Friend of RAW360 Daniel Goldberg has discontinued his Trivial Pursuits blog. Thankfully he left his archives up and he's still paying us regular visits as I've always appreciated his views.

I'm on a leave of absense until we can get it moved off Blogger, but Adam has been posting on the No-Lyfe Journal.

Meanwhile Michael Ahlf, a fellow former columnist with the Daily Cougar and a voice actor with No-Lyfe, has a blog and has been posting up a storm on Texas redistricting.

Oh, and No-Lyfe creative talent Brian, who posted on the Journal a long, long time ago but generally hates blogs so was a lost cause, sent me an interesting article on redistricting and food formations.

Check'em out.

Michael Duff has a good review of Friendster.

This is the first Internet group I've encountered where the baseline recruit is actually cooler than me. I've seen at least 60 people with outrageous piercings, dirty hair, and an interest list full of industrial music.

Two main types dominate friendster: Semi-literate party animals who post pretty pictures and describe themselves in sentence fragments, and pretentious hipster geeks who list authors they read in English class and write screeds about how much they hate TV.

I have lost count of people who use their profile space to denounce television. My favorite specimen is the type who lists six favorite television programs and says, "But I only watch them on DVD." Like it's cool to be three seasons behind.

I've actually signed on to Friendster to see what the fuss is about, but alas, I have no friends so I can't actually see anything. There is no six degrees of zero friends.

I suddenly feel so lonely.

In our apartment complex, a lesbian couple has moved next door. Not much to say about them really, I've only greeted them once or twice without any actual conversation.

One cool thing is that one of them has the following bumper stickers on the back of her car:

A pink triangle (lesbian pride)
A rainbow flag (gay pride)
A Union bumper sticker saying "Precinct so-and-so supports the troops!"
A US flag with the words "These colors don't run"

God bless Texas.

Austin American-Statesman:

WASHINGTON — President Bush will spend most of August at his Crawford ranch, but frequent trips will take him to key electoral states in the Midwest and on the West Coast.

...

"This August, the president looks forward to traveling throughout the heartland to highlight his initiatives to preserve our natural resources and protect American jobs," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Weather Underground, Crawford, TX:

Temperature 79 °F / 26 °C
Humidity 78%
Dew Point 72 °F / 22 °C
Wind SSW at 6 mph / 9.7 km/h
Wind Gust -
Pressure 29.96 in / 1014 hPa (Steady)
Conditions Clear
Visibility 10 miles / 16 kilometers
Clouds
(Above Ground Level) Clear (CLR) : -

Yesterday's Maximum 100 °F / 38 °C approx.
Yesterday's Minimum 73 °F / 23 °C approx.
Yesterday's Cooling Degree Days 21 approx.
Yesterday's Growing Degree Days 26 (base 60°F) approx.

Not one to comment on movies that often, I actually commented on Gigli when they were doing post-post-oh-my-goodness-this-movie-is-pure-awfulness-post-post-production.

I'd say some more mean things about it, but I said my piece in the post and in the comments section of it. Besides, The Onion's article had me laughing hysterically.

It reminds me of a couple things, such as when I smiled when a main character died in one of my ex-girlfriend Anna's chick flicks and I smiled because that was the only way to salvage the mediocre story.

It specifically reminds me of an experience watching a Freddy Prinze Jr. movie. Anna loved Prinz movies so I got to see all of his romantic dramadies while we were together. I chided her about it, but in all honesty she'd agree that I was a pretty good sport about it.

One weekend we saw Boys and Girls, which actually might have been his best movie had it not been for their futile efforts to pretend that in any life someone who looks like Prinze could ever be an unpopular nerd (note to filmmakers: don't even try).

Anyhow, so we were watching the movie about two friends who gradually drift towards romantic intent when, after a series of events I cannot recall, they ended up in bed together.

I looked at my watch (as all guys do during Prinze movies. Repeatedly) and saw that we were fifty-five minutes and thirteen seconds into the film. Much to my dismay and Prinze's, she wasn't there when he woke up in the morning, which Portended Drama (bad for Prinze cause drama requires acting, bad for me cause I had to watch).

He tracked her down in the rain and she blew him off (1:01:41). Suddenly I started laughing. Not like a chuckle, but a actual laughter. I mean, I was trying to suppress it, but it came out muffled all the same. Anna asked me if I was feeling okay. Once I stopped biting my lip she could see that I was laughing and not coughing. She shook her head and kept watching and I looked at my watch again, still chuckling (1:03:08).

She elbowed me, asked me what was going on. "I'll tell you later," I said as Prinze and Forlani sadly walked away from one another (1:04:23). When that happened, I knew I had to get my act together, so I took a couple deep breaths, lost the laughter, but not the mischevous smile.

When we finally left, she asked me what the hell had been going on.

"I came up with a movie idea," I explained.

"Another one?"

"Yup. It's about this guy and this girl. He's a nerd, except he looks like Freddie Prinze Jr. so he can't really be a nerd, but he's a nerd in the way that Hollywood tries to put glasses and braces on a supermodel to make them a nerd. Anyway, so he meets this girl, right? And they keep meeting in all these odd places. They become good friends, but of course he wants more and she doesn't realize it, but she does, too..."

"Alex, that's the movie we just saw."

"I'm not done yet."

She sighed, "okay, continue."

"So then they both get a little drunk or he's really sad or she's really sad or whatever. they sleep together. But when he wakes up, she's gone..."

"Alex..."

"I'm not done yet!"

"Okay, okay."

"So she's gone when he wakes up. he tracks her down and talks to her. She says that she's not ready for a relationship and he gets all mad. Then one hour, four minutes, and twenty-three seconds into the movie, the credits roll."

"Huh?"

"That's it. All this build-up and then nothing actually works out. No climax. No feelings resolved. He's miserable. She's miserable. It's great!"

"No, that's not great, that's a big waste of time."

"Maybe, but it's a waste of one hour, four minutes, and twenty-three seconds instead of one hour, forty-two minutes, and forty-six seconds."

She was not amused.

"Besides, it actually has a different ending than the rest. So it's not really a waste at all. It's different, so it's art."

"You should be glad the movie didn't end like that, Alex."

"Why is that?"

"Because you would have had to dealt with me crying and you said you hate to see me cry."

I always hated it when she was right.

There is a liberal saying that you can't legislate morality. It's both true from a practical standpoint and a moral one. Of course certain moral behaviors, such as murder and theft, are undeniably necessary for the public benefit. But when it comes to private morality, it's difficult to rigorously enforce any law that has no victim (except, arguably, its perpetrator).

The flipside of that, in my mind, is that you can't legislate tolerance. To be sure, you can dull the effects of intolerance by financially compelling companies to hire minorities and punishing those that blatantly refuse to. But when all that's said and done, it's as difficult for the government to change the hearts and minds of people to make them more tolerant as it is to make them more moral.

Both laws against immorality and bigotry can only succeed with the consent of the public. Enough people outside the South cared enough about Jim Crow that laws were forceably consented to and once that happened, the South had no choice but to acquiesce.

Gay rights uniquely touches on both tolerance and morality and nowhere is the occasional conflict between the two more apparent in this struggle. Those that fight against gay marriage and the like do so in the name of morality. Those that fight for it do so in the name of tolerance.

Along with capital punishment, my position on gay rights is among my most liberal ones. I not only believe that "sodomy" laws ought to be repealed, but I believe gay couples that so choose ought to be afforded the same rights and given the same obligations as heterosexual married couples.

So I am not the least bit sorry to see the sodomy laws go. I am, however, disturbed as to how it came about.

A while back, Jane Galt pointed out an article in The Economist as to why the abortion debate rages on in the US long after it has been settled in Europe. Surprisingly, it has less to do with different views of morality as it does how each came to allow abortion in the first place:

Why does abortion remain so much more controversial in America than in the other countries that have legalised it? The fundamental reason is the way the Americans went about legalisation. European countries did so through legislation and, occasionally, referenda. This allowed abortion opponents to vent their objections and legislators to adjust the rules to local tastes. Above all, it gave legalisation the legitimacy of majority support.

Most European countries provide abortion free. But they have also hedged the practice with all sorts of qualifications. They justify abortion on the basis of health rather than rights. Many European countries impose a 12-week limit (America, by contrast, allows abortion up to about 24 weeks and beyond, and many abortion-rights advocates seem to oppose any restrictions.) Frances Kissling, head of Catholics for a Free Choice, also points out that the Europeans have been careful to preserve a patina of disapproval. Even in England, the country with the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, women have to get permission from two doctors.

America went down the alternative route of declaring abortion a constitutional right. (The only other country that has done anything comparable is South Africa.) . . . It would be hard to design a way of legalising abortion that could be better calculated to stir up controversy. Abortion opponents were furious about being denied their say. Abortion supporters had to rely on the precarious balance of power on the Supreme Court. Legalisation did not have the legitimacy of majority support. Instead, it rested on a highly controversial interpretation of the constitution (abortion rights are clearly not enshrined in the constitution in the same plain way that free speech is). By going down the legislative road, the Europeans managed to neutralise the debate; by relying on the hammer-blow of a Supreme Court decision, the Americans institutionalised it.

A Constitutional amendment freed the slaves and a ruling on the Constitution striking down "Seperate But Equal" was instrumental in desegregation. However, the democratic legitimacy was ushered in by a series of law passed. As opposed to being dictated by nine people in the high court, it was a direction our country moved and, despite our imperfections on the matter, we've never looked back.

Pro-choice forces became impatient with the liberalization of abortion laws and instead found their salvation in a single court ruling (followed by various concurrences). Because of this, people were left out of the debate and when that happens, it becomes extremely polarizing and energizing for the opposition.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality and sodomy laws? A whole lot.

The rationale the courts used for both cases was the so-called "Right to privacy."

It sounds like such a benign concept, doesn't it? Everyone likes privacy. Who could object to that? I personally disagree with certain applications of it (abortion, specifically), but I certainly like the concept. A vague "right to privacy" is my rationale behind my opposition to a number of laws against things I consider morally wrong, such as adultery.

The problem is that the courts made the vague notion absolute and came to the absurd conclusion that the "liberty" in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is translated to a right specifically applied to sex (and maturnity) law.

Well, another word in the above phrase is "life," so does that mean that the Supreme Court ought to be pro-life? It's less of a stretch, but if the Court declared such, regardless of my views on abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, I would be equally appalled.

Any point in the constitution can be construed to mean what it clearly doesn't say. If you accept it when it supports your policy positions, then you have to accept it when it flies contrary to them.

I find the cheers coming from liberals to be predictable, but those coming from libertarians are particularly disturbing. It appears that even the idealistic strict-constitutionalist libertarians support a different sort of elastic clause.

This is my first time to comment on the ruling, mostly because I couldn't cheer the ruling (because I disagreed with the means) nor could I muster much outrage (because I am happy with the ends).

Unfortunately, via Nathan I found out that USA Today reports that like the abortion ruling, cutting corners judicially comes at a cost:

Advocates for gay men and lesbians called the poll disappointing. "Clearly, the debate (over recent developments) has had an effect," says David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign. But over time, he says, "The country always ends up on the side of fairness, and I think they will here, too."

Those making the biggest shifts included African-Americans. On whether homosexual relations should be legal, their support fell from 58% in May to 36% in July. Among people who attend church almost every week, support fell from 61% to 49%.

The survey also found rising opposition to civil unions that would give gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals. They were opposed 57%-40%, the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000.

By 49%-46%, those polled said homosexuality should not be considered "an acceptable alternative lifestyle." It was the first time since 1997 that more people expressed opposition than support.

I wish I had Mr. Smith's confidence, but seeing as how their movements next mission is to force gay marriage through the courts, I believe that we're headed down the path to prolonged conflict.

I spoke earlier of my utter frustration in regards to the record industry's ability to local genuine talent. I was thinking about my favorite artists to go national with a big-label contract and they are the following:

Blue October
Bob Schneider
Cross Canadian Ragweed
Pat Green

All signed by Universal Records. So while I bash the industry as a whole, I feel obligated to at least give props where props are due. They have their hand on the pulse of Texas. Good for them.

First 50 by Stephen Green.
Second 50 by Michael Totten.

I will not comment as to how many of these words I have, in fact, used on any of my first dates.

If all the major record labels were to declare bankruptcy tomorrow, I'm not sure it would mean a thing to me. If all the radio stations no longer had their latest and greatest things to use to fill their time, I'd probably consider it an improvement. I haven't listened to the radio in quite some time and the last four big label CDs I've purchased were artists I'd been following since before they were signed.

If all the file-swapping engines were to cease functioning, it would be equally unimportant. The only mp3s I download are off of eMusic and they are bought and paid for. Every now and then I'll get some unreleased song from a band, but I generally get those from friends.

I figure I am probably about as impartial to the file-swapping debate as anyone. I don't really care who wins.

So I am neither the choir nor the unrepentant in one of John LeBlanc's earliest posts on file-swapping (note: no permalinks, so do a search for "ears without faces").

I am pretty much without any sympathy for either side of the debate.

I'm not sure what I can say about the record labels that hasn't been said already. My basic belief towards them is that they largely made this bed. There was a void in the market place that instead of trying to fill it, they wanted to pummell it with concrete.

From a simple business standpoint, the fact that there are precious few ways for MP3s of signed artists to be legally obtained and those that do exist have taken this long to get into place is a prime example of their resistence to change, which dates back to their attempts to ban used music stores and I'm sure before that.

It took them over four years to recognize that MP3s were more than just a method of distributing music, but rather a new medium that many use even if they own the CDs. The first thing I do when I purchase any CD, in fact, is to rip it.

Their paranoia has blinded their vision to the point that they uncomfortably put consumers in the position where it was easier (I mean easier, not cheaper) to obtain each of the songs on the top 40 countdown illegally than properly. They failed - and still fail - to recognize the marketing tool that MP3s could have provided. Marketing tools that, incidentally, would have circumvented by diluging their databases with raw copies of files making it prohibitively difficult for someone to try to track down a good recording. When I did use file-swapping programs, the most difficult files to find were the ones where the artists had released MP3 clips or poor audio releases for public consumption.

They have ignored the tremendous outlet this provides for helping to find new acts. While music video television stations are having listener vote top 20 countdowns, the record companies are scrambling for acts just like the last greatest hit because that's the only thing they know we might like. Instead of simply releasing two or three songs of a new artist for the public to try out, they have resorted to suing their consumers.

If so desired, I could produce a chart that demonstrates my CD purchases that would show a strong linear corrolation between easy file-swapping and how many CDs I buy. I would list all the artists I found via Napster usercatalogs and Audio Galaxy artist pages, but it would be far too long.

Not that it matters, you see, cause I'm the enemy. You see, I was downloading files without permission and so on. I was a thief. If I downloaded ten Matthew Ryan songs and then turned around and bought his three CDs, I'm not a customer who wants to have a clue as to what he's buying, but rather a common cook.

Of course, one might argue that I'm not the problem, but it's those that download without buying. The question is whether or not they would be buying anyway. I'd be willing to bet that if they were around ten years ago, they were the ones copying their friends CDs to tape. That's what I used to do when I didn't have money or a proper connection. That's also where file-swapping is most prevalent: college campuses, high school kids, and among those that don't have money. So how many sales are getting lost here?

But the record companies are losing money. They blame that on file-swapping, but the truth is they were still in the black back in the Napster days, when swapping was considerably easier than it is now. So why are they losing money? The fact that there hasn't really been a new flavor of music since the grunge/alternative/punk outburst a decade ago might have something to do with it. Much easier to blame file-sharing, though.

Now let's talk about the file-swappers. Please understand that I'm not referring to all of you, but a not insignificant portion that is making everyone look bad.

Repeat after me: Music. Is. Not. Free.

It is not free to make, it is not free to produce, it is not free to promote, and it is not free to be put on the airwaves for your enjoyment. This idiotic notion has justified theft for way too long.

You can argue that the artists make their money from their shows, which is largely true, but their shows wouldn't be garnering the attention they get if they hadn't been signed and promoted by a record label. So effectively, you're biting the hand that feeds them. How considerate.

Which brings me to the animosity between swappers and the record companies. I'd like to think that they, like me, disdain the record companies because they tend to promote crap. There is more evidence to the contrary, however, that you actually like their crap.

Can you name me a single artist that rose virally through the ranks of free downloads? Maybe I've been out of the loop long enough that I'm missing a huge act, here, but I certainly can't think of any. The most downloaded artists are the ones that were brought to you via the radio via those evil record execs.

Music is easier to produce and release than ever before. Not that most of you know it because as the airwaves consolidate and the same artists (and their clones) get more and more attention, your downloads mirror the trend. The record companies spend thousands upon thousands of dollars locating, signing, and promoting "quality" talent and when you run across it you simply say "golly gee, I like that song" and proceed to download it.

Perhaps if you like an artist enough, you purchase their CDs. Good. But what about the three or four radio tracks you have downloaded of Hot New Band that are just enough. Well, you wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, right? Except when you download such from fifteen bazillion bands, you have enough music that you really don't need to buy anything, don't you?

I don't care if you don't like the record companies. I don't, either. But don't turn your minor theft into some moral crusade. The fact of the matter is that if you're getting your favorite hits from the radio (note: it still counts if it's "word of mouth" from what your friend heard on the radio), you are utilizing the tremendous filtering service that the record companies provide. All of the bitching and moaning about them in the world does not constitute payment for their services.

Have you ever gone to mp3.com or IUMA? There are tons of good artists there. Of course, there are a lot of crappy ones there, too. Don't feel like waiding through the bad stuff to get to the good? Well, that's what record companies do professionally. You can thank them for their service now. Or at least quit being indignant about leaching off them.

If the record companies ever succeed in making Kazaa unusable, I'm going to laugh as you bitch and moan. I'll miss the occasional unreleased bootleg, but you're going to have to start shelling out $15 for a CD cause you like one song on it all over again while I know where to look for good music. I know of more good music than I could buy in a lifetime.

Lastly, if you're as serious about enjoying the format, rather than just the convenience of not having to pay for anything, check out eMusic, MusicMatch, and other services that allow you to download MP3s for $10 a month. If you're shrieking at the prospect of paying for an MP3, you're proving the record companies' case.

[Coming soon... how we can get out of this jam]

Kevin delivers a sincere indictment of those that responded to the Venomous Kate post in the manner that I did.

So, no retarded "advice" or "solutions" from me, no pithy lists, no reading recommendations, none of that. Just go read and think. Those of us who are a little older and in relationships (even if we don't have kids) can sympathize, and maybe we can even take some of it and put it to use.

When I was plowing through it, I was increasingly sympathetic to her plight. Like Kevin, I realize that it's difficult for someone that hasn't been there. But at some point during it, my mind turned and realized that there wasn't anything in here I could put to use. It's a healthy thing to communicate stress and exhaustion, but she takes it a couple steps further.

I suppose I am hopelessly male in the belief that misery cannot be a perpetual state. When a woman is throwing heavy objects at her dumbfounded husband, that qualifies.

Yet then she says that there isn't much that can be done because "that's just the way it is."

Well, no.

Certainly, there are things that she has no control over. She can't dictate what's in the women's magazines or what the trumped up "ideal" parents would do. At first she seems to (properly) rebut these notions, but the more I read the more she seems held hostage by them. More specifically, she seems held hostage by her own sense of perfection. Unless everything is perfect, it's a failure.

By all appearences, Kate is a good mother. I greatly admire her (and people like her) for putting their career aside to devote their time and energy towards the kids. She goes far above and beyond the call of duty. Too far and simultaneously regrets that she cannot go farther and resents the toll that it's taken to go as far as she has.

I think that's what turned my mind. People that do that often touch a raw nerve with me. In part because I've been there. While I've never been a mother, I have worked 50 hours a week, worked two minor part-time jobs, taken a 15-hour courseload, worked on my college thesis, and had a full-time girlfriend all at once.

It took a major automobile accident before I finally due almost entirely to exhaustion before it finally got the attention it deserved. Before I was able to give myself the attention I deserved.

Kate glosses over that part and goes into asking her husband (and men in general) to do more. Instead of lowering her own expectations to a reasonable level, she seems to be suggesting that the other half raise his to help meet her unreasonable one.

There is a service in all of this in reminding men that most single mothers don't just spend their time around the house watching soaps. Unfortunately, the sheer ferocity of it is enough for me to believe that their are other issues involved.

"I'm not old
but I'm getting a whole lot older every day
It's too late from keeping crazy
I've got to get away
The reasons that I can't stay
don't have a thing to do with being in love
I understand that loving a man
shouldn't have to be this rough
You ain't the only one who feels
like this world left you far behind
I don't know why you got to be
angry all the time"
-Bruce Robison, "Angry All The Time"

This article by Fred Reed is flippant, rude, applies to some women, but not most in my experience.

Of course, it's in response to a Susan Reimer article (unfortunately not available on the web) about how "Other than a 29-inch waist and a full head of hair, there isn't much to recommend the twentysomething male... He is living an extended adolescence -- an adult-olescence -- and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine."

Still, Reimer's attitude is not prevalent among the women that I know. Nor is Reed's, except when he reads an article like Reimer's.

That's the rationale I am trying to use to understand Venomous Kate's take on the Reed article. Except that they're really not talking about the same thing. Not in fact (Reed's speaking more of professional women, Kate runs the household) and not in tone (Reed is half-sarcastic, folksy and Kate is a raging tempest).

It strikes me as the equivalent of someone responding to a sarcastic joke by pulling out a sawed-off shotgun.

Well, it's quite obvious that Kate is overwhelmed:

It's not that I resent meeting the needs of my loved ones. Far from it: I feel good when I do. It's not even that I resent putting my own needs second to the needs of my children at times: that's what mom's do. But what it comes down to is that no matter what I am doing - having coffee on the lanai, listening to my daughter talk about something that amused her, taking a shit, whatever - there is always something else that I'm supposed to be doing at the same time. There's always more, something that's not done, something that I forgot, something that someone else needs, or wants, or is thinking of, or can't locate without asking me for directions. There's a never-ending stream of this ... and I can't find time to take a leisurely shit but still feel guilty for trying.

As a wife, I am tired of feeling that my attention is pulled in so many different directions while also knowing that my husband gets the short-end of the stick. This is the man that I chose to be with, the one I pledged to spend the rest of my life with, who made a similar pledge to me. Yet day in and day out we find it hard to squeeze in thirty minutes here, fifteen minutes there, just to hold hands and talk and laugh together like we used to back when we fell in love. Those days add up into weeks, months - then suddenly the man sharing my bed feels like a stranger and, at times, a burden because he, too, needs something from me.

I am rarely left as speechless as I was after reading this. One part sympathy, one part anger, all parts of me knowing that anything said to her by her husband could and would be used against him.

It's things like this that make me never want to get married. To which I'm sure Ms. Reimer would say "See what I mean?"

I am fully aware of the axiom that when a woman complains, a man is generally not supposed to try to solve the problem. But if this isn't a problem that needs solving, I really don't know what is. If this is her version of "venting" then she is quite frankly a very likely candidate to become my ex-wife.

The situation going on there is between Kate and her husband, so I'll try to keep it applied more generally, with my supposition of Kate as a case-and-point.

From what I read, Kate strikes me as the person who has difficulty saying "no" or her family has difficulty hearing the word. In any case, it's apparent that she sets too high a standard for herself. Of course she wants to do everything for her family, but there are obvious limitations and it's not clear to me that, except in the case of sex, her husband is incapable of recognizing that. Maybe he is and she didn't say, or maybe he hasn't yet been given the chance.

I have a series of rules that may keep me unmarried the rest of my life, but I'd rather be so than married to someone who doesn't understand them.

1) If you haven't told me about something I'm doing wrong, you can't expect me to fix it.

2) You cannot insinuate that I am strongly contributing to making you unhappy (as Kate does) and then say that there isn't anything that can be done and I should accept that I am doing so.

3) If you want something from me, be specific.

4) Except for the most obvious cases (birthday, anniversary, etc) if you didn't ask for something, you can't expect me to give it to you.

5) If they're my standards, we'll talk, but if you set the standards for yourself too high, it's not my fault that you can't live up to them. I'll be happy to listen to you as you share and vent, but leave me out of it unless there is something you want me to do about it. Once you involve me, I will involve solutions.

6) If you don't say no, I don't know that the answer is no. Particularly if you do it anyway.

7) It is no more my job to live around you as it is your job to live around mine. Cooperation and communication.

8) Yelling automatically invites solution proposals.

9) Crying doesn't automatically invite solution proposals, but sobbing uncontrollably does.

10) No sentence begins "If you love me..." If I didn't love you, I wouldn't be with you.* Now tell me what you want.

* - May not apply in the first six months of the relationship.

Yep, if I were female, I'd be going to the pound to pick up a cat or ten, I think...

I heard this song a few times last week as I was preparing for the Mark David Manders show and came up with the concept on it. A dear friend told me that she misses my more drama-drenched writing, so here's a bit of that.

It takes place earlier this year during the My Little Identity Crisis Melodrama series.

Growing up and growing older
don’t always go hand in hand
And it’s not the weight on your shoulders
that makes you a man
Is this world we know
spinning out of control
Or is it just me?

Matthew was one of the most charismatic people that I knew way back when. He had a soft voice, an unassuming demeanor, and a way of communicating that made you want to like him, however much reason you privately had not to. Matthew was bisexual and it was his crusade to prove that everyone else was, too. He won over at least four converts that I know about, though I'm quite positive there were more.

I didn't know Jonathan all that well, mostly through his brother. He was always a good kid. Kind of shy, but very smart and studious. I'm not sure when he became Matthew's mark, though he was proudly bisexual by the time he was fourteen and widely regarded as Matthew's sidekick. I wasn't sure what happened between them, but at some point they had an argument. I actually read the letter that Jonathan sent to his mentor. He called Matthew something to the effect of an "empty human being without a clue of who you are except by the people you use and the heads you screw with."

Jonathan wasn't bisexual anymore after that. Nor was he the same smart kid that he had been before. Well, I suppose he was still smart, but not as book-smart or studious. I didn't think that much more about him until he'd single-handedly torpedoed two relationships by sweeping the girls off their feet. He left a third in pieces that her friend Jamie had to pick up. Nearly every girl I knew at the time had been taken by him, strung along, and unceremoniously dropped as soon as they became a drag.

I suppose Jonathan was studious all along. He just stopped studying the books and started studying his mentor, the master.

I went to church when I was younger
and they taught me to believe
Now I can’t help but wonder
what’s been happening to me
Has God lost all faith
in the human race
Or is it just me?

Alan is the son of a fundamentalist Christian minister. When he first met Sally, he didn't know if things were going to work out because his father strenuously objected to his dating a Catholic. After about a month of flirting, he finally took the plunge and they ended up dating for about a year and a half.

I never cared much for him. Well, I might have at one point, but then he hurt one of my best friends. Out of the blue, he dumped her refusing to explain why and left her in an emotional wreck. It wasn't until a couple months later that the rumors started surfacing. He'd been cheating on her. We never got the details as to what happened, all we knew was that it was with another guy named Chris.

Alan had fought off rumors of homosexuality before getting together with Sally. But no one could argue that they were a cute couple and seemed right for one another. There was always something a little off about them, though. An emotional distance from an otherwise engaging person. She commented on a couple of occasions that they seemed closer when they were just friends. No one quite understood when they broke up. Not until his involvement with Chris started becoming public knowledge.

At first he denied it, then when a witness and the credible originator of the rumor stepped forward, he said that he was drunk. When Chris said that it had actually happened repeatedly, he called Chris a liar. He got another girlfriend within weeks, but it didn't last very long. Nor did the next one. In fact, in all the time since, he hasn't been able to maintain anything close to a lasting relationship. He couldn't even blame it on the rumors because he was always the one that dumped them because it "didn't feel right."

I wonder if he wonders why. I wonder if he's just convinced himself that he hasn't met the right girl. I wonder if he's allowed himself to even consider the alternative and if the fear of being disowned by his family, laughed at by his friends, and shunned by his conservative classmates at his conservative university has driven the questions out of the conscious arena and driven him into the arms of one girl after the next.

Swing low, swing low Swing low
swing low for me tonight

I wonder if he knew Matthew.

I started drinking much too early
and it led me astray
It doesn’t matter if I was thirteen
or it was ten o’clock today
It’s just the same old song;
Man is there something wrong
Or is it just me?

When my friend Jamie and I were in high school, she had a boyfriend named Terry. There was a party at our friend Eddie's house and Terry didn't want to drive so far out of his way to get his girlfriend, so she wasn't able to go. When she talked to me about it, I volunteered to swing out of my way and get her so that she could go. Terry was livid that another guy was going to be his girlfriend's ride and forbade her, and me, to do it.

We did so anyway and Terry was cold to us both all night long. He conspicuously flirted with another girl. I suspected it was to "teach Jamie a lesson" but Jamie thought that's why he didn't want her to go. It's difficult to say who is right. In order to avoid the shadow of Terry hanging over us, we had a drinking contest. The more she drank, a different side of her started coming out. She didn't just think that Terry was cheating on her, she knew it.

When we found her head bleeding from pounding it on the gravelly pavement, we didn't know exactly what to do. She kept asking for Terry, but he was too busy flirting with the other girl. When we pulled him aside to talk about it, he said that after the fool she's made of herself, there was no way in hell he was talking to her again that night, if ever. Finally, our friend Shawn took her to bandage her up and I went to get some food to put in her. Terry, getting upset and feeling upstaged because everyone was taking care of his girlfriend but him, ended up going with me.

On the way there, Terry was verbally reaming Jamie for making a fool out of herself. "Didn't she know how to control her booze?" he asked.

I wanted to point out that no fourteen year old can control their booze and it wasn't "Budweiser" she was calling out as she bashed her head against the concrete, but while the drinking contest was her idea, I did partake, so I bit my tongue. When we got back, he took the burger from my hands and coldly gave it to her.

Her face lit up. Her man was taking care of her. She apologized profusely for embarassing him. He said that he didn't know if he was going to be able to forgive her. She didn't care, though, her man was taking care of her. They broke up a month later, but got together again a month after that. He finally dumped her for good a few months after that when she got cancer and was unable to go out anymore.

She's recovered from the cancer and Terry is a distant memory. We still talk a lot and I'm one of her closer friends. She's still not quite legal, but that doesn't stop her from throwing down the alcohol. It was a particular problem when she was with Jack, her ex-boyfriend who was truly dangerous. Since she finally left him for good, she goes out a lot, drinks a lot, and regularly wakes up with strangers by her side.

She beat the cancer, but she never stopped pounding her head on the pavement.

Now I’m not drinking to ward off demons,
no, I’ve learned to live with them
And I’ve learned to live with questions,
but there’s one thing I can’t stand
And in the back of my mind I’m afraid I’ll find
It’s just me...

I'd clearly lost my mind. I was sitting there working on my sixth glass of whiskey, watching people dance. Well, not everyone, just one person in particular. Red is dancing with a dufus who is probably five years my senior. I have no right to be angry about it because I brushed her off. I told her that she was too young, that I was too far away, and just about everything except for the fact that I had a girlfriend. I don't know why I omitted that particular detail. It certainly would have taken me a lot less time to get her to move on, which I told her to do the second I realized that she was attracted to me. Well, she's moved on, dancing with Dufus, and watching me watch her. My eyes didn't leave her when I bought my seventh glass and slowly stumbled my way to my chair. Why was I upset? It's not anger. It couldn't be jealousy because I told her I didn't want anything from her. And besides, I was in a relationship. A happy relationship. Right?

Swing low, swing low
Swing low, swing low
Swing low, swing low
For me tonight

Red was always a hard case. When she was a todler, her father left home. He mother was a fierce alcoholic so, by the time she was thirteen or so, she was practically taking care of herself. One summer she was sent to her grandmother's house and her mother never came to pick her up. The mother had moved out of her apartment and no one knew exactly where she was. Red lived with her grandmother for her remaining couple of years of high school and scored a scholarship to Arkansas.

She met a fellow named Blain there and they hit it off. By the time she accepted that he was an unrecoverable alcoholic and philanderer, her grades had fallen and she lost her scholarship. She's now in the armed forces.

You know, I've been putting myself on trial
I guess if I'm conviced
it'll only prove that the deepest wounds
are the ones that are self-inflicted

Presh was a Christian. I don't know what denomination, or whether she attended church at all, but her relationship with God caused her consternation in her relationship with Michael. One night, when we were eating at a Mexican restaurant, we were talking about her relationship and whether or not she should stay in it and she asked me, "Would anyone even date me? I'm not a virgin."

As long as I'd known her, she'd been with Michael. She was utterly devoted to him and I assumed that she was happy with him until she forcefully assured me otherwise. Presh was a big girl and, despite her unhappiness, she wasn't sure if she could handle being single and alone. While she weathered the storm, his verbal and physical abuse was more than I could handle. I devoted all my energy to getting her to leave him.

The more time we spent together, the more we brightened one another's day. We went out to the theater, saw movies indoors, ate. Some days we felt like a couple. Of course we weren't. I'd like to say that it was just because of Michael, but the more she talked and wavered, the more I knew that she simply couldn't handle the thought of being single and that if I'd simply let her know that she wouldn't be, she'd do it.

One night we'd been staying out later than usual and when we got back, Michael was at her house waiting. Presh told me to go. I honestly didn't know how safe it was, but her parents were there so I reasoned that everything would be okay.

He ended up breaking things off that night. Presh and I would go out afterwards, but we'd never cross that threshold. I don't know if I wasn't physically attracted to her or if I was just afraid I would let her down, both, or something else entirely.

Within a month, Michael forgave her and they were back together. I haven't spoken to her in three or four years, but I assume that they're married by now.

And God, what am I supposed to do
Nothing seems to make any sense
You know, I think I have faith in You
I just need a little more evidence
So swing low, swing low
Swing low, swing low
Swing low, swing low
For me tonight

I never fit in very well at the upper-middle class high school that I went to. The biggest problems they seemed to have were broken nails and broke-down Camaros. If I could do it all over again, I'd do a number of things differently and perhaps after the second go-around, I'd have a different perspective on it all. But I didn't know then what I know now, and around my sophomore year, I found Acme and it didn't matter anymore.

I first logged on to Acme peers, but the people there are often the same black-vested kids that I would have logged on to Acme in yesteryear had they been more than five years old. As I get older, I go to the chat rooms less and less as the age difference between me and everyone else becomes more pronounced. I don't have much in common with them anymore. But periodically I go just to see, reminisce, and observe.

As I watch, I naturally assume that the people I see talking will eventually grow beyond the nihilistic dribble they mistake for intellectual conversation. But when I think about my fellow Acme alums, I often wonder. Many of them are in the same place that they were, just in an updated young adult version. Every bit as macabre and dour. The sense of alienation from society that I move past seems to be largely embraced by a good number of them. Maybe they never tried to acclamate themselves to society or maybe they did and failed.

There is an old saying that birds of a feather flock together. Contrawise, there is a saying that opposites attract. I don't know which one applies to me more. Throughout my life, I've been surrounded by emotionally turbulent people. Whether they were Acme people or not, they're the same kind of folk. I often find myself wondering if they are attracted to me (and vice-versa) because we are kindred spirits or because in me they see a pillar of strength. Am I drawn to them because I see something oddly familiar and in need of growing up or because of some hidden desire on my part to regress.

I talk to them, I counsel them, and I listen to them. They tell me about their problems and I prescribe solutions. I tell them to go along and get along, don't seek out conflict, concentrate on the important things and let everything else go. I also tell them that they need to figure out what they want from life. They listen, they nod, they ignore my advice, and then come back for more.

It's a shame, really, because unless they figure out what they want and stop taking what's either easy or immediately enticing, they'll simply spend the rest of their lives aimlessly drifting into the wilderness.

Or is it just me?

[Song lyrics from Mark David Manders's "Just Me"]

I took my boat for a car
I took that car for a ride
I was trying to get somewhere
but now I'm following
the traces of your fingernails
that run along the windshield
on the Boat of Car
-They Might Be Giants, Boat of Car

Many of you have doubtlessly heard of this one. If so, skip this paragraph. Some cubans turned their car into a boat so that they could take the 90 miles to freedom. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard sent them back to Cuba and sank the Boat of Car.

This is tragic for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fate of the would-be Americans. From a policy standpoint, I am pro-immigration pretty much across the board. For Cuba, however, it's less a policy position than a moral one. Anyone willing to risk their lives to the degree that the Cubans are to get over here not only deserve to leave their tyrannical homeland behind, but also have earned the right to obtain citizenship (note: that's different from blanket citizenship) far more than someone who happens to have been born of an American mother.

Despite believing they are good for the country, I'm reluctant to grant a moral halo around Mexican immigrants and whatnot. Cuban and Haitian immigrants are a completely different matter and should be welcomed with open arms.

The gun debate has always been a tricky one, in my mind. I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist in that I believe it is within the individual state's rights to 'regulate' the militia, so if Massachusetts or New York want to limit gun ownership, that's their prerogative.

Unfortunately, if New York can't enforce its own laws, it may just sue states that don't have the same level of restrictions. As noted, this is the logical extention of the drive to sue gun-makers for the acts of its customers. This, further, is an extention of the practice of holding bars liable if they monitor the drinking of everyone in the establishment so that no one drives drunk.

It reminds me a bit of my business law professor in college, Dr. Wade. The subject of credit card companies came up. At the time, their was legislation going through that would make filing for bankrupcy tougher. Wade immediately started going into a diatribe about "taking responsibility."

I nodded in agreement until he clarified who he thought was failing to take responsibility. Not the people filing for bankrupcy (an official abdication of financial responsibilities), but rather the banks that gave them the money in the first place.

While not caustic, sneering, and disrespectful like a number of his colleagues, Dr. Wade was as liberal a professor as I had.

Which speaks in part of the rhetorical and ideological divide between liberal and conservative. Liberals see responsibility as what one has for someone else which conservatives argue that one's responsibility is foremost to oneself and one's family.

Well, that's one way of going about it.

Adam was kind enough to send me a link to a phenomenon that I'd apparently completely missed out on.

Batman: Dead End

It's an 8-minute, $30,000 fan-fiction project hailed by notable writer Kevin Smith and artist Alex Ross as the best Batman ever put to film.

I beg to differ. Not that it wasn't entertaining and well done, mind you, but it's not entirely possible to put together any 8-minute film that is better than 1989 Batman movie or Mask of the Phantasm.

Now, that being said, it managed to do certain things spectacularly. The actors for both Batman and Joker were spectacular. For my money, Andrew Koenig (known most for being "Boner" on the TV show "Growing Pains") beats out Jack Nicholson. Koenig gave the Animated Series feel of the Joker in a way that I did not know could be accomplished by a live actor.

My only complaint for Batman was that his script read a bit dry for me. Batman's supposed to be dry, of course, but it was regular dry, not batdry.

Unfortunately, the film makes a break about half-way through analogous to that in the movie From Dusk Till Dawn where the movie is turned on its head in a way that feels disjointed. Having only eight minutes of air time, there really wasn't time to make the switch like they did. They should have chosen either Joker or the twist, not both.

Of course, I'd rather they have picked Joker, but the twist was necessary for what they were trying to accomplish. It was as much a graphic design demo for writer/director Sandy Collora as anything else (and reminded me more of the Onstar commercials with Batman than any of the films). On that mark it was a smashing success as the directing didn't leave much to be desired and the special effects were decent on the budget they were given.

If you have a super-duper high speed connection or a few days to download it, check it out.

I have more to say on the subject, but I don't care to spoil anything, so I'll put it in the "read more" section.
[Read More!]

Bear with me on this long post. It's a bit rambling, but on a subject that I've been thinking about a lot lately.

Back in 1996, or even as recently as 1999 or 2000, I would have read this City Journal piece by Theodore Dalrymple and scoffed. I would have carefully explained that the culture wars are where I never see eye-to-eye with conservatives and why I was more of a liberal or later libertarian.
[Read More!]

I was knocking around the 'sphere this morning, looking for something to write about or link to. Back and forth, link to link, liberal to conservative to advice on gardening. I ran across a conservative site that had a remarkable 8 button links to various movements. I followed a couple of them to their source, where I was told that if I'm a friend to Israel, I need this button on my site. Do I support Iranian Democracy? Well, there are two buttons for that. First Iraq, then France? Got one for that, too.

As it happens, I consider myself a "friend of Israel" and sure, I support democracy in Iran. Who doesn't? Except Bush-hating liberals and leftists, of course, who saw that Bush supports it to and suddenly it's part of an insidious plot by the war machine. Or something like that.

So am I less a "friend of Israel" if I don't have a button and link on my site to an Israeli pro-active defense site? I'm not inclined to sign a petition telling Israel what they ought to be doing nor am I inclined to button up my site with fifteen pieces of flair for a movement just about everyone in their right mind supports.

But, of course, it's the 'in' thing. Right now we're talking about the death of Hussein's kids, which I haven't really commented on. Good news, of course. But John Hawkins has links to the Democratic Underground that suggests that not everyone thinks so. Joe Katzman wants links to liberal sites that can "bring themselves" to celebrate the good news. He got some, but not many, which suggests to thousands of nodding conservative readers that liberals can't bear to congratulate our military when they succeed. Some, of course, can't, and the rest get tainted by association lest they wear a flag button on their lapel and comment on it, saying what everyone else is saying. Another piece of flair.

It reminds me of the fall of Trent Lott, where all conservatives everywhere were expected to denounce Lott for his stupid comments, lest they be racists. As it happens, I had some harsh words early on. Oh, but wait, I didn't also denounce every other racist thing said, which proves that I am either a racist or as blind to it as liberals without their congratulations of the military are anti-American.

All of this leading... to what, exactly? Points for our team or points for theirs, I suppose. It's reminding me less and less of a political debate sometimes as it is alumni college football fans seperated by orange and maroon, taunting each other on how their alma mater is gonna whup the other's.

Did Bush lie about Hussein's attempts to gain uranium from Niger? Depends on if you conflate exaggeration with a lie and you think Bush exaggerated. Or maybe it's not that, if you're on the center-left, but rather that Bush's credibility is in doubt and "some people" can't believe him anymore. Except that the "some people" never really believed him in the first place and coincidentally are the same some people that are listening to the some people that are concerned about the some people losing faith in the president they never really had it with to begin with.

After a while, the situation gets so removed from the factually-accurate-but-possibly-deceptive statement that the statement, Bush's intent, and what he knew and when he knew it no longer matter.

Oh wait, did I say "possibly-not-deceptive"? I probably shouldn't have, cause I can see the blog posts on it now: "Even Republican agrees that Bush was possibly deceptive."

But then, I'll get instant credibility with Democrats, I suppose. President Clinton has been cited by the same people who tried to drive him out of office as an authoritative source on national security. Present and former military personnel are in turn cited by liberals when they have something negative to say about goings on. Gotcha. Gotcha! Gotcha!!

At the end of the day, though, liberals still detest Bush, conservatives still support him, his poll numbers fall a bit, and the Democratic nominees continue to look less and less electable.

What I found striking as I went down my blogroll and my blogroll's blogrolls was the same sources cited, over and over again, to make the same point that the authors have been making, over and over and over again. In the absense of news, I guess, we're simply left to find someone new who agrees with us, fisk someone who doesn't, and reiterate our positions in an endless cycle.

My calender says July, but it feels like August. The month where there isn't much happening, so everything that does is suddenly super important.

In the run-up to the war, the yelled, argued, and debated. When the troops hit the ground, the debate simply shifted to proving that they were right. With each taking of Basra, each side was vindicated. Then Baghdad fell, but oh wait, what happened to the furniture? Turns out most of the furniture was fine, but now we're debating on the justification to a war we've already fought in which everyone long made up their minds (sixteen words or no sixteen words) in which we won and are now dealing with the consequences of.

I'm going to check my calender again. It must be August.

Poor Man:

So I was in the Chipotle the other day, as is my lunchtime custom, preparing to order my half a chicken fajita burrito. And there were two teenagers in front of me a little way, with matching black oversized tee-shirts, baggy black combat shorts and orthopedic boots. The tee-shirts were from some devil rock band of recent vintage, and they had gothic upside-down crosses on them, and a gothic-font legend which read "I vomit remains at Christian filth." I don't know what band it was, and the phrase appears no where on Google, except here, I guess. And I'm standing in line with my friend, who is really quite extraordinarily Christian, and we're both sort of pretending we aren't trying to read what the tee-shirts say, and it's very awkward. And then I spend the next few minutes trying to figure out what that mysterious phrase could possibly mean. Remains? Human remains? Whose remains? If you eat human remains, why are you on line with me at Chipotle? And then I start staring at the steaming bucket of carnitas, and start feeling a bit queasy, and by the time we sit down to eat my appetite is gone.

He goes on to question society's tolerance of anti-Christian paraphinalia. It's an odd thing, but I can't muster as much anger as I would if it had been directed at Muslims or whatnot. Of course, unlike Andrew, I wasn't put in such an uncomfortable position because of it.

As the commenters point out, it's likely simply the oh-so-serious social critique of a bored kid whose dissatisfaction with his fascistic curfew gets aimed at society-at-large, specifically Christian. The same sort of thing can be seen in anti-American "statements" that are devoid of any thoughtful critique. Since 9-11 (and before, probably) Christianity proves an easier target than does our nation.

I suppose that the reason I can't muster much outrage is that pro-Christianity symbols are pretty much everywhere. For every bumper sticker that says "Christianity Preys On Children" there's ten that say "Jesus Saves" and for every Darwinian fish with legs there's three of the genuine article.

It's hard, and even feels a bit unfair, to get all huffy about someone so proudly in the minority.

On a side note, though, anyone who goes to a fantasy/sci-fi/anime/comics convention ought to take the time to check out the stand selling bumper stickers (if there is one). Every year at A-kon, I spend an hour or two just walking around the parking lot looking at all the funny, punny, and interesting bumper decorations.

From following some link to some other link, I found a really interesting website on US History (more generally on former presidents). For instance:

Presidential Fun Fact of the Day

John Quincy Adams, President 1825-1829.
President Adams enjoyed swimming in the nude in the Potomac River until he was 79 years old. One day a female journalist, Anne Royall, surprised him. She sat on his clothes until he agreed to an interview. She was the first female to interview a president.

Check it out.

For those of you that missed the mayoral debates, I have an abridged version, ahem, transcribed below. Be forewarned, it's 6 in the morning, I'm sleepy, and some of the quotes may be, errrm, technically inaccurate.

Moderator: Hello, I'm the uniquitous moderator whose job is going to get out of the way, so let's get started. Gentlemen and lady, please introduce yourself and explain why you should be mayor. We'll start with people of little relevence and build up from there.

Laverne Crump-Smith: Why is everyone looking at me?

Moderator: [blink]

Laverne Crump-Smith: Oh well, I'm Laverne Crump-Smith and I'm a mother of four and a grandmother of two. And I'd like to say... hey, which camera is on? That one? Hi kids! Momma's on TV!! Anyway, I am running for mayor for the children cause the children need to know that the children are important to more than just the children, but children think children are important to...

Moderator: Did you have a point? Err, I mean, is there anything you want to add to that?

Laverne Crump-Smith: No, I mean yes. The children. That is all.

Moderator: Okay, Mr. Rodriguez?

Raymond Hans Rodriguez: I'm Raymond Hans Rodriguez and I'm The Other Cuban in the race. When I'm [snicker] ele [chuckle] [clears throat] and when I'm elected mayor, I will bring with me a new set of values. The unelectable kind, actually. Heck, Google me and only seven sites will pop up. No one knows actually who I am or what I do. I've got to have the lowest negatives in the race. Hate negative campaigning? Vote for the guy with no negatives cause no one has ever heard of him.

Moderator: Mr. Berry?

Michael Berry: [turns to camera] Did anyone watch the July 4th fireworks shows? They were great, weren't they? Well, that's part of why I'm running for mayor. You see, I'm a young city councilman with a promising future. A Republican with considerable support in the black community. So pull up a lawn chair, sit in the front yard, and watch my formerly bright career burst into sudden flames as I alienate the black support by running against Mr. Turner when I promised I wouldn't, diluting my Republican support by running against Orlando Sanchez, all for a mayoral race that I have no hope of winning. I'm here to entertain you, the people. Thank you for your support. Anyone got a lighter?

Moderator: Mr. White?

Bill White: I'm Bill White, and you, ehm, should vote for, mmh, me because I'm the greatest man who ever lived. [blinkblink] Oh, and because I'm smarter than all the men up here and probably smarter than you, the audience, as well.

Moderator: Mr. Sanchez?

Orlando Sanchez: I'm Orlando Sanchez, and you should vote for me because I ran against Mayor Brown and you all seemed to vote for him last time and we can all see what a mistake that was. Our roads are in ruin, our mayor is a joke, and you should vote for me because I told you so! Oh yeah, you should also vote for me because I am Hispanic. In fact, if I knew Spanish I'd say "I told you so" in Spanish so that all the Mexican Americans who voted for me because of my name despite having no idea what I stand for could hear.

Moderator: And Mr. Turner?

Sylvester Turner: Well now, I'm Sylvester Turner and I was born and raised here and I'm gonna be this town's next mayor. Maybe no one outside of this town likes, but despite my law bar reprimand, bitter divorce, and insurance fraud, I'm inevitable. You see, I have the support of my people to get me into the runoff with Mr. Sanchez over there, and when the good folks of Houston elected Mayor Brown despite his repeated exhibitions of incompetence, they demonstrated that they'd elect damn near anyone over a Republican.

-

Moderator: Thank you for your introductions, gentlemen, and lady. My first question is about your campaign. Do you intend to be a meanie-poo and run negative ads or are you going to run positive ads that will make little kiddies smile? Since Ms. Smith and Mr. Rodriguez won't actually be running any ads, let's start with those whose answers actually matter. Mr. Berry?

Michael Berry: In order to salvage any dignity after this enormously stupid run for mayor, I'd probably be best off not airing any negative ads against any of these gentlemen since I will be able to get my last grasp at media attention ever when I brood over which one of them to endorse for the run-off after I get creamed in the general election, and it will disincline them to shower me with bribes if I've said nasty things about them.

Bill White: I have more money than God to put in to this race. I hardly need to say anything negative about anyone. After all, I'm practically the Second Coming of Christ, so it would be rather unbefitting for me to talk negatively about anyone. In fact, I think we should all take a pledge right now to not say anything negative, so I can keep this bright, shining halo above my head perfectly in tact and gleaming.

Orlando Sanchez: I'm a Republican running in a town that has never elected a Republican mayor. You think I'm going to get elected on my ideas? I didn't get nearly elected last time by failing to point out Mayor Brown's numerous inadequacies. Besides, when I'm in the runoff against Turner, c'mon. It's Sylvester Turner. The guy's shirt has a giant negative ad bulls-eye pasted on it.

Sylvester Turner: Now, now, there's no reason for anyone to get negative here. There's no real reason to get into nasty details about delinquent loans and insurance fraud. That's all so 1991. In fact, if Mr. Sanchez and the others are willing, I'd be willing to sign a binding contract so that we can't go negative, and I'll pay $10,000 dollars in unmarked bills to anyone else that'll sign it...

-

Moderator: Thank you, gentlemen. Next question, what event or aspect in your life most compelled you to dedicate your life to public service?

Laverne Crump-Smith: I'm an unemployed former Metro worker. I need a job! Bad!!

Raymond Hans Rodriguez: The Houston Chronicle did a write-up on one of my art pieces once. It was then I realized how much I like seeing my name in print.

Michael Berry: When I graduated from law school, I worked as a lawyer for a while when suddenly I realized I was an entrepreneur [ed. he actually said "realized"]. So I took a pay cut and did that for a while and I realized I was still making too much money, so I went in to public service. When I realized I was making money from both my business and city council, my wife and I decided that I would turn down my annual salary. I don't want to make too much money, you see, because I hate myself, as evidenced by this extraordinarily stupid run for mayor that is going to ruin my once-promising career.

Bill White: Oh, I don't know. Some time ago I was elected president of the rotary club. I did such a good job there, I figured that mayor seemed to be the next logical step.

Orlando Sanchez: When my parents came from COMMUNIST CUBA, they wanted a better life for me than we had in COMMUNIST CUBA. So I grew up in Houston and served in the AIR FORCE where I would have fought the COMMUNISTS if they'd asked me to, but they didn't and I realized that I should work to make Houston a better place than my parents were living in COMMUNIST CUBA.

Sylvester Turner: Well, heh heh, I realized I wanted to be mayor when I was I realized that I'd promised to serve only six years on the legislature and my six years were about up. So I ran and lost, but it turned out that once you're accused of insurance fraud, no one cares so much about reneging on a pledge not to run, so I been hangin' around, quietly plotting my return when it looked like an accused felon might be able to get elected mayor. Lee Brown made me realize anyone can get elected in this town as long as he's running against a Republican, so I ran. Heh heh.

-

Moderator: Do you believe that a mayor is elected in order to serve the will of the public or do you believe that the public elects the mayor to do what they think is right?

Laverne Crump-Smith: Blah blah blah blah blah

Raymond Hans Rodriguez: The way I see it, since no one actually supports me, if I get elected I will be beholden to no one. Neat how that works, isn't it?

Michael Berry: As I've mentioned, I returned my salary as a city councilman because of our recent financial troubles. That's obviously the actions of a man who is serving the people, yeah?

Bill White: I've got so much money coming at me from so many directions to keep Sylvester Turner from being election, that I'll owe everyone once I'm elected, so I'll naturally be serving all the people. It all works out. Peace, violins, and butterflies if I'm elected.

Orlando Sanchez: I'll cut taxes and learn Spanish. What more can you ask for?

Sylvester Turner: Well, the way I see it, getting elected will be like serving as the CEO. Now, as a state legislator and lawyer, I got no actual experience being a legislator, but just by saying "CEO" people will think I know what I'm talking about.

-

Moderator: Okay, one last question. What experience do you believe that you have that uniquely qualifies you to be mayor?

Laverne Crump-Smith: I got four children and two grandchildren.

Raymond Hans Rodriguez: Before I became an artist, I was an architect once. So I did actually have a real job, once upon a time...

Michael Berry: When I left my law practice and realized I was an entrepreneur, I started MICHAEL BERRY REAL ESTATE where I SELL HOUSES really, really CHEAP. I also BUY houses, even if they're REALLY UGLY! Oh, and I should also point out that I forwent my pay as councilman so my wife and I are reduced to one car. So I meet all kinds of Houstonians when my wife and I are at the soup kitchen getting our daily meals. One car... two people... soup... everyday... [looks at camera] My name is Michael Berry and I buy and sell houses! Vote for me or give me business. We need money! Two people, one car, a hopeless mayoral bid [starts sobbing].

Bill White: Well, I did mention that I was president of the rotary club, right? Oh, and I'm a businessmen. Republicans, know that if I get elected I won't have as much money to give to candidates opposing you. Democrats, I'm one of you. The one of you that can actually get elected. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go walk on water now...

Orlando Sanchez: I ran against Lee Brown and lost. Yet I'm actually running again. That alone should get me a Purple Heart.

Sylvester Turner: If I helped a man fake his own death and take in a fraudlent insurance claim, just imagine what corners I can cut for you, the people. My name is Sylvester Turner, and I am inevitably the next mayor of our fair city.

Moderator: Thank you and good night.

[Thanks to Greg for the assist in some areas. For those interested in a more factual recap of events, I'd trust him on it more than me]

Hey cool kids, I'm shocked {Shocked!} to see that some dork came up with some sort of list that bloggers tend to use that literally blows my gasket. Even idiotarians will see through his poor attempts at [sarcasm]oh so original [/sarcasm] humor. Does anyone find this list the least bit funny?

Crickets chirping (tm).

Heh. Indeed.

As they said when they first coined the phrase and it became a meme, read the whole thing.

No, no, not hiatus (I've proven Greg wrong, Ha!)

I spent a lot of time and effort getting things moved out of Blogger, and yet problems seem to persist. At least for me. Anyone else having trouble accessing my site? If so, please describe what it's doing.

Thanks.

While I'm not a minimalist by any stretch of the imagination, I am a generally thrifty fellow who tries to live well below my means. When I was working my last job, I was quite frankly making more money than I knew what to do with I started spending more money, but was nonetheless saving up for a rainy day (like today, pay no attention to the Sun outside).

My parents rolled their eyes at the various things I bought and had shipped to their house (I keep my billing address there so I don't have to change it every time I move). I own three decent desktops, a laptop, a five-piece set of speakers, a handful of DVDs, more than a handful of CDs, a CD player in my car, and a ton of other goodies.

Why? Because they made my life easier. When I was working 70 hours a week, I liked coming home and listening to music in top quality. I love the fact that if one of my computer tanks, I have redundancy so there's no downtime while I fix whatever is wrong.

In general, though, while I spent a lot of money, I saved a lot as well. I don't have a giant checklist of things I'll get "when I can afford it" and a waiting list for goodies in the future. I don't want enough to justify that. My apartment is nice, but not too nice (and I have a roommate). I don't tend to dress expensively (except shoes, try finding a good price on size 15s. Nuff said). I have a particular disdain for things that cost money and don't have much utility. I don't want to live in the nicest part of the town and I'd rather have a home than a property value investment.

Via Babylonian Musings, I ran across a fellow named Fred Clark, who apparently takes disdain for niceties to an all new level:

A $350,000 pool [with] three waterfalls -- one of them emptying into a raised spa -- complete stonework decking, custom lighting, fencing and landscaping. The barbecue area alone cost $45,000.

That's one version of the American Dream. It's a narrow, individualistic and selfish vision that sees America as the land of the opportunity to acquire lots of stuff for me and mine. It's also a winner-take-all vision, a nightmare of community as a war of all against all. Life in this Hobbesian jungle may be nasty, brutish and short for most, but not for the winners. The winners get to cool off in
their private, backyard resorts."

Well yeah, that's how capitalism works. Slacktivist wants to know why anyone would want this sort of thing. More than that, he expands that question into a grand statement as to what kind of world you want to live in. If you want a fountain to yourself, you see, you are opposed to public fountains. It's the difference between Old Man Potter and George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life.

In It's a Wonderful Life Frank Capra rejects this version of the American Dream. He embodies this stunted selfishness in the person of Old Man Potter, the crusty banker and oligarch portrayed by Lionel Barrymore. Capra's own version of the American Dream -- of what America could and should be all about -- is embodied in Jimmy Stewart's George Bailey.

Old Man Potter, you can be sure, would buy himself a top-of-the-line landscaped pool for his back yard (even though he'd probably never use it). George Bailey, on the other hand, would be happier installing a less-ostentatious, but more accessible, pool in a park near the homes he was helping to build for the working people of Bedford Falls. Bailey's pool would be for the entire community -- publicly funded, publicly owned, publicly enjoyed.

In one sense, I can understand what he's getting at. In fact, my memories at the old neighborhood pool where I grew up spread farther and deeper than the pool itself.

At the same time, however, it's nice to own things. It's nice to be able to take a swim and not have to worry about other people taking up the pool. I don't particularly want a pool in my back yard when I buy a house (that's where the baseball field is gonna go anyhow) and I certainly don't care for a waterfall or whatnot. Do I consider the set-up described excessive? Yeah.

Then again, as previously mentioned, I own three computers. To many, that's excessive. For me, it makes my life easier and I worked hard to be able to afford it (as likely does anyone who gets the water park in their backyard). If working hard did not buy me things that I want, I would not work as hard at anything except writing. It's the inducements, often frivolous, that keep many of us going when we want to quit.

That, in turn, makes the standard of living in the US higher than that of most of the world. It keeps even our working poor with VCRs. Why? Because once upon a time, a bunch of people spent money frivolously on VCRs. That money went to the manufacturers, who used it for R&D to make a cheaper model, which in turn brought the prices down, which in turn made it accessible to even those that make less money.

That's the America that I believe in.

Oh dear.

[via Emily]

He's apparently been promoted to ambassador!

Or something...

Unfortunately, Daniel and Heidi are on hiatus and I don't know how often TPB comes around, but I have a legal question: Does attorney-client priviledge apply after the death of the client?

I would figure so, but an episode of Law & Order on Saturday made me wonder.

In the episode in particular, the client was murdered and quite likely shared information about the murderer that would have been applicable in the prosecution. Would the lawyer have been bound by priviledge not to say anything?

Earlier this year, I was going through something of an identity crisis, wondering why my life had gotten to where it was and where it was headed. One of the questions floating in my head, especially when I lost my job and started thinking about career paths, was "Fundamentally, what kind of person am I?"

A computer nerd?
A struggling artist?
A bureaucrat?
A communicator?
People-oriented?
Prohibitively introverted?

Well, if I'd only had Tortured Artist's musings handy, I'd have known just how to figure out: Where do I go in the book store!

Hmmm, well the general fiction section.

Crap.

That doesn't tell me much of anything, does it?

[props to anyone who can cite the quote of this post's title]

Apparently, some liberals have decided that Canada is "now closer to American ideals than America is" and are headed north.

Good, I say.

I don't mean that in the sense of "love it or leave it" but rather because if you don't want to live in America, or there is some place you would rather live in that will take you, leaving is the prudent thing. This is particularly true of liberals, who have a great white neighbor to the North, Europe, and a host of other options. Since there isn't a conservative Christian country that I am aware nor a more capitalist nation (again, that I am aware of), conservatives are in a bit of a bind.

The reason for many to leave is that they want to get married and that is an option not currently available in the US. I wish it were, but I wish them the best of luck. Well, except for the ones disingenuously going up there to get married so that they can come back and sue the government to force American recognition of marriages. I support gay marriage rights, but not by judicial fiat.

The other reasons that they choose to go up there -- namely Canada's more socialist outlook -- I can't really buy in to, but I hope they get what they're looking for. I hear little but horror stories about their health care system, but they seem to love it to death. Similarly, they hear horror stories about our system, but despite various calls for change (similar calls are made up there), we've rejected the national health care system.

As a fan of state's rights and federalism, having a country like us but different from the north is appealing to me in the same way for the same reasons. Competing structures and may the best one win.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. emigration to Canada surged as thousands of young men, often accompanied by wives or girlfriends, moved to avoid the draft. But every year since 1977, more Canadians have emigrated to the United States than vice versa -- the 2001 figures were 5,894 Americans moving north, 30,203 Canadians moving south.

Of course, this is largely because America is, despite current economic difficulties, where the jobs are. That, of course, has nothing to do with our (generally) capitalist economy that has produced the economic powerhouse that has amassed some quarter of the world's wealth.

But, like I said, to each their own. I'd rather much have people who want to live here living here and I'm sure that Canada would say the same, welcoming our emigrants.

[via Warliberal]

"Whenever you hear that voice in the back of your head softly whispering 'don't send this letter', approximately 10 out of 10 times that voice is correct" -Me, a few months ago.

Would only that Mr. Tripplehorn were to take my advice (and have a spell-check on his email).

From: Kelly Tripplehorn [mailto:tripplehorny@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: you suck

Well, as of this afternoon, I was planning on ruining your career by making phone calls to all of my parents friends and have you blackballed from the workplace as well as every prestigous law school in the country, but then (lucky for you) I decided not to do that because you are a sad sad person and I will just let your life self destruct right before my eyes....

By the end of the day if I wanted to, I could make a phone call and have your life absolutely ruined but there is no need because you are falling fast enough towards failure without me. In the end, all I can say is that people love me and people hate you. You should observe me and take a few notes on how to make real friends. Other than you tieing this one other person, I have never had such little respect for a human being in my life. I don't even have to tell you why because in my very accurate analysis that most everyone else agrees with, if you were to agree with my analyis about your character than my whole entire analysis would be wrong. Your inflamed ego has left you so blind and so impotent that you can nto even recognize the most obvious flaws in yourself. All your old roommates absolutely hated you and you still think the problem is with them, not you. Well I talked to your roommates and I thought they nice normal girls. So naturally, you would not fit in with them because you are so intellectually above them all. Right? You suck at life and you need to figure out why or you will be miserable for the rest of your life.

Once again from your intellectual, moral, social, and emotional superior,
Paul Kelly Tripplehorn, Jr.

If his description is only half-accurate, they deserve one another. If it's completely accurate, they really deserve one another.

Mr. Cluth has an award for people like this.

I was going to do a follow-up on marriage study I tacked on to $tre$$ of Divorce post, but as it happens, Mr. Martin did a better job of summing up my views than I probably could have:

So I guess my point is that when you marry, you are marrying for keeps (at least in theory.) And "for keeps" is the rest of your lives (allegedly.) So happiness will ebb and flow. If you are looking for continuous happiness, you won't find it in a marriage. What you will find (hopefully) is a partner that is committed to spending his or her life with you. Whether good times or bad. And you will face life together. You'll have ups and downs, but you will have them together. And united you can take on all comers, but divided you'll fall prey to selfish desires that destroy the relationship.

I agree right down to the parenthisized qualifiers.

David Cohen in the comments section over at Brothers Judd commented that marriage is the one institution where the opportunity costs are consistently overestimated. I'd love to point to the specific link, but it was some time ago. It's remained in my head, though.

When I was younger and more irreverent, I used to joke "Marriage is a wonderful institution. I think I'll partake a few times before I die."

As those who have read me before (or know me personally) are familiar with my near-marriage around 2001. I had already asked her parents permission to propose, was working on a ring when things began to unravel.

Part of me thinks "how lucky am I?" that I didn't get married and then see the problems. But the coincidence of the two was hardly that. In many ways, it was the burden of the "rest of our lives" that hastened a number of existing problems.

Below I put down a little quiz asking whether people thought that it was ill-concieved marriages or hasty divorces that can be attributed to the high divorce rate. Susanna was really the only person that voted, but her answer matched mine: hasty divorces.

That is not to say that I disapprove of all divorce. If my mother hadn't (justifiably) left her first husband, I would never have been born. That's one of the things that makes discussion on this issue so tough. Most of us who have not been personally divorced at least know one person who has been and in many cases, we'd at least like to say they're better off for it.

Susanna posted on the subject a while back and an interesting debate in the comments section ensued between Susanna and a fellow named John McCrarey, who is divorced and believes that's best all around. In his case it might be as it might be in many others.

At the same time, benign divorces as well as wife-swapping (or husband-swapping) have an insidious cultural effect. It ads a sense of impermanence to the institution of marriage that leads a number of people to enter marriage with the knowledge that no-fault divorce can get them out should the need arise. Or maybe less of that and more of a feeling of justification that leaving the marriage will come without social cost. I can think of two otherwise outstanding men who have turned in their marriage for a younger model and it baffles me the blind eye that our society turns to this sort of thing.

So what's the solution? I can't say that I favor terminating no-fault divorces. Nor do I oppose a Scarlet D for those that get divorced. It's difficult to identify the problems, see the repercussions, and yet know that this is more than the government can step in and solve.

Well, for now we can read Martin's clear thoughts on the subject. Also, while you're there, scroll down a bit and read his thoughtful post on gay marriage.

More thoughts to come...

Last night, I had quite a bit to drink.

Today, all I've had to eat is two burritos.

I clearly hate myself.

I only caught a handful of DEA songs, but they sounded great. The Firehouse's sound system is incredible to the point that my friend Ed says "it has no right to sound as good as it does" in a place with a concrete floor. Melott & company made full use of it and I'm only sorry I didn't get to hear more.

DEA and Creager are an odd fit, as Kevin mentioned, but DEA seemed to go over pretty well. It's not uncommon for the talking at the Firehouse to overcome the opening act, but the folks seemed attentive enough so it wasn't an issue.

Roger Creager took the stage at about twenty-till-one. My primary complaint with Creager is that he's relatively slow putting out new material. Last night's show was a bit of a shock to the system because he's prepping for the release of his next CD. If what I heard is any indication, it's sure to be a great one. What Creager lacks in quantity he makes up for in quality. On the two CDs of his that I own, I can count the number of immediate-fast-forward tracks on my thumbs, which is quite rare.

Late Night Blues might be the best song I've heard from him to date.

Unfortunately, the sheer crowd he attracts makes him a difficult act to endure. The music is great, but the room gets unbearably hot. Last time I saw Creager at a weekend night show (before they worried about fire codes), I had to step outside periodically to avoid collapsing. One girl was gracious enough to follow me out and make sure I was doing okay. I looked that bad. I generally have good stamina for such things and it wasn't as bad last night, but it certainly detracts from the enjoyment of the show.

Creager's not good enough for me to justify taking that on very often. Then again, I don't think anyone this side of Phil Pritchett is that good. Between Creager, Reckless Kelly, and Jason Boland, I'm going to have to start making a list of musicians I love to death but can't watch at the Firehouse so that I can make a trip out to the Texas Hall of Fame (which is huge and very well air conditioned) or somewhere to catch them.

In my earlier post about Pat Green, I commented that Green wasn't the kind of person to be able to change the face of Nashville. Creager is getting big enough that soon he'll outsize the Firehouse. Before long, I suspect he'll get attention in the right places. Of all Texas Country's talent, I think Creager has the most potential for superstardom. I hope he does change the face of Nashville, or, at the very least, it doesn't change the face of him.

First off, I've got some of the best friends in the world. Second, thank heavens my head is screwed on.

Kevin and Callie were gracious enough to get me an advanced ticket to see Roger Creager and Dead End Angels play at the Firehouse. I was an ungrateful enough recipient to lose track of the ticket and miss over half the DEA set. What's most sad is that this was 100% predictable. Grumble.

I realized when I was about to head over at 8:00 or so that the ticket was missing. I looked for it for about 45 minutes before finally calling my folks to see if I'd left it at their house. Sure enough, I had, so forty-five minutes driving to Clear Lake and forty-five minutes back got me there at about 10:15 or so.

When I eventually did get there, I was held at the door for about 20 minutes or so. Ten of it was my own fault as I didn't realize that the line wasn't moving. Well, I realized the line wasn't moving, but I thought it was because of some problem with the people at the front. Turns out they were worried about fire codes for occupancy and they were only letting new people in as others left.

Once I realized what was going on, the next ten minutes was spent haggling with the doorman and explaining that I had a ticket and, it would seem to me, that the ticket means that I am allowed to go in. They seemed to be caught by surprise and the guy didn't even realize that they sold tickets in advance.

The entire time I'm dealing with irate Firehouseers who are telling me to get back in line. Finally, one of Houston's finest at the door suggested that I do so. I explained the ticket to him and he tracked down a full-timer (most of the door people are part-time and periodic help). He seemed to have a better idea of what was going on, though he apparently hadn't accounted for people with a ticket showing up after they let all the people they can inside.

Don't get me wrong on any account. I love the Firehouse. I like their management, their employees, and they bring in the best acts in Houston, bar none. Most of this can be chalked up to growing pains. Fire codes and advanced ticket sales are only an issue every few months and it's only recently that they've been paying attention to them. As much as I'd like to curse the codes, anyone who was inside would verify that they didn't need any more people in that bar. They do need to get their act together, however, on issues like these that are going to be more and more common.

On the other hand, a lot of it was my fault because I shouldn't have been late to begin with. Lessons learned.