This is Indeed a Disturbing Universe

Because I'm Not "Connected" Enough, I Guess

2009-10-13T17:37:00.000-07:00

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...

Where To Begin?

2009-10-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

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.

No No No No No No No. No.

2009-09-29T19:16:00.001-07:00

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.

Racism in Dissent?

2009-09-15T17:01:00.000-07:00

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.

And Now For a Different Point-of-View

2009-08-20T14:55:00.000-07:00

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.

At Least There No Humidity

2009-08-06T11:25:00.000-07:00

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.

More on Cops

2009-07-29T09:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Look, I'm a 50s-Era Ad Guy

2009-07-27T12:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Mixed Results

2009-07-23T11:36:00.000-07:00

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.

But Your Home is Your Home

2009-07-22T14:57:00.000-07:00

(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.

Movie Cliff's Notes: "Knowing"

2009-07-21T10:51:00.000-07:00

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.

On Debt

2009-07-20T10:23:00.000-07:00

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...

Sotomayor

2009-07-14T09:52:00.000-07:00

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.

So Much! Too Much?

2009-07-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

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.

At the Movies

2009-06-23T11:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Just Jettison Zumaya

2009-06-11T16:43:00.000-07:00

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.

So Oblivious

2009-06-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Moment of Clarity?

2009-05-20T11:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Brief Update Regarding Two Items

2009-05-13T00:00:00.001-07:00

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!

The Slow Death of the Newspaper

2009-05-11T13:43:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post's weekly chat with media man Howard Kurtz:

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.

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.

Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.

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.

Short Cuts

2009-04-27T10:27:00.000-07:00

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?

*this sentence mysteriously disappeared when I posted the first time. What's up, Internet mafia? WHY YOU STIFLING MY RATINGS.

And Then I Thought Better Of It.

2009-04-24T13:39:00.000-07:00

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!

Missing the Big Picture

2009-04-20T11:51:00.000-07:00

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.

The More Things Change...

2009-04-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

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.

The Easter of the Non-Religious Single Man Who Lives 2,750 Miles from His Relatives

2009-04-13T15:14:00.000-07:00

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!

Turns Out, It Stands for Emergency Room!

2009-04-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Let's Talk Time Travel

2009-04-02T16:50:00.000-07:00

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.

72 Hrs.

2009-03-19T13:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword

2009-03-09T10:16:00.000-07:00

(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:

"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.

"Well, allow me to retort."

2009-02-25T11:39:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

Hey, How 'Bout Those Awards

2009-02-23T09:17:00.000-08:00

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.

2 Cents: The Octuplet Lady

2009-02-20T12:16:00.000-08:00

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?

Notes

2009-02-02T14:22:00.000-08:00

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.

...And This is Why Republicans Are Still Wrong

2009-01-29T09:52:00.000-08:00

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.

"Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice..."

2009-01-28T14:45:00.001-08:00

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.

"Ain't nobody got nothing to say about a 40-degree day."

2009-01-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

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'.

Of Video Games and Morality

2009-01-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

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.

Awww.

2009-01-07T13:08:00.000-08:00

The recession, or whatever it is supposed to be called, killed one of the best bookstores in the Bay Area (if not in the country). Stacey's will be no more in a few months.

I can't say I was a "regular" customer, but anytime I was in SF and had some time to kill on Market, I'd pop into Stacey's. It's huge but not impersonal, has a great selection, and overall just seemed so inviting. Plus, it is much easier to navigate than the cramped aisles of that other, more famous SF bookstore, City Lights.

So -1 point, Bay Area. It has not been a good year for you, thus far.

BALLS BALLS BALLS

2009-01-01T19:22:00.000-08:00

Hey, Happy New Year 2009!

How about somebody eff's my car up in their revelries! Why not? I mean, it's me. My car is like a goddamn magnet for bad behavior.

That's what happens when I opt for a laid-back New Year's Eve, due mostly to illness. I mean, I could have gone out (I was 80% recovered) but I thought, "Meh. I can watch movies."

And then somebody tears up my car IN ITS PARKING SPOT. AGAIN.

Sigh. Fuck you very much, Oakland.

How Do You Live?

2008-12-15T20:44:00.000-08:00

So I'm cooking up a Trader Joe's burrito tonight, and it strikes me how rough it must have been in the days before microwave ovens. I mean, seriously?!

Microwave: Cover burrito with paper towel. Defrost at 50% power for 2 minutes. Heat on high 1 minute.

Oven: Pre-heat oven to 350. Remove burritos from package and wrap in foil and place on baking sheet. Cook burritos for 40 minutes.

Yeah I could cook it in the oven. Or I could LIVE MY LIFE.

It Didn't Make Me Shake with Rage

2008-12-10T13:58:00.000-08:00

I've spoken about my... hate-hate relationship with the NBC show "Heroes" before. Twice, even. The show is just stupid. It lacks the most basic fundamentals that any narrative arc requires: coherency and continuity.

Lately, the "heroes" (I use the term loosely because you give me a baseball bat and I could probably do a better job hero'ing my way around town than these idiots) have had their powers stripped, returned again, and are all playing some sort of power shifting, stealing, and sharing "Musical Chairs".

Monday's episode, however, wasn't a complete insult to the intelligence of a 3-year-old. I mean, it had plenty of idiotic parts (see below) but the storyline was tighter: one main story, one minor, and one... small stupid one. You can't win them all, I suppose.

Now, I consider this to be a brief oasis in an otherwise cancel-worthy season, but it reminded me of why the show used to have so much potential. The writers managed to keep the exposition to a minimum (a Heroes minimum being only 4 or 5 times an episode will a character literally narrate what he/she is doing) and the main story was actually fairly good.

But then, of course, they're still a bunch of morons. Five minutes with just ONE person's powers and I've got all their problems solved. But not them!

- Hiro can teleport through time and space, as well as stop time outright. So why does he let the bad guy steal his powers and fling him off a roof? Probably because his writers hate him.

- The speedy chick, name forgotten because I don't care, drags her friends from Iowa to NYC at super-speed? How would that not kill them? How is she strong enough to DO that? Lazy, stupid writers again.

- The bad guy, who possesses something like 4 different super-healing abilities, is killed with a bullet to the brain while his powers are being neutralized. Now, I liked that the neutralizing guy had trouble keeping him in check. But the show has already shown us, several times that the healing folks come back to life if they happen to die while being de-powered. Maybe he's just not dead. But why do the people responsible for his death figure it's all good? Especially when one of them had this exact thing already happen to him?

See, I thought it was a solid B- episode (they are usually D+ at best) and now I'm already rethinking it down to a C. But I really did like the Hiro-Momma Hiro story, and even Claire's story. Although, seeing her hold and coo at her 1-month old self (time travel, folks) was unbelievably creepy.

Of course I will watch next week's "2008 finale". I can't look away.

I Told You So (Vol. One)

2008-12-04T11:27:00.000-08:00

Obama has been all sorts of elected for a month now. He hasn't had much of a chance to do anything yet (what with not actually being President) but he has started picking the various members of his cabinet.

Do I whole-heartedly endorse every pick? Nah. But is he already proving to be a more capable and thoughtful leader than any we've had these past 8 years? Absolutely. His choices are diplomatic, nuanced, and by and large unarguably excellent. Well, maybe not "unarguably" but the argument is far above the arguments we've had about various Bush administration appointees.

Part of the argument for Obama during the campaign was, while he may be somewhat inexperienced, his thoughtfulness and ability to surround himself with people who both disagree and challenge his views more than make up for that perceived lack of experience.

And lo, it has come to pass.

Let's Go Crazy, Bullet-Point Style

2008-12-03T08:40:00.001-08:00

Except, I'm not sure how to make bullet points in HTML. So you get a cheap facsimile.

* I have a big set of new cases at work. They have kept me on the phone listening to depositions for about 70% of my time the last 2 weeks. This is a marked increase from the 0% I had previously had going. I think I might actually like attending depositions better than being on the phone. Jury is still out on that one, though.

* It has now become all kinds of chilly here in the Bay Area. Perhaps Thanksgiving was some kind of marker, or the beginning of December, but last night I slept IN a fleece. With blankets. I wasn't actually cold, but I didn't overheat either, and that's saying something. This morning in the apartment, it was 57 degrees.

* When I sneeze while sitting at my desk, I have a tendency to shoot back in my rolling chair, ala some sort of cartoon character. Few coworkers have caught me doing this, but I am fearing the day when they do. It is perhaps 90% an unconscious reaction.

* No politics on here for ages! Chambliss won in Georgia, to the surprise of approximately nobody. I still find it hysterical that Republicans, the sole party governing our nation for 6 of the last 8 years, now argue the necessity of a more balanced Congress. Also that they seem to routinely fail at 8th grade civics by forgetting we have three branches of government, and the Supreme Court is still 5-4 conservative.

* I get to go home for more than a few days at Christmas, after all. I am stoked. Whirlwind trips are a pain in the ass for so many reasons, and this year it was possible that my 4 days trips would also include (beyond the flights) a 16 hour car ride to Florida. It still includes that, but now stretches 9 days. Hooray!

* Saw Blood Diamond finally. It was a decent movie, but pretty much screwed over any potential girlfriends I may have from here on out. Sorry ladies, but no diamonds for you. And not just because of the movie; I've done the independent research. I don't trust those diamond-shilling bastards. It's all burlap gifts from now on. Because everybody loves burlap!

* It's foggy as all get out. I have "Desire" by U2 stuck in my head. And I'm tired of coming in early to work, even if my "early" is later than the rest of you people's normal start times.

A Whirlwind Awaits

2008-11-25T22:26:00.000-08:00

Being a lazy gadabout (look it up!) often means that I depend on those who visit the Bay Area to rouse me from my sloth-like lifestyle so that I can take in the wonders of Northern California. Although I have lived here nearly 3 years, there are still a few places I haven't been. Sadly, Alcatraz remains one of those places. Damn tourists bought all the tickets, even on a Monday.

But I still knocked a few more items off the list! My weekend in photos:

The view from the Marin Headlands. I had never been out to the point before, and since it wasn't buried under a mountain of fog, off we went! I can't believe I didn't go sooner.

But that's not all! Did somebody say... trees?

Yes, it's Muir Woods. A fairly gray day, but the trees are always great, so in we went. I had been here before (thrice!) but it's still impressive every time. You will of course notice that I took no actual pictures of the redwoods. Just random forest shots. That was totally 100% guaranteed on purpose, for reals.

There was the requisite stop at the big bridge herself:

And Saturday gave us a lovely sunset.

Of course, as always, you get no pictures of me. This is because I don't like you.

Nah, I'm just joshin' ya. It's because I don't want to.

I Hope It Wasn't THAT Important

2008-11-12T10:30:00.000-08:00

I have several email addresses. Many of us do. In fact, I have two separate Gmail addresses, one I created solely to reserve the name (first initial, last name @ gmail) and one I use daily.

The reserved email is rarely checked. Every two or three months, I pop in to see if anybody shorthanded my "normal" email incorrectly (The Machine used to do this a lot) but mostly I find spam and other incorrectly-addressed email from various strangers. Someone named Samantha (grrr) keeps trying to sign up to Western Union but apparently doesn't know her own email address.

Today, I saw this:

Subject: I Love You
...even if you are a pain in the ass.

It was, of course, 2 months old. Just a short message from someone who shares my last name and lives in New York, to someone who shares my first initial and last name. Relative? Wife? It is hard to say.

But I was amused.

Hulk vs. Hulk, and Other Random Points

2008-11-11T10:46:00.000-08:00

I watched the new "Incredible Hulk" movie (with Ed Norton) last night. I actually meant to watch in Sunday but stupidly bought the previous Ang Lee/Eric Bana creation. I don't hate the old one, like many did; I thought it was far more nuanced than most superhero movies, and appreciated the subtext that Lee brought.

This new Hulk was definitely more straightforward, but not stupid. At least, not Fantastic Four-level stupid. I think they were truer to the Hulk's "powers" in the Ang Lee version, though. He gets stronger as he gets madder. He has, to some extent, unlimited power as long as people keep pissing him off. That's why he beats Superman, because at the end of the day he is stronger that ol' Supes.

The new Hulk, Nortonified, is not quite as big or strong. He is a better Hulk in other ways (he doesn't have to fight "Hulk dogs", for one thing) but I wish they had alluded to the deep ocean of rage that fuels his strength. Still, solid B effort. B+ for including Iron Man at the end there.

........

I lost, sort of, in court yesterday. It was disappointing but valuable because it is the first time I lost when, really, I shouldn't have. The judge was just not open to hearing my argument, and not open to an objective review of the dispute. It is not a remotely important issue, but it stings. I don't like losing when the facts and the law are on my side, but it happens, and I'm glad it happened on this instead of on, say, something dispositive.

I am also a bit under the weather with a very mild cold. I don't really get sick, hence it is mild, but it is a pain in the ass. It did not stop me from completely rearranging my apartment on Sunday, though it did wear me out a lot faster than moving a couch 10 feet should wear me out.

"Your Honor..."

2008-11-09T16:50:00.000-08:00

The day before oral argument, even at a fairly inconsequential hearing, it a pain in my ass. Every time I have a moment of silence, or am not actively engaging in some activity, I start rehearsing said argument in my head.

Or, out loud. In the shower, driving on the highway, drying off after the shower. Naked oral argument is weird, by the way.

It doesn't really prepare me, either. I will speak from a rough outline which has yet to be written, so all the pacing and practicing in my apartment is vaguely useless.

I do like this part of my job, though. And, the tentative ruling was not in our favor, which makes me the underdog, which makes me like it even more.*

*though note to self, write better briefs so you're not the underdog.

Yikes

2008-11-06T14:28:00.001-08:00

In an attempt to gloat about the massive triumph on Tuesday, I went by a few conservative blogs and websites to drink down their sweet, sweet tears. Not so much to post things comments, but just to take it all in.

I don't really visit these sites with regularity, because while I enjoy a good debate, there is little to be found on most conservative websites. I mean, there is a debate with reality that most of these sites lose regularly, but not a debate with real people involved.

So I was sort of disappointed to see that not only are they sore losers--a minor sin that I have been guilty of myself, and can forgive--but some of these folks have LOST IT completely.

I won't go into details (because that's not the point, and because I said no more politics for awhile) but damn if I ever saw such hate-filled invective. More than angry, I became sad for these people. I firmly believe that Nov. 4 is a keystone day for our country, and will be historically reviewed as a perfect example of American excellence. And it is sad to realize there will be a significant, but small, portion of the country that has eternalized their hatred for this event in electronic form.

You people are old oats. You're betamax. You're the neanderthal, and the cro-magnons have arrived. The dustbin of history awaits.

Armchair Quarterbacking the GOP

2008-11-05T09:53:00.000-08:00

(Note: I am too pissed to write about Prop 8. It is a morally and legally indefensible ballot initiative that I am still hoping can be destroyed at the Federal level. But more on that when I've actually checked whether that's true.)

There is, by all accounts, going to be a lot of hand-wringing and "soul" (I used the term loosely) searching within the Republican party now that they've been so spectacularly defeated on so many levels. I would be remiss if I didn't offer my own 2 cents.

Forgetting Sarah Palin
It is said that Palin energized the GOP "base", but in reality, she energized only the very vocal, socially conservative minority. Many fiscally conservative Republicans were aghast at her selection, and eventually made their opinions known.

Now, the talk (and McCain's concession speech last night) is that Palin is a rising star in politics. I disagree. Not because she's not a good politician -- she clearly is -- but because her brand of politics is exactly what brings in less than half the country. Obama's win is a repudiation of the idea that America is socially conservative. Americans don't like being labeled one way or the other, but it is clear from last night that those who side with God and guns alone are not going to win. If Palin doesn't change her methods and viewpoint, then heralding her as the Next Big Thing will only mean continual defeats.

Few voters were brought into the GOP because of Palin. Far more were pushed out. The math is pretty simple.

Return to Your Non-Whackjob Roots
That doesn't mean that the GOP can't be "big tent" and include the fundamentalists and social conservatives. Democrats certainly don't want them (for the most part). But you can't let them control your party. You can't let them dictate a platform of backwards-looking social ideals. They can't be the most vocal wing. They have to shut up, sit down, and realize that they are far better off with a GOP government anyhow.

Democrats have done the same thing, for many years, with minorities. Yesterday's election notwithstanding, African-Americans have long been "assumed" Democrats because honestly, are they going to vote Republican? Not in meaningful numbers. It is not a policy of the Democratic party to do this, but rather laziness and a sense of entitlement by party leaders. I'm not endorsing it as a Democratic strategy, but Republicans might want to look at how it has worked out.

Fiscal Conservatism Isn't Terrible
I may have differences of opinion with conservatives about the role and size of the U.S. government, but I respect those opinions. I would like to argue those ideas with Republicans, but they seem far more focused on God, abortion, and gays. That isn't to say people shouldn't disagree with me on those issues, but if you put fiscal conservatism up front, you have a much stabler platform.

The GOP hasn't done that of late, because their "base" won't let them. That's why I said above that you have to make fiscal conservatism your base, and social conservatism your fringe. Argue economics and big government, and FAR more Americans will join up. Argue that all gays will burn in hell, and you're in for a long, cold political winter.

End Note: This may be the last political post for awhile. No promises, but I'm sort of exhausted. I am still angry about Prop 8, so I may have to tear Californians a new one, but overall I'm spent.

Yes We Can

2008-11-05T00:01:00.000-08:00

I wanted to get my thoughts down now, before sleep dulls them.

There was nothing (at the national level) that didn't go perfectly tonight. My home state was the domino that called it for Obama. He has surpassed 300 electoral votes and may pass 350--a landslide. More than 50% of the vote--a mandate.

McCain was extraordinarily classy in his concession speech. His crowd was, well, the crowd that his campaign cultivated. They were not classy.

Obama was... pretty much as he always is. Amazing. Humble and exceedingly aware of the tasks before us. Inspiring, even. Did you see Jesse Jackson with tears in his eyes?

The coming weeks and months may dull this feeling, as "politics" takes over, at least to a certain degree.

But right now, I've got hope for America, for the first time in my entire life. That our country and our world might finally move in a positive direction, instead of scraping out an existence, trying not to slip back into the dark ages.

It is probably uncharacteristically naive of me. But look at what we did; in spite of our best efforts to screw this up, we elected the right man for the job. And more than that, we etched a permanent achievement in our history, one that cannot be undone no matter how the next 4-8 years turn out.

Thank you, America, for doing the right thing.

A Few Thoughts on This Historic Day

2008-11-04T13:17:00.000-08:00

First, and most obviously, you should go vote. Whether it's for Obama or the other guy, you should vote. The only caveat is if you would vote for Obama, but won't because he's not white, just don't vote at all. We'll look for you and your enlightened self in 2012, but for now, go ahead and stay home. It's the least you can do.

Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.

Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).

And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.

So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.

It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.

McCain's Catch-22?

2008-10-31T10:01:00.000-07:00

People argue that McCain wouldn't be attacking Obama so much if he were winning. He has to go after him, they say, because Obama's out front!

But he can't be out front by attacking. Part of the reason, in my humblest of opinions, that Obama has done so well is that he doesn't go after McCain specifically. When he does, the two of them slug it out over a specific issue or attack, but the majority (the large majority) of Obama's speeches are focused on changing America. The attacks, when they do happen, are just as much against Bush as they are McCain.

McCain, on the other hand, hasn't spoken at length about his desire to change the country. He does now, at the 11th hour, because he has nothing left to lose. But "back in the day" (early September, when he was ahead) he didn't take the high ground. He stayed in the trenches and promptly lost his bounce-inspired lead. And unleashing Palin--who simply can't make positive remarks because she hasn't the ability--has driven this home.

McCain is an entirely negative campaign. There's no "here's what we will do for you" anymore; it's only "here's what Obama will do to you." And people aren't responding, because that's not the mood of the electorate.

Too bad for him. I am about 48 to 72 hours from actually being excited about this election, instead of worried. It will be a strange feeling if Obama wins.

Also of note: do you hear anything about Hillary supporters voting for McCain anymore these days? I've no doubt there are a few nutjobs left that are doing so, but the furor over their quisling movement has completely dropped off the radar. And I've been reading a LOT of political stories lately.

Tipping Point

2008-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Notwithstanding some colossal polling error or a very, very late October surprise, Obama should win this thing next week.

What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.

I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).

But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.

It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.

So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.

I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.

No on Prop 8

2008-10-27T10:20:00.000-07:00

A fairly obvious statement, given my previous entries on the subject of gay marriage. I'm all for it! Marry! Be happy!

But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.

Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.

How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.

(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)

That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.

Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.

Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.

Cabo San Lucas

2008-10-24T12:44:00.000-07:00

It is a good place, this Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

It was: beaches, pools, lounge chairs, midnight swims, mosquito bites, mild sunburns, a sunset cruise, girls from Portland, a girl from Utah, a drunken family, doing shots upside down, simulated humping, tequila sunrises, margaritas, pina coladas, tequila shots, Coronas, Pacificos, Modelos, and one big pineapple drink thing.

Pictures, if there are any that I am comfortable putting up on the blog, will be put up this weekend. Or whenever my sister stops getting in bar fights long enough to send me what she took with her camera.

Let's Clear This Up

2008-10-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

I've been trapped in deposition hell for a few days, but am now finally free. The Lions are still awful, the last debate went well, and I'm going to Mexico in 2 days.

But let's talk about voter fraud.

That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.

So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.

You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.

Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.

But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.

ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.

Eight-Year-Olds, Dude*

2008-10-07T11:47:00.000-07:00

I've gone on rants against bad drivers before--who hasn't, really, unless you are one of those bad drivers--but today I thought I'd share the wealth and tear pedestrians a new one.

We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.

It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.

All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.

How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.

Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.

The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!

So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.

*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.

Economic Apocalypses Are Boring

2008-10-06T10:01:00.000-07:00

So, do we have a plan B?

Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.

But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!

I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!

The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.

The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.

The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.

The Inevitable VP Debate Post

2008-10-03T09:40:00.000-07:00

"This was supposed to be a no rough stuff type deal!"

I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.

But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.

She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!

So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.

I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.

Hotels: Gateway to Hell

2008-10-02T10:45:00.000-07:00

Why are hotels so scary?

It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.

With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.

Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?

I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?

Jackass, Prophet, or Something In Between?

2008-10-01T10:38:00.000-07:00

I watched Into the Wild last night. This will be a fairly spoiler-laden commentary on the film, so if you haven't seen it and don't know this guy's story, you should probably stop reading... now.

Anyway. To briefly summarize, this is the story of a kid (new college graduate) that takes off and bums around the country with little money, meeting people and trying to "take it all in" to a certain extent. I do not know the degree to which liberties were taken from the "real story" by the film's producers, so I am going to discuss the film as a stand-alone story, without regard to what may have "really happened".

At first, the main character (Chris) bugged the hell out of me. He reads Thoreau and wants to give up all his earthly possessions and live "pure" as Thoreau did, and to further this goal he gives thousands of dollars to OXFAM and heads for the hills.

As most college graduates can tell you, college kids are often idiots. They stumble upon a work of literature, or art, or historical account, and act like the rest of the world hasn't already experienced this "amazing discovery". It is insufferable and one of the few drawbacks of providing an education. Most kids who go through this phase grow out of it, and realize that yes, The Call of the Wild is a great book. Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer. But you have to add something new to the analysis--a far more difficult task than just "appreciating" the author--to be relevant.

Chris first comes across as nothing more than a whiny, self-involved brat. The film attempts to paint a sympathetic back-story--his parents are assholes--but since everybody butts heads with their parents, it rings a little hollow as an excuse for his behavior.

Later, he becomes a little less obviously jerky, and you do come to believe he really does think that living a ramblin' man life of poverty is the key to happiness. He is pretty happy despite being knocked around by railroad bulls and squeezing through drainage pipes. But the underlying purpose of his travels remains a dissatisfaction with his parents and with "consumerism".

I realize I've gotten a bit off track, because the anti-consumerist attitude was what I initially meant to talk about. The thing about anti-consumerism is that while I fully believe that a healthy dose of moderation is important, like any other ideology, anti-consumerism is extremely stupid when taken to the extreme. It's great that HE can go bumming around the country, working as much as he needs to get by. But someone has to build the grain mill he works at. Someone has to run the fast-food restaurant he (very briefly, in the film) works at to save money. People build the roads, and the cars in hitches with, and so forth. It is naive and insulting to use these tools to achieve your anti-consumerist goals, while backhanding those who provide them as "ignorant" and "superficial".

Furthermore, I take issue with the idea that, survivability aside, everybody should live simply. It is a waste of human possibility to have everybody living in a log cabin, getting by off the land. We have the ability to design and plan massive skyscrapers; to study and manipulate genetics; to write and paint and sculpt truly amazing works of art. If we all give up the tools to do those things, we are dong a disservice to our species.

As far as the film goes, it doesn't come out and push these "live simply" virtues to the degree that I attack them. It is never obvious that Chris wants others to live this way, but that he is doing it himself as part of a search for something bigger. But the film--until the last half hour--makes him into a hero for "kicking off the establishment" and the implication is that he is a role model for that reason.

Of course (Spoiler Alert Again! For Real This Time!) he dies because of his ramblin' man attitude. He starves to death in the cold nowhere of Alaska (the film implies that he mistakenly eats paralytic berries, but in real life it seems that he just plain starved). He realizes at the end that "happiness is only real when shared" and tries to go back to society, only to get trapped. It is a bummer, but how much sympathy can I really have? At multiple points in the movie he is offered friendship and family, and he turns them down to continue his solo adventure.

Overall, I suppose this was a good movie. It clearly left me thinking about a number of issues. And as the stand-alone story of this guy's misguided life, it does a great job as a film. As a "message movie" I'm not so sure how it fares; the message is muddled and unclear--if it's "Chris McCandless was right!" then it's crap. If it's "he died finding out his worldview was wrong" then it shoves that in a bit late to be effective.

Anybody have any thoughts on this? If you even read this far down?

And yes, I know he went to my high school. Graduated 10 years before me in 1986! He died right around the time I was starting at Woodson.

Sports Make Me Sad

2008-09-29T17:14:00.001-07:00

It is a time of transition in the sports world, with the baseball season winding down (or up, if your team made the playoffs) and the football season off to a running start.

But it's a sad time to be a Detroit fan. The Tigers had so much promise this year, and are finishing last in their division. They made a go of it for a few weeks here and there, but were hampered by extraordinarily poor pitching (which was, let's be honest, not helped by and abundance of injuries). It's a bummer but the Tigers still have so much talent that with some good off-season training and acquisitions, they have a great chance next season.

The same cannot be said for the lowly Lions, who are so bad that they've fired general manager Matt Millen, who probably should have been fired 7 years ago. But firing is not a solution, it merely creates a vacancy that the 0-3 Lions must now fill a quarter of the way into the season. It is a monumentally daunting task, because the new GM won't have the ability to cause any immediate change--better drafts, better trades, and better players are needed for that. I don't envy the shmuck who gets that job.

On the upside, basketball and hockey are starting fairly soon, and Detroit still knows how to flirt with greatness when it comes to its arena-based sports. The Red Wings are always great, and the Pistons are one of the best teams out there. It's really a shame that I prefer baseball and football, but at least it's something to root for.

In non-professional news, Virginia Tech beat Nebraska this weekend, which was unexpected but a nice surprise. Nebraska isn't ranked this year, but they're still Nebraska, so good on the Hokies for kicking butt. Tech is now ranked 20th, which means of course that they'll win a few more, get to about 14th or 13th, and flame out spectacularly. I mean, if previous seasons are any indication. God bless 'em.

Oh, and...

2008-09-26T11:30:00.000-07:00

How awesome is it that The Office is back? Last night was spectacular.

Does anybody still watch ER? Why they gotta be all up and killin folks? That was depressing.

More Political Rhetoric From Me!

2008-09-26T09:58:00.001-07:00

Sometimes, I just post things because I need to get it straight in my own head. I am aware that very few of this blog's readers will disagree on most of these ideas--but by all means, if you do, speak up. Tell me where the fallacy lies.

The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.

To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?

Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.

The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).

Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.

So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.

But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.

But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.

Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.

Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.

Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.

Heroes: Still Inept

2008-09-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

Monday night* saw the too-long season premier of Heroes on NBC. I went off on the show back in November (which ended then because of the writer's strike, if memory serves) saying that it had to get a helluva lot smarter to make watching worth my time.

Well, they may have tried. I'm not sure if show creator Tim Kring actually listened to the legions of people who were simply pissed off at the complete idiocy of the characters, but they seem slightly less stupider than last season.

But that's not saying much. Because wow were they a bunch of morons last year. This year, things seem to be moving at a brisker pace (so far) and the number of pointless speeches has decreased (but not disappeared).

On the other hand, the new characters are annoying. The new "speedster chick" would be fine if her powers made a lick of sense. But Hiro can stop time, he doesn't just slow it down. So how come she freezes like everyone else, but then unfreezes at will?

I've said it before--most notably in my rant against poor Underdog--but it bears repeating: you've got to establish a mythology, and then stick to those rules. If some guy can fly, then he can fly! Don't put him in situations where flight can solve a problem, and then have him not use it!

I will give it another episode, or maybe two, but without a spectacular change in tone and direction, this potentially great show is just a couple weeks away from my "Avoid This Crap" list.

*Also Monday night: How I Met Your Mother returned. It's still funny, though I hope they don't keep this Barney-Robin storyline up for long. I like insane-misogynistic Barney, not polite-cares-about-you Barney.

You Know You're Boned When...

2008-09-23T10:24:00.001-07:00

...running as a conservative, even George Will thinks you're a crackpot.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

(from The Post)

I will confess to not having the business know-how to completely grapple with the current economic crazytimes. I am glad that I'm not in a financial-sector job, though am fully aware that it's all interrelated and that eventually my own profession will suffer if the economic outlook isn't improved.

That being said, why bailouts? I'm pretty damn liberal, and hold many case-specific opinions that socialism is not a universally bad idea, but this seems completely unnecessary. I mean, when you have a liberal telling you to let the capitalist market correct itself, aren't you being more than a little reactionary?

I realize it has a trickle-down effect, and it sucks that poorer folks are getting screwed out of their housing loans. I am on-board with assistance programs to try and stem this tide of foreclosures. I am not on-board with bailouts of massive Wall Street firms that should have known better. Joe Homeowner may have as much fiscal smarts as me; Jim Stockbroker is a damn professional. This is like the government giving my firm a pass for committing insurance law violations. It's our job to know that stuff.

I know this is all fluff, even more so than usual because I really, really don't know much about the markets. But it's nice to see that smarter men than I (George Will is very, very smart) feel the same way.

Funny

2008-09-12T13:06:00.000-07:00

I may be seizure-inducing angry with politics lately, but I still find humor when it pops up.

Regarding Sarah Palin, on Slate:

"The smell of my daughter’s clean laundry makes me feel warm and wonderful about families, but I’m not electing a pile of it vice president of the United States."

Indeed, son. Indeed.

I Know I'm a Broken Record

2008-09-10T12:16:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately for you all, my daily life does not allow me much room to vent about politics. My job is not remotely political, I live in a city full of people who think along the same lines, and my friends don't need any convincing.

So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.

But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.

This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.

So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.

A Radical Idea

2008-09-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us."
- John McCain's acceptance speech

It has always been popular to bash Washington, DC, as a kind of shorthand for "politics". People seem to like the idea of "Washington outsiders" even though those who work in DC know just how useless most so-called "outsiders" actually are. Aside from getting lost repeatedly, they don't know how the system works.

McCain is a doofus, but this is at first glance a more honest line than most others. At second glance, it's full of crap. Because Washington is also just a city. It doesn't change anybody. Politics might change people, but politics IS people.

If you were elected decades ago to "change Washington," then maybe it's time to consider your epic failure. McCain hasn't changed politics, or his party, and now he's trying to get another go-around at it?

Here's the headline: Washington didn't change you. Nothing changed you. You're the same party that was elected into power 8 years ago, and the same party that held sway in Washington for 6 of those years. What does it take to make people realize that this was as golden an opportunity as a political party could ask for, and yet they've failed miserably? By McCain's own account, they've failed. He attributes the cause of the failure to the mystical energy imbued in the various monuments, museums and other buildings of DC, but he still admits failure.

Frankly, Obama could be the "emptiest suit" in the history of politics, and he would be better. He could be a scary black panther, or a Marxist, and I'd be more comfortable with him in charge.

That is how you change Washington. You give someone else a turn at the wheel, and you hope they do a better job.

Not So Bad

2008-08-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

So yeah, I'm at work on a Saturday, but there's some good tunes rockin' from the street fair down below. And I get to act like a total VIP by parking in my building garage.

I won't be working for more than a few hours--there's only so much you can do when folks be rappin' up a storm or jamming on blues guitar 500 feet away.

Who's in the What Now?

2008-08-29T09:15:00.000-07:00

I turned on the news this morning, and was pretty confused for about 45 seconds. The caption said "McCain picks Palin for VP spot" and the anchors were talking about abortion. The video was of some woman getting married, looped.

Sarah Palin? This seems like a pretty naked grab for "disgruntled Hillary supporters" but severely overestimates how badly women just want to vote for a woman. Women aren't morons, and if they're Democrats why would they vote for a super-conservative? Ovaries?

She may be a "rising star" in the GOP, but has the GOP forgotten who lives at its core? A big fat pile of extraordinarily backwards-thinking folk, who believe a woman's place is in the home. Are they on board with this? Maybe. I don't know any of them personally. But I bet it's enough to offset the tiny gains McCain will get from "Democrat" women.

McCain has managed to steal the news cycle from Obama, post-convention. That would be an excellent--if largely inconsequential--strategic move, but he had to use his VP pick do to it. The Republicans will now dominate the news for about a week, but in two weeks, what will we have? Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin. No "shocking picks" are left to derail the Democrat's train.

I don't know much about this Palin person, except that she's only been governor of one of our least populated states for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town that has fewer people than my graduating class at Virginia Tech.

Biden is going to eat her alive in the debates. Liberal women won't vote for her. Hardcore conservatives may be uneasy with a woman in such a prominent position. I would not be surprised if we look back in a few months and pinpoint this move as a clear manifestation of "winning the battle but losing the war."

Day of Mulling it Over Update: This could potentially be disastrous for McCain, and here's why: Palin is not battle-forged. She's never been anywhere close to a national campaign, her previous experiences in Alaska are nothing compared to having legions of reporters and bloggers watching you like a hawk and digging through your garbage.

I don't know her well enough to make a "prediction" but I will not be surprised if she ends up saying a lot of stupid things. Obama, McCain, and Biden have all done it but have learned from their mistakes. Palin is new and ready to insert foot into mouth. Unless she's a far, far better politician than I am guessing.

Raise Your Hand

2008-08-28T09:26:00.000-07:00

...if you actually read all of these. Because I usually don't, though I do end up reading it when I change the answers around to my own. This is courtesy of the wee sister.

1. What time did you get up this morning?
I "got up" at 8 but the alarm went off at 7:30.

2. Diamonds or pearls?
Diamonds, I guess. I'd look silly in pearls.

3. Last movie you saw in the theater?
Also The Dark Knight. Second viewing! Still dark!

4. What is your favorite TV show?
The Office is the best one still running (LOST is a close second), but right now I'm churning through The Wire like a crazy man. It may be the some of the best TV ever.

5. What do you usually have for breakfast
A few swigs of orange juice while taking a vitamin. Later, maybe a granola bar.

6. What is your middle name?
Talullah.

7. What food do you dislike?
I am still not a huge fan of guacamole. Despite living out here.

8. What is your favorite CD at the moment?
I don't have a favorite CD at the moment. iTunes has broken me as far as entire albums are concerned.

9. What kind of car do you drive?
97 Acura but wait, Emily when did you get a new car? The hell?

10. Favorite sandwich?
There is a place I go for lunch that does a pretty good roast beef. But the cheesesteaks from IB's are great too.

11. What characteristics do you despise?
The inability to accept opinions other than your own.

12. Favorite item of clothing?
Jeans. I don't get to wear 'em so much anymore.

13. If you could go anywhere in the world where would you go?
Australia still tops that list. But followed closely by Europe, and Fiji.

14. What color is your bathroom?
Ugh, I think it's probably "salmon" but I've also been informed it's just pink.

15. Favorite brand of clothing?
I don't have a favorite brand, so much. I got a suit from Banana Republic a month ago and I like it. But I am not necessarily a BR kind of guy.

16. Where would you retire?
Somewhere smaller than where I lived. Not a city.

17. Most memorable birthday?
I think 21 is still the weirdest. I was snowed in at the Detroit airport, but then a few days later some friends threw me a surprise party.

18. Favorite sport to watch?
Football and baseball are probably tops. Not so much college anything.

19. Furthest place you are sending this?
INFINITY. It's the Internet.

20. Who do you expect to send this back to you?
Since I've turned it into a black hole by blog posting, nobody.

21. Person you expect to send it back first?
Seriously, let it go.

22. Favorite saying?
I have started saying "right on". I also say "fair enough" a lot. These are not necessarily favorite sayings, but I am capable of recognizing things I say too much.

23. When is your birthday?
January.

24. Are you a morning person or a night person?
I am a late-night person. But I don't mind the morning as much as I used to.

25. What is your shoe size?
11.5 and what kind of silly question is that?

26. Pets?
None at the moment. I am friends with some very nice cats though...

27. What did you want to be when you were little?
A scientist. I didn't differentiate between the fields, but "a guy doing science" seemed pretty good to me. Or Spider-Man.

28. What are you today?
Attorney. It is not sciencey. Pays the bills for now though. (Excuse the lack of excitement but my job has been wretched these last few days)

29. What is your favorite candy?
Chocolate. Dark chocolate, milk chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, etc.

30. Your favorite flower?
I don't really have a favorite flower. That's not a macho front, I've just never given them much consideration. Daisies seem nice. They're simple but pretty.

31. What is a day on the calendar you are looking forward to?
It was next Wednesday (mini-vacation) but now I'm not sure because work has punched me in the face.

32. What are you listening to right now?
The gentle drone of the office. Somebody is talking about fantasy football. Again.

33. What was the last thing you ate?
Ate? That'd be chocolate chip cookies, last night. Unless the morning vitamin counts.

34. Do you wish on stars?
Nope. I just wish.

35. If you were a crayon, what color would you be?
I have no basis for answering this question. My favorite color is green.

36. What is your pet peeve?
Not being called/emailed back, at least once. I get that people (including me) don't want to have constant back and forths, but one reply will not kill you.

37. Last person you spoke to on the phone?
Secretary for defense counsel, who was confirming a deposition.

38. Do you like the person/people you are sending this to?
Not necessarily, I don't know who will read this. Actually, since it's my blog, it's probable that I like them all.

39. Favorite soft drink?
I don't drink 'em anymore! But if I did, it's Coke.

40. Favorite restaurant?
Geez, I'm not sure. I was finally introduced to Zachary's Pizza a few weeks back, and that was pretty amazing.

41. Hair Color?
My hair, she is brown, senor.

42. Favorite holiday of the year?
Christmas is really the only holiday that I always celebrate, year after year.

43. What was your favorite toy as a child?
My transformers. I had that big turns-into-a-base guy, Fortress Maximus. I was super jazzed to own that.

44. Summer or winter?
Summer. It has so much possibility.

45. Hugs or kisses?
I don't understand the question.

46. Chocolate or vanilla?
Chocolate.

47. Do you want your friends to e-mail you back?
No, that would be weird. I will read any that post this though.
(Note: I laughed out loud when I read Emily's response: "Sure! I would love to know if my brother likes hugs or kisses!" Sucker!)

48. When was the last time you cried?
Embarrassingly, I teared up a little when watching a video a blogger put up of her 3-year-old son. I know, what the hell. So I punched a mountain lion and felt better.

49. What is under your bed?
No idea. Probably something useful that I've forgotten about.

51. What did you do last night? Worked till 8, then watched a couple episodes of that show Bones, which I don't usually watch but I didn't want to get invested in The Wire. I went to bed at 10 but ended up reading for two hours.

52. Favorite smell?
Still that girly-soap smell. Or maybe it's perfume. I'm not sure, but it comes from chicks.

53. What are you afraid of?
Not appreciating life until it's just about over.

54. How many keys on your key ring?
Seven. Two home, two work, one car, one mail, and one for The Club.

55. How many years at your current job?
One and a half at my current employer. About two doing what I do. Tighten up your language, survey!

56. Favorite day of the week?
I have a love/hate relationship with Friday, so actually Thursday may be best. Friday hasn't turned out to be a bust yet, and The Office is on. Usually.

57. How many states have you lived in?
Three, since we don't count the District of Columbia as a state.

58. Do you make friends easily? I'm not sure. Not easily, and not immediately, but I grow on people like you wouldn't believe.

That's the last question? Kind of anti-climactic.

More Like Labor Day CRAPend

2008-08-27T19:26:00.000-07:00

I just got completely and utterly screwed, at work. Three day weekend? Gone. Trip back east? Not gone but may be full of non-fun working.

It's nothing in the realm of becoming unemployed, it's just a big gigantic, case-destroying event which is 10 days away and will take 10+ days to prepare for. So you can see where there's a bit of a problem.

It's times like this that I'm glad I don't have a girlfriend to radically disappoint. It will be nice to save energy bills by not being home at all for a few days, though!

What a Lousy Time to Be in California

2008-08-26T16:26:00.000-07:00

All of a sudden, my home state is a political battleground!

Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?

And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!

Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!

Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!

I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?

As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.

And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Alright Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads

2008-08-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

Everybody loves Army of Darkness! Howzabout some bits:

I watched Rambo this weekend, and started Season 3 of The Wire. I am particularly numb to people being shot as a result, because damn if it doesn't seem to happen all the time, especially if you live in Burma or Baltimore. Rambo was just barely watchable. Skip it.
If you didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I think you should pretty much SFTU when it comes to intra-party Democratic debates. If you're not going to vote Democrat, why should anybody give two shits if you think Obama isn't as experienced as Clinton? Nobody asks me whether Romney should have taken the nomination, and for good reason: my answer would be self-serving and would not come from a desire to see the Republicans succeed. So shut it.
Hey! I'm going to be back in Northern Virginia next week! It's been 8 months since I've been to the area (but not the east coast, if Tampa FL counts), so I expect you are all in flying cars and using food replicators and whatnot.
The Olympics are over. I was more interested this year than possibly ever before. That is not saying much (previous interest level: zero) but kudos to Beijing for some impressive pageantry and dissident head-bashing. You know what would make the Olympics suck less? No time delay, and no NBC leaden-sob-story stupidity. Maybe London will fix some of those problems in 2012.
One of the upsides of the Olympics is that I get to completely forget that football season--college and pro--is less than a few weeks away. I mean, I like football, but I am so very disappointed by my choice of teams (both college and pro) that I don't really need the aggravation. Still, the promise of a clean slate and a new season are hard to resist.
But the Tigers are dead to me.

Oh Please Oh Please Oh Please

2008-08-21T11:43:00.000-07:00

How awesome would it be if McCain actually nominated Lieberman as his VP?

I mean, not for McCain, who would lose a bunch of his crazy social conservatives. But for Obama, who would lose almost nobody to that nightmare ticket. Maybe old Jewish folk, but they're already being alarmingly anti-Obama.

Democrats don't even like Lieberman. I didn't like him when he was partnered with Gore in 2000, and his behavior since then has been nothing short of repugnant. He is slimier than most politicians, and I live for the day when the Democrats have enough power in the Senate to toss his narrow ass out of his committee seats.

But I think even McCain isn't that big of a maverick. He's already repudiated the handful of reasonable stances he once held (on torture, abortion, and the like), so picking Lieberman would be a complete 180 as far as bending to the social conservatives' whims.

A guy can dream though, right?

I'm Bad Luck

2008-08-19T11:34:00.000-07:00

In the last 6 months, three of the restaurants I've eaten at here in the East Bay have been robbed.

One was actually robbed the very next night after I was there.

Fortunately nobody is hurt in these robberies, but damn, Oakland. Not cool.

Tiny Dancer

2008-08-18T11:58:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting little commentary on the AV Club today regarding the "Tiny Dancer" scene from Almost Famous. It's a pretty good movie, and that's a defining moment in the film. The comment basically uses the scene as an example of how powerful it can be when a song is linked to a (well-done) scene in a movie.

Of this I totally agree. Even when it's obvious; the scene in Say Anything is like the grand dame of this kind of movie moment.

But it's interesting to look in the comments to the article and see that, while popular opinion tends to skew about 70-30 in favor of Almost Famous (or that scene in particular), there are plenty who found it hackneyed, trite or falsely uplifting.

Which brings us to today's lesson! Movies that have "moments" or are geared towards pulling on certain emotional responses are routinely savaged by critics or various hipster idiots (like myself). Mostly this is because it is difficult to create genuine emotion in that way, without resorting to slimier tactics--and music with an obvious emotional element can be one such effective tactic.

But the effectiveness of a movie's attempt to create a "magical moment" is two-fold: one part director's skill and one part audience interpretation. The audience's capacity for being moved is just as important as the director/actors ability to create the right moment.

That's why some movies, which suck, can still move some people to tears, even while I sit there wondering what time it is. Those folks, for whatever reason, are more open to such sentiment and won't mind how ham-handed the delivery happens to be. A good example of this is the movie Hope Floats, which while supremely boring, has one particular scene in which Sandra Bullock's daughter breaks down as her dad leaves. It's tough, and the scene is almost pulled off because the actress really gives it her all. It did not move me greatly, but some people were just weeping openly.

This is a long-winded way of saying that while a movie can be "bad" or "good", the effectiveness of any given scene is as dependent on what the viewer is bringing to the table as it is on the quality of the film. If there's some movie that everyone seems to love but you can't stand, consider that perhaps it's you, not the movie.

Tigers Tigers Burning Bright

2008-08-13T17:13:00.000-07:00

Today I saw this on Yahoo Sports' Detroit Tigers Team Report:

"RHP Joel Zumaya won’t be closing games for Detroit until he can eliminate outings like Tuesday’s. Manager Jim Leyland thinks it’s because there’s something wrong with him. Zumaya faced five batters and all of them reached base as Toronto erased a 4-1 deficit with a four-run seventh in a 6-4 Blue Jays victory."

Leyland thinks something is wrong with Zumaya, eh? He's got that right. Zumaya sucks, and has always been an overrated fastball thrower who lacks the control and the pitch variety to ever be a truly good closer. But hey, Rodney's hardly a model of consistency, and Farnsworth is turning out to be a completely useless trade (unless you're the Yankees; good luck Pudge).

The Tigers' bullpen has dropped TWENTY-ONE save chances this year. Let's put that in perspective: the Tigers are currently 58-61, post-Allstar surge and back to their craptacular performance. They're also losing the third game of their series against the woeful 4th place Blue Jays, 0-4, at time of blogging.

Chicago is 66-52 and the Twins, 67-53, leading the Tigers in their division by 8 games (for those who don't follow baseball, that means if the Tigers won 8 games straight and the White Sox lost 8 straight, they be tied).

The bullpen's effect, then? If they'd managed to keep just HALF of their blown saves from occurring, the Tigers would be 68-51 and in first place. And remember, you don't get a blown save by just pitching a losing game; the Tigers have to be UP when the relief pitcher starts, and then tied or losing (I'm actually not sure if that matters) when the pitcher leaves or the game ends.

21 times these idiots have cost the Tigers a winning game. If they managed saves in 15 of those blown saves, they'd have the best record in baseball.

I'm done venting, and I'm done watching for the season unless they can seriously turn this around. It's one thing to suck all around; it's heartbreaking to watch your team hit and pitch well, and then have a handful of completely useless bastards throw the game away.

Olympic Rant

2008-08-12T14:07:00.001-07:00

Oh come on, you knew I was going to get around to this eventually.

The Olympics are here. In full, soft-focus, sad sack, triumph over the adversity of having a semi-uncomfortable childhood, glory. It's a bit cliched at this point to take offense at the truly insipid back stories that NBC insists on running (Peacock: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOLLEYBALL PLAYER'S WEDDING RING) so I'll just let others take that topic on.

And honestly, you can't offends tens of... well tens of people with such lukewarm antagonism. People who live for those vignettes are idiots; most of us tolerate them and once in a blue moon find something interesting. So instead, I present:

What's the Big Deal Anyway With Like, 80% of These Sports?

Here's the thing. I admire when a person devotes their life (and at this level, it really is a devotion of that caliber) to a single achievement. Even when that achievement is sort of lame, in the context of all of humanity's endeavors. I speak largely of things like synchronized diving and the equestrian sports, but this is actually applicable to almost all sports. I have to ask: so what?

Now is when I backpedal to say, of course participation and excellence in these areas are noteworthy, to a degree. I would not say for a second that I could ever match the skill that the synchro divers exhibit, even with the same amount of training. There is an inherent talent that I do not suppose I have.

But that being said, just because a group of people devote themselves to doing something, and at some point they compete and one becomes the best at that thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they have reached the pinnacle of human possibility. The Games are rife with such statements, announcers noting that, "we are witnessing the best of the best in all the world," and so forth.

To me, the most interesting Olympic sports are those that are more pure. Running, for example. You can be the Fastest Man/Woman Alive at the Olympics--and we all run. In my mind, running is pure and straightforward and not all frill'd up with shuttlecocks and horses and epees. Swimming is similar, except that there are a bunch of different types and that seems a little silly. Freestyle is the fastest (when comparing world-records) so I like that one best. The fastest human in the world, in the water, is some Australian or Michael Phelps, depending on which race you gauge speed with.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves rowing, and thinks that those who row crew in the Olympics are amazing athletes. But technology adds something to the sport that keeps me from saying they are "pinnacles".

I won't even get started on sports that require judges to give scores. How do you "win" the pommel-horse?

This is (as titled) a rant, but it's not meant to be overly spiteful. I applaud everybody who achieves. But for me, the best part of the Olympics are the sports that you can do naked.

Not Cool, Boris

2008-08-11T17:38:00.001-07:00

Just* when you thought the Cold War was over, it rears up during the Olympics and smacks you in the face!

*It ended 20 years ago.

This whole Russia vs. Georgia thing has me bothered. For once, I understand the politics completely (as opposed to say, Iraq and their many insurgents and whatnot). Georgia doesn't like Russia, and the Georgians don't like their pro-Russia province of South Ossetia (note: not an official province/state, it's like "the South" in America, but smaller). Georgia decides to start smacking the South O's around, and big brother Russia steps in to quell that shit.

Only Russia, after sending the Georgians positively flying out of S.O., keep attacking. They're attacking actual Georgia, not S.O.-Georgia, and are hinting that they aim to depose the elected El Presidente of Georgia.

Georgia is a nascent democracy that we (and by "we" I mean "our country") have been urging to become more democratic. We pushed for Georgia's entry into NATO (NATO voted no, wisely, because otherwise we WOULD be at war with Russia right now) and told them we'd support them. Only, you know, just by being very, very stern with Russia should it become aggressive. Lots of glaring and furrowed brows, but not so much with the tanks and missiles.

So that's what we're doing. We're very upset with Russia, you see, but we can't really send TROOPS because it's Russia, yo. That's a big-time war that, while I appreciate Georgia's predicament (which they are at least 50% responsible for themselves) a World War Three is not a great solution.

Nobody has clean hands here--including us--but if someone is going to intervene it has to be Europe first. People are comparing this to Germany and the Sudetenland (because you can't throw a stone in international politics without hitting a Nazi Germany analogy). But German appeasement by other local nations is not the same as appeasement by a superpower halfway around the world.

Still, if Russia keeps trying to flex its collective nuts, eastern Europe is going to get a whole lot messier in the near future. It's so nice that I can come full circle and revisit my childhood fear of nuclear annihilation.

They Got That Right

2008-08-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

I finally got to see The Dark Knight this week. And boy is that title apt. I'm still developing my thoughts but I have a feeling it was really, really good.

The strangest thing is how much publicity and promotion the movie had, in comparison to the tone and overall theme of the movie. I know the two (marketing and actual production) aren't inherently related, but it seems a tad incongruous. When Dominos has commercials where their delivery person is battling to get the Joker a pizza, and then you see the movie where the Joker is a goddamn psychopath, you have to wonder what they're thinking with that ad campaign.

I won't really say more, on the off chance that some of you folks haven't seen it yet, but it's a dark freakin' movie, kids. It is full of principle and moral ambiguity and the nature of evil, and I think may end up being one of the best movies of all time (though not as good as the idiocracy that populates IMDB seems to think). I'm sure by now there is plenty of anti-Dark Knight opinion, but being fairly new to the discussion I'm not seeing that. I'm just sort of amazed.

I will add this: there have been murmurings that the Joker is being too well-received by fans of the movie, that he is being propped up as an anti-hero of sorts. To that I say: don't be a moron. Batman is an "anti-hero". The Joker is just a goddamn nutjob. I can see where this movie might appeal to the pro-anarchy crowd, though, and I will confess that for the first time in my life, I thought as I was watching, "I hope some idiot kids don't take this too seriously."

Oh, and that whole "what's with Batman's voice" debate? Totally overrated. I thought it was fine and completely necessary. Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne has a fairly distinct voice, and it would be beyond stupid if he were talking to everybody without trying to disguise it. But hey, people need something to gripe about, right?

Wanted: Business Acumen

2008-08-06T14:52:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest reasons I believe I'll never make a killing with investments, or real estate, or any of those power-broker Wall Street type things, is that everytime I hear "Fannie Mae" I think they're talking about candy.

Housing crises be damned, I want some chocolate nut fudge.

Real Old Testament, Wrath-of-God Type Meme

2008-08-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

You know what? I don't think I ever posted this, for whatever reason. Revived from the dead, it's... this thing!

ANGER

1. Who did you last get angry with?
My non-boss, because I did what my real boss wanted and pissed him off. Sometimes my job sucks.

2. What is your weapon of choice?
Sulking. But, you know, manly sulking. Lots of steely looks and narrowing of the eyes.

3. Would you hit a member of the opposite sex?
Only in a life-or-death situation, maybe. My momma didn’t raise me to beat on no wimmins.

4. How about of the same sex?
Sure. I try not to. But I’m not a pacifist, I’m just not in punching situations very often. I consider that a good thing.

5. Who was the last person who got really angry at you?
It depends on what you mean by "really angry". Now that I'm not in a relationship, it doesn't happen too often.

6. What is your pet peeve?
Inattention. Pay attention for god’s sake.

7. Do you keep grudges, or can you let them go easily?
If it’s minor I don’t. If it’s major it’s not a grudge, the person is no good and I will disassociate myself. That’s not holding a grudge, in my book.

SLOTH

1. What is one thing you're supposed to do daily that you haven't done in a while?
Floss. I hate it.

2. What is the latest you've ever woken up?
I don’t know, 2 p.m. maybe? It was during college I’m sure. After a point “late” and “early” sort of switch spots.

3. Name a person you've been meaning to contact, but haven't:
A couple people from law school, perhaps. Otherwise I feel like my friends are around if I need them or they need me.

4. What is the last lame excuse you made?
I called in sick today! But I'm only under the weather, not disaster-sick. That's not very lame. Sorry.

5. Have you ever watched an infomercial all the way through (one of the long ones...)?
I used to watch the “AM Gold” Time/Life commercials for music, to get ideas about what I wanted to steal from the Internet.

6. When was the last time you got a good workout in?
About 10 days ago. I am currently recovering from a minor workout-related injury and thus not running until back to 100%.

7. How many times did you hit the snooze button on your alarm clock today?
5 or 6 times, but I knew I wasn't going anywhere today. Sick day!

GLUTTONY

1. What is your overpriced yuppie beverage of choice?
I buy those Chai Tea Lattes too often. $3.80 a pop! Some unborn child of mine will be going to Devry because of this habit.

2. Meat eaters: white meat or dark meat?
As long as it’s cooked, I don’t really care. Though I guess white, in a pinch.

3. What is the greatest amount of alcohol you've had in one sitting/outing/event?
I’m not a superdrinker or anything. Probably 5 or 6 pints of beer. It’s a lot, for me.

4. Have you ever used a professional diet company?
What, like Jenny Craig? Of course not.

5. Do you have an issue with your weight?
"Issue" is a bit melodramatic, but I still need to lose about 10 pounds.

6. Do you prefer sweets, salty foods, or spicy foods?
Sweets.

7. Have you ever looked at a small housepet or child and thought, "LUNCH?"
Hah, okay. Somebody couldn’t think of a 7th question?

LUST

1. How many people have you seen naked (not counting movies/family)?
I’m assuming this also means opposite sex (i.e. locker rooms do not count), and any degree of nudity (boobs or more) so… lemme think on that for a moment. Crap I forgot about strippers. I’m going to have to ballpark it to around 25 people.

2. How many people have seen YOU naked (not counting physicians/family)?
A lot less than the above number. Less than 10, I suppose.

3. Have you ever caught yourself staring at the chest/crotch of a member of your gender of choice during a normal conversation?
I’m a guy. Of course I have.

4. Have you "done it"?
This is classic. No, but I assume by “it” you mean “shot someone in with a telescopic rifle from more than 300 yards away”.

5. What is your favorite body part on a person of your gender of choice?
Neck. If we’re not being obvious and saying like, boobs.

6. Have you ever been propositioned by a prostitute?
Not to my knowledge. I’ve never waited so long that she had to ask me. Hiyo!

7. Have you ever had to get tested for an STD or pregnancy?
No, I’ve never “had” to get tested. But I have been.

GREED

1. How many credit cards do you own?
Straight-out credit cards? Technically one, but I don’t know how to make it work (my debit card has “credit” somehow). So for all practical purposes, zero. It’s how I roll.

2. What's your guilty pleasure store?
Best Buy. But don’t by peripheral cables there, man.

3. If you had $1 million, what would you do with it?
Pay off a bunch of stuff, and then a bunch of stuff owed by people I like. Then probably put it in some low-yield investment account.

4. Would you rather be rich, or famous?
Rich. Then if I wanted to be famous, I could probably make it happen. But fame without wealth means you’re either incredibly smart or ambitious, or you’re a bank robber.

5. Would you accept a boring job if it meant you would make megabucks?
It depends on how long I’d have to keep it. Right now, yes, I probably would.

6. Have you ever stolen anything?
Online music. And a couple movies. And the hearts of a nation.

7. How many MP3s are on your hard drive?
About 2,000. I recently housecleaned my computer, though, and lost a few hundred in the process.

PRIDE

1. What's one thing have you done that you're most proud of?
Identified badly-written meme questions. Oh look, I’ve done it again!

2. What's one thing have you done that your parents are most proud of?
Probably going to law school. Though I bet “not asking them for money anymore” is a close second.

3. What's one thing would you like to accomplish in your life?
Right now I’d like to accomplish a mostly-debt-free existence.

4. Do you get annoyed by coming in second place?
It depends. Is it a competition of many, or just 2? Because I don’t like losing, but I don’t mind being at the top of the heap (even if not first place).

5. Have you ever entered a contest of skill, knowing you were of much higher skill than all the other competitors?
Like when I play cards with 5-year-old cousins? Sure. But with adults? I don’t think I’ve ever known for sure that I was gonna whup ass on everybody.

6. Have you ever cheated on something to get a higher score?
Yep. But more elaboration, you do not get. It wasn’t the California Bar or anything.

7. What did you do today that you're proud of?
Not a damn thing. Though even if I weren't home today, my workload doesn't have anything pride-worthy. Just mundane this week.

ENVY

1. What item (or person) of your friends would you most want to have for your own?
Person? What, like somebody’s girlfriend or wife? That's harsh, Internet. I'm good with what I've got, currently.

2. Who would you want to go on "Trading Spaces" with?
I don’t know what that is. Is that where people redecorate other people's houses? I guess I’d want to trade with somebody who has style.

3. If you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?
This is a weird question; if I wouldn’t be me, then what would it matter? And if I would be me, then in many cases (astronaut, pole vaulter, UN Secretary General) I would be unable to do the job, and I would instantly fail and/or die. So I say, me but with about $250k in the bank.

4. Have you ever been cheated on?
Hmm. Maybe, but not by anyone that mattered. At least not to my actual knowledge.

5. Have you ever wished you had a physical feature different from your own?
Sure. What am I, a narcissist?

6. What inborn trait do you see in others that you wish you had for yourself?
(More) confidence.

7. Do you wish you'd come up with this survey?
Not even a little bit.

8. Finally, what is your favorite deadly sin?
Lust baby.

A Bunch of Songs That I Once Thought Were Great/Deep/Sad, But Got Tired of For Some Reason.

2008-08-04T10:36:00.000-07:00

That's a mouthful!*

Angel Eyes - Jeff Healey's hit 1989 love song. The lyrics are pretty stupid and I think it was covered by some Australian chick fairly recently. On the upside, Jeff Healey is blind and therefore marginally cooler than most musicians who name their bands after themselves. But, Bonus Lame Points: it was used in "Road House", and you all know how I feel about that cinema gem.

Lady in Red - When I was a kid (i.e. 12 or 13) I thought this was a hugely poetic. Now, time and a healthy dose of cynicism has made me want to punch Chris deBurgh in the face. Plus, the song doesn't make any sense. Everybody apparently wants to be with this chick, but she wants to be with the singer, who sounds like a completely useless tool. Wait, is she a hooker? Did I miss that subtext?

At Last - Yes, the song played at many (many, many) a wedding. Etta James does it justice (better than Nat King Cole) and the first time I heard it was in a nuptial-less vacuum. I specifically remember thinking, "Wow, people should play this at weddings or something!"

Don't Speak - I was a fan of No Doubt just before they become super famous, and at the time I was embroiled in typically lame high school angst. Before this song got sizable radio airplay, I thought it was powerful and reflected the feelings I had for some girl, who liked my best friend, but he was with somebody else, or something. I'm having trouble recalling the details, which clearly speaks to the weight of the matter. Gigantic Internet-only eye roll.

I Can't Make You Love Me - You know what? I still like this song. I'm not a huge Bonnie Raitt fan, because country music is of course horrible, but I'll make an exception for this. It is, in truth of fact, a good song. Compare it to something like Leann Rimes' "How Do I Live" which is overwrought and insipid.

Breathe (2AM) - I thought this was pretty good when it first came out, and I still have no idea who this Anna Nalick person is, but it was quickly overplayed. It may still be a good song, but it needs a few years of non-rotation before I'll stop Next Track'ing it on the iPod.

The Blower's Daughter - I still think this song is almost over-the-top in its sadness quotient, but then I was on BART and some dude (seriously) had it as his ringtone. The subsequent douchebag-association has been just too powerful to overcome.

I thought this would be a longer list, but I never legitimately liked the other songs I could put on here. I thought of the idea when "All I Wanna Do is Make Love..." came on the radio this morning. But that song is pretty crappy, and I've never liked it. Go figure.

*That's what she said.

That Was Me! Sort of.

2008-07-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalism Bleargh

2008-07-25T10:05:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If My Life Were Covered by Us Magazine Blind Items

2008-07-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

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

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

Too Much Connectivity?

2008-07-21T11:16:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Your Perspective Will Shift"

2008-07-16T13:42:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Tale of 7 Beers (and 1 Shot)

2008-07-14T18:04:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

Does Hancock Suck?

2008-07-08T10:07:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Drink It Up

2008-07-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Let's Get Down to Business

2008-07-03T09:53:00.000-07:00

People, some things need to be changed around here.

Here being me. Around me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bits and Funny.

2008-06-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

Big congratulations to my sister. She knows why.

I'm a bit disappointed that Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court's ruling on the death penalty for child rapists. Obviously I am against rape, but from a legal perspective, the Court is right: it's complete hogwash to elevate a non-murder crime to that level. If somebody raped my child, I'd just kill him. No need to make it a sentencing possibility.

I am "building a house" tomorrow for Habitat. Except, word is we're just putting in the flooring and painting. So really, I'm not doing all that much. Last year, one of the houses we helped build burned down, so I'm hoping some of our attorneys won't be allowed near the wiring jobs this time around.

I don't have much to say on this whole gun-control ruling. It is legally unsound because it completely misinterprets the controlling case--Miller--on this issue. But that's what happens when you let politics override your better judgment.

Half of 2008 is nearly over! How did that happen? July should prove to be exciting and fun.

I saw Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story finally, and it was better than I was expecting. Note to those idiots who make utter crap like "Disaster Movie" and "Date Movie" -- that is how you do satire and parody. I also saw Shoot 'em Up which was entertaining but pretty pointless. Clive Owen would probably make a high school production of "Waiting for Godot" entertaining, though.

For some reason (possibly the above movie-watching) I dreamt that Jenna Fischer worked in my office, and that we were secretly dating. It was awesome, and for like 5 minutes after waking up this morning I was trying to figure out how to move to L.A. and make it happen. Then I got a restraining order against myself.

Finally, this is funny:

From Hey Okay

You... Camped?

2008-06-25T16:07:00.001-07:00

I have returned from the wildy wilderness of Northern California unscathed.

As some of you might know, because you are nosy bastards, I went camping last weekend. We went out yonder, to a place I will have to look up on GoogleMaps... here

It was pretty damn (dam? it's a reservoir! ha!) spectacular.

We camped at around 6500 feet next to picturesque Utica (or Uriah, I forget which) reservoir. Right on the water, light years from anything remotely resembling civilization. Good times.

We then got drunk and decided to raft around--five not-so-tiny guys on a poorly inflated watercraft made for 2--in the dark. It was hilarious, though we are all now well aware that such a story could have also ended with "and they were never heard from again..."

And hey, what's the deal with you people (you know who you are) questioning my rustic outdoorsiness? It's a word. I mention I'm going camping and it's as if I announced I was headlining a drag show in the Castro. "You? Really? Wow, okay..." was the most common response.

So nuts to y'all, because I camped the hell out of that place. They now have signs that say "Beware of Sam" because the black bears have nothing* on me.

*maybe claws and very sharp teeth.

Silver Lining

2008-06-13T15:28:00.000-07:00

I will say this about the Bush Administration: it will give constitutional scholars decades of analysis and review to contend with.

Case in point: the recent ruling on the detainees at Gitmo. Since my job doesn't pay me to read Supreme Court opinions (a fact I am both grateful for and a little disappointed about), I've only read the press coverage.

What's interesting is in reading everything about this case--and all the past cases the Supremes have had to deal with in the last 5 years or so--is how much each case touches upon tenets of law that, until Bush came into power, most people really didn't argue about anymore.

Wait, did I say "interesting"? I meant sad. Sad because things like habeus corpus and the right to due process are bedrocks of our entire legal system, and weren't being argued about very often for good reason. Of course, a good rehashing of old Constitutional stalwarts isn't harmful, but when the justices come down with the slimmest of majorities available, it's frightening.

It's really as if someone managed to get a run-of-the-mill 1st Amendment issue all the way to the Supreme Court (run-of-the-mill meaning no obvious exceptions, no child pornography, just a guy making a newsletter or something) and then the judges only barely upheld the Amendment.

"Do people detained by American personnel on American soil deserve due process?" is such a stupid question it wouldn't have appeared on any law school exams until now. Now, thanks to Bush, maybe people don't actually deserve their day in court! Maybe they don't have a right to an attorney, and hey, what's the deal with "innocent until proven guilty"? That's always in the way, man!

Scalia is a hack. I respected him (even while vehemently disagreeing) up until this ruling. That's over.

Cool Off Already

2008-06-10T17:05:00.000-07:00

I'm resisting the urge to just take a verbal flamethrower to some of the Democrats out there who insist that McCain is now the "best" choice for President.

Not only is this one of the most nonsensical and irrational ideas you can hold in your head, but it's motivated purely by anger and resentment.

It's the equivalent of swearing off all members of the opposite sex (if you're straight, anyway) for the rest of your life after a bad break-up. Or, perhaps more accurately, swearing to switch teams.

I'm sorry Hillary didn't win. Well, I'm sorry because it's gotten so many people so pissy, but I'm not sorry she's not the candidate. She's simply not as good as Obama, so there's no apology there. And you Hillary supporters are just reacting to the loss in a personal way, which is somewhat understandable. You shouldn't take it personally (it's politics), but it's not completely crazy that you have.

But as with any relationship that has ended too soon, pragmatism soon re-enters the scene. You're not really swearing off men/women for life; you just need a break to reevaluate the situation.

I know that had Obama lost, I would've been pissed. And I would have debated who to support, for a minute or two. But I would've done the right thing in the end and voted for the more progressive candidate. Because I'm a goddamn progressive, not someone who would throw his country to the wolves because he'd rather sulk like a petulant child.

So I'm going to back off for awhile (figuratively) and let you Clinton supporters chill. You'll no doubt see some very illuminating Obama v. McCain action in the coming months, and you'll realize how asinine it is to consider voting for anyone but Obama.

That's my hope, anyway. If not, "petulant child" is going to seem like a Hallmark card compared to what I have to say in a few months.

Leave Me to My Books!

2008-05-28T12:16:00.000-07:00

This best part about this article is the company it puts us lawyers in.

Most people usually don't think of lawyers as introverted, but the bulk of the lawyers out there aren't Jack McCoy trial lawyers (though I guess he's the DA now, and no longer a trial lawyer). They sit in offices and sift through paperwork for 90% of the time.

The problem is that the other 10% of the time, you have to fight your introvert nature. And not just by going to social/marketing events (dinner parties, etc.) but for really important, case-dispositive things. Court appearances, contentious telephone calls with opposing counsel--these are tough for the introvert to navigate. I know, because I have a very strong introvert streak.

But it works out in the end, at least in my case. My introversion stems mostly from being uncomfortable when I don't have the full picture of the situation. I don't like not having all the information, so when I'm in that situation I tend to sit back and nod, or just take notes. But when I do have all the information (or--and this is key--when I think I do) I use that as a means to cut right through my introvert tendencies. This works out great in court, when I've had a chance to prepare, review statutes, and so forth. It works okay in deposition, when you're never 100% sure what the witness will say.

It still works poorly when I have to call people, especially when I need something from them.

Maybe I should have been a "systems analyst", whatever the hell that is.

What It Do (Did)

2008-05-27T09:31:00.000-07:00

Another grand Memorial Day is past us, and so I look back in reflection at all that I accomplished.

- Re-arranged the apartment. Now I need more furniture. I floated the idea of opening a small break-dancing studio using the extra space, but it was summarily voted down by interested parties.

- Saw Indiana Jones. The new one. The first 45 minutes were gangbusters, definitely Indy at his best. The second half was more tedious and lost some of the spark somehow. A mix of an A and a C- movie.

- Even did some work! Not a hell of a lot, but anything that keeps me paid is good.

- Play about 30 minutes of Call of Duty. I figured I had to, in honor of the holiday. I memorialized our fallen servicemen and women by shooting the hell out of some terrorists. Or someone, I lost track of the plot. But (virtual) bullets were fired.

That's about it, actually. Sunday was particularly productive, as two of the above items occurred then. Monday was sort of useless, but it should serve to speed the week up quite nicely.