You Are Quite Feeble

be still, my remote.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:30:00 GMT

It's that time of year again.

the latest ten fictional characters i'd be all up ons

	annie community
	"Pick up your pompoms, stuff your bra, and get ready for the team bus to forget you at a Taco Bell, because life is tough."
	anna V
	"You still don't understand humanity."
	kate beckett castle
	"It's accompany and observe, not participate and annoy. Got it?"
	kelly erin hannon the office
	"He heard you made a big 'splash', at the meeting... oh my god that was so mean what I just said and I didn't mean it."
	adrianna tate-duncan 90210
	"Remember when I was on coke? Am I acting anything like that right now?"
	cheryl david curb your enthusiasm
	"What are you doing in the lobby 20 minutes before the show fighting with a Sikh?"
	betty draper mad men
	"You shouldn't be kissing boys. Boys kiss you."
	lexie grey grey's anatomy
	"I still love you whether you are capable of letting me or not. So, I forgive you."
	april ludgate parks + recreation
	"I gave my gay boyfriend's boyfriend a hickey and it totally made my gay boyfriend jealous."
	teresa lisbon the mentalist
	"He's a pain in the ass. But he's making sense. You sure you don't want to change your story?"

first list
second list
third list
fourth list

? -- this is not a '10 actresses who are hot' list. The internets have plenty of those. These are fictional characters for whom one can't help but fall head over heels in love with through the course of a television season. As a wise man once said in a fast food joint, personality goes a long way.

Belichick made the right call

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:26:06 GMT

In life, you don't make decisions based purely on fear of the worst-case scenario.

But in sports, for some reason it's the conventional wisdom. It's only recently that we've started to see people who can look past that kind of thinking.

In baseball, if a guy strikes out at a record-setting pace, but easily is responsible for more total bases than a teammate who looks scrappy running out failed grounder after failed grounder, who do you think traditional baseball scouts fell in love with?

In basketball, if letting an opposing superstar torch your team while his teammates stand around seems to give you the best chance of winning, what do you think your fans will have to say about that?

Last night the worst case scenario happened, and it sucked to watch. But that's sports. Bill Belichick's job is to prepare his players and make decisions to put them in the best possible position to win. He does that better than anyone else in history.

How he arrived at the decision was simple:

1. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots offense of converting a 2 yard play, in the context of their performance last night?
2. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots defense of withstanding another Peyton march down the field, in the context of the other Colts drives in that last quarter, let alone Colts end-of-game drives in recent history?

If you're being at all objective about it, the answers speak for themselves. In fact, it's not even that close.

Is it fair to criticize that particular play call on 4th and 2, throwing a 2 yard pass into essentially a goal-line defensive package? Absolutely.

The general decision though? Not crazy.

What if Belichick had followed the conventional wisdom in this scenario? He punts to the Colts and there's a very good chance, certainly greater than a coin flip, that they march down the field and score with no time left. Only no one would say Belichick lost the game; in fact, the thought wouldn't cross anybody's mind because he did what was expected.

Instead, he went with the scenario with a higher probability of success. Knowing full well he'd potentially be skewered for the following week, and likely the rest of his career to some extent.

He also can't fully explain himself, because he's not the type of coach who would say something perceived to throw his players under the bus (even if it's the logical conclusion). He would never say something like, "I didn't have as much trust in our defense to stop a 70 yard drive."

Belichick doesn't shy away from assigning blame to the coaching staff when it's due. He has stopped short of that so far this week and I hope it continues, because there was no mistake made.

We are fans; sports journalists are largely fans with a mouthpiece. Fans hate seeing the worst case scenario. Good coaches, visionary coaches, don't let that scare them.

If a gut-wrenching loss to the Colts in Week 10 is the price to pay for a coach whose instincts give him the edge 99 times out of 100, I'll take it every time and twice on Sundays.

i'm frighteningly good at this

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:47:30 GMT

messing with conservative nutjobs on Twitter:

http://pxlt.net/tcot/

Other than that...

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:52:31 GMT

- coffee table is scratched to hell
- cable works, but only after the super-thorough installation guy went to the basement and discovered some problem that was killing the signal to half of the building and is going to fuck up everyone's service in a few weeks.
- my parents got a better deal from Comcast one day after I started my service on the phone with some guy who said he was checking every available package.
- DVR function wasn't working on my box, had to schedule a 2nd technician visit to fix. (just now. box replaced. fixed.)
- There was a leak from the sprinkler system into my closet. Fixed now.
- I was so exhausted yesterday that I planned to just come to the apartment, put together my platform bed, and take a nap. But I forgot where I packed the screws, so I ended up unpacking pretty much everything.
- my awesome computer speaker system's subwoofer died inexplicably during the move. worked in Framingham, doesn't work here.
- provided garage door opener didn't work, likely just a dead battery. works now from my car's built-in transmitter.
- packed my main set of apartment keys in one of the sealed moving boxes, didn't know which one.
- secondary apartment keys were in my car, main car keys were also packed in aforementioned sealed box.
- secondary outside key for building doesn't work. building supervisor said he'd leave one under my door yesterday, he did not.
- I accidentally left the aforementioned garage door opener in the U-Haul truck after dropping it off. Returned at 7.00 AM the next morning to retrieve it.
- Still not sure where to throw my trash out, or where anything else in the building or complex is located. Both contacts I have for building management have not returned my calls.
- biggest piece of evidence that the building supervisor and management are fucking with me for some reason:

Before we took the place, we were told repeatedly that the unit has a garage parking spot across from the elevator. Prime location.

Day of closing, I had to go to the building to let Comcast install my cable. On the way I got in touch with the listing broker to get the number of my parking spot. No. 43.

My garage door opener didn't work, but I went inside the building and visited the garage just to finally have a look at the actual spot.

In front of the elevator, there are a row of five spots. I see 41, 42, [blocked by a navy blue Mercedes], 44, 45. Hmm, that's my spot, right? Who is this guy? Wait, is that my spot?

I walked over, bent down, and saw a 4, and a 3. OK, 43.

Called the building supervisor and left a message about it. That evening he calls and tells us that he "took care of it". That was Wednesday.

Sunday I come back with a moving truck + SUV full of stuff. We discover the same guy is still parking in that spot. Upon closer inspection, we see the numbering scheme has been subtly altered. In a ridiculous fashion.

The new row of spots across from the elevator:

41, 42, 29, 44, 45.

Yeah.

Now "43" is 200 feet to the left, right next to the garage door (so you pull in, and do a three point turn to get into the spot). When asked about this:

Building supervisor: "It's been like that for three months. You couldn't have seen 43 there, that's impossible."

Listing broker: "Um, I think it's a fire code thing."

I'll probably get my real spot back, but only under threat of litigation.

Apocalypse Why Now

Tue, 26 May 2009 17:57:32 GMT

I hated Terminator: Salvation.

(Spoilers everywhar.)

When Terminator 3 ended with its mushroom clouds and the prospect of a sequel finally set in the war itself, I remember instantly dreading the idea. And then thinking about it some more and finally deciding that maybe someone could pull it off.

But clearly it couldn't follow the blueprint laid out by the first three films: Relatively normal people living their lives and suddenly coming face to face with a horrific and completely superior enemy. And running for it. Viewers knowing that we were seeing a tiny but high-stakes battle of a much larger war being fought decades in the future.

Once Terminator 4 was set after Judgment Day, it couldn't be that type of movie. Suddenly the largely faceless but all-important "war with the machines" was going to be irretrievably committed to celluloid. Maybe in years past it was a question of special effects and budget to pull off such a feat, but that's certainly not my issue with Terminator: Salvation. I actually believe that version of a post-Judgment Day war.

It's a perfectly fine generic post-apocalyptic action movie. It's just not a Terminator movie.

Christian Bale as John Connor for me is a microcosm of what is good and bad about the entire concept. Brilliant actor, typically perfect performance, but far and away the least interesting Connor of the franchise. And he's exactly who we figured he would be at this point in the timeline: a hardened soldier willing to make tough decisions on behalf of the human race. But he might as well be a robot himself, considering the scope of his role in this movie. In terms of making us care, a couple of forced goodbye scenes with the wife don't begin to approach the sight of a freewheeling teenager on a moped.

And let's not forget that this movie was barely about John Connor. Knowing that there was no more character development to be done there, it almost makes sense that the movie focused on someone who actually still had a compelling story to be told in Marcus Wright. But ultimately, it felt strange having a completely new protagonist forced on us when we thought we had our bearings in this particular franchise.

Between the new apocalyptic setting and dealing mostly with the new guy, I spent most of the movie waiting for that unmistakable feel of a Terminator flick. But the trademark one-liners were flat, if not complete afterthoughts. None of the varied 'machines' for whom this war was named came close to evoking the terror of a solitary T-800 from films past. Even Danny Elfman's score failed to take advantage of the iconic theme in service of at least manufacturing a little nostalgia.

And then... OK, I changed my mind-- CGI Arnold Schwarzenegger is this movie in a nutshell. As soon as you realized who it was, you couldn't help but give a little mental cheer. But then he stepped out into the light and was... just off. They might have had the technology to do it, but (to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm) they never stopped to ask if they SHOULD. Arnold's 'appearance' clearly was supposed to make up for a lot of the movie's shortcomings in the fan service department, but as executed it was easily the silliest moment. That's what this film was... a technical achievement, perhaps, and made to appear Terminator-esque, but never convincingly.

Could they have pulled off this movie at all? I think so. The model is probably Aliens. You have the franchise namesake as a terrifying and overwhelming enemy force, being met with soldiers with a lot of conventional firepower, guts, and not much else (harsh language?). The difference with Aliens is that it never forgot to put Ripley front and center, and reminded us whenever possible that she was still human.

Should they have even tried? No. I still think a Terminator story is best told when the future is still at stake (tearful shout-out to Sarah Connor Chronicles).

So since John Connor has more or less become what we were told all along, we are left with kind of a 'what now' feeling. Christian Bale's version, rumored to be signed on for two more films, shows bits and pieces of his younger self (hacking into terminals here and there) but never feels like some terrified guy off of the street just finding his moment to kick ass, as Ellen Ripley and the young John Connors did in their best moments. Ironically, maybe that makes Resistance Leader John Connor more believable, because he's supposed to know what he's doing by now. But that doesn't mean he'll be interesting to watch.

If someone told you in 1984 that this franchise would be alive and well 25 years later, it'd be a safe bet that someone would eventually try to make a full film out of the glimpses of the 'resistance' we saw back then. But throughout the years it has always been the promise, the idea of protecting that vision of the future and its leader that has made the stakes so high. In the end, it turns out that a grown-up John Connor and the War with the Machines were better left to the imagination.

figureheads of fail

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:52:10 GMT

I feel that America suffers from an imbalance of crazy.

Why doesn't the left have a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity? Someone who could make wild accusations with occasional bouts of breathtaking insensitivity, to the point where even hardened liberals blushed? Sure, there are plenty of loud, obnoxious left-wing mouthpieces, but their whining obviously doesn't go far enough. When someone like Rush establishes a firm helping of "crazy" on one side of an ideological spectrum, there needs to be a voice of equal but opposite drug-addled mania to balance him out. Otherwise, you get what we have here in 2009-- batshit insanity like 'tea parties' being reported as news with a straight face.

Right-wing talk radio hosts always seem to be suggesting that liberals are wusses. I think they're dead on, but it's not exactly fair. The presence of icons like Rush and Hannity make it more acceptable for even mainstream Republicans to dip a toe in the crazy pool from time to time. But left-wingers don't seem to have this luxury.

If the parties were reversed, it's pretty clear what we'd be hearing from Republicans about mass gatherings of people advocating revolution. But I'm still waiting for a few wackjob liberals to lob the first 'treason' bombs. Of course, if they need advice on when and where, they can just watch the tapes from 2003.

Recap:

2001/2009

- A new president arrives in office after a hotly contested election, parts of the country remain deeply divided.

- Very early on, this president is tested by a crisis of historical proportions.

- The president takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by said crisis to push through major spending and policy acts in Congress. Resistance on ideological grounds is toothless and largely ignored.

- Most Americans strongly support these actions and the new administration, hoping for an effective and firm response. Yet, there are millions of 'other' Americans who soon come to view the President as a symbol of the country's spiral into ruin.

2009

- A quarter of a million citizens participate in public rallies to protest how their tax dollars are being spent. Whether it will actually change anything is yet to be seen, but it is mainstream news-- widely reported and discussed and debated.

2003

- Hundreds of thousands of Americans attend public protests in each of the three months leading up to the Iraq invasion, but beyond reporting the events, it scarcely registers as a blip for mainstream news coverage.

There's no new information here, I think we just needed to see it all written out. But does this mean that today's mainstream Republicans are simply better at making noise? Or is a voice of opposition more likely to be heard now precisely BECAUSE of the fallout from the media's behavior in the years after 9/11?

While we're writing things down, it should be pointed out--

Bush's crisis wasn't a real one. But it had a galvanizing image. Fear of buildings being destroyed and chaos in the streets motivated everyone to a degree, even though terrorism only threatened (in the worst case scenario) a tiny percentage of Americans. Yet you still had cute little police departments in backwater Oklahoma towns reviewing terrorist scenarios.

Obama's crisis is as real and as pressing as it gets. If you've been paying attention you already know the score. Unemployment soaring past 10% before the course is reversed. Instability in the housing and credit markets still has the potential to go either way, even with banks starting to show signs of recovery.

So some might argue that this is an even more appropriate time to get irrationally patriotic. But our economy teetering on the brink of disaster without careful intervention is a difficult concept for your average American (even the jobless ones) to get fired up about. On the other hand, supporting something like 'freedom on the march' is easy.

We all remember that it was taboo for a long time to question any decisions being made after 9/11, for fear of 'emboldening our enemies'. Yet today it's completely acceptable (on mainstream news networks, for example) to make completely off-the-wall accusations of a president whose safety was being threatened before ever reaching office. And cable news ratings show us year after year that millions of mainstream Republicans are happy to sit there for hours on end agreeing with the TV. I'll say it-- I'm worried that people who are already inclined towards stupidity and suggestion are being incited to revolt.

They are not being won over with facts or reason. Hearing chants of 'socialism' and 'taxation without representation' from the front lines of these tea parties is enough to tell you that. But there are a lot of frustrated people out there who just lost an election and had hundreds of billions of dollars in new Liberal Approved spending shoved down their throats... and suddenly they're realizing that hearing the word 'revolution' gives them back that warm and fuzzy feeling. And there's just enough Republican crazy hitting the mainstream right now that none of us thinks twice about the implications of these sentiments being casually tossed around among people who love guns and inbreeding.

The saving grace could be that the 'stupid' and 'suggestible' crowd also wouldn't be particularly suited to organizing a coup d'etat. But maybe history suggests that very occasionally it's the lone nutjobs that get through. I'm not saying anything is going to happen, but if it DOES, I certainly don't want to hear that back in the suspect's apartment they found an episode of Hannity playing on a loop.

So I believe America needs a few good ~~men~~ mentally-questionable liberals to pick up those bullhorns and yell 'fire' in the theater. Or 'treason' at those tea parties. Both sides will be dangerous and wrong, but at least they'll scare each other back to their respective dark corners.

upon waking

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:18:02 GMT

Maybe this explains why I have an extremely shaky grasp of almost everything that has happened for the last decade or so. Names, timelines, I'm notoriously useless.

Why Sleep Is Needed To Form Memories (science daily)

1001st post... yeah woo

frozen over

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:52:03 GMT

The ice storm last night indirectly forced me to dig out a couple of relics from my past.

We were temporarily one of the (reportedly) 1 million homes and businesses without power this morning, at least for a few hours.

I was left utterly useless. I tried to make a mental checklist of all the things I have batteries for, but everything seemed to rely on a respective plugged-in mothership to offer any actual value-- laptops without a wireless router, remotes without a device, that sort of thing.

Guitar without an amp. But I did settle for a few hours of plinking on the unplugged SG. Unsatisfying, but it made me want more.

After the power came back on, I (quite literally) dusted off my camera to see if the frozen insanity outside would translate to a JPEG or two. It didn't really (most of it just looks like generic snowy trees), but, again, it just might have served as that first solitary Toe of Caution, dipping into A Fucking Freezing Pool of Inspiration.

boring is good, routine is awesome

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:05:52 GMT

I went to sleep at around 1 AM last night and woke up today at 8.30 AM. Very, very unusual to say the least.

I took a shower, shampooed, brushed my teeth, and Listerined. Let's just say it had been a while.

Things I thought about in the shower for some reason, and made a brief stop to look for on Wikipedia:

- The Japanese "Rising Sun" flag. It's sort of badass. I've been playing a WWII era game this last week involving a Pacific theater multiplayer stage, where teams are either Marine Raiders or the Imperial Army. Kiefer Sutherland does the voice cues for the Marines; pronouncements like "We are taking this fucking flag!" and "A lot of good men died out there today, all for nothing!" The Japanese voice cues are done in English with a fairly offensive accent.

- The Drumitar.

Interesting facts I discovered within 10 minutes or so:

- Japan didn't nationally adopt their current flag (officially) until 1999.

- Roy Wooten was found guilty of tax evasion in 2005.

I realized this morning that having no sleep schedule whatsoever was also subconsciously giving me license to not do anything I've been needing to do. There is always a mental subtext of "Well, I'll get around to it once I get my shit together. I just need to focus on staying awake right now." Not that I wasn't aware of this before, but it struck me how, today, I will not be able to get away with wasting the next 14 hours of wakefulness. If I had woken up at, say, 3 AM, this would certainly not be the case.

postgame

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:33:45 GMT

America learned a lot more about Joe Biden tonight than they did about Sarah Palin.

I think he looked presidential, and at the same time, like someone who knows about government but didn't forget why government was important to the average person. He came across as having a deep knowledge of foreign policy, and why the McCain administration would not serve the best interests of the middle class.

She sounded much more confident than on any of her YouTube greatest hits. No major gaffes, no stumbles. She gave McCain supporters an opportunity to safely take the focus off of her, which was really the best case scenario.

They both exceeded my expectations.

However, Governor Palin's stock coming into tonight was so low that I have to give her the win. Plenty of people tuned in tonight expecting to see more "In what respect" moments, and were instead treated to a woman who seemed very poised and confident. Considering the worst case scenario, the fact that her answers lacked much depth will be overlooked by most of these casual viewers.

So at least for the moment, she isn't the colossal burden on the ticket she was a few hours ago. Now the focus goes back to the top of the tickets.

idle thought

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:40:49 GMT

Is it sexism that we never asked the following of Governor George W. Bush of Texas back in 2000:

- Would a Bush White House look to make significant shifts in US monetary policy? Why or why not?
- What newspapers or magazines did you read regularly before running for president?
- What are some Supreme Court decisions that you disagree with?

On the other hand, we did get memorable answers asking him about:

- The Clinton Doctrine
- his lack of foreign policy credentials

Whatever happened to this Sarah Palin?

lightweights

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:54:43 GMT

I'd like to go on record as saying Thursday night's much-anticipated VP debate is going to be an absolute snore.

There are only two reasons why it might be entertaining. Either Joe Biden gets in Governor Palin's face, or she continues to parrot some of the same nonsensical tripe we've been treated to for the last couple of weeks.

First off, Biden's not going to do anything interesting.

Modern debates are structured like this: Candidate 1 makes a statement. Then Candidate 2 makes a statement, and subsequently takes the opportunity to rebut details presented in Candidate 1's statement if advantageous to do so. Candidate 1 might then be allowed time to say some more, depending on format. Modern debates suck.

It's true that per the VP debate rules pushed for by McCain's people, opportunities for interaction ('response and discussion periods') between the candidates will be even more limited than usual.

But Governor Palin isn't going to make any concrete points that will merit (or even allow) a response from Senator Biden. With her feeble grasp of both the issues and her own supposed policies, her statements are all going to be a vague cloud of mush.

And she obviously isn't going to specifically discuss any details from Joe Biden's statements. She's going to use his speaking time as a reminder to breathe. Relax. Maybe while the 'Meow Mix' song loops through her head. But she won't be listening to him.

Even putting the rules aside, Senator Biden will be wary of confronting Governor Palin directly. He's going to be instructed by his people to stay out of her way and let her do the damage herself.

And that's what we're all hoping for, too. But nothing's going to happen.

It's true, the interview clips keep getting more and more surreal. Moments like "In what respect, Charlie", "You can actually see Russia", "I'll bring 'em to you" and "I read all newspapers" will likely serve as fond memories for all of us for years to come. (Unless, of course, Sarah Palin becomes President and destroys the planet as an unintended consequence of nuking wolves from the air.)

But by now we've had enough time to dissect her mistakes and pretty clearly diagnose what her issues are. Put simply, she's a Miss Alaska-class bullshitter who suddenly finds herself in a Miss Universe-class bullshitting contest, and she doesn't yet realize she's in over her head.

Most of her embarrassing interview moments were a direct result of either:

a) cramming for a test for which she didn't know the exact questions (e.g. repeating verbatim her Fannie Mae lobbyist answer)
b) probably never having an actual interest in any of these issues (e.g. not knowing what a foreign policy 'Doctrine' is, let alone the Bush one)
c) resorting to buzzwords and general nonsense when pressed on the specifics of an unfamiliar topic (e.g. bailout = health care reform)
c) being too afraid of follow up questions to divulge any information in the first place (e.g. inexplicably refusing to mention the name of a single news publication when pressed repeatedly)

Unfortunately, this debate provides her with the perfect cover to look passable in front of a much larger audience than either of her network news interviews.

Debate topics are generally less specific than those addressed in a one-on-one interview. The moderator will likely avoid any pointed questions having to do with any of the gaffes, disputed claims or controversial statements attributed to either Governor Palin or the McCain campaign, in favor of more general questions intended to invite an open discussion to which both candidates can contribute.

There won't be follow up questions from the moderator on any inaccuracies in Governor Palin's statements. Joe Biden's not going to call those out, either.

All of this means that canned responses from Governor Palin will probably suffice (where they failed in her televised interviews), as long as they appear to touch upon the general policy realm. She won't revert to buzzword nonsense because the initial question will be sufficiently vague and she doesn't have to worry about follow ups. Republicans will rejoice at hearing the complete sentences, fully formed, as practiced.

So what's left for us to watch? Something like this:

Sarah Palin makes a statement, mostly mush that was lifted line for line from a stump speech, and/or a canned line that her handlers have preprogrammed.

Biden follows up with his own unrelated statement, likewise preprogrammed (although in most cases he will actually understand the words coming out of his own mouth).

Rinse, repeat.

"Responses"? No. Debate? Not a chance in hell.

Naturally, I hope to god that I'm wrong. I will have the popcorn out.

love, lust and line readings.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:53:48 GMT

by popular demand. (like, two of you.)

an additional ten fictional characters i'd be all up ons

	carol vessey ed
	"I'm not afraid of you being my boyfriend. I'm afraid of you being my ex-boyfriend."
	sarah connor terminator: scc
	"Half an hour. One bag, plus the guns. I'll make pancakes."
	maggie dekker eli stone
	"My suggestion: go find another peon to pee on."
	sookie stackhouse true blood
	"Bill, you were just lickin' blood outta my head. I don't think it gets much more personal than that."
	charlotte 'chuck' charles pushing daisies
	"Yeah? You were my first kiss, too. Do you wanna be my last kiss? First and last? Or is that weird?"
	dani reese life
	"I don't really understand you. I don't really like you. But... you're not one of the bad guys."
	tyra collette friday night lights
	"Just a bunch of overheated jocks, too dumb to know they have no future, fighting over a game that has no meaning, in a town from which there is no escape."
	giselle enchanted
	"Still, as long as I am here / I guess a new experience / Could be worth trying / Hey! Keep drying!"
	laura in treatment
	"You know for months, I spent the week thinking-- it'll be this Monday. I'll tell him that I love him, and he'll tell me that he loves me, and the session won't be 50 minutes; it'll go forever."
	megan smith privileged
	"Why do you need porn? Why is porn a need? Why can't I stop saying 'porn'?"

first list!
second list!
third list!

no repeats!

As a refresher-- this is not a '10 actresses who are hot' list. The internets have plenty of those. These are fictional characters for whom one can't help but temporarily fall head over heels. As a wise man once said in a fast food joint, personality goes a long way.

Moosealini

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:34:17 GMT

haha!

I love that I can simply say "haha" and link to official, undoctored footage of an interview by a major network and it's understood. I don't have to say "haha... listen to what she says at 2:32" or find some obscure 'thought the mic was off' moment.

She is simply in over her head. If the GOP can keep her from becoming a (complete) laughingstock before November 4th, my hat's off to them.

lack of Manny being lack of Manny

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:40:09 GMT

In Ramirez's first 40 games, the Dodgers had a run differential of plus-22 and averaged 4.55 runs per game, as opposed to 4.43 through July 31....It's hard to talk about the MVP Award for Manny when the team that paid the Dodgers to take Ramirez is 27-13 without him through Sunday and have seen their runs per game increase from 4.94 at the time of the deal to 6.22 since.

-Peter Gammons (via FJM)

Holy shit.

missing the boat

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:30:04 GMT

"I thought it was extraordinary how well she played her and how much she looked like her... personally I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff, I'd like her to go even harder. I want her to decimate this woman. This woman, I can't believe there hasn't been more about it... It's just unbelievable to me this woman is actually running for vice president."

-Chevy Chase (on Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin)

This is coming from a dead ringer for George W. Bush who let the last eight years go by without a peep!

Hot/Creepy Related News: Apparently Sarah Palin once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.

Moose

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:33:41 GMT

Sometimes we're too quick to dismiss people we don't know well enough.

This is a person who admittedly has a complete lack of leadership experience at the highest levels, but it says something that the people behind the scenes thought this person could step in and handle the challenge, if needed. They wouldn't have put this person in this position unless they believed that. And we should trust their judgment.

Sometimes experience isn't everything. We have to judge a person based on temperament. Intelligence. Vision. And when it comes to this particular individual, these are qualities we are just beginning to evaluate, but that will happen in time.

Maybe this person's prior executive experience was nothing comparable to the job they're up for now. But who are we to cast aspersions so quickly? It's been barely two weeks since we realized we had to get to know this person.

Again, sometimes you have to have faith in the people putting the plans together.

It's our obligation not to dismiss someone out of hand because they lack the 'traditional' experience we have come to expect in our leaders. Sometimes a fresh perspective is just what is needed. Sometimes people excel because they realize they can't do everything themselves, and are smart enough to make use of the talent around them.

Maybe it was unexpected. Maybe we were shocked when this person was thrust into the spotlight with barely a warning. Maybe it is a terrifying prospect on some levels, but if you're being honest, you have to admit that it changed the whole equation. You don't know what's going to happen now. And it's fascinating.

What if this person steps up and proves everyone wrong?

The 2008 season is yours, Matt Cassel. Godspeed.

Presidin' Dirty

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:19:52 GMT

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (New York Times)

(I realize this was just an excuse to make a terrible joke in the post title, but it's my blog. And actually that is a fascinating article, if you put aside the fact that I now know more about the backroom politics of Wasilla than I ever imagined I could.)

Full transcript ("full excerpts"?) of Governor Palin's three-part ABC interview is here.

Second interview goes to Sean Hannity of Fox News. I am not making this up.

"not ready to lead"

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:35:37 GMT

Everyone has seen this by now:

You can watch more of the interview here. This segment by itself is interesting enough... but in context it's a little more telling, because it is that much more obvious that she is giving prepared answers and canned lines when they even slightly work for Charles Gibson's more pointed questions. In the first few seconds of the above video, you can see and hear her defeat in realizing she doesn't have a response for this one.

I have maintained for the past couple of weeks that Sarah Palin is clearly a smart woman and handles herself well. All of us know people who can bullshit with the best of them, and whether you like them or not, they are generally people who make things happen. Clearly this quality has already served her well in her career, and I have no doubt that she actually has a depth of knowledge and sincere interest in the day-to-day business of the state of Alaska. But Palin and other Republicans' efforts to try to compare that experience to the big leagues of possibly becoming President is simply comical to watch.

Even more to the point-- it's not that (in the above video) she was faced with a 'gotcha' question and wasn't ready for it. It's the fact that she clearly didn't recognize a term that she should have, unless she does not and has not had even a passing interest in the foreign policy decisions of this country for the last several years.

A well-written perspective on why this disconnect is so disturbing in a Vice Presidential candidate:

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

In the context of such stunning incompetence, it is maddening and downright insulting that this woman was proffered to the American people as ready to pick up where Hillary Clinton left off.

Of all the hysterical hand-wringing the McCain campaign has been doing in the last couple of weeks, playing up an assumed undercurrent of sexism anytime Palin is criticized has been the most annoying.

Which is more sexist:

1) Holding Palin to the same standards as any man, and pointing out that she would never be in this position if we were talking about a Mr. Sam Palin, 20 months as governor of Alaska, immediately after serving as mayor of a town of 6,000.

2) Assuming that the women of America were excited about Hillary Clinton mostly because she has a vagina. Taking note of an accomplished and qualified woman's unprecedented march right up to the threshold of the highest office in the land... and then pretending that a bible-thumping hockey mom with a journalism degree might prove an acceptable surrogate.

surreality

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:50:03 GMT

I was out and about today and happened to witness firsthand the effect that Sarah Palin is already having on your average (i.e. witless) American voter. In this case, a woman who was a rabid Hillary supporter a few months ago, and in most respects a perfectly intelligent lady. She is firmly committed to voting McCain/Palin after last night's speech. I tried to engage her as much as possible without either of us flying off the handle, and my conclusion was that it was just about 50% personal, seething rage at Obama and 50% ebullience at seeing a woman get up on stage in that context and pull no punches.

I've taken solace for the past several days in the hope that people will see the smoke and mirrors for what they are. But... jesus, does that seem like a logical thing to hope for?

I have more to say on this, but I'm trying to get to sleep by 4 AM.

BWAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahah. Good for him.

The Saddest Site on the Internets

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:59:03 GMT

http://www.puma08.com/

a little for my cataracts.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:26:20 GMT

In memory of the late Bernie Mac, my favorite Nike commercial of all time (coming from someone who wouldn't make such a statement lightly):

The congregation includes the street legends Billy "The Kid" Harris, Pee Wee Kirkland, Jumpin' Jackie Jackson and Fly Williams (actually, I don't know who they are either).

Bootsy Collins is the choirmaster. WNBA players in the choir include Dawn Staley, Sheryl Swoopes, Nikki Teasley, Tina Thompson, Swin Cash, Tamika Catchings and the incomparably lovely Sue Bird.

The respected elders are Julius Erving, Jerry West, George Gervin and Moses Malone. Oh, and there's LeBron.

So with all that (and the genius concept to start with) Bernie Mac still owns those 60 seconds.

apathy as self-defense

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:09:42 GMT

Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.

- Dalai Lama

(Then again, he has probably never been condo hunting.)

Creative use of creationism

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:53:40 GMT

(An early scene from Studio 60, pitching ideas in the writers room)

Staff writer: "The Democracy Act. Bush introduces his new bill called the Democracy Act, making it illegal to vote."

Matt Albie: "I don't know."

Head writer: "It's a play on how these guys always name things the opposite of what they are. The Patriot Act, Clean Water Act, Defense of Marriage..."

Louisiana legislature passes 'Science Education Act', clearing the way for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes.

glass houses / stowing thrones

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:25:07 GMT

Listening to lots of Girl Talk, and both listening to and reading about Crystal Castles lately has had my mind on sampling and creativity in music.

But the larger issue, one that leaves me sitting here with palpable frustration over stupid human beings--

I don't think there's much that I hate more than people who lie because it is profitable.

Michael Moore

(previous posts 1, 2)

- Makes documentaries, creating the expectation that what viewers see will be essentially true.
- Consistently doctors footage, timelines and facts to make for a easier soundbite and story.
- He has good things to say. A 'true' film might have had fewer grabby moments and might have been more difficult to put together. But that's what he should have done.

King of Kong

(original posts one and two)

- Funny, well-made documentary film that offers a glimpse into the little world of retro gaming high score nutjobs.
- In order to make it as funny and easy to follow as it is, they made shit up, altered timelines and sold out more than a few people who have a genuine love for that little world. Yet are now seen as villains or idiots as far as the outside world is concerned (again, the 'documentary' style of filmmaking lending credence and authority where there should be none).
- The actual story probably wouldn't have been as entertaining. But in the end, the filmmakers still know that they lied about something which is currently making their careers. I don't understand being OK with that, even if it's about something as stupid as a movie about arcade games.

...and the newest member of the club:

Crystal Castles

(Pitchfork rundown, Torontoist follow up)

- I have forever loved so-called 'chiptune' music, where synthesized melodies and/or beats are produced by antiquated sound chips, often including those beeps and blips produced by old videogame consoles. The diversity and depth of the chiptune scene is unbelievable, as is the talent of many of the artists who occupy it.
- Crystal Castles have co-opted that chiptune sound and packaged it with a) a more finely honed pop sensibility than most of the artists in the chiptune scene and b) a fantastic female vocalist (who I have compared stylistically to Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs). End result being, I enjoy the hell out of much of their music.
- It seems that they are a less a band and more of a marketing strategy. And at least one of the parts of that strategy seems to be ripping off other artists (whether its for unlicensed artwork on their album cover, or uncredited samples for a ton of their songs) and betting that the original artists won't know or won't say anything. Timbaland is probably the most famous example of this sort of thing happening recently, but at least he hasn't seemingly based his whole career around the idea of theft.
- I'd like to believe that there's no way ~~Glass Houses~~ Crystal Castles can produce (or even conceive of) music like this without being genuine fans of the chiptune scene. But it's hard to ignore the feigned ignorance of things like Creative Commons licenses and claims that they "don't have anything to do with" the 8-bit scene. Why couldn't they instead embrace their role and duly compensate and credit some of the shoulders that they stood on? They'd still be the most commercially successful producers to incorporate the chiptune aesthetic into a general indie act, and they'd still make plenty of money and have a following (including me) because the music remains quite fucking good.

I can be a pretty cynical person at times. So while I'd like to say it is beyond me that there are people/groups who do this kind of thing and lie through their teeth about it, that's not really true.

The part that bothers me the most is the apologists. Those people who equivocate and hedge when presented with the evidence because it's easier not to do the math. I dealt with many of them in the days and weeks after I came home from first watching Bowling for Columbine, did a couple of hours of online follow-up and proceeded to tell everyone within earshot that we were being manipulated (ever so slightly, but manipulated nonetheless).

Does Scott McClellan fall into this category? Lies for profit while he works for the White House, then profits again when he comes clean a few years later?

Then you can look at the Bush administration and any number of people who are benefiting enormously because of our commitment to Iraq and its oil pipelines. But those are sins much too large for an individual to appreciate on any meaningful level.

I hope one day to make a solid career out of doing something that I love. The artists I've listed above are all talented people who clearly love what they do. But there's a disconnect at some point, a definite moment when they're in that editing room where they know they've crossed a line and just don't care. Cynical or not, I still find that completely fucked up.

sidebar:

Since it's been in the news lately, I should mention the whole Coldplay plagiarism claim.

a) People write songs based on that progression all the time. At least eight more have been written since I started typing up this blog post.

b) With that in mind, these are still two very different songs.

c) Also, it doesn't help that Coldplay demoed their version months before you say they first heard it at your gig. Which they also did not attend!

conclusion: The accusers are performing the rare and delicate feat of double reverse douchebaggery. Falsely claiming to be victims in order to get attention! OK, so there's something else to hate.