse for his behavior.
Later, he becomes a little less obviously jerky, and you do come to believe he really does think that living a ramblin' man life of poverty is the key to happiness. He is pretty happy despite being knocked around by railroad bulls and squeezing through drainage pipes. But the underlying purpose of his travels remains a dissatisfaction with his parents and with "consumerism".
I realize I've gotten a bit off track, because the anti-consumerist attitude was what I initially meant to talk about. The thing about anti-consumerism is that while I fully believe that a healthy dose of moderation is important, like any other ideology, anti-consumerism is extremely stupid when taken to the extreme. It's great that HE can go bumming around the country, working as much as he needs to get by. But someone has to build the grain mill he works at. Someone has to run the fast-food restaurant he (very briefly, in the film) works at to save money. People build the roads, and the cars in hitches with, and so forth. It is naive and insulting to use these tools to achieve your anti-consumerist goals, while backhanding those who provide them as "ignorant" and "superficial".
Furthermore, I take issue with the idea that, survivability aside, everybody should live simply. It is a waste of human possibility to have everybody living in a log cabin, getting by off the land. We have the ability to design and plan massive skyscrapers; to study and manipulate genetics; to write and paint and sculpt truly amazing works of art. If we all give up the tools to do those things, we are dong a disservice to our species.
As far as the film goes, it doesn't come out and push these "live simply" virtues to the degree that I attack them. It is never obvious that Chris wants others to live this way, but that he is doing it himself as part of a search for something bigger. But the film--until the last half hour--makes him into a hero for "kicking off the establishment" and the implication is that he is a role model for that reason.
Of course (Spoiler Alert Again! For Real This Time!) he dies because of his ramblin' man attitude. He starves to death in the cold nowhere of Alaska (the film implies that he mistakenly eats paralytic berries, but in real life it seems that he just plain starved). He realizes at the end that "happiness is only real when shared" and tries to go back to society, only to get trapped. It is a bummer, but how much sympathy can I really have? At multiple points in the movie he is offered friendship and family, and he turns them down to continue his solo adventure.
Overall, I suppose this was a good movie. It clearly left me thinking about a number of issues. And as the stand-alone story of this guy's misguided life, it does a great job as a film. As a "message movie" I'm not so sure how it fares; the message is muddled and unclear--if it's "Chris McCandless was right!" then it's crap. If it's "he died finding out his worldview was wrong" then it shoves that in a bit late to be effective.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? If you even read this far down?
And yes, I know he went to my high school. Graduated 10 years before me in 1986! He died right around the time I was starting at Woodson.
September 29, 2008
Sports Make Me Sad
It is a time of transition in the sports world, with the baseball season winding down (or up, if your team made the playoffs) and the football season off to a running start.
But it's a sad time to be a Detroit fan. The Tigers had so much promise this year, and are finishing last in their division. They made a go of it for a few weeks here and there, but were hampered by extraordinarily poor pitching (which was, let's be honest, not helped by and abundance of injuries). It's a bummer but the Tigers still have so much talent that with some good off-season training and acquisitions, they have a great chance next season.
The same cannot be said for the lowly Lions, who are so bad that they've fired general manager Matt Millen, who probably should have been fired 7 years ago. But firing is not a solution, it merely creates a vacancy that the 0-3 Lions must now fill a quarter of the way into the season. It is a monumentally daunting task, because the new GM won't have the ability to cause any immediate change--better drafts, better trades, and better players are needed for that. I don't envy the shmuck who gets that job.
On the upside, basketball and hockey are starting fairly soon, and Detroit still knows how to flirt with greatness when it comes to its arena-based sports. The Red Wings are always great, and the Pistons are one of the best teams out there. It's really a shame that I prefer baseball and football, but at least it's something to root for.
In non-professional news, Virginia Tech beat Nebraska this weekend, which was unexpected but a nice surprise. Nebraska isn't ranked this year, but they're still Nebraska, so good on the Hokies for kicking butt. Tech is now ranked 20th, which means of course that they'll win a few more, get to about 14th or 13th, and flame out spectacularly. I mean, if previous seasons are any indication. God bless 'em.
But it's a sad time to be a Detroit fan. The Tigers had so much promise this year, and are finishing last in their division. They made a go of it for a few weeks here and there, but were hampered by extraordinarily poor pitching (which was, let's be honest, not helped by and abundance of injuries). It's a bummer but the Tigers still have so much talent that with some good off-season training and acquisitions, they have a great chance next season.
The same cannot be said for the lowly Lions, who are so bad that they've fired general manager Matt Millen, who probably should have been fired 7 years ago. But firing is not a solution, it merely creates a vacancy that the 0-3 Lions must now fill a quarter of the way into the season. It is a monumentally daunting task, because the new GM won't have the ability to cause any immediate change--better drafts, better trades, and better players are needed for that. I don't envy the shmuck who gets that job.
On the upside, basketball and hockey are starting fairly soon, and Detroit still knows how to flirt with greatness when it comes to its arena-based sports. The Red Wings are always great, and the Pistons are one of the best teams out there. It's really a shame that I prefer baseball and football, but at least it's something to root for.
In non-professional news, Virginia Tech beat Nebraska this weekend, which was unexpected but a nice surprise. Nebraska isn't ranked this year, but they're still Nebraska, so good on the Hokies for kicking butt. Tech is now ranked 20th, which means of course that they'll win a few more, get to about 14th or 13th, and flame out spectacularly. I mean, if previous seasons are any indication. God bless 'em.
September 26, 2008
Oh, and...
How awesome is it that The Office is back? Last night was spectacular.
Does anybody still watch ER? Why they gotta be all up and killin folks? That was depressing.
Does anybody still watch ER? Why they gotta be all up and killin folks? That was depressing.
More Political Rhetoric From Me!
Sometimes, I just post things because I need to get it straight in my own head. I am aware that very few of this blog's readers will disagree on most of these ideas--but by all means, if you do, speak up. Tell me where the fallacy lies.
The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.
To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?
Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.
The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).
Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.
So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.
But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.
But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.
Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.
Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.
Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.
The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.
To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?
Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.
The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).
Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.
So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.
But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.
But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.
Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.
Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.
Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.
September 24, 2008
Heroes: Still Inept
Monday night* saw the too-long season premier of Heroes on NBC. I went off on the show back in November (which ended then because of the writer's strike, if memory serves) saying that it had to get a helluva lot smarter to make watching worth my time.
Well, they may have tried. I'm not sure if show creator Tim Kring actually listened to the legions of people who were simply pissed off at the complete idiocy of the characters, but they seem slightly less stupider than last season.
But that's not saying much. Because wow were they a bunch of morons last year. This year, things seem to be moving at a brisker pace (so far) and the number of pointless speeches has decreased (but not disappeared).
On the other hand, the new characters are annoying. The new "speedster chick" would be fine if her powers made a lick of sense. But Hiro can stop time, he doesn't just slow it down. So how come she freezes like everyone else, but then unfreezes at will?
I've said it before--most notably in my rant against poor Underdog--but it bears repeating: you've got to establish a mythology, and then stick to those rules. If some guy can fly, then he can fly! Don't put him in situations where flight can solve a problem, and then have him not use it!
I will give it another episode, or maybe two, but without a spectacular change in tone and direction, this potentially great show is just a couple weeks away from my "Avoid This Crap" list.
*Also Monday night: How I Met Your Mother returned. It's still funny, though I hope they don't keep this Barney-Robin storyline up for long. I like insane-misogynistic Barney, not polite-cares-about-you Barney.
Well, they may have tried. I'm not sure if show creator Tim Kring actually listened to the legions of people who were simply pissed off at the complete idiocy of the characters, but they seem slightly less stupider than last season.
But that's not saying much. Because wow were they a bunch of morons last year. This year, things seem to be moving at a brisker pace (so far) and the number of pointless speeches has decreased (but not disappeared).
On the other hand, the new characters are annoying. The new "speedster chick" would be fine if her powers made a lick of sense. But Hiro can stop time, he doesn't just slow it down. So how come she freezes like everyone else, but then unfreezes at will?
I've said it before--most notably in my rant against poor Underdog--but it bears repeating: you've got to establish a mythology, and then stick to those rules. If some guy can fly, then he can fly! Don't put him in situations where flight can solve a problem, and then have him not use it!
I will give it another episode, or maybe two, but without a spectacular change in tone and direction, this potentially great show is just a couple weeks away from my "Avoid This Crap" list.
*Also Monday night: How I Met Your Mother returned. It's still funny, though I hope they don't keep this Barney-Robin storyline up for long. I like insane-misogynistic Barney, not polite-cares-about-you Barney.
September 23, 2008
You Know You're Boned When...
...running as a conservative, even George Will thinks you're a crackpot.
I will confess to not having the business know-how to completely grapple with the current economic crazytimes. I am glad that I'm not in a financial-sector job, though am fully aware that it's all interrelated and that eventually my own profession will suffer if the economic outlook isn't improved.
That being said, why bailouts? I'm pretty damn liberal, and hold many case-specific opinions that socialism is not a universally bad idea, but this seems completely unnecessary. I mean, when you have a liberal telling you to let the capitalist market correct itself, aren't you being more than a little reactionary?
I realize it has a trickle-down effect, and it sucks that poorer folks are getting screwed out of their housing loans. I am on-board with assistance programs to try and stem this tide of foreclosures. I am not on-board with bailouts of massive Wall Street firms that should have known better. Joe Homeowner may have as much fiscal smarts as me; Jim Stockbroker is a damn professional. This is like the government giving my firm a pass for committing insurance law violations. It's our job to know that stuff.
I know this is all fluff, even more so than usual because I really, really don't know much about the markets. But it's nice to see that smarter men than I (George Will is very, very smart) feel the same way.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?(from The Post)
I will confess to not having the business know-how to completely grapple with the current economic crazytimes. I am glad that I'm not in a financial-sector job, though am fully aware that it's all interrelated and that eventually my own profession will suffer if the economic outlook isn't improved.
That being said, why bailouts? I'm pretty damn liberal, and hold many case-specific opinions that socialism is not a universally bad idea, but this seems completely unnecessary. I mean, when you have a liberal telling you to let the capitalist market correct itself, aren't you being more than a little reactionary?
I realize it has a trickle-down effect, and it sucks that poorer folks are getting screwed out of their housing loans. I am on-board with assistance programs to try and stem this tide of foreclosures. I am not on-board with bailouts of massive Wall Street firms that should have known better. Joe Homeowner may have as much fiscal smarts as me; Jim Stockbroker is a damn professional. This is like the government giving my firm a pass for committing insurance law violations. It's our job to know that stuff.
I know this is all fluff, even more so than usual because I really, really don't know much about the markets. But it's nice to see that smarter men than I (George Will is very, very smart) feel the same way.
September 12, 2008
Funny
I may be seizure-inducing angry with politics lately, but I still find humor when it pops up.
Regarding Sarah Palin, on Slate:
Regarding Sarah Palin, on Slate:
"The smell of my daughter’s clean laundry makes me feel warm and wonderful about families, but I’m not electing a pile of it vice president of the United States."Indeed, son. Indeed.
September 10, 2008
I Know I'm a Broken Record
Unfortunately for you all, my daily life does not allow me much room to vent about politics. My job is not remotely political, I live in a city full of people who think along the same lines, and my friends don't need any convincing.
So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.
But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.
This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.
So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.
So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.
But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.
This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.
So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.
September 9, 2008
A Radical Idea
"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us."
- John McCain's acceptance speech
It has always been popular to bash Washington, DC, as a kind of shorthand for "politics". People seem to like the idea of "Washington outsiders" even though those who work in DC know just how useless most so-called "outsiders" actually are. Aside from getting lost repeatedly, they don't know how the system works.
McCain is a doofus, but this is at first glance a more honest line than most others. At second glance, it's full of crap. Because Washington is also just a city. It doesn't change anybody. Politics might change people, but politics IS people.
If you were elected decades ago to "change Washington," then maybe it's time to consider your epic failure. McCain hasn't changed politics, or his party, and now he's trying to get another go-around at it?
Here's the headline: Washington didn't change you. Nothing changed you. You're the same party that was elected into power 8 years ago, and the same party that held sway in Washington for 6 of those years. What does it take to make people realize that this was as golden an opportunity as a political party could ask for, and yet they've failed miserably? By McCain's own account, they've failed. He attributes the cause of the failure to the mystical energy imbued in the various monuments, museums and other buildings of DC, but he still admits failure.
Frankly, Obama could be the "emptiest suit" in the history of politics, and he would be better. He could be a scary black panther, or a Marxist, and I'd be more comfortable with him in charge.
That is how you change Washington. You give someone else a turn at the wheel, and you hope they do a better job.
- John McCain's acceptance speech
It has always been popular to bash Washington, DC, as a kind of shorthand for "politics". People seem to like the idea of "Washington outsiders" even though those who work in DC know just how useless most so-called "outsiders" actually are. Aside from getting lost repeatedly, they don't know how the system works.
McCain is a doofus, but this is at first glance a more honest line than most others. At second glance, it's full of crap. Because Washington is also just a city. It doesn't change anybody. Politics might change people, but politics IS people.
If you were elected decades ago to "change Washington," then maybe it's time to consider your epic failure. McCain hasn't changed politics, or his party, and now he's trying to get another go-around at it?
Here's the headline: Washington didn't change you. Nothing changed you. You're the same party that was elected into power 8 years ago, and the same party that held sway in Washington for 6 of those years. What does it take to make people realize that this was as golden an opportunity as a political party could ask for, and yet they've failed miserably? By McCain's own account, they've failed. He attributes the cause of the failure to the mystical energy imbued in the various monuments, museums and other buildings of DC, but he still admits failure.
Frankly, Obama could be the "emptiest suit" in the history of politics, and he would be better. He could be a scary black panther, or a Marxist, and I'd be more comfortable with him in charge.
That is how you change Washington. You give someone else a turn at the wheel, and you hope they do a better job.
August 30, 2008
Not So Bad
So yeah, I'm at work on a Saturday, but there's some good tunes rockin' from the street fair down below. And I get to act like a total VIP by parking in my building garage.
I won't be working for more than a few hours--there's only so much you can do when folks be rappin' up a storm or jamming on blues guitar 500 feet away.
August 29, 2008
Who's in the What Now?
I turned on the news this morning, and was pretty confused for about 45 seconds. The caption said "McCain picks Palin for VP spot" and the anchors were talking about abortion. The video was of some woman getting married, looped.
Sarah Palin? This seems like a pretty naked grab for "disgruntled Hillary supporters" but severely overestimates how badly women just want to vote for a woman. Women aren't morons, and if they're Democrats why would they vote for a super-conservative? Ovaries?
She may be a "rising star" in the GOP, but has the GOP forgotten who lives at its core? A big fat pile of extraordinarily backwards-thinking folk, who believe a woman's place is in the home. Are they on board with this? Maybe. I don't know any of them personally. But I bet it's enough to offset the tiny gains McCain will get from "Democrat" women.
McCain has managed to steal the news cycle from Obama, post-convention. That would be an excellent--if largely inconsequential--strategic move, but he had to use his VP pick do to it. The Republicans will now dominate the news for about a week, but in two weeks, what will we have? Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin. No "shocking picks" are left to derail the Democrat's train.
I don't know much about this Palin person, except that she's only been governor of one of our least populated states for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town that has fewer people than my graduating class at Virginia Tech.
Biden is going to eat her alive in the debates. Liberal women won't vote for her. Hardcore conservatives may be uneasy with a woman in such a prominent position. I would not be surprised if we look back in a few months and pinpoint this move as a clear manifestation of "winning the battle but losing the war."
Day of Mulling it Over Update: This could potentially be disastrous for McCain, and here's why: Palin is not battle-forged. She's never been anywhere close to a national campaign, her previous experiences in Alaska are nothing compared to having legions of reporters and bloggers watching you like a hawk and digging through your garbage.
I don't know her well enough to make a "prediction" but I will not be surprised if she ends up saying a lot of stupid things. Obama, McCain, and Biden have all done it but have learned from their mistakes. Palin is new and ready to insert foot into mouth. Unless she's a far, far better politician than I am guessing.
Sarah Palin? This seems like a pretty naked grab for "disgruntled Hillary supporters" but severely overestimates how badly women just want to vote for a woman. Women aren't morons, and if they're Democrats why would they vote for a super-conservative? Ovaries?
She may be a "rising star" in the GOP, but has the GOP forgotten who lives at its core? A big fat pile of extraordinarily backwards-thinking folk, who believe a woman's place is in the home. Are they on board with this? Maybe. I don't know any of them personally. But I bet it's enough to offset the tiny gains McCain will get from "Democrat" women.
McCain has managed to steal the news cycle from Obama, post-convention. That would be an excellent--if largely inconsequential--strategic move, but he had to use his VP pick do to it. The Republicans will now dominate the news for about a week, but in two weeks, what will we have? Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin. No "shocking picks" are left to derail the Democrat's train.
I don't know much about this Palin person, except that she's only been governor of one of our least populated states for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town that has fewer people than my graduating class at Virginia Tech.
Biden is going to eat her alive in the debates. Liberal women won't vote for her. Hardcore conservatives may be uneasy with a woman in such a prominent position. I would not be surprised if we look back in a few months and pinpoint this move as a clear manifestation of "winning the battle but losing the war."
Day of Mulling it Over Update: This could potentially be disastrous for McCain, and here's why: Palin is not battle-forged. She's never been anywhere close to a national campaign, her previous experiences in Alaska are nothing compared to having legions of reporters and bloggers watching you like a hawk and digging through your garbage.
I don't know her well enough to make a "prediction" but I will not be surprised if she ends up saying a lot of stupid things. Obama, McCain, and Biden have all done it but have learned from their mistakes. Palin is new and ready to insert foot into mouth. Unless she's a far, far better politician than I am guessing.
August 28, 2008
Raise Your Hand
...if you actually read all of these. Because I usually don't, though I do end up reading it when I change the answers around to my own. This is courtesy of the wee sister.
1. What time did you get up this morning?
I "got up" at 8 but the alarm went off at 7:30.
2. Diamonds or pearls?
Diamonds, I guess. I'd look silly in pearls.
3. Last movie you saw in the theater?
Also The Dark Knight. Second viewing! Still dark!
4. What is your favorite TV show?
The Office is the best one still running (LOST is a close second), but right now I'm churning through The Wire like a crazy man. It may be the some of the best TV ever.
5. What do you usually have for breakfast
A few swigs of orange juice while taking a vitamin. Later, maybe a granola bar.
6. What is your middle name?
Talullah.
7. What food do you dislike?
I am still not a huge fan of guacamole. Despite living out here.
8. What is your favorite CD at the moment?
I don't have a favorite CD at the moment. iTunes has broken me as far as entire albums are concerned.
9. What kind of car do you drive?
97 Acura but wait, Emily when did you get a new car? The hell?
10. Favorite sandwich?
There is a place I go for lunch that does a pretty good roast beef. But the cheesesteaks from IB's are great too.
11. What characteristics do you despise?
The inability to accept opinions other than your own.
12. Favorite item of clothing?
Jeans. I don't get to wear 'em so much anymore.
13. If you could go anywhere in the world where would you go?
Australia still tops that list. But followed closely by Europe, and Fiji.
14. What color is your bathroom?
Ugh, I think it's probably "salmon" but I've also been informed it's just pink.
15. Favorite brand of clothing?
I don't have a favorite brand, so much. I got a suit from Banana Republic a month ago and I like it. But I am not necessarily a BR kind of guy.
16. Where would you retire?
Somewhere smaller than where I lived. Not a city.
17. Most memorable birthday?
I think 21 is still the weirdest. I was snowed in at the Detroit airport, but then a few days later some friends threw me a surprise party.
18. Favorite sport to watch?
Football and baseball are probably tops. Not so much college anything.
19. Furthest place you are sending this?
INFINITY. It's the Internet.
20. Who do you expect to send this back to you?
Since I've turned it into a black hole by blog posting, nobody.
21. Person you expect to send it back first?
Seriously, let it go.
22. Favorite saying?
I have started saying "right on". I also say "fair enough" a lot. These are not necessarily favorite sayings, but I am capable of recognizing things I say too much.
23. When is your birthday?
January.
24. Are you a morning person or a night person?
I am a late-night person. But I don't mind the morning as much as I used to.
25. What is your shoe size?
11.5 and what kind of silly question is that?
26. Pets?
None at the moment. I am friends with some very nice cats though...
27. What did you want to be when you were little?
A scientist. I didn't differentiate between the fields, but "a guy doing science" seemed pretty good to me. Or Spider-Man.
28. What are you today?
Attorney. It is not sciencey. Pays the bills for now though. (Excuse the lack of excitement but my job has been wretched these last few days)
29. What is your favorite candy?
Chocolate. Dark chocolate, milk chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, etc.
30. Your favorite flower?
I don't really have a favorite flower. That's not a macho front, I've just never given them much consideration. Daisies seem nice. They're simple but pretty.
31. What is a day on the calendar you are looking forward to?
It was next Wednesday (mini-vacation) but now I'm not sure because work has punched me in the face.
32. What are you listening to right now?
The gentle drone of the office. Somebody is talking about fantasy football. Again.
33. What was the last thing you ate?
Ate? That'd be chocolate chip cookies, last night. Unless the morning vitamin counts.
34. Do you wish on stars?
Nope. I just wish.
35. If you were a crayon, what color would you be?
I have no basis for answering this question. My favorite color is green.
36. What is your pet peeve?
Not being called/emailed back, at least once. I get that people (including me) don't want to have constant back and forths, but one reply will not kill you.
37. Last person you spoke to on the phone?
Secretary for defense counsel, who was confirming a deposition.
38. Do you like the person/people you are sending this to?
Not necessarily, I don't know who will read this. Actually, since it's my blog, it's probable that I like them all.
39. Favorite soft drink?
I don't drink 'em anymore! But if I did, it's Coke.
40. Favorite restaurant?
Geez, I'm not sure. I was finally introduced to Zachary's Pizza a few weeks back, and that was pretty amazing.
41. Hair Color?
My hair, she is brown, senor.
42. Favorite holiday of the year?
Christmas is really the only holiday that I always celebrate, year after year.
43. What was your favorite toy as a child?
My transformers. I had that big turns-into-a-base guy, Fortress Maximus. I was super jazzed to own that.
44. Summer or winter?
Summer. It has so much possibility.
45. Hugs or kisses?
I don't understand the question.
46. Chocolate or vanilla?
Chocolate.
47. Do you want your friends to e-mail you back?
No, that would be weird. I will read any that post this though.
(Note: I laughed out loud when I read Emily's response: "Sure! I would love to know if my brother likes hugs or kisses!" Sucker!)
48. When was the last time you cried?
Embarrassingly, I teared up a little when watching a video a blogger put up of her 3-year-old son. I know, what the hell. So I punched a mountain lion and felt better.
49. What is under your bed?
No idea. Probably something useful that I've forgotten about.
51. What did you do last night? Worked till 8, then watched a couple episodes of that show Bones, which I don't usually watch but I didn't want to get invested in The Wire. I went to bed at 10 but ended up reading for two hours.
52. Favorite smell?
Still that girly-soap smell. Or maybe it's perfume. I'm not sure, but it comes from chicks.
53. What are you afraid of?
Not appreciating life until it's just about over.
54. How many keys on your key ring?
Seven. Two home, two work, one car, one mail, and one for The Club.
55. How many years at your current job?
One and a half at my current employer. About two doing what I do. Tighten up your language, survey!
56. Favorite day of the week?
I have a love/hate relationship with Friday, so actually Thursday may be best. Friday hasn't turned out to be a bust yet, and The Office is on. Usually.
57. How many states have you lived in?
Three, since we don't count the District of Columbia as a state.
58. Do you make friends easily? I'm not sure. Not easily, and not immediately, but I grow on people like you wouldn't believe.
That's the last question? Kind of anti-climactic.
1. What time did you get up this morning?
I "got up" at 8 but the alarm went off at 7:30.
2. Diamonds or pearls?
Diamonds, I guess. I'd look silly in pearls.
3. Last movie you saw in the theater?
Also The Dark Knight. Second viewing! Still dark!
4. What is your favorite TV show?
The Office is the best one still running (LOST is a close second), but right now I'm churning through The Wire like a crazy man. It may be the some of the best TV ever.
5. What do you usually have for breakfast
A few swigs of orange juice while taking a vitamin. Later, maybe a granola bar.
6. What is your middle name?
Talullah.
7. What food do you dislike?
I am still not a huge fan of guacamole. Despite living out here.
8. What is your favorite CD at the moment?
I don't have a favorite CD at the moment. iTunes has broken me as far as entire albums are concerned.
9. What kind of car do you drive?
97 Acura but wait, Emily when did you get a new car? The hell?
10. Favorite sandwich?
There is a place I go for lunch that does a pretty good roast beef. But the cheesesteaks from IB's are great too.
11. What characteristics do you despise?
The inability to accept opinions other than your own.
12. Favorite item of clothing?
Jeans. I don't get to wear 'em so much anymore.
13. If you could go anywhere in the world where would you go?
Australia still tops that list. But followed closely by Europe, and Fiji.
14. What color is your bathroom?
Ugh, I think it's probably "salmon" but I've also been informed it's just pink.
15. Favorite brand of clothing?
I don't have a favorite brand, so much. I got a suit from Banana Republic a month ago and I like it. But I am not necessarily a BR kind of guy.
16. Where would you retire?
Somewhere smaller than where I lived. Not a city.
17. Most memorable birthday?
I think 21 is still the weirdest. I was snowed in at the Detroit airport, but then a few days later some friends threw me a surprise party.
18. Favorite sport to watch?
Football and baseball are probably tops. Not so much college anything.
19. Furthest place you are sending this?
INFINITY. It's the Internet.
20. Who do you expect to send this back to you?
Since I've turned it into a black hole by blog posting, nobody.
21. Person you expect to send it back first?
Seriously, let it go.
22. Favorite saying?
I have started saying "right on". I also say "fair enough" a lot. These are not necessarily favorite sayings, but I am capable of recognizing things I say too much.
23. When is your birthday?
January.
24. Are you a morning person or a night person?
I am a late-night person. But I don't mind the morning as much as I used to.
25. What is your shoe size?
11.5 and what kind of silly question is that?
26. Pets?
None at the moment. I am friends with some very nice cats though...
27. What did you want to be when you were little?
A scientist. I didn't differentiate between the fields, but "a guy doing science" seemed pretty good to me. Or Spider-Man.
28. What are you today?
Attorney. It is not sciencey. Pays the bills for now though. (Excuse the lack of excitement but my job has been wretched these last few days)
29. What is your favorite candy?
Chocolate. Dark chocolate, milk chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, etc.
30. Your favorite flower?
I don't really have a favorite flower. That's not a macho front, I've just never given them much consideration. Daisies seem nice. They're simple but pretty.
31. What is a day on the calendar you are looking forward to?
It was next Wednesday (mini-vacation) but now I'm not sure because work has punched me in the face.
32. What are you listening to right now?
The gentle drone of the office. Somebody is talking about fantasy football. Again.
33. What was the last thing you ate?
Ate? That'd be chocolate chip cookies, last night. Unless the morning vitamin counts.
34. Do you wish on stars?
Nope. I just wish.
35. If you were a crayon, what color would you be?
I have no basis for answering this question. My favorite color is green.
36. What is your pet peeve?
Not being called/emailed back, at least once. I get that people (including me) don't want to have constant back and forths, but one reply will not kill you.
37. Last person you spoke to on the phone?
Secretary for defense counsel, who was confirming a deposition.
38. Do you like the person/people you are sending this to?
Not necessarily, I don't know who will read this. Actually, since it's my blog, it's probable that I like them all.
39. Favorite soft drink?
I don't drink 'em anymore! But if I did, it's Coke.
40. Favorite restaurant?
Geez, I'm not sure. I was finally introduced to Zachary's Pizza a few weeks back, and that was pretty amazing.
41. Hair Color?
My hair, she is brown, senor.
42. Favorite holiday of the year?
Christmas is really the only holiday that I always celebrate, year after year.
43. What was your favorite toy as a child?
My transformers. I had that big turns-into-a-base guy, Fortress Maximus. I was super jazzed to own that.
44. Summer or winter?
Summer. It has so much possibility.
45. Hugs or kisses?
I don't understand the question.
46. Chocolate or vanilla?
Chocolate.
47. Do you want your friends to e-mail you back?
No, that would be weird. I will read any that post this though.
(Note: I laughed out loud when I read Emily's response: "Sure! I would love to know if my brother likes hugs or kisses!" Sucker!)
48. When was the last time you cried?
Embarrassingly, I teared up a little when watching a video a blogger put up of her 3-year-old son. I know, what the hell. So I punched a mountain lion and felt better.
49. What is under your bed?
No idea. Probably something useful that I've forgotten about.
51. What did you do last night? Worked till 8, then watched a couple episodes of that show Bones, which I don't usually watch but I didn't want to get invested in The Wire. I went to bed at 10 but ended up reading for two hours.
52. Favorite smell?
Still that girly-soap smell. Or maybe it's perfume. I'm not sure, but it comes from chicks.
53. What are you afraid of?
Not appreciating life until it's just about over.
54. How many keys on your key ring?
Seven. Two home, two work, one car, one mail, and one for The Club.
55. How many years at your current job?
One and a half at my current employer. About two doing what I do. Tighten up your language, survey!
56. Favorite day of the week?
I have a love/hate relationship with Friday, so actually Thursday may be best. Friday hasn't turned out to be a bust yet, and The Office is on. Usually.
57. How many states have you lived in?
Three, since we don't count the District of Columbia as a state.
58. Do you make friends easily? I'm not sure. Not easily, and not immediately, but I grow on people like you wouldn't believe.
That's the last question? Kind of anti-climactic.
August 27, 2008
More Like Labor Day CRAPend
I just got completely and utterly screwed, at work. Three day weekend? Gone. Trip back east? Not gone but may be full of non-fun working.
It's nothing in the realm of becoming unemployed, it's just a big gigantic, case-destroying event which is 10 days away and will take 10+ days to prepare for. So you can see where there's a bit of a problem.
It's times like this that I'm glad I don't have a girlfriend to radically disappoint. It will be nice to save energy bills by not being home at all for a few days, though!
It's nothing in the realm of becoming unemployed, it's just a big gigantic, case-destroying event which is 10 days away and will take 10+ days to prepare for. So you can see where there's a bit of a problem.
It's times like this that I'm glad I don't have a girlfriend to radically disappoint. It will be nice to save energy bills by not being home at all for a few days, though!
August 26, 2008
What a Lousy Time to Be in California
All of a sudden, my home state is a political battleground!
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
August 25, 2008
Alright Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads
Everybody loves Army of Darkness! Howzabout some bits:
- I watched Rambo this weekend, and started Season 3 of The Wire. I am particularly numb to people being shot as a result, because damn if it doesn't seem to happen all the time, especially if you live in Burma or Baltimore. Rambo was just barely watchable. Skip it.
- If you didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I think you should pretty much SFTU when it comes to intra-party Democratic debates. If you're not going to vote Democrat, why should anybody give two shits if you think Obama isn't as experienced as Clinton? Nobody asks me whether Romney should have taken the nomination, and for good reason: my answer would be self-serving and would not come from a desire to see the Republicans succeed. So shut it.
- Hey! I'm going to be back in Northern Virginia next week! It's been 8 months since I've been to the area (but not the east coast, if Tampa FL counts), so I expect you are all in flying cars and using food replicators and whatnot.
- The Olympics are over. I was more interested this year than possibly ever before. That is not saying much (previous interest level: zero) but kudos to Beijing for some impressive pageantry and dissident head-bashing. You know what would make the Olympics suck less? No time delay, and no NBC leaden-sob-story stupidity. Maybe London will fix some of those problems in 2012.
- One of the upsides of the Olympics is that I get to completely forget that football season--college and pro--is less than a few weeks away. I mean, I like football, but I am so very disappointed by my choice of teams (both college and pro) that I don't really need the aggravation. Still, the promise of a clean slate and a new season are hard to resist.
- But the Tigers are dead to me.
August 21, 2008
Oh Please Oh Please Oh Please
How awesome would it be if McCain actually nominated Lieberman as his VP?
I mean, not for McCain, who would lose a bunch of his crazy social conservatives. But for Obama, who would lose almost nobody to that nightmare ticket. Maybe old Jewish folk, but they're already being alarmingly anti-Obama.
Democrats don't even like Lieberman. I didn't like him when he was partnered with Gore in 2000, and his behavior since then has been nothing short of repugnant. He is slimier than most politicians, and I live for the day when the Democrats have enough power in the Senate to toss his narrow ass out of his committee seats.
But I think even McCain isn't that big of a maverick. He's already repudiated the handful of reasonable stances he once held (on torture, abortion, and the like), so picking Lieberman would be a complete 180 as far as bending to the social conservatives' whims.
A guy can dream though, right?
I mean, not for McCain, who would lose a bunch of his crazy social conservatives. But for Obama, who would lose almost nobody to that nightmare ticket. Maybe old Jewish folk, but they're already being alarmingly anti-Obama.
Democrats don't even like Lieberman. I didn't like him when he was partnered with Gore in 2000, and his behavior since then has been nothing short of repugnant. He is slimier than most politicians, and I live for the day when the Democrats have enough power in the Senate to toss his narrow ass out of his committee seats.
But I think even McCain isn't that big of a maverick. He's already repudiated the handful of reasonable stances he once held (on torture, abortion, and the like), so picking Lieberman would be a complete 180 as far as bending to the social conservatives' whims.
A guy can dream though, right?
August 19, 2008
I'm Bad Luck
In the last 6 months, three of the restaurants I've eaten at here in the East Bay have been robbed.
One was actually robbed the very next night after I was there.
Fortunately nobody is hurt in these robberies, but damn, Oakland. Not cool.
One was actually robbed the very next night after I was there.
Fortunately nobody is hurt in these robberies, but damn, Oakland. Not cool.
August 18, 2008
Tiny Dancer
There is an interesting little commentary on the AV Club today regarding the "Tiny Dancer" scene from Almost Famous. It's a pretty good movie, and that's a defining moment in the film. The comment basically uses the scene as an example of how powerful it can be when a song is linked to a (well-done) scene in a movie.
Of this I totally agree. Even when it's obvious; the scene in Say Anything is like the grand dame of this kind of movie moment.
But it's interesting to look in the comments to the article and see that, while popular opinion tends to skew about 70-30 in favor of Almost Famous (or that scene in particular), there are plenty who found it hackneyed, trite or falsely uplifting.
Which brings us to today's lesson! Movies that have "moments" or are geared towards pulling on certain emotional responses are routinely savaged by critics or various hipster idiots (like myself). Mostly this is because it is difficult to create genuine emotion in that way, without resorting to slimier tactics--and music with an obvious emotional element can be one such effective tactic.
But the effectiveness of a movie's attempt to create a "magical moment" is two-fold: one part director's skill and one part audience interpretation. The audience's capacity for being moved is just as important as the director/actors ability to create the right moment.
That's why some movies, which suck, can still move some people to tears, even while I sit there wondering what time it is. Those folks, for whatever reason, are more open to such sentiment and won't mind how ham-handed the delivery happens to be. A good example of this is the movie Hope Floats, which while supremely boring, has one particular scene in which Sandra Bullock's daughter breaks down as her dad leaves. It's tough, and the scene is almost pulled off because the actress really gives it her all. It did not move me greatly, but some people were just weeping openly.
This is a long-winded way of saying that while a movie can be "bad" or "good", the effectiveness of any given scene is as dependent on what the viewer is bringing to the table as it is on the quality of the film. If there's some movie that everyone seems to love but you can't stand, consider that perhaps it's you, not the movie.
Of this I totally agree. Even when it's obvious; the scene in Say Anything is like the grand dame of this kind of movie moment.
But it's interesting to look in the comments to the article and see that, while popular opinion tends to skew about 70-30 in favor of Almost Famous (or that scene in particular), there are plenty who found it hackneyed, trite or falsely uplifting.
Which brings us to today's lesson! Movies that have "moments" or are geared towards pulling on certain emotional responses are routinely savaged by critics or various hipster idiots (like myself). Mostly this is because it is difficult to create genuine emotion in that way, without resorting to slimier tactics--and music with an obvious emotional element can be one such effective tactic.
But the effectiveness of a movie's attempt to create a "magical moment" is two-fold: one part director's skill and one part audience interpretation. The audience's capacity for being moved is just as important as the director/actors ability to create the right moment.
That's why some movies, which suck, can still move some people to tears, even while I sit there wondering what time it is. Those folks, for whatever reason, are more open to such sentiment and won't mind how ham-handed the delivery happens to be. A good example of this is the movie Hope Floats, which while supremely boring, has one particular scene in which Sandra Bullock's daughter breaks down as her dad leaves. It's tough, and the scene is almost pulled off because the actress really gives it her all. It did not move me greatly, but some people were just weeping openly.
This is a long-winded way of saying that while a movie can be "bad" or "good", the effectiveness of any given scene is as dependent on what the viewer is bringing to the table as it is on the quality of the film. If there's some movie that everyone seems to love but you can't stand, consider that perhaps it's you, not the movie.
August 13, 2008
Tigers Tigers Burning Bright
Today I saw this on Yahoo Sports' Detroit Tigers Team Report:
The Tigers' bullpen has dropped TWENTY-ONE save chances this year. Let's put that in perspective: the Tigers are currently 58-61, post-Allstar surge and back to their craptacular performance. They're also losing the third game of their series against the woeful 4th place Blue Jays, 0-4, at time of blogging.
Chicago is 66-52 and the Twins, 67-53, leading the Tigers in their division by 8 games (for those who don't follow baseball, that means if the Tigers won 8 games straight and the White Sox lost 8 straight, they be tied).
The bullpen's effect, then? If they'd managed to keep just HALF of their blown saves from occurring, the Tigers would be 68-51 and in first place. And remember, you don't get a blown save by just pitching a losing game; the Tigers have to be UP when the relief pitcher starts, and then tied or losing (I'm actually not sure if that matters) when the pitcher leaves or the game ends.
21 times these idiots have cost the Tigers a winning game. If they managed saves in 15 of those blown saves, they'd have the best record in baseball.
I'm done venting, and I'm done watching for the season unless they can seriously turn this around. It's one thing to suck all around; it's heartbreaking to watch your team hit and pitch well, and then have a handful of completely useless bastards throw the game away.
"RHP Joel Zumaya won’t be closing games for Detroit until he can eliminate outings like Tuesday’s. Manager Jim Leyland thinks it’s because there’s something wrong with him. Zumaya faced five batters and all of them reached base as Toronto erased a 4-1 deficit with a four-run seventh in a 6-4 Blue Jays victory."Leyland thinks something is wrong with Zumaya, eh? He's got that right. Zumaya sucks, and has always been an overrated fastball thrower who lacks the control and the pitch variety to ever be a truly good closer. But hey, Rodney's hardly a model of consistency, and Farnsworth is turning out to be a completely useless trade (unless you're the Yankees; good luck Pudge).
The Tigers' bullpen has dropped TWENTY-ONE save chances this year. Let's put that in perspective: the Tigers are currently 58-61, post-Allstar surge and back to their craptacular performance. They're also losing the third game of their series against the woeful 4th place Blue Jays, 0-4, at time of blogging.
Chicago is 66-52 and the Twins, 67-53, leading the Tigers in their division by 8 games (for those who don't follow baseball, that means if the Tigers won 8 games straight and the White Sox lost 8 straight, they be tied).
The bullpen's effect, then? If they'd managed to keep just HALF of their blown saves from occurring, the Tigers would be 68-51 and in first place. And remember, you don't get a blown save by just pitching a losing game; the Tigers have to be UP when the relief pitcher starts, and then tied or losing (I'm actually not sure if that matters) when the pitcher leaves or the game ends.
21 times these idiots have cost the Tigers a winning game. If they managed saves in 15 of those blown saves, they'd have the best record in baseball.
I'm done venting, and I'm done watching for the season unless they can seriously turn this around. It's one thing to suck all around; it's heartbreaking to watch your team hit and pitch well, and then have a handful of completely useless bastards throw the game away.
August 12, 2008
Olympic Rant
Oh come on, you knew I was going to get around to this eventually.
The Olympics are here. In full, soft-focus, sad sack, triumph over the adversity of having a semi-uncomfortable childhood, glory. It's a bit cliched at this point to take offense at the truly insipid back stories that NBC insists on running (Peacock: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOLLEYBALL PLAYER'S WEDDING RING) so I'll just let others take that topic on.
And honestly, you can't offends tens of... well tens of people with such lukewarm antagonism. People who live for those vignettes are idiots; most of us tolerate them and once in a blue moon find something interesting. So instead, I present:
What's the Big Deal Anyway With Like, 80% of These Sports?
Here's the thing. I admire when a person devotes their life (and at this level, it really is a devotion of that caliber) to a single achievement. Even when that achievement is sort of lame, in the context of all of humanity's endeavors. I speak largely of things like synchronized diving and the equestrian sports, but this is actually applicable to almost all sports. I have to ask: so what?
Now is when I backpedal to say, of course participation and excellence in these areas are noteworthy, to a degree. I would not say for a second that I could ever match the skill that the synchro divers exhibit, even with the same amount of training. There is an inherent talent that I do not suppose I have.
But that being said, just because a group of people devote themselves to doing something, and at some point they compete and one becomes the best at that thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they have reached the pinnacle of human possibility. The Games are rife with such statements, announcers noting that, "we are witnessing the best of the best in all the world," and so forth.
To me, the most interesting Olympic sports are those that are more pure. Running, for example. You can be the Fastest Man/Woman Alive at the Olympics--and we all run. In my mind, running is pure and straightforward and not all frill'd up with shuttlecocks and horses and epees. Swimming is similar, except that there are a bunch of different types and that seems a little silly. Freestyle is the fastest (when comparing world-records) so I like that one best. The fastest human in the world, in the water, is some Australian or Michael Phelps, depending on which race you gauge speed with.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves rowing, and thinks that those who row crew in the Olympics are amazing athletes. But technology adds something to the sport that keeps me from saying they are "pinnacles".
I won't even get started on sports that require judges to give scores. How do you "win" the pommel-horse?
This is (as titled) a rant, but it's not meant to be overly spiteful. I applaud everybody who achieves. But for me, the best part of the Olympics are the sports that you can do naked.
The Olympics are here. In full, soft-focus, sad sack, triumph over the adversity of having a semi-uncomfortable childhood, glory. It's a bit cliched at this point to take offense at the truly insipid back stories that NBC insists on running (Peacock: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOLLEYBALL PLAYER'S WEDDING RING) so I'll just let others take that topic on.
And honestly, you can't offends tens of... well tens of people with such lukewarm antagonism. People who live for those vignettes are idiots; most of us tolerate them and once in a blue moon find something interesting. So instead, I present:
What's the Big Deal Anyway With Like, 80% of These Sports?
Here's the thing. I admire when a person devotes their life (and at this level, it really is a devotion of that caliber) to a single achievement. Even when that achievement is sort of lame, in the context of all of humanity's endeavors. I speak largely of things like synchronized diving and the equestrian sports, but this is actually applicable to almost all sports. I have to ask: so what?
Now is when I backpedal to say, of course participation and excellence in these areas are noteworthy, to a degree. I would not say for a second that I could ever match the skill that the synchro divers exhibit, even with the same amount of training. There is an inherent talent that I do not suppose I have.
But that being said, just because a group of people devote themselves to doing something, and at some point they compete and one becomes the best at that thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they have reached the pinnacle of human possibility. The Games are rife with such statements, announcers noting that, "we are witnessing the best of the best in all the world," and so forth.
To me, the most interesting Olympic sports are those that are more pure. Running, for example. You can be the Fastest Man/Woman Alive at the Olympics--and we all run. In my mind, running is pure and straightforward and not all frill'd up with shuttlecocks and horses and epees. Swimming is similar, except that there are a bunch of different types and that seems a little silly. Freestyle is the fastest (when comparing world-records) so I like that one best. The fastest human in the world, in the water, is some Australian or Michael Phelps, depending on which race you gauge speed with.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves rowing, and thinks that those who row crew in the Olympics are amazing athletes. But technology adds something to the sport that keeps me from saying they are "pinnacles".
I won't even get started on sports that require judges to give scores. How do you "win" the pommel-horse?
This is (as titled) a rant, but it's not meant to be overly spiteful. I applaud everybody who achieves. But for me, the best part of the Olympics are the sports that you can do naked.
August 11, 2008
Not Cool, Boris
Just* when you thought the Cold War was over, it rears up during the Olympics and smacks you in the face!
*It ended 20 years ago.
This whole Russia vs. Georgia thing has me bothered. For once, I understand the politics completely (as opposed to say, Iraq and their many insurgents and whatnot). Georgia doesn't like Russia, and the Georgians don't like their pro-Russia province of South Ossetia (note: not an official province/state, it's like "the South" in America, but smaller). Georgia decides to start smacking the South O's around, and big brother Russia steps in to quell that shit.
Only Russia, after sending the Georgians positively flying out of S.O., keep attacking. They're attacking actual Georgia, not S.O.-Georgia, and are hinting that they aim to depose the elected El Presidente of Georgia.
Georgia is a nascent democracy that we (and by "we" I mean "our country") have been urging to become more democratic. We pushed for Georgia's entry into NATO (NATO voted no, wisely, because otherwise we WOULD be at war with Russia right now) and told them we'd support them. Only, you know, just by being very, very stern with Russia should it become aggressive. Lots of glaring and furrowed brows, but not so much with the tanks and missiles.
So that's what we're doing. We're very upset with Russia, you see, but we can't really send TROOPS because it's Russia, yo. That's a big-time war that, while I appreciate Georgia's predicament (which they are at least 50% responsible for themselves) a World War Three is not a great solution.
Nobody has clean hands here--including us--but if someone is going to intervene it has to be Europe first. People are comparing this to Germany and the Sudetenland (because you can't throw a stone in international politics without hitting a Nazi Germany analogy). But German appeasement by other local nations is not the same as appeasement by a superpower halfway around the world.
Still, if Russia keeps trying to flex its collective nuts, eastern Europe is going to get a whole lot messier in the near future. It's so nice that I can come full circle and revisit my childhood fear of nuclear annihilation.
*It ended 20 years ago.
This whole Russia vs. Georgia thing has me bothered. For once, I understand the politics completely (as opposed to say, Iraq and their many insurgents and whatnot). Georgia doesn't like Russia, and the Georgians don't like their pro-Russia province of South Ossetia (note: not an official province/state, it's like "the South" in America, but smaller). Georgia decides to start smacking the South O's around, and big brother Russia steps in to quell that shit.
Only Russia, after sending the Georgians positively flying out of S.O., keep attacking. They're attacking actual Georgia, not S.O.-Georgia, and are hinting that they aim to depose the elected El Presidente of Georgia.
Georgia is a nascent democracy that we (and by "we" I mean "our country") have been urging to become more democratic. We pushed for Georgia's entry into NATO (NATO voted no, wisely, because otherwise we WOULD be at war with Russia right now) and told them we'd support them. Only, you know, just by being very, very stern with Russia should it become aggressive. Lots of glaring and furrowed brows, but not so much with the tanks and missiles.
So that's what we're doing. We're very upset with Russia, you see, but we can't really send TROOPS because it's Russia, yo. That's a big-time war that, while I appreciate Georgia's predicament (which they are at least 50% responsible for themselves) a World War Three is not a great solution.
Nobody has clean hands here--including us--but if someone is going to intervene it has to be Europe first. People are comparing this to Germany and the Sudetenland (because you can't throw a stone in international politics without hitting a Nazi Germany analogy). But German appeasement by other local nations is not the same as appeasement by a superpower halfway around the world.
Still, if Russia keeps trying to flex its collective nuts, eastern Europe is going to get a whole lot messier in the near future. It's so nice that I can come full circle and revisit my childhood fear of nuclear annihilation.
August 8, 2008
They Got That Right
I finally got to see The Dark Knight this week. And boy is that title apt. I'm still developing my thoughts but I have a feeling it was really, really good.
The strangest thing is how much publicity and promotion the movie had, in comparison to the tone and overall theme of the movie. I know the two (marketing and actual production) aren't inherently related, but it seems a tad incongruous. When Dominos has commercials where their delivery person is battling to get the Joker a pizza, and then you see the movie where the Joker is a goddamn psychopath, you have to wonder what they're thinking with that ad campaign.
I won't really say more, on the off chance that some of you folks haven't seen it yet, but it's a dark freakin' movie, kids. It is full of principle and moral ambiguity and the nature of evil, and I think may end up being one of the best movies of all time (though not as good as the idiocracy that populates IMDB seems to think). I'm sure by now there is plenty of anti-Dark Knight opinion, but being fairly new to the discussion I'm not seeing that. I'm just sort of amazed.
I will add this: there have been murmurings that the Joker is being too well-received by fans of the movie, that he is being propped up as an anti-hero of sorts. To that I say: don't be a moron. Batman is an "anti-hero". The Joker is just a goddamn nutjob. I can see where this movie might appeal to the pro-anarchy crowd, though, and I will confess that for the first time in my life, I thought as I was watching, "I hope some idiot kids don't take this too seriously."
Oh, and that whole "what's with Batman's voice" debate? Totally overrated. I thought it was fine and completely necessary. Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne has a fairly distinct voice, and it would be beyond stupid if he were talking to everybody without trying to disguise it. But hey, people need something to gripe about, right?
The strangest thing is how much publicity and promotion the movie had, in comparison to the tone and overall theme of the movie. I know the two (marketing and actual production) aren't inherently related, but it seems a tad incongruous. When Dominos has commercials where their delivery person is battling to get the Joker a pizza, and then you see the movie where the Joker is a goddamn psychopath, you have to wonder what they're thinking with that ad campaign.
I won't really say more, on the off chance that some of you folks haven't seen it yet, but it's a dark freakin' movie, kids. It is full of principle and moral ambiguity and the nature of evil, and I think may end up being one of the best movies of all time (though not as good as the idiocracy that populates IMDB seems to think). I'm sure by now there is plenty of anti-Dark Knight opinion, but being fairly new to the discussion I'm not seeing that. I'm just sort of amazed.
I will add this: there have been murmurings that the Joker is being too well-received by fans of the movie, that he is being propped up as an anti-hero of sorts. To that I say: don't be a moron. Batman is an "anti-hero". The Joker is just a goddamn nutjob. I can see where this movie might appeal to the pro-anarchy crowd, though, and I will confess that for the first time in my life, I thought as I was watching, "I hope some idiot kids don't take this too seriously."
Oh, and that whole "what's with Batman's voice" debate? Totally overrated. I thought it was fine and completely necessary. Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne has a fairly distinct voice, and it would be beyond stupid if he were talking to everybody without trying to disguise it. But hey, people need something to gripe about, right?
August 6, 2008
Wanted: Business Acumen
One of the biggest reasons I believe I'll never make a killing with investments, or real estate, or any of those power-broker Wall Street type things, is that everytime I hear "Fannie Mae" I think they're talking about candy.
Housing crises be damned, I want some chocolate nut fudge.
Housing crises be damned, I want some chocolate nut fudge.
August 5, 2008
Real Old Testament, Wrath-of-God Type Meme
You know what? I don't think I ever posted this, for whatever reason. Revived from the dead, it's... this thing!
ANGER
1. Who did you last get angry with?
My non-boss, because I did what my real boss wanted and pissed him off. Sometimes my job sucks.
2. What is your weapon of choice?
Sulking. But, you know, manly sulking. Lots of steely looks and narrowing of the eyes.
3. Would you hit a member of the opposite sex?
Only in a life-or-death situation, maybe. My momma didn’t raise me to beat on no wimmins.
4. How about of the same sex?
Sure. I try not to. But I’m not a pacifist, I’m just not in punching situations very often. I consider that a good thing.
5. Who was the last person who got really angry at you?
It depends on what you mean by "really angry". Now that I'm not in a relationship, it doesn't happen too often.
6. What is your pet peeve?
Inattention. Pay attention for god’s sake.
7. Do you keep grudges, or can you let them go easily?
If it’s minor I don’t. If it’s major it’s not a grudge, the person is no good and I will disassociate myself. That’s not holding a grudge, in my book.
SLOTH
1. What is one thing you're supposed to do daily that you haven't done in a while?
Floss. I hate it.
2. What is the latest you've ever woken up?
I don’t know, 2 p.m. maybe? It was during college I’m sure. After a point “late” and “early” sort of switch spots.
3. Name a person you've been meaning to contact, but haven't:
A couple people from law school, perhaps. Otherwise I feel like my friends are around if I need them or they need me.
4. What is the last lame excuse you made?
I called in sick today! But I'm only under the weather, not disaster-sick. That's not very lame. Sorry.
5. Have you ever watched an infomercial all the way through (one of the long ones...)?
I used to watch the “AM Gold” Time/Life commercials for music, to get ideas about what I wanted to steal from the Internet.
6. When was the last time you got a good workout in?
About 10 days ago. I am currently recovering from a minor workout-related injury and thus not running until back to 100%.
7. How many times did you hit the snooze button on your alarm clock today?
5 or 6 times, but I knew I wasn't going anywhere today. Sick day!
GLUTTONY
1. What is your overpriced yuppie beverage of choice?
I buy those Chai Tea Lattes too often. $3.80 a pop! Some unborn child of mine will be going to Devry because of this habit.
2. Meat eaters: white meat or dark meat?
As long as it’s cooked, I don’t really care. Though I guess white, in a pinch.
3. What is the greatest amount of alcohol you've had in one sitting/outing/event?
I’m not a superdrinker or anything. Probably 5 or 6 pints of beer. It’s a lot, for me.
4. Have you ever used a professional diet company?
What, like Jenny Craig? Of course not.
5. Do you have an issue with your weight?
"Issue" is a bit melodramatic, but I still need to lose about 10 pounds.
6. Do you prefer sweets, salty foods, or spicy foods?
Sweets.
7. Have you ever looked at a small housepet or child and thought, "LUNCH?"
Hah, okay. Somebody couldn’t think of a 7th question?
LUST
1. How many people have you seen naked (not counting movies/family)?
I’m assuming this also means opposite sex (i.e. locker rooms do not count), and any degree of nudity (boobs or more) so… lemme think on that for a moment. Crap I forgot about strippers. I’m going to have to ballpark it to around 25 people.
2. How many people have seen YOU naked (not counting physicians/family)?
A lot less than the above number. Less than 10, I suppose.
3. Have you ever caught yourself staring at the chest/crotch of a member of your gender of choice during a normal conversation?
I’m a guy. Of course I have.
4. Have you "done it"?
This is classic. No, but I assume by “it” you mean “shot someone in with a telescopic rifle from more than 300 yards away”.
5. What is your favorite body part on a person of your gender of choice?
Neck. If we’re not being obvious and saying like, boobs.
6. Have you ever been propositioned by a prostitute?
Not to my knowledge. I’ve never waited so long that she had to ask me. Hiyo!
7. Have you ever had to get tested for an STD or pregnancy?
No, I’ve never “had” to get tested. But I have been.
GREED
1. How many credit cards do you own?
Straight-out credit cards? Technically one, but I don’t know how to make it work (my debit card has “credit” somehow). So for all practical purposes, zero. It’s how I roll.
2. What's your guilty pleasure store?
Best Buy. But don’t by peripheral cables there, man.
3. If you had $1 million, what would you do with it?
Pay off a bunch of stuff, and then a bunch of stuff owed by people I like. Then probably put it in some low-yield investment account.
4. Would you rather be rich, or famous?
Rich. Then if I wanted to be famous, I could probably make it happen. But fame without wealth means you’re either incredibly smart or ambitious, or you’re a bank robber.
5. Would you accept a boring job if it meant you would make megabucks?
It depends on how long I’d have to keep it. Right now, yes, I probably would.
6. Have you ever stolen anything?
Online music. And a couple movies. And the hearts of a nation.
7. How many MP3s are on your hard drive?
About 2,000. I recently housecleaned my computer, though, and lost a few hundred in the process.
PRIDE
1. What's one thing have you done that you're most proud of?
Identified badly-written meme questions. Oh look, I’ve done it again!
2. What's one thing have you done that your parents are most proud of?
Probably going to law school. Though I bet “not asking them for money anymore” is a close second.
3. What's one thing would you like to accomplish in your life?
Right now I’d like to accomplish a mostly-debt-free existence.
4. Do you get annoyed by coming in second place?
It depends. Is it a competition of many, or just 2? Because I don’t like losing, but I don’t mind being at the top of the heap (even if not first place).
5. Have you ever entered a contest of skill, knowing you were of much higher skill than all the other competitors?
Like when I play cards with 5-year-old cousins? Sure. But with adults? I don’t think I’ve ever known for sure that I was gonna whup ass on everybody.
6. Have you ever cheated on something to get a higher score?
Yep. But more elaboration, you do not get. It wasn’t the California Bar or anything.
7. What did you do today that you're proud of?
Not a damn thing. Though even if I weren't home today, my workload doesn't have anything pride-worthy. Just mundane this week.
ENVY
1. What item (or person) of your friends would you most want to have for your own?
Person? What, like somebody’s girlfriend or wife? That's harsh, Internet. I'm good with what I've got, currently.
2. Who would you want to go on "Trading Spaces" with?
I don’t know what that is. Is that where people redecorate other people's houses? I guess I’d want to trade with somebody who has style.
3. If you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?
This is a weird question; if I wouldn’t be me, then what would it matter? And if I would be me, then in many cases (astronaut, pole vaulter, UN Secretary General) I would be unable to do the job, and I would instantly fail and/or die. So I say, me but with about $250k in the bank.
4. Have you ever been cheated on?
Hmm. Maybe, but not by anyone that mattered. At least not to my actual knowledge.
5. Have you ever wished you had a physical feature different from your own?
Sure. What am I, a narcissist?
6. What inborn trait do you see in others that you wish you had for yourself?
(More) confidence.
7. Do you wish you'd come up with this survey?
Not even a little bit.
8. Finally, what is your favorite deadly sin?
Lust baby.
ANGER
1. Who did you last get angry with?
My non-boss, because I did what my real boss wanted and pissed him off. Sometimes my job sucks.
2. What is your weapon of choice?
Sulking. But, you know, manly sulking. Lots of steely looks and narrowing of the eyes.
3. Would you hit a member of the opposite sex?
Only in a life-or-death situation, maybe. My momma didn’t raise me to beat on no wimmins.
4. How about of the same sex?
Sure. I try not to. But I’m not a pacifist, I’m just not in punching situations very often. I consider that a good thing.
5. Who was the last person who got really angry at you?
It depends on what you mean by "really angry". Now that I'm not in a relationship, it doesn't happen too often.
6. What is your pet peeve?
Inattention. Pay attention for god’s sake.
7. Do you keep grudges, or can you let them go easily?
If it’s minor I don’t. If it’s major it’s not a grudge, the person is no good and I will disassociate myself. That’s not holding a grudge, in my book.
SLOTH
1. What is one thing you're supposed to do daily that you haven't done in a while?
Floss. I hate it.
2. What is the latest you've ever woken up?
I don’t know, 2 p.m. maybe? It was during college I’m sure. After a point “late” and “early” sort of switch spots.
3. Name a person you've been meaning to contact, but haven't:
A couple people from law school, perhaps. Otherwise I feel like my friends are around if I need them or they need me.
4. What is the last lame excuse you made?
I called in sick today! But I'm only under the weather, not disaster-sick. That's not very lame. Sorry.
5. Have you ever watched an infomercial all the way through (one of the long ones...)?
I used to watch the “AM Gold” Time/Life commercials for music, to get ideas about what I wanted to steal from the Internet.
6. When was the last time you got a good workout in?
About 10 days ago. I am currently recovering from a minor workout-related injury and thus not running until back to 100%.
7. How many times did you hit the snooze button on your alarm clock today?
5 or 6 times, but I knew I wasn't going anywhere today. Sick day!
GLUTTONY
1. What is your overpriced yuppie beverage of choice?
I buy those Chai Tea Lattes too often. $3.80 a pop! Some unborn child of mine will be going to Devry because of this habit.
2. Meat eaters: white meat or dark meat?
As long as it’s cooked, I don’t really care. Though I guess white, in a pinch.
3. What is the greatest amount of alcohol you've had in one sitting/outing/event?
I’m not a superdrinker or anything. Probably 5 or 6 pints of beer. It’s a lot, for me.
4. Have you ever used a professional diet company?
What, like Jenny Craig? Of course not.
5. Do you have an issue with your weight?
"Issue" is a bit melodramatic, but I still need to lose about 10 pounds.
6. Do you prefer sweets, salty foods, or spicy foods?
Sweets.
7. Have you ever looked at a small housepet or child and thought, "LUNCH?"
Hah, okay. Somebody couldn’t think of a 7th question?
LUST
1. How many people have you seen naked (not counting movies/family)?
I’m assuming this also means opposite sex (i.e. locker rooms do not count), and any degree of nudity (boobs or more) so… lemme think on that for a moment. Crap I forgot about strippers. I’m going to have to ballpark it to around 25 people.
2. How many people have seen YOU naked (not counting physicians/family)?
A lot less than the above number. Less than 10, I suppose.
3. Have you ever caught yourself staring at the chest/crotch of a member of your gender of choice during a normal conversation?
I’m a guy. Of course I have.
4. Have you "done it"?
This is classic. No, but I assume by “it” you mean “shot someone in with a telescopic rifle from more than 300 yards away”.
5. What is your favorite body part on a person of your gender of choice?
Neck. If we’re not being obvious and saying like, boobs.
6. Have you ever been propositioned by a prostitute?
Not to my knowledge. I’ve never waited so long that she had to ask me. Hiyo!
7. Have you ever had to get tested for an STD or pregnancy?
No, I’ve never “had” to get tested. But I have been.
GREED
1. How many credit cards do you own?
Straight-out credit cards? Technically one, but I don’t know how to make it work (my debit card has “credit” somehow). So for all practical purposes, zero. It’s how I roll.
2. What's your guilty pleasure store?
Best Buy. But don’t by peripheral cables there, man.
3. If you had $1 million, what would you do with it?
Pay off a bunch of stuff, and then a bunch of stuff owed by people I like. Then probably put it in some low-yield investment account.
4. Would you rather be rich, or famous?
Rich. Then if I wanted to be famous, I could probably make it happen. But fame without wealth means you’re either incredibly smart or ambitious, or you’re a bank robber.
5. Would you accept a boring job if it meant you would make megabucks?
It depends on how long I’d have to keep it. Right now, yes, I probably would.
6. Have you ever stolen anything?
Online music. And a couple movies. And the hearts of a nation.
7. How many MP3s are on your hard drive?
About 2,000. I recently housecleaned my computer, though, and lost a few hundred in the process.
PRIDE
1. What's one thing have you done that you're most proud of?
Identified badly-written meme questions. Oh look, I’ve done it again!
2. What's one thing have you done that your parents are most proud of?
Probably going to law school. Though I bet “not asking them for money anymore” is a close second.
3. What's one thing would you like to accomplish in your life?
Right now I’d like to accomplish a mostly-debt-free existence.
4. Do you get annoyed by coming in second place?
It depends. Is it a competition of many, or just 2? Because I don’t like losing, but I don’t mind being at the top of the heap (even if not first place).
5. Have you ever entered a contest of skill, knowing you were of much higher skill than all the other competitors?
Like when I play cards with 5-year-old cousins? Sure. But with adults? I don’t think I’ve ever known for sure that I was gonna whup ass on everybody.
6. Have you ever cheated on something to get a higher score?
Yep. But more elaboration, you do not get. It wasn’t the California Bar or anything.
7. What did you do today that you're proud of?
Not a damn thing. Though even if I weren't home today, my workload doesn't have anything pride-worthy. Just mundane this week.
ENVY
1. What item (or person) of your friends would you most want to have for your own?
Person? What, like somebody’s girlfriend or wife? That's harsh, Internet. I'm good with what I've got, currently.
2. Who would you want to go on "Trading Spaces" with?
I don’t know what that is. Is that where people redecorate other people's houses? I guess I’d want to trade with somebody who has style.
3. If you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?
This is a weird question; if I wouldn’t be me, then what would it matter? And if I would be me, then in many cases (astronaut, pole vaulter, UN Secretary General) I would be unable to do the job, and I would instantly fail and/or die. So I say, me but with about $250k in the bank.
4. Have you ever been cheated on?
Hmm. Maybe, but not by anyone that mattered. At least not to my actual knowledge.
5. Have you ever wished you had a physical feature different from your own?
Sure. What am I, a narcissist?
6. What inborn trait do you see in others that you wish you had for yourself?
(More) confidence.
7. Do you wish you'd come up with this survey?
Not even a little bit.
8. Finally, what is your favorite deadly sin?
Lust baby.
August 4, 2008
A Bunch of Songs That I Once Thought Were Great/Deep/Sad, But Got Tired of For Some Reason.
That's a mouthful!*
Angel Eyes - Jeff Healey's hit 1989 love song. The lyrics are pretty stupid and I think it was covered by some Australian chick fairly recently. On the upside, Jeff Healey is blind and therefore marginally cooler than most musicians who name their bands after themselves. But, Bonus Lame Points: it was used in "Road House", and you all know how I feel about that cinema gem.
Lady in Red - When I was a kid (i.e. 12 or 13) I thought this was a hugely poetic. Now, time and a healthy dose of cynicism has made me want to punch Chris deBurgh in the face. Plus, the song doesn't make any sense. Everybody apparently wants to be with this chick, but she wants to be with the singer, who sounds like a completely useless tool. Wait, is she a hooker? Did I miss that subtext?
At Last - Yes, the song played at many (many, many) a wedding. Etta James does it justice (better than Nat King Cole) and the first time I heard it was in a nuptial-less vacuum. I specifically remember thinking, "Wow, people should play this at weddings or something!"
Don't Speak - I was a fan of No Doubt just before they become super famous, and at the time I was embroiled in typically lame high school angst. Before this song got sizable radio airplay, I thought it was powerful and reflected the feelings I had for some girl, who liked my best friend, but he was with somebody else, or something. I'm having trouble recalling the details, which clearly speaks to the weight of the matter. Gigantic Internet-only eye roll.
I Can't Make You Love Me - You know what? I still like this song. I'm not a huge Bonnie Raitt fan, because country music is of course horrible, but I'll make an exception for this. It is, in truth of fact, a good song. Compare it to something like Leann Rimes' "How Do I Live" which is overwrought and insipid.
Breathe (2AM) - I thought this was pretty good when it first came out, and I still have no idea who this Anna Nalick person is, but it was quickly overplayed. It may still be a good song, but it needs a few years of non-rotation before I'll stop Next Track'ing it on the iPod.
The Blower's Daughter - I still think this song is almost over-the-top in its sadness quotient, but then I was on BART and some dude (seriously) had it as his ringtone. The subsequent douchebag-association has been just too powerful to overcome.
I thought this would be a longer list, but I never legitimately liked the other songs I could put on here. I thought of the idea when "All I Wanna Do is Make Love..." came on the radio this morning. But that song is pretty crappy, and I've never liked it. Go figure.
*That's what she said.
Angel Eyes - Jeff Healey's hit 1989 love song. The lyrics are pretty stupid and I think it was covered by some Australian chick fairly recently. On the upside, Jeff Healey is blind and therefore marginally cooler than most musicians who name their bands after themselves. But, Bonus Lame Points: it was used in "Road House", and you all know how I feel about that cinema gem.
Lady in Red - When I was a kid (i.e. 12 or 13) I thought this was a hugely poetic. Now, time and a healthy dose of cynicism has made me want to punch Chris deBurgh in the face. Plus, the song doesn't make any sense. Everybody apparently wants to be with this chick, but she wants to be with the singer, who sounds like a completely useless tool. Wait, is she a hooker? Did I miss that subtext?
At Last - Yes, the song played at many (many, many) a wedding. Etta James does it justice (better than Nat King Cole) and the first time I heard it was in a nuptial-less vacuum. I specifically remember thinking, "Wow, people should play this at weddings or something!"
Don't Speak - I was a fan of No Doubt just before they become super famous, and at the time I was embroiled in typically lame high school angst. Before this song got sizable radio airplay, I thought it was powerful and reflected the feelings I had for some girl, who liked my best friend, but he was with somebody else, or something. I'm having trouble recalling the details, which clearly speaks to the weight of the matter. Gigantic Internet-only eye roll.
I Can't Make You Love Me - You know what? I still like this song. I'm not a huge Bonnie Raitt fan, because country music is of course horrible, but I'll make an exception for this. It is, in truth of fact, a good song. Compare it to something like Leann Rimes' "How Do I Live" which is overwrought and insipid.
Breathe (2AM) - I thought this was pretty good when it first came out, and I still have no idea who this Anna Nalick person is, but it was quickly overplayed. It may still be a good song, but it needs a few years of non-rotation before I'll stop Next Track'ing it on the iPod.
The Blower's Daughter - I still think this song is almost over-the-top in its sadness quotient, but then I was on BART and some dude (seriously) had it as his ringtone. The subsequent douchebag-association has been just too powerful to overcome.
I thought this would be a longer list, but I never legitimately liked the other songs I could put on here. I thought of the idea when "All I Wanna Do is Make Love..." came on the radio this morning. But that song is pretty crappy, and I've never liked it. Go figure.
*That's what she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)