These days, my main source of news is actually Yahoo News. I spend pretty much all day every day shining a chair with my ass, staring at a computer, and plotting world domination. Staring at a computer all day, I find that while most mainstream news services are either disgustingly revolutionary (MSNBC) or frighteningly reactionary (FOX), Yahoo at least puts up the articles from both sides. This is good for me, if for no other reason than that both sides provide no end of comic relief and eye rolling.
Among the gems that appeared this week was notice that the President and Justice Department are challenging Arizona's new law granting police authority to explore the citizenship status of person who give cause for the officers to question the suspects legal standing to be in the United States. Personally, I think this is Obama in a nutshell: the Arizona voters passed the law and continue to support it with an impressive majority. While management of immigration is a Federal chore, Obama himself has admitted that the Federal government is handling it badly. The Consitution expressly says that States have the power to enact and enforce the law within their own borders. In effect, there doesn't seem to be even a little bit of basis for a Washington politician to tell the people of Arizona that no, they're not really in charge of their own state. But no matter. Barack doesn't like it, so it's going to have to go.
Have I mentioned my thoughts on secession lately? Once upon a time, I thought that there's no way that a state would seriously consider departing the United States over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not even sure we'll get the to end of Obama's presidency before there are rumblings, especially along southern-border states that are being saddled with healthcare and benefits for illegal aliens while being told by the Federal government that they're going to have to shut down their oil industries. I guess the worry is that our kids will not be able to pay off all this debt Obama is running up if they're busy dealing with global warming, whenever (if ever) it actually arrives.
But going back to the immigration thing, I'm not sure I'm a supporter of the Arizona law (I grew up in California, and am a firm believer that the quality and cheapness of California's unsurpassed produce is largely a result of migrant labor), but I absolutely support that Arizona can pass that law if they see fit. But more than anything else, I think the way the debate appears in public forums says a lot about the difference between Republican and Democratic mindsets. In their article posted on Yahoo News ("As Dems lay low, GOP hits Obama on Arizona lawsuit,") the AP stated:
"But some Democratic strategists say the GOP is playing a dangerous game. Past GOP bids to crack down on illegal immigration have driven Latino voters into Democrats' arms, as was seen most dramatically in California in the 1990s. And Americans who are most passionate about illegal immigration tend to be reliable Republican voters anyway, and not up for grabs, these strategists say.
"There's no evidence that Republicans have been able to turn this issue into a winning issue in a general election," said Simon Rosenberg, who follows immigration matters as head of the liberal-leaning group NDN. If top Republicans keep pounding the issue, he said, it could increase Democratic turnout in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California and possibly other states."
That's actually cut and pasted from the article.
I find it hugely ironic (and very insightful) that the GOP position is based on things like separation of powers, legal prerogatives of the states, and the legality of Arizona's actions. You know: the LAW. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to care about the law. They're in it for the votes, and their analysis focuses not on whether or Arizona's statute (or the challenge to it) have legal standing, but on whether or how Arizona's statue can be spun into a mass-media sound bite. Is that the real difference between the left and the right? The Right seems to care about the LAW. The left seems to care about what is POPULAR at any given moment.
The left is in power currently, and it's showing. We don't have time to do things legally, so lets forget about the laws and do what we want. *Sigh.* So much for being a nation of law, not of men.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Lost
I almost never watched "Lost" when it was actually on TV, but it's near the top of the list of things that I've been turned on to since finding love. It's up there along with trashy romance novels and pop-culture vampires (of the trashy-south vampire variety, not the teeny-bopper sparkly variety). Not quite sure what all this says about me, but I've never really cared what my likes and dislikes say about me in the past, and I don't plan to start now.
So. Lost. I'm working my way through the DVDs of past seasons, and am most of the way through Season 2. I like the show, especially the fact that nobody on the island seems normal in any way, shape, or form. True to real life, everybody has their back-story, secrets, hang-ups, and damage. I like that. I also like that the character flaws are consistent from one season to the next. Jack's inability to decide whether or not he's really in charge (or whether he wants to be). Sawyer's inability to decide if he wants to be loved or hated. Kate's inability to decide whether she loves or hates Sawyer. And Locke... ... ... Yeah. Locke.
But I've got to say that I wish I could meet the character, Michael, just so I could punch that motherfucker in the throat. And I felt that way even before "Henry" escaped from the hatch. Seriously, how is it that Michael manages to do exactly the wrong thing at every turn, mostly fuck up the wrong thing he decides to do, blame everyone else for what's going on, and still sound sanctimonious? Oh and that whiny half-yell of his when he gets excited.
Punch. In. The. Throat.
I really don't know how his story is going to end, but unless he and Sayid have a little sit-down involving pliers and sharp instruments, it's not going to be nearly what he deserves. Although I do draw some content from that conversation he had with Echo about the young boy who was afraid the slain dog would be waiting from him in the afterlife. The implications of that were cool, as were Michael's dry heaves after the discussion ended. Made me smile.
Mike, here's to hoping Ana Lucia really is waiting for you to arrive.
So. Lost. I'm working my way through the DVDs of past seasons, and am most of the way through Season 2. I like the show, especially the fact that nobody on the island seems normal in any way, shape, or form. True to real life, everybody has their back-story, secrets, hang-ups, and damage. I like that. I also like that the character flaws are consistent from one season to the next. Jack's inability to decide whether or not he's really in charge (or whether he wants to be). Sawyer's inability to decide if he wants to be loved or hated. Kate's inability to decide whether she loves or hates Sawyer. And Locke... ... ... Yeah. Locke.
But I've got to say that I wish I could meet the character, Michael, just so I could punch that motherfucker in the throat. And I felt that way even before "Henry" escaped from the hatch. Seriously, how is it that Michael manages to do exactly the wrong thing at every turn, mostly fuck up the wrong thing he decides to do, blame everyone else for what's going on, and still sound sanctimonious? Oh and that whiny half-yell of his when he gets excited.
Punch. In. The. Throat.
I really don't know how his story is going to end, but unless he and Sayid have a little sit-down involving pliers and sharp instruments, it's not going to be nearly what he deserves. Although I do draw some content from that conversation he had with Echo about the young boy who was afraid the slain dog would be waiting from him in the afterlife. The implications of that were cool, as were Michael's dry heaves after the discussion ended. Made me smile.
Mike, here's to hoping Ana Lucia really is waiting for you to arrive.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Da Kings
I'm a hockey player, and grew up in California during the Gretzky era. This means that I'm a Kings fan, and abhor the mere mention of the Mighty Ducks. Yes, they are still the Mighty Ducks, even if they have tried to distance themselves from their Disney roots by changing their name to the Anaheim Ducks. That they've won a Stanley Cup while neither the Sharks nor the Kings have climbed the mountain is something that causes me to occasionally wake up in cold sweats, a feeling not uncommon for fans of teams to never have won the Cup in their lifetimes. This is not a short list of teams.
For a lot of years, the Kings were not really worth following. They had serious problems, starting in the 90's when they were being "managed" by the McMaster of Disaster. They haven't been worth consideration for over a decade, notwithstanding the occasional playoff upset of a powerhouse like Detroit.
But they made the playoffs this season, and I'm actually excited about the King's prospects next season. A little while ago, they opened their eyes as an organization to one of the great truisms of sports. A team might be bad for a game or ten based on the players not coming through the way they're supposed to. A team might be bad for a month or ten if the coaching staff is not coming through the way they're supposed to. But if a team is bad for a year or ten, it's because the management and ownership are not coming through the way they're supposed to. I'll spare you examples of this, but trust me when I say there are MANY, and offer only the current halcyon exemplars: the Oakland Raiders, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the Baltimore Orioles.
The Kings seem to have realized that while they might not quite fall into that group, they weren't far above it, and under new ownership, did something about it. They went out and hired a guy to run the team who actually knew what he was going: Dean Lombardi, who was just coming off building the San Jose Sharks into perennial contenders. Not surprisingly, things started to turn around, and on much the same script, as Dean started building a new team, from the net forward, by drafting well, building a young core, and cherry-picking free agents based on character and need rather than on flash and flare.
For the first time in living memory, the Kings don't have a goaltending dilemma. The current starter, John Quick, was on the Team USA roster for the Olympics, and while not as good as the American starter (Ryan Miller), he deserved to be there. Excepting the number in the "wins" column, Quick's numbers were not overwhelming, but he was playing behind a young team under a new coach. More importantly, if you watched Kings games, you noticed Quick's habit of making big saves at the right time. Stopping breakaways or other great shots that would have been game-winners, kind of thing. Numbers aside, he made big saves when his team needed a big save, and that says a lot.
This is actually a bit of a problem, since Quick was not supposed to be this good. He was just supposed to be a temporary fix while the King's goalie of the future, John Bernier (the first draft pick made after Lombardi took the helm), got a little seasoning in the minors. Bernier saw only limited NHL action this season, but his numbers were spectacular (3-0-0, 1.30 goals against average, .957 save percentage). Moreover, he's been on a career track as a star, whereas - again - Quick kind of came out of nowhere. The end result is that the Kings could have a serious dilemma in goal, not in their usual fashion of trying to find a guy good enough to get wins, but in trying to decide which guy is the best guy to get wins. They also have a guy named Erik Ersberg who didn't play much, but who came through big when they needed him, and statistically was about as good as Quick.
Here's the kicker, which will be an ongoing theme on the Kings: they're all young. Quick is 24. Bernier is 21. Ersberg would be traded if there were not a glut on free-agent goaltenders this season, but will likely be the odd-man out, since he's 28. For those who are not devotees of the game, NHL goaltenders don't usually reach their peak until they're 29 or 30. This bodes well.
Defense is not going to be a problem for the Kings either, per prior postings. Drew Doughty was a finalist for the Norris Trophy last season, awarded to the NHL's best defenseman. He's 20. Jack Johnson is a stud as well. He's 23. Doughty averaged over 24 minutes a game last season, and Johnson's average was over 22, Barring injury, both should keep the same form, and increase their minutes to 27 per game. That's about 55 man-minutes from two studs in their early 20s. There's only 120 man-minutes on defense in a game. There are no huge stars on the roster after those two, but Rob Scuderi is as solid as they get (20 minutes a game), and Sean O'Donnell can still get the job done (18 minutes). The Kings will still need to play some depth guys, but they won't need to play them much.
On right wing, they'll do fine. Team Captain Dustin Brown (age 25, 24 goals, 32 assists) is the sort of guy that the lack of has kept the Sharks from winning a cup; he led the league in hits last season, and makes a difference even when he's not scoring. Wayne Simmonds (age 20) came out of nowhere with 40 points last season and earned himself a spot on the second line. Justin Williams should be healthy again, and - when healthy - is a 30-goal scorer.
Left wing is a concern. Ryan Smyth is a bit long in the tooth (at 34), especially for the physical style of play he plays, but it was recently announced that he will remain captain of Team CANADA, so one would presume he's still got a little left. Like Brown, he's the sort of skate-through-a-wall kind of guy that makes the difference in crunch time. The supremely talented but extremely flaky Alex Frolov is leaving in free agency, but that might end up being addition by subtraction. The cupboard is pretty bare after that, which is why the Kings are in the lead to sign free agent Ilya Kovalchuk, who has been among the lead leaders in scoring for the last few years. We'll have to see how that goes.
At center, Anze Kopitar (age 22) led the Kings in scoring (34 goals, 47 assists). There was a time that he led the LEAGUE in scoring as well. He's only going to get better. Jarrett Stoll (age 28) is capable but not spectacular, as is Michal Handzus (age 34). They will chip a few in, play solid defense, and that's about it. At this point, the difference between the Kings and the teams that dominate the league is one more top-level center. Unfortunately, they don't grow on tree. Except in Pittsburgh, apparently.
All in all, expect the Kings to return to the playoffs next season. And the season after than. And the one after that.
For a lot of years, the Kings were not really worth following. They had serious problems, starting in the 90's when they were being "managed" by the McMaster of Disaster. They haven't been worth consideration for over a decade, notwithstanding the occasional playoff upset of a powerhouse like Detroit.
But they made the playoffs this season, and I'm actually excited about the King's prospects next season. A little while ago, they opened their eyes as an organization to one of the great truisms of sports. A team might be bad for a game or ten based on the players not coming through the way they're supposed to. A team might be bad for a month or ten if the coaching staff is not coming through the way they're supposed to. But if a team is bad for a year or ten, it's because the management and ownership are not coming through the way they're supposed to. I'll spare you examples of this, but trust me when I say there are MANY, and offer only the current halcyon exemplars: the Oakland Raiders, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the Baltimore Orioles.
The Kings seem to have realized that while they might not quite fall into that group, they weren't far above it, and under new ownership, did something about it. They went out and hired a guy to run the team who actually knew what he was going: Dean Lombardi, who was just coming off building the San Jose Sharks into perennial contenders. Not surprisingly, things started to turn around, and on much the same script, as Dean started building a new team, from the net forward, by drafting well, building a young core, and cherry-picking free agents based on character and need rather than on flash and flare.
For the first time in living memory, the Kings don't have a goaltending dilemma. The current starter, John Quick, was on the Team USA roster for the Olympics, and while not as good as the American starter (Ryan Miller), he deserved to be there. Excepting the number in the "wins" column, Quick's numbers were not overwhelming, but he was playing behind a young team under a new coach. More importantly, if you watched Kings games, you noticed Quick's habit of making big saves at the right time. Stopping breakaways or other great shots that would have been game-winners, kind of thing. Numbers aside, he made big saves when his team needed a big save, and that says a lot.
This is actually a bit of a problem, since Quick was not supposed to be this good. He was just supposed to be a temporary fix while the King's goalie of the future, John Bernier (the first draft pick made after Lombardi took the helm), got a little seasoning in the minors. Bernier saw only limited NHL action this season, but his numbers were spectacular (3-0-0, 1.30 goals against average, .957 save percentage). Moreover, he's been on a career track as a star, whereas - again - Quick kind of came out of nowhere. The end result is that the Kings could have a serious dilemma in goal, not in their usual fashion of trying to find a guy good enough to get wins, but in trying to decide which guy is the best guy to get wins. They also have a guy named Erik Ersberg who didn't play much, but who came through big when they needed him, and statistically was about as good as Quick.
Here's the kicker, which will be an ongoing theme on the Kings: they're all young. Quick is 24. Bernier is 21. Ersberg would be traded if there were not a glut on free-agent goaltenders this season, but will likely be the odd-man out, since he's 28. For those who are not devotees of the game, NHL goaltenders don't usually reach their peak until they're 29 or 30. This bodes well.
Defense is not going to be a problem for the Kings either, per prior postings. Drew Doughty was a finalist for the Norris Trophy last season, awarded to the NHL's best defenseman. He's 20. Jack Johnson is a stud as well. He's 23. Doughty averaged over 24 minutes a game last season, and Johnson's average was over 22, Barring injury, both should keep the same form, and increase their minutes to 27 per game. That's about 55 man-minutes from two studs in their early 20s. There's only 120 man-minutes on defense in a game. There are no huge stars on the roster after those two, but Rob Scuderi is as solid as they get (20 minutes a game), and Sean O'Donnell can still get the job done (18 minutes). The Kings will still need to play some depth guys, but they won't need to play them much.
On right wing, they'll do fine. Team Captain Dustin Brown (age 25, 24 goals, 32 assists) is the sort of guy that the lack of has kept the Sharks from winning a cup; he led the league in hits last season, and makes a difference even when he's not scoring. Wayne Simmonds (age 20) came out of nowhere with 40 points last season and earned himself a spot on the second line. Justin Williams should be healthy again, and - when healthy - is a 30-goal scorer.
Left wing is a concern. Ryan Smyth is a bit long in the tooth (at 34), especially for the physical style of play he plays, but it was recently announced that he will remain captain of Team CANADA, so one would presume he's still got a little left. Like Brown, he's the sort of skate-through-a-wall kind of guy that makes the difference in crunch time. The supremely talented but extremely flaky Alex Frolov is leaving in free agency, but that might end up being addition by subtraction. The cupboard is pretty bare after that, which is why the Kings are in the lead to sign free agent Ilya Kovalchuk, who has been among the lead leaders in scoring for the last few years. We'll have to see how that goes.
At center, Anze Kopitar (age 22) led the Kings in scoring (34 goals, 47 assists). There was a time that he led the LEAGUE in scoring as well. He's only going to get better. Jarrett Stoll (age 28) is capable but not spectacular, as is Michal Handzus (age 34). They will chip a few in, play solid defense, and that's about it. At this point, the difference between the Kings and the teams that dominate the league is one more top-level center. Unfortunately, they don't grow on tree. Except in Pittsburgh, apparently.
All in all, expect the Kings to return to the playoffs next season. And the season after than. And the one after that.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
I Wondered Where That Went...
I got an email from my dad this week, relating an interesting story. I'm pretty sure there aren't going to be any legal repercussions, since 1) any violated laws would be post facto, 2) there was no culpable intent, and 3) I would have been about 12 at the time of the at-issue events. Besides, the truth is the truth, I have no fear of it, and I think those of you who read this will find it amusing.
When I was between the ages of about 6 and 16, my family lived in Northern California, in a quiet little residential neighborhood. VERY quiet. Tree-lined streets. Four schools, two churches, a candy store, a pet store, and a public park all within easy walking distance. THAT kind of quiet. I haven't been back there more than a handful of times in the last 15 years, but of course I remember it well.
So I grew up there with my two brothers, SW and GL, in a house with a big yard. The time frame included our pre-teen and teenage years, and this was LONG before 9-11, way back when you could buy real-looking toy guns that didn't even have bright-orange muzzles. As a family with three boys, we had plenty of those, and all sorts of other things that modern soft sensitivities and political-correctness have long since eradicated from the face of the earth.
Of course me, my brothers, and our friends would get tired of soccer, tag, whiffle-ball, and other sports, and would chase each other around with toy knives/swords/guns, and re-enact scenes from GI Joe, Robotech, Thundercats, or whatever. We were active boys. We didn't even have cable, just pirate HBO on a wood-cabinet TV without a remote, and neither SW's Atari 2600 nor (later) my NES really captivated us that much.
But we did have all sorts of toys that got us outside and running around, and not just sports gear. Among the cool shit that we had, thanks to having the usual male fascination with Army/Navy surplus stores, was some stuff that could only questionably be called "toys." For example: dummy grenades. (Google it.) Which are, in fact, actual United States Military surplus hand grenades, lacking only fuses, primers, and explosives. They are just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. They look, feel, and ARE exactly like the real thing, except that they don't explode. Me and my brothers had a few of them, and they were BAD ASS. I've taken a quick look online, and looks like they're still legal to buy and own in most places, and are selling for about the same price that me, GL, and SW paid for ours, circa 1989: less than $10. In any rate, as pre-teen/teen boys, we were somewhat less than diligent about storage and/or maintenance of our toys - including our dummy grenades - which would routinely be lost, found, lost again, found again, etc. over the course of months and years. Perhaps you can see where this tale is going.
Fast forward to the present. My dad is still in touch with one of our old neighbors in that area, who told him that a few days ago, there was a bit of a ruckus at our old house. Police cars blocking the streets, a fire truck, two command vehicles, and a bomb-squad truck. (Although not huge, the town is rich from computer money, and has SPECTACULAR police and fire infrastructure. And there's a firehouse about 300 yards down the street from the house, by the way.)
Apparently, the family that now owns the house was digging in the flower-beds doing some re-planting (honestly, I bet I could guess the spot to within 5 yards), and unearthed what looked exactly like an unexploded hand grenade. It was just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. Unlike my parents, would would have just rolled their eyes, the current residents did not consider munition-handling to be a routine part of gardening. They were a bit concerned with what they had found, and responded appropriately. I have no doubt that it once belonged to me and my brothers, and had been lost in action in the course of one of the wars we fought in that yard. Yes: A toy grenade that me and my brothers lost 20 years ago was the cause of a scare in a quiet suburban town.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
I really do feel bad about this. While I have to say it is a bit funny, I'm sure it really scared the shit out of bunch of people, and wasted a few man-hours of police time to get it sorted out. That having been said, I really wish I could have the grenade back, as a keepsake from my childhood, and generally cool memento.
When I was between the ages of about 6 and 16, my family lived in Northern California, in a quiet little residential neighborhood. VERY quiet. Tree-lined streets. Four schools, two churches, a candy store, a pet store, and a public park all within easy walking distance. THAT kind of quiet. I haven't been back there more than a handful of times in the last 15 years, but of course I remember it well.
So I grew up there with my two brothers, SW and GL, in a house with a big yard. The time frame included our pre-teen and teenage years, and this was LONG before 9-11, way back when you could buy real-looking toy guns that didn't even have bright-orange muzzles. As a family with three boys, we had plenty of those, and all sorts of other things that modern soft sensitivities and political-correctness have long since eradicated from the face of the earth.
Of course me, my brothers, and our friends would get tired of soccer, tag, whiffle-ball, and other sports, and would chase each other around with toy knives/swords/guns, and re-enact scenes from GI Joe, Robotech, Thundercats, or whatever. We were active boys. We didn't even have cable, just pirate HBO on a wood-cabinet TV without a remote, and neither SW's Atari 2600 nor (later) my NES really captivated us that much.
But we did have all sorts of toys that got us outside and running around, and not just sports gear. Among the cool shit that we had, thanks to having the usual male fascination with Army/Navy surplus stores, was some stuff that could only questionably be called "toys." For example: dummy grenades. (Google it.) Which are, in fact, actual United States Military surplus hand grenades, lacking only fuses, primers, and explosives. They are just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. They look, feel, and ARE exactly like the real thing, except that they don't explode. Me and my brothers had a few of them, and they were BAD ASS. I've taken a quick look online, and looks like they're still legal to buy and own in most places, and are selling for about the same price that me, GL, and SW paid for ours, circa 1989: less than $10. In any rate, as pre-teen/teen boys, we were somewhat less than diligent about storage and/or maintenance of our toys - including our dummy grenades - which would routinely be lost, found, lost again, found again, etc. over the course of months and years. Perhaps you can see where this tale is going.
Fast forward to the present. My dad is still in touch with one of our old neighbors in that area, who told him that a few days ago, there was a bit of a ruckus at our old house. Police cars blocking the streets, a fire truck, two command vehicles, and a bomb-squad truck. (Although not huge, the town is rich from computer money, and has SPECTACULAR police and fire infrastructure. And there's a firehouse about 300 yards down the street from the house, by the way.)
Apparently, the family that now owns the house was digging in the flower-beds doing some re-planting (honestly, I bet I could guess the spot to within 5 yards), and unearthed what looked exactly like an unexploded hand grenade. It was just like the ones you see on TV, with a cast-iron "pineapple" fragmentation case, aluminum fuse-body and safety spoon, and a locking pin, complete with the steel pull-ring. Unlike my parents, would would have just rolled their eyes, the current residents did not consider munition-handling to be a routine part of gardening. They were a bit concerned with what they had found, and responded appropriately. I have no doubt that it once belonged to me and my brothers, and had been lost in action in the course of one of the wars we fought in that yard. Yes: A toy grenade that me and my brothers lost 20 years ago was the cause of a scare in a quiet suburban town.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
I really do feel bad about this. While I have to say it is a bit funny, I'm sure it really scared the shit out of bunch of people, and wasted a few man-hours of police time to get it sorted out. That having been said, I really wish I could have the grenade back, as a keepsake from my childhood, and generally cool memento.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Diax's Rake
With the sole exception of experience, intelligence is by far the most valuable commodity on the planet. This is due in large part to it being rare. That rarity is a bit of a mystery from a physics and chemistry standpoint. Aside from various congenital defects and instances of injury, most human brains are really very similar. While there are demonstrable physical differences between a healthy brain and one suffering from some sort of aphasia, the brains of most cardiothoracic surgeons are physically indistinguishable from the brains of most convenience store clerks. And if the subjects are both male, odds are that both of them spend about equal amounts of time thinking with (or about) their dicks. So it seems a bit odd that we’ll trust one to cut open a chest and fiddle with our internal organs, while we don’t trust the other to give us correct change for a Slurpee.
There are certain instances where unusual brain chemistry and neurotransmitter functions rig the game (google “synaptic plasticity”), creating people with photographic or eidetic memories. There are also ways to cheat at the intelligence game. This notably includes studying, but that’s a lot of work, beyond the interest of most people. But if you’re willing to make an effort, there are all sorts of cool things you can do with information media, mnemonics, and mental constructs (google “memory palace”) to capitalize on the generally holographic functioning of human thoughts and memory. Properly used (or even used at all), they can make you a lot smarter. Pretty much everybody’s brain will have some form of input that it prefers, and if you can figure out how your brain best absorbs and organizes information, you can suddenly get drastically smarter than you might have thought possible. Or at least you’ll be able to make yourself look a lot smarter to people around you, which is almost the same thing.
But most of that applies to abstract knowledge and information, not day to day functionality. By and large, I think day-to-day intelligence boils down to simply paying attention. The sad fact is that the vast majority of people - including doctors and lawyers at least as much as gas station attendants - spend a sizable portion of their lives staring off into space, not paying attention to what’s going on around them, and/or unable to hear ANYTHING over the should of how awesome they are. In The Rules, this is referred to as “The Star Of The Show” phenomenon. People stop and have conversations in the entryways of major department stores, not only not caring that they’re blocking the sole entrance to a 40,000 square foot establishment, but not even noticing that there are people walking the earth other than their own all-important selves. People wait in line at Starbucks, thinking evil thoughts about how long the people in line ahead of them are taking, and then get to the front of the line, and need to take a few moments to decide just what they want. Oh, and then dig into their pockets or purses for another minute, since they are going to have to pay, aren’t they? Just a second please, while they fill out a check.
Today, while I was attempting to order a double-double during the lunch rush, the line of 8 people got held up for literally two minutes, because the guy at the head of the line didn’t have quite enough money to pay for his order. He was trying to summon his wife over to the counter, so she could make up the difference. They had a yelling conversation across the restaurant, while she refused to leave the table she had staked out, for fear that someone else would take it while they went through the hassle of actually PAYING for the food they were hoping to enjoy there. I’m not just making this shit up, and I’m sure that everyone who’s reading this has a few anecdotal gems to share. People who send text messages while driving. Customer service “specialists” who don’t know a goddamn thing about how their own business works, and are completely incapable of addressing the situation you’re presenting, except to assure you that “your business is very important to us.” Whatever.
And we all do it. We can’t help it. We all have those moments where we space out and do stupid shit that needlessly delays, halts, or complicates the lives of those around us. It’s genetic: we’re human. Really, the best we can hope for is to have fewer and shorter spells in that mindset than those around us.
The truth is that if you can consistently manage to be just a little smarter than those around you, pretty much everything in life gets much, MUCH easier. You get through airport security much more easily if you’ve already untied your shoes, and tucked your wallet, watch, belt, and cellphone into the luggage going through the scanner. You can do all that BEFORE you get in line, you know. Really. You don’t need to wait until you’re standing at the metal detector before realizing that the change in your pocket is a problem, and could just as easily be jingling inside the pocket of your carry-on.
Heavy traffic is a lot easier to negotiate when you put away your cell-phone, turn off the radio, and actually pay attention to what’s going on around you. Indeed, if you’re paying attention, pretty much any instance of moving among the masses from Point A to Point B becomes a matter of finding the best ways to side-step any given knot of people (read: idiots) who almost always have only general idea where they’re going, and not much thought or imagination at all about how they’re going to get there.
When I have kids, the first and foremost lesson that I will teach them is to try to be just a little bit smarter than the people around then. They don’t have to be brilliant or exceptional. They don’t need to be superstars. Hell, they’re even entitled to their allotted moments of pig-headed stupidity, same as everyone else. But being successful in any given field of endeavor, and in life in general, is as simple as just being, on average, a little tiny bit smarter and more on the ball than the competition. And it’s really not all that hard. Look around, for Christ’s sake. You telling me that it’s really that tough to rise above what you see?
Life is about problem-solving. So be better than average. You don’t need to be great, just better than the people around you. You just need to be smart enough to notice what’s actually happening, instead of just thinking about what you wish were happening. You need to be able to come up with some rational explanatory theory for problems and situations you must deal with (Occam’s Razor is usually a good place to start, with “user error” and/or “human stupidity” as the go-to explanations). Then you need to be able to come up with a plan to solve the analyzed problem (or at least a plan to remedy the at-issue symptom). And it needs to be a workable, simple plan, not whatever it is that James Bond or Walker, Texas Ranger, would do.
It helps if you can also come through with occasional flashes of brilliance, especially in clutch moments. You know: those bits of work-product that make eyebrows rise, and people say “wow, that’s good shit.” Turns out that if demonstrate the ability to come through with absolutely spectacular results in your field, you will only actually have to do so once or twice in any given work year. And in the meantime, you will be able to get away with vastly more bullshit and slacking than colleagues or co-workers who can’t or don’t come through with those sorts of gems.
But other than that, you only want to be a LITTLE smarter than people around you. Not a LOT smarter, since that leads to a whole other set of problems. You end up with Dr. Temperance Brennan and Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D., type characters. You know; those dumb fucks who think that people mean the actual words they say. (“You have a ‘Sarcasm’ sign?”) Not so good. So I’m not talking mutant-smart here. Just Yogi, smarter-than-the-average-bear type. The one who sees the world a little better, while not just seeing numbers. Donald Trump, not Alan Greenspan.
It’s also important not to be so smart that you can’t get away with playing dumb. Because in terms of practical utility, acting convincingly dumb ranks just behind being consistently smart. It’s a great card to be able to play, and it will almost always work, especially if you can also throw in an admission that it’s your fault, and that you’ll do whatever it takes to make things right. The best way that I’ve found to get out of a jam is to simply fall on my sword and admit to the boss/opposing counsel/the court that, hey, I kinda fucked this up, can I have a mulligan? It’s DEFINITELY not something that you can overplay without consequences, but shit happens both because of things we do, and in spite of things we do. Playing dumb and/or admitting dumbness will get you through a lot of shit, especially if you don’t have to do it very often. Never underestimate people’s willingness to occasionally forgive you when presented with an opportunity to do so magnanimously and from on-high. And don’t get me wrong if I’m presenting this as an easy or fun out. Because it’s not. It’s actually pretty humiliating acting dumb and/or admitting that you’ve been dumb. But it works. It’s nice when people think highly of you, and that you’re clever and on the ball. Really, it’s very flattering. But it’s a hell of a lot more useful when the other guy thinks you’re an idiot.
Those are lessons I will instill in my children: just pay a bit more attention than people around you, and you will get most things right. When you get something wrong, and have been caught at it, just admit you’re wrong, and make it right.
As an incidental point, these lessons to my prospective children will be followed by a closely related lesson: the best way to live a life free of serious strife, worry, or work is to go into a field based on and driven by human idiocy, insecurity, or greed. Law. Politics. Mass media. Insurance. Psychology. Medicine. Those fields will ALWAYS be growth industries, by simple operation of scalar economics: there is no conceivable limit on mankind’s ability to cause needless strife, blow things out of proportion, need bailing out, and/or need hearing that things are going to be okay, and it’s not their fault. If you can get into any of those fields, and still be just a little smarter than the people around you, you’re going to do okay. The philistines will rob each other blind to pay you your salary.
Lots of people like to spout philosophical drivel about the point where the angel meets the ape. For my part, I’m more interested getting and keeping me and my family fed and happy. And it’s really not that tough to live well and be happy.
There are certain instances where unusual brain chemistry and neurotransmitter functions rig the game (google “synaptic plasticity”), creating people with photographic or eidetic memories. There are also ways to cheat at the intelligence game. This notably includes studying, but that’s a lot of work, beyond the interest of most people. But if you’re willing to make an effort, there are all sorts of cool things you can do with information media, mnemonics, and mental constructs (google “memory palace”) to capitalize on the generally holographic functioning of human thoughts and memory. Properly used (or even used at all), they can make you a lot smarter. Pretty much everybody’s brain will have some form of input that it prefers, and if you can figure out how your brain best absorbs and organizes information, you can suddenly get drastically smarter than you might have thought possible. Or at least you’ll be able to make yourself look a lot smarter to people around you, which is almost the same thing.
But most of that applies to abstract knowledge and information, not day to day functionality. By and large, I think day-to-day intelligence boils down to simply paying attention. The sad fact is that the vast majority of people - including doctors and lawyers at least as much as gas station attendants - spend a sizable portion of their lives staring off into space, not paying attention to what’s going on around them, and/or unable to hear ANYTHING over the should of how awesome they are. In The Rules, this is referred to as “The Star Of The Show” phenomenon. People stop and have conversations in the entryways of major department stores, not only not caring that they’re blocking the sole entrance to a 40,000 square foot establishment, but not even noticing that there are people walking the earth other than their own all-important selves. People wait in line at Starbucks, thinking evil thoughts about how long the people in line ahead of them are taking, and then get to the front of the line, and need to take a few moments to decide just what they want. Oh, and then dig into their pockets or purses for another minute, since they are going to have to pay, aren’t they? Just a second please, while they fill out a check.
Today, while I was attempting to order a double-double during the lunch rush, the line of 8 people got held up for literally two minutes, because the guy at the head of the line didn’t have quite enough money to pay for his order. He was trying to summon his wife over to the counter, so she could make up the difference. They had a yelling conversation across the restaurant, while she refused to leave the table she had staked out, for fear that someone else would take it while they went through the hassle of actually PAYING for the food they were hoping to enjoy there. I’m not just making this shit up, and I’m sure that everyone who’s reading this has a few anecdotal gems to share. People who send text messages while driving. Customer service “specialists” who don’t know a goddamn thing about how their own business works, and are completely incapable of addressing the situation you’re presenting, except to assure you that “your business is very important to us.” Whatever.
And we all do it. We can’t help it. We all have those moments where we space out and do stupid shit that needlessly delays, halts, or complicates the lives of those around us. It’s genetic: we’re human. Really, the best we can hope for is to have fewer and shorter spells in that mindset than those around us.
The truth is that if you can consistently manage to be just a little smarter than those around you, pretty much everything in life gets much, MUCH easier. You get through airport security much more easily if you’ve already untied your shoes, and tucked your wallet, watch, belt, and cellphone into the luggage going through the scanner. You can do all that BEFORE you get in line, you know. Really. You don’t need to wait until you’re standing at the metal detector before realizing that the change in your pocket is a problem, and could just as easily be jingling inside the pocket of your carry-on.
Heavy traffic is a lot easier to negotiate when you put away your cell-phone, turn off the radio, and actually pay attention to what’s going on around you. Indeed, if you’re paying attention, pretty much any instance of moving among the masses from Point A to Point B becomes a matter of finding the best ways to side-step any given knot of people (read: idiots) who almost always have only general idea where they’re going, and not much thought or imagination at all about how they’re going to get there.
When I have kids, the first and foremost lesson that I will teach them is to try to be just a little bit smarter than the people around then. They don’t have to be brilliant or exceptional. They don’t need to be superstars. Hell, they’re even entitled to their allotted moments of pig-headed stupidity, same as everyone else. But being successful in any given field of endeavor, and in life in general, is as simple as just being, on average, a little tiny bit smarter and more on the ball than the competition. And it’s really not all that hard. Look around, for Christ’s sake. You telling me that it’s really that tough to rise above what you see?
Life is about problem-solving. So be better than average. You don’t need to be great, just better than the people around you. You just need to be smart enough to notice what’s actually happening, instead of just thinking about what you wish were happening. You need to be able to come up with some rational explanatory theory for problems and situations you must deal with (Occam’s Razor is usually a good place to start, with “user error” and/or “human stupidity” as the go-to explanations). Then you need to be able to come up with a plan to solve the analyzed problem (or at least a plan to remedy the at-issue symptom). And it needs to be a workable, simple plan, not whatever it is that James Bond or Walker, Texas Ranger, would do.
It helps if you can also come through with occasional flashes of brilliance, especially in clutch moments. You know: those bits of work-product that make eyebrows rise, and people say “wow, that’s good shit.” Turns out that if demonstrate the ability to come through with absolutely spectacular results in your field, you will only actually have to do so once or twice in any given work year. And in the meantime, you will be able to get away with vastly more bullshit and slacking than colleagues or co-workers who can’t or don’t come through with those sorts of gems.
But other than that, you only want to be a LITTLE smarter than people around you. Not a LOT smarter, since that leads to a whole other set of problems. You end up with Dr. Temperance Brennan and Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D., type characters. You know; those dumb fucks who think that people mean the actual words they say. (“You have a ‘Sarcasm’ sign?”) Not so good. So I’m not talking mutant-smart here. Just Yogi, smarter-than-the-average-bear type. The one who sees the world a little better, while not just seeing numbers. Donald Trump, not Alan Greenspan.
It’s also important not to be so smart that you can’t get away with playing dumb. Because in terms of practical utility, acting convincingly dumb ranks just behind being consistently smart. It’s a great card to be able to play, and it will almost always work, especially if you can also throw in an admission that it’s your fault, and that you’ll do whatever it takes to make things right. The best way that I’ve found to get out of a jam is to simply fall on my sword and admit to the boss/opposing counsel/the court that, hey, I kinda fucked this up, can I have a mulligan? It’s DEFINITELY not something that you can overplay without consequences, but shit happens both because of things we do, and in spite of things we do. Playing dumb and/or admitting dumbness will get you through a lot of shit, especially if you don’t have to do it very often. Never underestimate people’s willingness to occasionally forgive you when presented with an opportunity to do so magnanimously and from on-high. And don’t get me wrong if I’m presenting this as an easy or fun out. Because it’s not. It’s actually pretty humiliating acting dumb and/or admitting that you’ve been dumb. But it works. It’s nice when people think highly of you, and that you’re clever and on the ball. Really, it’s very flattering. But it’s a hell of a lot more useful when the other guy thinks you’re an idiot.
Those are lessons I will instill in my children: just pay a bit more attention than people around you, and you will get most things right. When you get something wrong, and have been caught at it, just admit you’re wrong, and make it right.
As an incidental point, these lessons to my prospective children will be followed by a closely related lesson: the best way to live a life free of serious strife, worry, or work is to go into a field based on and driven by human idiocy, insecurity, or greed. Law. Politics. Mass media. Insurance. Psychology. Medicine. Those fields will ALWAYS be growth industries, by simple operation of scalar economics: there is no conceivable limit on mankind’s ability to cause needless strife, blow things out of proportion, need bailing out, and/or need hearing that things are going to be okay, and it’s not their fault. If you can get into any of those fields, and still be just a little smarter than the people around you, you’re going to do okay. The philistines will rob each other blind to pay you your salary.
Lots of people like to spout philosophical drivel about the point where the angel meets the ape. For my part, I’m more interested getting and keeping me and my family fed and happy. And it’s really not that tough to live well and be happy.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Ramblings. Mostly on Sports.
I've been told that I need to write about something other than politics. Which is a bit problematic for me these days, since a lot of the things that piss me off and get me thinking fall into the general categories of 'politics,' 'economic,' and 'human stupidity.' Which, as above, I'm supposed to try and avoid writing about.
Apparently, the end result of being barred from writing about anything is that I don't really write about ANYTHING. So time to get back on the horse, and failing a specific subject, I shall simply ramble. Mostly about sports.
FIRST: I remember way back when, in the early 90s, the Chicago Blackhawks had by far the best power-play in the known universe. They were scoring shitbags of goals, even in an era were GAAs hovered around 4.0. I remember some (non-Chicago) coach being asked about it, and the coach in question responded, "Yeah, if I had Gary Suter and Chris Chelios running the points on my powerplay, we'd be pretty good too."
I remembered this statement while watching Game 3 of the VAN/LAS playoff series on monday. The Kings powerplay went 3 for 3 that night. The LONGEST amount of penalty time that passed with a man in the box before they scored was about 43 seconds. In game 1, they were 2 for 3 on the powerplay. They only scored 2 powerplay goals (in 6 opportunities) in Game 2, making them 7 for 12 for the series. Yes, the worst game they had so far involved only 2 power play goals. Their conversation rate for the series: Over 50%. That is OBSCENE. Especially since Vancouver is not bad at all. Their goalie was the starter for Canada's Olympic Gold Medal team. (He got pulled in the second period in Game 3.) Henrik Sedin led the NHL in scoring during the regular season. He's got no goals and three assists IN THE SERIES.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson are REALLY good. So long as they are standing at the points, the Kings powerplay is right up there with the best in ability to score. And so long as those guys are playing 25 minutes a night, a lot of big-money scorers are going to hate playing against the Kings.
I really don't think the Kings have what it takes to make a serious cup push this season. While Anze Kopitar is quickly becoming a elite-level center, they still lack the sort of scoring winger who will rifle in the clutch goals. (Expect GM Dean Lombardi to do something about that; he was the guy who brought Joe Thornton to SJ.) Right now, the Kings remind me of DET during the early years of the Yzerman era; the core is CLEARLY there, but they still need a few pieces.
SECOND: The NFL Draft is tomorrow. In prime time. Which I'm not a believer in, but what the hell. I admit to being way on the outside, but this looks like another Manning/Leaf dichotomy year, which will necessarily result in heads rolling in the front office of whoever ends up on the wrong side of that coin. While there will be 1 or 2 QBs touted QBs who shine, there will also be 1 or 2 touted QBs who bust, perhaps catestrophically.
My personal feeling, which I know is worthless, is that Sam Bradford is not going to be a star in the NFL. Nor is Tim Tebow. Both of them spent their entire collegiate careers playing substandard competition: running up the scores against Cupcake State and Whatsamatta U. Bradford spent his career calmly scanning the field for receivers while his All-American offensive line cracked heads in front of him. He has never had to deal with edge rushers beating the snap into the backfield. It will not be an easy transition. Tebow has never had success against pro-style defenses even in college, and has certainly never had to face tacklers as big, as fast, and as athletic as he is. Neither of them have had to deal with serious adversity at any point in their lives. All that is going to change, and I don't think it's going to be an easy transition.
If I had to take a QB this time around, it's be Clausen. Lots of starts playing in a pro-style offense, where the talent around him was good, but not leaps-and-bounds better than the guys on the other side of the ball. He might not have the numbers of the others, but the numbers that he does have seem a lot more likely to continue at the next level.
THIRD: I'm looking forward to beer and hotdogs in the sun at Minor League baseball games this summer. I'm not a fan of baseball. But I do like beer, hotdogs, and sunny days.
FOURTH: I frequently consider that, as a professional mercenary, my workload would drop by about 30% if there were even a slight increase in net human IQ. I spent pretty much all day today reviewing corporate records in a defamation and business tort case; over 1,200 pages, each requiring individual review for significance. Nearing the bottom of the stack, and none of the pages that I've seen have any immediately apparent relevance to any damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Yes, it is billable, but it would be nice if it were even a little bit PRODUCTIVE as well.
My other notable task today: dealing with a Plaintiff in a resolved case, who keeps calling my office. This is about the fourth time he's called, even though the message is always the same: "I'm sorry, [HT] cannot speak with you. Even though the formal lawsuit is resolved, you are represented by counsel for this affair. [HT] is required by law to limit communications to your counsel. If you have ongoing concerns, they need to be addressed through your own attorney."
I'm setting the over/under for about three days before he tries calling me again. While this is an even bigger waste of time than review of random documents, I do find it moderately amusing. I mean seriously, so far as he's concerned I'M THE BAD GUY! Neither he nor his attorney did their job in presenting his case. He was pretty much required to accept token settlement on the eve of trial, when it became apparent just how badly I going to beat him. At this point, months later, I know that he thinks his own attorney is trying to screw him. But he spent about $20,000 of other peoples' money trying to screw MY client (and doing a bad job in those attempts, to boot), so I can't figure out why he thinks that I would be even a little bit sympathetic to his plight. I mean really, WTF?
All for now. Gotta go walk my dog.
Apparently, the end result of being barred from writing about anything is that I don't really write about ANYTHING. So time to get back on the horse, and failing a specific subject, I shall simply ramble. Mostly about sports.
FIRST: I remember way back when, in the early 90s, the Chicago Blackhawks had by far the best power-play in the known universe. They were scoring shitbags of goals, even in an era were GAAs hovered around 4.0. I remember some (non-Chicago) coach being asked about it, and the coach in question responded, "Yeah, if I had Gary Suter and Chris Chelios running the points on my powerplay, we'd be pretty good too."
I remembered this statement while watching Game 3 of the VAN/LAS playoff series on monday. The Kings powerplay went 3 for 3 that night. The LONGEST amount of penalty time that passed with a man in the box before they scored was about 43 seconds. In game 1, they were 2 for 3 on the powerplay. They only scored 2 powerplay goals (in 6 opportunities) in Game 2, making them 7 for 12 for the series. Yes, the worst game they had so far involved only 2 power play goals. Their conversation rate for the series: Over 50%. That is OBSCENE. Especially since Vancouver is not bad at all. Their goalie was the starter for Canada's Olympic Gold Medal team. (He got pulled in the second period in Game 3.) Henrik Sedin led the NHL in scoring during the regular season. He's got no goals and three assists IN THE SERIES.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson are REALLY good. So long as they are standing at the points, the Kings powerplay is right up there with the best in ability to score. And so long as those guys are playing 25 minutes a night, a lot of big-money scorers are going to hate playing against the Kings.
I really don't think the Kings have what it takes to make a serious cup push this season. While Anze Kopitar is quickly becoming a elite-level center, they still lack the sort of scoring winger who will rifle in the clutch goals. (Expect GM Dean Lombardi to do something about that; he was the guy who brought Joe Thornton to SJ.) Right now, the Kings remind me of DET during the early years of the Yzerman era; the core is CLEARLY there, but they still need a few pieces.
SECOND: The NFL Draft is tomorrow. In prime time. Which I'm not a believer in, but what the hell. I admit to being way on the outside, but this looks like another Manning/Leaf dichotomy year, which will necessarily result in heads rolling in the front office of whoever ends up on the wrong side of that coin. While there will be 1 or 2 QBs touted QBs who shine, there will also be 1 or 2 touted QBs who bust, perhaps catestrophically.
My personal feeling, which I know is worthless, is that Sam Bradford is not going to be a star in the NFL. Nor is Tim Tebow. Both of them spent their entire collegiate careers playing substandard competition: running up the scores against Cupcake State and Whatsamatta U. Bradford spent his career calmly scanning the field for receivers while his All-American offensive line cracked heads in front of him. He has never had to deal with edge rushers beating the snap into the backfield. It will not be an easy transition. Tebow has never had success against pro-style defenses even in college, and has certainly never had to face tacklers as big, as fast, and as athletic as he is. Neither of them have had to deal with serious adversity at any point in their lives. All that is going to change, and I don't think it's going to be an easy transition.
If I had to take a QB this time around, it's be Clausen. Lots of starts playing in a pro-style offense, where the talent around him was good, but not leaps-and-bounds better than the guys on the other side of the ball. He might not have the numbers of the others, but the numbers that he does have seem a lot more likely to continue at the next level.
THIRD: I'm looking forward to beer and hotdogs in the sun at Minor League baseball games this summer. I'm not a fan of baseball. But I do like beer, hotdogs, and sunny days.
FOURTH: I frequently consider that, as a professional mercenary, my workload would drop by about 30% if there were even a slight increase in net human IQ. I spent pretty much all day today reviewing corporate records in a defamation and business tort case; over 1,200 pages, each requiring individual review for significance. Nearing the bottom of the stack, and none of the pages that I've seen have any immediately apparent relevance to any damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Yes, it is billable, but it would be nice if it were even a little bit PRODUCTIVE as well.
My other notable task today: dealing with a Plaintiff in a resolved case, who keeps calling my office. This is about the fourth time he's called, even though the message is always the same: "I'm sorry, [HT] cannot speak with you. Even though the formal lawsuit is resolved, you are represented by counsel for this affair. [HT] is required by law to limit communications to your counsel. If you have ongoing concerns, they need to be addressed through your own attorney."
I'm setting the over/under for about three days before he tries calling me again. While this is an even bigger waste of time than review of random documents, I do find it moderately amusing. I mean seriously, so far as he's concerned I'M THE BAD GUY! Neither he nor his attorney did their job in presenting his case. He was pretty much required to accept token settlement on the eve of trial, when it became apparent just how badly I going to beat him. At this point, months later, I know that he thinks his own attorney is trying to screw him. But he spent about $20,000 of other peoples' money trying to screw MY client (and doing a bad job in those attempts, to boot), so I can't figure out why he thinks that I would be even a little bit sympathetic to his plight. I mean really, WTF?
All for now. Gotta go walk my dog.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Did I really hear that?
I did promise somebody that I'd be blogging about non-political issues. And I shall. But I can't help myself on this one, and have to get it out. Non-political thoughts to follow later this week, time permitting, and I'll try to keep this one brief.
I took a little road-trip over the weekend, through largely uninhabited country, and to pass the time, I ended up hitting 'SCAN' an awful lot on the AM band. The end result was that I spent most of the drive alternately listening to conservative pundits bashing liberals without really addressing any issues, and - when that station faded over the horizon - then listening to liberal pundits bashing conservatives without really addressing any issues. It was moderately humorous, actually. But notwithstanding entirely too much time listening to that shit, there's really only three things that stuck.
First, every single one of those people think entirely too highly of themselves. And coming from me, I think that's a pretty bold statement. Especially Mike Savage. I gotta say that he seemed to have both the best spin and the most sweat-of-the-brow invested in his message; if you disagree, call in and prove him wrong, and regardless of whether you agree or not, THINK. I can get behind that. But he still sounds like the most arrogant, ego-centric guy on the face of the planet. Would love to have a beer with that guy sometime.
Second, both the conservatives and liberal pundits have sold their marketing souls to gold brokers. Although diametrically opposed on every other point, pretty much everyone at either extreme of the spectrum has been paid sufficient funds to personally endorse the idea that you and I should buy gold as an investment. Further, we'd be wasting our time buying from anyone except Their Guy. I can see how the conservatives can sell this idea with a straight-face, since an intrinsic part of the far-right platform is that Barack, smiling all the way, is leading us to financial disaster. But I wonder how the liberals can talk about how Barack, smiling all the way, is going to lead us to economic recovery, while still suggesting that gold (whose worth is relatively static in the face of economic prosperity or decline) is a wise investment. Whatever.
The third thing that really stuck was when uber-liberal Randi Rhodes indicated that, in event of global economic meltdown, her plan was to prostitute herself. Up to that point, she was scoring against the idiotic marketing of "survival seeds" or some other such idiocy during Glen Beck's conservative radio show. I'm sure you can imagine the ad spot: "In event of global disaster, non-hybrid viable plants seeds could be more valuable than gold! Buy today, only $150 for enough to plant an acre!" No, this is not an exaggeration of the propagation of paranoia presented in the advertisement. One really would think that Beck should've vetoed that sponsor, or at least required them to pay him enough that he could retire.
But in the course of her criticism, Ms. Rhodes openly stated that in event of global financial meltdown, she already had her own personal "survival garden" between her legs. The implication was that she would simply resort to the Oldest Profession to make ends meet. (Of course, this assumes that she's already exhausted the reserves of gold that she's bought from Her Guy, through some prior exchange of cash, goods, or services.) It struck me that if anyone else on the face of the planet affirmatively suggested that a woman resort to prostitution for survival, Randi would be at the head of the pack of people bearing torches and pitchforks. But - as with racism - sexism is apparently only a sin when somebody else is doing it. I found this to be amusing, in a tragic sort of way.
Having returned to civilization (relatively speaking), I couldn't help myself, and took a look at Randi, just out of curiosity. Having done so, I really hope that in the event of economic catastrophe, Randi has a Plan B, since I think she's probably going to need it.
I took a little road-trip over the weekend, through largely uninhabited country, and to pass the time, I ended up hitting 'SCAN' an awful lot on the AM band. The end result was that I spent most of the drive alternately listening to conservative pundits bashing liberals without really addressing any issues, and - when that station faded over the horizon - then listening to liberal pundits bashing conservatives without really addressing any issues. It was moderately humorous, actually. But notwithstanding entirely too much time listening to that shit, there's really only three things that stuck.
First, every single one of those people think entirely too highly of themselves. And coming from me, I think that's a pretty bold statement. Especially Mike Savage. I gotta say that he seemed to have both the best spin and the most sweat-of-the-brow invested in his message; if you disagree, call in and prove him wrong, and regardless of whether you agree or not, THINK. I can get behind that. But he still sounds like the most arrogant, ego-centric guy on the face of the planet. Would love to have a beer with that guy sometime.
Second, both the conservatives and liberal pundits have sold their marketing souls to gold brokers. Although diametrically opposed on every other point, pretty much everyone at either extreme of the spectrum has been paid sufficient funds to personally endorse the idea that you and I should buy gold as an investment. Further, we'd be wasting our time buying from anyone except Their Guy. I can see how the conservatives can sell this idea with a straight-face, since an intrinsic part of the far-right platform is that Barack, smiling all the way, is leading us to financial disaster. But I wonder how the liberals can talk about how Barack, smiling all the way, is going to lead us to economic recovery, while still suggesting that gold (whose worth is relatively static in the face of economic prosperity or decline) is a wise investment. Whatever.
The third thing that really stuck was when uber-liberal Randi Rhodes indicated that, in event of global economic meltdown, her plan was to prostitute herself. Up to that point, she was scoring against the idiotic marketing of "survival seeds" or some other such idiocy during Glen Beck's conservative radio show. I'm sure you can imagine the ad spot: "In event of global disaster, non-hybrid viable plants seeds could be more valuable than gold! Buy today, only $150 for enough to plant an acre!" No, this is not an exaggeration of the propagation of paranoia presented in the advertisement. One really would think that Beck should've vetoed that sponsor, or at least required them to pay him enough that he could retire.
But in the course of her criticism, Ms. Rhodes openly stated that in event of global financial meltdown, she already had her own personal "survival garden" between her legs. The implication was that she would simply resort to the Oldest Profession to make ends meet. (Of course, this assumes that she's already exhausted the reserves of gold that she's bought from Her Guy, through some prior exchange of cash, goods, or services.) It struck me that if anyone else on the face of the planet affirmatively suggested that a woman resort to prostitution for survival, Randi would be at the head of the pack of people bearing torches and pitchforks. But - as with racism - sexism is apparently only a sin when somebody else is doing it. I found this to be amusing, in a tragic sort of way.
Having returned to civilization (relatively speaking), I couldn't help myself, and took a look at Randi, just out of curiosity. Having done so, I really hope that in the event of economic catastrophe, Randi has a Plan B, since I think she's probably going to need it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)