That Was Me! Sort of.

Today's Post has a not-at-all shocking story on just how illegal the hiring practices at DOJ were during the Bush administration. We all knew this--even if some ardent Bush supporters insisted that no wrongdoing occurred--but now there's an "official report" providing details as to how widespread and unethical their conduct had been.

Because everything, eventually, can be turned around to be about me, I point you towards this bit near the end:

Last month, Fine disclosed that hundreds of candidates for summer law intern and elite entry-level honors program jobs had been excluded from hiring pools because of their Democratic affiliations or membership in environmental and social justice groups.

Guess what! I totally applied for a summer internship at DOJ (Dept. of Computer Crimes or possibly Intellectual Property Enforcement, I forget the actual name) and now, despite my lackluster grades, I can claim discrimination.

One of my few "accomplishments" up until law school was being President of the Virginia Tech Young Democrats for a brief period (1999-2000). It entailed far less work than the title implies, but hey--President! That goes right on the ol' resume.

When I apply for jobs, I occasionally take it off. It depends on the job, but most of the time it stays. It's an example of leadership and all that hokum. Of course I left that on my resume when applying to Justice, because it was for a freakin' internship. Like anybody cares about political leanings at that level.

To be frank, I'm betting it was less the mention of the YD association, and more my mediocre academic profile. But this may be my only chance as a white male to experience some form of discrimination, so I'm going to let it bug me a little bit.

Capitalism Bleargh

This is part of a continuing series wherein I insure that I can never be elected President because I post inflammatory anti-American statements on the Internet.

One of the most annoying business practices that I've ever run across--and something that, I believer, typifies the capitalist idea of profit maximization at all costs--is the policy of automatic denial.

This is used in a number of different ways, the most egregious being when an insurance company decides to immediately deny any/all claims that are made. Of course, in California it's illegal to do that (hooray for our industry-destroying regulatory system!) but when you deal with smaller insurance companies that don't have a need to put everything down in writing, it rears its fugly head.

But this post isn't just about insurance companies, who we can all agree are sort of jerktastic as a rule. This method is also used in business-to-business with depressing frequency. The idea there is that if you question line items in a bill (say, for completely random example that in no way relates to my life, bills to a company for legal services) every time you receive such a bill, at least a handful of service providers will simply accept your nonsensical or baseless reduction.

It's bottom-line effective, I'm sure. If you just "declare" that you're cutting all bills you owe by 15%, some will fight you and others will shrug and figure arguing is not worth their time. Some may not even notice the reduction.

The downside is obvious. Those of us doing legitimate work and having our billing questioned for no reason other than to bully us into taking a reduced amount--again, for no discernible reason--are demoralized. It's professionally insulting, and I'm betting that with less scrupulous service providers, it leads quite quickly to bill inflation.

I understand how services are rendered in business-to-business scenarios. You want the best work for the lowest cost possible. If you can find better service providers for lower, by all means hire them. But this (fairly commonplace) method of cost reduction is just slimy, no two ways about it.

Maybe it's unfair to blame this on capitalism. Perhaps it's just a pendulum, like so many things, and now it's nearing the end of its swing back in favor of the corporate clients. In years past--I've been told--insurance companies were routinely beat up by the law firms they employed, and billing spiraled out of control. The market corrected itself, but like every other time a market corrects a flaw in the system, it's now overcompensating.

If My Life Were Covered by Us Magazine Blind Items

ITEM! It was a veritable who's who of Bay Area royalty Saturday night at the marriage of two of the city's most accomplished individuals. The night went off without a hitch, and even though reporters were summarily banned from the reception, an insider tells us it was all smiles, cake and an open bar--at least until the event wound down and one particular guest couldn't quite keep his bar tab from "resurfacing", if you get our drift. He was, however, kindly driven back to his hotel by one of the few remaining Bay Area bachelors we still swoon over. Sources say a donation towards a wax and detail job was made to cover any damage to the good samaritan's custom-built luxury car.

ITEM! The same above heartthrob-on-the-Bay attempted to go incognito Tuesday night to an evening showing of The Dark Knight--but had to settle for Hellboy 2 when all the showtimes were taken! Even this lawyerly lothario's star presence couldn't swing a ticket to the sold out Bale-based bat flic. Sources tell us he seemed to enjoy the replacement film, however; maybe thinking back to his tryst with the film's lovely leading lady during her promotional tour in the south of France?

Too Much Connectivity?

Plenty has already been said about the ease of keeping in touch these days. We all carry our phones around with us, and have email, texting, and Facebook. Some have webcams, some use internet forums and message boards as well.

But you also get to look back in time, which is a bit alarming. Back to people you knew 10 or 15 years ago, but that have gone another direction in life. This chick in the UK decided to look all hers up with almost uniformly unimpressive results. Granted, she was apparently a raging alcoholic for most of her life, but it again raises the question: is such easy access to our past good, bad, or ultimately trivial?

It's not just exes that make this question relevant, though that's where the line becomes blurred. Looking up old friends, after all, would seem to be relatively harmless. Maybe you stopped being friends for a reason; maybe it was just distance or time or circumstance.

Looking up exes, on the other hand... that's where the question becomes interesting. Is it healthy? Is it a Really Big Deal, or is it about as nostalgically momentous as catching a rerun of Diff'rent Strokes?

For the longest time, one of them remained a mystery. Armed with an un-Googleable name (akin to "Jane Doe") and an 8-year head start, I had resigned myself to being perpetually curious. Then came Facebook, and "People you may know", and that mystery is completely resolved. It's a rather anticlimactic end, and while I can honestly say I was glad to hear from her and to see she is doing well, it makes me wonder if some things are better left unknown. Is there a benefit to not knowing?

Is it better to leave such things in the murky past? Absent some sort of prior abusive relationship, are such re-connections wise, foolish, or simply innocuous bits of nostalgia?

"Your Perspective Will Shift"

"Chinese" food from Panda Express is inherently shady. I work not but 4 blocks from a legitimate Chinatown (Oakland's, not the over-the-top gaudy and touristy SF Chinatown) but sometimes I don't have time to make that trek. And, as with any authentically ethnic food, you really have to know where to go, lest it becomes too authentic and your stomach (or psyche) can't handle it.

That's a long intro way of saying yeah, I eat at Panda Express on occasion. It's not bad, the portions are good, and (in my head) it's not nearly the worst thing I could be having for lunch.

But the best part of Panda are the fortune cookies. Of course they're mass-produced in a factory somewhere, and I'm not one for superstition so I don't really believe in their prognosticatory value. I won't even go into how plaaaayed adding "in bed" is after these things. But Panda's fortunes are consistently funny, or poignant, without being lame or too "Confucius says"-y.

So today, I got "Your Perspective Will Shift". In the past, I've gotten way-off-the-mark missives such as "You will be recognized and honored as a community leader," and "You will soon be gifted with gold pieces."

I enjoy the randomness of these fortunes. They are better than more generic "You will find happiness soon" or "A change of fortune is just around the corner" crap that you usually see.

Will my perspective shift? I'm not sure in what way, but I'm now on the lookout for a good spiritual kick to the head. Why would anybody turn that down?

A Tale of 7 Beers (and 1 Shot)

Thursday Night: We finished a mediation and settled it with a fairly good recovery for our client. The opposing counsel, however, was completely off his rocker. He tried to pick a fight with my boss, then with the mediator (a retired judge!) and freaked out his client badly. I'm amazed we settled, and afterwards necessary beers were had.
Count: 2 Bass Ale

Friday Night: Annual firm night out at the Oakland A's. They were playing the Angels, and we tailgated for a couple hours before the game. Met the significant others of a few of our associates, and had some good BBQ. After the game, there were fireworks, and they were really impressive. Surprisingly impressive! I had forgotten how cool the final 45 seconds can be when they just go apeshit with the 'works.
Count: 3 Pacificos, 1 Heineken, and a shot of Don Julio

Saturday Night: Impromptu visit to a tiki bar in Alameda. Amazing interior--they really don't skimp on the tikiness--and great people-watching. There were gigantic flaming drinks but we decided they'd probably kill us via burning or alcohol poisoning and opted for beers instead. A good time was had.
Count: 2 Hefeweizen, brand unknown

I know, some people just have 7 beers in one night (or 2 hours, you know who you are) but this was a lot for me. Then again, I didn't get even a little drunk except for a brief period of buzzedness about 20 minutes after the Don Julio. Mexican bastard.

Does Hancock Suck?

Let's get this out of the way first - it was an entertaining movie, no doubt about that. But was it crappy entertaining, or something else?

It's tough to discuss because I don't want to ruin any of the movie for those who haven't seen it yet. I'm assuming that most of the 3 people who read my blog.

The first 40 minutes are standard hero stuff with a small twist which we all know from the trailers. He's a drunk asshole. But he can fly and whatnot! Entertaining but not mind-blowing.

There is a twist about halfway through, and it's quite possible it made it a much more interesting movie; or, it made it even stupider.

One theory is that it needed to be explained better. Superhero movies are all about the mythology--you don't just assume Spider-Man has his powers, you see or are given a detailed explanation of what they are, where they come from, and the like. Hancock screwed with that formula a bit, and I think thats annoying some of the standard summer-movie watchers.

But I present this alternative: in leaving some areas purposely unexplained, the movie may have opened the door to a much deeper and more interesting back story. It did it clumsily, if that was its purpose, because Hancock is still trying hard to be a popcorn summer blockbuster, but the potential is there.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm not sure. At least one critic agrees with me but most do not. As I've noted before*, critics are idiots when it comes to movies released between May and August, so their collective opinions are for shite.

*Maybe I haven't noted this before. In a nutshell, movie critics like their summer movies without much depth and with a lot of bang, because that's what they think summer movie audiences want. And while they're not wrong, they tend to skewer movies that don't fit that mold (see, e.g., the first Hulk, a film I will forever consider completely underrated) because they "dare" to present more than just comic book art brought to life. Release those same movies in "Oscar season" (the late fall) and the same critics would praise it for having the audacity to give depth to a superhero story.

I Drink It Up

It was a fairly quiet weekend, but I managed to knock out a couple of movies, and as is the custom and practice, I will now foist my unrequested opinions on you all.

Beowulf - I had the "Director's Cut" from Netflix, but having not seen the original in the theater when it came out, I don't know what the difference is. It wasn't in 3D, obviously, but it's funny to see all the 3D cutesy crap the filmmakers threw in. Like big spears coming at you and whatnot--except, without 3D they just look really badly proportioned. It was entertaining, I will give it that. Also more violent than I expected, and the "animation" (for lack of a better word) was pretty interesting. I thought it was more entertaining and slightly more comprehensible than Beowulf & Grendel. Though B&G was probably more accurate per the times and whatnot. No dragons in that one, ya see.

There Will Be Blood - Holy christ is Daniel Day-Lewis a good actor. I mean, has he ever phoned in a performance? I haven't seen a bunch of his movies--they are very heavy and most keep getting bumped down my Netflix list for popcorn crap like Jumper--but I can't recall the last time I was this impressed by a performance. It makes sense that he only does a movie every couple of years, because it seems like he must disappear into these roles. Good god. I liked this better than No Country for Old Men, for what it's worth.

Wanted - (long, drawn-out sigh). Where to start. The good? Well, Ms. Jolie is of course, fairly smokin' if a bit skeletorish these days. McAvoy is a pretty capable actor. Some of the effects were pretty good... But damn, people. I didn't like the main character much, he went from complete wuss to complete ass with only a 3-second layover Decencyville. The plot didn't make a hell of a lot of sense, which maybe was intentional, and the "twist" was kind of stupid. Riddle me this: why would assassins who can bend bullets and hit targets that are miles away have trouble shooting from a moving car? Because they're in a stupid, if visually impressive, movie. I've seen the director's Russian films (Night Watch and Day Watch, anyway) and I will admit Wanted was slightly more understandable, but not as good. The Watches suffered more from a low budget, and Wanted suffers from its insidious counterpart, too-much-money-for-effects syndrome. This one is definitely made for DVD.

Let's Get Down to Business

People, some things need to be changed around here.

Here being me. Around me.

You can really only look at so many pictures of yourself before you realize you are headed down an out-of-shape path that should be abandoned as quickly as possible. Yes, if I had better posture I might not notice anything, but I've always had bad posture.

Because it's always hard to stick to things, especially when you're doing it only through your own willpower--and many of you may recall my willpower tends to be intermittent at best--I figured I'd throw it onto the web for all to see.

The Situation
I currently weigh, according to my inaccurate bathroom scale, 209 pounds. This is not bad for my height (6'3") but it is "overweight" according to the deeply flawed BMI system. The system, however, is deeply flawed for reasons unrelated to my particular situation; my weight is not "all muscle".

The Plan
Step One: Eating better. Enough is enough with the fast food; it used to be that my lifestyle and metabolism could keep up, but now that I've been office-bound for more than a year, my metabolism can't handle the load. It's also healthy for a wide variety of other reasons, not the least of which is that I rarely feel "good" after eating from Wendy's or Taco Bell. Yes, even Wendy's. It's the end of an era.

Also, no more soda. Not even diet (which tastes horrible, so that won't be a problem). The caffeine isn't that great for you and the sugar in soda is ridiculous. I'm also cutting down on Starbucks to 1 or 2 times a week, tops, instead of 4-5.

Step Two: I dislike working out and I don't belong to a gym. I also don't feel like I have "time" because there are things I like to do to which I give preference. But I do occasionally enjoy a good run, and the "high" afterwards is pretty great. So I'm going to step that up as well, and after a few weeks of running and mild weight-training, I may join the overpriced gym right next door.

The Goal
To be less than 200 pounds again. I don't need washboard abs or anything like that, but my body has the capacity for a great deal more endurance and strength than current operational levels. I used to be able to run 7+ miles without stopping or walking. Granted, that was when I was 18, but it seems theoretically achievable.

Status: 209 lbs
No Soda: -4 days
No Fast Food: -3 days

Comments are, of course, welcome. I'd just turn them off if they weren't.