Bad Influences

I notice that my movie and TV viewing habits have changed substantially. Most notably, I actually watch movies and TV. This is a change for me, since I literally did not have even basic cable TV literally for years. I got a few local networks on open-air broadcasts (I did buy a digital converter box), and if I adjusted the antenna right, I could also catch the occasional soccer game on the Spanish Channel. But watch TV? Me? Kinda not so much. Until the last few months or so.

I have to admit, there is some good stuff on. And a lot of it is on DVD. Even now, I spend a lot more time watching re-runs on DVD and/or Netflix (Weeds, Lost, Bones) than I do watching live TV (pretty much limited to True Blood and Rules of Engagement). Baby steps, you know. Gotta build up my tolerance to it. Especially since most TV these days not just INCLUDES general douche-baggery (as addressed below), but instead seems to be BASED on general douche-baggery. The fact the Jersey Shore has the kind of following it does really speaks volumes about our culture. Have you seen 'Idiocracy?' Does the society portrayed in that movie really seem that far-fetched or over the top?

I've also been watching a lot of romantic comedies lately, since both The Woman and I enjoy laughs. I have no problem with watching romantic comedies, actually. They are generally funny and entertaining and appropriately mindless for casual lounging on evenings and weekends. No denying the amusement value. But I have to say that I fundamentally object to the general theme of the modern romantic comedy. The universal storyline of those movies seems to be 1) guy meets girl 2) guy acts like a douche-bag (intentionally or incidentally) 3) guy loses girl 4) guy sees the error of his ways 5) guy makes a further ass of himself apologizing in some endearing fashion 6) guy gets girl back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I go down my mental list of romantic comedies, and I really can't think of a single notable instance where the GIRL is the one who fucks things up, and ends up falling on her sword to get the guy back. I'm sure those movies are out there. But I can't think of them. And remembering movies is generally something that I'm pretty good at.

There is a certain amount of reality in what we seen on TV and movies. There is a lot of douche-baggery in the world, and some of it is really fucking funny. Moreover, guys DO act like jackasses, and nonetheless still get The Girl. I have no intention of stopping or changing my TV or movie viewing habits. But that having been said, I'm not sure any children of mine will be allowed to watch these sorts of shows and/or movies, at least until they're in their teens. Seriously. Because unlike the usual material that parents tend to object to (movies or shows about crime, violence, etc.), the people in these lowest-common-denominator shows and/or romantic comedies are not in settings or situations where their behavior is clearly fantasy. For example: rather than being set in jungles or battlefields or outer space, romantic comedies are set in normal day-to-day places, with actors who tend to look and act like everyday people. Except that the storyline has the guys overtly (and often intentionally) acting like jackasses, making fools of themselves, and the women in question sometimes acting even worse, and almost always forgiving the douche-bag(s) for their behavior and taking them back.

I think it's funny that a parent wouldn't let their kid watch action or horror movies because swearing and violence are 'bad influences' on their kids, but might have no problem with their kid watching programming where infidelity, intoxication, lying, and/or general douche-baggery are central points of the storyline. Maybe this has something to do with the sorts of entertainment that appears on TV and in movies these days. Again, is a true Idiocracy really that far-fetched?

Resumes

I got this today as a forwarded email. Best thing I've seen since the mass email a while back comparing Condoleeza Rice to Martin Sheen, about who's best qualified to opine on national policy. This one clearly focuses on the military angle:

General Stanley McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart , Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable.
Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008


The wrong guy resigned.

I'm a big believer in the idea of civilian leadership of the military, since the overwhelming majority of national revolutions start as a military coup d'etat. But at the same time, I really wish the United States Military would at least make some more noise. After all, their oaths are to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the administration, and I have to believe that dissatisfaction with the administration and its policies (as expressed by McChrystal) are FAR more widespread among people in uniform than most of the civilian populace would believe. Which is worrisome, if you step back and take a look at history, both in the long-view, and in recent development. There are wheels within wheels, rolling forward, and with some ominous signs.

Take this, for example: A lot of what the military does these days is domestic supervision and civil rights enforcement. "Police actions." Expert efforts by armed men to compel a populace to toe a line set by a government that the populace will now live under. American national policy in response to terrorism has become to conquer "rogue states" and set up republics, with the hope that the local people suddenly overcome generations of torture, coercion, and repression to step up, participate, and toe the line. And the military stays there until they do, killing dissidents and counter-revolutionaries as necessary.

Currently, the military is tasked with supporting several national transitions from totalitarian regimes to republic nations, with armed men on hand to enforce the rights of the populace. The United States military has had a couple practice runs at making it happen: Iraq, Afghanistan, and handful of Central American dictatorships. I see the possibility that they might just be warming up for the Main Event, inside our national borders. Overseeing a political transition here on the home front. Of course, the Law forbids such things. Posse Comitatus. But whatever; those are just words in books.

There is, of course, the very likely chance that elections are going to provide the necessary relief without the need for any "police actions" here locally. But is that correction of the problem, or just a new group of people at the wheel of a Federal Machine running out of control? This is just me talking, of course, but history suggests the inevitability of a nation deploying military forces internally, against the nation's own populace. It hasn't happened in the United States, not in any large degree, at least. But we've only been around for about 250 years. We haven't reached that critical mass of national political/civil clusterfuck where something has to give between the demands of the government and the desires (rights?) of the people. Yet. But again, history suggests the inevitability. It took centuries, but the Legions did eventually march into Rome. And to great fanfare from the populace. I see that as a possibility.

The flip side of the coin is that, while they have been acting to support the rights of people against totalitarianism, the United State Military has gained a LOT of expertise in tracking down and dealing with political dissidents. You know: those people who refuse to toe the line that Washington has drawn. Those poor dumb fucks who think that they were doing just find before all this shit came along, and who cling to the way things were Before. Those who resist "re-education," perhaps to the point that they take up arms against the New Order, and get hunted down by highly-trained, well-armed uniformed men. The military gets used these days to build republics where there used to be autocracies. But it's gaining one hell of a skill-set in the process.

Which makes for an interesting quandary here in the United States, about how that skill-set might ultimately be used. When the Legions come home under arms, are they going to settle in Washington to oversee a change in power, from a dysfunctional tyrannical set of overlords to a legitimately free republic? Or are the Legions going remain under the command of Caesar? Might they be sent to "pacify" Arizona, based on local recalcitrance on immigration issues? Or be deployed to Texas, to halt secession and/or to "guard" strategic oil reserves? What orders might be issued, in pursuit of "the common good," and to combat "treason?"

And should any of this ever come to pass, tomorrow or a century from now, who would you rather have calling the shots? Should the American Military be called upon to maintain peace inside the United States, would you want someone like Barack Obama at the head of the War Machine, deciding how troops are deployed and towards what ends? Or would you rather have someone like General McChrystal leading the way forward?

There is no easy answer, of course. And more than anything else, I wonder if this train of thought might be spun into a novel that would sell well enough to spare me the trouble of a day job.

La Migra

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.