Transitive Verbs

I know I've written about it before. I know I always promise that I'm not going to spend my entire life griping about petty grammar mistakes. I know I'm not perfect. I know I'm not a trained editorial professional. And I know it makes me sound like a cantankerous old coot, consarn it!

But I am sick and damn tired of people not knowing the difference between "lie" and "lay." Or rather, they may know the difference, but they don't know how to conjugate either of those verbs. I have similar problems with "sit" and "set," but less frequently.

Let's make this crystal clear: lie is an intransitive verb. If you are trying to lie something down, you are doing it wrong. Lie takes no object. That's what intransitive means. Lay, on the other hand, is transitive. If you are trying to lay down, then you need help. Lay takes an object. That's what transitive means.

So why can't people get it? And not just in conversation, or in text messages, or in similarly ill-grammared locales. I've seen this mistake frequently in books and scholarly magazines. I see it all the time.

"I lie down, I lay down, I have lain down." "I lay something on the ground, I laid something on the ground. I have laid something on the ground." Wow, I can conjugate the verbs. Why can't other people?

This is not a picayune little problem. This is not an evolution of the language. It is using the wrong word. It's like if I were to say, "I shot hands with the President," because that word looks sort of similar to "shook" and I was confused. Screw your confusion. You are professional writers; write better! And if we can't rely on you, your editors are supposed to catch errors like that, boneheaded stupid wrong errors.

As always, feel free to point out that my grammar is not perfect. I won't pay any attention, because this isn't about grammar. It's about knowing the damn language!

Theatre on the Rocks

Ah, the clever double entendre. Last refuge of the person with very little of substance to say. That's me, baby!

I do think there's a problem with American theatre, well a host of problems really, which cannot be solved simply. But one of the things which can be done, simply-wise, is to stop making musicals. Seriously.

Now I'm not a musical theatre fan, so you might interpret this bias to mean that I have no business telling musical theatre fans what to think. But I'm not demanding a halt to musicals because I don't like them; I'm demanding a moratorium until we can stop doing three things. First, we need to stop producing revivals of the same old musicals. I know, I know, you go to New York and you want to see Cats, but really, maybe it's time to give them a rest. Second, we need to stop producing schlocky musicals in general. The quality has seriously gone downhill. I don't care much for Gilbert and Sullivan or Rodgers and Hammerstein, but they could write a musical. Not that they should be exempted from rule number one.

But those two are small potatoes and debatable, and frankly I wouldn't care if no one but me felt that way about them. So maybe we won't stop making schlocky musicals or rerunning the ones we already have. No biggie. What we absolutely must do, to rejuvenate American theatre, is to stop producing musicals based on movies or television. At the end of the day, when everyone is wondering why live theatre even exists any more, we do not need to give the doubters ammunition by turning into Hollywood Lite.

But it gets worse. Because putting movies on stage is bad, putting TV movies on stage is worse, but putting TV movies on ice is the lowest of the low. When Disney brings High School Musical (a cable television movie, that is to say, a movie with the same credibility as soft-core cable porn) to the world of the ice rink, then we need to call a halt. It's just not good enough, people.

Is American theatre creatively bankrupt? I don't think so at all. I just think that people are too worried that audiences don't want to see anything they haven't seen before. That's true of television and movies too; noticed the number of sequels recently? Sure, we can all sit back and wallow in low expectations, and we'll probably keep the arts alive for a while. Or we can break the mold completely and do like some artists have done in the past (i.e. starve). I'm not recommending either of these paths.

Like I said, it's not a simple problem, and it won't be a simple solution. There will probably be more schlock, more movie-musicals, and more reruns. But if we start slowly altering things now, maybe no one will notice we've done it until it's too late, and the idea of Young Frankenstein the Musical is as ridiculous to people as the idea of World Wrestling the Musical is today (well, maybe more ridiculous, since I can completely see the WWE putting out a musical; it's all spectacle, right Aristotle?).

Look at the Numbers

Here's a hypothetical situation which has nothing to do with history. Well, actually it has a lot to do with history, but it's not my imagining a fly-on-the-wall conversation that probably never took place. It's a thought experiment.

Let's say that, at the end of World War II, we invaded Germany, freed all the Jews that were still alive, and did all the other things we actually did at the end of World War II. Then let's suppose that, a year later, we took a poll of all those Jews, asking them if they thought we were doing the right thing by setting them free. Now let's suppose that the poll came back the 56% of Jews recently freed from concentration camps, Nazi torture, and what-not, believed it was a good thing, according to our poll. There are two ways to look at this.

The first is the way we tend to look at things. "56%! That's a majority, right? So we've got a mandate from the Jewish population for our actions! Hooray!"

The second is the right way to look at it (hypothetically speaking, of course). "56%? We liberated them from almost-certain death and nearly half of the people want us to stop what we're doing? What gives here? Maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all."

Now I should like to disclaim for a moment. In no way am I suggesting that any of the above is fact, or should be fact. I'm sure all the Jews who were rescued from concentration camps were happy. Killing Jews is bad. Nazis are bad too. Nor am I making a comparison (artful though it may be) between our policy in Iraq and the Nazis. This is a thought experiment, remember? If you can't take it, please just leave and come back when I start talking about cheese.

In Iraq, we have a similar, although also different and should not be compared, situation. We have the Shiites, who under Saddam Hussein were treated poorly (more or less poorly depending on whose version of the story you believe, and I refuse to take sides). We have their liberation by the US (not the point of the war, I know, but for the purposes of this thought experiment, liberated they were nonetheless). So if a poll of Shiites taken, say, this year, found that 56% of them thought things were going well (I've made this number up), there would be two ways to look at that.

The first way... wait, I've already covered this ground. The point is that if only 56% of the population think something is a good thing, then maybe it's not such a great thing. Barely half of the people is one thing, but barely half of the people who are supposed to be benefiting the most from said "good thing" approving of it is probably not so terrific.

Obviously, not everyone will agree, and I don't expect 100% of even the recently-emancipated-from-tyranny to agree that said emancipation was the best thing. But I do expect a little more than "just over half." Just over half of the answers right on a test is still an F.

Please post your comments stating that I am a horrible anti-Semite racist below, or if you'd like to save them up, I can arrange to write something about how I disagree fundamentally with the state of Israel, and you can head over there and call me a Nazi. I must be, since I don't agree with you. That, I suppose, is how a little over half of people feel about me. I can live with it.

They've Got a Law For That

I love government.

Don't get me wrong, it's a necessary evil, and I'm sure I would last about five minutes in a glorious anarchistic-return-to-state-of-nature-cracy. But sometimes...

Actually, this is more about the spectre of terrorism reaching its ugly hand into the pot, as it were. Actually, I have no idea what I'm talking about. So rather than introduce this topic to death before I even get to introduce it, let's jump straight to the game, Bob!

Behold, an article. It's about terrorism, among other things. And I'm not going to summarize it because it doesn't really matter. The relevant text is quoted below.

The 26-year-old is accused of not disclosing information that could have helped police arrest a suspected terrorist.

Wow. Okay, so that's, let's see... four possibles there. He's been accused. He didn't disclose information. It might have helped. And the thing it might have helped with is the arrest of a possible terrorist.

Let's get the big one out of the way first. Making non-disclosure a crime is dangerous. You want to accuse someone of lying to a jury, that's fine. But if you're accusing someone of not ratting another person out, then we've crossed the line. I don't know, maybe the police asked this man about the facts of the case weeks beforehand, and he lied. But that's lying to the police, or obstruction of justice, or conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, or being an accomplice. Non-disclosure, to me at any rate, implies that this man should have come forward. It makes it sound like Britain's police operate under the honor system. Again, I don't know. But they could have picked a better name for it, if it should not so be named.

Then we have accused. That's fine. We'll leave it. In fact, if it weren't for the three other possibles, I'm sure I never would have noticed it.

Back to the biggies, we have, "could have helped." In other words, not only is this man accused of withholding information vital to the police, he's being accused of withholding information which "could" be vital to the police. So if I see something relating to a robbery, the police never come around to ask me about it, I see what I believe to be the same information in the paper a week later, and then the police show up to arrest me, they can do so because it's possible that my information, "could have helped," them capture the robber? They caught the robber anyway, and they did it with information extremely similar to mine, but it's possible that if they'd heard from me immediately, that information could have been helpful to them. Not could have been vital, even, but, "could have helped."

I realize that I'm blowing this out of proportion, but I'm doing so to make a point. Because if they can arrest you for not giving them information that is vital, then they can arrest you for not giving information that might be vital, and then pretty soon they can arrest you for not giving information that might possibly have been of some small use to them. "Helped" doesn't mean single-handedly led to. If you've seen any criminal movies, television shows, or, hell, read Sherlock Holmes, you know that even minor bits of information can sometimes be important, so if I forget to tell the police that the killer was drinking hazelnut coffee, I guess I'm guilty of withholding information that could have helped. It's not likely, but it could have.

Lastly we have, "suspected terrorist." It's not a big fish, but I'll fry it anyway. Suspected? Oh, so now it's not enough to arrest people for not giving information which might have helped in some small way to arrest a known terrorist. Now we have to turn in suspected terrorists too. You know what? Who the hell isn't a suspected terrorist? And what information about them might not be important? So if I don't march down to the police station right now and tell them everything I know about everyone, omitting no detail, forgetting nothing, even honestly, I can be hunted down as a suspected non-discloser of information relating to possible suspected terrorists?

Bullshit. If you replace the word "terrorist" with the word "criminal," you'd have yourself a completely impossible-to-convict crime. No DA in the world would touch it. Some people do know about crimes before they are committed; I'm not saying those people should get off. Charge them with conspiracy, charge them with being an accomplice, charge them with obstruction of justice. But when you start charging them simply based on whether or not they might have had information which the police might or might not have found useful, then you're in terror country.

Terrorism will get you everywhere. And I'm not talking about terrorists. I'm talking about people who want to take away your rights. The bottom line, for those folks who want one, is as follows: if you know about a crime, and you know it is a crime, and you don't report it, you then become guilty of aiding the commission of that crime, should that crime come to pass. Anything else is fancy talk for thought-crime, which terror investigations these days seem to have in spades.

Sidewalks Are There For a Reason

I find it absolutely fascinating that people don't seem to understand where pedestrians should walk. Because I'm fairly certain that most people in the USA speak English. Maybe those who augur immigrant doom are correct, but I know for a fact that many people in this country speak English, and therefore should understand the connotations of the word, "sidewalk."

"Side:" the thing to the side of the road. "Walk:" a place where one who is a pedestrian, that is, one who walks, can walk. How hard is it?

I'm hep to the fact that sidewalks aren't always present. Along a back country road, there might, in fact there will, not be a sidewalk. Whether you should be walking along a back country road at all is debatable, but if you are, there's no sidewalk. That's the facts. But if there is a sidewalk, why not walk on it?

I cannot count the number of times I've seen people strolling down the middle of the street where there are not one but two sidewalks present, where cars are frequently seen. And since the law says one must yield to pedestrians, there's nothing a car can do, short of running a person over.

Or how about the people who feel that the ideal place to pause to adjust themselves is the center of a poorly-lit street in the middle of the night. When these people are wearing headphones, in black, and looking at their shoes, it just makes the whole thing way too much fun for drivers. Can one really be blamed for running a stupid person over? Of course one can.

Lastly, pedestrian laws are good. In the middle of town, people should not be scared to cross the street. But if you're crossing the street in front of cars, there are a few things you could do to make the whole thing easier. One: cross more quickly than a crawl. Two: make sure you don't stop in the center of the street to yell at someone. Three: don't leap out into traffic from behind a parked car without checking to see whether or not there are cars coming. Four: if you're waiting to cross and someone lets you cross, don't stand there with your finger in your nose pondering this development.

I don't think any of these things are too much to ask.

Super My Foot

No, this is not an article about how my left foot has received super powers in the mail, nor by irradiation, nor by a spider bite. My left foot cannot fly, nor run really fast, nor stop bullets with its mind. Just forget about my foot. I should have gone with my original idea, which was, "Super My Ass," but I guess that leads to a whole different set of problems.

This is about Super Glue. I should append a trademark symbol there. Super Glue is decidedly less super than advertised. It's hard to use and it makes it very easy to stick things together by accident, but works fairly poorly when it comes to sticking things together on purpose. If they called it what it is, which is a fairly narrow-purpose glue which does certain things fairly well, then it wouldn't even come up.

How much credence do you give to PR? Because you should probably give less. I believe things I shouldn't, and undoubtedly so does everyone else on the planet. But Super Glue is simply one straw in the haystack of products that mislead, either intentionally or because the advertising was just too good. I'm not sure where to draw the line between those two categories.

Part of it, of course, is the fact that people don't read directions. It's amazing what you learn about products when you read the fine print. But frankly, the directions and fine print could stand to be a little more readable. If there's an important piece of information, it shouldn't be buried in the legal agreement.

But Super Glue isn't terribly useful, and it's really hard to get over the nervousness concerning the fact that Super Glue can stick your skin to just about anything permanently. Which is why I use epoxy. Only kidding.

People Rock

Piano Movers

I have a metric crapload of respect for you because I hate moving pianos and you do it all the time. In fact, you make it look easy. I know it's partially brains but has a lot to do with brawn, and simply acknowledging that I hate moving pianos points out my incredible weakness, but weak I am and pianos I have still moved, far too many to be explained by the fact that I am not a piano mover.

People who move from house to house regularly

I think you're crazy, but I respect you because I hate moving. Yet I've done it. And you all do it all the time. I could never in a million years move overseas; I would have to burn all my belongings and start over. But you're still crazy.

Dancers

I don't get dance really, which may or may not be a topic for another time, but I can't really dance. Oh sure, I can fake it a little, but mostly it's just fake and it only works if I'm in a crowd. So you dancer types, way to go on the dancing. I can't do it.

Computer programmers

I dabble. I'm a dilettante. But although I don't always see eye to eye with you, computer programmers, you can do things I can't. And you can make things work. I can design, but once it comes down to the wire I have no finishing power. Yet somehow computer programmers manage to turn out working software. It takes a lot of effort to do that, even poorly, which is far too common. But if you do it well, that takes so much effort it's not even worth doing, at least for me. Bravo to you.

It's sad that at the moment I can't think of too many other people to include in this list.

What Are We Paying For?

Everything is going digital, and by that I mean that pretty soon we won't be able to buy any physical objects at all. All our "belongings" will exist only in some form of electronic storage. I have a problem with this, as I may have mentioned.

But even if you're absolutely gung-ho about iPods, even if you think that "book" should begin with an 'e,' even if you never want to own another object in the physical world again, you should be aware of something. It has to do with economics, so if you're frightened by money, maybe you should leave the room, or at least brace yourself for impact. Don't say I didn't warn you in an extremely condescending manner.

Things you buy cost money, right? And whether you like it or not, most of that money doesn't go toward the creator of the item. This is particularly true in the case of books, music, computer software, and other things which (surprise) have made the switch to an all-digital format.

The money you pay for a book, in particular, mostly goes to pay for the fact that the book must be printed. Sure, there's advertising and author royalties (we hope) and salaries for executives, but without the printing process, that book wouldn't cost anywhere near as much. It's not just the paper and glue and ink: it's money to pay the printers, it's money to ship the finished books all over, it's money to buy warehouses to store the books, and it's even money to print books which won't be sold because if you have to print huge numbers, it's very hard to judge how many books you need to print and therefore to be on the safe side most publishers print too many.

Now, consider on the other hand an e-book. The author still gets paid peanuts (possibly less), the publisher still has to pay its executives (and other people not having to do with the printing process like editors), and advertising is still going to take a chunk of change. But since there's no printing, it doesn't cost the publisher a dime. They can "print" exactly as many as they sell.

Now I know there are a fair number of legends out there about the actual price of making a CD; I've heard everything from ridiculous to... well, ridiculous for other reasons. But regardless of what it actually costs to produce the CD, the case, and liner notes, you still have to ship those CDs, plus all the problems of storage and making too many that are endemic to books. That's why CDs cost so much, and why record stores go out of business; all that cost is passed on to the store, which to turn a profit must pass the cost on to the consumer. When you buy an MP3, even if you overlook the fact that digital media have drawbacks all their own, it doesn't cost the company as much.

So why do you pay as much or more for the ephemeral version of something? Again, I don't agree with digital format on principle, for various reasons. But it really makes no sense to me to pay more, or at least enable to company to make more money, for something which limits your use. If you want to read an e-book off of the computer, you either have to print it (which passes the printing costs on to you and certainly doesn't look as nice as a book) or you have to buy some expensive portable thing.

So are you comfortable with subsidizing publishers? Because you're just making it easier for them when you buy digital.

Going to Plays

I work in the theatre. Obviously I don't find my job terribly offensive or odious, and I believe strongly that live theatre is important culturally and artistically (if there is a distinction that can be drawn 'twixt the two). But I don't go to see plays very often.

Many people seem to think that this makes me non-supportive of the arts. They wonder what level of hypocrisy I call home, or whether I'm only in it for the money (have they seen my paychecks, I wonder) and am artistically bankrupt (I'm certainly monetarily bankrupt). There are, after all, a lot of theatre folk who listen to show tunes non-stop (and not just the gay theatre folk either, so don't go there), who see plays whenever they get the chance, who just love being in the theatre. They think I'm terrible.

Well, let me ask you something. Let's say you're a steelworker. You work hard because you don't hate your job and you feel like you're producing important steel for steel things that need to be made from steel (I'm not a steelworker so I'm going to guess). Sure, maybe you make a little less than a doctor or lawyer, but you feel like your contribution is important all the same. And you don't hate steel.

Would you want to turn around on your day off and go back to the mill to have a picnic? Why not? Surely you like steel. Surely you don't hate your bread and butter. How about taking a trip to some other town and touring their steel mill on holiday? You don't want to do that either? You must be a hypocrite.

I hope that example illustrates the fact that I spend a lot of time in theaters and that it's my job and that, while I don't hate it, I don't necessarily want to spend my days off (few that they are) hanging around theaters. But it gets worse. See, part of working in the theatre is acknowledging that you will never again have any nightlife. Because I'm working most nights, when all theatre people are working. And why are we working then? Because plays occur at night, and at carefully-determined times during the day. So if I'm working in a theater and the theater down the road puts on a play, there's a good chance I won't be able to go see it even if I want to because I'll have to be working.

I know theatre is supposed to be an art, and unlike regular jobs we artistic types are supposed to care about our work to the point that we see other artists as well. I know this. But the fact of the matter is that I spend a lot of time doing things which aren't terribly artistic, and when I get time off I like to do something else with it. Not to mention the fact that, as a theatre technician, I tend to have a hard time turning off that part of my brain and suspending disbelief.

It's okay though; I don't go to the movies much either. Or to galleries. Or concerts. Or even tour steel mills. I don't get out much, period. And if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

As a postscript, you may have noticed that I spell theatre differently all the time. I do this consciously (and, I would argue, correctly). Thank you for pointing it out.

60 Pieces

This is out of temporal reality. Deal with it.

So according to this BBC story:

"[George Bush believes] that the fact that Iraqi legislature passed 60 pieces of legislation 'was illustrative of a government that's beginning to work.'.

This is not intended to be unadulterated Bush-bashing. But I have two problems with this statement, enumerated below..

One: if the Iraqi government have only passed 60 pieces of legislation since they started, they've been a model of small government. A new country in a state like Iraq should have hundreds of laws passed all the time, and amendments to laws already passed as those laws turn out not to work in the real world. The US, for example, does not exist solely by virtue of the Constitution; the Constitution simply spells out how the government is supposed to work, not what things people can and cannot do. It's hard to pass laws without a framework telling you how you can pass them, but it's even harder to enforce laws when all you have is a framework telling you how laws could come into being. 60 laws (and that's assuming that all 60 pieces of legislation have been laws)? That's a trickle. Iraq is centrally governed: the central government should be passing laws left and right to regulate all the things that Constitutions don't cover. You can't rely on common law when you've only been in existence for a year or two. So I'd hardly call that a great deal of work on the part of the legislature. If anything, it's a sign that there's so much fighting about laws that they can't be passed..

Two: even assuming that 60 laws in the period of time we're talking about is a large number, simply passing laws doesn't mean jack. The legislature of this country regularly passes laws which don't mean a thing. And we're not living in a state of civil war. If Congress wants to pass a law making terrorism illegal (I'm fairly sure they've done so) that will no more stop terrorists than passing a law making all other countries in the world give us all their money. It's an unenforceable law which only applies post-facto, when you're interested in throwing the book at a supposed terrorist. So if Iraq wants to pass all sorts of interesting (and probably useful) laws, that's fine, but they have to take into account that fact that they cannot enforce them..

Passing laws means agreement on paper. Enforcing laws means agreement on the street. When I see a little more of the former and a lot more of the latter, then I'll believe that its illustrative of anything that's "beginning to work." Since beginnings are notoriously bad metrics of quality, I'm not sure I can say how hopeful I'll find said beginning..

Hypothetical History: The FDA

(Note that this is really more hypothetical current events than hypothetical history, but I still would have loved to have been in the room when they made this decision.)

The FDA Building, the recent past.

"Okay, so what's next on the agenda?"

"Well, there's the new AIDS drugs..."

"Depressing. Skip it."

"Okay, there's the anti-aging serum..."

"Not until I'm older. Next."

"Then how about sunscreen."

"What about it?"

"Well, there are a lot of people who seem to think we should regulate it more seriously."

"How so?"

"Frankly, at this point sunscreen bottles could say that they cure skin cancer and we wouldn't care."

"So that's bad, huh?"

"People seem to think so."

"Okay, so let's regulate. We should put a warning label on the bottle like we did with cigarettes. That's sure to make people sit up and take notice."

"Now there's an idea."

"And I've heard some things about how there are different types of ultraviolet light. Can we do something with that?"

"Right now SPF, which is basically just a meaningless slogan at this point, measures protection against the burning kind, but no one seems to have any idea about the other kind."

"Well, can we make SPF cover both kinds?"

"You mean say that sunscreen needs to provide equal protection from both kinds of UV? Unfortunately that won't work, because some people seem to want lower protection from certain types of UV, so they can tan."

"So we need two measurements?"

"Yes."

"Well, how about calling them SPFA and SPFB, and giving two numbers?"

"No, that just doesn't sound right."

"Okay, well since everyone knows what SPF means, why don't we invent a new and more confusing system, like bars. Does anyone here have one of those cell phones which has bars? Could we use something like that?"

"Most people do know what SPF is supposed to mean, but since it's basically a ploy on the part of the manufacturer... besides, I don't think we can use bars."

"Then let's just give a percentage for both."

"Too simple."

"I've got it! We'll use two different systems. We'll keep using SPF, since it's basically meaningless, for one system, but we'll also track the other kind of UV with a completely different and confusing system which has no relation to SPF."

"Yes!"

"Now all we have to decide is what little icons we'll use, since we can't use bars."

"Cars?"

"Mars?"

"SARS?"

"Stars?"

"Yes, stars is good. Makes it like a movie. So it's settled, two different and non-compatible system, both with very little hard fact to them, and a warning label. That will solve everyone's problems."

"Let's get Chinese."

Gambling Makes Someone Money

You know what? Casinos make money.

That's not a terribly controversial statement at first glance. Of course casinos make money. Otherwise how would they continue to exist? Surely they, like all businesses, have the right to make money.

I am not going to debate the relative merits of gambling as a vice. Nor am I going to posit that casinos make too much money, or that gamblers lose too much. If you believe those things, then I don't need to convince you, and if you don't, then I have no hard evidence to offer, because I'm too lazy to look it up and as I said, I'm not interested in debating the points raised.

But think about the fact that casinos make money for a minute. Lotteries make money too, in fact; lotteries are not run by the state (or illegally by others) in order to provide cheap entertainment to the masses. They make money. The person who runs a form of gambling, one that is successful at any rate, makes money.

This means that you can't beat the house. I know that movies like Ocean's Eleven (et al) would have you believe differently, but you cannot beat the house. You can make money too, but the house will make more. Usually a lot more, but as I said, I don't have the figures to back that one up.

Someone, somewhere, spent a lot of time figuring out how to make sure that the house would never really lose, otherwise the casino would have gone bust. Someone designed the game you are playing with incredible attention to making sure that even if you win, the house still wins too. Someone probably gave it more thought than you ever will.

So think about that before you gamble. Because you're probably, whether you win or not, providing money to the establishment. If the price of the entertainment is worth it to you, then by all means, entertain yourself. But remember, gambling makes someone money, and it usually isn't the gambler.

And because I said I wasn't going to debate the relative merits of gambling as a vice, I won't mention the massive unstated cost of gambling in crime. Or waste. Or any of the numerous other hidden costs to casinos. I'm not going to mention them.

Manhood

The car stuff is just a result of a bad day on the road, I promise. I'm not planning to make this blog entirely about my problems with people in cars. Lord knows I have problems with people in cars, but that's not the main thrust of most of my views about which nobody cares.

Why exactly do men feel the need to compensate for their sexual inferiority by buying certain types of car? I mean, I'm a man (at least, so I've been led to believe by various people over the years), and I drive a junker. It's old, ugly, and slow, and it's only a large van because I'm tall and I like being able to drive with my hands rather than my knees. And what's worse is that I don't really want a midlife-crisis-mobile. Maybe the Department of Men will come along and take away my membership card. But obviously I don't get it, which might frame the things I'm about to say in a certain way. But why? There are basically two types of sexual-deficiency car on the market, that I've seen, and I don't understand how either of them make you more of a man.

In the first place, why would it be manly to be small, red, and quick to get where you're going? I guess if you get a convertible with a hard top you can at least have something, but seriously, what man wants to be tiny, peppy, and speedy. That sounds like a recipe for disaster. I know, the car goes fast. That's a good thing why? Oh, not to mention the fact that you're more likely to be caught speeding in a car that looks fast.

But the other hand is just as bad. What man would want to be a huge, slow, ugly guzzler. Big trucks, Humvees, SUVs, you name it, it's big, slow, ugly, and drinks. I guess it's powerful. Those gas prices might make you think twice about driving it much, though.

So essentially, either you want speed or you want power. And a car is a pretty obvious affectation. If, like me, you need a big, ugly hunk of guzzle for good reason, then it's not affected, but if you're a lawyer on Wall Street with a behemoth of a truck which has obviously never been outside the city, let alone, "on the job," it's pretty obvious that you think you have a small penis. There, I've said it.

Me, I think it's pretty funny, folks' obsessions with cars. Maybe I'm alone in this, or maybe I'm just not old enough yet. I do own more guitars than I could ever possibly hope to need, and I guess that makes me a big man. I guess.

It's Fairly Likely

Hey, you know what? It's a bad idea to drive and talk on your cellphone at the same time. I know this is a hard concept for people to understand. But I'm going to have to call asshole on you if you drive and talk simultaneously.

This issue is like smoking. Remember back when people genuinely believed that smoking wasn't bad for you? There was a lot of evidence that in fact it was really bad for you, but people genuinely seemed uninterested in listening to this evidence. Or how about cocaine? There was a period of time when a lot of people, despite evidence to the contrary, seemed bound and determined to believe that cocaine was A-OK for you.

Well wake up, stupid people. Even if all you're doing is holding the cellphone in one hand while you drive, not looking at it or talking into it, it's still making you less safe as a driver. Because driving is not the simple, everyday activity we all seem to think it is. It requires a lot of brain power, and two hands. If you only use one hand, especially in crucial situations, you're probably going to be less safe.

But the best part is that you're not just only using one hand. You're only using a fraction of your brain. And let's face it, world: our brains just aren't that big. Most people can't drive worth a damn even when they use their entire brain on the task, so why should anyone think that using only part of an already-too-small brain on a task which we're not very good at to begin with which requires a great deal of brain power is a good idea? Did that sentence confuse you? Well, try reading it again; you can do that when you're reading. But you can't do it when you're driving; if you screw up, you only get one chance at it. And it's hard, like that sentence was.

So if you sit at a stop light talking on your cellphone, or you drive around a sharp curve talking on your cellphone, or even if you just drive on a perfectly straight road at 15 miles per hour while talking on your cellphone, you're probably an asshole. You're definitely a moron, but the asshole thing is a little harder to judge. I'm going to say probably.

First To Vote

Okay, I've had it up to here with the primaries. Here, by the way, is somewhere high. And the primaries are the primary elections in the United States. And I am having had it. Up to a high... you get the picture.

I had no idea it had become so ridiculous. I mean, the primaries have always been ridiculous, because they don't all take place on the same day, and because they matter more or less than they should, but seemingly never the exact amount that they should. But I had no idea that New Hampshire had a law which said that its primaries must take place at least a week before anyone else's.

Isn't it lucky that the legislature of New Hampshire (and Iowa, by the way, which has a similar law on the books, but since Iowa has a caucus, they can hold it before New Hampshire) was so blessed with foresight? I mean, imagine if someone else had gotten that bright idea.

Actually, that's a great idea, one which I had before I started writing this but wanted to leave out until now so it would seem more organic (but now I've gone and spoiled it all). I challenge some good-humored legislature, somewhere in this great nation of mine (I would say ours, but I hardly know you) to take up the gauntlet and pass a law stating that your state primaries must take place at least a week before anyone else's.

Imagine the chaos. Say South Carolina makes the move. They pass the law, and then by law they must move their state primaries to a week before New Hampshire's. Then New Hampshire backs its primaries up, so South Carolina backs up, to the point where the primaries would have to take place tomorrow and be illegal. How wonderful would that be? It would be even better if two states grew the cajones to do it, so there would be a three-way race to see who could get their primaries off the ground first. And be illegal doing it. That's the part I love the most.

Seriously though, the whole thing is absurd. I know New Hampshire has its little heart set on winning this particular contest; let's face it, if it weren't for that stupid law, no one would give a rat's ass about New Hampshire except some of the people living there. Since I don't happen to live there, I don't, even with the stupid law, give a rat's ass about it.

The solution is simple; all primaries take place on the same day. The problem with the simple solution is that all states operate primaries differently, and the only way to change that is to pass a law at the Federal level. The problem with that is that said Federal law would be Unconstitutional, I'm sure, and would necessitate a Constitutional Amendment. And the problem with that is that Constitutional Amendments require a large amount of support, which this one won't get because some people really like things the way they are. Specifically the inhabitants of those states lucky enough to vote early in the primaries, plus undoubtedly lots of lobbyists for a huge corporation of some kind.

And frankly, who gives a damn about the primaries anyway? The way things are going, they don't really matter. The political spectrum is so polarized that no matter whom each party picks, they'll be roughly the same. Cynical, yes, but basically cynicism brought on by the idiocy of the primaries.

So I repeat: lobby your state legislature to pass a law stating that you are better than New Hampshire by mandating primary elections prior to New Hampshire's. Unless you happen to live in New Hampshire, in which case, lobby your legislature to fiercely defend your rights to be a pissant little state which has way too much power in the primaries. And I'll sit back and watch the fireworks.

Hypothetical History: Prelude to World War II

Somewhere in England, sometime in the 1930s.

"So, what's next on the agenda?"

"Well sir, I thought we might discuss the German situation."

"What about it?"

"Well, it's just that the Germans feel rather poorly treated, sir. I mean, they've had some really tough times."

"Well by Gadfrey, they did start the bloody war last time."

"Yes, sir, I know..."

"I mean, World War I, the big one, the Great War! How exactly should they expect us to treat them? Kiss them on the lips?"

"It's just that the greater British public seem to feel that..."

"That what?"

"That they're right."

"Oh, well that's different. If the people feel bad for them, perhaps we'd better do something to make them feel a little better."

"My thinking exactly, sir."

"So what is it that we can do to make Germany feel better about her situation?"

"Well, there's the Treaty of Versailles."

"Yes, great treaty that."

"They don't seem to feel that way about it."

"Oh?"

"Yes, sir. They seem to feel that it was blatantly unfair."

"What could we do?"

"We could always let them have the part of Germany back that we took away. Everyone in East Prussia, with a few minor exceptions, seems to feel that they would be much happier as Germans than as Poles. Not to mention that fact that it was extremely inept of us to separate a part of Germany from the main section by putting a bit of Poland, the country that everyone hates, with no natural defensible borders, between the two."

"No, no, that won't do at all. We promised Poland."

"To put them in an even worse position?"

"You weren't at the conference."

"Right. Well sir, there's always letting the Germans have back the parts of Lorraine and Alsace we took from them."

"No no, of course not."

"Why not?"

"Well, we like the French better."

"But sir, they're horrible snail-eating wogs."

"Yes, yes, but they asked first."

"Okay, well then how about forgiving some of the horrendous debt that the Germans have had to run up as a result of the massive war reparations we said we weren't going to impose anyway."

"No!"

"Why not?"

"Well, it's money, isn't it?"

"But sir, we won't ever get the money. Truth be told, the last payment we received was in American dollars, not gold."

"What, American money?"

"Yes sir."

"Still money though. Must stand on principle. What else?"

"Well, how about improving diplomatic ties, not making fun of von Ribbentrop so mercilessly at polo games, that sort of thing."

"I remember one time, we put a whoopee cushion on his chair at a state banquet. Even the Queen laughed at that."

"Yes sir, I well remember, but maybe we could be a little more polite?"

"No, won't do. He gave a bally Nazi salute to the King. To the King!"

"Fine sir. Well, there's always those bizarre theories that their spittle-spewing maniac of a dictator is talking about, with the Jews and all. Maybe we could start hating Jews."

"Don't be ridiculous. You know we do that already. And the darkies too, I mean, I'm right with Hitler on the whole 'Master Race' thing."

"Well, then I can't think of anything else we could do."

"Wait a tick, didn't Versailles say something about restricting their military?"

"Yes sir, but that's the only reasonable part. I mean, we went to war to destroy their military because it had become too powerful and they were threatening peace and stability."

"Don't be childish. We went to war because we promised to."

"Who did we promise?"

"Oh, I don't know, one of those little countries somewhere, I can't remember. Maybe it was Burkina Faso."

"Sir?"

"Yes?"

"Burkina Faso is still called Upper Volta at this point."

"Right, but it's a funnier name."

"Still, allowing Germany to have a bigger military, under a dictator who has openly advocated military force as an acceptable foreign policy... doesn't that sound a little dangerous?"

"No, of course not. So bigger military it is. In fact, I think the first thing we should do is give them some money to build a few ships, so that we, a power which relies almost exclusively on the might of our navy, can be better protected or something."

"Right sir, I'll fetch the papers for you to sign."

Hypothetical History

Okay, time to inaugurate a new segment. For a while I've been writing little lists of people's names, and I suppose you could call that a segment, so now we'll have another one in the hopes that providing some sort of framework will enable me to write more frequently.

I would just like to take a moment to say, by way of disclaimer, that nothing in these segments are true, to the best of my knowledge, and unless they are about public figures, the characters appearing aren't real people. Blah blah parody protected under the Constitution blah.

No this is not about, "What if the South had won the Civil War." This is what I imagine must have gone on in the back room somewhere during various periods in history, humorously portrayed so as to point out some of the idiotic things people have done during humanity's short stay on the planet. Also, I may be blatantly insulting and possibly sacrilegious. I'm not sorry.

Flying off the Handle

Well, really this isn't about flying off the handle so much as it is about people's complete lack of understanding regarding online visibility. I know I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, but what is with these people?

More often than not because of the glories of Web 2.0 (and if you can list them all you win a free trip to Tahiti) there are comments sections on everything now. And in those comments sections there will undoubtedly be one or more people with really bright ideas about the world. I'm talking about people who go to Amazon.com and, in the review section for the new Harry Potter book, rant and rave about how the Trilateral Commission and the Iraqis are conspiring to take over Uzbekistan (I was deliberately trying to be as outrageous as possible, but I've realized that you can't be more outrageous than these people). It's not news; it happens all the time.

And more often than not, these people say things which I certainly wouldn't. I'm not talking about their views, which I usually don't hold. I'm talking about epithets, slurs, cursing, et cetera and so on. It's a fact of comment sections: they seem to bring out the worst in people.

Then someone else comments on the previous commenter, pointing out just how idiotic they sound. This, of course, sends the original commenter into a spiral of, "Oh, I'm just tired, no one was supposed to take it seriously, I didn't know anyone was reading this."

I didn't know anyone was reading this, either, which apparently gives me carte blanche to yell, rant, curse, call people names, and generally make an ass of myself. Then, when someone reads it, I can act all surprised because I don't seem to understand the concept of, "the Internet." See, things I write and post on, "the Internet," can be accessed and read by anyone. It's a shocking thing to realize, I know. More shocking than the language I tend to use.

What is with these people? See, I told you I'd say it again. What makes them think that a very public forum is a good place to spout off? And not just spout off, but inform the world of their deepest secrets, reveal things I wouldn't tell my identical conjoined twin, and generally just misunderstand the concept of "public forum?" Who are these people? Where do they come from? How can we get them to go back there?

More Drunk-Tank-Bashing

Have any of you drinkers ever read the warnings on the medications you take? It's okay if you don't take any medication, but for those of you who do, ever read the warnings?

Most of the time, it says, "Don't drink," in convoluted medical language.

Exactly how do you continue to drink then?

I know a fair number of people who take medications which expressly forbid them from drinking grapefruit juice, let alone alcohol. Yet they're out at the bar on Saturdays with the best of them. I guess it's like tobacco; it's really not a good idea, but we'll do it anyway.

So what advice would you drinking types give to those of us who, for medical reasons, can't drink? Get used to life as a human garbage bag, I imagine, either that or ignore the warnings and come drinking. Because there are a lot of things which don't play well with alcohol, a lot of them. Sleeping medication is one, and yet we keep having those celebrity cases where someone took a sleeping pill after having downed a bottle of Jack, then drove their car through a plate-glass window. They weren't hurt, of course, and because the legal system seems to feel the way that you drinkers do (judges and lawyers are big drinkers, I'm given to understand by television, and why should I disbelieve it, because everyone in the world are big drinkers, according to some), they get to plead medical malpractice or some such crap. I am employing heavy amounts of sarcasm, hyperbole, and exaggeration here; do not correct me, for I do not care.

So by all means, people who shouldn't drink, go to it. It's the only way to be happy. It's the only way to have fun. Karen Ann Quinlan had a blast right up to the point that she became a fixture in the debate on pulling the plug on brain-dead coma patients. Nobody remembers that part, though. Everyone remembers that she was in a coma, but no one remembers that it was because she shouldn't have been drinking.

Sorry drinkers, I wish I could have as much fun as you have, but I can't. I'll just keep providing grist to the mill so people can call me either crazy or stupid, possibly both. But since my rather unorthodox stance on troop support came to light, I don't expect much of anything else.

TV Everywhere

I was a cable guy for a while, and let me tell you, there are few things that people care more about than whether or not they have cable. The supreme irony of it all is that I don't have, and have never had, cable. In fact, I'm not terribly fond of television. I've been starting all of my views recently with background like this because I'm a wimp, but also because I'm making an effort to be as honest about my biases as possible. Mostly the wimp part though.

I worked in houses that didn't have working plumbing, houses where there was no furniture besides the television, houses inhabited by people who obviously had to choose between paying the water bill or the cable bill. And you can guess what they chose. People care about television. A lot.

Well you know what? It's not healthy. It's not good to have a television in every room of your house. There's been a lot of press given recently to the idea that email addiction isn't healthy, but when you can't be in a room (including the bathroom) of your house without having a television, that's not healthy.

When I was younger I used to wish that my family had two televisions, so we wouldn't fight over who got to watch it when. Now all I want is for the television to be exiled to some far corner. I'm not being holier than thou; I watch TV too, and I watch DVDs more often than that. I admit that I probably watch too much television, when you factor in all the things I watch. I think most people watch too much television. But I'm not crusading to remove television from the house. Far from it. I want it removed from rooms in the house where it doesn't belong.

Keep the TV in the den. Keep it in the TV room. I don't care. But I'm tired of trying to watch television where there are other people who don't want to watch it, just as I am tired of being the other person who doesn't want to watch. If there are no locations where you can go to be free from TV, it's not healthy. How many televisions do we really need?

Now we've got TV in our cars (that's safe, let me tell you), TV in restaurants (I can't stand those, and always so many of them), TV on street corners, TV everywhere. It used to be just one in bars, now it's twenty in every store. You can watch TV on your portable DVD player, or on your iPod, or what have you. You can't get away from it.

I guess this is just an extension of my, "we don't all need to be connected all the time," argument, but TV is particularly annoying because it seems to mean that we need to be entertained passively all the time. Passive entertainment is great. But all the time?

In closing, however, I would just like to say, on behalf of my underpaid and overworked ex-coworkers in the cable repair and installation industries, please have as many TVs as possible so they get paid more. I don't really believe it, and frankly I didn't when I was getting paid by the set, but on behalf of the cable guys and gals of the world, I'll say it.

George Orwell Metaphors

I should just go on record at the very beginning as saying that I think George Orwell is a schmuck. I don't like him, his writing, or his attitude. If that colors what I'm about to say about him, it's hardly surprising.

Here I am, replying to a piece written 60 years ago by a dead man. I must have a life. I disagree with a lot of it, but the part with which I really disagree is laid out hereunder, so I can inflate the size of this. Also so you can read it, but mostly for the first reason.

Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed.

I would just like to take exception to his pronouncement that the metaphors are dead. For one thing, he's got his phrases wrong. These aren't metaphors, they're clichés. They once probably were metaphors, it's true, just as many cultural references were, but now they are shorthand, as he says, which makes them not dying metaphors but clichés.

Perhaps we'd be better off with no clichés at all in the world. Perhaps when I wanted to say, "his Achilles heel," I should instead always say, "his one point of mortal weakness." Maybe. How exactly that will improve my readability is something of which I'm not certain. But the fact of the matter is that, "Achilles heel," is a useful shorthand. It's no longer a metaphor because we don't even think about the original for comparison purposes. We know (or should know) what an Achilles heel is, and we don't even think about the myth.

Most of what Mr. Orwell is decrying is the use of too many words when fewer would do, and that I can support. But there's always the question of how many fewer will in fact do. We could, I suppose, live in the blessed world of NewSpeak and use practically no vocabulary at all. But the beauty of the English language, when it comes to writing, is that there are so many different ways to say things.

I'm sure he doesn't want us to stop using metaphors, just to make up our own. And that might work, were it not for the fact that many metaphors rely on a shared cultural vocabulary, which we, increasingly, don't have. I imagine that there are a lot of the so-called metaphors listed above which people would not recognize, let alone understand. There are a few I've never heard. So yes, to use them would be like using foreign words.

Speaking of foreign words, George, how exactly do you think that English got most of its vocabulary? Parthenogenesis? That's a good two-dollar word that doesn't come from English, but which serves its purpose.

At some point I will join with George in decrying the overuse of jargon in society. But not all language is jargon, and I think we would risk losing the beauty of the language if we stripped out all of the fluff. Some of it, of course, could probably go.

Sex Doesn't Mean Quality

Movies these days. Sheesh.

Okay, that's out of the way. Now, to the specific. Because I'm not really talking about movies. I'm talking about television.

I watched a program on PBS the other night, as produced by the British, as all "good television" is nowadays. There wasn't a hint of anything untoward: no big explosions, no gore, practically no violence at all. What little there was took place off screen or in some other equally ambiguous manner. Some of it was probably because the British either don't have or choose not to spend money for big special effects like explosions, although you're seeing more of that recently.

It was not a children's show. It was about World War II, and it dealt with some very adult themes. Not a bad word in sight, though. In the United States, it would have been quite different.

But then, halfway through the show, with no warning whatsoever, a woman stripped and presented us with some very concrete reasons why the show could never be seen on network television. Then a few minutes later, wild sex.

I wasn't offended. I'm not prudish. It was less graphic than many things you see. But it seemed to be present in the piece solely as an excuse for the British to show off the fact that their televisual mores are less stringent on the subject of breasts than ours are. On the other hand, there are many things they can't show on TV which US networks cheerfully show in the afternoons on reruns. That's beside the point.

See, I'm not against sex and nudity. I don't think it's a sin. I don't think our moral values will be corrupted by seeing them on screen. I hardly think they are more dangerous than the ever-present violent images to which we expose our children, and my jury's still out on those. So I didn't have a problem with the frank depiction of the human body for those reasons.

I just didn't see the point. Many people, in the independent film industry (an oxymoron if there ever was one) mostly, seem to feel that in order for a film to be "good" it must include graphic sex or violence, usually sex, because blockbuster films have the violence angle pretty much cornered at this point. If your film is about sexual abuse, that's fine. I might argue that there are questions of gratuitousness involved, but if you make an artistic choice to be graphic in order to make a point about sexual abuse, that's a choice I support, even if I don't agree.

But when films, television, and even live theatre seem bent and determined to introduce nudity (almost always women, because that sells) into films which have no need for it, which have shied away from depicting other, more important images, I have to question it. It doesn't improve the movie to have someone get naked just for kicks. Nor does it make the film any more "real," an aim to which many film-makers aspire, little realizing that it's not real, nor will it ever be. I can think of many times when gratuitous sexuality was seemingly dropped into a story to make it more "sexy" or something, I can't really fathom what.

I have also seen movies, television shows, and plays which depicted extremely adult themes, did not shy away from them, but did not feel the need to insert things just to prove their independence. They're usually better. That's all.

Gone Drinkin'

Well, I'm just going to sit here in front of the computer and drink vodka until an idea comes to me. It probably won't be any good because when I get drunk I tend to think that things which are really stupid are in fact brilliant. I have the same problem with thinking people are attractive, thinking bad ideas are really great, and thinking jokes are funny. But your loss is my gain, because the only thing I care about doing in this world, besides waiting to drink, is drinking. That's all that matters. That's the only way to have fun, be social, hang out. Forget your friends: if you can't have fun with people you really don't care for sober while imbibing immense quantities of alcohol, you don't count. You are a worthless, socially-challenged human being who has no more right to live on God's green earth than a Nazi. You're undoubtedly mentally handicapped, terminally shy, or just too lazy to try drinking too much to have fun.

Wow, that felt good to say. It was all lies though. I am not sitting here in front of the computer drinking to come up with good ideas because drunken ideas are generally lousy ones, as I said above. In fact, I don't drink at all. Getting a wee bit personal here, so let's back off and examine the problem I'm having with society at large.

I know people who drink. A lot of people, in fact, but that's beside the point. The point is that I have read, on more than one occasion, the advice, to a shut-in, that they should get out and drink and party in order to not be such a worthless human being.

See, drinking makes you a better person. And it's the only way to have fun. At least, that's what I continue to hear. Well, that line is usually spouted either by serious drinkers or by people who don't drink and therefore blame that small choice for ruining their social lives.

Note that when I say drinking I mean doing more than having a beer with dinner. I mean drinking socially, which is a completely socially acceptable thing to do these days. In fact, there are too many social occasions where the only thing to do is talk and drink, and talking is no fun without drinking. Not only that, but as mentioned above, drunks are stupid. They get stupider as they get drunker. And unlike many people, I've never found it particularly entertaining to be sober in a group of drunks, just as I don't seek out stupid sober people for social events.

Why is it that we would not in a million years invite the inmates of an insane asylum to a dinner party, but we invite people who drink, who are arguably just as likely to be stupid and much less likely to be entertaining, unless you're the sort who laughs at people falling down and acting stupid? I would much rather chat with a deranged lunatic than with a drunk.

I don't think it's a moral issue, I think it's just an issue of quality of life. If your life sucks so much that you need to drink to have a good time, maybe you should examine your life. And do it sober. The lessons we teach young people are that the only way to have a good time is to hang out and drink, neither of which are particularly productive activities. There are other ways to have fun.

I've said all I care to say on the subject. If you would like to call me crazy, feel free to do so, but know that I have better things to do with my life than to sit around getting stupider. Why don't you? I have no objection to drinking, I simply object to its status as the only way to have fun. What the hell happened to fun while I wasn't looking?

Politics as Usual

If you listen really hard in the direction of Washington, D.C. (consult local listings), you will probably hear someone, undoubtedly a talking head of some sort, accusing someone else of being political. You might, if you're lucky, catch the accused, in return, making reference to the fact that no one should expect any differently.

And you know what? Whether or not we should expect any differently is beside the point. Calling something with which you don't agree "politically-motivated" is the same cant we get to hear about "treasonous" and "terrorist" and "fascist" and all the other good-sounding words that talking heads like to throw out so they don't have to address any substantive issues.

The fact of the matter is that most things that go on in government are politically-motivated. Is it political to do the things for which your constituents elected you? I think so. Should you still do those things? Absolutely. It's not pandering to your base if you were elected to do things and you do them. Is everyone always going to agree on those things? Yeah, right. When that happens, you give me a call.

So yes, it's political. Everything anyone does in government relates to politics, so therefore government is, by nature, political.

But I know what they really mean, and so should you. They don't mean, "of or relating to politics." They mean, "designed only to play some kind of meta-governmental game which will put my side at a disadvantage without accomplishing anything of real value."

Guess what? That happens a lot. Maybe it should happen less often, but it's as much a feature of government as politics. If everything your opponent does is motivated only by a desire to screw you over, that's hardly an atmosphere where much of anything can get done. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing. But I don't really believe that everything that gets called "political" is in fact "political."

Talking heads are designed to do one thing: not say much of anything. In that respect, I suppose, they are about as political as you can get, because without politics, they wouldn't have much in the way of skills.

Deporting Criminals

Oh no, immigrants cause crime. They're filth, smelly criminals with but one thought on their minds, which is crime. And by the way, they love being criminal crime-committers so that they can commit further highly-criminal crimes. Crime.

Okay, sarcasm alert has passed. I know, I swear up and down each time that I'll stop talking about immigration, but I keep having to make these little observations because people keep on saying stupid things and using stupid reasoning. Well, you know what other large segment of the population causes a large percentage of crimes? And not just any crimes either, but violent crimes, the big ones? Men. Statistical fact there, Chester. As a man, I'm just as shocked, shocked as everyone else, but the facts are there.

Now, bearing in mind that I am a man, you'll not be terribly surprised to learn that I don't think that rounding up all the men in the country, nay the world, and deporting them to keep crime low is a good idea. In fact, it's a very bad idea. But not just because I'm a man.

See, the problem with crime is that it comes in multitudinous varieties. So to say that illegal immigrants increase crime is about as helpful as saying that men increase crime. In fact, all demographics increase crime. Show me a demographic, and I can make a case that that demographic causes an increase in the level of some type of crime.

Perhaps illegal immigrants do increase the crime rate. And you know why? They're illegal. You could make them respectable citizens and ensure that they didn't have to live in poverty, and you know what? It would probably improve the crime situation, at least from the standpoint at which most people seem to stand. It might cause an increase in the number of insider trading scandals, but I doubt that improving people's lot in life will increase the amount of theft, for example. Here, I don't have the figures to back myself up.

The point that I was trying to make, and got sidetracked from, is that the "illegal immigrants cause crime," reasoning is stupid. If illegal immigrants didn't increase crime at all, people still wouldn't want them here. I'm leaning toward racism on that. And if illegal immigrants were coming from some country with nice white people, I bet money that people would be less inclined to complain.

You know a group of immigrants who came to this country and worsened our crime situation immensely? Italians. Did we kick all of them out? No, because not all Italians are involved in the Mafia. Should we have kicked them all out? I imagine that there are people, and there certainly were people, who think so. Are those people racists? Safe money.

Reunions

I'm not sure, but I don't think I'll ever go to a High School Reunion. College, there's a possibility, especially if it doesn't involve going back to my college. I didn't hate everyone in college. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that my life took a serious turn for the worst right about dead center in college, I think I might have almost fond memories of it.

But not high school. Why is that, I sometimes ask myself? And the funny thing is, I'm not sure I have a good answer. It could be because, as I often say to people who tell me I should go to high school reunions, I only want to see a few people and I can practically guarantee that they won't be there. If they're not dead or in jail, I would imagine that their feelings for reunions would run somewhat parallel to mine. But it might not be true, and I still don't want to go to a reunion.

I won't hash out my woes in high school; I think anyone who had a great time in high school and wishes they could go back is probably either a sad person or lying to themselves. I don't think adolescence is good to anyone, really. I didn't hate everyone in my school, so why don't I want to reunite with them? Why don't I want to embrace nostalgia?

That may be it right there. I'm not a nostalgic person, by nature. Things come, things go, I don't look back on them. Maybe it's a sign of lack of reflectiveness on my part. Maybe it's a defence mechanism. Maybe it's just me. But I don't have anything in common with my high school co-belligerents now, and I don't really want to drag out the past for inspection.

Or maybe I'm ashamed that I'm not as successful as I should be, or that I don't have 3.5 kids and two garages, or whatever. Certainly, that's a good reason to go to a reunion: show off your success. Maybe even rub it in a few choice faces. But I've got very little to rub.

Maybe I do hate everyone from high school. Or maybe I'm just over-analysing. The simple fact of the matter is that I don't want to go.

I'll probably feel different as time moves on. But then again, maybe not.

If this was entirely too much navel-gazing vacillation for your taste, you're probably not alone. In fact, I know you're not alone; it's too much for my taste too. This damn blog.

People Are Foolish

As if you needed me to tell you that.

Tom Cruise

Oh for God's sake just go away. The more I think about it, the less I care that you're portraying von Stauffenberg in a movie about the plot to kill Hitler. At first, I was incensed because it's just so wrong. But it's not really. You're wrong, and you'll go on being wrong even if you quit playing anyone. Get out.

Nicole Kidman

Leaving Tom really was the best thing you ever did, wasn't it? Katie, take note.

Princess Diana

You know what? You're dead. And you weren't a saint when you were alive. I can't blame you for what people do in your name, but I will anyway. I'm sick and tired of hearing about you.

Anna Nicole Smith

Ditto. Oh God ditto.

American Idol

I never went to prom, so I didn't get to vote on who the king and queen should be. Or maybe I did get to vote even though I wasn't going. I don't remember. Nor do I care. Because popularity contests are obscene. Which is why you are obscene, American Idol. If I were the religious head of some cult, I would declare you anathema. Come to think of it, I declare you anathema.

Celebrity News Magazines

You paid how much to get exclusive coverage? Do you know how many starving... eh, what's the use, you don't care. The really sad thing is that you'll make it all back plus interest because Americans are raving lunatics who only care about celebrities and looking attractive.

Celebrity News Magazine Television Shows

Kiss my ass.

Network Television News Shows

Kiss your ass.

Local Television News Shows

Kiss his ass.

The News

No, I'm not talking about Huey Lewis. The news media, as it is (or they are, because people don't understand that media is a plural) known, is a sad paltry mess. I'm not saying it's ever been anything but a sad paltry mess, but it certainly is now. It's flabbergasting what passes for news these days. And online news isn't any better. If one is a smart consumer, one can synthesize good news from a myriad of sources, but to do that one would have to spend hours. Most people don't have that kind of time. So we lean back and let the waves of infotainment wash over us. I guess we're all to blame.

That was uplifting, wasn't it? I will try not to write things after being maddened by Entertainment Tonight. Or was it Inside Edition?

And On Into June

Well, now comes to obligatory statement: it is not really June here. It's a filthy lie concocted by the Liberal Media and the John Birch Society together to make you think it's earlier in the year than it is.

I wish I could say that it really was the John Birchers combined with Liberal Media Moguls. Because that would be interesting. And if there's one thing I've learned, through the five months I've written, it is that my views are patently uninteresting.

The lesson, of course, is that they have just as much of a right to be on the Internet as any other views. There are a lot of people, cynics mostly, Internet snobs probably, and a general grab-bag of nastiness definitely, who will be perfectly willing to tell you, in tones which imply a great deal of importance (usually self-, but that's something they fail to see) that the Internet is full of stupid people who write about junk that no one wants to hear. They are probably right, and they certainly go a long way toward proving that assertion by being stupid people who write about junk that no one wants to hear themselves.

But you know what? No one is making them read things they don't like. At least, I assume that no one is. If they're so sick and tired of the Internet, they can take their ball and go home. Because it's true; most things on the Internet are stupid wastes of space to most people.

All you can really hope for is that what you write on here isn't a stupid waste of space to someone. And we see through the self-deprecation of people who secretly believe themselves to be Internet Gods but who realize that they probably aren't, and if they make themselves out to be they will look foolish, so they make jokes about themselves. Me, I'm not an Internet God, and I probably never will be because I don't like the place enough to stick around to gather followers.

So whether you read this or not, I'm not worried (well, maybe a little), because if I'm being narcissistic, I'm in good company.

I Read

I keep hearing people say things like, "I don't read." As in, they don't read books. That's a pretty sad lookout for the world at large, I'm afraid.

I will not be so snobbish as to believe that everyone should read the same ten "great books;" that's tedious in the extreme. Nor do I argue that books are the only things worthwhile to do with your time. I think that people who do hold those views are exactly what is scaring people away from reading in the first place. I just don't understand how you can go through your life not making use of what is arguably the greatest invention in human history: writing.

I love to read. I don't do as much of it as I ought to; I'm busy wasting my time, mostly. And I don't read classics of Western Literature; I read crap, mostly. But I do read, and I love reading.

I guess I don't get it. How can you not read? Reading is great. It doesn't have to be educational, or forced on you. Reading for pleasure... eh, I can't convince anyone anyway.

If you're reading this, you can thank the human brain for the ability to do so. If you're not, how are you consuming it? I exempt the blind (mostly) and people with disabilities who don't read because they can't. But reading is terrific. I've said that more times than I planned to.

One Laptop Per Child

There are many things about technology I dislike; blogging is probably numbered among them. I'm not at all certain that most of the technology to which I have access makes me a better person, or enriches my life in a way I couldn't do without and be a better person for it. And I'm definitely less than enthusiastic about the amount of time children seem to be spending, nay, be encouraged to spend, on computers or the like.

But I also understand the necessity of teaching children about technology because it is (unfortunate or not) a fact of life. It's like teaching children to drive: you may think that cars are horrible planet-polluting hunks of death, but unless you're planning on raising your children Amish or something similar, chances are good that they won't be able to escape cars. So it's important for them to learn to drive even if you raise them to hate cars as much as you do, because there's one thing less safe than a car, and that's a car with a driver who doesn't really know how to drive.

Computers are similar. They're everywhere, and most people are forced to use them at one time or another. And there are few things as disastrous in the computer world as an unschooled user. The user is what causes most security vulnerabilities, most errors, and most everything else. And they don't just louse up their own computers, either. So computer education is extremely important, for everyone, not just children.

Which is why I find the One Laptop Per Child thing so frustrating. It enables computer education, sure. It's hard to teach a child to use a computer without a computer for them to use. But most people's idea of computer education seems to be, "Well, give them a computer and the rest will follow." That's like teaching driver's ed by giving all 15-year-olds cars and letting them go out and get experience. We don't do that, do we?

Nor do we have car companies offering cheap, "learners" cars for children. Because they're only interested in the bottom line (as many computer manufacturers seem to be) but also because the funding for that program is sent instead (and rightfully so) to fund Drivers Ed programs.

So why are we spending all this money to provide children with laptops? It looks good on paper, I guess. But since all that money goes to providing the computer, none of it goes to teaching the children how to use it. I don't know many programs like that, but I'm fairly insular.

So Nicolas Negroponte, if you really want to help the world, you have to think about more than just supplying everyone with computers. That's a necessary component, sure, but there should also be education to go with it. After all, we don't let people drive until they pass a test. Maybe we shouldn't let people use computers until they do the same. Try parallel parking a Cray.

You Got Dooby in My Funk

Get your damn religion out of my politics you dirty ape!

Okay, I've beaten this into the ground, but it continues to pop up like those demented mechanical moles in the carnival game. So let me be crystal clear about it, so hopefully I can just say I've said it before.

I do not care about religion. That's right, you heard me. I don't care if you're Partially-Reformed Presbopiscipalutherjewislamihindu. Or any other thing I might have left out. You know what, I don't give a rat's ass about it.

Stop wearing it like a badge. I don't tell people what religion I am all the time. I don't bring it out at parties like photos of my latest child. I don't base my political career (such as it is) on my religion. In point of fact, I would be willing to bet that most people don't know what religion I am.

If I were a priest of some kind, then I guess I could put it on my business cards, if I had any. And I suppose I could let people know I was a priest in case they needed spiritual advice from someone. But you know what? I might not. I might keep it quiet. And I certainly wouldn't drag it out at every opportunity.

I don't care about your stupid religion. Guess what: many people feel the same way I do. They don't care whether or not you're religious at all. Those people are the people who don't speak up during debates, who don't read articles with headlines extolling the faith of various politicos. I, and they, don't care.

So shut the hell up about it.

Short one today; I'm steamed up.

Rated O for Out-of-File

Remember my discussion of metrics a few days ago? No? Why not? Don't you read this blog religiously, then memorize its contents for further rumination during the long hours of candlelight vigil you spend hunched over an altar depicting what you imagine my face to look like? Darn.

Okay, well, it's here. You can still ignore it, but you have less reason to do so.

Well, the long and the short of it is that I've discovered yet another metric, and this time it's fun.

Apparently, I included the word "sex" in my blog one too many times for public consumption.

My questions are myriad, but mostly boil down to: "Are you a complete idiot?" Because my blog includes words which are way worse than "sex" (and by including that word multiple times, I might just change my rating). In fact, I've cursed up a blue streak, talked about intimate bodily parts, and lacked support for my troops (how they became mine I'm not certain).

But the other aspect of this metric is that it seems to only measure the front page of the blog, and so I imagine that the rating would change over time if a particularly spicy entry was posted. I don't know for sure, and they don't seem to be interested in making that disclosure. Which is why you can't trust metrics.

While this is all a thinly-veiled attempt to recount an amusing thing, it does get me thinking about movie ratings. They're decided by an industry body, did you know that? No government regulator there. And they're completely relative; I've seen movies get PG ratings for things which nowadays would earn an R, and vice-versa. They're deliberately vague, and the categories are so few as to lump many smaller phenotypes together under an umbrella of "caution."

Why do we pay any attention to movie ratings? They're no more reliable than the local paper as far as content-judgement is concerned. If you're the type of person who doesn't want your children to be exposed to exactly three or more instances of cursing, then I guess you might have a little use for ratings, but like I said, there's no published rule-set for what constitutes what rating as far as instances of cursing are concerned. So you're out of luck.

The metric of movie ratings is a case-study in how to obfuscate metrics: don't tell us how they work, determine them yourself for your own products, make them vague, give them enough categories to make it seem like thought went into their production, but not enough to tell anything substantive to the user... the list could go on and on. I know it's probably possible to discover information about rating rules and so on, but how many average movie-goers will? Or will they just trust the system because it seems right? I bet the latter, myself.

So don't trust metrics, especially metrics derived from computer-parsing of text, because computers are really very bad at figuring out context. If you think this is all overkill for something which was obviously designed as a joke, just consider that more and more schools are relying on computer programs to evaluate students' essays. I know that teachers are overstretched, but come on.

Spell Check This

Okay, I've had it up to here with spell checkers. Why is it that people seem to put so much thought into certain sections of their word lists and not others?

For instance, Blogger knows how to spell "Pfizer." But although it can spell "televangelist," it cannot deal with the simple concept that one might possess something. Therefore, "televangelist's" is out. I know, that's not a plural, and probably a lot of people use it that way, but while they are wrong, how hard is it really to teach your stupid spell checker to add apostrophes. Blogger can't even cope with the idea that "anyone" might be a possessive.

Then, of course, there's Microsoft, who can spell all of their products but fall over backwards if you ask them to spell products produced by a different company. There's the fact that they seem to glean words from the Internet without regard to said words' actual meaning. So one gets numerous acronyms passed along cheerfully as words (this isn't just Microsoft's problem).

How hard is it really? I'm not asking for a dictionary; the spell checker doesn't have to know what the word means, just how to spell it. If you can spend all your time making sure that the latest techno-jargon is in your word list, you can make sure that all the other words in the English language are as well. Guess what: you can even crib from dictionaries. It may come as a shock to some, but one cannot copyright individual words. So search through an actual book for words not in the list. I know, it's tough, what with everyone expecting every piece of information to appear in a digital form these days, but you never know.

I'm not a particularly hot speller, but at least I can recognize when things are words that should be spelled correctly. I don't expect dictionaries to include words like, "pastramification," for instance. I might use those words, but I won't be upset if the spell checker doesn't recognize them.

Come on spell checkers, clean up your act. If there can be an ANSII standard for programming languages and complicated specifications, why can't they step in and produce an ANSII word list for spell checkers. Blogger can't even spell ANSII.

They Aren't Preaching For Free

Hello, and welcome to the cavalcade of fun that is organized religion in the world. Today we'll be talking about something near and dear to my heart, television preachers. Specifically, how they are nearly always more wealthy than I will ever be.

I'm not knocking the acquisition of money. Far from it; I happen to be quite fond of money, especially in its function as a purchasing agent for goods and services I happen to need. And I'm not interested in talking about the politics of greed; maybe some other time.

But you have to take a good hard look at television preachers who claim to be giving all their money to the poor or devoting it all to their ministries. Because what is, "devoting all my money to my ministry," really? If you are your own ministry, then you could give all your ministry's money to yourself and be completely free and clear. And since none of said money is taxable under our wonderful system of state-church separation, you would be making a lot of money from your ministry.

Specifically, I'd just like to point out something which came to my attention recently. I don't even think I'm going to try to draw any conclusions from it for you. I'm just going to mention it, because it's something that is plain enough to see but which I never noticed until just a few days ago (relatively speaking).

Televangelists don't have commercials during their shows. No, I don't mean the commercials they show during their shows for products they personally sell, or they endorse, or events at which they will be speaking (for money, most likely). I mean there are no car commercials during their shows. No feminine hygiene products are advertised during breaks in their sermons. No toys, no movies, no new drugs by Pfizer. No commercials.

Why? Because televangelists' programs are technically classified as infomercials, and you may have noticed that the half-hour-long commercials for exercises equipment (et al) are not replete with commercials for other products either. Those advertisers buy up the entire time slot and show one long commercial.

So if televangelists can afford to do that as well, they can't be too poor, now can they? In fact, you could view the whole thing as commercials for religion. And those commercials, even at non-peak viewing times like Sunday morning, still cost a fair amount of money. Money which is not being used to feed the poor.

Now one could argue that it's money well spent. After all, it brings the message of the televangelist to millions of people. And that might be right. But it also brings the message of giving that televangelist money to millions of people. And the message of that televangelist's wonderful products, available at low, low prices. And so on.

I'm not here to bash televangelists. I just never realized before that their shows had no commercial breaks. Which makes them infomercials. And I don't know about you, but I'd like my salvation to come from something other than a medium for selling "AS SEEN ON TV" products. Maybe it's just me.

What's Your Angle

You're a good person, right? You're entirely without selfish motives. You never do anything for reasons other than desiring the best for humanity.

Guess what? You're a liar. Don't feel ashamed; we all want to think the best about ourselves (well, not all of us, but certainly most of us), and we all tell little fibs like the ones above. I do it, and I'm sure you do too. Even the best people do it; in fact, there's a school of thought which says that only by acknowledging your faults can you really be truly good, so I would imagine that people of that school probably would be happy to tell you that they occasionally believe better of themselves than they actually are.

But in even more interesting news, it doesn't matter, because even if you're a completely selfless individual who's only looking out for the greatest good, your definition of selfless and greatest good constitute an agenda of some sort, which means that you have a motivating factor for the things you do. The only way to avoid the upcoming discussion is to be a creature of perfect apathy, and that's hard to accomplish.

So we all have reasons behind what we do. We may be perfectly open about said reasons, even if they aren't noble. There are many people who are completely honest about their motivations for doing bad things (although there's another school of thought which posits that these people are only being honest because it keeps them from having to accept the motivations, but I'm not interested in talking psychology). Why is this important?

Well, you should always be asking, "What's their angle?" Again, as in all my previous paranoid posts, I'm not advocating universal distrust. But if someone does something for no good reason, even if it benefits you, it often pays to look that gift horse in the mouth.

Sure, occasionally it can come back to bite you. Someone really did do something for you for no benefit to them. But you don't have to let them know you're suspicious; suspicion can take many forms. Be quietly suspicious. Try to figure out what their motives are. If they say they're doing it for your good, figure out if they're telling the truth.

And sometimes it's true; they really are being good people, or at least being good to you. They really are only acting for your benefit. There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes they have an angle, but it's nothing surprising. Big companies don't give things away for free; they want to get something in return. But if that big company gets something from you that you feel is a fair trade for what they give, what's the problem with that? If a loss leader (or here since I don't completely trust wikipedia) works out in your favor, and you were going to buy the product anyway, what's wrong with that?

But you can't know there's no harm in it unless you figure out what their angle is, can you? There's no harm in simply thinking about it rationally; it doesn't mean you have to pass up on an offer, just make sure you know what you're getting into, what you're giving in return for the "free lunch" as it were. Maybe it's more than you think. It only takes once, and when all it takes to prevent this is some simple thought (combined with a little healthy suspicion) what's the harm in that?

Remember, don't trust them to tell you what their angle is.

Politically Correct

Why is it politically correct? Why not "socially correct" or "unbiased with regard to sex, race, creed, nationality, etc?" What's politics got to do with it?

I call on polite and unbiased people everywhere to throw off the shackles of "political correctness" and embrace some less-biased term. Because, you see, politically correct implies that there is some political slant to being polite, and that's either a slur toward liberals (they're such wussy people that they feel a need to be politically correct) or conservatives (they're such politically incorrect people, which includes no only their rudeness to members of other statistical groupings, but also in all the rest of their politics).

In fact, the mistaken belief that, "liberal," means, "politically correct," and, "conservative," means, "unregenerate biased asshole," is bull anyway. Why can't you be polite and for smaller government? Again with the lumping together of views. I happen to be fairly fiscally conservative (although extremely socially liberal, as can be seen by my complete and total embrace of sin and vice... every Friday down at Joe's [rim shot]), but I'm also fairly polite, at least when I want to be. It's just common courtesy not to insult people; there's nothing political about it.

So the hell with "political correctness." Let's just call it what it is: consideration. If one can be tarred with the epithet of politeness, then tar away. I'll take it.

That said, I am not always polite, and I don't think there's any obligation so to be. Sometimes in the service of a greater goal (usually anger or humor, but we'll leave it for now) one must be prepared to offend some people. And some people are just too damn easy to offend. You can't please everyone. Maybe that's all the political correctness should mean: trying (and failing) to please everyone. In that case, they can have the term; I'm sticking with polite.

Speaking for the People

It's not an original thought, but don't let people speak for you unless you really want them to.

I'll give you an example: if you're a Christian, don't let Pat Robertson speak for you if you disagree with him. And don't let some person who disagrees with him speak for you by default either. Because I disagree with Pat Robertson, but I'm not a Christian and I'm pretty sure I'd make a lousy spokesman for Christians everywhere. So don't let me speak for you either unless you want me to.

Most people just accept spokesmen (and women) by default; you don't have to do that. Just like you shouldn't accept a ruler by default, or a law by default, you shouldn't accept a spokesperson by default if you only sort of agree with them. Make some noise. Most positions aren't two absolutes; there's a lot of ground to be covered between the radical positions on both ends.

But as a country (the United States, although the world seems to be falling into the same trap at large) we have become too eager to let a powerful person present their views with our support even if we only kind-of agree with them. We rationalize it as being the lesser of two evils, or as solidarity in the face of something with which we definitely disagree, or as a vague agreement that doesn't carry as much weight in our minds as it does in reality. Or we're lazy. We just let it happen.

Well I'm here (with a lot of other people) to tell you that you don't need to be co-opted by a mouthpiece. If you agree with some things but not everything, you should let people know that. Don't support someone full-bore just because they're the best thing going. If you want to dissent from party line, you should, nay you must, do it.

This is addressed at everyone, politics notwithstanding. It's a major problem I have with our current political situation; the only options appear to be with or against. Why can't we be both? Why can't one support the Republican president on immigration while being against him on taxes? Why can't one support the War on Terror while being against Iraq? Why can't one support the war in Iraq while being against the erosion of our civil liberties? Why can't one be pro-Union and pro-life? What is it about certain views that they must be held together?

And why do all Independents have to flock together? If you're with neither big party, you're automatically lumped together with people who may have wildly divergent views from your own. For crying out loud, Nazis and Libertarians are both classified as Independent under that reckoning. And according to the media, Michael Bloomberg speaks for all of them. Horsehockey.

Think for yourself, speak for yourself. That's all I ask of anyone. Even if you support someone, you can speak out against them on issues where you differ. And even if you aren't big and powerful, at least you didn't accept someone else's view as your own by default.