With the big trip coming up, I thought I'd try to document things using the slick and simple Tumblr interface.
This blog isn't going anywhere (yet--I will probably end it and start anew when I've moved to DC) but for move-related info, pics, and so forth, you'll want to visit:
SF to DC
I'm new to Tumblr but I think it's pretty great for random stuff, or very specific blogs. I hope mine is a mix of the two.
For those keeping score, I am now active on Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Google Reader, Gmail, and Gchat. I might have to scale back at some point...
October 13, 2009
October 7, 2009
Where To Begin?
So many topics to potentially discuss. Let's get the obvious one out of the way, shall we:
1. I'm moving to D.C.! The time has come, the grand curtain has fallen on this crazy California experiment of mine. It has been a great 7 years on the west coast, no doubt, but for a wide variety of reasons, it's time to wrap it up.
The nuts and bolts, FAQ, quick factoid summary is this: I don't have a job in DC yet, but have several strong leads and will be blasting my super impressive resume to everybody who's ever even HEARD of a lawyer in that town.
I am leaving California the last week of October, and hope to return in 4-5 days. It's a bit of a drive which I am currently doing by myself, but am entertaining the possibility of having some peeps join me during portions of the trip. It is kind of long and boring to ask any one of you to do the whole thing, but if anyone wants to fly to SF to start it off, and then fly back from Denver or somewhere else in the middle, email me. We'll talk.
I will miss California. Quite a bit. But it's just a state with fairly nice weather, and the people I care about (non-professionally) are elsewhere.
California To-Do
Quit my job
Quit my apartment
Sell my furniture
Go to Muir Woods and/or the Headlands once more
Finish potential tattoo design
Lunches with my Bay Area peeps
Salvation Army a ton of clothes
Plot a route, with stopping points
Forward my mail
What did I forget?
2. The Tigers make me so, so very sad. Everyone keeps saying they fought a good fight last night, and while it's true -- it was, objectively and subjectively, a great game -- it ignores the fact that the game never should have been played. The Tigers had a small but solid lock on the division title, and all they had to do was play barely passable .500 ball for the last few weeks. Instead, they got swept by the lowly Royals, and a week after that lost their series matchups against the Royals again, Minnesota, and Chicago--three teams that they are supposed to beat routinely.
Leyland says "we have nobody to blame but ourselves." No shit sherlock, you guys suck. Nobody in the history of baseball has imploded this badly at the end of the season. I mean, you can argue that it's fine because they clearly would have been outclassed during the playoffs, but geez. Unless the Twins go to the Series this year, you can't even argue that this entire season hasn't been a complete waste.
3. I had a rant about Letterman but the Tigers pissed me off again, so I forgot. I think it was basically: we don't know any of the details of his relationship, except that the chick was younger and worked for him. While this is bad for HR purposes, the moral reprehensibility is undetermined. We don't know anything about the nature of this relationship, and to assume that he was praying on a poor defenseless (female) staffer is rather sexist. They are both adults, as far as we know, and it is rampant speculation to assume that she was a) trying to sleep her way to success, or b) the victim of unwanted sexual advances by a powerful superior.
We have nothing to suggest either is true. It's really just a private matter between the parties involved and their spouses. I can appreciate that it "draws attention" to workplace inequity, but only because these are coworkers that had a relationship. Not because of the inequity, which is only suggested.
I guess I remembered more than I thought. It bugs me when people assume that women are being preyed upon simply because they have sex with someone that isn't their professional equal. When men do that, nobody bats an eye. It's unfair and inherently sexist.
1. I'm moving to D.C.! The time has come, the grand curtain has fallen on this crazy California experiment of mine. It has been a great 7 years on the west coast, no doubt, but for a wide variety of reasons, it's time to wrap it up.
The nuts and bolts, FAQ, quick factoid summary is this: I don't have a job in DC yet, but have several strong leads and will be blasting my super impressive resume to everybody who's ever even HEARD of a lawyer in that town.
I am leaving California the last week of October, and hope to return in 4-5 days. It's a bit of a drive which I am currently doing by myself, but am entertaining the possibility of having some peeps join me during portions of the trip. It is kind of long and boring to ask any one of you to do the whole thing, but if anyone wants to fly to SF to start it off, and then fly back from Denver or somewhere else in the middle, email me. We'll talk.
I will miss California. Quite a bit. But it's just a state with fairly nice weather, and the people I care about (non-professionally) are elsewhere.
California To-Do
Sell my furniture
Go to Muir Woods and/or the Headlands once more
Finish potential tattoo design
Lunches with my Bay Area peeps
Salvation Army a ton of clothes
Plot a route, with stopping points
Forward my mail
What did I forget?
2. The Tigers make me so, so very sad. Everyone keeps saying they fought a good fight last night, and while it's true -- it was, objectively and subjectively, a great game -- it ignores the fact that the game never should have been played. The Tigers had a small but solid lock on the division title, and all they had to do was play barely passable .500 ball for the last few weeks. Instead, they got swept by the lowly Royals, and a week after that lost their series matchups against the Royals again, Minnesota, and Chicago--three teams that they are supposed to beat routinely.
Leyland says "we have nobody to blame but ourselves." No shit sherlock, you guys suck. Nobody in the history of baseball has imploded this badly at the end of the season. I mean, you can argue that it's fine because they clearly would have been outclassed during the playoffs, but geez. Unless the Twins go to the Series this year, you can't even argue that this entire season hasn't been a complete waste.
3. I had a rant about Letterman but the Tigers pissed me off again, so I forgot. I think it was basically: we don't know any of the details of his relationship, except that the chick was younger and worked for him. While this is bad for HR purposes, the moral reprehensibility is undetermined. We don't know anything about the nature of this relationship, and to assume that he was praying on a poor defenseless (female) staffer is rather sexist. They are both adults, as far as we know, and it is rampant speculation to assume that she was a) trying to sleep her way to success, or b) the victim of unwanted sexual advances by a powerful superior.
We have nothing to suggest either is true. It's really just a private matter between the parties involved and their spouses. I can appreciate that it "draws attention" to workplace inequity, but only because these are coworkers that had a relationship. Not because of the inequity, which is only suggested.
I guess I remembered more than I thought. It bugs me when people assume that women are being preyed upon simply because they have sex with someone that isn't their professional equal. When men do that, nobody bats an eye. It's unfair and inherently sexist.
September 29, 2009
No No No No No No No. No.
This Roman Polanski shit has got to stop. His ass needs to get sentenced to some serious time--five or more years at least. And I only say five because the old bastard is 76 and that's like, 15 years to you or me. Well, not you Grandma.
First, a disclaimer: the original case turns on some thorny procedural issues that I've never read a straight answer on. He pled guilty, got a plea bargain that the judge apparently threw out as way to lenient (I believe it was time served, 42 days, but I could be wrong) and when the judge indicated it was going to be serious time, he fled the country.
FLED THE COUNTRY, ya'll. So let's look at the facts thus far, shall we?
1. Nobody argues that he didn't have sex--some crazy sodomy sex, too--with a 13-year-old girl. He did. He says he thought she was 17, there's some hearsay evidence that she was put in the position by her showbiz-crazy mom, and so forth. But ultimately, personal responsibility dude: you had sex with a child. Strikes one, two and three. And hey, how about strike four while we're at it.
2. HE FLED THE COUNTRY. You can't just run away from the legal system if you think you're being screwed. That's not how it works. If the judge was CRAZY out of line with his actions, you file a complaint, get a new judge, and appeal. Not cheap but quite easy to do, procedurally. What don't you do? FLEE THE COUNTRY like some spoiled Hollywood douchebag.
3. The victim is old as hell now, and basically says we should all let it go. I respect her thoughts on the subject, but sorry: it's not yours to finish. Rape is a serious, serious crime. Some argue it's equal to or worse than murder; I make no such claims but if it takes a backseat to murder, it's a close backseat, like the kind in a Porsche.
So it's not up to you, darlin'. It's up to the People of the State of California, and here's why: people can't think that this is acceptable behavior. The rape AND the subsequent retreat to Europe make this doubly true. If he had "just" raped this girl 30 years ago, and was terribly sorry and sought to atone for his sins by making excellent movies (? as if that's really atonement, but I'll let it slide for the moment), I might say 6 months in prison and 1500 hours of community service or something, given the fact that the victim doesn't want to press charges.
But he fled. He didn't face up to what he did, and NEVER HAS. As a lawyer, I have to say, and pardon my language, fuck THAT shit. It's reprehensible behavior for which he has never been held accountable.
"He's suffered enough!" WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. He's lived in France, and while some might call that suffering, it's hardly prison. It's nothing. He's continued to live his life.
"He has lived a model life since then." Totally true if you ignore the FLEEING THE COUNTRY PART. That's not model, it smacks of egotism and shows no remorse. Model life (if that's the case) negated.
"This is a waste of taxpayer money." Somewhat true. But if we didn't prosecute people that were tough to catch, what the hell kind of system would be left with? You prosecute everyone that breaks the law, regardless of the financial burden, if the evidence is there.
Some of ya'll may remember my last post, on that Pan Am bomber that got sent home early. I mentioned justice quite a bit, and this situation proves just how fragile the notion of true justice is. The Libyan was tried, convicted, and ultimately sent home for compassionate reasons.
Polanski has done nothing--nothing--to warrant compassion at this point. He is a gifted director who has never been held responsible for his terrible crime. And in this case, justice has no statute of limitations. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Also, what the fuck are THESE guys smoking? Talk about demonstrating how out of touch you are. Pathetic.
First, a disclaimer: the original case turns on some thorny procedural issues that I've never read a straight answer on. He pled guilty, got a plea bargain that the judge apparently threw out as way to lenient (I believe it was time served, 42 days, but I could be wrong) and when the judge indicated it was going to be serious time, he fled the country.
FLED THE COUNTRY, ya'll. So let's look at the facts thus far, shall we?
1. Nobody argues that he didn't have sex--some crazy sodomy sex, too--with a 13-year-old girl. He did. He says he thought she was 17, there's some hearsay evidence that she was put in the position by her showbiz-crazy mom, and so forth. But ultimately, personal responsibility dude: you had sex with a child. Strikes one, two and three. And hey, how about strike four while we're at it.
2. HE FLED THE COUNTRY. You can't just run away from the legal system if you think you're being screwed. That's not how it works. If the judge was CRAZY out of line with his actions, you file a complaint, get a new judge, and appeal. Not cheap but quite easy to do, procedurally. What don't you do? FLEE THE COUNTRY like some spoiled Hollywood douchebag.
3. The victim is old as hell now, and basically says we should all let it go. I respect her thoughts on the subject, but sorry: it's not yours to finish. Rape is a serious, serious crime. Some argue it's equal to or worse than murder; I make no such claims but if it takes a backseat to murder, it's a close backseat, like the kind in a Porsche.
So it's not up to you, darlin'. It's up to the People of the State of California, and here's why: people can't think that this is acceptable behavior. The rape AND the subsequent retreat to Europe make this doubly true. If he had "just" raped this girl 30 years ago, and was terribly sorry and sought to atone for his sins by making excellent movies (? as if that's really atonement, but I'll let it slide for the moment), I might say 6 months in prison and 1500 hours of community service or something, given the fact that the victim doesn't want to press charges.
But he fled. He didn't face up to what he did, and NEVER HAS. As a lawyer, I have to say, and pardon my language, fuck THAT shit. It's reprehensible behavior for which he has never been held accountable.
"He's suffered enough!" WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. He's lived in France, and while some might call that suffering, it's hardly prison. It's nothing. He's continued to live his life.
"He has lived a model life since then." Totally true if you ignore the FLEEING THE COUNTRY PART. That's not model, it smacks of egotism and shows no remorse. Model life (if that's the case) negated.
"This is a waste of taxpayer money." Somewhat true. But if we didn't prosecute people that were tough to catch, what the hell kind of system would be left with? You prosecute everyone that breaks the law, regardless of the financial burden, if the evidence is there.
Some of ya'll may remember my last post, on that Pan Am bomber that got sent home early. I mentioned justice quite a bit, and this situation proves just how fragile the notion of true justice is. The Libyan was tried, convicted, and ultimately sent home for compassionate reasons.
Polanski has done nothing--nothing--to warrant compassion at this point. He is a gifted director who has never been held responsible for his terrible crime. And in this case, justice has no statute of limitations. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Also, what the fuck are THESE guys smoking? Talk about demonstrating how out of touch you are. Pathetic.
September 15, 2009
Racism in Dissent?
Short answer: no.
It's an easy straw man argument to make for both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and liberals can claim that dissenting arguments are racist because we have a black president; Republicans and conservatives claim that all claims of racism are merely attempts to squelch dissent.
Of course, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. But if Joe Wilson has shown us anything, it's that the default skeptical view should be placed on the conservative argument.
Republicans love to martyr themselves. "Obama wants to crush dissenting voices!" they cry, not noticing that nobody is crushing them at all. "Well, the media won't let us speak!" they shout, apparently unaware that they are doing so on Fox News, a non-vital but significant member of The Media. And of course, if someone suggests that their unformed, vague, and unhelpful "opinion" is the product of an underlying, and racist, distrust of the President, well then you're in trouble, bucko.
Is every conservative opinion racist? Not by the longest of shots. Many are well thought-out, reasonable, and deserve to be considered. Doesn't mean I will ultimately agree, but I appreciate the alternative viewpoint.
But then there's the people who bring guns to townhall meetings. The people who have pictures of Obama as Hitler, or a monkey, or a monkey-Hitler. The people who yell out "You lie!" during the President's speech before Congress. These people add nothing of value whatsoever to the national debate. They are not "courageous" for taking a stand, as some claim. It is not courageous to act like a coward and a fool, especially when you're so very, very wrong. It's also not analogous to every other President; nobody questioned Bush's origins, or McCain's (even though there was just as much "evidence" that McCain was born out of the country as well) and when Clinton was running things, it was all about sex scandals. And nobody--nobody--yelled insults at them during a joint session of Congress. Especially not an elected official.
And for what it's worth, Obama didn't lie. The health care bill has a provision that explicitly disallows the benefits it confers from flowing to illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is not only an uncouth coward, he's also an idiot. Well played, sir.
But is he any stupider than the various townhall attendees, who shout about socialism and fascism without realizing there's a remarkable difference between the two? And is he any stupider than those who elected him and who will, I'm sure, see his pathetic outburst as a source of pride? It's tough to make South Carolina look any worse than it already is, but Wilson sure found a way.
To be fair, I don't trust the liberals who argue that any dissent is based on a foundation of racism, either. It is a foolish message that is tantamount to crying wolf; if every dissent is racist, then we won't be able to rally the outrage necessary when the actual racism rears its ugly head.
Because honestly, contesting the President's country of birth? I don't care how rational you think your argument, it is the height of "The Other"-based fear. Obama is an Other! We have proof! By being an Other, his opinions and ideas are invalid!
It's such complete bullshit that I'm amazed people can stand it. I guess when you have a kernel of an idea at the core (the birth certificate) it just fuels the other issues that haven't found a place to take hold (the racism). But it's sad, and it makes me sad to see our country behave this way.
Then, it makes me angry and I want Obama to win EVERYTHING just to shut those racists bastards up. I gotta find a way to help on that front.
It's an easy straw man argument to make for both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and liberals can claim that dissenting arguments are racist because we have a black president; Republicans and conservatives claim that all claims of racism are merely attempts to squelch dissent.
Of course, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. But if Joe Wilson has shown us anything, it's that the default skeptical view should be placed on the conservative argument.
Republicans love to martyr themselves. "Obama wants to crush dissenting voices!" they cry, not noticing that nobody is crushing them at all. "Well, the media won't let us speak!" they shout, apparently unaware that they are doing so on Fox News, a non-vital but significant member of The Media. And of course, if someone suggests that their unformed, vague, and unhelpful "opinion" is the product of an underlying, and racist, distrust of the President, well then you're in trouble, bucko.
Is every conservative opinion racist? Not by the longest of shots. Many are well thought-out, reasonable, and deserve to be considered. Doesn't mean I will ultimately agree, but I appreciate the alternative viewpoint.
But then there's the people who bring guns to townhall meetings. The people who have pictures of Obama as Hitler, or a monkey, or a monkey-Hitler. The people who yell out "You lie!" during the President's speech before Congress. These people add nothing of value whatsoever to the national debate. They are not "courageous" for taking a stand, as some claim. It is not courageous to act like a coward and a fool, especially when you're so very, very wrong. It's also not analogous to every other President; nobody questioned Bush's origins, or McCain's (even though there was just as much "evidence" that McCain was born out of the country as well) and when Clinton was running things, it was all about sex scandals. And nobody--nobody--yelled insults at them during a joint session of Congress. Especially not an elected official.
And for what it's worth, Obama didn't lie. The health care bill has a provision that explicitly disallows the benefits it confers from flowing to illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is not only an uncouth coward, he's also an idiot. Well played, sir.
But is he any stupider than the various townhall attendees, who shout about socialism and fascism without realizing there's a remarkable difference between the two? And is he any stupider than those who elected him and who will, I'm sure, see his pathetic outburst as a source of pride? It's tough to make South Carolina look any worse than it already is, but Wilson sure found a way.
To be fair, I don't trust the liberals who argue that any dissent is based on a foundation of racism, either. It is a foolish message that is tantamount to crying wolf; if every dissent is racist, then we won't be able to rally the outrage necessary when the actual racism rears its ugly head.
Because honestly, contesting the President's country of birth? I don't care how rational you think your argument, it is the height of "The Other"-based fear. Obama is an Other! We have proof! By being an Other, his opinions and ideas are invalid!
It's such complete bullshit that I'm amazed people can stand it. I guess when you have a kernel of an idea at the core (the birth certificate) it just fuels the other issues that haven't found a place to take hold (the racism). But it's sad, and it makes me sad to see our country behave this way.
Then, it makes me angry and I want Obama to win EVERYTHING just to shut those racists bastards up. I gotta find a way to help on that front.
August 20, 2009
And Now For a Different Point-of-View
Even amongst you like-minded readers, I may get some heat for this one. No worries.
One of the big stories today is that the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was released to return home to Libya. He has terminal cancer of some kind, and it was uniformly agreed he would not live beyond 3 months.
This guy (Megrahi) was convicted in 2001 so he hasn't been in prison very long. And you may recall, the 1988 bombing killed 270 people. But Scottish law--the plane crashed in Lockerbie, so he was tried/imprisoned by the Scots--allows "compassionate" releases of prisoners in Megrahi's situation.
Needless to say, pretty much everybody is against this. I've seen numerous firestorm opinions about how terrible a decision this was by the Scottish government. I've even seen no less than four Facebook status updates decrying his release.
I disagree. I think it's fine.
Why? Because why not. What purpose does it serve to have this man die in prison, as opposed to at home with his family? In fact, it only adds more vitriol and poison into the world. Had he died in prison, it'd be a minor news story and the victims of Flight 103 (the families of those lost) might pause a moment and be glad he's gone from the earth. But is it better that he die in prison? It adds nothing of value. It doesn't make the dead return to life, and it's not, as everyone has been screaming, justice that he die in prison.
Justice means that he was held accountable. I don't recall the specifics of his charges, or what he was ultimately convicted for, but he was caught, tried, and imprisoned. He was brought to justice. His illness makes it virtually impossible for him to cause harm again. Justice was served, and anything beyond that--wishing that he'd die in prison, sick and alone--is vengeance. Vengeance is unbecoming and, while it is an understandable desire for those who have been wronged, it serves no purpose. Vengeance adds nothing to our humanity, and is in fact only a reflection of the baser instincts we should strive to overcome.
I keep reading that Megrahi "didn't have compassion for the victims of 103, why should we give him any?" But compassion is easy to have when it involves your grandmother. It's much tougher to apply when the focus of the compassion is a man that by all accounts is a fairly evil guy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him compassion. It makes us better people having done so.
One of the big stories today is that the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was released to return home to Libya. He has terminal cancer of some kind, and it was uniformly agreed he would not live beyond 3 months.
This guy (Megrahi) was convicted in 2001 so he hasn't been in prison very long. And you may recall, the 1988 bombing killed 270 people. But Scottish law--the plane crashed in Lockerbie, so he was tried/imprisoned by the Scots--allows "compassionate" releases of prisoners in Megrahi's situation.
Needless to say, pretty much everybody is against this. I've seen numerous firestorm opinions about how terrible a decision this was by the Scottish government. I've even seen no less than four Facebook status updates decrying his release.
I disagree. I think it's fine.
Why? Because why not. What purpose does it serve to have this man die in prison, as opposed to at home with his family? In fact, it only adds more vitriol and poison into the world. Had he died in prison, it'd be a minor news story and the victims of Flight 103 (the families of those lost) might pause a moment and be glad he's gone from the earth. But is it better that he die in prison? It adds nothing of value. It doesn't make the dead return to life, and it's not, as everyone has been screaming, justice that he die in prison.
Justice means that he was held accountable. I don't recall the specifics of his charges, or what he was ultimately convicted for, but he was caught, tried, and imprisoned. He was brought to justice. His illness makes it virtually impossible for him to cause harm again. Justice was served, and anything beyond that--wishing that he'd die in prison, sick and alone--is vengeance. Vengeance is unbecoming and, while it is an understandable desire for those who have been wronged, it serves no purpose. Vengeance adds nothing to our humanity, and is in fact only a reflection of the baser instincts we should strive to overcome.
I keep reading that Megrahi "didn't have compassion for the victims of 103, why should we give him any?" But compassion is easy to have when it involves your grandmother. It's much tougher to apply when the focus of the compassion is a man that by all accounts is a fairly evil guy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him compassion. It makes us better people having done so.
August 6, 2009
At Least There No Humidity
Good lord, work is a beast lately. I hope you all didn't get too used to the constant blog updates.
When did August become the busiest month of the year, anyhow? We need to be more like Europe. Or the French. Whoever it is that takes half the summer off, I want to go to there.
When did August become the busiest month of the year, anyhow? We need to be more like Europe. Or the French. Whoever it is that takes half the summer off, I want to go to there.
July 29, 2009
More on Cops
That whole Gates dust-up is still going a bit, with Obama speaking at length on the subject during his press conference last week. And now the three of them (the President, Gates, and the police officer) are having beers or something. Which is a surprisingly pragmatic way to resolve things.
I am sure that this cop is not a bad person. I don't think Gates is a bad person. I think they were both on edge for different reasons, and as I said before, the duty falls to the police in that scenario to keep things rational. They screwed up by arresting him.
I don't have a problem with cops, in general. Lots of generalizations can be made about them, and I do suspect that many of the stereotypes about cops are "more true" in some areas of the country than in others. They have to be on guard all the time, and it leads to a pretty no-nonsense attitude that can be off-putting to the general citizenry.
Especially when the general public hasn't done anything wrong. As was the case with Gates, and as was the case with this guy in Mobile, Alabama, who is tasered and pepper-sprayed by the cops, and then arrested for not leaving a department store bathroom when told. That alone is already beyond stupid, but the clincher is that he was deaf and mentally challenged. Kudos all around, officers.
It's this kind of situation that gives cops a bad name. The inability to think outside the box for just a moment, and to go with brute force when several other possibilities exist. And then--and this is key--to refuse to admit a screw up when it happens. I don't know if it's pride, or some sort of face-saving attitude, but when cops arrive on the scene to find it is not a robbery, or burglary, or trespassing, they need to defuse and walk away. It may be the somewhat militaristic attitude that seeps into police work that gives rise to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude.
Again, I respect the need for safety and caution. When that gentleman in D.C. was shot to death after charging his car into a blockade a few weeks back, I thought it was a reasonable response by the cops. That is not analogous to either of the above situations; when there is danger to life and limb, the scenario is entirely different. I am sorry that man was killed, but it is not the fault of the police (from what I saw; if things came out later, I didn't hear about them).
But there's a difference, and we should expect the police, who are in a position of great authority in this country, to be able to distinguish between the situations. If someone is argumentative but in their house and not committing a crime, walk away. If someone won't come out of a department store bathroom, maybe you have to break the door down eventually but pepper spray? Tasers? Completely unnecessary. They should have busted down the door, recognized the situation, and taken the poor guy for ice cream before returning him home.
I know what it's like to have to stay "above reproach". It's a big part of practicing litigation (at least, the way I practice it) because the ultimate arbiter--the judge--usually appreciates when attorneys don't engage in shenanigans or try and pull one over on the court. Plus, when I lose (it happens, very occasionally) I can feel like I did my best in the situation.
It's not a perfect analogy to police work, but it's worth considering. Or, you can take a note from probably the greatest movie of all time: "Be nice. Ask him to walk. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice."
In Swayze We Trust.
I am sure that this cop is not a bad person. I don't think Gates is a bad person. I think they were both on edge for different reasons, and as I said before, the duty falls to the police in that scenario to keep things rational. They screwed up by arresting him.
I don't have a problem with cops, in general. Lots of generalizations can be made about them, and I do suspect that many of the stereotypes about cops are "more true" in some areas of the country than in others. They have to be on guard all the time, and it leads to a pretty no-nonsense attitude that can be off-putting to the general citizenry.
Especially when the general public hasn't done anything wrong. As was the case with Gates, and as was the case with this guy in Mobile, Alabama, who is tasered and pepper-sprayed by the cops, and then arrested for not leaving a department store bathroom when told. That alone is already beyond stupid, but the clincher is that he was deaf and mentally challenged. Kudos all around, officers.
It's this kind of situation that gives cops a bad name. The inability to think outside the box for just a moment, and to go with brute force when several other possibilities exist. And then--and this is key--to refuse to admit a screw up when it happens. I don't know if it's pride, or some sort of face-saving attitude, but when cops arrive on the scene to find it is not a robbery, or burglary, or trespassing, they need to defuse and walk away. It may be the somewhat militaristic attitude that seeps into police work that gives rise to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude.
Again, I respect the need for safety and caution. When that gentleman in D.C. was shot to death after charging his car into a blockade a few weeks back, I thought it was a reasonable response by the cops. That is not analogous to either of the above situations; when there is danger to life and limb, the scenario is entirely different. I am sorry that man was killed, but it is not the fault of the police (from what I saw; if things came out later, I didn't hear about them).
But there's a difference, and we should expect the police, who are in a position of great authority in this country, to be able to distinguish between the situations. If someone is argumentative but in their house and not committing a crime, walk away. If someone won't come out of a department store bathroom, maybe you have to break the door down eventually but pepper spray? Tasers? Completely unnecessary. They should have busted down the door, recognized the situation, and taken the poor guy for ice cream before returning him home.
I know what it's like to have to stay "above reproach". It's a big part of practicing litigation (at least, the way I practice it) because the ultimate arbiter--the judge--usually appreciates when attorneys don't engage in shenanigans or try and pull one over on the court. Plus, when I lose (it happens, very occasionally) I can feel like I did my best in the situation.
It's not a perfect analogy to police work, but it's worth considering. Or, you can take a note from probably the greatest movie of all time: "Be nice. Ask him to walk. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice."
In Swayze We Trust.
July 27, 2009
Look, I'm a 50s-Era Ad Guy
Courtesy of AMC, here I am engaging in some ribald talk with Zoe Bartlett, highball in hand. Whenever I put together this kind of picture (like when you Simpsonize yourself, etc.) I am always sort of sad at how basically white I am. Brown hair, brown eyes, no real flair. Plus, I put myself in a suit, as is the custom of my profession, so I look even less interesting. But then I gave myself some tired looking eyes, which I think is accurate these days.
I actually just started watching Mad Men (the source of this pic) and while it was a little slow for a couple of episodes--perhaps because I was boned tired Saturday night--the beauty of Blu-Ray gave me 5 to watch on one disc, and I am now pretty hooked.
Why was I bone tired? Because I built this on Saturday:
That big wall on the right of the picture was already framed, but we sheetrock'd it and then raised it up, like the Amish and their barn shenanigans, but probably not as bearded.
Then we unloaded lumber and framed two more walls, including the one on the left, which we raised and centered and all that jazz. It was probably the most accomplished I've felt at a Habitat outing, simply because it was the structure instead of finishing (flooring or siding) that I'd done previously.
But boy howdy I was tired. And then on Sunday, exquisitely sore. In that really good way.
July 23, 2009
Mixed Results
Awhile back, I posted that I was changing things up a bit. Healthier living, etc. I just thought that, in the interest of keeping myself honest, I should provide an update. And also, because Sue asked in the comments last time and I forgot to respond.
I haven't had fast food as a "regular" meal since that day. I have had it in airports and once when everything else was closed at like 10:30pm, but I was enabled to do so by the healthiest and most in-shape person I know so I don't count that either. I'd give myself an A- or B+ on that aspect. My avoidance of soda has also continued pretty much unabated (with the same occasional travel-related exceptions).
The second part of the equation, exercise, has met with less resounding success. I continue to have ankle pain after runs of any distance (2.5 miles or more) and the pain sometimes lasts for 3-5 days. Some good post-run stretching advice put the kibosh on most of it, but every now and then it pops back up and ruins my week for running. It is frustrating, and I am concerned that it is because I still weigh too much. C+ for running.
On that topic, I was approximately 233 pounds back in the winter. I am now between 215 and 220 depending on the day. It is a good start, but if I can't get past this running thing, I fear I will plateau where I am. Suggestions are welcome. B- for weight lost.
I haven't had fast food as a "regular" meal since that day. I have had it in airports and once when everything else was closed at like 10:30pm, but I was enabled to do so by the healthiest and most in-shape person I know so I don't count that either. I'd give myself an A- or B+ on that aspect. My avoidance of soda has also continued pretty much unabated (with the same occasional travel-related exceptions).
The second part of the equation, exercise, has met with less resounding success. I continue to have ankle pain after runs of any distance (2.5 miles or more) and the pain sometimes lasts for 3-5 days. Some good post-run stretching advice put the kibosh on most of it, but every now and then it pops back up and ruins my week for running. It is frustrating, and I am concerned that it is because I still weigh too much. C+ for running.
On that topic, I was approximately 233 pounds back in the winter. I am now between 215 and 220 depending on the day. It is a good start, but if I can't get past this running thing, I fear I will plateau where I am. Suggestions are welcome. B- for weight lost.
July 22, 2009
But Your Home is Your Home
(3 posts in as many days! Don't fret, I'll disappear again soon I'm sure.)
UPDATE: See, Obama agrees with me. But man, he went on at length. Somebody is going to take issue (wrongly) with the "police acted stupidly" portion. Even though it was the police "acted stupidly in arresting him after they had discovered no crime taking place." Which is 100% truth.
-----------------------
There's been a minor news story making the rounds lately concerning Henry Louis Gates, a professor at Harvard, being arrested for (basically) breaking into his own house. You can read more about it here, though most of the story is reaction now.
Mr. Gates has alleged that he is the victim of profiling and racism by the police. Of course, because this isn't a cut-and-dry case, he is now receiving a lot of flack for his own less-than-perfect role in the ordeal.
It broke down like this: Gates returns home from a trip to find his front door jammed. I'm unclear as to why--maybe an attempted B&E while he was out of town, or just weather--but he had to go around back to unlock the door. He did so, and returned to the front door but still couldn't open it. His driver helped him force it open. A neighbor, apparently saw all this and called the police, reporting that two black men were breaking into the house. In broad daylight, of course. And Gates walks with a cane, like most burglars.
I'll stop right there because that, my friends, is racism. I don't know the neighbor's goals or purposes, but calling the police on your black neighbor because he is trying to force open his door is extraordinarily shady. It is not, as some say, "being a responsible neighbor" because if you were responsible, you'd know he was your neighbor.
Skip ahead, though, to where Gates is inside and on the phone to see about repairs to the front door when the police arrive. Now, I don't know the specifics of what they saw, and we never will now that this has become a big deal, but if you see a 60+ bespectacled man on the phone in an allegedly broken-into house, and he walks over to you with a cane, you might assume right off the bat that he's not a burglar.
The problems arose when the police refused to show Gates their badges, and Gates got super pissed about being accused of burglarizing his own house. These were both unreasonable errors; however Gates is a private citizen and is allowed to be pissed off, unreasonable, and generally rude while in his own home. Police need probable cause or a warrant to enter your house, and for good reason. It is your home, and--surprising libertarian bent on my part--you shouldn't be made to do anything you don't want to do inside your own home.
But the police are not entitled to be rude, disrespectful, and unreasonable. They are the police, and to enforce the law with clean hands, you have to play everything above board. If they had simply received his identification and left, Gates could have made a stink about it but he'd have far less ammunition.
Instead, they refused to give their names, and insisted Gates step outside to discuss the situation. That's unusual by itself, because it indicates that the police did, in fact, have an idea that he lived there, because otherwise they'd have probable cause to go in and get him as a "burglar". When he did come outside, they arrested him for disorderly conduct. On his own porch.
That is some serious bull. Gates, and everybody else, is completely allowed to be an asshole to people while in his own home. You don't have to be his friend or visit him if he is. The police do not have a right to pull you out of your home, no matter how belligerent you are, without probable cause or a warrant for your arrest. These guys had neither, and made the colossally bad decision of arresting one of the nation's most eminent scholars on a trumped up charge.
I'm not saying Gates has clean hands here. It is easy to say he should have held back on the race card business, but when you've studied profiling for years, and then find out your idiot neighbor called the cops because they thought you were breaking into your own house, you're allowed to be skeptical. And then the police fed right into his skepticism by harassing and arresting him.
Anyway, ya'll know I'm not black. I don't pretend to understand what it's like to be profiled. But I understand how pissed off I would be if someone--race aside--called the police on me in my own home. It's up to the police to act professionally, and boy did they fail miserably.
Final tally: one racist neighbor, one asshole cop, and one jerk academic. But the seeming tie between the cop and academic goes to the academic, who was at home.
UPDATE: See, Obama agrees with me. But man, he went on at length. Somebody is going to take issue (wrongly) with the "police acted stupidly" portion. Even though it was the police "acted stupidly in arresting him after they had discovered no crime taking place." Which is 100% truth.
-----------------------
There's been a minor news story making the rounds lately concerning Henry Louis Gates, a professor at Harvard, being arrested for (basically) breaking into his own house. You can read more about it here, though most of the story is reaction now.
Mr. Gates has alleged that he is the victim of profiling and racism by the police. Of course, because this isn't a cut-and-dry case, he is now receiving a lot of flack for his own less-than-perfect role in the ordeal.
It broke down like this: Gates returns home from a trip to find his front door jammed. I'm unclear as to why--maybe an attempted B&E while he was out of town, or just weather--but he had to go around back to unlock the door. He did so, and returned to the front door but still couldn't open it. His driver helped him force it open. A neighbor, apparently saw all this and called the police, reporting that two black men were breaking into the house. In broad daylight, of course. And Gates walks with a cane, like most burglars.
I'll stop right there because that, my friends, is racism. I don't know the neighbor's goals or purposes, but calling the police on your black neighbor because he is trying to force open his door is extraordinarily shady. It is not, as some say, "being a responsible neighbor" because if you were responsible, you'd know he was your neighbor.
Skip ahead, though, to where Gates is inside and on the phone to see about repairs to the front door when the police arrive. Now, I don't know the specifics of what they saw, and we never will now that this has become a big deal, but if you see a 60+ bespectacled man on the phone in an allegedly broken-into house, and he walks over to you with a cane, you might assume right off the bat that he's not a burglar.
The problems arose when the police refused to show Gates their badges, and Gates got super pissed about being accused of burglarizing his own house. These were both unreasonable errors; however Gates is a private citizen and is allowed to be pissed off, unreasonable, and generally rude while in his own home. Police need probable cause or a warrant to enter your house, and for good reason. It is your home, and--surprising libertarian bent on my part--you shouldn't be made to do anything you don't want to do inside your own home.
But the police are not entitled to be rude, disrespectful, and unreasonable. They are the police, and to enforce the law with clean hands, you have to play everything above board. If they had simply received his identification and left, Gates could have made a stink about it but he'd have far less ammunition.
Instead, they refused to give their names, and insisted Gates step outside to discuss the situation. That's unusual by itself, because it indicates that the police did, in fact, have an idea that he lived there, because otherwise they'd have probable cause to go in and get him as a "burglar". When he did come outside, they arrested him for disorderly conduct. On his own porch.
That is some serious bull. Gates, and everybody else, is completely allowed to be an asshole to people while in his own home. You don't have to be his friend or visit him if he is. The police do not have a right to pull you out of your home, no matter how belligerent you are, without probable cause or a warrant for your arrest. These guys had neither, and made the colossally bad decision of arresting one of the nation's most eminent scholars on a trumped up charge.
I'm not saying Gates has clean hands here. It is easy to say he should have held back on the race card business, but when you've studied profiling for years, and then find out your idiot neighbor called the cops because they thought you were breaking into your own house, you're allowed to be skeptical. And then the police fed right into his skepticism by harassing and arresting him.
Anyway, ya'll know I'm not black. I don't pretend to understand what it's like to be profiled. But I understand how pissed off I would be if someone--race aside--called the police on me in my own home. It's up to the police to act professionally, and boy did they fail miserably.
Final tally: one racist neighbor, one asshole cop, and one jerk academic. But the seeming tie between the cop and academic goes to the academic, who was at home.
July 21, 2009
Movie Cliff's Notes: "Knowing"
Caution: this post is for those who don't want to lose 2 hours of their life watching a movie that they thought "might be okay". It's not. Read here to find out everything, including whether it's even watchable for camp value.
What's the deal?
Nic Cage's son gets a letter from a super creepy little kid in 1959. Via a time capsule. But instead of pictures of rocket ships and moon colonies, it's just a series of numbers. Because she was a super creepy kid. The time capsule was her idea too, 'natch.
Numbers aren't scary. What else you got?
Nic Cage is a recent widower, probably because pretty much anybody would fling themselves into a fire if they were married to him. His wife did. His son is creepy and maybe deaf, but not, because he can hear perfectly. There is one line of dialogue relating to this. I'm pretty sure it exists only so they can do some fairly sappy sign-language stuff to each other, without explaining it to the non-signing audience. Whatever.
That doesn't even sound relevant.
It's not. Sorry. So Nic Cage sees the date and body count for 9/11 randomly on the paper that his kid stole from the school. He overdoses on caffeine pills or something and spends all night looking up disasters and figuring out that every major loss of life in the world for the past 50 years is noted, time and date, on the paper. There are other numbers between each date that he can't figure out, though, even though he is an astrophysicist and they are longitude/latitude coordinates. He gives it to another scientist who can't figure it out either, even though everyone single person in the audience is probably shouting out "It's coordinates!" at this point.
Anyway, he freaks the hell out.
But are numbers on a piece of paper really scary?
No, and that's why there are also very ominous blonde guys who look like IKEA catalog models, or maybe winners of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer character costume contest, milling about in black dusters. They don't do anything until the last 20 minutes of the movie, except scare the crap out of the audience by staring at little kids. And collecting smooth black rocks for absolutely no relevant reason.
So... the numbers mean what?
There are, unfortunately for us, only 3 more incidents listed on the sheet when Cage does his sleuthing. He happens to be driving right next to one (a surprisingly violent and grisly airplane crash) and he seeks out the next in NYC (a less-surprisingly but still overly grisly subway accident). The next is like, 2 days later and doesn't have a body count. Nic is concerned. He seeks out the creepy little girl, but she's dead so he finds her grown-up daughter and grand-daughter instead. And stalks the hell out of them.
Why would he do such a thing?
Because he's Nic Cage and he can't help but lurk. He makes friends with the lady after stalking her and her daughter to the museum (with his son, by the way, who asks no questions and is probably used to his dad's psychotic behavior). Then he drops the we're-all-gonna-die bomb on her while they have coffee in the museum cafe. She reacts poorly, and fulfills the audience's fantasy by running away as fast as possible.
So we're really just figuring out what this last disaster is going to be, right? How much of the movie does that take? Probably the last 70 minutes or so. Also, the Spikes are moping around scaring kids, and Nic Cage is by-the-way estranged from his dad and hasn't opened his wife's last birthday present to him, and because the script says she has to come back, the lady shows up at Nic's house to chat about the end of the world. Which her mom, RIP, predicted.
Did you fast-forward at this point?
I should have. Lots of hand-wringing. There are solar flares, by the way, making it unseasonably warm and very conveniently disrupting cell phone usage during moments of dramatic tension. But not at later moments when, because satellites always get better in the middle of solar flaring, Nic has to call his dad and make peace.
I like my Nic Cage movies either funny (Raising Arizona) or batshit-crazy (The Wicker Man). What's in this movie for me?
I'm not sure we can top Wicker Man's bee business, but how about Nic Cage driving down the road shouting, "THE CAVES WON'T SAVE US!" into a cell-phone? It's pretty close to hilarity at that point.
Sum it all up for us, won't you?
Turns out, the Spikes are aliens. They planted the whole warning thing in the creepy little girl 50 years ago because obviously, the best way to warn the Earth about deadly solar flares would be to drive a single 8-year-old crazy by whispering numbers to her so continuously that she carves them into a door with her fingernails. I guess NASA wasn't returning their calls.
Is that the twist? Seems lame.
No, the lamer twist is that even though the Spikes are aliens, and even though they've been hanging around for 50 years and can see the future, they've decided that they don't have the energy to save humanity. They've just got a lot going in right now, you know? Instead, they're only going to save Nic Cage's son and the creepy girl's granddaughter, and spirit them off to an alien Iowa where trees grow REALLY huge.
Why was there a whole list of dates then? Why not just the last one, where the world is destroyed?
Good fucking question. THERE IS NO REASON TO LIST OUT ALL THE DATES. It is never explained, it's just there to be creepy and weird and maybe to give "weight" to the last date. You know, "Since the whole list is true maybe we should worry about the last item." Oh wait, never mind, because there's nothing anybody can do about giant solar flares. It's all a big tease.
So what, we all die?
Except for approximately 2 dozen little kids, who are deus ex machina'd at the last second to live on the aforementioned Iowa-planet. With no supervision, but lots of waves of grain to run through. Nic Cage and his dad reunite and become stranged, and then literally 45 seconds later are burned to a crisp along with everything else on the planet. Bummer.
Jesus.
Yeah. Also the aliens are angels.
Thanks for warning me about this movie. Any reason to watch it, even on cable?
Well, there's the crazy-bad acting by pretty much everybody in the movie. The aforementioned "CAVES!" line is only one amidst many that are laugh-out-loud stupid. If you like seeing our entire planet engulfed in flame, or an elk on fire (really!), it's got that too.
But you'll be left wondering why the Spike aliens gave these kids the numbers, only to go ahead and personally grab 'em right before the end of the world. Were the kids supposed to warn people? Was Nic Cage? Ultimately, the Spikes could've saved us all 2 hours and just nabbed those kids without all the useles Cassandra stuff. For an advanced alien intelligence, this was a pretty epic FAIL on their part. And on the part of director Alex Proyas, who has officially squandered every last drop of his Dark City-related good will.
What's the deal?
Nic Cage's son gets a letter from a super creepy little kid in 1959. Via a time capsule. But instead of pictures of rocket ships and moon colonies, it's just a series of numbers. Because she was a super creepy kid. The time capsule was her idea too, 'natch.
Numbers aren't scary. What else you got?
Nic Cage is a recent widower, probably because pretty much anybody would fling themselves into a fire if they were married to him. His wife did. His son is creepy and maybe deaf, but not, because he can hear perfectly. There is one line of dialogue relating to this. I'm pretty sure it exists only so they can do some fairly sappy sign-language stuff to each other, without explaining it to the non-signing audience. Whatever.
That doesn't even sound relevant.
It's not. Sorry. So Nic Cage sees the date and body count for 9/11 randomly on the paper that his kid stole from the school. He overdoses on caffeine pills or something and spends all night looking up disasters and figuring out that every major loss of life in the world for the past 50 years is noted, time and date, on the paper. There are other numbers between each date that he can't figure out, though, even though he is an astrophysicist and they are longitude/latitude coordinates. He gives it to another scientist who can't figure it out either, even though everyone single person in the audience is probably shouting out "It's coordinates!" at this point.
Anyway, he freaks the hell out.
But are numbers on a piece of paper really scary?
No, and that's why there are also very ominous blonde guys who look like IKEA catalog models, or maybe winners of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer character costume contest, milling about in black dusters. They don't do anything until the last 20 minutes of the movie, except scare the crap out of the audience by staring at little kids. And collecting smooth black rocks for absolutely no relevant reason.
So... the numbers mean what?
There are, unfortunately for us, only 3 more incidents listed on the sheet when Cage does his sleuthing. He happens to be driving right next to one (a surprisingly violent and grisly airplane crash) and he seeks out the next in NYC (a less-surprisingly but still overly grisly subway accident). The next is like, 2 days later and doesn't have a body count. Nic is concerned. He seeks out the creepy little girl, but she's dead so he finds her grown-up daughter and grand-daughter instead. And stalks the hell out of them.
Why would he do such a thing?
Because he's Nic Cage and he can't help but lurk. He makes friends with the lady after stalking her and her daughter to the museum (with his son, by the way, who asks no questions and is probably used to his dad's psychotic behavior). Then he drops the we're-all-gonna-die bomb on her while they have coffee in the museum cafe. She reacts poorly, and fulfills the audience's fantasy by running away as fast as possible.
So we're really just figuring out what this last disaster is going to be, right? How much of the movie does that take? Probably the last 70 minutes or so. Also, the Spikes are moping around scaring kids, and Nic Cage is by-the-way estranged from his dad and hasn't opened his wife's last birthday present to him, and because the script says she has to come back, the lady shows up at Nic's house to chat about the end of the world. Which her mom, RIP, predicted.
Did you fast-forward at this point?
I should have. Lots of hand-wringing. There are solar flares, by the way, making it unseasonably warm and very conveniently disrupting cell phone usage during moments of dramatic tension. But not at later moments when, because satellites always get better in the middle of solar flaring, Nic has to call his dad and make peace.
I like my Nic Cage movies either funny (Raising Arizona) or batshit-crazy (The Wicker Man). What's in this movie for me?
I'm not sure we can top Wicker Man's bee business, but how about Nic Cage driving down the road shouting, "THE CAVES WON'T SAVE US!" into a cell-phone? It's pretty close to hilarity at that point.
Sum it all up for us, won't you?
Turns out, the Spikes are aliens. They planted the whole warning thing in the creepy little girl 50 years ago because obviously, the best way to warn the Earth about deadly solar flares would be to drive a single 8-year-old crazy by whispering numbers to her so continuously that she carves them into a door with her fingernails. I guess NASA wasn't returning their calls.
Is that the twist? Seems lame.
No, the lamer twist is that even though the Spikes are aliens, and even though they've been hanging around for 50 years and can see the future, they've decided that they don't have the energy to save humanity. They've just got a lot going in right now, you know? Instead, they're only going to save Nic Cage's son and the creepy girl's granddaughter, and spirit them off to an alien Iowa where trees grow REALLY huge.
Why was there a whole list of dates then? Why not just the last one, where the world is destroyed?
Good fucking question. THERE IS NO REASON TO LIST OUT ALL THE DATES. It is never explained, it's just there to be creepy and weird and maybe to give "weight" to the last date. You know, "Since the whole list is true maybe we should worry about the last item." Oh wait, never mind, because there's nothing anybody can do about giant solar flares. It's all a big tease.
So what, we all die?
Except for approximately 2 dozen little kids, who are deus ex machina'd at the last second to live on the aforementioned Iowa-planet. With no supervision, but lots of waves of grain to run through. Nic Cage and his dad reunite and become stranged, and then literally 45 seconds later are burned to a crisp along with everything else on the planet. Bummer.
Jesus.
Yeah. Also the aliens are angels.
Thanks for warning me about this movie. Any reason to watch it, even on cable?
Well, there's the crazy-bad acting by pretty much everybody in the movie. The aforementioned "CAVES!" line is only one amidst many that are laugh-out-loud stupid. If you like seeing our entire planet engulfed in flame, or an elk on fire (really!), it's got that too.
But you'll be left wondering why the Spike aliens gave these kids the numbers, only to go ahead and personally grab 'em right before the end of the world. Were the kids supposed to warn people? Was Nic Cage? Ultimately, the Spikes could've saved us all 2 hours and just nabbed those kids without all the useles Cassandra stuff. For an advanced alien intelligence, this was a pretty epic FAIL on their part. And on the part of director Alex Proyas, who has officially squandered every last drop of his Dark City-related good will.
July 20, 2009
On Debt
When I left the D.C. area to go to law school, I had one credit card from MBNA that I had gotten in college. Until I started working, I had paid it off almost completely every time I'd gotten a statement. Working for less than $30k a year in D.C. started to drive the balance upward so that it was never fully paid off. And since I had been paying it off so well for 4+ years in college, my limit was something like $13,000 at the time.
Enter law school. It is an expensive place to go, and the loans cover most of it--although the loans are both federal and private, which is expensive--the incidentals are not insignificant.
Cut to 2005/2006. MBNA has been bought by my bank, Bank of America, and in the ensuing years they have continually upped my credit limit to a staggering $22,000. Unfortunately, my inability to find employment immediately after law school left me with little option except to pile it on the card. Or at least, in my uneducated mind, there was little option.
Eventually, I lost my wallet and Bank of America, being the kind souls that they are, decided not to give me my credit card back and closed my account. Balance needing payment, of course. I don't know about you all, but if you've ever tried to pay off $20,000 at an interest rate of 24.99%, let me tell ya: it's like bailing out a rowboat with a thimble.
But I got a job, a pretty good one, and got help from my parents to get past the 90% interest/10% principal status I was stuck in. And paid down the loan as diligently as possible.
And then on Friday, I paid $756 to the credit card, and brought the balance to $0 for the first time since probably 2001. I decided to share that here because I consider it a major financial victory, and that maybe it can serve as a cautionary tale to those considering using credit cards to survive.
Find another way. It is an embarrassing state to be in, to have such bad credit that you have to go card-less for 3 years (as I have just done). It is embarrassing to have to get your parents to help you pay down such things (though, that is what parents are for, and I am paying them back as of now).
But thanks to the parents, and to a fairly frugal lifestyle this past 2+ years, I am free.
Now about those law school loans...
Enter law school. It is an expensive place to go, and the loans cover most of it--although the loans are both federal and private, which is expensive--the incidentals are not insignificant.
Cut to 2005/2006. MBNA has been bought by my bank, Bank of America, and in the ensuing years they have continually upped my credit limit to a staggering $22,000. Unfortunately, my inability to find employment immediately after law school left me with little option except to pile it on the card. Or at least, in my uneducated mind, there was little option.
Eventually, I lost my wallet and Bank of America, being the kind souls that they are, decided not to give me my credit card back and closed my account. Balance needing payment, of course. I don't know about you all, but if you've ever tried to pay off $20,000 at an interest rate of 24.99%, let me tell ya: it's like bailing out a rowboat with a thimble.
But I got a job, a pretty good one, and got help from my parents to get past the 90% interest/10% principal status I was stuck in. And paid down the loan as diligently as possible.
And then on Friday, I paid $756 to the credit card, and brought the balance to $0 for the first time since probably 2001. I decided to share that here because I consider it a major financial victory, and that maybe it can serve as a cautionary tale to those considering using credit cards to survive.
Find another way. It is an embarrassing state to be in, to have such bad credit that you have to go card-less for 3 years (as I have just done). It is embarrassing to have to get your parents to help you pay down such things (though, that is what parents are for, and I am paying them back as of now).
But thanks to the parents, and to a fairly frugal lifestyle this past 2+ years, I am free.
Now about those law school loans...
July 14, 2009
Sotomayor
In my continuing quest to tank any future judicial appointments for myself, I've got some opinions on this whole Sotomayor confirmation process.
First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.
If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."
"But why..."
"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."
But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.
Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.
This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.
First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.
If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."
"But why..."
"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."
But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.
Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.
This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.
July 1, 2009
So Much! Too Much?
Man, I step away for a minute and like, 15 different things happen. Let's get into it.
The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.
But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.
Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.
True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.
There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"
To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.
*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.
The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.
But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.
Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.
Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.
The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.
Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.
The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.
But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.
Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.
True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.
There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"
To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.
*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.
The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.
But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.
Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.
Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.
The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.
Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.
June 23, 2009
At the Movies
I will spare you all my pithy reviews of recent movies. I've seen a bunch, including Benjamin Button, The Promotion, The Proposal, Drag Me To Hell, The Brave One, and (shudder) Semi-Pro. By the way, that was in order of my enjoyment.
But let's let talk upcoming movies. It's summer, and we're in full blockbuster craptacularness mode. Starting Wednesday is the altogether unwanted Transformers 2, which faces little in the way of competition this weekend. But nobody cares about Transformers 2, in large part because Transformers 1 was largely incomprehensible and the action sequences were so loud and confusing that it doesn't bear re-watching at all.
I've long said--to, ya know, people who ask me these things--that Transformers only succeeded because of the massive amount of nostalgic goodwill it invoked. I saw it in the theater, even though I was 98% convinced it was crap. But I got goosebumps, briefly, when Optimus Prime spoke with that same gravelly voice he used in the 80s cartoon. I loved Transformers back then, man.
But nostalgia only takes you so far. In the case of Transformers, it took me about halfway through the first film. I suspect the rapid drop-off will harm Transformers 2, which will undoubtedly win the weekend (it's only up against a Lifetime-esque movie about some little girl who is conceived to give her dying sister vital organs or something). But I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the drop-off next week is substantial. It faces Ice Age 2 (meh, but the same "meh" as Transformers) and Public Enemy, which so far sounds like a much, much better film. I mean, it's John Dillinger vs. Batman.
So there you have it, my random thoughts on your upcoming cinematic offerings. For those who want to plan further ahead, the big releases after July 4th weekend are Bruno (July 10) and the next Harry Potter (which will stomp the life out of every other film on July 15th). But also watch for 500 Days of Summer, which could be good because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor, and District 9 which is produced by Peter Jackson.
I will not see G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra unless terrorists call and tell me that my family is strapped to a bomb that will go off if I don't provide a ticket stub from the movie.
But let's let talk upcoming movies. It's summer, and we're in full blockbuster craptacularness mode. Starting Wednesday is the altogether unwanted Transformers 2, which faces little in the way of competition this weekend. But nobody cares about Transformers 2, in large part because Transformers 1 was largely incomprehensible and the action sequences were so loud and confusing that it doesn't bear re-watching at all.
I've long said--to, ya know, people who ask me these things--that Transformers only succeeded because of the massive amount of nostalgic goodwill it invoked. I saw it in the theater, even though I was 98% convinced it was crap. But I got goosebumps, briefly, when Optimus Prime spoke with that same gravelly voice he used in the 80s cartoon. I loved Transformers back then, man.
But nostalgia only takes you so far. In the case of Transformers, it took me about halfway through the first film. I suspect the rapid drop-off will harm Transformers 2, which will undoubtedly win the weekend (it's only up against a Lifetime-esque movie about some little girl who is conceived to give her dying sister vital organs or something). But I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the drop-off next week is substantial. It faces Ice Age 2 (meh, but the same "meh" as Transformers) and Public Enemy, which so far sounds like a much, much better film. I mean, it's John Dillinger vs. Batman.
So there you have it, my random thoughts on your upcoming cinematic offerings. For those who want to plan further ahead, the big releases after July 4th weekend are Bruno (July 10) and the next Harry Potter (which will stomp the life out of every other film on July 15th). But also watch for 500 Days of Summer, which could be good because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor, and District 9 which is produced by Peter Jackson.
I will not see G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra unless terrorists call and tell me that my family is strapped to a bomb that will go off if I don't provide a ticket stub from the movie.
June 11, 2009
Just Jettison Zumaya
Baseball post incoming. Ignore if you like, there is also some angry ranting.
...
The Tigers have had a "power outage" for a couple series now. They took 3/5 from the White Sox, in Chicago, which is great but given the White Sox inability to do anything right, they should have taken at least 4. Today was the 5th game.
The Tigers, predictably, had little offense and for most of the game were behind zero to two. Zero! Against a mediocre Chicago pitcher! They finally scored one in the last few innings, and then in the top of the 9th, Curtis Granderson hits a home run with a man on base to tie the game (the Sox had scored another, it was 3-1 at the time).
Your regular baseball fan might celebrate this. Your 2009 Tigers fan knows this is a dangerous situation, because now the Tigers have to rely on the bullpen to send the game into extra innings.
I love Jim Leyland (the manager) for what he's done with this team. But sometimes, I cannot fathom his thought process. Today, he decided to put in the utterly useless and almost ALWAYS disastrous Joel Zumaya. Zumaya was on the disabled list for awhile this season, and since returning has shown no ability to work an inning with any semblance of confidence.
He promptly allows two men on, commits a throwing error, and walks the bases loaded with no outs. In the bottom of the 9th. Then, oh so predictably, he gives up the game winning single and that's that.
I know that you have to look at all aspects of the team when assigning blame. The hitting was pathetic today, with only Ryan Raburn providing an RBI against the starting pitcher. Raburn is good but he should not be the go-to guy for hits. Cabrera and Ordonez went hitless. Pathetic against a pitcher with a 5.0+ ERA.
But then, putting in ZUMAYA of all people, to hold the lead? Zumaya needs quite a bit of rehab work first. He needs a 6th, 7th or 8th inning where the Tigers have a 5-0 lead or better. And at this point, I think he needs to get this from another team.
Fernando Rodney's meltdown the other night (he walked the bases loaded, which you really shouldn't do as a closer) has brought the Tigers back to the sad 2008 season, which featured lukewarm hitting and absolutely no reliable closers. Somebody needs to take a hard look and do some housecleaning in the bullpen.
/rant off. It's just so depressing.
...
The Tigers have had a "power outage" for a couple series now. They took 3/5 from the White Sox, in Chicago, which is great but given the White Sox inability to do anything right, they should have taken at least 4. Today was the 5th game.
The Tigers, predictably, had little offense and for most of the game were behind zero to two. Zero! Against a mediocre Chicago pitcher! They finally scored one in the last few innings, and then in the top of the 9th, Curtis Granderson hits a home run with a man on base to tie the game (the Sox had scored another, it was 3-1 at the time).
Your regular baseball fan might celebrate this. Your 2009 Tigers fan knows this is a dangerous situation, because now the Tigers have to rely on the bullpen to send the game into extra innings.
I love Jim Leyland (the manager) for what he's done with this team. But sometimes, I cannot fathom his thought process. Today, he decided to put in the utterly useless and almost ALWAYS disastrous Joel Zumaya. Zumaya was on the disabled list for awhile this season, and since returning has shown no ability to work an inning with any semblance of confidence.
He promptly allows two men on, commits a throwing error, and walks the bases loaded with no outs. In the bottom of the 9th. Then, oh so predictably, he gives up the game winning single and that's that.
I know that you have to look at all aspects of the team when assigning blame. The hitting was pathetic today, with only Ryan Raburn providing an RBI against the starting pitcher. Raburn is good but he should not be the go-to guy for hits. Cabrera and Ordonez went hitless. Pathetic against a pitcher with a 5.0+ ERA.
But then, putting in ZUMAYA of all people, to hold the lead? Zumaya needs quite a bit of rehab work first. He needs a 6th, 7th or 8th inning where the Tigers have a 5-0 lead or better. And at this point, I think he needs to get this from another team.
Fernando Rodney's meltdown the other night (he walked the bases loaded, which you really shouldn't do as a closer) has brought the Tigers back to the sad 2008 season, which featured lukewarm hitting and absolutely no reliable closers. Somebody needs to take a hard look and do some housecleaning in the bullpen.
/rant off. It's just so depressing.
June 9, 2009
So Oblivious
I am trying to be more understanding of people, in general. I have a touch of the road rage, because there is so much inattention and stupidity on the roads.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
May 20, 2009
Moment of Clarity?
Last night, as I was debating whether to get fast food for dinner, I had a minor revelation. It wasn't about fast food, but about health in general. I did the math and realized that if I had a child tomorrow, he or she would turn 18 when I was 49 years old.
To me, at 31, an 18-year-old isn't very old. I remember being 18 and not knowing squat about zilch. And if I have kids, I'd really like to be around to help them out with that kind of thing.
I haven't given much thought about having kids, except to assume that at some point I will. But I have never considered whether I will be around to see them become adults. Given my family history of leaky heart valves and other such things, I am already at a slight disadvantage. The fact that I outweigh my father by 10 pounds is another bad sign.
So this "revelation" became a personal charge to myself. Healthy is better. I am still plenty young enough to change my habits, and in fact have already been doing that. No more fast food (not even "only once in awhile"). More running--daily when possible. Less couch potato-ish activity.
Part of this is because I finally realized how I can accomplish this. It's less about saying "never eat unhealthy again, ever" and more about saying: tonight, do I need a hamburger from Wendy's? And the answer is always no. Baby steps to the elevator, yo.
I don't have kids yet. Hell, I don't even have somebody who wants to birth any of my children.* But I'll be damned if I'm going to let my laziness in 2008/2009 screw me over in 2027.
*This is just shorthand. I am entirely in favor of adoption. Please don't yell at me about skyrocketing population or something.
To me, at 31, an 18-year-old isn't very old. I remember being 18 and not knowing squat about zilch. And if I have kids, I'd really like to be around to help them out with that kind of thing.
I haven't given much thought about having kids, except to assume that at some point I will. But I have never considered whether I will be around to see them become adults. Given my family history of leaky heart valves and other such things, I am already at a slight disadvantage. The fact that I outweigh my father by 10 pounds is another bad sign.
So this "revelation" became a personal charge to myself. Healthy is better. I am still plenty young enough to change my habits, and in fact have already been doing that. No more fast food (not even "only once in awhile"). More running--daily when possible. Less couch potato-ish activity.
Part of this is because I finally realized how I can accomplish this. It's less about saying "never eat unhealthy again, ever" and more about saying: tonight, do I need a hamburger from Wendy's? And the answer is always no. Baby steps to the elevator, yo.
I don't have kids yet. Hell, I don't even have somebody who wants to birth any of my children.* But I'll be damned if I'm going to let my laziness in 2008/2009 screw me over in 2027.
*This is just shorthand. I am entirely in favor of adoption. Please don't yell at me about skyrocketing population or something.
May 13, 2009
Brief Update Regarding Two Items
First -- and I hope that this is the last I will say on this -- I'm going to talk about newspapers failing again. Mostly because Weingarten discussed it in his chat today.
I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"
But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.
We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.
What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.
Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!
I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"
But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.
We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.
What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.
Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!
May 11, 2009
The Slow Death of the Newspaper
From the Washington Post's weekly chat with media man Howard Kurtz:
The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.
What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.
I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.
iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.
I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.
Howard, could part of the problem be that because consumers already pay for online access that we don't also want to pay for online content. I spend $50/month for online access. I can't see myself paying any additional $ for online content. To say that everything online is free is not quite accurate. It's just that the service providers are the ones making the money, not the content providers.Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.
Howard Kurtz: Fair point. Everyone pays for Internet access. But that's like saying you already paid to buy a TV set, so why should you now have to pay for cable? (And look, some people don't.) I grew up thinking television would always be free, and now people pay cable providers--and pay extra for premium channels--because they think the content is worth it. Computers and online access aren't cheap, but content also costs money, and iTunes is but one example of how people are willing to pay for what's important to them.
The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.
What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.
I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.
iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.
I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.
April 27, 2009
Short Cuts
- Swine flu! Swine flu swine flu, swine flu. Swine... flu? Swine flu: porcine influenza.
- I am 10 movies away from having 1200 on the list. Will I be able to knock them all out in California? It's a race to the finish!
- Hitman, yo. Let's see if I can place it in a line-up of similar action movies. It would go something like:
Live Free or Die Hard > Brotherhood of the Wolf > Deathrace > Hitman | Doomsday > Wanted > Max Payne - Yes, Hitman and Doomsday are about the same. Die Hard is like an 8 on the trashy action movie scale, but like a 5 on the "movies in general" value continuum. So you can evaluate from there.*
- I've been at my job for 2 years today. Happy anniversary to me!
- Maude died. That's too bad. Bea Arthur was a pretty awesome chick. You know she could kick YOUR ass, dude.
- Network TV season is winding down. Looking forward to season finales of: The Office, 30 Rock, LOST. Will probably watch the finale of Heroes (tonight) but hate myself for doing so. What will happen on Biggest Loser?
April 24, 2009
And Then I Thought Better Of It.
I was mentally crafting a post in my head about feminism and the pain that seems to exist when a feminist tries to get married. There have been a couple of great articles on the subject online, and it got me thinking.
Then I remember that I know no fewer than 5 women who are getting married in the next 12 months, all of whom probably have strong opinions on various aspects of weddings and who may read my blog. And if I post something with my personal opinion (about things like wearing white, or churches, or married names) it might be taken as a slight against someone who doesn't hold my same opinion.
So ya'll get nothing!
Well, not nothing. I could rant about the Tigers and their inability to beat the lowly Angels (1-2 in the last series), or how they were screwed by having seriously piss-poor scheduling (3 games in a row at 10pm EST, and then they have to go to Kansas the very next day? I call bullshit, Angels. No reason to schedule those games so late.)
Or I could talk about the latest movies I've seen (Pineapple Express - bit of a letdown but funny; Choke - unimpressive but hey, boobs; Aqua Teen Hunger Force - as weird as you'd expect).
Or I could just mention that I have to work on Sunday, in a pathetic attempt to drum up sympathy.
I choose secret option D: Friday afternoon laziness!
Then I remember that I know no fewer than 5 women who are getting married in the next 12 months, all of whom probably have strong opinions on various aspects of weddings and who may read my blog. And if I post something with my personal opinion (about things like wearing white, or churches, or married names) it might be taken as a slight against someone who doesn't hold my same opinion.
So ya'll get nothing!
Well, not nothing. I could rant about the Tigers and their inability to beat the lowly Angels (1-2 in the last series), or how they were screwed by having seriously piss-poor scheduling (3 games in a row at 10pm EST, and then they have to go to Kansas the very next day? I call bullshit, Angels. No reason to schedule those games so late.)
Or I could talk about the latest movies I've seen (Pineapple Express - bit of a letdown but funny; Choke - unimpressive but hey, boobs; Aqua Teen Hunger Force - as weird as you'd expect).
Or I could just mention that I have to work on Sunday, in a pathetic attempt to drum up sympathy.
I choose secret option D: Friday afternoon laziness!
April 20, 2009
Missing the Big Picture
I saw a new (to me) "Mac vs. PC" ad this weekend. The PC decides to use a time machine to travel to the future to see if the "problems" with PCs have been worked out. Of course, when he arrives future PC freezes in mid-greeting. Haha.
First, my PC never freezes. I have three if you count my work computer. I don't know anybody who suffers from this problem, unless they have spyware or other malware on their machine.
Second, I think the Mac guy inadvertently missed a big point in the ad: the PC built a goddamn time-machine. I think the winner, no matter who freezes up or has stability issues, is the company that can TRAVEL THROUGH TIME.
Seriously, Apple. I love my iPhone, and the iPod is great, but you all are some smug assholes. I don't see myself ever buying a Mac, and part of the reason (beyond the exorbitant price and the fact that I don't do any video editing) is that you guys are dicks.
First, my PC never freezes. I have three if you count my work computer. I don't know anybody who suffers from this problem, unless they have spyware or other malware on their machine.
Second, I think the Mac guy inadvertently missed a big point in the ad: the PC built a goddamn time-machine. I think the winner, no matter who freezes up or has stability issues, is the company that can TRAVEL THROUGH TIME.
Seriously, Apple. I love my iPhone, and the iPod is great, but you all are some smug assholes. I don't see myself ever buying a Mac, and part of the reason (beyond the exorbitant price and the fact that I don't do any video editing) is that you guys are dicks.
April 15, 2009
The More Things Change...
There was a bit of a scuffle at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this past week because the cover of their weekend magazine (at least, I think that's what it is) featured an interracial couple. The story was about "best places to kiss", which is a fairly stupid idea for a story, and not at all about interracial couples or dating.
St. Louis was not in an uproar, but it was noted on the paper's blog that they received more than a few comments and criticisms of the decision to use an interracial couple in the cover photo. The ensuing comments on the blog are a real treat if you want to read some backwards-ass thinking, but to be fair, there were far more positive comments than negative.
I bring this up not to bemoan the state of race relations or progressive attitudes, but to celebrate them. I read through most of the comments about the picture on the P-D website, and the arguments against interracial marriage were put forth by only 6 or 7 people. The vast majority of the replies and other commentary were positive and from 10-20 times as many individuals.
I think, then, that we can begin ignoring the vocal minority in this matter completely. There is a time when you must strive to educate and change people, so that you can achieve a progressive-thinking majority. But in the area of interracial coupling, we've got that. Something like 3/4 people think interracial dating is fine. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that a good portion of that remaining 1/4 are older folks who just won't change. But they will shuffle off this mortal coil. So why argue this? There is nothing to gain, as those final holdouts are either ignorant racists or stubborn. And we don't need them. They are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
If St. Louis, a "flyover city" with significant racial tensions, can only serve up only 1 racist for every 10 progressives (on this topic, anyway), we are probably okay.
Also, the next time you have to argue gay marriage with someone, anti-miscegenation laws would be a great comparison to make. The exact same arguments applied then: it was against the natural order, it would lead to immorality, and so forth. Those who oppose gay marriage now will, in 30 years, be in the same position as those who opposed "race mixing". We will pity you and wonder how you could not see beyond your own prejudices.
Worst of all, you will be viewed just like anti-interracial types are viewed today: irrelevant.
St. Louis was not in an uproar, but it was noted on the paper's blog that they received more than a few comments and criticisms of the decision to use an interracial couple in the cover photo. The ensuing comments on the blog are a real treat if you want to read some backwards-ass thinking, but to be fair, there were far more positive comments than negative.
I bring this up not to bemoan the state of race relations or progressive attitudes, but to celebrate them. I read through most of the comments about the picture on the P-D website, and the arguments against interracial marriage were put forth by only 6 or 7 people. The vast majority of the replies and other commentary were positive and from 10-20 times as many individuals.
I think, then, that we can begin ignoring the vocal minority in this matter completely. There is a time when you must strive to educate and change people, so that you can achieve a progressive-thinking majority. But in the area of interracial coupling, we've got that. Something like 3/4 people think interracial dating is fine. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that a good portion of that remaining 1/4 are older folks who just won't change. But they will shuffle off this mortal coil. So why argue this? There is nothing to gain, as those final holdouts are either ignorant racists or stubborn. And we don't need them. They are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
If St. Louis, a "flyover city" with significant racial tensions, can only serve up only 1 racist for every 10 progressives (on this topic, anyway), we are probably okay.
Also, the next time you have to argue gay marriage with someone, anti-miscegenation laws would be a great comparison to make. The exact same arguments applied then: it was against the natural order, it would lead to immorality, and so forth. Those who oppose gay marriage now will, in 30 years, be in the same position as those who opposed "race mixing". We will pity you and wonder how you could not see beyond your own prejudices.
Worst of all, you will be viewed just like anti-interracial types are viewed today: irrelevant.
April 13, 2009
The Easter of the Non-Religious Single Man Who Lives 2,750 Miles from His Relatives
I woke up around 8 a.m. I can't shake my inability to sleep in, and now wake up consistently between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning. It is a shame.
Half-heartedly checked what was on TV, before remembering it was a) Sunday and b) Easter. Lots of church stuff; eventually left it on Meet the Press or Face the Nation or one of those shows.
Ate cheerios and played some Warcraft. I am bored with it, and do not have the interest to do anything beyond a few dailies and some old-world content for the Achievements.
Surfed the web, but with purpose. Purpose that won't get a lot of play on here because I'm not sure who reads this blog. I found some good stuff though and will be working on that this week. Vague enough for ya?
Exercised some. Also ate half a chocolate bunny, thus negating said exercise. It was only situps/pushups and free weights, though. Watched a good portion of "Just Friends" on Comedy Central at the same time. Meh.
Went to the grocery store, which normally I would never do on a Sunday because I hate the crowd, but I figured on Easter Sunday I might be safe. I was right; it wasn't desolate but it was quick and easy. Enjoyed the nice weather.
Talked to dad on the phone. Wished him belated happy birthday, but I'm not a terrible son because I also called the day before, and the day before that, to express the same sentiment. He was dodging my calls cuz he's a playa, son!
Watched two more episodes of The Tudors. I think Rhys-Meyers overacts. Everyone else is pretty good though. And to be fair, Rhys-Meyers wasn't bad in these two episodes either.
Talked to breezy east coast friend online, till the east coast headed for bed. They do that, often as a group. Sometimes I wonder if everyone on that coast is in cahoots to keep me bored at night.
Perused iTunes Store for about an hour, looking for gems. Downloaded a few songs but nothing to write home about. Still owe someone a CD, but it still isn't ready. I suck. She probably doesn't remember I owe her a CD, though.
Watched an hour of television before accepting that nothing remotely interesting was on. Did see ex's baby daddy beat some jerk up on MTV. I'll go ahead and let that stand as written.
Went to bed and read more of The Worst Hard Time. Really makes one realize that things could be so, so much worse. And how stupid people are when left to their own greedy devices.
Easter!
Half-heartedly checked what was on TV, before remembering it was a) Sunday and b) Easter. Lots of church stuff; eventually left it on Meet the Press or Face the Nation or one of those shows.
Ate cheerios and played some Warcraft. I am bored with it, and do not have the interest to do anything beyond a few dailies and some old-world content for the Achievements.
Surfed the web, but with purpose. Purpose that won't get a lot of play on here because I'm not sure who reads this blog. I found some good stuff though and will be working on that this week. Vague enough for ya?
Exercised some. Also ate half a chocolate bunny, thus negating said exercise. It was only situps/pushups and free weights, though. Watched a good portion of "Just Friends" on Comedy Central at the same time. Meh.
Went to the grocery store, which normally I would never do on a Sunday because I hate the crowd, but I figured on Easter Sunday I might be safe. I was right; it wasn't desolate but it was quick and easy. Enjoyed the nice weather.
Talked to dad on the phone. Wished him belated happy birthday, but I'm not a terrible son because I also called the day before, and the day before that, to express the same sentiment. He was dodging my calls cuz he's a playa, son!
Watched two more episodes of The Tudors. I think Rhys-Meyers overacts. Everyone else is pretty good though. And to be fair, Rhys-Meyers wasn't bad in these two episodes either.
Talked to breezy east coast friend online, till the east coast headed for bed. They do that, often as a group. Sometimes I wonder if everyone on that coast is in cahoots to keep me bored at night.
Perused iTunes Store for about an hour, looking for gems. Downloaded a few songs but nothing to write home about. Still owe someone a CD, but it still isn't ready. I suck. She probably doesn't remember I owe her a CD, though.
Watched an hour of television before accepting that nothing remotely interesting was on. Did see ex's baby daddy beat some jerk up on MTV. I'll go ahead and let that stand as written.
Went to bed and read more of The Worst Hard Time. Really makes one realize that things could be so, so much worse. And how stupid people are when left to their own greedy devices.
Easter!
April 3, 2009
Turns Out, It Stands for Emergency Room!
I remember when ER first came on television. I was 16 and I had just recently gotten a television in my room, and though I don't specifically remember my "bed time" back in 1994, I have some very specific memories of watching the show in my before bed on Thursday nights.
Back when ER debuted, it was an amazing show. The long takes, and the very human characters, were the best points. Over the years they lost some of that humanity in favor of more fantastic plot lines (helicopters chopping off arms, and major transportation disasters befalling the city of Chicago on a monthly basis). It was about this time that ER became less compelling, and fell into the Law & Order class of TV for me. Not that L&O is bad, but each episode is so self-contained that it really doesn't matter if you miss one, two, or ten per season. ER still had more character development, but the characters didn't resonate as strongly.
Still, it was a great show. And it had some of the best short-run guest stars of any television show out there; not just one-and-done types, but actual recurring characters played by amazing actors. Stanley Tucci, William H. Macy, Maria Bello, Thandie Newton. Mariska Hargitay got her start there, way back in the old days. Jorja Fox and Marg Helgenberger, too. Elizabeth Mitchell (from LOST) was a doctor for like a dozen episodes. Djimon Hounsou was great. Even Ving Rhames was all over the place at the very beginning.
ER was a great drama. But it was never better than the early years. When Dr. Greene died, that was the climax, and though it has been entertaining and full of moving stories since then, it was never the same without him. Last night's finale was a nice way to remind us of that through his character's daughter.
Even though I wasn't watching regularly anymore, I will miss knowing that it was there. Nothing else has been around for as long, or with as much consistency.
Back when ER debuted, it was an amazing show. The long takes, and the very human characters, were the best points. Over the years they lost some of that humanity in favor of more fantastic plot lines (helicopters chopping off arms, and major transportation disasters befalling the city of Chicago on a monthly basis). It was about this time that ER became less compelling, and fell into the Law & Order class of TV for me. Not that L&O is bad, but each episode is so self-contained that it really doesn't matter if you miss one, two, or ten per season. ER still had more character development, but the characters didn't resonate as strongly.
Still, it was a great show. And it had some of the best short-run guest stars of any television show out there; not just one-and-done types, but actual recurring characters played by amazing actors. Stanley Tucci, William H. Macy, Maria Bello, Thandie Newton. Mariska Hargitay got her start there, way back in the old days. Jorja Fox and Marg Helgenberger, too. Elizabeth Mitchell (from LOST) was a doctor for like a dozen episodes. Djimon Hounsou was great. Even Ving Rhames was all over the place at the very beginning.
ER was a great drama. But it was never better than the early years. When Dr. Greene died, that was the climax, and though it has been entertaining and full of moving stories since then, it was never the same without him. Last night's finale was a nice way to remind us of that through his character's daughter.
Even though I wasn't watching regularly anymore, I will miss knowing that it was there. Nothing else has been around for as long, or with as much consistency.
April 2, 2009
Let's Talk Time Travel
Some of you probably watch LOST. It's a great show, so you should be watching if you aren't already. Some spoilers ahead for those who haven't been watching this season, but intend to do so later.
Also, this is bound to be boring even to those who watch LOST. I just need to get my thoughts straight.
-----
So, one group of Losties traveled back in time to the 1970s. Specifically, they traveled back to 1974ish and lived there 3 years. Then, the ones who got off the island traveled back to 1977 and met up with them. Where everybody else has gone is unknown at this point. But there is a lot of discussion as to the nature of time travel (in the fictional LOST universe, of course) because now they have the opportunity to change their futures.
A lot of this centers around the main Big Bad, Ben. He's there in 1977 but he's only like, 12 or something. So the Losties are confronted with that age old question, "What would you do if you could go back to 1905 and kill Hitler as a boy?"
There is much hand-wringing as to the nature of time travel. Can you do that? The obvious problem is, if you go back and kill Hitler/Ben, then Hitler/Ben won't torment you later and you won't go back in time to kill him. So he WILL grow up to torment you, and you WILL go back in time, etc. etc. ad infinitum. It's a paradox and seems to make time travel impossible, or universe-breaking.
Unless you look at it this way: everything that happens, happens once. It happens one way, one time, because that's how time works. It's linear. You can slow it (so says Einstein) but you can't reverse it, stop it entirely, or otherwise change that slow forward motion. Therefore, you can't go back in time to kill Hitler as a child because you know what? That didn't happen. You can go ahead an invent a time machine, and travel back, and shoot him, but something else will happen because Hitler didn't die. You can't change that.
Some feel that this is an attack on the concept of free will. Like, what if it was you shooting and wounding Hitler that made him go nuts and become his historically crazy self? Then, you say, what happened the first time, before I went back and shot him? The same thing happened, there was no "first time". You can't go back a second time and stop yourself from shooting Hitler because that's exactly what happened. Congrats, you caused the holocaust. Jerk.
Anyway, this theory both puts my mind at ease and makes me sad. The sad comes from thinking that I probably won't go back in time to see dinosaurs or Starland Vocal Band or something. But the relief comes from the fact that also, nobody will destroy reality by creating a temporal paradox. So, that's a bonus.
Note: This is mostly based on watching LOST and having a healthy dose of other sci-fi based education with regard to temporal physics. I don't claim to actually know anything about this stuff. I'm just sayin'.
Other Note: Theoretically, even though you can't go back in time, you should be able to go forward in time. Time keeps marching on, so all you have to do is slow your own perception of it somehow. Special relativity and time dilation would let that happen. Right on.
Also, this is bound to be boring even to those who watch LOST. I just need to get my thoughts straight.
-----
So, one group of Losties traveled back in time to the 1970s. Specifically, they traveled back to 1974ish and lived there 3 years. Then, the ones who got off the island traveled back to 1977 and met up with them. Where everybody else has gone is unknown at this point. But there is a lot of discussion as to the nature of time travel (in the fictional LOST universe, of course) because now they have the opportunity to change their futures.
A lot of this centers around the main Big Bad, Ben. He's there in 1977 but he's only like, 12 or something. So the Losties are confronted with that age old question, "What would you do if you could go back to 1905 and kill Hitler as a boy?"
There is much hand-wringing as to the nature of time travel. Can you do that? The obvious problem is, if you go back and kill Hitler/Ben, then Hitler/Ben won't torment you later and you won't go back in time to kill him. So he WILL grow up to torment you, and you WILL go back in time, etc. etc. ad infinitum. It's a paradox and seems to make time travel impossible, or universe-breaking.
Unless you look at it this way: everything that happens, happens once. It happens one way, one time, because that's how time works. It's linear. You can slow it (so says Einstein) but you can't reverse it, stop it entirely, or otherwise change that slow forward motion. Therefore, you can't go back in time to kill Hitler as a child because you know what? That didn't happen. You can go ahead an invent a time machine, and travel back, and shoot him, but something else will happen because Hitler didn't die. You can't change that.
Some feel that this is an attack on the concept of free will. Like, what if it was you shooting and wounding Hitler that made him go nuts and become his historically crazy self? Then, you say, what happened the first time, before I went back and shot him? The same thing happened, there was no "first time". You can't go back a second time and stop yourself from shooting Hitler because that's exactly what happened. Congrats, you caused the holocaust. Jerk.
Anyway, this theory both puts my mind at ease and makes me sad. The sad comes from thinking that I probably won't go back in time to see dinosaurs or Starland Vocal Band or something. But the relief comes from the fact that also, nobody will destroy reality by creating a temporal paradox. So, that's a bonus.
Note: This is mostly based on watching LOST and having a healthy dose of other sci-fi based education with regard to temporal physics. I don't claim to actually know anything about this stuff. I'm just sayin'.
Other Note: Theoretically, even though you can't go back in time, you should be able to go forward in time. Time keeps marching on, so all you have to do is slow your own perception of it somehow. Special relativity and time dilation would let that happen. Right on.
March 19, 2009
72 Hrs.
It's been a busy week, or at least it feels that way. I've had to get up at 6:30 a.m. for 3 days straight (tomorrow will be 4) and it makes the days seem especially packed.
Other notable (and sometimes ignoble) occurrences from the past 72 hours include:
- Virginia Tech winning in the first round of the NIT in double overtime. Go Hokies! I know it's just the NIT, but I'm still proud of any sport Tech excels at that isn't football. I mean, I'm proud of football too but they're supposed to excel in that area.
- But Georgetown lost a pretty tight game, which is a damn shame. Next year, Hoyas.
- On the recommendation of my mother, I've been watching Showtime's The Tudors via Netflix. I'm 6 episodes in, and while it's a pretty entertaining series, it has one fatal flaw: I know what happens already. It's not really the show's fault; if they changed history, it'd be a much bigger problem. But I already know that Henry marries Anne Boleyn, and starts the Church of England, and all that. So I can't be all that effected during tense scenes with Catherine of Aragon. She's out, and she don't even know yet! Anyway, still pretty entertaining.
- NOT ENTERTAINING AT ALL, on the other hand, was Max Payne. Now, I didn't play the video game. And we all know that video game --> movie adaptations do poorly. But my god, this was a piece of crap. It made no sense, the acting was terrible (but hey, shout out to my man Marlo for a tiny role) and it was ridiculously boring for a movie about gunfights and hallucinogenic valkyries.
In fact maybe I'll just write a new movie using that same set-up. I guarantee it would be better. I give it the rarely-used 1 star.
- This weekend, I'm headed down to Big Sur! Although technically, I'm going on Monday, it's all part of my weekend. Mini-vacations are the BEST vacations.
Other notable (and sometimes ignoble) occurrences from the past 72 hours include:
- Virginia Tech winning in the first round of the NIT in double overtime. Go Hokies! I know it's just the NIT, but I'm still proud of any sport Tech excels at that isn't football. I mean, I'm proud of football too but they're supposed to excel in that area.
- But Georgetown lost a pretty tight game, which is a damn shame. Next year, Hoyas.
- On the recommendation of my mother, I've been watching Showtime's The Tudors via Netflix. I'm 6 episodes in, and while it's a pretty entertaining series, it has one fatal flaw: I know what happens already. It's not really the show's fault; if they changed history, it'd be a much bigger problem. But I already know that Henry marries Anne Boleyn, and starts the Church of England, and all that. So I can't be all that effected during tense scenes with Catherine of Aragon. She's out, and she don't even know yet! Anyway, still pretty entertaining.
- NOT ENTERTAINING AT ALL, on the other hand, was Max Payne. Now, I didn't play the video game. And we all know that video game --> movie adaptations do poorly. But my god, this was a piece of crap. It made no sense, the acting was terrible (but hey, shout out to my man Marlo for a tiny role) and it was ridiculously boring for a movie about gunfights and hallucinogenic valkyries.
In fact maybe I'll just write a new movie using that same set-up. I guarantee it would be better. I give it the rarely-used 1 star.
- This weekend, I'm headed down to Big Sur! Although technically, I'm going on Monday, it's all part of my weekend. Mini-vacations are the BEST vacations.
March 9, 2009
Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword
(I really like that phrase, but I will stop using it after this. For awhile. A moratorium, if you will.)
Obama is overturning our luddite President's ban on new stem cell lines and the restrictions inherent therein.
I could go on about the science, but I am not a scientist. The "slippery slope to abortion" argument is lame, as stem cells and abortion are unrelated. Unless you're an idiot.
But Newt, in his seeming ever-presence prior to 2012, had this choice remark:
Newt, you are aware that it's an executive order, right? That President Bush "picked this fight" through no act of Congress? I have no real problem with executive orders, but you can't go around claiming Obama is wrong to "fight" on this issue when all he has to do is have someone draw up a quick E.O. and be done with it.
If I were elected on a multifaceted platform, and I could achieve one of my stated campaign promises with no expenditure of political capital and no legislative whipping, you'd better believe I'd be on that like white on rice.
I think the GOP just wishes that Obama's reservoir of "political capital" were not as expansive as it seems. He has an extraordinarily strong mandate from the people--one that Bush did not have--and he is being as active as possible in his first few months as President.
I saw a headline the other day: "Will Americans Tire of Obama's Call for Responsibility?" it asked (I'm paraphrasing). It may have been an op/ed column, but I think it speaks volumes about our current political landscape. We actually have a President who is TOO GOOD for us. If he fails, it will be our (the collective American People's) fault for not living up to his expectations.
I cannot tell you how happy I am to be around to see such expectations made real.
Obama is overturning our luddite President's ban on new stem cell lines and the restrictions inherent therein.
I could go on about the science, but I am not a scientist. The "slippery slope to abortion" argument is lame, as stem cells and abortion are unrelated. Unless you're an idiot.
But Newt, in his seeming ever-presence prior to 2012, had this choice remark:
"It is dangerous for the Obama administration to pick a wide series of fights," said Gingrich. "Each of these fights simply drains energy away and increases the coalition which decides it has a collective interest in stopping everything."
Newt, you are aware that it's an executive order, right? That President Bush "picked this fight" through no act of Congress? I have no real problem with executive orders, but you can't go around claiming Obama is wrong to "fight" on this issue when all he has to do is have someone draw up a quick E.O. and be done with it.
If I were elected on a multifaceted platform, and I could achieve one of my stated campaign promises with no expenditure of political capital and no legislative whipping, you'd better believe I'd be on that like white on rice.
I think the GOP just wishes that Obama's reservoir of "political capital" were not as expansive as it seems. He has an extraordinarily strong mandate from the people--one that Bush did not have--and he is being as active as possible in his first few months as President.
I saw a headline the other day: "Will Americans Tire of Obama's Call for Responsibility?" it asked (I'm paraphrasing). It may have been an op/ed column, but I think it speaks volumes about our current political landscape. We actually have a President who is TOO GOOD for us. If he fails, it will be our (the collective American People's) fault for not living up to his expectations.
I cannot tell you how happy I am to be around to see such expectations made real.
February 25, 2009
"Well, allow me to retort."
The State of the Union was great. A+ for the President, although part of that grade may come from the fact that he can string sentences together and pronounce words correctly. I've missed that.
Then came Bobby Jindal, rising star of the Republican Party. Rising for some unknown reason, given his sad little rebuttal performance last night. Is it because he's "ethnic-looking"? Do the Republicans really think that if they just copy all the superficial aspects of Obama ("Weird name? Check. Dark skin? Check! Young guy? Check.") they can take the White House?
You heard it here first, folks: Jindal will never be President.
First, he has none of that charm that Obama has. He comes across as smarmy and lame, and that--I believe the proper term is "shit-eating"--grin he had plastered on his face as he approached the podium was just disturbing. Plus, what is he, 37? He graduated high school in 1990. That puts him in nearly my sphere of educational experience (Rhodes scholarship aside) which makes me think he has even less authority than the governor of a backwards-ass state more than $2 billion in debt.
But let's assume he can image himself up a little bit better. He remains a GOP talking point with no sense of personal responsibility, or party responsibility, whatsoever. Let's look at the "mea culpa" he delivered last night:
The Republicans can't even take responsibility for what happened when they controlled all three branches of government. Republicans "went along with earmarks"? THEY PUT THEM THERE. He makes it sound as if they fell asleep at the switch, and some legislation gnomes slipped into Congress and loaded all the bills with pork.
Then, Jindal takes Obama to task for implying that we (America/Americans) won't persevere through this economic crisis. Let's note first that Obama said "we may not be able to reverse" our economic slide if the stimulus plan isn't passed. If we do nothing, and simply pray that things get better, then it is quite possible we will collapse. A fair point, but not what Jindal quoted:
But actually, that's just the usual skewing of your opponents position. Weasely, for sure, but not all that out of the ordinary. I thought it was even worse that Jindal's litany of triumphs was so jumbled. We "cast off the scourge of slavery", did we? And who was it that put that scourge upon us in the first place? We had to fight a war with ourselves to get rid of slavery. And the Great Depression? Has he not read a history book? Again, a creation of our own selfishness and greed. The struggle for civil rights: fought, and won, by the liberals of this country against the conservatives.
The American spirit isn't a genetic by-product of being born in America. It is, more accurately, the human spirit. The freedoms given to us by our Constitution allow the human spirit to thrive, so it is understandable that we would begin equating the ingenuity and perseverance of Americans to some sort of nation-specific gift. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that it is something only Americans can do.
Then came Bobby Jindal, rising star of the Republican Party. Rising for some unknown reason, given his sad little rebuttal performance last night. Is it because he's "ethnic-looking"? Do the Republicans really think that if they just copy all the superficial aspects of Obama ("Weird name? Check. Dark skin? Check! Young guy? Check.") they can take the White House?
You heard it here first, folks: Jindal will never be President.
First, he has none of that charm that Obama has. He comes across as smarmy and lame, and that--I believe the proper term is "shit-eating"--grin he had plastered on his face as he approached the podium was just disturbing. Plus, what is he, 37? He graduated high school in 1990. That puts him in nearly my sphere of educational experience (Rhodes scholarship aside) which makes me think he has even less authority than the governor of a backwards-ass state more than $2 billion in debt.
But let's assume he can image himself up a little bit better. He remains a GOP talking point with no sense of personal responsibility, or party responsibility, whatsoever. Let's look at the "mea culpa" he delivered last night:
In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear -- our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.
The Republicans can't even take responsibility for what happened when they controlled all three branches of government. Republicans "went along with earmarks"? THEY PUT THEM THERE. He makes it sound as if they fell asleep at the switch, and some legislation gnomes slipped into Congress and loaded all the bills with pork.
Then, Jindal takes Obama to task for implying that we (America/Americans) won't persevere through this economic crisis. Let's note first that Obama said "we may not be able to reverse" our economic slide if the stimulus plan isn't passed. If we do nothing, and simply pray that things get better, then it is quite possible we will collapse. A fair point, but not what Jindal quoted:
You know, a few weeks ago, the president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said "we may not be able to reverse." Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her. This is the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery, overcame the Great Depression, prevailed in two World Wars, won the struggle for civil rights, defeated the Soviet menace, and responded with determined courage to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man, and the American spirit will triumph again.
But actually, that's just the usual skewing of your opponents position. Weasely, for sure, but not all that out of the ordinary. I thought it was even worse that Jindal's litany of triumphs was so jumbled. We "cast off the scourge of slavery", did we? And who was it that put that scourge upon us in the first place? We had to fight a war with ourselves to get rid of slavery. And the Great Depression? Has he not read a history book? Again, a creation of our own selfishness and greed. The struggle for civil rights: fought, and won, by the liberals of this country against the conservatives.
The American spirit isn't a genetic by-product of being born in America. It is, more accurately, the human spirit. The freedoms given to us by our Constitution allow the human spirit to thrive, so it is understandable that we would begin equating the ingenuity and perseverance of Americans to some sort of nation-specific gift. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that it is something only Americans can do.
February 23, 2009
Hey, How 'Bout Those Awards
I "watched" (left on in the background while I screwed around on the computer) the Academy Awards last night. Not the entire show; I missed the beginning and the first few awards, but generally saw the rest.
Milk Was Great
Sean Penn deserves that Oscar. Of course, I haven't seen any of the other nominees--I'm sure they were all great--but Sean Penn elevated an already outstanding movie. And I'm not just saying that because I live in the Bay Area.
Non-Shocking Ledger Win
I'm not against it, necessarily; Brolin didn't have quite enough to do in Milk to make his performance Oscar-worthy, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is going to get like, 15 more Oscars over the years, so it's valid. It is strange, to me, how many of the actors were nominated for playing well outside the "norm". Downey as an Australian as a black guy, Ledger as the Joker, Hoffman as a (apparently) pedophilic priest, and Brolin as that crazy bastard that shot Harvey Milk. I mean, maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but there is a distinction between great acting and great mimicking. Or, to be more specific, between great acting and a role that has such an obvious lightning rod element (Downey being in black face, for example) that you have to actually look HARDER to evaluate whether the actor actually acted well.
Not that Ledger, or Downey, or any of these guys did not act well. I'm just saying it can be difficult to look past the Joker make-up and crazy voice and say, "Was Heath Ledger the best supporting actor in 2008?"
Actors Describing Actors
The whole "former winners introduce current nominees" thing was interesting. At times, I thought it was really well conceived. Shirley McLaine's description of Anne Hathaway was particularly good; she spoke right to her and had that "grand dame of Hollywood" attitude that made it sound as if she really thought Hathaway was great and wasn't just reading prepared material. And watching DeNiro describe Sean Penn was pretty great too. Others were a bit leaden (it would appear that, unlike other Best Actresses, making Angelina Jolie misty-eyed is a more formidable task than mortal man can hope to achieve).
In Summation
WALL-E is the most underrated (by Academy nominations, anyhow) movie of the year.
Milk Was Great
Sean Penn deserves that Oscar. Of course, I haven't seen any of the other nominees--I'm sure they were all great--but Sean Penn elevated an already outstanding movie. And I'm not just saying that because I live in the Bay Area.
Non-Shocking Ledger Win
I'm not against it, necessarily; Brolin didn't have quite enough to do in Milk to make his performance Oscar-worthy, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is going to get like, 15 more Oscars over the years, so it's valid. It is strange, to me, how many of the actors were nominated for playing well outside the "norm". Downey as an Australian as a black guy, Ledger as the Joker, Hoffman as a (apparently) pedophilic priest, and Brolin as that crazy bastard that shot Harvey Milk. I mean, maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but there is a distinction between great acting and great mimicking. Or, to be more specific, between great acting and a role that has such an obvious lightning rod element (Downey being in black face, for example) that you have to actually look HARDER to evaluate whether the actor actually acted well.
Not that Ledger, or Downey, or any of these guys did not act well. I'm just saying it can be difficult to look past the Joker make-up and crazy voice and say, "Was Heath Ledger the best supporting actor in 2008?"
Actors Describing Actors
The whole "former winners introduce current nominees" thing was interesting. At times, I thought it was really well conceived. Shirley McLaine's description of Anne Hathaway was particularly good; she spoke right to her and had that "grand dame of Hollywood" attitude that made it sound as if she really thought Hathaway was great and wasn't just reading prepared material. And watching DeNiro describe Sean Penn was pretty great too. Others were a bit leaden (it would appear that, unlike other Best Actresses, making Angelina Jolie misty-eyed is a more formidable task than mortal man can hope to achieve).
In Summation
WALL-E is the most underrated (by Academy nominations, anyhow) movie of the year.
February 20, 2009
2 Cents: The Octuplet Lady
I am a few weeks late on this, but I watched the Dateline (or whoever) special last weekend and, as I watched, I thought that I would probably have to lay out some sort of blog post on the Crazy Baby Factory Lady.
(see, e.g., this article if you're unclear as to what I'm talking about)
The interview she did with Ann Curry helped make her seem less whack-job crazy, and more standard-style crazy like most of us. I think you have to break down her issues into two distinct categories: Wanting To Have Kids and then Raising 14 Bloody Children.
Wanting to Have Kids
Nadya Suleman wanted to have a big family. There are many reasons for this, and it sounds as if the way she was raised had a big influence on this desire. She underwent in vitro fertilization (or something similar) 5 times, and ended up with 6 kids because the last pregnancy resulted in twins. Then, according to her interview, she was happy and done.
But she had potential eggs left over at the clinic. And, she's religious or spiritual in such a way that she wanted to give those eggs a shot. I can respect that, even if my own opinion on the matter would be significantly different. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but the doctors gave one more go at pregnancy (for a presumably 7th or 7th/8th child) and BAM. A friggin' percussion section takes up residence in her uterus.
Now, I don't "agree" with someone who wants to have any more than say, 3 kids on their own. 2 or 3 children, as a single parent who is still pursuing her education, already taxes my conscience. 5 or 6 is downright silly. But I'm also aware that it's my opinion and I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about it. Especially after seeing her interviewed, where she came across as tired and a bit exasperated but not unduly nuts.
Her worst decision was in having "one more go" at her remaining ova. I can see the moral significance--if you believe that every "life" deserves a chance, you'd want to give these eggs a shot--but maybe they should have been donated to another infertile couple instead.
Raising 14 Bloody Children
So she got pregnant with what she thought was 7 kids (the 8th was a surprise during delivery). It is possible to selectively abort multiple fetuses in this situation, but after reading the above rationale for having the babies, why on earth would anyone expect her to do this? She wanted to give those eggs a shot, and boy howdy did they take her up on the offer.
But what's done is done, and I can't really fault her for not terminating any of the fetuses. Moreover, she now has 14 kids. Should she select some to give up for adoption? That seems arbitrary. Everybody is calling on various companies to boycott her, but while I believe she has been guilty of poor decision making, once the kids are out of the womb and walking around, my greater sense of charity towards the children overrides any sense that she should be punished. Because let's be honest, punishing Suleman is just punishing her children, who didn't do anything wrong here.
So I think anybody who wants to send them diapers or crates of baby clothes should go ahead and do so. Whether or not it "encourages" this kind of behavior is irrelevant; the behavior happened and now there are 14 kids that need assistance.
Final Tally
For those keeping score at home, here were Ms. Suleman's objective mistakes:
1. One of her first 6 children -- the 4th, I believe -- is autistic. That right there should have been the end of the line as far as having more babies; raising an autistic child has got be as taxing as 2 or 3 developmentally normal children.
2. ADOPTION, lady. One of her common refrains to Ann Curry is that she just wanted to have a big family like she didn't have, and that she wanted to have children all her own. I can respect that. I can even respect having one or two kids biologically to sate that desire. But after that? There are SO many children that could use a better home, why on earth would you have even 2 or 3 more on purpose when you could just adopt?
(see, e.g., this article if you're unclear as to what I'm talking about)
The interview she did with Ann Curry helped make her seem less whack-job crazy, and more standard-style crazy like most of us. I think you have to break down her issues into two distinct categories: Wanting To Have Kids and then Raising 14 Bloody Children.
Wanting to Have Kids
Nadya Suleman wanted to have a big family. There are many reasons for this, and it sounds as if the way she was raised had a big influence on this desire. She underwent in vitro fertilization (or something similar) 5 times, and ended up with 6 kids because the last pregnancy resulted in twins. Then, according to her interview, she was happy and done.
But she had potential eggs left over at the clinic. And, she's religious or spiritual in such a way that she wanted to give those eggs a shot. I can respect that, even if my own opinion on the matter would be significantly different. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but the doctors gave one more go at pregnancy (for a presumably 7th or 7th/8th child) and BAM. A friggin' percussion section takes up residence in her uterus.
Now, I don't "agree" with someone who wants to have any more than say, 3 kids on their own. 2 or 3 children, as a single parent who is still pursuing her education, already taxes my conscience. 5 or 6 is downright silly. But I'm also aware that it's my opinion and I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about it. Especially after seeing her interviewed, where she came across as tired and a bit exasperated but not unduly nuts.
Her worst decision was in having "one more go" at her remaining ova. I can see the moral significance--if you believe that every "life" deserves a chance, you'd want to give these eggs a shot--but maybe they should have been donated to another infertile couple instead.
Raising 14 Bloody Children
So she got pregnant with what she thought was 7 kids (the 8th was a surprise during delivery). It is possible to selectively abort multiple fetuses in this situation, but after reading the above rationale for having the babies, why on earth would anyone expect her to do this? She wanted to give those eggs a shot, and boy howdy did they take her up on the offer.
But what's done is done, and I can't really fault her for not terminating any of the fetuses. Moreover, she now has 14 kids. Should she select some to give up for adoption? That seems arbitrary. Everybody is calling on various companies to boycott her, but while I believe she has been guilty of poor decision making, once the kids are out of the womb and walking around, my greater sense of charity towards the children overrides any sense that she should be punished. Because let's be honest, punishing Suleman is just punishing her children, who didn't do anything wrong here.
So I think anybody who wants to send them diapers or crates of baby clothes should go ahead and do so. Whether or not it "encourages" this kind of behavior is irrelevant; the behavior happened and now there are 14 kids that need assistance.
Final Tally
For those keeping score at home, here were Ms. Suleman's objective mistakes:
1. One of her first 6 children -- the 4th, I believe -- is autistic. That right there should have been the end of the line as far as having more babies; raising an autistic child has got be as taxing as 2 or 3 developmentally normal children.
2. ADOPTION, lady. One of her common refrains to Ann Curry is that she just wanted to have a big family like she didn't have, and that she wanted to have children all her own. I can respect that. I can even respect having one or two kids biologically to sate that desire. But after that? There are SO many children that could use a better home, why on earth would you have even 2 or 3 more on purpose when you could just adopt?
February 2, 2009
Notes
Whenever people are arguing politics, someone inevitably attempts to argue that a policy or action is okay by noting how "up-in-arms" the other side would be if the roles were reversed.
That is, the argument is not that Policy A is okay, it's that it's "not as bad as when the other side did Policy Z!"
This is dumb. It goes for all ideologies and parties--unless you have a direct 1:1 correspondence in policy, it's a stupid argument to make. It rarely has something to do with the policy, and is really just an ad hominem attack, without a specific... um, hominem.
You CAN make this argument where people are being hypocrites. Flip-flopping on issues and such is a perfectly acceptable target for criticism. But the less similar the situation--and as they become dissimilar, the drop-off is quick--the lamer your argument becomes.
(This is a vague response to the story that Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican, wants a GOP to replace him if he takes the job of Commerce Secretary in Obama's administration; I am not against him, or his demand/request, but I see Democrats saying "He's not allowed to make this demand! Can you imagine how Republicans would howl if a Dem made this demand?!"
Short answer: yes, I can imagine it. I can imagine a unicorn-powered spaceship too, but that's not really the point is it?)
.....
Chicago is a great city. A cold city, to be sure, but a pretty great town overall. I will go back.
.....
People at the Denver International Airport are not fans of the Steelers. I'm not sure they're fans of the Cardinals, but they were super jazzed when Arizona pulled ahead. And super depressed when the Steelers pulled out a win. That was a helluva 4th quarter, man. I'm glad my layover allowed me to see it.
.....
Today UPS delivered a package that was literally mailed LAST YEAR. Good work UPS. Way to keep up the quality of service in these demanding economic times.
That is, the argument is not that Policy A is okay, it's that it's "not as bad as when the other side did Policy Z!"
This is dumb. It goes for all ideologies and parties--unless you have a direct 1:1 correspondence in policy, it's a stupid argument to make. It rarely has something to do with the policy, and is really just an ad hominem attack, without a specific... um, hominem.
You CAN make this argument where people are being hypocrites. Flip-flopping on issues and such is a perfectly acceptable target for criticism. But the less similar the situation--and as they become dissimilar, the drop-off is quick--the lamer your argument becomes.
(This is a vague response to the story that Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican, wants a GOP to replace him if he takes the job of Commerce Secretary in Obama's administration; I am not against him, or his demand/request, but I see Democrats saying "He's not allowed to make this demand! Can you imagine how Republicans would howl if a Dem made this demand?!"
Short answer: yes, I can imagine it. I can imagine a unicorn-powered spaceship too, but that's not really the point is it?)
.....
Chicago is a great city. A cold city, to be sure, but a pretty great town overall. I will go back.
.....
People at the Denver International Airport are not fans of the Steelers. I'm not sure they're fans of the Cardinals, but they were super jazzed when Arizona pulled ahead. And super depressed when the Steelers pulled out a win. That was a helluva 4th quarter, man. I'm glad my layover allowed me to see it.
.....
Today UPS delivered a package that was literally mailed LAST YEAR. Good work UPS. Way to keep up the quality of service in these demanding economic times.
January 29, 2009
...And This is Why Republicans Are Still Wrong
Yesterday, I extended a wee tiny olive branch towards the GOP because I believe, at first glance, that I am in agreement with them over this whole digital television roll-out thing.
Today, I'd like to correct that injustice by noting just how asinine the Republican Party remains.
Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law today, and for those of you not familiar with Mrs. Ledbetter, here's the deal: she worked at Goodyear as a supervisor for 19 years and made less than all her male colleagues -- including those with far, far less experience -- the entire time. But she didn't find out about it until she was about to retire.
In the legal world, your cause of action doesn't usually run until you discover you've been wronged. For many practical as well as ethical reasons, we don't reward people for keeping their misbehavior secret to outlast statutes of limitation. This used to be the case in pay discrimination cases until the boneheaded Supreme Court stepped in 2 years back and said people like Mrs. Ledbetter, who had been discriminated against for decades without their knowledge, only get (drumroll) 180 days worth of recompense.
Now, I respect the Supremes to a degree. I haven't read that particular opinion lately (I read it when it first came down) but if they want to jump on a perceived ambiguity in the law, so be it. Congress has now stepped up and amended the law to give the Ledbetters of the world a lot more options for recovery when their so blatantly discriminated against. This is how the system is supposed to work.
Of course, the Republicans still opposed the law. McCain, despite having been thoroughly trounced on this issue last fall, continued to vote against it. He used the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" to excuse his utterly wretched stance on this issue, and then blamed lack of education for women.
It is appalling to me that anybody can oppose this kind of course-correction legislation. I wish that I had more Republican-leaning readers, so that one could attempt to explain this thinking. But here's a hint: "it will lead to skyrocketing attorney costs and litigation" is not the right answer. You know what else leads to skyrocketing litigation? WHEN PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE. It's not Mrs. Ledbetter's lawyers that screwed her over repeatedly for nearly 2 decades. Goodyear deserves to be hammered, and hard, for their behavior.
For my part, I'm just not going to buy their tires.
Today, I'd like to correct that injustice by noting just how asinine the Republican Party remains.
Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law today, and for those of you not familiar with Mrs. Ledbetter, here's the deal: she worked at Goodyear as a supervisor for 19 years and made less than all her male colleagues -- including those with far, far less experience -- the entire time. But she didn't find out about it until she was about to retire.
In the legal world, your cause of action doesn't usually run until you discover you've been wronged. For many practical as well as ethical reasons, we don't reward people for keeping their misbehavior secret to outlast statutes of limitation. This used to be the case in pay discrimination cases until the boneheaded Supreme Court stepped in 2 years back and said people like Mrs. Ledbetter, who had been discriminated against for decades without their knowledge, only get (drumroll) 180 days worth of recompense.
Now, I respect the Supremes to a degree. I haven't read that particular opinion lately (I read it when it first came down) but if they want to jump on a perceived ambiguity in the law, so be it. Congress has now stepped up and amended the law to give the Ledbetters of the world a lot more options for recovery when their so blatantly discriminated against. This is how the system is supposed to work.
Of course, the Republicans still opposed the law. McCain, despite having been thoroughly trounced on this issue last fall, continued to vote against it. He used the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" to excuse his utterly wretched stance on this issue, and then blamed lack of education for women.
It is appalling to me that anybody can oppose this kind of course-correction legislation. I wish that I had more Republican-leaning readers, so that one could attempt to explain this thinking. But here's a hint: "it will lead to skyrocketing attorney costs and litigation" is not the right answer. You know what else leads to skyrocketing litigation? WHEN PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE. It's not Mrs. Ledbetter's lawyers that screwed her over repeatedly for nearly 2 decades. Goodyear deserves to be hammered, and hard, for their behavior.
For my part, I'm just not going to buy their tires.
January 28, 2009
"Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice..."
Time for some pithy commentary, right quick. You all can look up these stories on your own, they don't pay me* to hyperlink for your lazy asses.
- The U.S. Post Office is asking to halt mail delivery on Saturdays. I understand the reasoning--Saturday mail is just for residential, it would cut some serious costs out for the USPS--but dang it, it's just un-American. Saturday delivery is what makes this country great! It's what allows me to drag my feet to Thursday before returning a Netflix movie, and still get my new one for Saturday night!
I will tighten my belt, if the USPS asks me too, and accept this change, but I really hope that if/when times are better for the beleaguered civil servants, we get our Saturday mail back.
- The HD roll-out is off, no wait on, for February. Apparently, people are whining that they're not ready yet despite more than a year of notification, ultra-cheap government discounted set-top boxes, and a goddamn barrage of commercials every hour on the subject. For some reason it seems like the Democrats want a delay, and the Republicans think it's a bad idea. For once, I'm on board with Republicans (everyone take note, so that I can reference my bipartisan views in future blog posts). Enough notice is enough, let the people cry out in terror when their TV goes away mid-February. Maybe it will do them some good.
Because if you haven't figured this digital transition shit out by now, you're too stupid to be watching TV in the first place. Read books for awhile, and when you get what's happening come back and we'll talk.
- What is wrong with the Pistons, man? I have some level of faith in Curry but damn, how can a team with this much talent be so lackluster? They need to play Iverson, or don't play him, but this half-assed "X minutes per game" is no good. You can't get a player like Iverson and then insert him into an offense in a special role. He is the focus of the team wherever he plays, and if you want to use him you have to realize that.
Now I'm not saying they have to use him. They could trade him away, Detroit's got more than enough talent to go it without Ive. But they have to fish or cut bait, as it were.
* Okay, so they don't pay me to blog at all. But we have an understanding: they don't know.
** The title is meant to be read in the voice of the 80s Superfriends narrator.
- The U.S. Post Office is asking to halt mail delivery on Saturdays. I understand the reasoning--Saturday mail is just for residential, it would cut some serious costs out for the USPS--but dang it, it's just un-American. Saturday delivery is what makes this country great! It's what allows me to drag my feet to Thursday before returning a Netflix movie, and still get my new one for Saturday night!
I will tighten my belt, if the USPS asks me too, and accept this change, but I really hope that if/when times are better for the beleaguered civil servants, we get our Saturday mail back.
- The HD roll-out is off, no wait on, for February. Apparently, people are whining that they're not ready yet despite more than a year of notification, ultra-cheap government discounted set-top boxes, and a goddamn barrage of commercials every hour on the subject. For some reason it seems like the Democrats want a delay, and the Republicans think it's a bad idea. For once, I'm on board with Republicans (everyone take note, so that I can reference my bipartisan views in future blog posts). Enough notice is enough, let the people cry out in terror when their TV goes away mid-February. Maybe it will do them some good.
Because if you haven't figured this digital transition shit out by now, you're too stupid to be watching TV in the first place. Read books for awhile, and when you get what's happening come back and we'll talk.
- What is wrong with the Pistons, man? I have some level of faith in Curry but damn, how can a team with this much talent be so lackluster? They need to play Iverson, or don't play him, but this half-assed "X minutes per game" is no good. You can't get a player like Iverson and then insert him into an offense in a special role. He is the focus of the team wherever he plays, and if you want to use him you have to realize that.
Now I'm not saying they have to use him. They could trade him away, Detroit's got more than enough talent to go it without Ive. But they have to fish or cut bait, as it were.
* Okay, so they don't pay me to blog at all. But we have an understanding: they don't know.
** The title is meant to be read in the voice of the 80s Superfriends narrator.
January 15, 2009
"Ain't nobody got nothing to say about a 40-degree day."
So the big news today (besides that plane thing) is that Stringer Bell is coming to The Office. Well, okay, to be fair he will probably not play Stringer. But everytime I see someone from The Wire show up someplace else, I get a little weirded out.
Like when Marlo showed up on Heroes are started punching the hell outta everybody. That was actually pretty close to what Marlo would've been like had he had a super-power (as well as being a cold-ass sumbitch).
Stringer on The Office, though. I expect to see some good mashups using the dialogue from his Wire scenes where he tries to rally his lieutenants to sell better. Seems like an easy cross.
In other news, I'm halfway through Season 4 of The Wire and it's awesome. You know it is, but I'm just sayin'.
Like when Marlo showed up on Heroes are started punching the hell outta everybody. That was actually pretty close to what Marlo would've been like had he had a super-power (as well as being a cold-ass sumbitch).
Stringer on The Office, though. I expect to see some good mashups using the dialogue from his Wire scenes where he tries to rally his lieutenants to sell better. Seems like an easy cross.
In other news, I'm halfway through Season 4 of The Wire and it's awesome. You know it is, but I'm just sayin'.
January 9, 2009
Of Video Games and Morality
I had an interesting discussion the other day on the nature and purpose of Grand Theft Auto. Not the crime, but the video game series.
Briefly put, the argument put forth was that aspects of GTA are repugnant, pointless, and should not be included in the game. Specifically, the infamous "pick up a hooker and then kill her afterward to get your money back" stuff.
Now, that part of GTA has no bearing on the plot of the game itself. Like many things in GTA, it is merely something possible, like running over pedestrians, robbing a store, or otherwise being a ne'er-do-well.
But the point was made, and I have yet to find a strong rebuttal, that such things--being unnecessary to the plot--are merely in the game for sensationalist reasons and serve no value whatsoever.
I tend to agree, I guess, but I remain reluctant to say that such things should be government controlled. That is, I don't believe that any laws or regulations should exist to prevent video game developers from putting in such gameplay devices, except where other laws (such as those relating to child pornography) apply.
Do video games deserve the same non-censorship treatment as other "art" forms? If such a scene existed in a movie, it would be part of an overall plot. If, in the middle of The Godfather, Michael Corleone stopped on the street and beat a hooker to death, and then it was never referenced again, it would be a jarring, screwy moment and would likely lessen the entire impact of an otherwise stellar film.
Unlike other kinds of art, video games force the viewer to take an active role in experiencing the medium. You don't just watch it happen; you participate. The more open-ended a game is--case in point, GTA, where you can run around for days doing nothing but punching pedestrians--the more involvement the actual player has in determining what makes up his/her experience.
So then, while a painting of a beaten prostitute reflects only the viewpoint of the painter in displaying such an event, the inclusion of the same "scene" in a video game is... what? If it's not part of the story, but you can make it part of the story, what responsibility do we then put on the game designer? On the player?
Saying "it's just a video game", by the way, is not an answer. Some of the more recent games to come out have had plots rivaling that of films and (good) TV. At worst, GTA4 would be a solid C+ or B- movie; so it's unfair to dodge the question by crapping on the entire medium.
Briefly put, the argument put forth was that aspects of GTA are repugnant, pointless, and should not be included in the game. Specifically, the infamous "pick up a hooker and then kill her afterward to get your money back" stuff.
Now, that part of GTA has no bearing on the plot of the game itself. Like many things in GTA, it is merely something possible, like running over pedestrians, robbing a store, or otherwise being a ne'er-do-well.
But the point was made, and I have yet to find a strong rebuttal, that such things--being unnecessary to the plot--are merely in the game for sensationalist reasons and serve no value whatsoever.
I tend to agree, I guess, but I remain reluctant to say that such things should be government controlled. That is, I don't believe that any laws or regulations should exist to prevent video game developers from putting in such gameplay devices, except where other laws (such as those relating to child pornography) apply.
Do video games deserve the same non-censorship treatment as other "art" forms? If such a scene existed in a movie, it would be part of an overall plot. If, in the middle of The Godfather, Michael Corleone stopped on the street and beat a hooker to death, and then it was never referenced again, it would be a jarring, screwy moment and would likely lessen the entire impact of an otherwise stellar film.
Unlike other kinds of art, video games force the viewer to take an active role in experiencing the medium. You don't just watch it happen; you participate. The more open-ended a game is--case in point, GTA, where you can run around for days doing nothing but punching pedestrians--the more involvement the actual player has in determining what makes up his/her experience.
So then, while a painting of a beaten prostitute reflects only the viewpoint of the painter in displaying such an event, the inclusion of the same "scene" in a video game is... what? If it's not part of the story, but you can make it part of the story, what responsibility do we then put on the game designer? On the player?
Saying "it's just a video game", by the way, is not an answer. Some of the more recent games to come out have had plots rivaling that of films and (good) TV. At worst, GTA4 would be a solid C+ or B- movie; so it's unfair to dodge the question by crapping on the entire medium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)