If you can read this...

For him, or for us?

2005-12-12T19:01:00.000-08:00

So the Governor of California and the U.S. Supreme Court have both decided not to grant clemency to Stanley Williams. He's the ex-Crip who was convicted of three murders back in 1981 and sentenced to die.

(tangentally, there's something surreal about Arnold Schwarzenegger deciding whether people live or die. Yeah yeah, I realize that ten or twenty people just shouted "Arnold didn't decide, a jury of his peers decided," but whatever. There's still something messed up about it and you know it. It's not even about the Terminator thing, but more about the guy who did this as a solid career move).

There's one word in the prison system that I'd like to focus on:

It's called the Department of Corrections. Now, you could arguably put forth that the Corrections moniker dates back to a time when we deluded ourselves as a society that most criminals can and would be properly adjusted by their prison time and would all emerge as changed people, ready to become a helpful, productive member of society. That ain't never gonna be true. The vast majority of guys inside don't ever want to change, they just want to not get caught. And the important part is that collectively, that's what we believe and what we've come to accept.

But here's a guy who actually has been rehabilitated- no thanks to us, really. In spite of our own dismissive attitude toward felons in general, in spite of all of our beliefs that nobody ever does, he fixed himself. He literally fulfilled the old prison ethos of "repaying his debt to society," what with the enormous amounts of work to further the pro-youth, anti-gang movement in this country. Much more than most of us who sit around reading internet blogs, making an occasional comment or two at the news about how gangs suck. Whatever debt he had to us as a society, he's paid.

Double whammy, biznitch!

Now, dude can't pay back the people he killed, no matter what he does. He can't be coming out of prison, not for the rest of his life. So if he actually is doing some good while he's in jail, then why are we killing him? We have to decide that- if we're killing him for us, then we shouldn't be killing anybody. The death penalty doesn't exist to make the rest of us feel better. If we're killing him for him, then it's a giant waste. He's going to be a much worse person dead than he is alive.

From a practical standpoint: dude's a killer, but at least now he's serving a decent purpose and Americana at large is getting something back from him. We're getting our $50,000 a year's worth out of this guy. We sure don't get anything back from most of the other guys on the row, and we spend even more than that annually on all of them.

And don't be saying that a man like that can't change. We just elected a dude to the office of President who is a confessed alcoholic and cocaine addict. But he said that he's a different man- and we believed him so much that we elected him twice. I only mention this because I have a feeling that the group of people who really, really want Tookie to die might bear a significant amount of overlap with the group who voted Republican.

As a society, we believe that people can change. Each of us has to believe other people can in order to believe that we ourselves can change, too.

One of the things I can't get over is looking around and seeing how quickly people cast one another off; we can form an opinion, close the books, walk away and never consider revising it. So at what point do we stop wanting him to die because he deserves it and start wanting him to die because we want revenge? Did we kill him because we should have, or because we wanted to?

There's also a small part of me that kind of hopes there are riots when they execute Tooks. I wasn't in LA for the last set, and hey, I like to burn stuff as much as the next guy. So thanks, Tookie: if you're not going to be keeping urban youth out of gangs or keeping them away from crime, at least there's a fair chance you can get me a new TV.

Schlep's in a name?

2005-07-31T12:56:00.000-07:00

So a giant lump of rock, originally photographed two years ago, has just been announced as the 10th planet of our solar system. Further away from the Sun than Pluto and with an even more off-plane orbit, it has ignited a raging debate (albeit a pretty geeky one) over what precisely constitutes a planet, and what constitutes simply a large asteroid.

My attention, however, was quickly captured by the discovering team's leader, Michael Brown, and his proposal of what the new planet's name should be:

Xena.

Yes, that's as in "Xena, Warrior Princess," i.e. the TV show, not "Xena, Please let it be whatever the TV character was named after."

What's their logic? "We have always wanted to name something Xena." Way to think that one through!

I'm baffled! Don't astronomers have some sort of greater duty to science, too? Isn't there some sort of Hippocratic Astronomer's Oath that you take when you're girded with your first telescope?

It's only a PLANET! Way to put five seconds of thought into it and really name it something deserving of a celestial body that's been around for a few billion years, and will be for a few billion more!

All the other planets are named after Greek and Roman gods, but we decided to break with the tradition that's been running for a few thousand years. Just because. And really- why stop at Xena? If you're gonna throw tradition to the wind, don't hold back! How about simply "Scantily-Clad Dominating Female?" Or maybe "Michael Brown Discovered Me?"

Let's think for the long term. Schoolchildren eighty years from now are certainly going to look at a diagram of the solar system and follow the pattern: Jupiter, king of the gods, the largest and most dominating planet. Mars, god of war, bright red in the sky. Neptune, the brilliant blue planet, king of the seas. Mercury, the fleet-footed, whose orbit is so quick around the sun. And finally, Xena... the planet who galavants about the cosmos kicking ass, spouting witty one-liners and having a totally ambiguous relationship with Venus.

Greeks and Romans? Pssssshhh. Who's gonna remember all that pre-historic mumbo-jumbo, those toga-clad "astronomers" with no telescopes, rowing their Hellenic butts around? I'll tell you who they'll remember: Sam Raimi, that's who! Lucy Lawless, in that tough-as-nails but enchanting camp role! That's timeless!

We all know that the nerds in high school are the ones who'll grow up to be running things, and to an extent we all accepted that... but that doesn't mean they won't be EXTREME DORKS about it.

I can sort of understand why this happens. It's really the only thing that astronomers get- physicists get to blow stuff up, engineers get to erect giant phallic monuments... astronomers get to name stuff. That's it. Even the hands-on astronomy NASA practiced with the comet impactor recently is as glamorous as it gets. So when this dude gets his chance to name something, to really scratch himself into the records, I guess he has to jump at it.

I suppose there is a small chance that he's really thinking about humanity. "Well, you know, I briefly thought of naming it Sysiphus, or even Nyx, but then I thought, you know, I really, really, REALLY liked that TV show, and maybe this will help people in the future remember what a great syndicated run the chronicles of the Warrior Princess had in 20th-century television."

Has ever there been a scientist more clearly out of his league?

So I thought, doesn't there have to be some council of scientists someplace that judges names for celestial stuff? Isn't there a congress of smart people, some panel of brainiacs that has at least a tiny chance of shooting this down? A table full of drunken poker players, even, with, I don't know, the tiniest amount of pattern-recognition ability? They teach this stuff on Sesame Street!

Which one doesn't belong?

I was relieved to see that this council does exist: The International Astronomical Union.

We'll just have to wait and see what they come up with.

Now, I realize I've spent most of this writing making fun of Professor Brown for what I believe to be his childish choice of proposed name, but here's another tidbit-

On his very own Caltech website, there's documentation of another celestial body the same team discovered: 2003 VB-12, or Sedna (the Inuit ocean goddess). On this page, the team discusses the very same issue of planethood vs. asteroidness.

They decide that Sedna, only slightly smaller than Pluto, is not a planet. But they also decide that by their definition, technically, Pluto isn't a planet, either! The conclusion Brown and Pals comes to:

"We are thus left with a final concept of the word planet. Every object in the solar system quite naturally can be classified as either a solitary individual or a member of a large population. The individuals are planets. The populations are not. This definition fits the historical desire to distinguish between asteroids and planets, and this definition fits all of the requirements of scientific motivation."

This completely rules out 2003 UB313 (er... Xena) as a legitimate planet, since it's a component of the Kuiper Belt, a large mass of asteroid-esque bodies out in the Pluto neighborhood.

But, you know, we didn't realize a couple years ago when we wrote that we would actually get to be the ones to name the next planet! Fortunately, they threw in the disclaimer, "...we would like nothing better than to find some object which defies everything that we currently think we know and forces us to completely rethink fundamental questions like 'what is a planet.'" CYA, check.

So when Xena came around, they were pretty quick to throw all that individuals / populations crap to the solar wind: "It is definitely bigger than Pluto, and I would say it counts out as the 10th planet."

Funny, since that same Caltech Sedna site of his dismisses the "bigger than Pluto" criteria:

"Why is Pluto the cutoff size? Is there really a big enough difference in size between Pluto and Sedna and Quaoar that one should be called a planet while the others are not? The scientific answer remains a resounding no."

I call shenanigans.

Pretty fortunate you decided to go back to the "bigger than Pluto" argument just in time to discover number 10. And with the sighting of another planetoid, 2003 EL61, that turns out to be 3/4 Pluto's size (also a Kuiper Belt orbital), it's painfully apparent that way out there, there's a ton of stuff that size floating around.

"Get out your pens. Start re-writing textbooks today," Brown says. Sounds like a guy who is totally dedicated to science solely for the furtherance of mankind.

Way to go.

Live up to your mantra

2005-05-02T10:56:00.000-07:00

So while on an epic Thai Noodle quest last night, I meandered past a forlorn man wearing a t-shirt that read "No mean's no, bitch!"

Initially, his apostrophe misuse was what chuckled me, but I found it more amusing that while sporting that shirt, he was pushing a stroller, flanked by another three kids, and was lugging three shopping bags, dutifully trailing his wife.

Must have been the old bachelor wardrobe.

Have the Tribal Publicist e-mail them

2005-04-28T17:21:00.000-07:00

As the sequel to Pirates of the Caribbean continues filming this month on the island of Dominica, trouble is brewing with the indigenous population over a controversial shish-kebbabing in the movie.

Dominica's Carib tribe, numbering 3,500 on an island of 70,000, is concerned that the entire world will see a scene of Johnny Depp captured and comcially barbequed and think that the Caribs of the 16th century did this to every film star that visited their island. According to the tribe, most of the world instantly associates the island of Dominica (after they look it up) with the incorrect perception that cannibalism was rampant there during the 15th, 16th & 17th centuries.

The protests are being led by the current chief of the tribe, Charles Williams.

"Pirates did come to the Caribbean in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries," he testifies. "Our ancestors were labeled cannibals. This is being filmed in the Caribbean." The parallels are quite obvious.

Williams reportedly finds no irony in accusing foreigners of insulting his ancestors while he goes by the name Charles Williams. Nevertheless, Chucky is a staunch believer in the living history of his native people and hates to see their reputation damaged.

"For me, a good name is better than riches."

Some other Dominican natives, however, don't agree with Chief Williams' assessment of the situation.

Christabelle Auguiste, the only female on the local tribal council, believes the publicity surrounding a major motion picture might garner Dominica a boost in tourist revenue.

"It took 250 years for Dominica to be colonized after the arrival of Christopher Columbus," she said. "Dominica is the only country Columbus would recognize now if he revisited. This is something the Carib people should be proud of."

Columbus was unavailable for comment.

Hardcore traditionalist and elementary school principal Kathleen Jno-Lewis and historian Prosper Paris believe that some other residents' optimistic hopes for increased tourist revenue may be stymied by the negative portrayal of their population, however. Supporting this view, a recent MSN Vacations survey reports that a devastating 88% of summer travelers would have "serious reservations" about booking a cruise to or a resort stay on an island where the natives eat people.

Also making news, several pirate heritage groups are protesting the sequel as well, claiming the character of Jack Sparrow portrays pirates as "Silly and generally stupid, not fearsome at all," says Bloodbeard McNastynuts, president of Pirate Life International. "The image of the pirate will be severely damaged by this film."

Way to go!

Don't educate 'em- isolate 'em!

2005-03-26T13:00:00.000-08:00

Just a few days ago, a Texas State legislator filed a new bill intended to put a curb on sexually suggestive cheerleading routines at high school athletic events.

I'm glad that these issues are finally making it into the national spotlight- maybe now the American public will wake up to what's really happening in our schools.

Specifically, Representative Al Edwards's issues center around the shaking behinds of female cheerleaders.

Representative Edwards believes that we're sending our youth mixed messages- we advocate abstinence and responsible attitudes toward sex, but then, hypocritically, we allow blatantly sexual cheerleading moves to be performed at public, youth-attended functions.

Some of the cheerleading moves the kids are performing these days:

"The Splits" consists of a female cheerleader spreading her legs, revealing the crotch area and possibly providing a view of the uniform's underpanty.

"The Victory Pyramid" consists of several female cheerleaders climbing upon each other, providing a clear view up the skirt of cheerleaders above them. Note especially the inter-thigh contact.

"The Bullhorn Guy" isn't a true cheerleading move, but you can see how teenagers might be influenced toward intercourse after witnessing this in a routine:

I don't know about other red-blooded guys out there, but when I see a girl walk by and her hips are all swinging back and forth, and maybe she's got on some of those low-cut jeans that are all the rage with kids these days, you know... when I see her walk by, I just can't help but have sex with that girl. It's even harder to control myself when Cinemax gives out their free preview weekends.

Representative Edwards, though 68, understands these youthful urges I have. He's definitely in on "the 411," as the kids say, in terms of sexual encounters. Just listen to him: "It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down." Notice use of the phrase "breaking it down"- straight from modern pop-culture. That's how youth speaks! Representative Edwards is definitely "tuned in."

This man knows pootie.

This legislation will make our high schools a much more sanitized and influence-free environment. The last thing we would want is our high school students being allowed to see stuff and learn to make their own decisions- because they'd be bad ones!

I think we should carry this a few steps further- because really, when cheerleaders are wearing the skimpy and revealing uniforms that are so common, how can a male resist a copulative attempt?

Here's my suggestion for a new, state-regulated uniform pattern. Of course, schools would be allowed to transpose their colors and mascots upon their uniforms, but all would be bound to this template:

Al Edwards, born in 1937, would have attended high school in the early 50s. I can understand his insight unto the poor condition of high schools now, then- in the 50s, there was no premarital sex, no unwanted pregnancies- a complete absence of all things sexually "oriented." That bad stuff didn't happen back then.

It's a proven fact that our high school students learn to have sex from cheerleading routines. If we had enacted a law like this years ago, think of how many unwanted pregnancies and STD cases could have been prevented!

We must work hard to remove anything and everything in our youth's lives that might possibly make them think of sex. That way, when they're older and it comes time for them to have morally-approved sex (after they're married before God and all), they can install their white picket fence... and have a clean slate... I'll just stop there.

The best and most productive method we as a society can take toward reponsible sexual practices in our school-aged youth isn't to properly educate them about sex or fund programs that make it easier for our kids to have reponsible sex- no, the solution is to fund a public commission that strictly regulates pep-rally pom-pon dances.

Let me check... yep, still pointless

2005-02-04T21:22:00.000-08:00

You'd think that since I haven't been wasting my time on this blog lately it would mean I've been spending it productively doing other things. That's really not the case.

There have been a number of wonderful topics that I've written stuff on recently that never actually got posted.

Here are some of the recent winners of the Golden Way to Go Award:

Halle Berry complaining about still having to stump for jobs:

A woman of color? Halle, you're the whitest black woman in Hollywood. Don't complain about not getting jobs as a result of your color unless you're at least Angela Bassett black. That's Angela Bassett in Strange Days, not Angela Bassett in Contact.

I'm real sorry to have to bring Whoopi into this.

The jobs you've gone for recently have a lot to do with you flashing boob, dressing up in a costume, or both. "Great roles."

You're a movie star, not an actress. At least not any longer. We all heard the collective Los Angeles groan as Monster's Ball was released: "Aww, crap, I guess we're gonna have to give her an Oscar for this."

Good idea going on national television and essentially telling everyone you were apalled that we're not all falling all over ourselves to worship you after that smashing Oscar win. Halle does, however appear to be genuinely concerned with Women of Color getting more good movie roles. Judging by her recent fare, she's definitely leaving all the good ones to other African-American women.

Way to go.

The Sons of Italy in America taking shots at Robert de Niro for perpetuating stereotypes of Mafioso Italians in media:

So what then- you have no heritage? None of you had a grandmother who cooked? None of you eats pasta by the mountain with marinara sauce? Way to take one of the most successful Italian-Americans and sling crap at him for being... Italian? If any white guy ever complained about the negative portrayals of white Civil-War era slave owners, he'd be drowned out by the "Screw you!", and rightly so. Because it happened.

Full steam ahead, Sons of Italy. There are now thousands of Mafia hoods out there grumbling in shame that now they're going to be percieved as racial whiners just because they're Italian-Americans.

Way to go.

full post.

The dude who sued NBC because he watched an episode of Fear Factor that had contestants eating pieces of rats, it nauseated him and he got sick:

Couldn't manage to change the channel, bro?

This is the same guy who forces companies to put "Caution... this HOT TEA is HOT!" on their cups and warning signs like "do not step into oncoming traffic."

NBC didn't comment on the lawsuit, but did hand out free beverages to his legal team.

Way to go.

The New York artist who paints tons of pro-Bush art and feels victimized when galleries refuse to exhibit his work because of the blatant political overtones.

But hey, last time a museum displayed a piece he disagreed with, he stood outside the exhibit and literally threw shit at it in protest. Are you pro- or anti- expression, buddy? Or just pro-expression so long as it agrees with you?

full post (one of my favorites).

Way to go.

The German police officer who gave a fellow officer a parking ticket for parking his car facing the wrong direction while setting up a speed trap:

So when you go after some burglars in a high-speed pursuit, do you expect to get cited for driving over the legal speed limit? Or reckless driving?

Way to go.

The administrators of R.A. Long High School in Longview, Washington, who sent home a gay student for wearing a shirt that said, "Too Gay to Function."

The official reason? His shirt is offensive to homosexuals.

I once got in a fight in high school when I was standing in the cafeteria talking about how brown my hair was, and I guess this other brown-haired guy overheard and got mad about it.

Can't have "gay" written on a shirt, you know. Just letting that word soil the ears of our untarnished youth will infect them with the virus of dudeloving. Isolate them; that's the sure way to encourage a healthy social integration in our children. Just deny gay people exist! Clap your hands over your ears and shriek "Amazing Grace" until they go away.

And if that doesn't work, just say that God hates them.

School administrators couldn't even come up with a good crappy excuse. It's offensive to gay people? If the educators of today can't even come up with good excuses, who will train tomorrow's politicians?

Way to go.

P.Diddy, for his "Vote or Die" campaign:

115409172 votes were cast in our last presidential election. Being that there were approximately 217.8 million people in the United States age 18 or over, that leaves approximately 102 million Americans of voting age who didn't vote.

I'm waiting for you to hold up your end of the bargain, Diddy. You got a long way to go.

Way to make voting hip, by the way. VOTE OR DIE! That'll get urban youth rolling. If we can make them all feel like voting is badass and hardcore, they'll do it.

Did doesn't get a Way to Go award, though. I mean, he got some people to vote, but he didn't quite make a big enough ass of himself to be up there with the super winners. He just remained the mostly ineffectual lukewarm celebrity he normally is.

Katie Couric's "Teens and Sex" special report:

Within the first minute of opening this article (couldn't bring myself to tune in), I saw that the term "Friends with Benefits" was an amazing new revelation for Couric and what I can only assume is her news team working with her.

I keep forgetting that what seems to be an ever-increasing segment of over-40 America has completely forgotten what it was to be a teenager. If you were thinking about it when you were 16, then chances are your kids are thinking about it, too.

The same applies for the armchair social activists who are appalled that kids are picked on in school. Honestly, a kid that makes it through high school without ever experiencing a bully or the pointless scorn of a clique has missed an invaluable lesson that high school provides.

And for the love of God, will people stop putting an accent over the e in "clique" just because it has a funky non-English looking ending? "Cliqué" would be pronounced klee-KAY. I guess putting an accent in it makes the word worth another dollar or so, though.

Way to go, America!

One Italian-American, hold the Italian

2004-12-05T20:13:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Robert de Niro is one of the most despicable Italian-Americans in history. His movie roles perpetuate Mob stereotypes, you see.

Not the writers who came up with the stories. Not the directors or producers. Just as the vast majority of the moviegoing public blames Tom Cruise if the Last Samurai was horrible, the Sons blame Robert de Niro. You go after the face. You go after the person that the public will recognize.

I actually have to take a second out here and express a small amount of happiness that the Last Samurai came around: it did give thousands of people the opportunity to be idiots: "We're supposed to believe that Tom Cruise plays a Japansese guy? What other crap is Hollywood going to force down our throats next!?" They all get a Silver Way to Go award.

So what does the Sons of Italy's complaint boil down to?

Those movies make us look bad.

No Italian-American out there actually does like brewing up giant vats of spaghetti, none of them ever say fuhgeddaboutit, no Italian-American matriarch is overweight, and no ripped-up Son of Sicily ever tried to strong-arm anybody else.

It seems pretty telling, though, when Italians are essentially calling Italian-Americans' anti-stereotyping crusade bunk. That's the actual country Italy. They're even more Italian than Italian-American groups.

The highlighting quote: "Our history has good and bad bits. You cannot just deny the past. And after all, it is only cinema."

The Sons could learn a lot from that dude. They're not going to get anybody to change their perception of Italian-Americans by yelling "That's not fair!" You should see from watching the news that emphatically denying whatever tarnished past you might have gets you less credibility, if anything.

I was at a Whole Foods a while ago, waiting for my turn in the meat line (mmmm... smoked ham). I happened to glance to my right just as a ripped-up black guy with giant dreds sauntered up to a decorative barrel full of prepackaged cornbread. His eyes illuminated with delight; he pulled his ridiculously attractive (also black) girlfriend over and exclaimed, "Awww, corn-breeEEEeezy!"

Oh, SNAP! A black dude that likes cornbread! A stereotype in real life! The most amazing this was that I didn't think he was a dumbass!

A more clear-cut perspective: How about a Caucasian-American group singling out negative portrayals of white slave owners in Civil War-era films? "They're always portrayed as uncaring and cruel taskmasters who beat their slaves unmercifully and didn't treat them as human beings when the plain fact is that the vast majority of slave owners cared deeply about their slaves."

The obvious response: Hey, white guys, it happened.

The only way the Sons of Italy could have any credibility in this argument of theirs is if they also stumped to erase negative portrayals of cops, politicians, rich people, and drunks in film, too. There are always gonna be dirty cops in movies; there will always be Italian Mafiosi, too.

Your crusade against mob stereotyping did achieve something, however- now Italian-Americans are known for being mobsters and whiners.

At the bottom of the National Italian American Foundation Stereotyping 2001 list: "A thumbs down to Robert de Niro, who appeared in the film Out on my Feet about boxer Vinnie Curto, who was also involved in organized crime."

Seriously... an Italian named Vinnie? How overdone is THAT?

But wait... de Niro's an Honoree in your Hall of Fame? Pick one, guys.

And dude... Robert Davi? That guy plays even MORE knikky thugs than de Niro does!

No, I don't know what "knikky" means.

Have you washed your hands lately?

2004-12-04T20:45:00.000-08:00

My new hero:

Yarr... do I look tough, or what?

Scott LoBaido, a New York artist, found out that some crappy old art place was showing a piece entitled The Holy Virgin Mary, didn't like the use of pornographic images and elephant dung in the piece, and proceeded to fling horse manure at the museum's facade.

Way to stand up for what you believe in! Some assholes slander one of the icons of your faith, let 'em know what you think! Don't take that sitting down! It's totally lame that some gallery curators refused to put up your art just because of your politics. Those are probably the same flower-growing left-winging turkeys who put up that Virgin Mary crap to begin with.

You didn't like it when they defamed an icon that you believed in, so you threw a temper tantrum; but somehow you expect people to not behave the same way with your art? At least when gallery owners refused to show your work, you didn't end up covered in paint. Or feces. You even said it yourself: "I'm very patriotic and I use my artwork as a soapbox." If you can use yours as a soapbox, why can't they?

And really, Scott. Go the extra mile. It was elephant dung on the Virgin Mary; you were caught with horse manure under your fingernails. Be precise, man, you knew the arrest report was going to make that stuff public.

Either everybody has freedom in art to express themselves, or nobody does. If you can't take it when other people produce art that you don't agree with, then your crap doesn't deserve my respect.

But you are consistent- the inspirational words of your Agenda echo the same hollow rhetoric a typical politician's speech does.

Solid resume of billboards, too. And building facades. Good idea, getting yourself in the news for stumping the Republican ticket. Changing the world, one flower bed at a time.

All that trouble and you still spell his name wrong.

What pisses me off is that these are the guys who've taken things like loving the country, being proud of the United States and "being a Patriot" and turned them into these self-righteous, pedestal-climbing screw-you symbols.

Now when I put an American Flag sticker on my car because I love this country, people think that I hate gays, blindly support authority (so long as it KICKS ASS!) and don't give a crap about the rest of the world. People can always think whatever they want, but when they steal my symbol and pervert it to represent any form of intolerance, it makes me want to drown puppies. French puppies. French anti-war frisbee-throwing hippie puppies.

And incidentally, the reason we don't execute in 14 days is because of things like this.

Moons Over My Hammy

2004-08-31T07:26:00.000-07:00

I can't believe I made that the title. I just had to leave it.

So this Paul Hamm guy won a Gold All-Around medal in Gymnastics in Athens. Sweet. Some people probably even watched who weren't women looking at his ass (or dudes looking at his ass).

for those of you who were wondering

And after the media coverage swapped over to Table Tennis (man those Chinese are quick) we all hear that there was a scoring error, and one of Hamm's competitors, Yang Tae-young, was given an incorrect score that, if corrected, would have made him the winner of the all-around gold.

Many, including the International Federation of Gymnastics (FIG), asked Hamm to give his gold to the Korean. You know, give it to the guy who really earned it.

But Hamm refused, with all the grace and dignity of a junior-high-schooler who comes across a money clip on the ground and screams "Finders keepers!" to the owner.

So I had this great little rant written, and I made a bunch of reasonably funny cracks at him, when I read that yes, Tae-young's judges incorrectly omitted a tenth of a point at the beginning of his routine, but he was also not penalized two-tenths for his four different holds in his routine (maximum of three).

As it happens, Hamm actually did win the gold. This only gets him some credit back, though, cause it doesn't change the fact that he was going to be a dick and refuse to give his medal back the entire time, only finding out later that Tae-young should have been penalized for his four holds. He didn't take the chance to be a good guy, and didn't think hey, if that had been me, I sure would want the gold I earned.

He would have been an international hero, spirit of sportsmanship and all; then he would have gotten his gold back anyway when they discovered Tae-young's other deductions.

So now it will always be footnoted that his medal was disputed. And even though that will probably be forgotten eventually, at least he doesn't have his own Wheaties box.

But I can't go through with all the cracks I'd planned at Hamm's expense, because my writing is so awesome that it'd just be too cruel. Instead, I'll just post this photo of Hamm in a tutu:

this photo is definitely not edited

And I'll turn the rest of this into an article berating people who form their opinions without searching out all the facts first.

You're turkeys.

Marie Callender, defender of equality

2004-08-08T13:44:00.000-07:00

There are some opportunities that you can miss and feel fine about it.

I was on the phone with my buddy back home, and he'd just gotten back from the store, stocking up on Marie Callender's Pot Pies. Two for five bucks!

I had just been to the store. I considered checking out the pot pies, but I didn't. I could have gotten them on sale. I can't go back now; they're not on sale any more.

I didn't feel too bad about it until later.

A few months ago, I sat in the Jury Selection room next to Anthony, an inner-city 19-year-old who's dad had been in jail, you know, not an easy life. All I wanted was to read my Orson Scott Card, but he couldn't stop talking, and eventually got around to his absolute hatred of wife-beaters. Couldn't stand it when guys beat up on their wives, their girlfriends. His dad beat up on his mom, you see.

Hey, that's pretty admirable. He's learning from his dad's actions rather than just learning to emulate them.

Forty-five minutes later he told me about this girlfriend that cheated on him, so after class one day he grabbed her by the hair and dragged her out of school.

I thought you hated guys that beat up on girls?

His reply was, "Hey, I never laid a hand on her."

He went on to describe how he'd cut the corners close so she'd bang into doorframes as he was dragging her to the parking lot. He made a big deal out of demonstrating how he'd swing her around and shout "BAMM!" to illustrate it to me.

Part of his previous episode of I Hate Wife Beaters included a skit where he saw some kid in the parking lot smacking a girl, so Anthony stormed up and pushed that guy around until he left her alone.

But what if he never laid a hand on her, Anthony? If he was wailing on her with a two-by-four, it would have been okay? If he had been shoving her through a car window, would you have run up and high-fived him? Way to show that girl what she's got coming to her! Just don't let your fingers touch her face, man. That's where the crime is.

I made some muttering comment along the lines of "Aww, that's no good, man," but he just kept saying "I never laid a hand on her." I didn't really press it. I didn't call him out on it.

I never asked him all the things I should have, like how it's different if you hit her with your fist or a wall. Or if, as you're dragging her by the hair into doors, she's thinking to herself, "Thank God he's not beating me." But Anthony never thought to consider if he'd be just as pissed if somebody slugged him in the jaw or if they threw a TV playing CHiPs reruns on his head.

The hypocrisy was raining down in little flakes. He paid allegiance to that phrase, "I never laid a hand on her," and was even a little proud as he said it. Proud to not be following in his father's footsteps, I suppose. He paid such allegiance to the literal words he'd completely ignored their meaning.

It was so bad that as I think about it now, he could have been making it all up just to see what reaction he'd get out of me. I hope that's what it was. That would be a less galling explanation than the idea that he couldn't see his own contradictions. By his gesticulating enthusiasm and the absolute glee in his eye, I could tell it never occurred to him that somebody would disagree with him.

I'll never get the chance to find that guy again and have it out with him. The sale's over. I could have at least let him know that I'm one person who thinks he's full of crap, and all the suffering his mom went through is all wasted. The only thing he learned from it is how to twist good logic to make excuses for himself. Having just written that, I wonder how big a problem it is with youth today. Hell, with everybody.

I feel just as bad for not calling him out as he should for slapping up some girl. Next time somebody does something like that in front of me, I'm gonna be all in their face, even if it gets me socked in the jaw. I owe it to that girl Anthony knocked around.

When you see those pot pies on sale, stock up. Pot pies are the fuel of the righteous.

the Get Out of Bigotry Free Card

2004-08-05T02:15:00.000-07:00

"Present company excepted."

That's the phrase people throw out when they make some blanket generalization about a group of people and then realize that a member of that group is standing right next to them.

"Man, I had some Puerto Ricans on my last crew, and damn... Puerto Ricans are lazy. Present company excepted, of course."

Or in other words, "...but not you, because I've met you and found that you don't adhere to those stereotypes I just outlined."

Way to go. Did it ever occur to you that every other Puerto Rican might be exactly the same way if you met and got to know them? Can you not realize that on top of being a bigoted ham, you're also contradicting yourself?

"Puerto Ricans are lazy... except for that one I met who's not lazy."

They just argued themselves out of their biased bunk, but they don't even know it. It can't be both; either they're all lazy, or every one of them is different. I guess that concept is just too huge to grasp.

Happens all the time when somebody forms an opinion based on insufficient information. How could you possibly know enough to judge an entire nation's worth of guys based on your initial impression of four? Doesn't occur to them.

But I know why it doesn't. It's simpler to just lump them all under one "lazy" group heading and be done with it. It's less work and you don't have to consider the possibility that you're flawed.

The only thing more degrading than watching someone say "present company excepted" is when the person who's just been insulted hears it and decides not to be pissed. So long as the jackass belts out their little catch phrase, they're not really biased, right? I feel dirty just when I hear that in conversation. And knowing that someone who should be fighting mad has just fallen for it is worse.

Every time somebody in a conversation with me or around me uses that phrase, I find myself utterly enraged. Not because they're trumpeting their bias, because there will always be biased people. You accept their presence like you accept hurricanes and forest fires.

No, I'm enraged because they think so long as they lean on that particular phrase, they're free of any moral qualms they might have.

It's the cheap way out, but I guess it's a hell of a lot easier than realizing they're a bigot.

No ads, no banners, no sense

2004-08-03T02:20:00.000-07:00

I was recently led to The Center for an Informed America, authored and maintained by ~~best-selling~~ ~~extremely popular~~ English-proficient writer Dave McGowan.

The site has many opinion pieces; conspiratorial deviousnessness everywhere. Some real gems.

The first thing you see on his home page:

Congratulations, Dave. You've demonstrated that you posses such superior pattern-recognition skills that you can draw a parallel between three images of men in uniform.

The similarities there are obvious now that those two images have been directly compared for me. How could I have missed it before? No humans could line up that straight without the help of Satan. And there's no need for such riot gear in the LAPD unless they have Naziesque world-domination plans.

Perhaps what he's saying is that people standing line abreast have evil intentions:

collegiate volleyball players = Nazis

Or people wearing helmets?

West Virginia spelunkers = Nazis

No, it's people both wearing helmets and standing in a line.

Miami high school football players = Nazis

We should all of us consider ourselves fortunate, I think, that Dave McGowan is fighting on the side of truth and liberty. After all, imagine if someone with those supreme powers of image-association were to throw their hat in on the side of evil! Those of us who love freedom could never stand against such a torrent of juxtaposed pictures!

I was inspired by the insight.

These two images were chillingly similar:

I couldn't get over the fact that both Hitler and Bush are congratulating their adoring little puppy's best efforts, posed in the same fashion with flags behind them. No coincidence. Bush even seems to know that we're on to him.

Keeping a political mindset, a recent photo of John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention sent me instantly to mostly-funny Steve Oedekerk:

The angle of the photograph and similar facial expressions can only mean there's a connection there. Allies in the fight against liberty? Brain-programmed by the same agency? Could Steve O. be an earlier version of Kerry? You decide.

Finally, uber-conservative Michael Savage:

There's definitely shared DNA there.

I don't know what Cringer has to do with politics, but damned if I'm not gonna find out! Maybe it's not Cringer, it's Battle-Cat...

I think I've made great headway with my image-association technique.

What I ridicule isn't Davey-Dave's dissent against the Government. We certainly need it; this country is built on the concept that dissent is necessary for a healthy society.

What I ridicule is his usage of the cheapest, most effortless kidney-shots. That he could hope anyone would be convinced to alter their own beliefs based on side-by-side photos of the LAPD and the SS ("Good God! They're both wearing black! I'm sold!") and secret oh-who-could-it-be stories ("man... this all sounds tragically familiar... but how?") is really an insult to everybody who reads his writing. Or the idea that these juxtaposed images somehow act as proof of anything.

This aside from the "Any Questions?" line of ads; you remember, the ones that stopped holding your attention instantly in the 80s. "Oh, I get it, cause I shouldn't have any questions, cause this should answer them all! I feel as though I've accomplished something!"

The Davester doesn't try to convince anybody by using real evidence or specific arguments. No, Daveykins intentionally leaves specifics out of his articles. Vast shantytowns of undescriptive phrases such as "these men", "somewhere in America" and "it can be safely concluded" have struck up permanent residence in his writing.

Reading this website made my eyes bleed.

I may not be ready to accept the enlightened truth, but I have to admit, I envy his job. He makes a living playing a giant game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. All he has to do is pick a few prominent officials, objects, programs or other world events and find any three- to six-stage connection between them and [insert_devious_individual]. The more lengthy and convoluted the connection, the more it proves how good they are at covering their tracks.

You can make anybody look like anybody else if you try hard enough. Keep digging, Davey-pooh; you've been around your writing for so long you no longer whiff the stench.

Allow me to suggest an update for your opening motto: "No ads, no banners, no bullshit, no traffic".

History is written in stone

2004-07-30T00:53:00.000-07:00

Several articles have been in the news recently about a certain "Jap Road" in rural Texas and the name-change debate it's at the center of.

It was named Jap Road sometime in the 1900s after a Japanese family that lived there and brought rice farming to the area. Activist groups have been trying to change the name for over a decade, and the issue finally came to a head recently.

Alternate possibilities included "Mayumi Road", the name of the Japanese family this whole thing started over. Many residents didn't want to change the name from Jap Road, saying that it was originally meant to honor the Mayumis living there, and it's part of history.

Personally, I agree. If it's part of the history of the region, why change it? It wasn't considered politically incorrect at the time. Leave Jap Road up there, leave those Stars and Bars over the state capitol. I wouldn't touch those burned-out crosses on the front lawn, either. Leave that fourteen-year-old negro boy swinging from the tree; it's part of history and it'll just help us better understand our past. Ah, the good old days of racist bastards getting their way. I'll always remember those times of intolerance and hatred with a fond place in my heart... I especially want to pass those feelings on to my children. Way to go.

Too bad we have to lose this vital bit of history forever.

Forced to come up with an alternative, The 170 residents who live on the road voted to change the name not to Mayumi Road, but Boondocks Road, after the Boondocks fried catfish restaurant that closed down 10 years ago. Their reason?

Mayumi is too hard to pronounce.

Perhaps as an alternative to Boondocks road, they might consider something even easier to spell and comprehend, such as "Dirt Road", "Dumbass Lane" or "Third-grade Reading Level Way".

Hell, why not just "The Road"? Keep it simple. If these residents remember the name of a fried catfish shack that closed 10 years ago, I'd wager the farthest they'll ever travel is probably to the county courthouse for that next DUI hearing. "The Road" will probably be identifiable enough.

Wayne Wright, one of the more outspoken residents of Public Education Road, had a few parting comments:

"They (Japanese Americans) pounded on us for 11 years. I hope they learned something from it. There's no winners in this."

You sure showed them! "Boondocks" really sticks it to 'em! I bet those Japanese-Americans are just reeling from that severe blow. As we speak, they're probably rowing back to their homeland, preparing to seppuku themselves in shame as soon as they hit the beaches.

There are winners, Wayne. They won. They beat you. They got you into the national news, flaunting an education that my five-year-old neighbor would be embarrassed of. The entire country now sees that your flummoxed cranium is so overworked in the daily chores of eating, breathing and pinching a loaf that you can't figger where that pesky i at the end of Mayumi gets its sound from.

They learned something from it all right, Wayne. If they're patient, you handle the ridicule all on your own.

I wish gritty realism was like this

2004-07-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

So I figured I'd rent True Crime: Streets of LA. Hey, I live there, maybe I could drive by my apartment and shoot at it or something.

I played Grand Theft Auto, so it only seemed natural to play this next step in the crime game evolution.

Okay, sure, you're a cop who's almost kicked off the force for being too hardcore, your dad was a cop, there's an FBI guy who tries to take over and just screws everything up, and they kidnap your brother. Your partner doesn't like you; you're a lone wolf.

Great, whatever. The Russians are involved, yeah. Basically a story ripped off from every cop movie or television show ever made. Well, ever made by humans.

Even with all that, it was a solid game. Driving, shooting, sub-plots, optional crimes you can solve or ignore, even a good cop / bad cop thing. Kind of neat. I was having a pretty good time playing along. As cheeseball as the story was, I didn't care, cause I got to be the guy who was actually nailing those bad guys!

But honestly, I should have seen it coming. I kind of thought the thugs in that dungeon looked a little like zombies. I should have seen my descent into the underworld. I missed it right up until the appearance of the 300-year-old chinese sage who wrangles the Force like my mom wrangles a yard sale.

And then appear the flaming demon heads.

They shriek that easily-identifiable T-Rex trumpet from Jurassic Park, and then lapse into the most simplistic big-boss pattern-attack since I last played Contra in 1980-whenever. It was a simultaneous dissolution of story and gameplay. If I wanted a boss pattern-attack game, I'd pick up Super Mario World. At least that game realizes what genre it's in.

Fortunately, my LAPD-issue .38 revolvers seem to work just fine on these flaming demon heads. Good thing, too, cause I hadn't yet collected the Proto-Pack Supernatural Entity Weapon upgrade.

I simply must ask-- were flaming demon heads really necessary? Is it so difficult to come up with a cop story that gamers will buy that you have to whip out the humungoid fire-breathing dragon? Especially in a game that touted its gritty street realism. Was there absolutely no other resolution possible to the dramatic quandries they wrote themselves into?

"Shit, man, I truly don't think we can end this tale of sacrifice and noble bravery without the supernatural."

"I was kind of thinking the same thing, but you know, I just wasn't sure if gamers are ready for such a drama-heavy plot twist. Will they be able to handle it?"

"We're breaking new ground with this story, Max. Let's be bold. Fire-breathing dragons!"

The Cop Movie and Cop TV Show are staples of the entertainment industry. Hollywood knows that as long as you have a pretty cast, decent action, and pepper the screen with ass every twenty minutes, you'll make your money back.

Those hundreds of films successfully conclude themselves, yet still manage to remain in the realm of mortals. Especially as Hollywood's involvement in video games increases every year, I would expect perhaps a *little* of that might have rubbed off.

perfectly acceptable in a police-themed video game.

suspension of disbelief may have gone too far.

De Niro would have been less intimidating with a sidekick.

I did manage to find some a rare behind-the-scenes photograph from the set of Heat, though.

director Michael Mann sets up a shot with Al Pacino and the Hellspawn Dragon puppet.

I might even have been okay with the devil-dragon if it had provided the least bit of challenge, as the rest of the game did. But no. Rise, breathe fire, swing tail. Fly around. Rise, breathe fire, swing tail. Fly around. Repeat for thirty minutes.

But you know, gamers might be willing to look past the biblical cameos if they have movie stars reading the dialogue to them. Like Christopher Walken, whose performance sounded like he was sitting comfortably in a recording booth reading lines on a sheet of paper sitting on a music stand in front of him. Oh wait.

Water Drips Down My Shame

2004-07-27T01:50:00.000-07:00

So the U.S. Olympic Synchronized Swimming Team was on David Letterman the other night.

They did a demo performance. About four minutes long, set to music from Fantasia.

And there I am, lounging on my couch in my boxers and my socks, 1 am (because it's recorded on Tivo), and I'd never seen an Olympic synchronized swimming team before, so I watched.

As most Olympians are, they were firm-bodied, confident, quite attractive. Swimming suits, in a pool. The recorded orchestra picks up, I'm enjoying their performance, perfectly matched to the music.

And on a particularly nice closeup of taught, toned thighs fleshing themselves just above the water's surface, I notice a music edit.

A cut in the music track; it jumps from one part of the composition to another.

I rewound it to hear it again, and yes, it was a music edit. Not a particularly good one, either. Fifteen seconds later there was another. About twenty seconds later there was another.

There I am! Single guy, underwear only, late at night, no roommate. Scores of ridiculously fit women flaunting their bodies, their athleticism, their tight swimsuits, and they're dripping wet! They thrust, they heave, they twirl, they present their legs, their shoulders, their chests, their posteriors for me to observe. Gaze at me, they cry, become mildly aroused by our beauty in motion.

Again the music jumped. Infuriating. The tempo changed, the rhythm skewed, instruments disappearing and reappearing unnaturally. I sighed in exasperation.

Why in the name of Christ am I listening to the music edits? Nobody knows. Twelve people in the world probably noticed the cuts. Eleven of them didn't give a crap. Who cares? It's for the Late Show! It's a swimming routine! There is absolutely no reason for those music edits to be decent. None. Why can't I look past it? Why can't I ignore it?

I completely lost track of the female women dancing about my television. As the music and the choreography crescendoed and climaxed, my eyes were glazed, seeing nothing. I was listening for the music to jump, and shaking my head, teeth clenched, breathing labored, silently chastising the amateur audio engineer who made those shoddy edits.

Lord knows the many sins I should have been committing amidst such a flagrant beautification of the female body. But I did none of them. My geekdom overcame me.

I am not a man.

Makum America Better

2004-07-26T15:26:00.000-07:00

"We want to finish the job of bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. You give me four more years so that America can become more secure, stronger and better," commented President Bush.

Give him four more!

the Vagaries of Governing Governments

2004-07-23T16:53:00.000-07:00

Another great page I've recently been introduced to:

http://www.upalliance.org/

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this.

Great! Sweet! Nobody is ever deprived of their self-evident human rights again! What a wonderful world! We'd all better go join up!

What I think is great is that the Bill of Rights she proposes (which is never actually spelled out) is pretty much exactly like the one in the Constitution. So we're obviously not getting anything new here. The great new concept is that instead of only applying these Rights to the denizens of any one nation, they want to apply them to everyone in the world.

Here's the cool part. What none of them seem to realize is that all these machinations are already in place. There's a UN that's trying to call everybody's bluffs. There's a World Court that's trying to keep everybody in line.

If they'd had the forethought to look around the world a little, they'd see that everything they propose already exists. People (of course) have already come up with these ideas and are desperately trying to get them to work. Only, you know, it's a little tough to get TWENTY BILLION people to all agree on anything, so they're having a rough go of it. So a few people came up with the most ambiguous name they could, Universal Planetary Alliance, and after watching Enemy of the State and Conspiracy Theory, decided that national governments are just all evil and bent on power, and they have to go. They don't care about human rights. We've got to create a group that keeps these governments in line!

But then wait... they say they don't want One World Government? Cause that would have too much power, and EEWW!! 1984! (cause really, who gets tired of referencing that book? Nobody!) One World government would have too much control over everybody!

"Individuals, defending their own individual rights, are the only assurance against various forms of Coercive Collectivism..." But what happens when you get a ton of individuals together to form a group that ensures the safety of all people within a given geographical area? That's the very definition of a government... you hacks.

That's right, I busted out the personal slams. Hacks!!

So instead of One World Government, instead of putting our shoulders down and making all these constitutions work the way they should, let's instead create an organization that goes around the entire globe and has power over all those governments. Cause I'm sure we can get all the nations of the world to agree to be policed by this one group based in the mountains of Colorado. One World Government would have too much centralized power, but ours won't. We promise. Cause we're based in the mountains of Colorado.

Instead of fixing what we have, we'll just create another agency to monitor.

And their mystical opponents... "Various Anti-Liberty People." They've reared their ugly heads again! Many people may not know this, but Various Anti-Liberty People are really behind all of the world's evils. They're so secret that they cannot be referred to in any speech or statement except by that vague title!

Who hates Liberty? Are there any Anti-Liberty groups anywhere? Has anyone ever met a person who publishes flyers that say stuff like "I really need an oppressor! I want someone to restrict my thoughts! I want somebody to tell me what I can and can't do! I want to be thrown in jail for no reason!" Nobody says that shit. Whenever a person or a group can't figure out what the problem is, they blame it on people who hate freedom or who are professed Anti-Liberty activists.

They post a couple of quotes on the page: one great one is from George W. Bush- "There ought to be limits to freedom."

I'm sure that's all he said! I have no doubt that this sentence wasn't ripped from the middle of a speech and taken completely out of context! I'm sure that he just jumped out of the chopper, saddled on up to the nearest reporter, poked a finger in his eye and drooled out "There ought to be limits to freedom!" It's interesting that all the quotes they have bashing freedom are one sentence long, while all the quotes they have upholding their cause are a paragraph or more. Gee, why's that?

They also have a great quote of Thomas Jefferson's they incorrectly attribute to Thomas Paine. I think, though, it's very revealing that their explanation of what "Rightful Rights" are is just a giant page full of quotes.

It's a very bold document, their Mission Statement- prominently lost amid all the other text.

1.) Definition and Advocacy of Primary Inalienable Sacrosanct Individual Human Rights.

Let's see how many adjectives we can put before the word "Rights." And let's see how many we can get that mean the same thing. Great that their first priority is defining those human rights, which they never do in their whole document.

2.) The "Grass-Roots" Planetary Intelligence Processing Network.

I sure hope they mean true Grass-Roots intelligence. These massive computer networks we have are way too easy to skew and corrupt. The power of the Individual is paramount here! I'm talking about a giant web of millions of people on telephones with notepads! It's BRILLIANT! I just love it when people use terms like "grass-roots" without really thinking about what they mean. As a note, when I follow the Intelligence Processing Network link, I reach a little paragraph that says,

"The UPA is here to help, whether you seek our counsel personally, or our help is needed by entire groups of people, or even nations."

We're going to come in whether you like it or not. But not if you seek our counsel personally:

"Marcie, take a letter. Dear UPA: As Presidente of Mexico, I would like to invite your committee to judge conditions here in my sovereign nation. I fear that my administration has dealt with illegal narcotics traffickers, oppressed people and illegally jailed others. I fear that many of my citizens are not given a say in their own government as a result of my actions. Please come to Mexico and aid in my ouster from power. Love, Vicente Fox. Thanks, Marcie. I like that blouse you have on today."

(By the way, the title of that html page is "type document title here.")

3.) Liberty, Justice, Population Reduction, and an Intelligence Network for Problem Solving.

I'm sure Fascists all over the world love those priorities. I'm not trying to suggest that this may be a fascist group bent on world domination, no. I'm just trying to say that everybody who's starting any kind of group ever uses exactly those same goals. Everybody wants equality, everybody wants peace and justice. I have to admit, though, that population reduction is pretty uniquely fascist. I dunno what's up with that. Well, no, it makes sense, cause we don't want to overpopulate the planet, right? But man... do I have the right to have children, or not? My rights! My riiiiiiiights!

And then they quote Ayn Rand! They MUST know what they're talking about if they quote Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged and 1984 are two of the literary works people throw down when they want to feel elite and enlightened. Everybody's read them. They're not fringe, they're not undiscovered by the dumb teeming masses. Read the books, they're good ones. But everyone who quotes them plays it like a secret treehouse club where every member is up at the Mahatma Gandhi level. Basing your elite image of yourself on the massive accomplishment of discovering Atlas Shrugged doesn't get you anywhere. Well, it probably gets you up to the Al Sharpton level.

The only thing (cause there's only one confusing thing on this web page) that confuses me is that they don't want to become a 1984-style (GASP!) Big Brother group, but they want to force true liberty and justice for all. So then how are you going to exert global control over all nations without becoming the Big Brother that you just said you hated? Woohoo!

Idealism is great. Idealism changes the world, really. So what am I really knocking them for, then? Having ideas? Certainly not. Imagining a world that's better for everyone? That's a great concept!

No, I'm knocking them for being half-assed idealists. For being lazy idealists. For birthing their free humanity concept and then developing it by going through the supreme effort of publishing a single web page with blue text and a white background. And basing the "organization" in the mountains of Colorado, conveniently close to where they already are! But I guess when you think about it, Colorado might actually be the perfect place for their group, if only for the reason that their entire membership lives within an hour's drive of their proposed base-camp. I'm sure that's why the League of Nations failed, really. If only they could have figured out a better city to put the bunk beds in, we could have had world peace by now.

I'm bashing them for coming up with these great ideas that everyone in the history of mankind has already come up with and then not bothering to think past a few Thomas Jefferson quotes. I'm not bashing them for thinking that a few idealist friends in Nowhere, USA can't make a difference - because they can - I'm bashing them for thinking that they can do it by parking a few trailers together and saying that the way to keep the governments of the world from dominating the people is to great a giant organization that dominates the governments. Way to go.

But none of us really have anything to worry about. So far, their organization has only progressed to the point that nobody knows they exist except other hacks on the internet writing about them in their weblogs. What's ironic is that by writing this, I'll probably create more traffic to their site than if I'd just kept my ass shut. Their main page counter is at 245. I think that's including me.

Always somebody else

2004-07-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

I saw today surveillance footage of some of the 9/11 hijackers going through security at Dulles.

Then I read an AP report that some of the survivors' families are suing the airlines and security sub-contractors because they were negligent.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040722/D83VI8K80.html

I witnessed this same occurrence before over the years when the Columbine High shootings were slowly blowing over. Several parents of kids killed in the shooting, led by one boy's father, were blaming the police and emergency responders, not indirectly as many others did, but directly: this father alleged vehemently that one of the deputies to trade shots with Klebold and Harris had shot his son instead. The ballistics were all wrong, there was no real evidence to uphold it, and after dragging this deputy through dirt for about a year and a half, he finally pulled his allegations and admitted he was wrong.

He was desperate, as a lot of parents were, to blame somebody for what happened- but they couldn't blame the shooters; they were dead. The only people left are the cops and the school administrators.

When the shit hits the fan, people desperately need something to blame. And 9/11 was so ahorrently huge that there's a giant mob running around with torches pulling people out of their houses and drowning them in the lake.

"Even after setting off these alarms, the airlines and security screeners failed to examine the hijackers' baggage, as required by federal regulations and industry mandated standards, or discover the weapons they would use in their attack."

I know a couple of things about security screening, and the first is that when a person sets off the walk-through metal detector, their bags are not required to be searched. Never have been, aren't now. The weapons they used? The dude working the x-ray machine saw those box-cutters. But just like the thousands of Swiss Army Knives he saw, he let them go because they weren't prohibited. Every bag is x-rayed. And they did their job exactly as they were told to in letting those box-cutters through.

Even if their bags had been opened and tossed, those box-cutters still would have gone on the plane. Nobody prohibited box-cutters back then. It was decided that they, along with swiss army knives, fingernail clippers and the like, were not dangerous enough to be prohibited.

This conglomeration of survivors' families didn't see it coming, either. They didn't have enough forethought to realize that oh, hell, anything that has a sharp edge can be used as a weapon! There was no giant movement to tighten airline security before 9/11. There was no huge advocacy group screaming at the government to keep tennis rackets and razor blades out of the passenger cabin.

When it comes down to it, you can hijack a plane with a bottle of wine. You can hijack a plane with a ballpoint pen, if you're determined enough. The 9/11 hijackers didn't need those box-cutters. They could have used the metal butter knives that were already in First Class. They just had to scare the passengers.

People care about security for about two weeks after a crazy disaster. Then most people go right back to getting pissed when they have to spend a whole minute taking their shoes off. They whine about losing their silver-plated engraved penknife, and they can't stand being asked to hold still for thirty-five seconds while the dude in the uniform waves a magic wand around them.

And you have to find somebody to blame. The more people, the better, cause you can feel like you're doing something productive.

I know many screeners now who want the screening to be tighter. Nobody can see the holes in the system more than the screeners who do it every day. But they're bound and restricted by policy. There are some items more deadly than box-cutters allowed on board- knitting needles, for instance- why? Because the AARP has so much lobbying power in Washington that there's no way little old ladies will be kept from their crocheting.

Then one of the family members said that "she was surprised at how relaxed security was, given that the airlines had received three warnings... that American interests may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups." What we saw on the videotape is as strict as security was ever allowed to get before 9/11. Every time it got tighter, passengers complained about how long the lines were, how long they had to wait to be checked, and why do I have to take my laptop out of my suitcase? In the airport, it's a balance of security against convenience. When you're suing the government, of course the priority is on security. But when it's them in the line, and the plane is about to leave cause you left thirty minutes late, then it's convenience.

The reason those hijackers were allowed on board those planes with the objects they would later use as weapons is because all of us can't be troubled to arrive at the airport early like we're supposed to and subject ourselves to the same screening that everyone else gets. The only way to check everyone is to check everyone, and nobody wants to volunteer because we already know that we're not the terrorist.

Easy to blame the security screeners. Faceless uniforms. But they were just doing what they were told. Blame the airlines, then? Giant corporations, obviously just bent on profit. But were they were just adhering to government-dictated policy? Aha! Blame the government, that evil, power-hungry monster who steals chunks from our paychecks. They're the ones that made the policy, right? So who does the government bow to? We dictate that policy. We're the ones telling our Senators that we can't stand having our underwear and our hidden KY Jelly exposed to everyone in the terminal.

But nobody can bear to blame themselves.

EDIT (7/22): Saw a headline of a paper this morning: TOTAL FAILURE. Technically, this is true, but I know they didn't mean it as they should have. The security didn't fail. It did exactly as it could. Had they been able to take those box-cutters, they would have. But policy told them not to. Just now they're toying with the idea of allowing non-passengers back to airline gates, just as they did before 9/11. It's happening already. People are forgetting and lapsing back into "HEYYY!!! I want to be let in there to kiss Aunt Margie good-bye!" And the restrictions that lobbying groups put on security is what's going to get us into airline security trouble again.

Better Titles Later

2004-07-19T23:00:00.000-07:00

Heh. Lame-duck "Hey this is my first post to see if this blog works"?

Nope.

I rant. I love to rant. I love to be that guy that you have to bang on the ceiling to shut up. My friends love it when I rant. They love to set me off. Not because my rants contain any sort of wit or cleverness; though I pretend. No, it's my unmitigated frustration. The pacing, reckless gesticulation, the long, slowly growing decibel curve. The gross over- and mis-use of repulsively long symonyms.

It's funny to see somebody get so pissed about something as insignificant as the defrost button on his microwave that lets you quick-defrost "frank, in bun". Who the hell freezes a hot dog in the bun? Are there so many potential microwave purchasers who bring back from the store separate packages of franks and buns, open them, assemble the ready-to-eat hot dogs, then freeze them as to merit a one-touch defrost button on the microwave console?

"You know, if I just put these things together now, I won't have to waste time placing the actual frank in the bun later. I can just defrost them, and then instantly have a ready-to-eat hot dog!"

See, there he is. You just saw normal, mild-mannered, ruggedly attractive Scott-

-become short-fused ANGRY Scott.

He's not to be trusted.


But you can't wail in a blog. You can't wave your arms about, nor punctuate your sentences by ceasing to pace, then puctuate them again by restarting. Readers cannot hear your voice return to pre-pubescent spontaneous octave-jumping.

But I'm obsessive. I love to obsess. I love to be that obsessive guy. When you reveal to someone that you loved the idea of the gravity-powered ceiling fan in Mosquito Coast and sat up in bed all night until you figured out how to build one yourself, most people will kind of sit back and utter a "whoa" or two, happy they aren't you. Obsession may help my blogging. At least up the entertainment.

I also have too much time on my hands. I don't like being that guy that has too much time on his hands, so the obsessive guy takes over. I see my buddy on IM with a happy, calming avatar of Wayne Newton:

I have nothing to do for the next two hours. Can I leave Wayne alone? Nope.

Wayne's got to go.

And my buddy's reaction when he saw it, "oh SHITE!", made it all worth it.

So no banal posts about daily routines here. Not to knock them at all, but the menial details of my life are boring enough to me. I don't want to force anyone else to relive them. Actually, it has nothing to do with anyone else, I'm just also too lazy to input that I like the Brown Sugar ham over the Smoked ham unless I think there's going to be some sort of payoff.

The other thing about ranters is that they'll go on forever unless somebody stops them, or they happen to glance at the scroll bar and see that they don't know how many pages they've written, but it's more than two.