See?

From some random article I saw on the web:

[With regard to Ashlee Simpson's birthday] ...And because he's Pete Wentz, Simpson's boyfriend Pete Wentz eschewed the usual flowers or thoughtful card, and gave her a particularly Wentz-ian gift for her birthday: Common courtesy. From People:

As A gift to Simpson, Wentz vowed to ignore his cell phone for the entire day. "It's a big deal!" Wentz told PEOPLE the next night. "I'm really attached to it."

Except it's not a big deal, you're a douchebag, and people who think this way are pathetic blobs of uselessness.

Time for a Break?

Washingtonpost.com had a headline this morning:

"Clinton Cites Her Resilience"

The first thing I thought was, "Maybe she'll be crit-immune during the general election..."

Then I became sad because not only is that a dorky Warcraft-related thought, it's even dorky compared to other casual Warcraft players.

Methinks I may be embarking on another self-imposed hiatus.

This Makes Up For It

Last year at this time, I was proud that the Tigers even made it to the playoffs. Sadly, their September meltdown was insurmountable this time, and they have to sit October out.

It does not bother me because I'm not a crazy person, like, say, Yankees fans. Yankees fans seem to think it is their birthright to have a team in the post-season.

And that is why I was particularly thrilled last night.

Not only because the Yanks are done--though that is about 75% of the reason--but because it was, again, an AL Central team that took them out. You all DO remember last year's Yankee-destroying AL Central team, right? Right?

Now, I return to my default position: hoping the Red Sox win so that my good friend Adam does not have a stroke.

Dear Chelsey [sic],

Some spam I got today (Gmail caught it, but I check anyway just in case):

My name is chelsey. I found your email on that dating site.
I also love sex on the side. I have a loving partner but he is working 16 hours a day and we have sex only once a week.
If you are interested and wanna see my pictures just email me at (whocares).
Don`t reply, use the email above (my boyfriend doesn't know about that email!)

And now, a critical analysis of "Letter from Chelsey, 10/7/07".

First of all, nobody spells "Chelsea" like that, do they? But maybe that's to get around the aforementioned spam filter.

Two: "that dating site". The odds are fairly good that the recipient of spam is registered, either now or in the past, at some dating site. Wouldn't it be more convincing to put "Match.com" or "eHarmony", even if you end up missing the mark in some cases?

If you have a loving boyfriend working 16 hour days, I bet he is doing that because he wants to be financially stable. For you! It's pretty bitchy of you to seek out "sex on the side" (and yikes, what a terrible way to phrase it) in this particular instance. Your come-on would be more tempting if you were less of a jerk.

So, in the interests of receiving more entertaining spam email, I propose the following changes:

Hi! My name is Chelsea, and I found your profile on Match.com but couldn't send you a message through their system.
Here's the thing: your picture was very cute, and I am currently trapped in a loveless marriage with a husband that is cheating on me.
I want revenge, and I want some physical interaction with someone who doesn't smell like cheap perfume from "working late at the office".
Let me know if you're up for it. My email is (whatever).

Isn't that slightly better? If I were on Match.com, and active, this would have at least a marginal shot at convincing me to "click further". Better than chelsey's bordeline-illiterate missive, anyway.

Crazy Old Man Rant

You know what bugs me?

Cell phones.

Haha! But seriously, not just their existence (which I tend to appreciate) but the way they've altered how we "do things."

Going out used to be more fun. You get people together, you call them beforehand and tell them where you'll be at, and then once you go, that's it. You're now into the doing stage, and out of the planning stage.

Here's the setting: you and a bunch of friends meet up at some bar on Friday night. You're all sitting around the table, or standing by the bar, chatting it up. Invariably, at least half of those people (nowadays) are texting other people at the same time.

This bugs me. When I go out, I go out and I commit to the occasion. I certainly don't sit around waiting for a better offer to arrive via electronic communication, and in almost every case I do not have back-and-forth text message conversations with persons not present.

Now, I'm not an ogre. I like that people can find out where you are, or get directions, or even send you a funny cell phone picture from where they are. Hooray technology! But it doesn't mean we should all mentally check out from where we're physically present.

Too often I see this. Is it a constant need for attention that just hanging out doesn't fill? Is it a dissatisfaction with the people present? Some combination of the two, plus other factors?

This is probably a very personal pet peeve of mine, and unnoticed in the general population. It may be related to my dislike of bar-hopping--I never see a bar as "dead" because I'm usually not looking for life outside of what I brought into the place. It's almost certainly related to the diminished sense of self-worth that becomes implied when somebody you're hanging out with is devoting a substantial amount of time trying to figure out how to improve the social interaction.

Or I'm just a crank at the young age of 29. Yeah, that may be it.

Hooray for Tagging Goodness

BU tossed me a tag, and while my first inclination as a registered California voter is to be struck blind by his request for an Ah-nold presidency, I submit. The bold terms are mine, if you're having trouble understanding. Also, because I can't help it, I appended notes to some of them.

1) In a perfect world, we'd never have to hear another word from James Dobson. (note: Jack Thompson is an awesome choice, though).

2) In a perfect world, Al Gore would be president and the entirety of the Bush Administration would have never discovered politics. (I know it's obvious, but any other answer would feel incomplete.)

3) In a perfect world, all education would be free.

4) In a perfect world, GWAR would give free concerts every night members of the Christian Coalition would be forced to be their roadies. (This was tough because it was really hard to improve upon BU's answer)

5) In a perfect world, the highest paid job would be mine and benefits would include immortality. Suffer my wrath, puny mortals!

6) In a perfect world, I'd be able to go into any Court in the nation with no guilt or fear. Mostly fear.

7) In a perfect world, punching people who can't drive in the nuts wouldn't be a crime but almost nothing would have a much harsher sentence (like death). I don't believe in the death penalty, suckas!

8) In a perfect world, there wouldn't be traffic because everyone was too busy chilling the f*** out. This, um, seems to contradict my "punching people in the nuts" policy from #7.

9) In a perfect world, The Office would air a new episode every night.

10) A perfect world would require me to be sent to another planet.

Movie Remembering

Editor's Note: Saw this in my drafts; why didn't it get posted? Did it? Well, here ya go anyway...

...

With the count now more than halfway to 1100, I've still seen a lot of movies. I can remember almost every detail about some of my favorites--with maybe 2 viewings of Raising Arizona, for the little details, I bet I could recite the entire movie from beginning to end--and lots of the details about some of my most despised.*

*New entry from last night: Poseidon, which was on my Netflix list why?

But there's a category of movies that are simply... forgettable. This isn't a knock on the movie, necessarily; action and horror movies are probably best served by this trait, when they have it. It just means that once you leave, it only takes a few hours (or a good night's sleep) to wipe all but the most integral plot points from you mind. "Well, there were two people who were married and also spies for rival organizations... but I don't remember what happens in the middle."

Mr. & Mrs. Smith was definitely entertaining. I even own it on DVD (it was a bargain) but I'm still a little fuzzy on what happens in that movie. Same goes for the Bourne movies (3rd one unseen) -- the 2nd one was cool, but lord knows I can't recall how they shoehorned Julia Stiles back into the series.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; nobody is saying these movies are Best Picture material, but they certainly serve their purpose.

On the other hand, some movies that maybe were made with Oscar in mind, also fall into this category. Those movies are in trouble, in my book. For instance, I had to be reminded today that Mystic River even existed. This was a Good Movie largely because the acting by some of the characters was superb. But acting is tough to remember, and the plot (dead daughter, right?) is completely vague in my head. Sure enough, it won best acting awards (Penn--I disagree--and Robbins) but didn't win any others.

It's possible that this is only the case because I'm getting old and have seen 1,054 1,066 movies. Maybe it's my brain that can't remember, and not the movies fault?

Nah. It's the movies. I have a mind like steel trap.

A New Godwin's Law?

There is an entertaining maxim about online discussion forums called Godwin's Law. It states, basically, that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

That is to say, comparing something/someone to Hitler is basically signaling that you've checked out of the argument and are done making any real point.

I think there may be a new version of this law descending upon cyberspace. To paraphrase Godwin, it is that as an online discussion continues, the probability that someone will demand that you "read the Constitution" and/or "the Federalist Papers*".

Now, I'm a big fan of both sources. After all, if you're debating rights and governmental privilege and whathaveyou, the Constitution is pretty important.

But "read the Constitution" is such a stupid request that it pretty much kills the debate. There have been millions of scholars, writers, legislators, and armchair constitutionalists examining our government's founding documents, for more than 200 years. They have read it. Many know it by heart. And I would venture that even the most myopic among them would not assert that the Constitution is clear and unimpeachable in every aspect.

So there you are. If you argue about politics or policy, and someone tells you to go read the Constitution, you know the debate has ended (and, probably, you won).**

*The Federalist Papers are what people demand you read when they believe themselves to be experts in Constitutional law. Because nobody reads the Federalist Papers and those that do know they can be as open-ended in interpretation as the Constitution, with the added bonus of holding no legal weight whatsoever.

**Like Godwin's Law, there is an exception: if the person you are arguing with insists that, say, the freedom to assemble is in the 22nd Amendment, this is a reasonable response. However it would be easier to simply quote the Constitution, rather than direct others to it (and, ostensibly, away from the debate that you are apparently losing).

The Hitler comparison can also be used in very specific settings, such as comparing German leaders circa 1915-1950. That's pretty much it, though.