Not Enough Tequila In The World

Perspective

2012-01-27T14:21:00.002Z

Everything in life is a matter of perspective--here's what I mean:

1) Driving to work today in a heavy downpour (it was 63 degrees out) would normally have made me depressed. Except, it's late January--normally that would be a major blizzard this time of year. I'll take rain over snow when I'm driving!

2) Suffering a bad cold is pretty miserable. But when you're suffering severe stomach pains or a scratched cornea, you'd trade that for a cold any day.

3) Obama pisses off a lot of Republicans these days, arguing about his power grabs and big government policies. But they could have gotten a Democrat in there who would have passed a single payer health care program, a cap and trade plan for reducing carbon emissions, and allowed the 2001 tax cuts to expire a year ago.

4) If the "undead" are what we call dead people that come back to life as zombies, then we should have a term for those who haven't died yet, like "nondead". That's sort of off topic though.

5) A thirty minute commute to work is a giant PITA when you're used to a ten minute commute. But then listen to the guy with the hour-long commute and you'll quit your bitching.

6) The economy has sucked pretty bad for about four years now, with a weak job market and housing market. But 30 years ago we had all of that, plus pretty awful inflation, meaning whatever money you did make or save was rapidly losing its value.

It could always be worse!

We Need A New Metro Line

2012-01-26T13:28:00.002Z

I eagerly await the day that the Silver Line--which will connect Dulles Airport, Reston, and Tysons Corner to the DC area Metro system--is completed, if only because of the amount of terrible drivers who will now be given a chance to ride the rails instead of tailgate and crash all over I-66. And "Silver" is a nice touch, though it shows that they are running out of distinctive colors for the various lines. "Gold" won't work, since it's too close to yellow, "black" won't work because people will think that means it's haunted, and "plaid" is a bad idea because the line will get infested with Scottish hooligans fighting over whose clan is to be represented.

I do propose a "polka dot" line though, to reach key underserved areas, like southwest Arlington, Fair Oaks, and Chantilly, but we're still running into the problem of "how do we pay for it". It's simple really:

1) Enable the tracks to be used by private operators after hours for special "party trains" that serve drinks, dancing, gambling and delicious food as they cruise slowly around the city.

2) Rent out concession space at the stations for coffee, beer, and snack sales. To alleviate any litter problem, install cameras in the cars and on the platforms, and anyone caught littering is subject to 1000 hours of community service cleaning up litter. Far worse than a fine.

3) Those guys hustling for cash on the trains? There's really no way to stop them, so instead require them to fork over a quarter of their take to the Metro system when they exit.

4) More ads.

5) Add a "luxury car" with its own guard for each train. People buying VIP weekly or monthly passes can sit on plush couches, watch movies, be served snacks. It'll add some revenue, and enable the rich people to take Metro instead of taking up too much road in their luxury SUVs.

6) Add "low class" cheapo cars, with special "cheapo" passes--these would be standing room only, unheated cars with no frills. These cars would take on people who are bargain searching, who don't mind standing and being in a more crowded car than normal.

SOTU is STFU

2012-01-25T14:22:00.002Z

Why does anyone cover the State of the Union addresses these days? The speeches are always long (at least an hour) and filled with mindless robotic applause (only by the President's party, the opposition party has to be very careful about what they applaud, because oops if you're a Republican and you clap when the President says the damn Republicans are being jerks). Nothing new is ever addressed--just cheap spin about what a great job the Prez did in the past year, a bunch of poll-tested garbage for the coming year that isn't likely to ever get passed in its intended reform, and pointless sweeping statements that can mean almost anything in actual practice. So I generally skip these speeches.

But since they're going to be covered by the media anyway, why not make them entertaining? Here's some ideas:

1) Have the President bring out a puppet in the perfect likeness of the leader of the opposition party, and have "conversations". It can be like Obama saying "gee, John Boehner, what do you think of my proposal to increase college graduation rates?" Boehner-puppet: "I think it sucks! College is for nerds!" Then the real Boehner can go "Oh I didn't say it that way!"

2) Have the address given by an impressionist who does a great sendup of the President.

3) Require the entire speech to be given in limerick form.

4) Limit the speech to a half hour, with a buzzer sounding if they go over.

5) Really, the puppet idea. I'd have a hard time not re-electing a president who used a puppet in the SOTU.

So You Want to Make Your Own Independent Movie

2012-01-24T14:00:00.002Z

Being a bit of a movie buff, I've learned quite a lot about what it takes to make different kinds of pictures. (In the "business" we call them "pictures." I'm not actually in the "business") While for most novices we can't just go and make our own films--war films require too many actors, sci fi requires too many special effects, westerns require too much land--there is always the easy career starter of the independent film. These "mumblecore" fests may not make a lot of money, but they're cheap to put together and can get you the acclaim you need as a budding producer.

Here's what you'll need for your indie film:

1) Dialogue that is unlike anyone's real dialogue. Your characters have to be talky, and have to engage in all sorts of discourse (using big words like "discourse", which no one would in real life) with their equally talky friends about mundane things like why cigarettes haven't changed at all in a hundred years and yet soda cans are totally different now.

2) Either Parker Posey or Chloe Sevigny, since they signed some weird contract with Hollywood that requires either of them to be in every single indie film ever made.

3) Light acoustic guitar strumming. Nothing says "sensitive thoughtful quirky" quite like light acoustic guitar strumming.

4) A famous actress going for "indie cred". She can appear as the "manic pixie dream girl" love interest, or go a "braver" route and make herself look less glamorous. Nothing says serious actressing like uglying up!

5) The male actors need to be shaggy headed. I don't know about you, but when I encounter a shaggy headed guy in real life, I have to look around to make sure I'm not accidentally getting into the scene for an independent film.

6) A crappy car. Why is it that every independent film has to have at least one really-out-of-date-but-not-actually-a-classic-yet car? I think it's the quirkiness!

7) Deep title. Let's say the plot is about a young adult who failed out of college and hasn't told his folks yet and they think he's just visiting for the holiday but he's really planning to stay there long term. Avoid an obvious title like "Idiot Failure Boy" or "Look Who's Flunked". Instead, go with a title that elevates the film, like "Prodigal Son" or "Dried Ivy".

South Carolina Must Really Hate America

2012-01-23T14:41:00.003Z

It is fitting that South Carolina has gone from goading the rest of the South into a disastrous attempt at secession 150 years ago, and just this weekend have voted overwhelmingly to nominate Newt Gingrich for president. Clearly, the primal scream of sending a message has trumped even defeating Obama for the palmetto-leaf folks (they really need a better nickname for South Carolinians. I prefer "Dixienuts").

I won't entertain the possibility that Gingrich could ever get elected president, as Obama would need to admit to actually being an Iranian double agent to get beaten (and even then would still win the blue states) by that guy. Newt's approval ratings are somewhere between traffic jams and mysterious rashes. His debate strategy is satisfying in the sense that everyone loves an insult comic, but this is not a guy who can win moderates and if anything will drive up turnout among the Democratic base.

But a lot of Republicans don't care about that--right now, it's about sending a message that they don't care for Mitt Romney. Romney, to be sure, is a very weak retail politician, given to craven flip flopping, fancy hair, and exhorbitant wealth that has created a distance between him and the voters--and basically, the GOP base didn't like it any more when it was John Kerry filling that role. (What is it with Massachusetts, anyway?)

I still predict Romney gets the nomination in the end--he's got more establishment support, money, and ground organization--but his weak spot has shown. It's going to get uglier before it gets prettier.

Hipsters Defined! Still No Cure for Cancer

2012-01-20T13:06:00.003Z

Scienticians at Harvard have many different things they can study for the betterment of mankind. How to cure cancer. How to find a new energy form cheaper and safer than oil. Whether there are any nearby planets that can support life, and maybe even be populated by sexy Amazon warriors. Instead, the Harvarders are studying what in fact makes you a hipster.

The researchers have determined in fact that being a hipster is defined by liking what no one else likes, and I call total BS on this one. After all, we don't see hipsters flocking to places like Iowa, where no one wants to live, and buying Tiny Tim songs that no one wants to listen to, and eating raw chicken drenched in milk because no one in their right mind would eat that. People who truly like what no one else likes isn't called a hipster, they're simply called weird.

Hipsters, I'd argue, are better defined by THINKING that they like something no one else likes, that they're sort of uber-cool because they have discovered something that is about to be popular so that they can look down on those who get on the bandwagon later. They'll listen to the indie rock band that hasn't gotten famous yet, not because they just happen to like this music they discovered, but because they want the joy of saying they were into it WAY before they went mainstream. They'll live in that neighborhood that is just starting to become livable, not because the rent's still cheap but because once it's a popular place they can then say they were living there years ago.

Hipster is about snobbery, but not snobbery in the "I can afford nicer things than you" or "I am smarter/faster/better than you" sense--rather, it's snobbery in the "I am more cool than you because I am ahead of you on what's popular" sense.

But hey, I knew this way before those Harvard researchers made it mainstream.

Tacky Taxes!

2012-01-19T13:12:00.003Z

Mitt Romney's latest revelation that he pays probably about 15% of his income in taxes has completely shocked the Internets, leaving much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. How could this guy who makes an annual income in the tens of millions of dollars end up paying an effective tax rate so low?

The answer of course is that the vast bulk of Romney's income comes in the form of long term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income. Why is this? Surely income that is earned by toil shouldn't be taxed higher than income earned by sitting back and watching your money work for you, right?

Well, for all you complainers, keep in mind that this is exactly what we get when we elect the sort of Congressboobs that think the tax system should be tinkered and picked at so that it can engage in not just revenue raising but in social engineering. The tax code is so full of deductions, exclusions, alternate schedules, credits, and so forth, that it should surprise no one that the very rich (who can hire full time tax professionals) can find ways to take their earnings to avoid taxes as much as they legally can. Romney (and rich investors like him) benefit from the lower capital gains rate because Congress wants to encourage more investing, since it's good for the economy. However, the tax code shouldn't be "encouraging" any behavior, but rather just finding the most reasonable and effective way to raise revenue.

Plus, there's just something very wrong with a tax code so complicated that even well-intentioned taxpayers are never really 100% sure that they did their taxes right. Even when they double checked and went to H&R Block. Ask yourself this--if you heard you were going to face an IRS audit, would you think to yourself "no problem, I did nothing wrong!" or "oh crap, what did I do wrong???"

Of course, anyone really favoring true tax reform would have to give up their own goodies--home mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, exclusions of certain benefits from employers--and since no one wants to do that we can't expect our Congressfrauds to risk their careers voting for such a change. So as much as real tax reform is needed--since the economy in the long run is better off with a simpler system, so that people and businesses make decisions that are best for them without "encouragement" from the tax code--I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nope-a to SOPA

2012-01-18T14:19:00.003Z

Plenty of websites today (notably, Fark.com and Wikipedia) are going black as a protest against some legislation currently snaking through Congress that is intended to curb online piracy. The legislation, in typical Congressitude, is well-intentioned but basically overreaching and likely to cause more harm than good, shutting down innocent websites without due process and severely curtailing the free and open spirit of the Internet. This is not remarkable--Congress is widely known for faux outrage, misunderstanding the consequences of what they enact, and having absolutely no idea how the real world works which is why they are in Congress. A team of gerbils with a dartboard is likely to pass better legislation than Congress, and yet Joe Lunchpail will always vote against Proposition 433 (the "Gerbils Are Our New Masters" Act).

What is remarkable is the coordinated and widespread outcry about the anti-piracy legislation, which is likely to cause its defeat. The government can detain people indefinitely without charges, it can launch drone strikes against U.S. citizens abroad without due process, and it can use tax dollars to basically buy U.S. automakers to hand over to the unions, and you hear a collective "meh" from the citizenry. But strike at our favorite websites, and you'll draw blood.

Burger King Delivery

2012-01-17T20:21:00.004Z

Up until now, the hardest thing about fast food was the long and dangerous journey to the burger joint, the wait on line behind low-wattage customers, and the calorie-laden trek home. But those days may soon be behind us! Behold, Burger King delivery!

From that writer's perspective, the service and product--what amounts to BK dropping by your house with your meal, for a slight delivery charge--was most excellent, in that the fries stayed fresh and the burger didn't soggy up the bun. (Granted, some nutritionist he quoted went all Debbie Downer with the whole "think of the calories!" hysteria, but I'm sure some clod complained when Edison invented the lightbulb that this would deprive future generations of the glories of candlewax pickings) Could this be the beginning of a new era for fast food? Service at home???

My initial reservations about the idea have always been based on two things--small dollar items not being cost effective to deliver, and the inability of the burger and fries to still taste good by the time they arrived at your door. As to the first concern, this can be solved with bulk order requirements (no different from Chinese places offering free delivery if you order above a certain dollar amount). Most often you'd order for burger/fry delivery when you're among others, or very very ravenous.

The second concern is trickier--fries notoriously have a very short tastiness window, and once cold they can never be reheated adequately (Lord knows I've tried). This is why at McDs they serve you the fries after everything else, and when they are hot out of the fryer. How can the fries survive a trip across town?

I have faith though--think of the innovations pizza delivery companies have come up with over the years to maintain freshness (I have to credit Dominos for this, as their pizza may not be very good they certainly have revolutionized the delivery system). Cardboard pizza boxes that retain heat and let moisture out; thermal sleeves that keep the temperature up; drivers who obey no traffic law devised by God or Man. I'm sure with the amount of money at stake that our burger/fry delivery folks will come up with ingenious solutions for their freshness problem in the coming years.

Just don't try adding deep fryers in the passenger seats. It creates more problems than it solves.

You Damn Dirty Ape!

2012-01-13T16:38:00.003Z

Having watched the recent film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"--an attempt the reboot the classic Nixon-era series--I can't help but wonder a few things about the story. Spoiler alert--the apes rise!

1) There were a hell of a lot of apes going amok at the climax of the film. Now, counting the zoo, testing labs, circuses, and random Italian guys with organ grinders, how damn many monkeys could there possibly be in the San Francisco area? It's not like everyone owns a pet monkey (despite San Fran's large hipster population).

2) I would have at least expected one great "Oh, CRAP!" moment in the film from a banana daquiri vendor as he sees a crowd of apes jumping towards him. Why would the film fail to include such an obviously necessary scene?

3) James Franco near the end should have ripped off his "human" mask to reveal he was an ape in disguise all along. It would have explained his acting.

4) What, are we supposed to be rooting for the apes to take over and kill a bunch of humans simply because an ape-jailer in the middle of the film was being a jerk to the apes? Because by that theory we should be rooting for inmates at maximum security prisons to take over the Earth. No thanks, hippies!

5) The original series was supposed to be an allegory about how humans of varying races treat one another. The reboot seems to be giving us the message that if you're ordered to euthanize all the lab apes, there's a good reason for it.

Random Political Thoughts

2012-01-11T13:14:00.003Z

1) Presidents and presidential candidates should never be seen wearing jeans. They always just look weird and uncomfortable when wearing them.

2) Yard signs--what the hell? Does anyone ever go driving through a neighborhood or along a main road and say "hey, that sign says to vote for Candidate X, and provides no other information! They got my vote!"?

3) All this talk of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". What even is this??? How do you physically lift yourself up by pulling at your own footwear? As a metaphor, this is physically impossible.

4) Four years too late, I realize that Sarah Palin would have had the perfect line for Katie Couric when she was asked which newspapers she read (instead of her actual, idiotic "all of them" response). She could have said "I read the Billings Gazetteer. It's an obscure paper, I'm sure you haven't heard of them." Right there she would have locked down the hipster vote!

5) People who make fun of Mormons for their more "out there" beliefs seem to be okay with Catholics, who are required to believe that every Sunday they are in fact eating the blood and body of Jesus Christ. Is there some rule that if a religion's belief system is old enough, it's no longer fair game to make fun of it?

6) The media can use statistical models to project the winner of an election with under 2% of the returns sampled. By that theory, how come sports media haven't been able to predict the winner of a football game just two minutes into the game?

7) The Constitution doesn't specifically say that the president of the United States has to be a homo sapiens. You know it's only a matter of time before a lovable gorilla is elected and then made subject to the most embarrassing Supreme Court case of all time.

No Snow? How you like them apples?

2012-01-10T12:37:00.003Z

Everyone who's heard my rants knows I have no love of snow, since I bring that fact up every time it snows, sleets, rains heavy, there's good food to eat, there's background music, or I've ridden in a car that day. Snow sucks.

So yesterday's blizzard brought the usual "oh crap" moment because on the drive home it wouldn't take much for DC's ordinarily chaotic tumble of morons to let the mushy unsalted roads become a quagmire of stopped cars for hours. I fortunately missed that mess last year, and fortunately for this time, the snow didn't stick. Close one, snow--but you'll have to do better than that to mess up this guy! (Knocks on wood)

Anyway, a Mainer buddy of mine raised the point that the lack of snow is hurting the tourism industry up there, because Maine is partly dependent on ski bums from Massaholia and parts beyond to support their lumber-based economy. I am skeptical of her argument, since of course if the roads are hazardous enough then the obnoxious Bostonians won't even be able to drive their BMWs up to Sugarloaf or Sunday River, and may take their vacations elsewhere, like that island where you get to hunt the most dangerous game. Humans!

If you absolutely must ski, and there's no snow, then I'd suggest instead riding a mountain bike down the slope. Voila. Thank me later, Sully.

How to be a Sherlocksmith

2012-01-06T12:55:00.002Z

Sherlock Holmes has brought us many great additions to our pop culture, including the phrase "No shit, Sherlock" and the acceptability of cocaine use to cure boredom. He also taught us that we can make all sorts of grand inferences from the slightest of clues. Learning from this, I am using the powers of deduction in everyday life:

1) I observed the 18-wheeler in my blind spot on the highway yesterday, which continued to speed as I did, regardless of the fact that he had a slower car ahead of him and would have to slam on his brakes. From this, I deduce that the driver of this truck had a load of dead hookers in the back, and this caused his nervous, erratic behavior. Anyone with dead hookers is a registered Democrat (Republicans tend to keep their hookers alive on highway drives, and Independents never let dead hookers affect their driving), so it is obvious to me that Obama needs this trucker's vote come November.

2) I observed one of the entry gates at our parking garage was out of order for over 24 hours. Gates out of order generally mean poor property management, which thus means I should avoid using the bathrooms at work lest the toilet explode.

3) I observed that one of the elevators in our apartment building has been out of order for several weeks now. From this I deduce that we live in the slum.

Elementary!

Things That Would Be Real Neat

2012-01-05T13:32:00.003Z

1) Having all the players of the NFL and all the players of Major League Baseball switch sports for one season, so we could determine once and for all if baseball players can play football better than football players can play baseball.

2) If the outer reaches of DC's Metrorail system connected with the outer reaches of Baltimore's, to Philadelphia's, to New York's, so you could basically take Metros and subways all the way from DC to Manhattan without leaving the system.

3) Helicopter shuttles leaving from various nearby office buildings that could take you to the local airports.

4) Festive holidays at the end of winter instead of the beginning, so you'd have something to look forward to during all the cold.

5) Living upstairs from a bakery that serves beer and good pizza as well.

6) If the best actors in history were cryogenically frozen in their prime, so eventually we can see that Kevin Bacon/Laurence Olivier film we always wanted.

7) If just once the president would leave some background radio music on when he gives some address from the Oval Office, so everyone can think "hey does he know he left that radio on?"

Iowa Does Their Iowa Thing, Now Back to Being Cold

2012-01-04T13:38:00.003Z

With the Iowa caucuses finally over, there is now a virtual tie between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Michele "Don't Look Directly at My Eyes" Bachmann and Rick "Oops" Perry are about to drop out of the race, leaving only a few contenders left to run as NotRomney:

1) Rick Santorum. He's riding high today, but don't expect this to last. He opposes contraception, which even most Catholics favor, and in his last campaign he lost his Senate seat by a whopping 18 points. The only reason he's done so well in Iowa is that (a) he spent a ridiculous amount of time there, retail campaigning, while the caucuses are very low-turnout affairs, and (b) he hasn't had time as a top contender to get media scrutiny as others have. The next couple weeks will be rough on him.

2) Ron Paul. How far can a candidate go when he's borrowing the platform of William McKinley? It's just not serious to ask us to go on the gold standard. While libertarianism is attractive in general, an extreme uncompromising form of it will get absolutely nowhere in reality, with a divided government as we have always had. Then there's the crackpot newsletters he's spent the past few weeks disavowing. He may "go the distance" but don't expect him to win the nomination.

3) Newt Gingrich. He was doing well in the polls until people realized this was Newt Gingrich.

4) Jon Huntsman. Completely skipping the Iowa caucuses may prove to be a big mistake, as this makes him miss a great deal of media attention. For whatever reason, he just never took off--even though he's fairly conservative (more so than Romney, I'd argue) and very qualified to be President (both governing a medium sized state and serving as ambassador to China). He lacked the Obama-bashing tone of his rivals, which may have convinced Republicans he was a secret liberal, but I think his failure to catch on may have simply been a lack of sellable message or poor national campaign skills. Unless he pulls a crazy upset in New Hampshire, he's done.

5) Mitt Romney. How could Mitt Romney run as the NotRomney? I'd say only Mitt Romney himiself could pull that off! He'd be at his flip floppingly best if he emerged on stage one day with a big fake mustache and glasses, and said he was Trey Romnekowski, an ultra-conservative steelworker turned politician from Pittsburgh, running for President on a strong message to save the party from Romneyism. Hey, why not? If people could believe that Michele Bachmann's husband can cure people of being gay, the Romnekowski campaign still wouldn't be the most outlandish thing to happen this campaign season.

Predictions for 2012

2011-12-28T12:53:00.002Z

1) A home beermaking machine--much more automated than current homebrewing apparatuses--will be brought to market next year and become the "must have" for the next holiday season.

2) The housing market nationally will improve steadily over the year, as the lack of building for the past five years will create a glut of demand.

3) Mitt Romney will seal up the GOP nomination by Super Tuesday, and go on to lose the general election to Obama. Conservatives will claim that a "true conservative" like Reagan would have won, and if only people had listened to them. Never mind that Reagan has been out of office for 22 years and dead for seven. Some conservatives--like Ted Nugent--will threaten to leave the country, as they can't live under socialism, but their promise will have been as empty as Alec Baldwin's back in 2004.

4) Dan Snyder will fire Mike Shanahan (Coach Number Ten?) because clearly the problem for the Redskins is a series of incompetent coaches rather than a truly awful owner who meddles and knows about as much about football as a cinderblock.

5) Occupy Wall Street will succeed in convincing the big financial firms to adopt more benevolent practices, paying their executives salaries in the low six figures, being more open about their dealings, and forgiving debts of Americans who can't find work. Ha ha ha! Just kidding!

6) The latest fashion trend for women will be some impractical type of overpriced clothing that will likely cause long term injuries to themselves and others. The latest fashion trend for men will be a new style of t-shirt.

7) Some new singing sensation will be so awful it will make today's tweens nostalgic for the musical stylings of Justin Bieber.

8) Hollywood will finally do a re-make of Smokey and the Bandit. It will be terrible.

9) Fidel Castro's corpse will finally be declared dead, allowing for Cuba to be opened up for American tourism and influence.

10) The world will not actually end in 2012 because the Mayans were a stone-age culture that had no special insight into telling the future of major cosmic events.

The Year's Big Implosions

2011-12-27T13:04:00.003Z

As 2011 comes to a close, it is time to rate the biggest implosions of this year:

1) Anthony Weiner. Hey here's a great idea--send photos of your junk around because nothing ever gets backtraced to you. This was such an implosion that after Weiner resigned, the most Jewish and Democratic congressional district in the country actually elected a Republican gentile to represent it. Hint--if your name is "Weiner", don't do anything strange with your penis! It just makes it too easy for the late night talk show hosts.

2) Herman Cain. Hey here's an idea--if you were accused of sexually harassing more women than you can count on one hand, it might be a good idea to not run for president--these things tend to get out. Of course, if the whole point is just to get better known so you can sell books and get on TV, then this only helps so maybe the joke's on all of us.

3) Gadaffi. For a guy who was in power for over forty years, you'd think he'd have learned from deposed tyrants who fell during that time, including Idi Amin, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and Ceaucescu. If things are looking dicey, have a nice country set up to escape to once things really fall apart. France is a good bet--they'll take anyone with cash!

4) The Euro. I like to think of the Germans as pretty smart, but somewhere along the way they got the idea that the key to long term success was tying their economic fortunes to comic relief countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. I mean, Italy was sort of the wisecracking sidekick of WWII--surely the Germans should have learned from experience?

5) Congress. This gang can't even vote on when to break for lunch without shutting down the whole system. What a dysfunctional bunch. The fact that any of these morons is paid more than the minimum wage for doing their "job" is really sick.

6) East Coast Earthquake. At least the fizzle that this one turned out to be was a good thing--jokes about lawn chairs tipping over and the owner's screaming "oh the humanity!" just illustrate that we were lucky to not have buildings and bridges demolished.

Gift Giving

2011-12-22T12:47:00.002Z

Gift giving helps you measure a number of things about yourself, including just how cheap you are and how much you just don't really understand about the person you're buying the gift for. But it also teaches you a great deal about your gift-giving target.

Case in point--some years back I was invited to a wedding for a close friend. Now, wedding registries have made wedding gift giving much easier, but this friend initially refused to set one up. And, since this friend is very wealthy, any amount of cash I could have afforded to give would have been an insult, sort of like a Bangladeshi rope farmer giving his annual wages of six dollars to me (an American who makes as much as several thousand rope farmers). Ultimately, they did set up a registry, but this illustrates one of the hardest types of people to shop for--the well-off person who buys themself what they want or need.

The best people to shop for?

1) Poor people. You'll find poor people--including children, or that guy from college who is sleeping on your couch "for just a few weeks"--have many things they need or want but just can't afford. Getting them one of these things is always appreciated.

2) Collectors. That friend of yours who collects rare Nepalese daggers or stuffed snakes is someone you know could always use one more addition to their collection. In this day of electronic media, though, rare records or books are hard to find and of less usefulness. So you need a more eccentric collector, and who wants to be friends with a weirdo anyway?

3) The self-deprived. Some people, no matter how rich, will just never buy themselves something they would most likely use if they had it. Think of the friend who still has a VCR, or heats their food with a candle because they never got around to buying a microwave.

4) The easily shamed. There are some things we all want but can't face buying for ourselves and can only accept these things if they're given as gifts. Tacky holiday sweaters, or that Cher CD, or that trip to the acupuncturist--maybe it'd feel funny to get it, but if someone else got it for you, you can always say "it was a gift so it's ok."

Yes, Raising the Payroll Tax is Just Like Impaling the English

2011-12-21T13:08:00.002Z

Much as I can't stand the Democrats, there are times when I'm reminded why the Republicans suck just as bad. The failure to pass a payroll tax cut extension in Congress is just the latest in a long stream of examples as to why all these jerks should be sent off to some other country where they can stop harming this one.

Now, there are good budgetary reasons to let the payroll tax cut expire--though these same reasons also apply to taxes and spending across the board, and one thing the Dems and GOPers seem to be in agreement on is that the only tough medicine should be taken by the other side. So for a while they've compromised on no real spending cuts and no tax increases. Hooray for everybody except the future of our country!

Then I read that while the House GOP was psyching themselves into voting to allow the average family to feel a $1000 a year pinch starting in the new year, because of course that's a great thing to do in middle of a recession, they decided to recall their favorite scenes from "Braveheart."

The Democrats may be craven, corrupt, and stupid, but the Republicans might actually be completely deranged to the point that they shouldn't be allowed within fifty feet of children let alone the engines of our government. Braveheart??? Really???

That stupid movie was not just historically inaccurate, overwrought, lacking in any complexity or real character development, and simplistic, it also served as an overlong opportunity for Mel Gibson to let out his inner id--a long-haired, skirt-wearing maniac who gets tortured to death. Mel is a very sick man and I feel sorry for him for his many, many inner demons, and to celebrate this cry for help that was the film "Braveheart" is pretty horrible. "Braveheart" is sort of the equivalent of watching a a crippled man in a slap-fight with a baboon--it may draw your attention, but the classy thing is to look away.

Not to say the Republicans have shown any class this past year. But their weird "Braveheart" fetish is just icing on the cake.

Brown Christmas

2011-12-20T12:53:00.002Z

Whenever I hear anyone lament that we may not be getting a "white" Christmas, my immediate reaction is "I didn't realize you wanted old people to die and poor people to starve." Often they react in silent shock, at which point I say "happy holidays, Hitler" and leave them to their devices. Truth is, white Christmases suck for two reasons:

1) Snow causes more falling down and falling down is a leading cause of death for old people. And for young people, it's a leading cause of ruining your pants.

2) Snow on the ground reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere, meaning the ground absorbs less heat, causing colder temperatures, thus driving up the cost of heating oil which forces poor people to decide between warmth and food.

Ergo, loving snow means you're evil. Sorry, it's just basic logic.

Now, some people think snow is pretty--but in this day and age, surely we can just set up a webcam in some godforsaken place (let's say, Michigan, which God forsook a long time ago) where we can watch on TV the falling snow and sad Michiganders shovelling off their cars. Wouldn't that give us our snow fix? And as for skiiers, to them I say find a sport that doesn't suck.

Unlike Irving Berlin--who isn't even from Berlin!--I'm dreaming of a nice, brown Christmas.

A New Jerk Replaces the Old One

2011-12-19T18:36:00.003Z

North Korea's batshit insane evil crazy bastard leader Kim Jong Il is officially dead. If there's a hell, he's surely being poked with tridents for eternity for his long legacy of inhuman cruelty. Good riddance to bad rubbish. He can now join his rotten father in hell too.

Now they're handing over power to his fat weirdo son. Is it fair to comment on the physical girth of another country's leader? Sure it is, particularly when the 24 million North Koreans are subsisting on a diet of dried grass and tree bark and this turd looks like he hasn't missed a meal. Unless he goes a complete 180 and liberalizes his country and cedes power, I'll be happy to see him meet an early demise. Little is known about this pork-boy, but it's hard to imagine the Kim clan producing a reformer.

One other thing to keep in mind is that if North Korea collapses, their neighbors to the South and North (South Korea and China, respectively) would be inundated with swarming, starving refugees, most of whom are so crazed and brainwashed that they're actually sobbing at the thought of their freak leader being dead. But better to deal with the humanitarian crisis by providing food and medicine to these unfortuante people than to let it go on another decade or two. Particularly when their country gets eager to try out their new missiles.

Lessons Learned from Dirty Harry

2011-12-19T12:51:00.004Z

1) District Attorneys in 1971 were even more incompetent than they are today. Harry secured evidence from the killer without a warrant, so none of the evidence was admissible against the killer. However, the killer had already beaten Harry and shot at another cop--couldn't he have been charged with those crimes? No wonder Harry went fascist!

2) It's okay to be a bigot as long as you're bigoted against ALL other races and aren't just picking on one or two of them.

3) Police inspectors are allowed to carry .44 magnums as their service weapons. Apparently they weren't too worried about negligently putting a hole through their target and pretty much any bystander within 100 yards of it.

4) Next time some psycho commandeers your school bus and takes you and the other kids hostage, and he asks you to sing, just sing dammit.

5) If you got stabbed in the early '70s, bright red paint will come out of the wound. My theory is that blood back then flowed bright red due to all the LSD.

6) Paying off the killer at the very beginning would have saved three more lives plus about ten times more money in damages caused by Dirty Harry.

The War on Christmas

2011-12-16T12:55:00.002Z

Every year, the same controversy seems to crop up--the "war on Christmas"! It seems some Christian pundits walked into a Wal-Mart and were greeted with "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" and so this is obviously the work of some secret cabal trying to destroy the Christian religion. To this I say, if there is a war against Christmas, Christmas is winning. After all, it's the only religious holiday that gets a federal day off.

Here's what more likely explains the use of the more generic "happy holidays" at the stores:

PR Exec: We want you to have everyone greeted when they come into Wal-Mart so they feel happy and buy more of our lead-covered dinner plates.

CEO: Okay! I like your thinking, Marty! (PR Execs are often named "Marty") Since it's close to Xmas, let's have them say "merry Christmas".

PR Exec: Well, we have a lot of non-Christians shopping at our stores, and we don't want to make them feel alienated.

CEO: Okay, how about "merry Christmas, happy Hannukah, sweet Kwanzaa, and happy federally mandated day off"? That should cover everyone.

PR Exec: Clearly you haven't been trained in public relations! That'd take so long we'd have to pay our greeters overtime. What if we cover everyone with "happy holidays"?

CEO: Brilliant! Now let's go roll around naked in some currency!

PR Exec: Sweet! I'm all oiled up!

Now, the Christmas conspiracists probably think the conversation is more like this:

PR Exec: One of our greeters at one of our Cleveland stores tried wishing someone a merry Christmas. I made sure she was fired right away.

CEO: Good work! After all, if our masters at the Tri-Lateral Commission found out we weren't doing our part in destroying Christmas, they might have us removed to special re-education camps! And I hated camp as a kid.

PR Exec: Nope, I made sure every greeter only says "happy holidays" so people eventually forget what Christmas is. Ha ha ha ha! Let's go trash a manger scene.

CEO: Sure thing! And offer our employees a thousand bucks for whoever brings me the head of Santa Claus by the next full moon.

That said, Christmas is alive and well--people still celebrate it either as a religous holiday or a family gathering, decorating and gift giving is at the usual high even in this economy, and the radio is still packed with holiday music. Also, the very notion of wishing someone a "happy holiday" still acknowledges Christmas, since this time of year isn't considered particularly special to atheists, Jews or Muslims (Hannukah, as any Jewish friend will tell you, is one of their more minor holidays, only really given much attention because it lands near Xmas). The fact that retailers are trying to be more inclusive isn't a bad thing.

Scrooge--The Unsung Hero of the Story

2011-12-13T12:45:00.002Z

With the Yule season well under way, it is time to revisit a central bit of holiday lore--I'm talking about Charles Dickens' classic story, "A Christmas Carol." I remember as a kid seeing the Mister Magoo version of the story on TV, and not knowing it was not an original Magoo story, thinking: "Boy, Mister Magoo has gotten real deep all of a sudden!" But as enjoyable as the story (and its many adaptations) was, there are some serious problems with it.

First, Ebeneezer Scrooge is portrayed as an incredibly cheap miser who lives in a small, unadorned home despite being incredibly rich. Well boo-freaking-hoo! Who does that hurt, exactly? The diamond rocket pony industry??? I suppose we instead should be praising rap stars and Donald Trump for flaunting their opulent lifestyles and driving up the price of Bentleys. Scrooge is doing the world a favor, by not vastly increasing demand for luxury items. And modesty should be praised--clearly it'd make his neighbors uncomfortable if he flaunted his wealth.

Second, he's apparently a jerk because he doesn't care much for his idiot nephew, who seems to have nothing but time for partying and usual adolescent frivolities. And we discover that his resentment of the kid is due to the fact that Ebeneezer's sister died giving birth to the doofus. Perfectly understandable, even if unfair. So the nephew invites the grumpy uncle to his Xmas party, and the old man refuses--if anything, that's the right thing to do. Surely after years of being spurned by the old man, the nephew was only making this a nonvitation--inviting just to be nice but hoping the invite would be turned down.

Third, Scrooge and his old partner Marley are shown to buy out their old boss, after competing with and ruining the old man who apparently spent all his investment money on Xmas parties. Well, that sucks for the partygoers, but clearly Scrooge and Marley knew how to run a business better, so if they didn't take over then someone else would have. This is just the free market in action, people! Britain couldn't rule the world without good industry.

And finally, Scrooge is supposedly rotten because he pays his assistant, Bob Cratchet, very little and makes him work on Xmas (though he did relent after some mopey guilt-inducement) and is economical with the office coal supplies. But consider this--at no point does anyone seem to point out that Cratchet is a free man. If working conditions under Scrooge are so deplorable, why continue to work for him? London at that time should have been a fountain of opportunity for an educated bookkeeper like Cratchet. Clearly, Scrooge was the best employer he could find. Unless of course Cratchet was incompetent or embezzling money, in which case he should really be ashamed for not using his ill-gotten gains to buy an operation for Tiny Tim.

Tiny Tim, who, by the way, was not sick due to anything Scrooge ever did.

Airport Parking Problems

2011-12-12T13:34:00.002Z

Flying in and out of BWI this weekend reminded me of why I prefer smaller airports. Unfortunately, the MARC train does not run on weekends (which is absurd, when you consider what this would mean not just for airport access but for tourism to Baltimore and reaching Ravens and Orioles games from DC) so I had to drive and park, meaning trying to beat the sunrise so that I wouldn't be forced to read highway signs with the eastern sun blaring in my rage-induced eyes. Did I find the airport? You bet I did. Did I make the turn for the "Daily Parking" lot? You bet I didn't.

After some frustrating u-turns and screeching, I did eventually make it to the lot--electing the more expensive Daily Parking lot since "Long Term Parking" lots tend to require taking long shuttle bus rides to the terminal which sucks and takes yet even more dignity from the flying experience--and sure enough it turns out that even the Daily Parking lot requires taking a shuttle to the terminal! Whose idea was it to build everything so far from the terminal? The shuttle's free, so no one is making any money on this.

Apparently the only parking structure next to the terminal is the "hourly parking" lot which makes little sense since no one can measure their trip by hours (unless you're one of those drug mules who flies in and out of your destination within one day). What this results in is a much longer trip to the airport, adding about a half hour of waiting for the parking shuttle, using one of those stupid machines that doesn't work to pay for your parking, then finally getting back on the road home. Forty minutes from touchdown to actually leaving the airport grounds--and without any checked baggage!

Give me Reagan airport any day!

Mittengate!

2011-12-09T12:40:00.003Z

When I think of the Midwest, I think of feuds and controversy. And no greater controversy has ever erupted in this country than the "Mitten Debate" going on as we speak.

Just in case you're preoccupied with petty things like whether Europe is going to go out of business or China is planning to invade India next year, let me fill you in--the states of Wisconsin and Michigan are currently sparring on which state looks more like a mitten on a map. I am not kidding. This is a real thing. And yes, I'm happy Florida didn't get involved in this considering what that state's shaped like.

Let's face it though--this is a hard call. Both states really are shaped like mittens, and there's so painfully little else to argue about in that part of the country, except whether Norwegian Americans are more pushy than Swedish Americans, or which state makes crappier pizza. Everyone knows they've long since given up on finding jobs out there. And do others around the world really fight over anything better? Catholics vs. Protestants? Who cares? I could have been attending the wrong church for years before I'd notice!

Yesterday's Game

2011-12-05T13:19:00.002Z

Yesterday, I attended my first ever Washington Redskins game, out in the part of Washington that is located in Landover, Maryland. My friend and I rode the Blue Line out east, farther east than I've taken the Metro previously, and basically followed a sea of Jets and Redskins jerseys on the long pilgrimmage to Fed Ex Field. Once near the parking area, it becomes apparent that this is not a pedestrian-friendly stadium, what with its lack of sidewalks, but then, this is becasue Dan Snyder can't really charge you for walking while he can charge you for parking. (At least, so far he hasn't been able to find a way to charge you for walking. Once that technology is available, look out)

We joined our group--who were very nice and friendly despite rooting for Snyder's team--in the parking lot for some tailgating, as the weather was quite warm and sunny despite its Decemberness. Once in past the friskings (perhaps because many football fans have the same opinion of Dan Snyder that I do), we make our way up to our seats to enjoy the game. The stadium is really quite nice--great views around the sides, decent bathrooms and plenty of concession stands and nice seats. (Older stadiums seem to have seats built for a time when we as a people weren't quite so fat)

True to form, the Skins have a healthy but modest lead into the fourth quarter, only to blow it spectacularly with two turnovers and cause an early exodus from the stadium. But we had an enjoyable time, and it could hardly have been a better afternoon to spend outdoors watching football.

Back in Town

2011-12-02T13:15:00.002Z

When you're a kid, a great birthday is a trip to the bowling alley with pizza and soda with your friends before you open up a collection of presents that your friends' mothers thought you might like. When you are in your twenties, a great birthday starts out with whiskey shots and generally resumes after your blackout when you wake in bed with a stranger. (That would also have been a great birthday in your teens, but likely you didn't live such a cool life at that time) When you're in your thirties, you settle for spending your birthday in an all-day deposition in South Carolina.

Fortunately, I was not the deponent, and fortunately I have found the city of Charleston to be very charming, even reminiscent of Portland but without the townies. (Charleston may have townies of their own, but they are likely in hibernation during the winter) While not exactly a celebration of my birthday, we (my co-counsels and me) found a nice seafood place on the water for dinner and beers, and the following day my pain-in-the-ass flight to BWI via Charlotte was delayed so I had to settle for a direct flight to Reagan instead. More convenient? You bet it was!

And while Friday is likely to be a catch-up day at work, it'll be nice to celebrate with my wife and friends when I get home, as this is what birthdays are all about. Another year, and still standing!

Things to be Thankful for This Thanksgiving

2011-11-22T14:06:00.002Z

1) I'll be thankful if I make it to NY and back in one piece considering the high volume of dangerously stupid drivers on the NJ Turnpike.

2) I'll be thankful to not be a member of the military, forced to consider pay and benefit cuts because Congress seems pretty much agreed that neither taxpayers nor the heavily subsidized elderly should have to make any sacrifice whatsoever to pay for our massive deficits.

3) I'll be thankful not to be among the thousands of Americans convinced that sleeping over in public parks is somehow going to fix this nation's problems, since the squalor conditions in those tent cities are only going to get worse as the weather gets colder.

4) I'll be thankful to still have a job and healthy fambly.

5) I'll be thankful that everyone in attendance is too jaded to have heated political arguments, since political debate these days makes me yearn for the sober reasoning of the monkey cage at the zoo.

6) I'll be thankful that my parents haven't yet discovered the greatness of deep-fried turkey, since if they had we'd have ballooned up a long time ago.

7) I'll be thankful that I have no driving to do after dinner on Thanksgiving, since I'll likely be passed out ten minutes after dessert.

They Called Me Satan

2011-11-18T12:51:00.003Z

Picture it--you're Russ Tamblyn, one of the two leads in the Oscar-winning and wildly popular 1961 film "West Side Story", and the world's your oyster. Things can only go up from there, and the 1960s would surely go on to be known as the "Russ Tamblyn Era". So where do you end up by 1969?

My friends, I bring you: "Satan's Sadists". This film stars Tamblyn as "Anchor", the leader of the "Satans", and if that doesn't scare you enough, then you're made of stone or something. The Satans are a feared biker gang, though they come across a bit hippie. The opening theme tune says it all:

"I was born mean, since I was three, they called me Satan...."

Now, in fairness, most three-year olds are quite the rapscallions. Satans, though? A bit harsh!

Anyway, the Satans terrorize a diner in the middle of the desert, taking hostages of an old couple, the diner owner, and a counter-girl who had a choice between spending her money on acting lessons or go-go boots and I think we can tell which choice she made. Oh, and one more hostage--a Marine back from 'NAM!!!

Anchor and his Satans prove their cruelty by letting the female member of their gang dance on the diner tables and ordering a dozen coffees. This causes trouble in predictable ways, and after much unpleasantness the Satans execute everyone except the Marine and the counter girl.

Unfortunately for these thugs, the Marine was trained in many things in Vietnam, such as surviving in Vietnam's vast deserts and killing a man by drowning his head in a toilet bowl. (The imdb page indicates this is the first film to show death by toilet bowl). A chase in the desert ensues, much killing is to be had (including tossing a rattlesnake onto someone), and there you have it. The 1960s officially ended with "Satan's Sadists".

The Thing With Two Heads! A Scientific Journey

2011-11-14T23:33:00.003Z

Last night's film was "The Thing With Two Heads", the title which pretty much describes the plot. The film answered the question many of us have asked--what happens when the heads of a former NFL star and an acclaimed Oscar winner are grafted onto the same body? The answer, of course, is top notch hijinks.

Ray Milland stars as a bigoted but brilliant scientist who has created advances in the field of sticking extra heads on the bodies of primates. I wish I were making this up, because seeing that written out makes me realize just how complete nonsense this movie was. (Yes, it was an "American International Pictures" release, how did you know?) Milland is also dying, and so he arranges for the state of California to donate a death row inmate so that they can graft his (Milland's) head onto the inmate's body, then once the head is fully supportable on the body, the inmate's original head can be sawed off. Presto, new body for the scientist!

Well, imagine this bigoted scientist's shock when he realizes that his flunkies secured not a white inmate but a black death row inmate for the grafting! Yes, former NFL star Rosey Grier plays the hapless inmate who will now have to share his body with the head of an old white bigot. The two escape, go on a nonsensical chase involving motorcycles, and ultimately find Grier's girlfriend so she can help prove his innocence of the charges he was put on death row for. Milland, of course, just hates black people and wants to saw off Grier's head.

But in the end, the two have learned to overcome their differences, Milland learns that blacks are people too, and he grows as a person. No, wait, he pretty much stays bigoted and Grier manages to remove Milland's head and leave it in a bucket of ice, making clear to Milland and the audience that black people will just up and leave you for dead if it benefits them. This is a terrible lesson for audiences, even in 1972!

Amazingly, "Frogs" wasn't the stupidest film that Ray Milland was in that year.

Penn State Morons

2011-11-10T16:05:00.003Z

Now, football is a great sport, probably the one I enjoy watching more than any other (baseball too slow, hockey too fast, basketball too repetitive). And at the school level, I can certainly understand the pride in having your students best another school's students in the sport (certainly helps when your recognize your classmates and have friends on the team).

It gets a little murkier in college, though--the players are a special elite, carefully recruited and coddled, given free rides and separated from the rest of us (unless your school has a weak program, in which case they are more likely to treat the players like regular students). It's less clear as to why the rank and file students at such schools get excited for the team that is basically sponsored by them--at least when "Joe's Pizza" sponsors a Little League team the players have to go eat the pizza their sponsor provides after the game (and maybe sneak a bit of beer as well--oops!). Why go nuts because you attend Altoona State, and Altoona State has a group of "students" who you never get to see and they go and win games? Simply because you get a discount on seeing those games, maybe?

So the confusion hits a level of disgust when we see the Penn State Football mess. Longtime and legendary coach Joe Paterno has been ousted as a result of his alleged coverup of a child sex scandal involving one of his former assistant coaches, as the school of course wants to be as far from this scandal as Rick Perry wants to be from a debate question. So after all this, the intelligent, thoughtful and well-bred students of Penn State did the natural thing--they expressed mournful shame and disappointment that their hero coach allowed and enabled such a foul occurrence by one of his assitant coaches, and applauded the school administration for handling this promptly.

Oh, wait no, they rioted because Paterno could do no wrong. Way to prove that all that education was wasted on you, dumbassses. (The extra "s" is for "sstupid". The second extra "s" was a typo).

My Super Guide to Fine Dining

2011-11-08T18:01:00.002Z

Now, you may have eaten out once or twice, but I eat out all the time. Oh, I'm not bragging--it's just a simple fact. When you're a slick wheeler-dealer like myself, you get used to reading quite a few restaurant menus in your day--and not just out of curiosity, either. Most of the time, it's to order food.

As an experienced restaurant patron, I've learned quite a bit that can be very useful when it comes to choosing whether to go ahead and eat something or to say "no thanks!" and order a Coke to go along with the sandwich you brought from home:

1) Don't bring a sandwich from home. There's nothing a restaurant frowns on more than you bringing your own food. Caveat--bringing your own booze is ok as long as your state doesn't have stupid Khmer Rouge-esque laws against bringing your own booze. (Yes I compared such restaurants to the Cambodian genocide. I feel a bit awful.)

2) If you do bring your own booze, it should really be a bottle of wine. Bringing your own case of National Bohemian, while it will bring you street cred, will certainly result in the wine waiter quitting his job on the spot. Same goes for plastic-bottle vodka.

3) Anything on the menu that says "reduction" as in "a raspberry reduction" will certainly result in a reduction to your net worth!

4) If the prices on the menu are in numbers without "$" signs or decimal points or fractions of dollars, it's going to be pricey. And if there are no prices at all, look out.

5) Any time you see "truffle oil" on the menu, here's what you need to decide--do you want to pay twice as much for something that you can't tell from ordinary grease?

6) If someone won't leave the table that you've reserved and the hostess obviously can't rudely tell them to GTFO, remember that you are not an employee of the restaurant and therefore you have free rein to start picking bits of leftover food off their plates. When they express astonishment at your effrontery, calmly say something like "oh, I'm so sorry! See I'm supposed to be dining at this table now, so I got a bit confused. Now saddle up and get out before I do something you won't want to witness with the centerpieces."

7) If the wait staff introduces themselves by name, whatever you do, don't use their name by trying to get their attention later. They don't actually expect anyone to get familiar.

8) If you're looking for the restroom and accidentally walk into the kitchen, don't stupidly admit that you couldn't follow the hostess' simple directions. Instead tell them you're from the Board of Health, and you are going to conduct a surprise inspection unless maybe they can convince you to sample some of their finer wines instead.

9) Make sure the restaurant actually has valet parking before you just start tossing your keys to any guy on the sidewalk in a windbreaker.

Protest Tips!

2011-11-04T17:52:00.002Z

In the wake of the "Occupy Wall Street--Oakland Division" mess that's been going on this week, I have decided to offer all future protesters some useful tips in getting a good protest going:

1) No matter what your demands are, or how much effort you go through to control your rallies, they will get taken over by the insane/hateful/stupid. Because anyone who opposes you will know exactly who to interview for their news clips. When MSNBC covers a Tea Party rally, who are they going to get a quote from--the unemployed father of four who can't sell his house? Or the guy carrying the "Obama is Slavemaster!" sign?

2) If you're itching for a "fight" it's a good idea to remember that the police are well trained in crowd control and use some very uncomfortable tactics to deal with you. Pepper spray, tasers, and tear gas are not fun, and the standard for "resisting arrest" is pretty damn low. Not to mention the many jobs in your future that may do a criminal background check before hire.

3) If you're going to "occupy" any park in a northern city, springtime may be a good time to start. You catching hypothermia isn't going to make some Wall Street banker return their bonus. You may be giving jobs to lots of EMTs though.

4) If you're a white guy with dreadlocks, seriously stay home. You could have the most eloquent argument in favor of a complex plan to restructure education loan debt, but all anyone's going to see is a weirdo they'd never let get past their HR department.

5) Make sure you know your numbers. "99%" of this country happens to include a lot of millionaires, and a lot of the people responsible for the mess we're in. And surely some of the "1%", though wealthy, are part of the solution and not the problem. So why not better define what you're against?

6) Drum circles? Really? Are we going for the full Eric Cartman stereotype? At least the Tea Partiers didn't show up to rallies with their firearms . . . oh, right.

7) Anyone with a misspelled sign should be sent home with a copy of the dictionary. No exceptions.

8) Just a thought--show up in your nicest clothes--business attire. A teeming mass of people dressed very nicely would definitely stand out from the dime-a-dozen rallies that go on every damn weekend (at least in D.C.). And I note the last time well-dressed protesters marched in this country we got Civil Rights legislation.

9) And before anyone goes "b-b-but Vietnam war demonstrators dressed like crap!" I'll point out that Vietnam war demonstrators achieved Nixon's election. Enough said.

Fried Chicken Controversies

2011-11-04T11:36:00.003Z

Racism is one of those strange things that becomes hard to define once it falls into gray areas. For example, a statement along the lines of "I don't trust Kosovars because they are a naturally shifty people" is a racist statement, but something like "I don't do business with Kosovars because culturally they are opposed to signing written documents" wouldn't be. (Whether that statement is true or not is more the issue). What I don't get, though, is this idea that associating certain racial or ethnic groups with certain foods is racist.

Enter the latest controversy--fried chicken joints using Barack Obama's name in their title. Al Sharpton cries "racism", which is about as serious as Jessica Alba crying out "terrible actress!" so let's ignore his involvement in this. Is there anything inherently racist about associating a famous black person with fried chicken?

Fact--fried chicken is a staple of Southern cooking (believed to be imported by Scottish immigrants). Fact--most black Americans descend from the slave culture in the South, likely adopting many culinary traits from that region. (It's no coincidence that soul food and southern cuisine are very similar) Fact--fried chicken happens to be delicious and while obviously unhealthy there is simply nothing pejorative about associating blacks with a popular way to prepare chicken.

Think about it--calling an Italian a "pasta eater" happens to be true, and there's nothing negative there. (We do love our pasta! But don't put catsup on it or I'll accuse you of being from the Midwest) Calling a Mexican a taco eater might be less true (I think more Americans eat tacos than actual Mexicans), but it's hard to find the negativity in claiming they like that tasty snack.

Can something be racist if there's no negativity involved?

School Loans

2011-11-03T15:33:00.002Z

They say the mind is a terrible thing, and I couldn't agree more--particularly when it results in massive student loans! Back in the old days when you could make a living as a cobbler (maker of shoes, rather than the delicious kind) you just had to apprentice out for a few years until you learned the trade enough to do it yourself. No debt required! But these days, it's normal for people to enter the working world already in as much as six figures worth of student loan debt. And these loans are, for the most part, not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A new poll shows that 66% of people oppose forgiveness of student loans. Now, I'd have to consider myself part of the 66%--forgiveness of the loans would mean substantial costs to the U.S. Treasury, which already is trying to decide just how much heating oil our Social Security recipients should be able to live with and just how few cops can be on the street before muggings turn into full blown riots. Plus, these are not unexpected hardships--when you sign the loan documents you know full well you have to pay them back, and you chose to take the loan out anyway. This isn't the same as the guy taking out a loan to pay for his wife's uninsured cancer treatments--this is adults signing up to pay for what is frankly way overpriced tuition with the hope that the degree they're going to get will pay off much more over their lifetimes.

I do sympathize with these borrowers though--the conventional wisdom thrown around for decades (by government, school administrators, the previous generation of parents) was that a degree was going to be worth all the money, even if it meant massive loans. The fact that the unemployment rate for college-educated people is and has been a lot lower than that for the non-degreed also weighs heavily. And I remember from my own experience of graduating with massive loans the fear that unless I made enough money out of school I would be crippled by financial hardship. At certain levels the monthly loan payments are greater than your rent payments.

I was fortunate in finding well paying work after graduation, but that's obviously not going to be the case for everyone. And so obviously a lot of people are going to default, and the lenders (and federal government) are going to have to work through that one way or another. It doesn't help that the loan infrastructure only encourages schools to keep increasing tuition way beyond annual inflation, and still offer courseloads that make the graduates uncompetitive.

I fear this will get worse before it gets better.

Costume Tips for Halloween Parties

2011-10-31T15:49:00.003Z

1) Get a plain white t-shirt, and draw a big "euro" symbol on both sides of it. That way, when you get drunk at your Halloween party and have to collapse, you can go as "the collapse of the euro".

2) If you're a girl, wear plenty of makeup and then toss yourself down a flight of stairs. Now, you're Lindsay Lohan!

3) If you can't make it to the party, just tell everyone that you'll be showing up as "civility in politics". Then when you don't show up, they'll understand your point.

4) Wear a Sarah Palin mask and go as 2008.

5) Dress up as Amy Winehouse and go as "Too Soon."

6) Drink all the host's booze, grope several guests, and smash something, and tell everyone that you're going as yourself before rehab. Note--you might really want to go into rehab afterwards.

7) Dress like Richard Burton's character in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and then spend the rest of the evening explaining to people what you were going for and get pissed at them for not having any taste for the classics.

8) Attach containers of fish food to your sweater, and go as "Osama Bin Laden".

9) Go as an abstract concept such as "The Importance of Being Earnest" and then marvel at how many fewer friends you have by the enf of the evening.

Marathons!

2011-10-31T12:27:00.002Z

We had guests in town this weekend, my sister and brother-in-law, as the latter was to run in the Marine Corps Marathon Sunday. Fortunately the weather cleared up on Sunday (Saturday of course was miserable! It's as though October stole one of December's weekends) and we were able to stroll over to the route on the Mall to see the runners go by. The sight of even wheelchair bound competitors going by on their hand-operated carts gave me a bit of shame, as I can't run a mile without gasping for air let alone 26. Am I taking my legs for granted? Sadly, yes.

The problem with running--opposed to walking--is you can't really do anything else while you're running. Too much effort and concentration has to be expended on (a) keeping your lungs working and (b) not smashing into things. You can't make phone calls, read restaurant menus, or eat an apple while you're running.

Now, if they'll just let me walk the 26 miles, then we're in business.

Fortunately, my brother in law finished the run in good time, and seemed remarkably upbeat afterwards as we celebrated with lunch before their train back. I was so inspired by his example that I went back to my couch to watch movies and read for the rest of the afternoon.

Haunted House Injuries? Eek!

2011-10-28T18:50:00.003+01:00

You know what really boils my potatoes every Halloween? Stupid people. Somehow, holidays can always bring out the incredibly dumb moronic bump-tards in a way that ordinary weekends don't. The latest is this story about morons punching out people working in a haunted house.

Look--you're voluntarily entering a "haunted house" by which I mean a house that you know is being set up for pretending to be haunted. Meaning, it's NOT REAL GHOSTS AND MURDERERS but rather, teenaged kids dressed up to scare you. If you're like six years old, you get a pass because six year olds are obviously stupid anyway, but if you're big enough to punch and injure a haunted house worker, you should know better.

Yet again, another group of people I deem "Too Stupid to Exist And Yet We Let Them".

If I ran a haunted house, I'd make everyone entering sign a waiver agreeing that if they abuse the haunted house staff, they'll get beaten to death and then there'll be a real haunting. And yet, I'd somehow be the bad guy.

We live in an unjust world.

Candidates' Movie Picks Revealed!

2011-10-28T13:55:00.002+01:00

You can tell a lot about what sort of president you're about to have by their favorite movies. For example, a president who loves "The Godfather" will be a patient person, who can take time for a slow buildup and a big payoff, and this person will also consider loyalty above all other qualities among their staff. A president whose favorite film is "Armageddon" is clearly a retard and should not be allowed near any nuclear weapons. A president who enjoys watching "Roller Boogie" is going to be worse than Hitler on steroids.

(Incidentally, Hitler on steroids likely would have been less dangerous than the "Emo Hitler" that the world ended up with. Imagine when the time came to invade Poland, a juiced-up Hitler would have gone "Hitler SMASH" and his generals would have done a coup d'etat right then and there. No war, no 50 million dead.)

Recently, the GOP presidential contenders were asked what their favorite movies were. Ron Paul surprised no one by not picking a favorite film, since of course films weren't part of what the original framers of the Constitution envisioned. Michele Bachmann picking Braveheart isn't surprising, since she's a moron who would probably love a ridiculously simplistic film that challenges the mind about as much as "Breakin 2 Electric Boogaloo". Rick Perry surprised me by picking "Immortal Beloved"--something about his rough rancher image doesn't seem to scream "movie about Beethoven!"

I have to give a lot of credit to libertarian candidate Gary Johnson's pick--Dr. Zhivago. A sweeping epic with an anti-communist message, a compelling love story, and the great Omar Sharif and Julie Christie back when she was hot stuff. Too bad the guy doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

Black Fans Loving the Redskins?

2011-10-27T13:11:00.002+01:00

Football fans pick their favorite teams for a variety of odd reasons: New Englanders love their Patriots because it's the only team in their region; white kids who think they're gangster rappers love the Raiders because they think the team's colors give them street cred; New Yorkers who like having their hearts broken naturally root for the Jets. But one thing that makes the least sense to me is the fact that black Washingtonians seem to love the Redskins to a greater degree than their white counterparts.

This, of course, despite the fact that the Skins were the last team to allow black players (which we can understand because black people are notoriously bad at sports). This despite the fact that the Redskins have a racially offensive team name (and mind you I'm fine with the Atlanta Braves). This despite the fact that owner Dan Snyder--aside from being a team owner of James Bond villain levels of rotten--is so white that Pat Boone goes to HIS concerts. This despite the fact that even attending a Skins game requires the average Washingtonian to shell out the equivalent of a mortgage payment.

I'd welcome any theories for this one.

Dog Scooping Controversy Abated

2011-10-26T14:01:00.002+01:00

With all this talk of war and elections we often lose sight of the important things, such as laws governing where dogs are allowed to poop. A dogwalker in Fairfax County (motto--We Don't Really Know What We're Doing) was just exonerated by a jury after being accused of letter the dog she was caring for leave its surprise on the grounds of a condo development. Only the testimony of the dog's owner that the dog-leavings at issue were not consistent with those normally coming from such a small dog was enough to sway the jury. Revenge may be best served cold, but justice is often served in a steaming warm pile.

But the episode just served to remind me why I can't own a dog. There's something about picking up after another creature's droppings that just screams lack of dignity. (Sure, like this dog's owner, you can hire someone to do it, but by extension that still makes you lower than the dog since your agent has to complete this unpleasant task). And cleaning up after your dog's outdoor excretions is only what happens if you're LUCKY--it means you're not trying to reduce the mess on your carpet, or couch.

Let's face it, dog ownership is just a massive affront to your dignity any way you cut it. I'd make an exception, though, for true country living or if the dog is trained to get you nice things from the fridge.

An Open Letter to D.C. Transportation Authorities

2011-10-25T14:07:00.003+01:00

Dear D.C. Transportation Authorities:

Imagine my pleasant surprise--it's a typical day like any other, driving from Rte. 50 eastbound towards the Memorial Bridge, expecting a short hop on the GW Parkway to get to the bridge ramp as I often do. Of course, yesterday it was completely backed up, so I figure I'll cross the Roosevelt instead and hop on Independence Avenue from there. As a frequent commuter in this region, I recall a sign on the bridge indicating the far right lane takes you to "Independence Avenue." So like any non-crazy person, I surmise that this exit will in fact take me to "Independence Avenue".

Sure enough, the sign is still there as I cross Roosevelt, so I get into the far right lane and pass under the sign for "Independence Avenue." Years of driving on roads make me believe that if for any reason this would not permit me to get onto "Independence Avenue" there would be some sign on the bridge indicating that this could not happen. So imagine my next surprise as I get off the ramp--exit blocked for Independence Avenue! I now have the choice of going to Kennedy Center or up north on Rock Creek Parkway during rush hour. I elect the former, get onto Virginia Avenue, creep down 23rd to Constitution Avenue, which by the way is still under construction for the seventh consecutive month because why get a mile of road paved in less time than it took to perfect the Manhattan Project after all--and then turn down 17th to cross the Mall and finally get to Independence Avenue.

So technically, your brilliantly marked exit for "Independence Avenue" did in fact eventually get me to "Independence Avenue" though I wonder how many tourists have gotten completely flimshammed by your fraud of an exit.

Now maybe this is your silent protest against Virginians because you don't have representation in Congress or something. But as a D.C. resident, I see no reason why I should be collateral damage in your hopeless battle.

Please quit your job. You will do society a lot less damage collecting government assistance.

Signed,

A D.C. Area Commuter

Tarantino at it Again

2011-10-24T13:21:00.002+01:00

Part of the problem with the major movie industry is that everyone involved is completely stupid and worthless. Much has already been written about how basically every big release is either a sequel, a reboot, or an adaptation of a TV show, comic book, or foreign film. Of course they're remaking "The Birds", even though the remake of "Psycho" flopped. Of course they're remaking "Footloose", even though the original was a turd sandwich. Hollywood does only what it knows to do, and can do no other. Part of it is because the studios have a better bet financially by backing film fare that already has a built-in audience (and merchandising opportunity) therefore justifying the dreck they put out.

(I'd always wondered why Hollywood always makes profitable corporations look cartoonishly evil in all their films, until I figured this must be because the only corporations they actually deal with--Paramount, Tri-Star, Universal, etc.--are actually cartoonishly evil. Louis B. Mayer notoriously tried to invade Mexico just for kicks, until he realized that MGM didn't have a paramilitary division)

So it's even sadder when one of the industry's more original filmmakers, Quentin Tarantino, stoops to putting out exploitationist drivel like his latest project, "Django Unchained" (a story of a former slave who goes out to get revenge on slaveowners). Let's start with the fact that he's naming his black hero "Django". What, was "Sambo" taken??? Why not add an Italian organ grinder for comic relief, naming him Beppo Pastafazooli??? Interestingly, there actually was a late '60s Italian western called "Django" so who knows, maybe this is some kind of homage.

But while I've seen every Tarantino film released so far, I will likely skip this one for a few reasons. First, rape--I don't care to see it in a film and knowing the director it's likely to be graphic and gratuitous. If I want to be disturbed by a film I'll just watch "Footloose" again. Second, what message are we supposed to get from a simple revenge film? Bad guys do bad thing, hero goes and revenges. But a good revenge film will show additional elements, and make one consider a deeper message--say, that revenge leads to emptyness. Or that in the midst of righteous goals (such as fighting the Nazis) we often do morally indefensible things (like firebombing Dresden). It's one reason the best western films had a good character arc like that, in say "The Searchers" or "For a few dollars more".

But it's hard to imagine Django in this case having moral qualms about what he's doing--after all, what sort of movie will make the slaveowner's point of view sympathetic, or question the motives of a man avenging his servitude? Tarantino could have tried for something more daring--maybe a Vietnam War film from the standpoint of Viet Cong troops, or Jaws retold from the shark's standpoint (which would be "why the hell won't these people just let me eat??"). A slave having his wife raped and unleashing his fury isn't really a story--it's just cheap thrills for an audience's basest instincts.

9-9-9

2011-10-21T15:55:00.002+01:00

Everyone seems to be talking about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan as if it has some chance of ever becoming law, forgetting that (a) Herman Cain is simply never going to be president and (b) even if somehow Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were discovered to both be secretly women having a lesbian affair and Barack Obama admitted to being in love with both of them and dropped out of the race and the Democrats were dumb enough to go with Dennis Kucinich, meaning Herman Cain wins the presidency, the fact of the matter is this 9-9-9 tax plan will simply never be passed by Congress.

In fact, the 9-9-9 plan has less chance of becoming law than the tree frogs have a chance of rising up against their human masters and taking over and instituting their own tax plan. This "tree frog overlord tax plan" has a better chance of becoming law than the 9-9-9 plan. So instead we should be talking about the tree frog plan, but we're not because the media is full of idiots.

So, let's recap--the 9-9-9 plan means replacing the current federal income tax with (a) a flat 9% rate on all individuals, plus (b) a 9% rate on all corporations and (c) a 9% federal sales tax. All deductions except charity would be eliminated. Liberals are already complaining that this would raise taxes on all the low earners who currently don't pay income taxes because they're too poor but I'm certain that an exemption for the tax would be granted for such tax filers and why am I even discussing this stupid plan?

The biggest flaw, I see--and why it'd never see the light of day--is not that this plan would raise taxes on anyone but that the taxes collected under such a plan would be so comically low that our government would have to function a lot less like it does now and a lot more like it did in 1840. Cuts necessary would include reducing our military to a weekend volunteer militia, reducing our police force to one sheriff per county with any deputies he can scrounge up, no more funding for roads, airports, farm subsidies, social security, medicare, and requiring everyone to find a way to home school. Forget food inspection--we'd all just have to do the sniff test. While I agree with the need for serious budget cutting, there's just no way the budget can be cut as deeply and quickly as this 9-9-9 plan would require without sending this country into a chaotic tailspin.

Add to that the sales tax hike, which would basically drive prices up on all goods and likely depress consumer spending, and we have a formula for competing with Zimbabwe for World's National Equivalent of Lindsay Lohan. So why would a seemingly smart man like Herman Cain push this plan?

The answer is obvious--Cain is a salesman, and his entire campaign is geared towards becoming a paid celebrity. He can sell books and get a show on cable, with big money and a national platform, as a result of this presidential run. Sarah Palin sort of showed the way for nonserious candidates. This whole thing deserves the degree of scrutiny that Donald Trump's "campaign" did--that is, very little. All the reporters (or his primary opponents) should be saying to him about the 9-9-9 plan is "okay, we get the joke--can we move on to something else?"

Deep Dish v. Traditional

2011-10-20T13:09:00.003+01:00

Longtime Supreme Court Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia recently weighed in on one of the more pressing controversies facing our times--whether Chicago-style "deep dish" pizza can be properly called "pizza". As a man who hails from the New York area (famed for its traditional, thin crust pizza) but taught at University of Chicago, Scalia should have adequate experience with both pizza cultures and should be a good authority on the subject. Let's examine:

1) A literalist interpretation would argue that having the three key ingredients--baked dough, topped with tomato and cheese--should qualify Chicago-style as actual pizza. However, you can see how this would open the door for calzones, bagels and even some sandwiches to fall into this overbroad category. From there, it's a slippery slope and anything can become a pizza.

2) Precedent would dictate that Chicago pizza can still be called pizza, because that's what everyone--including its detractors like myself--have been calling it forever. However, as the Court determined in "Brown v. Board of Education", precedent can and should be overturned when it is not constitutionally sound. And don't get me started on whether we should call potato chips "crisps".

3) Original intent of the founders. The Neapolitans who invented pizza clearly intended a thin crust, in fact the earliest pizzas did not even use tomato.

I for one would have to agree with Scalia, in that Chicago "deep dish" is really just a tomato pie of some sort. My reasoning? A slice of pizza is something you should be able to grab n' go, fold up and eat while on the run, which is one reason for its popularity. Those deep dish pies will simply spill out all over your pants.

Let's hope this ruling doesn't get overturned.

Delegitimizing Protests

2011-10-19T14:57:00.002+01:00

One positive from all the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) coverage is that it gives right wing hacks and left wing hacks the chance to completely trade talking points from the time of the hoopla over the Tea Party rallies. At this point we have seen:

1) Right wingers pointing out that in surveys taken among the demonstrators, OWSers by and large don't seem to know much about the economy or politics. It seems like just yesterday left wingers were pointing out surveys showing the same ignorance among Tea Partiers. The only thing this really proves though is that most people really don't know what the hell they're talking about most of the time.

2) Right wingers pointing out anti-Semitic OWS attendees in order to tar the whole movement (despite large numbers of Jews participating in the rallies themselves), while left wingers point out that a few nuts showing up at a rally shouldn't taint everyone else. Where did I hear something similar? Oh yes, some borderline racist (or blatantly racist) Tea Party attendees being touted by the left as emblematic of the whole, while the right points out that the Tea Party now seems to be enamored with Herman Cain.

3) Right wingers pointing out that the typcial OWSer is actually employed, and relatively privileged (educated, middle class) just as left wingers pointed out that Tea Partiers tended to be more well-off than most of the country.

4) Right wingers pointing out the hypocrisy of OWSers bleating about corporations while using iPhones, wearing designer clothes, and drinking Starbucks coffee. It wasn't that long ago that left wingers gleefully pointed out that Tea Partiers railed against government while rallying in public parks (like the Mall) and using the (publicly funded and run) Metro to get to their rallies.

Even better is the willingness of each side to argue that theirs is noble while the other side's demonstrations are just idiots/haters whose complaints are illegitimate and they don't have any good ideas.

But let's consider this fairly--aren't these two groups--Tea Partiers and OWSers--really more similar than anyone gives them credit for? After all:

1) They're all privileged compared to the average American (and certainly compared to the average human, when you toss in the Third World), but both groups are legitimately anxious about the direction of their futures. Tea Partiers are watching their retirement funds vanish, their house values drop, and the prospect of entitlements (Medicare and Social Security) run out of funding before long. OWSers are watching their job and salary prospects dwindle while their school loans are likely to be with them for decades and default could wreck their futures. This is a real prospect of loss, and it explains the anger.

2) The targets of their anger--government and big business that seem pretty good at granting favors to one another in ways that if not illegal are certainly slimy--are largely complicit in the mess we fell into years ago and are still in. (Yes, it's not as simple as "government and Wall Street screwed this all up" but they certainly deserve a good chunk of the blame)

3) There are certainly hate filled morons at both rallies, but I refuse to believe the majority at either rally condones such nonsense--if only because IT'S NOT HELPING.

4) At both rallies, there's always the overly simplistic message that can be reduced to a sign--"Zero taxes!" or "End all corporations!"--but I'd gather that most Tea Partiers want smaller, not nonexistent government, and most OWSers want corporate reform, not an end to the corporation as an entity. If there is an invididual absolutist though, that rides the metro while arguing that there should be no government at all, or enjoys his iPad while arguing that business profits should not exist period, then yes these are genuine hypocrites. Though it's the extremism of their positions and not the hypocrisy itself that should be reason to ignore them.

5) Sadly, neither the OWS or Tea Party crowds seem to have workable answers. Taxing just the very rich isn't going to close our deficits (not to mention the severe effects on the economy of doing such a thing) and neither will cutting government "waste". And of course neither of these things will create "jobs". The problem now is an overarching fear of risk that's keeping spending and investing down for everyone from the average consumer to big businesses--and until that changes we can expect a lot more rallies.

More Racial Crap

2011-10-18T16:30:00.002+01:00

With campaign season in full swing--sadly, over a year before the election--the stupid and the vile come shooting out of every side. The latest outrage (I sure do have a lot of outrages!) is from some of Barack Obama's supporters, chastising black voters for being too critical of the first black president. Because if there's one thing we learned from history, it's that black people need to think with one mind and should place racial loyalty above everything, including whether Obama has been doing a decent job as president.

Let's get the Al Sharpton quote out of the way, since the man is a rotten sack of human waste and has added nothing positive to society except keeping makers of XXL track suits in business. He's a great boon to conservative pundits, because he can stand in for everything that's ever been wrong with black activists--the same way Fred Phelps has been for those trying to point out that religious leaders are all nuts. These days, it seems adding "Reverend" in front of your name is about the equivalent of adding "Retard" in front of your name, considering the famous company you're keeping. But enough about Retard Al Sharpton.

If the lack of enthusiasm among black voters (at least compared to 2008) is a problem for Obama's supporters, then maybe they should stick to explaining what a great job he's done, and how he's going to continue to do a great job if elected, compared to the alternative. But why target black voters, as though they have some special responsibility here that white voters don't have? Should chubby-chasing perverts have had more responsibility to back Bill Clinton?

The big pitch for Obama in 2008 was that he appealed beyond race, and that his African blood should not be a reason to vote for--or against--him. Is he a bright, moderate pragmatist who can navigate the rough waters our country is currently floating on? Or is he a cowardly, corrupt deal-cutter who acts out of weakness and accomplishes nothing towards fixing the country's problems? That's up to white and black voters alike to decide, and should have nothing to do with his race. After all, if the guy accidentally nukes California, it won't matter.

How to Make a Great '80s Action Movie

2011-10-18T12:47:00.003+01:00

The key to any great '80s action movie is to understand that the 1980s were a cultural wasteland, which is to be expected for any period that connects disco to grunge. Films of that era were no exception--this was the time after Godfather but before Goodfellas, and Michael Bay was just beginning to learn how to do explosions. Any great action movie from that period needed some key elements:

1) Synthesizers. Remember in the '70s when no one could chase someone else, in foot or in a car, without the sound of rapid bongo music? Well, someone finally decided that bongo music didn't make sense so they replaced it with cheesy synthesizer music. Because nothing brings out the tension as well as feeling like a 7th grader just got a Casio for his birthday.

2) Very "meh" love interest. Women in the '80s were hot in a way that you'd say "ok, if she was dressed better and changed the hair, she'd probably be hot". In the lower budget films, you'd be saying "she's not hot, but I can see how a guy in a mullet would like her". So you sort of wonder why anyone is risking his life fighting the big bad guy for her.

3) Top notch dialogue. Even while in a desperate car chase, the hero can't say "we got company!" without his sidekick responding with "better get out the good silverware!" because some screenwriter's girlfriend thought that was hilarious.

4) Horrible, horrible jeans. Extremely high waisted, tight, and stonewashed, with white sneakers. And these are the men I'm talking about!

5) The cars even looked awful back then when they were relatively new. Remember evil bad guy Brad Wesley's LeBaron in "Road House"? Wasn't he supposed to be super-rich or something? What rich guy ever goes to the dealer and says "get me a LeBaron, and I'm super rich so make sure it's bright red!"?

6) Plots completely lacking in nuance. No coincidence that this is around the time Mel Gibson's star began to rise. Mel Gibson is to complex plots what "Beast With a Gun" is to subtlety.

Public Shaming and Tipping

2011-10-12T13:54:00.003+01:00

Tipping is one of those issues that brings up more controversy than almost any other, even while it seems relatively minor. Children starving in Africa, women traded as slaves, insane dictators getting nukes--there's not much room for debate there. (At least, I have yet to see the pro-starvation pro-slavery pro-armageddon contingent on Internet message boards--but then, I haven't checked Home and Garden Online lately) Tipping, though, really brings out the emotions.

In one corner we have the "serving is a grueling job and servers are underpaid below even minimum wage usually and they deserve the tips". And in the other corner we have the "tipping is voluntary so I'm only going to tip if you do something special" contingent. And when the two groups cross, we get a mess like this one.

A bartender in Seattle allegedly was stiffed on her tip by some pompous patron who left a "tip" of another sort at the bottom of the receipt, suggesting the bartendress "lose a few pounds". She retaliated by posting the receipt online, finding the patron on Facebook, and (with the help of her friends) publicly shaming him to the point that the mess got picked up on other websites. Justice served, right? Except then of course it turns out they found the wrong guy, and a different "Andrew Meyer" (wasn't that also the name of the "don't tase me, bro!" guy? Why yes it was!) was subjected to this public humiliation. The barlady admitted to "having bad eyesight" and getting the wrong guy, and also when interviewed she claimed that she'd witnessed the offending patron actually emptying out the tip jar into his pockets which now makes me question her entire story because if a patron was caught committing theft then why not call over the manager and have the jerk arrested?

But even if some rude non-tipper did exist, the publicizing of their signed receipt is just the sort of idiotic overkill that crosses the line from "serves the jerk right" to "invasion of privacy that can easily get the bar sued and the barmaid fired as a result". If someone doesn't tip--and you think it's unjustified, I'm looking at you who take smoke breaks while your customers are anxiously waiting a half hour for their bill--then you don't serve that person again, or subject them to the cold shoulder if you encounter them in the future. Making a bad situation worse for you and your employer isn't the key to successmanship.

A Different Flavor of Tea

2011-10-11T15:38:00.003+01:00

I find it rather amusing when people get indignant about comparisons that are made about the Tea Partiers and the Occupy Wall Streeters (OWSers). Conservatives are quick to argue that Tea Partiers are regular hard working folks who protest peacefully, while OWSers are unbathed nose-ringed unemployables that destroy property and get into fights with the cops. Liberals are quick to argue that OWSers are legitimately aggrieved progressive types, while Tea Partiers are angry racists with unrealistic goals. But let's consider the following:

1) Both groups have their embarrassing fringe elements present at their rallies. Tea Party rallies do feature nuts with signs referring to Hitler and thinking it's a good idea to bring their legally-owned firearms to a peaceful protest because that's totally a good idea. OWS has its share of dreadlocked professional agitators who are ironically part of organizations with the word "Workers" in their title, despite a lack of ever doing anything that can be called "work". But both rallies also feature a large number of regular folks who are pissed enough to come out in big numbers--the nuts alone aren't enough to fill those rallies.

2) The majority of those protesting are angry for good reason. A serious recession that won't quit, a government that spends far more than it takes in, a tax system that is a complete joke, and political parties in charge that really have no sense of how to fix anything wrong. Tea partiers (who tend to be older) are angry about watching their retirement savings and house values disappear, and OWSers are angry about their massive student loan debt and poor job prospects. It's easy to sympathise with all of them.

3) Both Tea Partiers and OWSers don't really have solutions to their problems that will actually fix the problems that they're protesting about. Platforms involving cutting government spending (except on social security, medicare, and defense) and leaving taxes at current levels will not ever see the light of day, let alone help our economy getting moving, and plans to "soak the rich" by taxing "the top 1%" are just as unlikely to fix our economy (and any wholesale loan forgiveness is only going to wreck the financial sector even more, having a nice ripple effect on the economy).

4) Both groups tend to be largely white and middle class. All stupid accusations of racism aside, there's a good reason for this--through history, the most "revolutionary" classes tend not to be the most downtrodden but rather those who had more to lose and felt in danger of losing it. (Think the urban proletariat instead of the peasantry in 1917 Russia, as an example)

5) Both groups are summarily dismissed by the other side of the political spectrum, which focuses only on the nutjobs and the incoherent political demands, rather than the justifiable anger of the regular folks in those masses.

While some of what the Tea Party and the OWSers call for are at odds (one wanting less taxes, the other wanting more taxes, at least for Americans who aren't them), the degree of overlap for these two groups is significant--anger at the elites, anger at the "crony capitalism" of government being in bed with business, and a failure of the financial system--and one wonders what would happen if the two groups ever joined forces. Perhaps it's best for the powers that be if such a thing never were to happen.

Legal Drams!

2011-10-07T16:26:00.002+01:00

Having seen the 1982 Paul Newman film "The Verdict" it makes me realize just how far off Hollywood is when it comes to portraying the legal profession. Sure, no movie is going to focus on the endless nuts and bolts--long depositions, hours of research, endless motions that get batted back and forth--and the movie will stick to the more dramatic aspects of contentious litigation. (And of course no one will ever focus on the non-litigation side of legal work, because a lawyer researching and drafting a legal opinion for a client is hideously boring to watch onscreen, even if the lawyer is drunk at the time. I'm looking at you, Kentucky Bar Association!) But sometimes you see something so unbelievably wrong that you can't believe the screenwriters didn't have a lawyer on hand to tell them to fix the scene.

Namely, I'm talking about the part where Newman's character is offered a sizable settlement for his client, and turns it down. Now, maybe ethics rules were vastly different in 1982, but any lawyer today that does not even communicate the fact of a settlement offer to their client is going to be a good candidate for disbarment. And it is clear that Newman never told his client before turning it down, because the client later encounters him and punches him in the nose for this. Hell, if it hadn't been onscreen, I'd have punched him in the nose myself.

What other unrealistic events occur in legal dramas?

1) Surprise witnesses. Lawyers are always required to get permission of the court and notify the opposing lawyer before introducing a witness. While witnesses can often be added mid-trial, this should never be a surprise to the opposing counsel, let alone the judge.

2) Judges telling a lawyer he should accept a settlement offer. A judge doing something like this in their own case is likely to not be a judge much longer.

3) The opposing lawyers are always both really good at what they do. There are really a lot of bad lawyers out there practicing. And while the bar exams and qualifications do test one's knowledge of the basic tenets of the law, they don't test one's ability to apply it or even understand procedure. Unless you're taken in by an experienced mentor, you're going to enter litigation with what you remember in first year Civ Pro.

4) Judges making rulings on issues that are not put forth in a motion by one of the attorneys. The judge is just that, a judge--and not an independent finder of fact. (The jury makes findings of fact, while the judge rules on issues of the law--without going into the distinction the point is that in all instances this has to be in response to one side's motion)

5) Jurors making their own independent investigations of the facts. The worst example of this was in "12 Angry Men" when Hank Fonda even brought a friggin' switchblade to the jurors' chamber. Can you say "mistrial"???

6) Navy prosecutors who can't handle the truth. I'm pretty sure they have excellent truth-handling ability.

The Remaining GOP Field

2011-10-07T12:51:00.002+01:00

The news that Sarah Palin is not running for the presidency does not surprise me--after all, the minute she dropped out of the governorship of Alaska without finishing her only term this signalled that she had no real interest in serving in public office. Keeping speculation going as long as reasonably possible was also a smart move, since it got her plenty of attention for a while and this woman thrives on attention. In fact, actually jumping in the ring might have popped her bubble early--once she sank in the polls as Republicans reject her, as they surely would, that would close the chapter on the Palins and her strongest supporters would lose the ability to speculate that she might have won it all. The decision not to run was the best one for her and ultimately the Republican Party.

Now, as I predict, Mitt Romney is going to go ahead and take the nomination, even while a lot of Republicans arent' thrilled with him. For that, there's a good reason and a bad reason for the GOP to reject the former Massachusetts governor--the good reason being that in his heart of hearts Romney is no hard right winger. He is very much the son of his father George, who was an automotive executive and moderate Michigan governor (and one wonders how history may have been different if he'd run better in the '68 primary and beat Nixon), and looks to have the temperament more of the elder President Bush than that of Bush the Younger. While this makes him more "electable", the Tea Party wing doesn't want "electable". They want red meat! Whether or not it is wise for the right to reject him, it's at least a valid reason.

The bad reason of course is his Mormonism. And if the GOP rejects Romney for that then they frankly deserve another four years of the Democrats holding the White House.

Romney has been playing it safe in the race so far, not making big errors as his opponents seem to be, but he is missing some good opportunities to put them away and set himself up for the general election. While he may be wary to have a "reverse-Sister Souljah moment"--that is, when he rejects his own party's extreme to signal his own stance in the political middle, as Bill Clinton did in the '92 Democratic primary by rebuffing Jesse "Where's My Money?" Jackson--he should be able to do this safely now and still not drive away the party's base. Here are some missed opportunities:

1) Shameful moment in the debates. During the most recent GOP debate, a gay soldier serving overseas asked a question to Rick "Why am I here?" Santorum regarding gays serving in the military, and some clown in the audience booed the servicemember. This would have been a prime moment for Romney--as the "grown up" in the race--to simply point out that whatever one thinks of gays serving in the military, no one who is serving this country and putting their life on the line should be booed, and whoever did that ought to be ashamed. That would have been easy points.

2) Easy put-downs of the other candidates. He could just go down the line: "Mr. Cain--I tried Godfather's Pizza. If I were you, I'd take that off your resume. Gov. Perry--Shouldn't you be electrocuting some innocent people right now? Mr. Santorum--Have you tried googling your name right now? Gingrich--if I promise to buy a copy of your book will you just go home? Bachmann--if you say anymore nonsense about vaccinations I will slap you silly. Or in your case, slap you more silly. Ron Paul--the 1890s called and they want their political platform back." Doing that would end the primary in minutes.

That said, I still think Romney's going to take the nomination, because ultimately the GOP wants one thing over all--to get the White House back, and they don't care which horse they have to ride in on.

Slutwalks

2011-10-05T12:32:00.002+01:00

Sometimes, the stupid, it burns! This time, the issue at hand is a serial rapist attacking women in NYC, and the cops issued a warning to women in the area to not wear skirts as such clothing might give the rapist the idea that he had "easy access". Similar warnings in Toronto have given rise to the recent "slutwalk" movement, where self-styled feminists have taken to marching in drag-queen getup to protest against a cop's warning that dressing in a certain way is likely to provoke a sexual attack. Now, a few points have to be made:

1) The indignation among the protesters seems to amount to "how dare you shame the victim here!" While I'm inclined to disagree with the police statements in both cases, this indignant response is just plain stupidity. NO ONE is blaming the victim here, any more than a policeman reminding you to lock your car doors is blaming you when someone steals your car. The cops believe that certain types of clothing will attract attackers, much the same way wearing flashy jewelry will attract a mugger. So drop the cloak of victimhood, sister!

2) I'm not aware of any evidence that rapists are any more likely to attack a woman based on the way she's dressed. Of course, dressing a certain way will draw attention--desired or otherwise--and women who aren't morons will know that this will draw attention even from men (or gay women) who aren't the intended targets. But unwanted attention is a far cry from a criminal act, and unless the link is really there then the advice from the cops serves only to support the baggy sweatpants industry.

3) That said, I can think of more useful advice in terms of how a person is dressed and rape prevention. If the cops were to say "avoid wearing flip flops or open-toed high heels because then you can't run or defend yourself from an attacker" then this argument is hard to dispute. And really, people shouldn't be going out on the town in flip flops anyway.

4) In sum, the protest against the police statements should be boiled down to a far more reasonable "we get what you're saying, but there's no reason to believe dressing slutty will make you more likely to be raped" rather than "damn you for blaming the victim!"

Rough Choices

2011-10-03T19:24:00.002+01:00

While there is no shortage of half-baked solutions for our trouble economy out there, I should add a few to the mix:

1) Identify the bad mortgage loans currently on bank books, and offer a deal to the current holders of the loans--the Federal government will pay off a third of each loan, provided that the borrower pay off a third and the lender writes down the final third. Pros: this helps spread the pain among the three parties, and also enables the bad loans to be done away with freeing up the borrower and lender. This would be the least bad of all existing alternatives, allowing the housing recovery to come a bit sooner and helps out down on their luck borrowers and wobbly lenders. Cons: the government is already running massive deficits and paying off a third of the bad mortgages would still be expensive. This also wouldn't make banks more likely to lend down the road, having taken a loss on these loans. There's also the moral hazard of subsidizing banks and borrowers who took these risks that didn't pay off.

2) Tear down unsold inventory in overbuilt areas. Pro: this clears up the glut in supply, allowing natural market forces to reach a higher price floor. Plus, the unsold empty houses will become health hazards and public nuisances if left idle too long. Better to take them down so housing can recover. Con: this still costs a lot of money, and seems like a waste of otherwise useful housing that could be put on the market for renters or bargain hunters.

3) Create a financial regulatory oversight board to regulate every sort of financial transaction and entity involved in the lending or investing of money. Pros: a single regulatory body with a broad mission can identify predatory practices, frauds, and excessively risky ventures and prevent the industry from repeating the mistakes made in recent decades that culminated in the financial collapse. Cons: one thing our financial industry suffers from is not a lack of regulators. There are currently five different agencies that regulate banks at the federal level, and of course every state has a bank regulator. The problem instead was the fact that so much financial leverage was based on a widely-held assumption that real estate could never crash in a big way. This is why everyone--from government regulators, to lenders, to borrowers, to consumer advocates--favored increased lending in this area. This is always the way with bubbles, and you can't regulate away irrational decisionmaking.

4) Completely replace our current tax code with a simpler code with lower rates, few deductions, etc. Pros: this would reduce inefficient or counterproductive behavior by high earners (taking losses, business expenses) and lower earners (taking out a mortgage when rent is cheaper), also making the tax code easier to follow and enforce, and prevent the perverse result of very rich people paying very low percentages of their income in taxes. Cons: the code is complicated for a reason. Income is defined in many different ways, and deductions and exemptions are in place because certain behavior is to be encouraged (investing in capital, buying municipal bonds, paying for a child's education). As for "fairness", the truly wealthy will be able to find a way to legally shield their income from taxation one way or another, as they have done so even during times of much higher tax rates. It's worth it to them to find a way around the code.

5) Big cuts in spending. Pros: a government spending less means reducing the deficit, which is good for the bond market, decreases our government's own borrowing costs, and better prepares us for emergencies down the road. It also prevents the need to raise taxes, which would stifle any economic recovery. Cons: while some government spending is more "important" than others, there's not much that can be cut that won't have a severe impact on the economy. Infrastructure spending enables the free flow of commerce, farm spending helps keep our agricultural sector strong and stable so we can have abundant cheap food, and defense spending keeps our military better than any other. While entitlement spending is enormous, even modest cuts will mean pain for a lot of individuals as well as a reduction in their consumer spending. Any way you cut it, there's going to be a negative effect on the country with these cuts.

So, not a lot of great choices out there. But unfortunately this can't all be reduced to a bumper sticker.

Protesters

2011-10-03T13:15:00.003+01:00

My general feelings on protests and rallies are that the people involved in them are generally idiots up to no good. There are exceptions of course--notably the protests sweeping the Middle East earlier this year, and the protests that achieved the passage of Civil Rights laws in the '60s. But by and large, protests fall easily into the trap of giving the most visibility to the crazies and ultimately alienating most observers.

A good example is the anti-Vietnam war protests, which rather than bringing an early end to the war instead resulted in getting Nixon elected (twice) and dragging the war on for long past when the protests were over and the college kids went on to having wife-swapping parties and macrame lessons. The anti-Iraq War protests if anything helped Bush get re-elected, and even our Nobel winner-in-chief still has us fighting over there 8 years later. And the Tea Party protests of the past two years are (I believe) ultimately going to result in far greater economic ruin for this country as people like Michele Bachmann get treated as serious contenders for the presidency, lowering the bar for crazy.

In any of the above cases, I think it would have done the protesters some good to better organize their forces into providing a coherent argument and weed out the nuttier among their followers. Having a sign comparing Bush to Hitler or waving the flag of the Viet Cong or telling people that Obama is a slaveowner and taxpayers are slaves just makes anyone watching TV--who might otherwise agree that a war is a bad idea or government is hopelessly bloated--just say "ok, you lost me" and go back to watching Two and a Half Men.

The latest protest-movement-gone-wrong is the parade of hipsters and freaks camping out on Wall Street. In a world beset by serious financial panic--the Euro looking to collapse, the U.S. economy in a slump and a government in serious need of painful cuts--it's understandable to be angry at those who seem to be taking massive profits while the majority are suffering stagnant wages and high unemployment. But how to fix it is no simple matter--if a certain set of policies could fire up the economy with certainty, those policies would have been pursued, by Bush or Obama already. And what the government has already tried--from spending and tax cut stimulus to pumping cash into the economy via the Federal Reserve--hasn't worked. Stripping down executive compensation from highly profitable financial firms might make a few people happy, but for the life of me I can't see how this is going to help regular folks.

I note that a lot of the protesters are debt-ridden college graduates and current students, many that were interviewed owed upwards of six figures on their school loans and had no job prospects. While I certainly sympathize (having carried a high debt load myself when I graduated) I cannot understand the anger being directed at Wall Street--presumably, as the lenders behind these school loans. It is the colleges that consider it acceptable to charge over $40K a year for tuition, the lenders are just enabling you to pay for it on credit. Shouldn't the protest be taking place at the campus?

I've Said it Before, Democracy Just Doesn't Work

2011-09-30T13:29:00.003+01:00

I can't blame the media for covering Sarah Palin, because it's understandable to follow this train wreck around since she's just so darn entertaining for most Americans. Jon Huntsman may be a serious candidate for president, but he just can't provide the bombastic lunatic idiocy that Queen Sarah can dish out regularly. Sorry, Jon, you'll have to mispronounce a lot more words if you're going to start getting Palin-level coverage.

The latest imbroglio is over a new book out about Palin called "The Rogue" by Joe McGinniss, which makes a number of claims that paint this woman as cartoonishly evil. Such as sending her oldest son off to war just so it'll make the fambly look good, or firing all the non-white government workers in Wasilla (yes, both of them!), and snorting coke off an oil drum (okay, that part is actually pretty cool). She denies all this, of course, but it doesn't make a difference. Palin-haters will believe it all, Palin-lovers will consider it all made up, and anyone in between either will think there's some truth there but mostly won't give a crap since she'll never be elected dogcatcher. Which leads me to think--does anyone actually elect dogcatchers anymore? Why do I never see "dogcatcher" on the ballot? Maybe it is on the ballot, but they go by a fancy title now, like "District Judge" or something.

But try to imagine a scenario where your town dogcatcher was actually Sarah Palin. First, she'd quit halfway after chasing her first dog. Then, she'd use Twitter and Facebook to go around talking smack about other dogcatchers, and blame Muslims for all the extra dogs running around. The local papers would run wild with "will she or won't she" speculation about her entering the next race for school board, and meantime the dog problem runs rampant.

Get Rid of Leap Year!

2011-09-29T12:54:00.002+01:00

One thing everyone seems to be arguing about lately is our 365 and 1/4 day calendar. It seems we have perfectly aligned our time measures to the trip our planet takes around the sun, except we haven't been very exact about it. Of course, what other options do we have? The Jewish calendar is all based on fasting so no one wants to adopt that--hell, even most Jewish people I know prefer the western calendar and will tell you it's 2011 rather than 5772. And don't get me started on the Chinese calendar, with their tigers and monkeys and rats oh my. So it's really just a matter of figuring out how to improve our own.

See, that extra 1/4 day each year means having to invent a whole new day--February 29--every four years. The way to remember which year gets the extra day is that it lands on Summer Olympics and U.S. presidential elections, but if you hate sports and aren't an American you're out of luck. But who wants that extra day in February, anyway? It'll be cold and mucky and make spring just a day further!

I propose instead we take that extra 24 hours and break it up to 6 hours for each of the four years it applies to. Then, break the 6 hours down into 30 minutes each month of each year, and for each of these months we can 7 minutes and thirty seconds to each of that month's four Mondays, to be used as extra snooze time when waking up because Mondays are such hard days to wake up to after a long weekend. Everyone will be happier with the extra minutes of sleep each Monday, and then we'll have more brotherhood, fewer wars, and maybe better rested scientists who can cure global hunger.

And don't start giving me crap about how some months don't have four Mondays. We're solving global hunger here, people.

Tales of the Loaner Car

2011-09-28T13:19:00.002+01:00

So while the car is being serviced I'm using a loaner for a couple days, and it is quickly apparent that the loaner is a much newer model than my own car. It has some improvements--such as keyless ignition for those of us who can't get enough of push buttons--and some drawbacks, such as lack of a door-rest for my left elbow that I had taken for granted over the years. But this morning's drive taught me of a new space-age feature that still has me scratching my head.

Picture it, I-66 west, 7 AM, and a dark heavy cloud is ahead in the feeble dawn light. Figuring "hey maybe I'll make it to work before the rain starts" I soon see I have no such luck, and the monsoon comes down hard like Lindsay Lohan's career. Though at first, it hits in small dribbles, and I flick on the first level intermittent wipers. That's when it went all Space Oddity on me.

As the rain increased, the wiper speed adjusted accordingly.

I am marvelling at this development, seeing as I never changed the wiper speed from intermittent, but it was as though the wipers just knew the rain was increasing. Were there sensors on the windshield? Was there a radio control attached to weather reports? Was this loaner car about to become sentient, and eventually grow to loathe me for my human frailties?

Let's just hope I can return it--or him, or her--to the dealership before it takes out its sweet automotive revenge.

How to Arbitrarily Become a Fan

2011-09-27T13:24:00.003+01:00

Football watching for me is more an excuse to eat chilli and drink beer with friends while a game happens to be on than it is an actual interest in the game itself. That said, it always brings me joy to read about a defeat for the Washington Redskins. The only NFL team with a blatantly racist name, a team that has been priced out of the range of any middle class fan that is not an idiot willing to forgo health insurance in order to be able to afford to attend games, a team that has been inconveniently moved to Landover, making them now harder to reach for Washingtonians than Baltimore's stadium, a team owned by a completely irredeemable piece of garbage--yep, you can count on some satisfaction when I see them lose.

But football--even for a chilli-beer-buddies fan--should be about more than just rooting against one team. After all, despite the abysmal stewardship of Dan Snyder, who is to professional football what Casey Anthony was to motherhood, it is possible that the stars will align and the sun will go black like sackcloth and the Redskins may reach the Super Bowl one day. And when that day comes, I'll need a team to root for in order to beat them and make Snyder cry like the blubbering mess that he really is. What team to root for? I have some criteria:

1) The team can't play on an artificial field (or worse, a dome). If God meant for us to play football inside, he would have called it Houseball.

2) The team needs cheerleaders. There's something about underpaid grown women being ogled that brings some tradition to the game.

3) The team needs a cool helmet design. The Browns helmet is too cutesy, what with no logo. The Bengals aren't fooling anybody, we know you're not a tiger! The Vikings helmet is a giant fail, since the "horns" aren't literally protruding from the helmet in a way that allows for impaling the foe.

4) The owner's douchebaggery should not be nationally known.

That leaves some strong contenders! I have it down to Broncos, Ravens, Cardinals, and Buccaneers. Stay tuned! One of those four will be really good this year.

Ah, the Taxes

2011-09-23T14:04:00.003+01:00

Everybody seems to have an opinion on taxes these days, and since no one seems to know what the hell they're talking about then I suppose I'm equally qualified to offer my thoughts on this. As we stand now, taxes will figure prominently in the 2012 election. My advice is to not listen to any campaign blather on the subject and instead hit your head into a rock because it'll at least be less painful and more likely to teach you something about taxes. A few thoughts:

1) All this crap about the rich paying their "fair share"--first, no one can really define "fair share". It is a fact that the rich pay the vast majority of the income taxes--that is not in dispute. (If you disagree, please spend more time introducing your head to the rock, because the rock might be smarter than you on this subject) It is also a fact that this is because the rich have the vast majority of the income--to tax everyone "equally"--that is, each taxpayer paying an equal dollar amount--would mean sending most people to debtor's prison or the federal government taking in about as much as the country of Equitorial Guinea. (This latter might please some Ayn Rand types) But determining how much more a rich person should pay than a poor person is not a simple matter of "fair"--everyone will have a different definition. For the left, "fair" is "a hell of a lot more than they're paying now". For the right, "fair" is "shut up and get a job". But cut the crap about "fairness" because taxes aren't about fair--they're about revenue.

2) That said, it is often pointed out that rich people often pay very low tax rates on their income by taking it in capital gains or tax exempt bonds or carried-over losses. (John Kerry's wife, Zsa Zsa Kerry, paid something like 14% on her multimillion dollar income for 2004) Tax simplification is a good idea, but keep in mind that each of those "loopholes" was put there for a reason. The government wants to encourage capital investing, so cap gains are taxed at a lower level. Unfair? Then maybe try telling your government to stop trying to social engineer through the tax code. Maybe when these clowns can stop themselves from Twittering photos of their penises to young women they can get around to fixing the tax code, but for now that's the way it is.

3) Warren Buffet can wax empathetic about how wrong it is that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. However, I will bet a Coke that the day his accountants fail to take advantage of some tax benefit that helps to lower his overall burden, he fires their asses faster than you can say "Berkshire Hathaway Hypocrite". This is illustrative--the rich will take advantage of the complicated tax code to lower their burdens--at high enough income levels, it is worth it to do this and pay good money for it, because the tax savings become significant. Don't like it? Then push to replace the Code with something far more simple.

4) At some point, taxes are going up. Sure, we can put this off a few more years. Just like Greece and Italy did.

5) If we don't want our economy to collapse, though, it'll mean everyone paying at least a bit more, soon. Yes, even the "poor"--if it means cutting out a pack of menthols a month, or cancelling your cable service, tough turkey. All I hear is "shared sacrifice"--well, everyone has to take a hit. The rich will obviously get the biggest hit--since that's where the most income is--but no one's getting spared. And any complaints can be directed towards the past several decades of spending on all these programs and wars and such that we as a society insisted on. And these things may be great--Iraq wasn't going to invade itself, you know!--but they all have a price. Maybe if we all started to feel it a bit more we'd think a bit more about whether it's worth having all this stuff. If so, great. If not, change.

6) Anyone who is just fine with putting the burden on some "other"--whether only wanting tax hikes for those richer than themselves, or only wanting spending cuts on those programs they themselves don't use--has removed themselves from intelligent discussion on this. They're really no different from the guy in the traffic jam who thinks a great solution to the traffic problem is for everyone else to stay home. And sadly, this seems to encompass everyone in Congress.

Wendy's Doing Stuff

2011-09-19T17:43:00.003+01:00

Many great things happened in 1969. Richard Nixon took office as President, showing the world that the shy, awkward kid could grow up to be a disaster in the White House. The Woodstock festival showed the world that poor acoustics and a complete lack of sanitary facilities were no reason to prevent tens of thousands of derelicts from spending a few days in a field. And the Wendy's hamburger chain showed the world that fast food could be good eatin'.

I'll admit to being a strong Five Guys partisan, but Wendy's really has nothing to apologize for. (Except their "milk shakes" which are basically just hard iced cream in a cup. Liquify that bad boy!) So it was with confusion that I read today about Wendy's revamping their signature burgers in response to the competition from higher end burger joints.

The hierarchy has always been as such:

1) Burgers: Wendys > Burger King > McDonalds
2) Fries: McDonalds > Burger King > Wendys
3) Chicken Sandwich: Chick Fila = McDonalds Premium Deluxe
4) Milkshake: McDonalds = Throatburn!

Now, that was some complicated math, but Good Will Hunting could probably explain to you (when he wasn't busy liking apples and getting numbahs) that each of the major chains has their competitive advantages over the others. If you value fries more than the difference between the value of burgers, you'll go to McDs. If burgers are your thing, and you don't mind fries that are lackluster, you go to Five Guys. And Wendys gets great points all around, for their fries are decent and the burgers superb. If they want to beat someone out, the goal should be to McDonaldize their fries (or maybe add some neat dipping sauces, or melt actual cheese on the fries, or add gravy?). Their burgers are not their weak point by any stretch.

But, I certainly won't complain when any eatery tries to reinvent and improve--this is of course how great things have happened (e.g., the Big Mac). So I welcome our new burger overlords.

The HPV Madness

2011-09-15T13:21:00.002+01:00

I have my problems with Rick Perry, current candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, but all this nonsense about the HPV vaccinations is a bunch of crap. It has been a line of attack from Michele "Don't Look Directly Into My Eyes" Bachmann who apparently is going all Jenny McCarthy now with her screed against vaccinations in general.

Apparently, his initiative in Texas to have girls as young as 12 vaccinated (or is it innoculated? I'm no doctor, but then neither is Michele Bachmann or her "Heal the Gay Out of You" husband) for the HPV virus, allowing parents who are just fine with their precious snowflakes catching the disease to opt out. HPV is very common--about half of all people who have had sex are carriers, and among women it can lead to cervical cancer and among both genders it can lead to oral cancers. So of course the religious nuts and assorted kooks oppose such measures.

Let's assume for a minute that children brought up in super-religious homes will adhere to abstinence education and proper family values, just like Bristol Palin did until she met a handsome pile of white trash who could grow his own mullet, but let's not dwell on the mentally limited Palins. So some day your precious snowflake daughter who of course would never have sexual contact with a boy grows to the ripe age of 18 and decides to marry a nice young man from a good fambly who doesn't play hockey but instead something wholesome like lacrosse, and then whoops, turns out this nice young man had a bit of a lapse on a weekend away from Oral Roberts University! And while doing a line of coke off the back of a naked hooker, he managed to also have sex with a coed who does not share his relgious values! And now, he got HPV, and when he does his married duties (only to conceive children, of course), he gives HPV to your daughter.

But hey, this could never happen, because we live in a world where abstinence education works, we can reasonably deport all illegal aliens, and we can pray away a heavy rainstorm. But let's not add rationality into a GOP primary debate!

Here's where it crosses the line from "stupid people suffering from their own stupid choices" to "stupid people making things worse for everyone else". Even with some opt-outs, vaccinations reaching a large enough percentage of the population would be enough to wipe out the disease, because it can only survive if it can be passed from host to host--and with enough people vaccinated it can be contained permanently. The Texas initiative made sense, and could have helped kill off a widespread virus that carries effects ranging from the uncomfortable (warts, etc.) to the lethal (cancers). And the deluded Bachmann's of the world can't live with that, since it would somehow encourage 12 year old girls to slut it up.

After all, nothing encourages a kid to want to go have sex like getting jabbed with a needle.

Relationship Warning Signs

2011-09-14T14:35:00.002+01:00

I for one am constantly wondering whether I am about to have my relationship involuntarily terminated, and rather than have a direct talk with my significant other (or ask why that heavily cologned Raul keeps walking around our apartment naked when I get home from work) I choose to read useful articles like this one which indicate signs that your woman is about to leave you. Let's examine each of the warning signs:

1) She no longer confides in you, and she isn't interested in talking with you. Wait a minute! Confiding is what their female friends are for, it is a well known fact that women don't tell men their problems because all of our solutions involve a wrench or duct tape. And that is whether we're talking about cars, plumbing, or troublesome co-workers.

2) She does her best to avoid you by staying out late, making plans without you and spending more time with friends. So according to this clue, a woman is only happy in her relationship if she has no life outside of it? Who needs clingyness???

3) She doesn't complain about things she always complained about before. This may be because she thinks that she's going to leave you soon anyway. Or, this could mean she has matured enough to realize that she can't mold and change a man to her own desires and she has accepted you for the man you are.

4) She doesn't seem glad to see you when you get home; she no longer misses you. It could be because the stench of whiskey and sour defeat is nothing to be happy about when it comes in the front door.

5) She has no interest in sex. Eek!

6) She has a "whatever" attitude. She doesn't want to discuss any plans for the future or even for next week. This could just be a sign that you're with one of those "live for the now" types and maybe she knows that guys don't like to plan for the future either. Why is everything a bad sign?

7) She doesn't like to hold hands with you or be touched, kissed or hugged by you. When she kisses you, she acts like she's kissing a relative. When you go to kiss her, she turns her head so that you kiss her cheek. I've never seen a woman I was dating actually kiss a relative, so I have no basis of comparison here. They also learn quickly that holding hands is only good for clotheslining tourists on the sidewalk.

8) Her friends and family act a bit different and uncomfortable around you because she has told them that she intends to leave you. More likely they're acting different and uncomfortable because of the drunken racist rant you went on the previous Sunday dinner. But it was their fault for bringing up touchy subjects like weather and traffic.

So, this list is less than helpful! Any suggestions for better signs of danger in a relationship?

Wedding Weekend

2011-09-12T12:50:00.003+01:00

It may have meant 16 hours of total driving and very little sleep, but my sister's wedding was well worth the trip. Of course, Mother Nature did her best to ruin this plan, what with severe flooding in D.C. on Thursday evening with road closures all around. And Dollar Rent-a-Car? More like "we take but don't honor reservations" Rent-a-Car! We were going to rent a car small enough for my wife to drive part of the trip, but of course we get there only to find that the Ford Focus we'd reserved was not there, but they'd be happy to rent us a minivan. Why even take a reservation if you have absolutely no intention of honoring it?

So, we instead drive up in my car, meaning my day that began at 6 AM would involve adding a 5-hour car trip to Westchester, NY in the driving rain starting at 8:30 at night. Hooray for everything working out! Fortunately, our luck picked up north of Baltimore when the rain stopped, and there was basically no traffic the whole way up. We get in quietly, sleep a bit, then have bagels in the morning with the fambly and my mom's friend Roz from their Peace Corps days. Then, it's off to the Catskills for a 2.5 hour trip through winding mountains.

We arrive at the Roxbury Motel, which has a special theme for each room, ours being the "Versailles Room." Busts and gold leaf? You betcha! We took a moment to enjoy the in-your-face gaudiness before heading up to the farm that was rented out for the BBQ/rehearsal.

After rehearsing (which, like all rehearsals, is chaotic and getting all the bugs out of the system), eating, and speeches, we retire to our motel for Scotch before getting the first good night of sleep in days. A bit of hiking and seeing the fambly the next day, then dressing and photos. At this point, the guests were all arrived, and we take our places on a scenic hill overlooking the mountains and pastures. Is there a billy goat leashed to a tree behind the altar? You bet there is! Then, my dad leads my sister up the hill on a horse (!) where she dismounts to head down the aisle. The ceremony is brief (not quite as brief as my own, which clocked in at about three minutes thanks to our Count Chocula-looking officiant!), then we're on to a cocktail hour with fine snacks, top shelf booze, and soul music under a pavillion. This lasts about an hour before we walk further down the hill to the tent for the reception, plenty of boozing (top shelf, did I mention?), dancing and fine eating. It was an excellent party and very much reflective of my sister's personality.

The next morning, we're up at the crack of 8:45 to begin our long drive back--hoping of course that the route through Pennsylvania to DC would not be blocked by floods or 9/11 related stuff--and hoping to have plenty of time to get my brother to the airport in DC for his evening flight. The trek is long, but our luck is in--only a portion of I-88 is closed, and the gas station people were very helpful with directions to I-81 where we needed to go. We stop later at a Wendy's near Wilkes-Barre, and not five minutes after we get our food a bus-load of at least 100 old folks pours in and gets in line to order. (Had we been just a bit later, our lunch would have involved me going into angry rage!) Finally, we do make it back to DC with plenty of time for my brother's flight, and to sit back and collapse from exhaustion.

All in all, a great weekend, and happy to see my sister and her husband off to start their marriage together.

Happy Wedding to Lil' Guy

2011-09-08T19:14:00.004+01:00

Tonight begins the trek of a long drive to NY for my little sister's wedding in the countryside. My sister--the "Lil' Guy" as she was always called--is marrying a guy who we fambly members have grown fond of over the years, and is a welcome addition to the fambly. This is a big milestone, considering I remember when the Lil' Guy was just a toddler bumping into things and making all sorts of noise around the household (and between me and my brother, there was plenty of racket and destruction to begin with before the lil' hurricane came through). My fambly even still calls me by a nickname bestowed on me as a result of her inability to pronounce words and she still scowls at being treated as the baby of the group, despite having just finished her PhD in Psychology and getting ready to get married in just a couple days.

But now, with her big day approaching, I can reflect back on those years of growing up with the Lil' Guy, spending quality time and bickering as well, and now thinking how I couldn't be happier to see her reach this milestone.

Here's to a lifetime of happy marriage!

A Few Questions Re: The GOP Primary Fight

2011-09-08T13:38:00.002+01:00

The race for the GOP presidential nomination is in full swing, and though I think they're ultimately going to go with Mitt Romney there is always a chance for an upset. Still, I'm left with a few reactions:

1) At some point the media needs to stage an intervention for Rick Santorum, Herm Cain and Newt Gingrich, and tell these guys that Barry Goldwater's corpse has a better chance of becoming re-animated, then travelling back in time to 1964 and winning the presidency from LBJ, than any of them have of winning the GOP nomination in 2012. Of course, they know this, and they are just raising their visibility in order to sell books and maybe get a TV deal later. But shouldn't the fact that they're still soliciting campaign contributions from innocent dupes count as some sort of fraud?

2) The fact that there were loud cheers at last night's debate when it was mentioned that Texas executed over 200 people is an ominous sign for this country. (Disclosure--I oppose the death penalty but can at least understand those that favor it) Even if you favor the death penalty as an option for the more egregious crimes proven beyond any reasonable doubt and with due process, the execution itself should be seen as a somber necessity and not something to cheer the same way you'd cheer our country winning an Olympic medal. This is very, very sick.

3) What is with this outcry over Rick Perry favoring mandatory HPV vaccinations for 12 year old girls in Texas? What sort of Jenny McCarthy crap is this? I realize HPV isn't the death sentence that HIV can be, but stopping the spread of the virus is obviously a good thing. (And screw this privacy rights crap, this is Texas we're talking about. It's not like we're talking about registering handguns)

4) Ronald Reagan is probably the most underrated (by Democrats) and overrated (by Republicans) person to ever sit in the Oval Office. But the fetishization of this man by the GOP would probably disturb him if he were alive today. "Reagan Economic Zones"? That should be a nonstarter just for corniness reasons alone.

5) Debates would be a lot better if there were no rules or moderator at all. Just let them all have microphones, and start a ten-way shouting match! I would actually love to see that, rather than scripted questions and well tested answers. It's not as though any of those clowns are going to implement half the crap they say they will when they take office.

Lessons from Columbo

2011-09-07T13:33:00.003+01:00

Lately I've been enjoying the original episodes of "Columbo", the series about a rumpled detective who pretended to be pretty dim but would always catch the murderer in the end. The show--an essential piece of early '70s American culture--always began by showing the murder taking place, so the viewer never doubted who committed it. The only question was how Columbo would catch him or her, and it usually took some rambling discussion about the detective's unseen wife and how odd it was that say a left handed man would have his wristwatch on his right hand, or a burned out lightbulb would be cleaned by household staff rather than replaced. The show avoided certain annoyances that many police shows would have (such as the detective's bosses doubting him--Columbo was highly regarded by the force) and was largely carried by Peter Falk's charm and some great has-been guest stars.

You can also learn a great deal about murder in early '70s Los Angeles from watching the show.

1) Murderers are always wealthy, educated people. If you're walking down a dark alley and a middle aged man in a 3-piece suit is following you, run! He's likely got several kills under his belt. Columbo never seems to get "junkie stabbed by hooker" cases, or "he done goofed and stole my lawn chair so I stabbed him!" cases.

2) Although the murderers are well-to-do and presumably highly educated, they have no problem letting a police lieutenant into their home and engage them in several long conversations about the case, even though the Miranda ruling came out a few years earlier. Apparently rich people didn't have lawyers back then.

3) If you know anyone who looks exactly like Robert Culp, run! He seems to change identity and go on a new killing spree every few weeks. (He also starred with the lovely Natalie Wood in "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice", and that actress died under mysterious circumstances about a decade later. Culp must have done it!)

4) It may never rain in Southern California, but a police lieutenant is still required to wear a raincoat at all times.

5) The actors Dean Stockwell and Sam Rockwell are quite clearly the same person. It's eerie!

6) When you're rich, you will always commit murders by yourself and never hire a professional killer or a cheap junkie to do the job. Unfortunately, this means coming up with an alibi that sounds great on the surface but will unravel under a detective's seemingly harmless questioning.

7) If you drink Scotch or any other hard liquor from a fancy glass at your well stocked bar at home, you're quite obviously a killer, or about to be killed. Develop a new habit!

Ronrico!

2011-09-06T14:41:00.002+01:00

After visiting a genuine, bona fide crab eatery the weather on Sunday basically begged us to visit the roof of my friend's high rise (which in DC means more than 10 storeys) for some afternoon drinking. While I picked up a half-case of fine old timey Pennsylvania suds, the wife couldn't pass up a chance to make her own signature "berry flavored mojitos" with the help of some pilfered fresh mint--pilfered directly from the plant!--and needing some top notch rum. The rum we used was "Ronrico". It comes in a big plastic jug and features recipes on the label to discourage the direct and solitary use of Ronrico.

Let's just say that a formula of Hot Sun + Ronrico = EEK! This has given rise to the new use of the word "Ronrico" to describe poorly thought out ideas. Here are some examples:

1) Trying to use a coupon at that bordello was very Ronrico of you.

2) The Bay of Pigs was a perfect example of the CIA's Ronrico early years.

3) Are you trying to make a chocolate burrito? What are you, Ronrico?

DC Area Drivers Are A New Circle of Hell

2011-09-02T15:24:00.003+01:00

It's a well known fact that driving in D.C. ranks somewhere on the pleasantness scale between having scorpion babies planted in your lower intestines and being used as a hockey puck. But the question is, why is it so bad? A number of theories abound:

1) Large numbers of drivers who are relatively new to the area. This includes transplants, tourons, students, and worst of all, diplomats who can't be charged with vehicular homicide because we don't want their home government in East Crapistan to punish our diplomats in that country for some trumped up charge. That means there's a good chance of someone driving too slow to look for exits, needing to do an abrupt lane change, or suffering under the delusion that all the cars on the road are fire-breathing dragons that must be destroyed.

2) Too much signage, little of which is helpful. If you put enough signs up all over the roads, the important messages get drowned out by ones that say "Newseum, 2 miles ahead" and "You are driving on a road". Plus, some of the rules are complex enough to require driving super-slow to read fully, such as "No left turn, except M-F 7AM-10:30 AM, Oct. thru Apr and Holidays" or "HOV 3, East Bound to Beltway, 3:30-8:30 Weekdays". This was done by the same sort of people who think that all those disclosures on credit card applications actually help anyone understand their deal.

3) Road systems designed by deranged hill people who are still trying to prevent enemy armies from crossing their territory. How else can you explain that in Arlington there's a North 22nd Street that cuts off and picks up again at several points across the county? Or the almost complete absence of straight roads? Or the fact that Rte 50 takes on about six different names between Fairfax and North Arlington (many of which honor leaders in a rebellion against the country)? It also doesn't help that for many roads (particularly I-395) the abundance of exits, turnoffs, and road splits can force even a long-time resident to become confused, frustrated, and ultimately flung off in the wrong direction.

I'll go with any combination of the three. Of course, this could be addressed with a more extensive public transportation system--people cause a lot less damage to life and limb when they're lost in our Metro system compared to when they're cruising around in their SUVs--but I'm not holding my breath.

Great Movie Twist Ideas

2011-09-01T13:33:00.003+01:00

1) Ex Special Forces tough guy down on his luck rooms with poor family where he befriends the youngest son who is being bullied at school. The tough guy teaches the boy how to defend himself, with hilarious results as the kid gets pummelled harder. The tough guy then beats up the bully himself because this is what the audience always wanted to see. Oh, and he has sex with the young boy's mother.

2) A ragtag platoon gets stranded behind enemy lines after a battle, and they soon realize they all come from very different backgrounds and have clashing personalities. They fight with each other the whole time, even resulting in physical blows. Finally they give themselves up to the enemy in the hopes that they'll be sent to different POW camps. Hilariously, the enemy decides to force them to live together at the camp, and do projects together as a group. In the end they realize that this sucks, and when they finally get released in a POW exchange, they promise to never deal with each other again.

3) A smooth-talking lothario with the ladies sets his sights on an ambitious career woman who has no time for love. Soon, he realizes she's too difficult and probably not worth it, so he dates her assistant who is a lot more easy going. The career woman then gets jealous, fires the assistant, and the rest of the film is a courtroom drama between the assistant's lawyers and the company lawyers over the employment discrimination claims.

4) A serial killer stalks a group of busty coeds at a remote cabin in the woods. However, he's a serial killer, not a skilled outdoorsman, and quickly succumbs to frostbite and a bad case of poison oak, and one of the coeds finds him half dead near the cabin and takes him in. Turns out, she's a nurse, and one of the other coeds is a psychiatrist, and they both cure his frostbite and get him on the right medication. With the support of his new friends, the serial killer goes back to college to finish his degree and win a Rhodes Scholarship, in an ending that will be both heartwarming and life affirming.

5) A down on his luck gambler ends up owing $20K to a dangerous mobster, so he shoots the mobster and leaves town. The rest of the mob decides they have better things to do than worry over $20K, and they never liked the dead mobster anyway and were glad to not have to give him a cut of their profits on gambling, so they drop the issue. The gambler checks into rehab to fix his gambling problem, and meets a great looking therapist who has an insensitive husband. While he has an opportunity to carry on an affair with her, he opts not to, since he already dodged a close bullet with the mob and doesn't want to push his luck. He stays satisfied with his platonic friendship, knowing he's likely to meet a great woman who happens to be unattached someday.

Black Swan is Flashdance for a New Generation

2011-08-31T12:56:00.005+01:00

Have you ever seen a movie that uplifted your spirits and made you believe in possibilities again? I have! And last night's film was just that sort of movie, the feel-good hit of the year and justified Oscar-bait. I'm talking of course about "Black Swan".

This film traces the trials and tribulations of Nina, a ballerina in New York, who's just trying to get that big break. And with determination and moxie, she succeeds with the help of her new friend Lily who inspires her to perform the dual-role she needs to fill in the ballet. See, the ballet involves the star playing both a "white swan" and a "black swan", with the former being all good and happy and the latter being jealous and mean. Nina faces the challenge, despite some misunderstandings with her mother and guilt over taking the part from the ever-charming Winona Ryder. Lily comes through as a friend, supporting Nina's efforts even though it means having to remain an understudy herself (see, that's loyalty and dedication, and class--something tells me the sequel to this film might be about Lily's big break).

Ultimately, on the night of the big performance, Nina has some mishaps, including getting cut by some mirror in a dressing room accident, but spurred on by her friend she soldiers through the performance, playing both black and white swan perfectly to the crowd's delight. Now, I'm no ballet fan--dancing confuses and angers me--but even I was impressed by the hard work and talent displayed on screen here.

Was I inspired to go see a ballet? Certainly not! But the "try and you shall succeed" message of this feel-good movie was able to reach me, so it should be able to reach any of its audience.

Hobo, This Time With a Shotgun

2011-08-30T13:08:00.002+01:00

Every now and again there comes along a film that carries with it warmth, subtlety, and the sort of charm that remains with you long after the end credits roll. And then there is such a film as "Hobo With a Shotgun". "Hobo" was made for those who watched "Rambo III" and thought "this is way too thought provoking! The characters are too complex!" "Hobo" has about as much nuance as a boulder made out of razor blades.

Do I even need to go into the plot of "Hobo With a Shotgun"? The title basically says more than the movie is actually about. Rutger Hauer plays the titular hobo, who rides into a town where the villains are ruling the roost. To call the bad guys cartoonish would be an insult to cartoons, and you can be sure from the first time they come on screen--decapitating a helpless man with a barbed wire noose and yes you heard that right--that you will not have qualms about wishing for their ultimate demise. Fortunately for justice--and for those who love to see people's insides being shared with the entire neighborhood--our hobo has clearly been well trained in shotgun use and suffers none of the usual afflictions one would expect with the homeless, such as vitamin deficiency, fatigue or semi-starvation. This is one rail-rider you don't want to cross.

If there's one bit of dialogue that sums up the film it is this one, between the hobo and the hooker he befriends:

Hooker: You can't solve all of your problems with a shotgun!

Hobo: It is the only way I know how.

Isn't that just beautiful? Step aside, "Rosebud" and "I'll Make Him an Offer He Can't Refuse"--we have a new winner for best movie quote. I like to imagine the hobo trying to fix his car, and deciding the only way to repair the faulty carbeurator is with a quick blast with the ole shotgun.

Needless to say, the film goes the way you'd expect--plenty of justified vengeance, plenty of innocent people getting murdered--the most unintentionally hilarious case being the schoolbus full of kids being destroyed with a flamethrower, because up to that point we just weren't sure if the villain was odious enough--and an ending that left you wondering why Rutger Hauer still has trouble finding work.

Hurricane Lessons

2011-08-29T12:57:00.002+01:00

After several days of media hype and local morons cleaning out the grocery stores--because you can never have enough canned beets--Hurricane Irene finally arrived, bringing a bit of wind and rain but leaving our neighborhood pretty much untouched. We had some friends over for movies and chilli, and the place was extra cozy with our patio furniture inside, as we waited to see if anything major would happen. Perhaps a tree through the window, or the motorcycle parked across the street tipping over. But by morning, our windows were unbroken and the motorcycle still stood. Hurricane Irene was downgraded to a Category 1 Breeze.

What have we learned from this experience that may come in handy if next time we get a more powerful storm?

1) Nothing.

That's pretty much it. Next time a storm hits, people will still mob the stores on the day before, some will still wander out in it and get stranded, and the rest of us will hunker down inside, wishing these storms would ruin a school night instead of a summer weekend.

How to Improve Films

2011-08-26T13:35:00.003+01:00

Generally when I'm watching a movie that sucks, I like to think what I might have done to save the film from total suckery had I been the studio head. (In a perfect world, I'd be a studio head, and not the soulless automatons that produce crap like "Knight and Day"). Here's just a few films that I would have improved:

1) Jerry Maguire--have Renee Zellweger's character get caught in a love triangle between Jerry and serial killer Aileen Wuornos. The seminal point in the movie would be where she bashes Aileen over the head with a fish tank, screaming "You had me at DIE, BITCH!" Cuba Gooding Jr's character would then rifle through Wuornos' purse, and say "you just showed me the money!"

2) Monster--this biopic about the actual serial killer Wurnos would have been turned into a comedy. We'd replace all the killings and violent parts with comedic sound effects, and it would be more a film about a serial killer who keeps goofing up with hilarious results! Somehow I would have gotten John C. Reilly in there, he works cheap.

3) Titanic--this movie needed a murder mystery more than anything. It really dragged, but frankly a stabbed passenger (my vote would be for Kathy Bates' character, who pissed me off anyway with her "oh look how earthy I am, like an early day Roseanne") and a Belgian super-sleuth could have livened up the middle. It'd be great because he'd solve the murder (turns out she stabbed herself while trying to pick food from her teeth) at the exact moment the boat hit an iceberg. And I'd leave in John Astor's witty comment, "I asked for more ice, but this is ridiculous!"

4) Star Wars--I know, it's blasphemous among nerds to suggest this film could have been improved. But Luke was a weak point--no character development, no depth--just pure "gee shucks" farm boy. He needs a split personality, and his alter ego--"Stuart" Skywalker--could be up to all sorts of mischievous hijinks.

5) Road House--it is impossible to make this a better movie than it already is.

Hurricane Party Tips

2011-08-25T12:59:00.002+01:00

With Hurricane Irene planning to visit this weekend, the word on the street is all the stores will be mobbed with people buying canned goods. This is because the stores may be closed for a couple days, if the hurricane is real bad, and no one bothers to keep more than half a day's worth of food in the house. Starving is not an option--we are not the Joads, after all--so it is off to join the pack at the stores!

But we also need something for entertainment! Here are some great hurricane entertainment ideas:

1) Play a game of "Guess Which Spoon Accidentally Fell In the Toilet Last Winter?"

2) Watch someone put together a jigsaw puzzle.

3) Ask three of your friends to stage an in-house production of "Glengarry Glenn Ross" to remind yourself why you need new friends.

4) Have a cup of grated parmesan for lunch because you thought everyone else was an idiot for rushing to the packed stores before the storm hit.

5) Cover your car with antique china to help cushion the blow in case a tree branch falls on it.

Quake!

2011-08-24T12:34:00.002+01:00

There's nothing like a good ole fashioned earthquake to cut into your workday. Sitting at my desk and feeling our building begin to rock and sway, my first thought was "that damn landlord probably didn't adjust the boiler" and it would only be a matter of time before the building exploded. The irony was we had just finished a meeting with our insurance brokers, during which we estimated that only a cataclysmic event affecting the entire D.C. region could shut down all our business locations at once. (Only our failure to say "you know, like an earthquake, as though that would ever happen here!" kept us out of bad sitcom land) For the first time ever, I swore at work. Upon learning it was in fact a quake, I tried calling the wife, but cell service was jammed (which tells us something about the overload during any emergency). Fortunately, she texted soon after to indicate that she had been shopping at Pentagon City and managed to hitch a ride in a taxi with some Nationals Park workers.

We evacuated, and the drive home was uneventful, until reaching Maine Avenue. At this point I am a short walk from home, but a short walk does not make for a short drive--this time. The entire street is jammed solid, as all the idiots in town must have decided that the best place to be after an earthquake is the 14th Street Bridge while it is under repair. I figured maybe the power was out, so the traffic lights weren't working and that was the cause of the chaos. But no, lights were working, but some cop was directing and somehow making it worse. Forty minutes later, I had finished the final blocks home.

When all was said and done, it sort of sucks that one of the few things we had over California--lack of earthquakes--is gone.

Jersey Shore Now An Embarrassment to Dude-Bros?

2011-08-22T18:44:00.003+01:00

Another day, another clothing retailer offers to pay a celebrity not to wear their apparel. This time it's Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino of Jersey Shore fame, and the clothing retailer is Abercrombie and Fitch. A&F is well known for being the clothing of choice for Dude-Bros around the country, and if you're a douche playing a guitar while barefoot in a campus quad, then statistically speaking, you are definitely wearing something A&F.

First, let me get this off my chest--if the show is taking place somewhere besides the shore of New Jersey, stop calling it "Jersey Shore". "Jersey Shore Italy" or "Jersey Shore Miami Beach" makes about as much sense as having "Gilligans Island" film an extra season that takes place in San Francisco.

Second, A&F has hit upon a brilliant idea, which should be adopted further. Everyone with anything in common with the lowlives on "Jersey Shore" can get in on the action. Budweiser can pay "JWow" to not drink their beer, Bose can pay "Pauly D" to not use their stereo equipment, and the Italian American population of America can pay the entire gang of them to change their last names to "Kowalski". (Sorry, Polish folks--should have acted quicker!)

I'm willing to contribute a few hundred!

Palin Always Finds A Way to Become More Odious

2011-08-17T17:42:00.003+01:00

I know that Sarah Palin is not an actual candidate for president, nor a serious person, or even anything more than an elaborate joke. But I just can't help myself! This lady is just the political junkie's gift that keeps on giving. I still stand behind my theory that she is actually a liberal political comedian doing a very elaborate satire on politicians in general and Republicans in particular. She really couldn't be a better example of a shrill, empty headed, craven, childlike, vain, hateful, opportunistic troll if this was in fact a satire.

The latest is her attention-whoring in Iowa, where they recently held a pointless, nonbinding straw poll that somehow got media coverage even though no one really cares what a small group of GOP activists in the Corn and Boredom State decided at one of their fundraisers. Apparently a reporter for the right of center publication Daily Caller did an interview of her while she took time away from making stupid remarks about Muslims who "hurt the heart" what with their nerve in trying to build mosques in this country. The reporter accurately reported that she would support whomever the GOP nominates against Obama--and the Daily Caller accurately published the article. Then, FoxNation's news aggregator linked the article, with the not-so-accurate (shocking, I know! But Palin works for them so she should be ready for such things) header implying she would back Mitt Romney, even before he won the nomination.

Let's first play pretend and imagine how a mentally stable non-idiot might have handled this. Ask an aide to check this out, find out that the problem was with FoxNation, and ask them to correct the headline and maybe print a correction for anyone who saw the inaccurate one. Nonstory, folks! Now let's imagine a Palin-American handling this:

Shrill screaming over the phone at the original reporter of the story, who reported and submitted the correct information. When said reporter tries to point this out, tell them you have to spend time with "real Americans" and hang up.

Let's first deal with this "real Americans" crap--if a "real American" is a multi-millionaire media whore with no actual accomplishments in her shallow life short of sinking a war hero senator's presidential campaign by making him look like a lunatic for even nominating her, then I guess very few Americans would be proud to carry that term. I wasn't aware that beat reporters who actually have to work for a living and don't parade their crotchfruit around the country while messing up the nation's history are not "real Americans". But I do know this much:

NO "REAL AMERICAN" EVER GOES AROUND JUDGING WHO A REAL AMERICAN IS.

It would be nice to hear someone call her out on that though.

What Your State License Plate Says About You

2011-08-17T13:20:00.002+01:00

1) New York Plates. Hi, I'm super aggressive because six different people have been rude to me today. Steer clear.

2) California. I really have no idea where I am right now.

3) Maine. I'm going rather slow, because 90% of the time when I'm driving it's on snow so I always drive this way. Please just go around me.

4) Texas. If you're smart you won't tailgate me. I'm better armed than most third world militaries.

5) Florida. I'm as well armed as the Texan but coked up, so if I'm tailgating you, it's wise to pull over into a ditch until I pass.

6) New Jersey. I've got the same personality issues as the New York driver, but without the skills. If you see a traffic jam, there's a good chance I started it.

7) Maryland. I really don't belong in a car, and my driving proves it.

8) Virginia. I plan to cut you off just so I can slow down again. Oh, how whimsical I am! Aren't I a hoot?

9) Massachusetts. They don't call us "Massholes" for nothing. We aspire to be as obnoxious as the New York driver.

10) Michigan. There's good reason you see me outside of Michigan on your roads right now. If you were from Michigan you'd drive the hell out of there too.

11) DC. Please ignore my passive aggressive plate that complains about how we're taxed and yet don't have a vote in Congress. And let's hope any Puerto Ricans who see this can appreciate the irony.

12) Alaska. Give me some slack. This is the first time in years I've encountered another car on the road.

Economic Dolldrums

2011-08-16T13:30:00.002+01:00

Newly minted presidential candidate Rick Perry has come out as suggesting that additional "quantitative easing" by the Federal Reserve would constitute "treason" against this country. If the reporters interviewing him were worth their weight in salt they'd have asked the obvious follow-up question, which is "would you consider that as treasonous as a state seceding from the country?" but I suppose it's politically incorrect to suggest such a thing. (Though I suppose it's the fault of the winning side of the Civil War, for not having passed a constitutional amendment explicitly saying "Ok, seriously--no more seceding.")

But is Perry right in his criticism of the Fed? I'd have to agree--among the many problems our economy has right now, devaluing the dollar further isn't going to help that. The sad fact is there is no easy fix to our economic problems, because over the past several years they've tried all the easy fixes. However, there are still some unorthodox possibilities:

1) Annex Mexico. In one fell swoop, no more worries about "jobs going to Mexico" since the jobs would be staying in country. Sure, some folks in our original states might resent Mexican migrant workers, sort of how Californians once resented "Okies", and we may have to suffer through a few more John Steinbeck novels as a result, but also consider this--the border between Mexico and Guatemala is a hell of a lot shorter and easier to guard than the current border between Mexico and the U.S. The new state could be called "South New Mexico."

2) Completely legalize everything. Just imagine all the repressed Europeans coming here so they can smoke crack while riding a chariot pulled by hookers and shoot an AK-47 into the air on the way to their gay polygamous wedding in an abortion clinic, which features gambling. Tourist dollars could erase our trade deficit. Bonus--it might make Michele Bachmann's head explode (except for the AK-47 part).

3) Expel Michigan from the country. Look, they had a good run, but they're now embarrassing us. And when other states see how easy this can be done, they'll get in line fast (I'm looking at you, South New Mexico).

4) Build a canal connecting the Mississippi to the Pacific. I think canals are due for a comeback.

5) Tell everyone in the country to split up and join other countries for a while, make their fortunes, and return in about twenty years. Anyone who fails can try France instead.

Perry in the Race

2011-08-15T13:24:00.003+01:00

The news that longtime Texas governor Rick Perry is jumping into the race for the GOP presidential nomination isn't too surprising for me, since this guy has all the key elements on paper for getting the nod. Governors tend to do better than Senators and Congresspersons, and his state is the second biggest in the country. Perry manages to straddle both establishment Republicanism as well as the Christian right, and has Tea Party cred--and add to that a great head of hair. He is expected to be a juggernaut in this race, for good reason.

There are a few things though that may ultimately sink a Perry candidacy:

1) He's got troubling secessionist sympathies. Yes, I get that Texans think they're a separate country when it benefits them, but fealty towards a movement that was traitorous to this country? How much creditiblity will President Perry have when Maine finally secedes (and they will--mark my words!) and he has to send federal troops in?

2) He has a thing for executing innocent people. Now, Americans do love them some executin'--Clinton famously made a campaign swing back to Arkansas to watch the execution of a man so severely retarded that he saved some of his last meal for later--but this sort of thing can blow up a bit when it goes national.

3) America really can't afford another war right now. Our last two--and only--Texan presidents brought us long and costly wars in Iraq and Vietnam. I'm not even sure what new country Perry would have to invade to keep up his Texan cred, but I'm sure he'll find somewhere. And we can't afford the wars we have already.

4) He's green on the national stage. One reason I think Mitt Romney is going to win the nomination is because for the GOP the nomination tends to go to the candidate who has been through the nomination races before. (McCain in 2000, winning in '08; Dole in '88, winning in '96; Bush Sr. in '80, winning in '88; Reagan in '76, winning in '80). The first time means the national media gets a chance to do their digging on the candidate, and the candidate gets a chance to learn from his mistakes. Romney's been through it last time, and this time seems less gaffe-prone. Perry has a lot of opportunity to flub around, and get the heat of attack ads that can define his image before he gets a chance to.

My money's still on Romney taking the GOP nod, but it looks like now for the first time in the race he has an actual threat. His strength as a candidate is about to be tested.

Prediction--Obama's Getting Re-elected

2011-08-12T16:55:00.003+01:00

With all the bad economic news this week, my liberal and conservative friends seem hopeful (or dismayed) that Barack Obama is likely to get "crushed" in next year's election. Here are some reasons why I don't think that'll happen:

1) Money. Obama has a huge fundraising advantage over his GOP rivals, being the incumbent, not having a primary rival this time around, and considering his fundraising in '08 was recordbreaking. Look to see him raise a mountain of cash to swamp his opponent with--an opponent who will have come from a bruising and expensive primary battle. Caveat--at a certain point, a candidate only needs so much money before it gives him/her any additional advantage. There's only so many consultants you can hire, and so many pieces of mail, appearances to make, or TV time to buy. Look at Meg Whitman's expensive mess in California last year--her massive spending had diminishing returns after a certian point. Still, in this case, time that Romney (who I predict will be the nominee for reasons I'll get into another time) spends trying to raise money gives Obama time to target swing states and try to grab a few reds.

2) Economy. Yes, the economy is terrible right now, but there's a couple factors to consider. First, a majority of voters don't blame the president for our economy--mainly due to the slide beginning well before he was elected. Second, to the extent voters blame/credit a president for the economy, they are less focused on how good or bad the economy is in absolute terms than they are focused on the economic trend. The question won't be "how bad is unemployment or GDP in November 2012"--the question will be "how bad is unemployment or GDP in November 2012 compared to 2011, and are things on the right or wrong track". Considering things are pretty bad now, there is plenty of room for improvement over the next year. Caveat--things can of course get even worse, and even if they do improve by late 2012, if the improvement is too little too late, he could be punished as Bush Sr. was in 1992, where voters did not credit him for what was actually an economic recovery (that lasted a record nine years). But I think the economy still gives Obama an edge, as I discuss in 3) below.

3) His Opposition. The GOP are currently in the process of trying to make themselves completely unable to win any national elections for a long time. Part of this is due to embracing the extreme elements in their party, which insist on a "no tax hike" orthodoxy that puts them at odds with independents and even a significant number of Republicans. This also means that candidates in the primaries are going to have to jump through hoops to get the nomination that will require making themselves unelectable in the general--whether it's bashing homosexuals (an increasingly unpopular position), scapegoating of Muslims, or taking on the more insane of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. What wins the South Carolina primaries will ensure a loss in Pennsylvania, and even--what is becoming more likely--Ohio and Florida come November. Plus, as bad as the economy may be, the GOP appears just as out of tools to deal with it as the Democrats are. Spending stimulus may not work, but tax cut stimulus won't either. And no one has been adult about the debt, even as Obama ceded the initiative to Republicans who promptly ruled out any compromise on the issue. Whoever emerges from the GOP primaries will be compromised by the hard right, and running against a president who can aim straight at the middle. (And the left--mad as they may get at Obama--will turn out in droves for him rather than let some Tea Partied GOP nominee take over).

4) Bin Laden. Killing him has sort of provided a very quick response to GOP claims that Obama is weak on the war on terror. Not to mention, the guy hasn't really ended the wars he's inherited--issues which might be something if the GOP were anti-interventionist, but if they don't nominate Ron Paul--and they won't--then they won't attack him from that corner.

5) Demographics. Core constituencies of the Democrats--particularly Hispanics--have grown over the last four years, and the influx of black voters (reliable Democrats, and more so than ever with the first black president up for re-election) and blue staters moving into red states in the Sun Belt for jobs will only make states like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida more competitive, not less so. The blue states these migrants are coming from don't seem to be getting redder as a result--perhaps because they were much deeper blue to begin with.

So in the end, it'll be an incumbent president with plenty of cash to attack a GOP nominee left weak and compromised by a brutal and Tea-stained primary fight, competing for a large number of states that the Republicans used to be able to count on. The outcome is not without doubt--and of course anything can intervene to change things in a year--but the president has a strong edge for re-election next fall. You heard it here first!

The Pointlessness of Understanding Rioters

2011-08-11T16:55:00.002+01:00

I just love the folks who try to humanize the sort of mindless thugs that are willing to burn stores and attack passers-by every time they get a chance. This sort of understanding is like trying to tell a joke to a piece of patio furniture--completely pointless!

Yes, I get that there are a lot of people in despairing situations, lacking job prospects, living in desperate and insecure situations. And while thoughtful people of all political stripes may differ as to how best to alleviate these problems and construct a more perfect society, it's normal to have sympathy for the less fortunate. But this isn't about that at all.

This is instead about basic thugs striking out against the weak who cannot defend themselves or their property. This isn't some mob trying to storm the British equivalent of the Pentagon--or showing the sort of bravery and civility of protesters across the Middle East this year, who were actually protesting vile, inhumane and undemocratic governments that could and often did react with uncalled for violent measures. These mobs in Britain are the worst sort of cowards, making one wonder how they could be descended from those who spread western civilization around the globe, stood up to Hitler, and invented tea-time. Cowards who see nothing more than an opportunity to smash and steal and maim and kill.

Stop trying to figure out their motivations, because it's already obvious how to stop them--sheer force. A bullet in the head of the rioter in front of you is reason enough to go back to your room for the night.

Looters are Good for One Thing. Target Practice!

2011-08-11T12:56:00.004+01:00

As I muse on the spectacle of the British riots, I find it absolutely fascinating that so many pundits are tugging at their beards as they sip their port and fret over the "root causes" of the violence, as though any sense could be found in what is going on. To these wags I say, go find something else to write about--you'd be better off trying to understand the motivations of a rabid dog. The rioters are scum and nothing more.

It's disheartening to see a photo like the one in this post, where the shopkeeper has a look of resignation as he surveys his burned out cutlery store. Ah, but the rioters claim that they're fighting against the wealthy and powerful! This Mr. Mohamed is clearly some rich plutocrat, who just recently took off his monocle and top hat, and was foiled in using his cutlery empire to enslave the masses! Social justice clearly achieved!

Sadly, the British government is only talking about "rubber bullets" and water cannons to fight the rioters. Here's the problem with that--right now, rioters think such things are only mildly convenient, and certainly worth the risk of robbing stores and burning cars and doing whatever else they think might help them get over their sexual frustration (and considering these are mostly school-aged "men", that's obviously what's at work here, let's not deny it). And, if the rioters are just wounded, they end up sucking at the government's teat for who knows how long, thanks to British national health care. Yet, if we tried my solution--shoot to kill, and quickly--we'd see some wonderful effects for all of society:

1) Dead rioters.

2) A lot more rioters deciding they have something better to do.

3) More lives saved as a whole.

See, my approach sounds brutal--and surely the bleeding hearts who think every life is precious would blanch at such a simplistic sounding course--but sometimes sharp, decisive brutality can save far more lives by putting a quick end to the chaos. Consider why during the L.A. riots of '92 the storefronts that were amazingly spared by looters were the ones with heavily armed Koreans on the rooftops taking shots at anyone who approaches. Looters may be a lot of things, but suicidal isn't one of them.

And don't give me this "the British are far too civilized to do something like this". If they could firebomb innocent civilians in Hamburg, they can pop a few looters.

London Isn't All Lace Doilies Now, Is It?

2011-08-10T12:32:00.003+01:00

Hearing about these London riots is dismaying, largely because rioting is sort of OUR schtick. The British are supposed to be tea and crumpets and jolly good show and Mrs. Minniver! Sadly, our image of them as more civilized and cultured than us has been a long story of lies perpetuated by Masterpiece Theater. Brits have soccer thugs and "chavs" and various hooligans roaming their fair city, wrecking things and it is up to local shopkeepers to defend their stores from the brutes. The police, sadly, are overwhelmed, most likely because it's hard to hit a rioter with a truncheon while not spilling your fish and chips.

As to the question of the underlying causes of the rioting, I think we're missing an important point, which is who freaking cares? There's often an excuse to protest, or an excuse to engage in some sort of civil disobedience--though since Gandhi made it popular a lot of two-bit protest groups have really beaten that horse to death. But at least they're not looting and burning and killing the way these thugs are.

Just one suggestion for the police--shoot all the rioters. Future gene pools will thank you.

Civil War Questions

2011-08-09T12:57:00.002+01:00

With the stock market dropping an additional 600 plus points yesterday--essentially meaning that we can look forward to a retirement eating out of dumpsters, considering the shape our 401ks are in now--there is one thing everyone's talking about. The 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

While a lot of the usual questions have been answered in most texts on the subject--such as why foreign countries never intervened on behalf of the Confederacy, or why slaves didn't rise en masse once the word was out that the war was on and the South needed all its own manpower to fight Union armies--there are still a number of puzzling "what ifs":

1) What if after South Carolina seceded, the other southern states just turned and said "see, we didn't think you'd really be going through with it. We happen to like our wealthy plantations and aren't about to wreck them when a much bigger professional army comes rolling in."

2) What if a northern state--say, Iowa--took the opportunity to secede hoping no one would notice?

3) What if the question of secession was brought up in court, rather than through armed conflict? The Constitution doesn't specifically deny the right to secede, and the Supreme Court had never ruled on that matter, so this wasn't exactly settled law at that point.

4) Related to this, why didn't the North pass a constitutional amendment immediately after the war making it abundantly clear that no state could secede? It could have gone along with Amendments 13 through 15.

5) If Lincoln had been assassinated a few years earlier, the then-VP, Hannibal Hamlin, who was also serving as a private, would have had the most spectacular promotion in military history. Also, Maine would have had its first U.S. President.

6) If the South had been successful in seceding, how long would it have been before a revanchist North invaded to reclaim that territory? And how much more destructive could such a war have been, using more modern weaponry?

7) How did the abolition of slavery go down in the non-rebellious slave states (Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey)? This is not so much a "what if" but a subject that seems to be glossed over in history books. Were slave owners resistant to this? Was there compensation?

Instead, we know how things did go down--what each side thought would be a quick war turned into anything but--and this was as much due to battle tactics not catching up to extra-destructive weapons of the time as it was due to each side having much more will to fight than the other was willing to credit them. In the end, it was settled--no more slaves, no more secession, and the South is allowed to name streets after rebel generals. Then we could finally get back to what we did best--attacking other countries.

Snakes, The Pets That Cannot Love

2011-08-08T14:25:00.003+01:00

What is it about weirdos and deadly animals? A home in North Carolina had to be evacuated when one of the residents was bitten by a venemous snake, and authorities found something like 60 snakes in the home. While I'd be the first person to say "get these motherf-ing snakes out of my motherf-ing home!", there just seems to be some strange attraction to having things in the house that can kill you. (The article mentions the snakes as "exotic", and by that I don't think they mean French or Spanish. Instead, this means "from some deadly jungle country where they breed scorching death on a regular basis").

I sort of get owning a dog, as dogs constantly shower you with affection even if you're a dolt. And cats, well, cats are evil, but cat owners at least labor under the misbelief that they're cuddly and sweet. (And an un-neutered cat at least will hunt a lot, ridding the property of pests. A neutered cat, on the other hand, is basically like your stoner roommate.) I even sort of get rodents, because they're furry and you can pet them sometimes. Birds? At least they make noises and you can pretend they're talking to you.

But snakes? They're not furry, they'll only eat things you put in their tank, and they're light on conversation. The most interesting thing that will ever happen with your pet snake is it'll try to kill you. Granted, owning a snake might impress that weird chick who works at the record store, but just try bringing Mr. Scaly down to the strip mall without getting an earful from the mall cop.

When will people realize that snakes belong only on strippers and zoos?

On to the Chinese Salt Mines

2011-08-05T13:25:00.003+01:00

The term "Chinese Salt Mines" gets thrown around a lot these days, particularly on this blog. Basically, it is a foreboding of doom, indicating that as this country continues to devolve into late Roman Empire-style decadence and weakness, it becomes only a matter of time before invaders from the East decide to take us over and, realizing that our future generations will accomplish nothing positive for the world, they put us all to work mining salt for their delicious, tasty chicken recipes.

Now, am I engaging in pointless histrionics? Hardly! Consider the country we were when we reached our zenith of power in 1945:

1) We had just destroyed two major world empires at the same time. Granted, the Russians and British helped with one of them, but we had to send them ships and supplies for the effort, not the other way around. Once we stepped in, it was only a matter of time before Berlin and Tokyo residents had to learn to speak English--with an American accent.

2) We had finished killing hundreds of thousands of civilians deliberately, and when it was over, put our enemies on the dock for war crimes.

3) We had produced a crazy general (Patton) who, had it not been for an unfortunate jeep accident, would have kept on invading because once you ride a bolt of lightning, you don't slow it down.

Now, I'm not condoning everything we did in that war--much of it quite awful and unnecessary in hindsight--but there was a strong sense of unconquerable power left over after that. Then, just to show we had the random personality switches of Ike Turner, we go and do something nice like buy flowers for our recent victims--except instead of flowers we rebuilt Germany and Japan so that they are only a danger today to those who fear techno music or tentacle porn. And, the Soviets--a nation that lost a tenth of their population to the Nazis and who consider cruelty their national pastime--feared us so much they never dared openly confront us, even while their system fell apart. We were really something back then.

Now, this country fights over whether its government can stand behind its debts, and slowly bleeds out in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, fretting over "nation building". I don't recall MacArthur or Chesty Puller worried about "nation building"--or anything that got in the way of a good killing spree. These days, young men will wear eyeliner and girls' jeans to be "ironic", without having the full bravery of being a bona fide cross dresser--and these would be the raw recruits we'd need to count on to protect our shores from invaders? Our film heroes go from an unapologetic simpleton cowboy (John Wayne, of course) to sparkly vampires. We have to try and cajole our citizens into not stuffing fatty foods into their hungry maws, hoping that calorie counts on menus will do the trick (news flash--they don't), creating an obesity epidemic that would be hilarious if no so pathetic.

What happened to that sense of nationhood, and collective strength mixed with rugged invidualism? Is this inevitable?

Oh Good, Country Music is Going to Hell

2011-08-04T13:05:00.003+01:00

On my evening walk through Chinablock last night I noticed something different about the roving gangs of teenagers who normally infest that neighborhood when they're not busy getting on my lawn and doing their freak dancing. Instead of the usual mixed crowd, last night's gang appeared to be overwhelmingly white, female, and clad in cowboy boots and sundresses. This meant only one thing--some teenybopper country music show at the Verizon Center. (Had this been regular country, say George Strait, the crowd would have been older and featured at least some men) Sure enough, Taylor Swift was in town.

Now, while I carry no animus towards Ms. Swift--her blandness is both inoffensive and only effects the dead zone in my ear--the fact that she is the new face of country music is an alarming development. Gone are the days where country and western were represented by drug addled tough guys like Johnny Cash or George Jones, or former paratroopers like Kris Kristofferson. Even the lady singers of the old days were pretty badass--Tammy Wynette seemed like the type you wouldn't cross if you liked your face just the way it was, and Patsy Cline likely had a few bodies buried in her cellar. And Dolly Parton . . . don't get me started on Dolly Parton.

But Taylor Swift--this is someone who dates mega-douche John Mayer, only to get dumped (what a shocker!) and write some passive aggressive song about it. Hell, if Patsy Cline had dated Mr. Mayer, we'd be finding bits of him along I-85 in four different southern states.

Taylor Swift is to country music what Twilight is to vampires.

Mummy Dearest

2011-08-03T16:27:00.003+01:00

Watching last night's film--1959's "The Mummy" starring the incomparable Christopher Lee who can be compared to the incomparable Peter Cushing who was also in the film--it occurred to me that the titular mummy could have caused much greater havoc if he were armed. And this is a noticeable trend--as deadly dangerous as say vampires are, does it not occur to them to pick up a machine gun and some grenades and go on an unkillable rampage? No one can possibly get close enough to shove a stake in your heart if you have an AK-47.

Mummies of course became fearsome because deep down we all have a fear of things that are wrapped and preserved. You name it, mummies, Spam, the existing copies of the Magna Carta--all these things inspire fear and dread. (This is why I didn't see that horror film, "National Treasure". That, and the fact that I heard it was awful). A mummy coming to life--now there's some scary stuff!

Though, I can't help but wonder if maybe the mummy would be more scared of us than we are of him. Here he is, all wrapped and stuff, coming alive in a world where no one speaks ancient Egyptian (apparently, that language sounds a lot like pictures of dog-headed people and leaves), motor vehicles are roaming around instead of chariots, and the weather everywhere is absolutely freezing compared to ancient deserts. Maybe, just maybe, someone needs to do a film from the mummy's point of view so we can have a better understanding of the dead that walk among us.

MTV Sucks

2011-08-02T14:32:00.002+01:00

Yesterday marked 30 years to the day that MTV aired its first video, and in that time the channel went from major cultural force to complete pile of worthless crap. Today, they no longer even call it "music television" because there's no actual music, except maybe during the credits before showing "Jersey Shore" or some other mindless dreck. MTV today is a grotesque mess, serving as a reminder that the future generations of this country are not even worthy of jobs in Chinese salt mines. (Something tells me we'll be beaten out for coveted serf positions by much more hard working Brazilians).

But, I'm old enough to remember that it wasn't always this way. Growing up, our house didn't have cable because my parents correctly believed I watched too much television as it was and didn't need encouragement. But whenever I had the chance at friends' and relatives' homes, the music video channel was the first one I'd flip to, hoping to catch the video versions of the latest rock songs.

The medium of music videos wasn't completely new in 1981--film created to accompany a popular song existed as far back as the 1960s and were shown in clips on programs for a couple decades--but the advent of a 24-hour channel dedicated to the music video meant that every artist wanted to produce one to sell their songs. At first, the video styles were primitive--some pasty new wave artists badly lip synching in a cheap soundstage--but as the '80s wore on, directors started to really put production values into their clips. Videos became stories, sometimes reflecting the song lyrics, sometimes not, but often worth seeing. Every genre became represented as new channels sprouted up to meet the demand--VH1 played a lot of older videos and soft rock, CMT played country videos. Then, in the early '90s, everything went to hell--but gradually.

It had its genesis in the late '80s with a game show called "Remote Control", which should have been our first warning since the show had nothing to do with music or music videos. But this was a hit for a while, and then came "The Real World", a reality show that demonstrated that Generation X was a group of whiny douchebags who probably would have found a way to lose the Spanish American War if they'd lived through it, to say nothing of WWII. Apparently there was some tool named "Puck" on there, meaning his parents were morons and should have both been incinerated for giving their kid such a suggestive name. I don't know--I avoided the show completely, since it looked so boring. But, the channel still mostly showed videos.

But this was only the beginning! "Real World" was, unfortunately, a hit, because people apparently like to mock Gen Xers and drink their sweet sweet tears. More dumb non-music related crap abounded on MTV, including "Road Rules", "Singled Out", "Jackass", "Jersey Shore", and the "MTV Movie Awards" which makes as much sense as the HBO Music Awards. (Also, Beavis and Butthead cropped up early in the '90s, and while this show was often funny, it really belonged on a cartoon or comedy network, not MTV). Clearly, the channel just wanted to whore itself out to whatever would get ratings, and before long, they literally stopped showing music videos. It is now a channel devoted to pure garbage television. It should change its name to GTV!

I note though that it is not just MTV that gave up on its original mission. Movie channels (like HBO and AMC and Showtime) now feature plenty of original serial programming at the expense of actual films. At this rate, Comedy Central could end up airing "Schindler's List". And this would be in poor taste.

So here's to 30 years. Up yours, MTV!

Move Day

2011-08-01T13:20:00.002+01:00

When a friend needs help with a move, it sort of brings out a "all hands on deck" feeling amongst the social circle, as we've all been in the situation where we needed every extra person to get things done smoothly and quickly. Helping with a move is sort of like the airport pickup-dropoff--it's a great favor you can do which ensures, among the right sort of people, that they will return the favor when you are the one in need.

Yesterday was just such a day, as a relatively new arrival had to call upon the gang for help with a move that unfortunately hit some setbacks. The truck rental place lost the reservation, requiring a last minute scramble, and several "friends" basically wrote off helping out at all for no better reason than "I'd rather not ruin my Sunday". Extra difficulty--very large objects had to be maneuvered up several flights of narrow staircases, and city streetparking and traffic were about what you'd expect on a day that the Nationals were playing in town.

However, some friends did come through in a big way, and considering there were only a few of us on the job--and despite the setbacks above--it went relatively smoothly, with only my usual level of cursing and aches. And, looking back, that was a hell of a workout.

The extra bit of fun was at the end of the evening, when the near-delerious movee had to return the UHaul, and somehow ended up at the wrong slum location (my wife and I were waiting at the slum off South Capitol Street, while our friend was mis-led to the slum off North Capitol). The exhausted, frantic phone call from her was a bit disconcerting, as apparently the North Capitol location was prime spot for tranny hookers who by themselves may not be dangerous but often came complete with muggers and maniacs. We did find her though, safe but ruffled, and were able to finish the day successfully.

A special thanks to those who did help out--my job would have been that much more horrible otherwise.

Again With the Omens!

2011-07-28T13:13:00.002+01:00

The 1970s were about a lot of things--terrible home decor, mustaches, and of course children who were the spawn of Satan. While "Rosemary's Baby" first warned us of this scourge in 1968, the Satan-child fears reached the zenith with the 1976 documentary "The Omen". There, we learned that evil little kids could really wreck a birthday party with dead nannies and babboon attacks.

Now, putting myself in the shoes of Ambassador Thorne, what would I have done if I discovered my son was actually the spawn of the Devil? In the documentary, Thorne was shot by police before he had a chance to stab the kid to death, which really sucks because they were British police who don't normally carry guns. And not to go off on a tangent, but what's up with that? The only reason not to run from the cops is because they tend to get all shootey on you. I figure with a British cop the only downside of running is that they might throw their fish and chips at you.

But yeah, let's say I'm sitting out on my patio enjoying tea and crumpets and some investigative reporter warns me that my kid is really Satan-spawn, and then just as he's finished telling me this he gets mysteriously vaporized by lightning or eaten to death by crows. I think I'd then turn to my rascally kid and say "okay, Devil-boy, you know what this means. You're cleaning that up!" Then we'd be off to Vegas because he might be good at manipulating a roulette wheel.

See, one thing they never tried with the Damien kid is the idea of negotiating with him. After all, is being the Devil an inborn thing, or learned behavior? I'd like to think it's partly both, and maybe there's some positives that can come from unholy power.

Apes Should Run This Country

2011-07-26T15:12:00.002+01:00

There was a period in the late '70s and early '80s--which I refer to as the Dark Ages of culture--when the craze was apes dressed as humans and doing terrific things. There was "BJ and the Bear" (don't make the mistake of Googling that!), about a southern trucker and his "best friend Bear"--Bear being the name of his ape pet who made funny facial expressions and occasionally got BJ out of jams. There was "Every Which Way But Loose" and its sequel, "Any Which Way You Can", where Clint Eastwood played a barefist boxer with a pet orangutan that made funny facial expressions and occasionally got Clint out of jams. Then in the '80s there was "Mister Smith" about an ape that could talk and was somehow President of the United States. This killed the Ape Era.

Now, some might say the Ape Era died a natural death, because there was only so much audiences could take of seeing apes in funny human-like situations. However, keep in mind that the American public is made up of complete morons (case in point--"According to Jim"). So I have a far more sinister theory involving the highest levels of the American Government.

See, the Ape Era crossed a threshhold when they made the show about the Ape President, because it was quickly decided by President Reagan and Tip O'Neil--two notorious crooks who collectively were far less smart than the average ape--that if the American public got used to seeing an ape in the Oval Office--even if it were only in a bad sitcom--then it wouldn't be long before we decided to elect actual apes to Congress and the presidency. Because then there'd be the embarrassing revelation that a herd of apes would hardly do worse running our government than our current leaders.

I ponder this as I think about the fact that we still don't have a debt limit deal, because no one has the guts to touch entitlements or military spending or our sacred mess of a tax code. At least monkeys throwing darts at a bulletin board might have a chance of getting something right once in a while.

In 2012, I'm voting for Mister Jingles.

Classic Biker Films

2011-07-25T13:24:00.003+01:00

If movies have taught us nothing else--and they haven't--they have taught us that all the highways of the West are clogged with villainous biker gangs that roam from town to town, terrorizing the uptight older folks and preppies who have nothing to protect them except for a corrupt and incompetent sherriff. Normally you'd think the National Guard would be called out when such insurrectionary groups create mass mayhem, but let's not dwell on that. Instead, let's dwell on what makes an ideal biker film:

1) Must be produced by the esteemed studio "American International Pictures", somewhere between 1966 and 1973.

2) The bikers should look like beatniks, and have chicks in them (bikers refer to their broads as "chicks") who wear a lot of eye liner despite spending their days riding bitch on the back of a hog.

3) Whenever they're riding, or punching, or drinking lots of beer out of cans that are simply labelled "beer", the bikers must have surf music playing. Why surf music? Why not?

4) When anyone gets punched, it will look a lot like bright red paint got smeared everywhere. My theory is that bikers are actually artists who carry their paint with them, and this gets spilled constantly during fights.

5) Within every biker gang is one undercover guy, usually a returning Marine from 'Nam, who infiltrated the gang in order to exact revenge upon the second in command who wronged the undercover guy's woman in some way.

6) Townsfolk never just show up in a mass with their shotguns and unload a torrent of buckshot at the bikers, ending the adventure prematurely. This is because they're hoping the bikers are only passing through and won't hassle anyone. This is a big mistake. Bikers never just "pass through".

7) When anyone on the road in their car or truck is being menaced by the bikers, they never seem to take the easiest step which is smash into them because Bike vs. Large Vehicle = Dead Biker. Instead, they run themselves off the road, and get menaced, perhaps beaten and robbed, and usually some young woman dies in the process, leading her husband to infiltrate the gang and get revenge (see 5, above).

8) There is never a traffic jam on any highway, because that might cause the biker gang to decide it sucks sitting out in the hot sun in heavy leather and sweating and stuff.

9) We never see the biker gang taking their bikes in for emissions inspection, but we must assume that they do at some point since any cop pulling them over and not seeing the emissions approval will run them in.

The glorious era of the biker film, as noted, ended about forty years ago, but there is good reason for a revival. I'm thinking a great indie film called "Bikers Vs. Truckers" that could feature a running battle across the southwest. Such a film could really capture the modern American spirit.

But hey, the studios have better projects to work on, like Transformers 4. May they all rot in hell.

Don't Trust Anyone Named Grover Who Isn't A Muppett

2011-07-22T13:31:00.003+01:00

My problem with people who have strong political ideologies is that their rigidness means they have an answer before they even know what the question is. There's something about a person who says "all we need is a government program to fix this" or "no tax increases under any circumstances, ever" that just makes me wonder if they bother to ever approach a matter with an open mind. Sadly, the answer is likely no, and that brings us to Grover Norquist.

Norquist is the head of a group called "Americans for Tax Reform" and they have requested that Republican candidates for office sign a pledge that promises to never vote for a tax increase--and defines "tax increase" to mean not just raised rates but the elimination of any deduction or other calculation that would increase government revenue. (The pledge allows the elimination of a deduction if there is a corresponding rate drop or new deduction to off-set it--the key here is that the government can never act to increase its own net revenue) Hundreds of Republicans serving in Congress today have signed this--thereby signalling to voters that they cannot be trusted to use their personal inclination against higher taxes and instead have to be bound by the pledge. This is idiocy.

Consider for a minute that Congress voted to drop the tax rate to a flat rate of 1%, with the first $100K of everyone's income excluded (if that sounds familiar then congratulations, you remember the early 1900s when the first federal income tax was enacted--it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, later requiring the 16th Amendment to enable federal income taxes). Let's also assume Congress gets rid of Social Security, Medicare, defense spending--pretty much everything it does and reduces the deficit to make up for this huge drop in revenue. Then China decides to attack us via Mexico (like Red Dawn, but with better acting). An emergency session of Congress is called for.

Whoops! Can't raise taxes, these idiots signed a pledge! They owe fealty to a man named Grover! Oh, who could have forseen this calamitous turn of events???

See, it's fine to be in favor of lower tax rates and smaller government--it's a perfectly legitimate political philosophy, and really the only difference between the center left and center right in this country is a matter of degree. And it's perfectly fine for the GOP in this current budget fight to push for less--or even no--tax increases as a matter of principle (whether this is good policy, or even realistic since there's a Democrat in the White House). What is just plain stupid is that anyone would sign a pledge that eliminates judgment and flexibility in any circumstances, or otherwise requires the signer to violate it later.

It's a shame that when Mr. Norquist first presented this pledge to Republicans, they didn't just laugh him out of the room. It has served to do nothing but make the GOP look like rigid ideologues unfit to govern.

Bachmann's Husband

2011-07-21T15:27:00.003+01:00

During this time of wondering if the 535 fork-and-spoon operators that make up the U.S. Congress are about to destroy what's left of the world economy, there's one question on everyone's mind--is Michele Bachmann's husband gay?

The presidential candidate's husband, Marcus, is particularly controversial because his profession is providing psychological counselling to turn gay people straight. See, gay people apparently have some sort of psychological disorder that makes them sexually desire their own gender, and moreover, this is a terrible thing so Marcus Bachmann had dedicated his working life to help get the gay out of people.

As it happens, Marcus Bachmann also now stands accused of being gay himself, since he's set off people's "gaydar". What is this, you ask? Apparently, people can be deemed gay due to how they walk, talk, and generally carry themselves--which to be fair is about as scientific as Bachmann's anti-gay therapy. Those who cheer this simply because they are offended by Bachmann are not helping matters--do we really want to give credence to this idea that effeminacy has a direct link to homosexuality? I don't really see how the gay acceptance movement gets anywhere by lending weight to mocking stereotypes--even if used against this guy. I imagine some closeted homosexuals around the country seeing this guy being mocked for how he walks and talks are probably cringing.

And moreover, what should it matter if Bachmann is gay? If he actually is a closeted homosexual, then I just feel sorry for him--imagine having to stomp down your inner feelings because you're in an environment where such feelings are considered sinful and deviant, in need of "fixing". And if Bachmann was more a John Wayne type (or Rock Hudson, if you will), would that make his destructive "therapy" any more credible? It's not the hypocrisy that makes such beliefs wrong, it's the beliefs themselves.

As someone who wants to become the most powerful person on earth, Michele Bachmann should be called to task on her and her husband's beliefs regarding a not insignificant number of Americans. But a tactic that seems a little too close to gay-bashing isn't the way to do it.

Heat Wave Solution

2011-07-20T13:51:00.002+01:00

With summer temperatures projected to cross the three figure mark this weekend, my building decided Saturday was a good day to close the pool for no reason. Grrr, anger! Though, for years I had lived pool-less, so I should be able to deal. It'd be nice if the Potomac were clean and had a nice beachfront, but the Mayor isnt' taking my calls so we'll have to make do.

Sadly, we often hear of a number of heat-related deaths each summer, generally among the older and more A/C-lacking population. This confuses, flummoxes, and confounds me, particularly because my retirement plan involves a great deal of unexplained poverty and rotten kids who won't get off my lawn and won't drop me off in an air conditioned supermarket with a lawn chair. But wouldn't this be a great project for Boy Scouts, or some other civic group? Locate elderly and sickly people who don't have working air conditioners, and on hot days (anything over 90 degrees at least) drop them off at libraries, shopping malls or major train stations? These places are all kept cool during the hottest part of the day, so it seems a shame to swelter in a hot apartment when there's somewhere safer to be. Plus, they get to socialize! (Except in the library, where they should be reading and not making shrieking noises)

When evening comes and these places close up (except I guess the train stations, which should run pretty late) the Boy Scouts can come scoop up their charges, and drop them off at a nearby bar or Starbucks, one of those late night ones. By the time the management tells them to buy something or get the hell out, the summertime temperatures should have cooled off significantly.

Well, you know where I'll be in retirement.

Worst 20th Century President

2011-07-19T13:11:00.004+01:00

Growing up, it was considered common knowledge that John Kennedy was one of our greatest 20th Century presidents, cut short in his prime just before he was able to end segregation and poverty and bring freedom to the world. This is because I was surrounded by hippies who had their heads up their asses--JFK was an overrated fancy-pants who dragged his feet on a civil rights movement that was taking place with or without him (his successor LBJ actually got on board that train), his bungling of Cuba in the Bay of Pigs directly caused the missile crisis the following year, and he got things rolling in Vietnam in a way that destroyed the following two presidencies. I shudder to think what another term might have done with that clown at the helm.

A writer for Foreign Policy Magazine seems to agree, and takes it a step further to say JFK was "the worst" of our 20th Century presidents. This is a harder sell--after all, Woodrow Wilson got us into another unnecessary war, and was our most segregationist president of that century. But my vote still goes to FDR for the following reasons:

1) Picking a war with Japan that could have been avoided. We cut off their oil supplies as a protest against their war in China--keep in mind we didn't have any issues with European powers invading that country (hell, only forty years earlier we were among those invaders). Continuing to work diplomatically with Japan may have emboldened moderates like Prime Minister Konoye, and worked out respective spheres of influence in Asia. Playing hardball at a time when the U.S. was trying to support the British against Hitler was stupid and provocative--it put Tojo in power and forced Japan to choose between economic and military ruin or war with us.

2) Happily handing over to Stalin everything he wanted, including half of Europe, when Stalin was heavily dependent on Allied aid. Since the whole war started over Polish sovereignty, giving all of Poland, plus everything else behind the Iron Curtain, to a dictator who could teach lessons in cruelty to Hitler, made WWII a sort of hollow victory and was the proximate cause of the Cold War. The argument that he "had no choice" sort of rings hollow--Stalin had no choice but to fight Hitler, and the Allies had the upper hand in the alliance.

3) Refusing any help for Jewish refugees from Hitler. FDR did not allow Allied planes to target rail links to the death camps, despite the fact that these targets were in their flight paths on their normal bombing runs, and he refused to allow open immigration of refugees into U.S. territory (or use any diplomatic pressure on the British to take in the refugees). FDR apologists argue that he had to do what he could to win the war, but none of these possible moves would have hampered the war effort in any meaningful way (unless you argue that Nazi bullets used on innocent people meant the bullets couldn't be used against Allied troops). Sadly the Italians while Mussolini was still in power did a better job protecting Jews than FDR did. The only plausible argument for FDR on this score is that he couldn't believe the information he was getting about the fate of the Jews in Europe.

4) Intentionally targetting civilians with firebombing. While in Europe the Americans' bombing efforts were limited to military targets (airfields, rail links, bridges, factories), we used firestorms against the Japanese on their home islands. The firebombings of Tokyo killed far more people than the atomic bombings would, and these weren't "collateral damage"--it was our intention to kill and terrorize the local population so that they would go to the polls and vote against the war. Oh wait, this was a dictatorship and they wouldn't be voting at all? Whoops! I guess we're just killing innocent civilians for the lolz! This actually didn't help us win the war--any more than Hitler's bombings of London and Coventry made the British want to end the war. It just emboldens the population, and kills a lot of noncombatants. We execute war criminals for that sort of thing. Of course, only the winner gets to do that. The only counterargument for the firebombings is that FDR thought at the time that it would cow the Japanese into surrender, and that it would take something more awe-inducing (like the atom bombs) to actually do this. But the firebombings themselves turned out to be pointless mayhem and unjustifiable with the light of history--and it is with that light that we judge past presidents.

5) Civil liberties. Who was our only 20th Century president to round up tens of thousands of American citizens and their families, seize their possessions and homes, and put them in holding camps far into the interior of the country, with no trials, etc.--only because of their race? Yep, that civil libertarian FDR! Any Japanese-American who doesn't hate that guy really needs to read more. And wartime censorship was notorious in a way that would make Michael Moore blush if he weren't a stupid moron.

6) The Counterargument. I won't go into the economic and domestic policy arguments, since there's still a lot of argument as to the effects of these policies, as well as the fact that these policies ran the gamut. Some revisionists argue that his policies prolonged the depression (and caused the "double dip" in 1937, though contractionary monetary policy also takes some blame), others argue it had no real effect (as unemployment was still around 20% at our entry into WWII), and of course those on the left believe he lifted us out of it or at least helped prevent it from getting worse. None of that can be proved--not without an alternate reality where those policies never happened--and it will always depend on your economic standpoint. I'll credit him though with the fact that he took office at a horrible economic time, and tried pretty much everything--and a lot of it did have a good effect (rural electrification, creation of deposit insurance). He was no great civil rights leader for the black population--since his coalition was dependent on segregationist votes--but his presidency wasn't a step back either. So he gets a wash on domestic policy.

FDR apologists will also say that he recognized the threat from Hitler, and did everything possible to get involved in the war despite isolationist sentiment at home. This is true--a different-minded president may have stayed out of it (as I argue Wilson should have in the first war--though in the first war, blame for who was responsible was a lot more muddied than in WWII) until forced into the conflict by Britain's collapse. But once that decision was made, his bunglings made things more destructive and longer than they needed to be, with a worse outcome than we otherwise might have gotten. We did not need to fight Japan--and we did not need to give Russia control of Europe up to the Elbe (at least, without anything in return). We did not need to insist on "unconditional surrender"--a policy that prevented anti-Nazi plotters in the German high command from getting support within the Army to overthrow Hitler and sue for a negotiated peace. We also might have prevented some of the millions of death camp fatalities, and certainly did not need to target enemy civilians in our own attacks. And it's not hard to imagine that another U.S. president could have successfully fought Hitler without making all those mistakes.

With the "Monday morning quarterbacking" of history, it leaves little doubt that FDR did more damage than any other 20th Century president. So why do we have a memorial to this monster?