and let's face it, if you are reading this blog, you definitely have 18 minutes to kill.

I'm disgusted with myself for watching such right wing propaganda; my only solace is in the fact that I don't have a Neilson box. But how on earth could Janeane Garofalo be on this show? The show is essentially an infomercial for torture. Anytime a "liberal" view gets expressed on the show, it turns out to be easily refuted or "proven" naive. I don't get it. Was she that in need of a paycheck?

Anyway, at least she redeemed herself partially when ambushed here:

You are on notice.

I was too lazy to look for my remote, so I left $portscenter on after the Red Sox game. The opening "skit" involved one of the hosts getting a 5th foul and needing to hit the bench while another host took his place. Is this what they do now? Is this the natural "progression" of corny catchphrases. I need to see what their ratings are. People can't actually watch this, right?

Anyway, the most cringing moment came during highlights of the Lakers' game. I only turned my head b/c I was trying to see if Jeff Van Gundy is still their coach.

There was a dramatic pause as they showed the "highlight" of their announcer (Pam something?) interview Phil Jackson as the 2nd quarter ended. Usually, these "interviews" are pointless fluff. "Hey coach, what do you plan on doing in the second half" "Um, try harder?".

But, if this was going to be a "highlight", something great must have happened. Maybe Phil told her off. So I turn fully around and pay attention.

"After Pam _____ spoke to Phil, she twittered this...."

[they then do the shadow highlighting gimmick as though they were reading a deposition]

"just interviewed phil. he didn't seem nervous about being down. thinks houston will tire themselves out"

Are people really so stupid that they don't realize that Twitter is just a new form of advertising? Follow the dollars:

NBA --> ESPN ---> Twitter ---> NBA

Rinse and repeat. ESPN is just using Twitter as a way of telling people "hey, come spend your dollars on me".

Look, I get that it's a business. I get that the only reason TV exists is so that companies make money. I accept that I pay 20 bucks for HBO, and that on other networks I have to deal with commercials (or fast forwarding through a DVR). But when the product is actually airing, I [Holy moly...side rant: Have networks stopped putting up those annoying ads on the bottom of screens? I feel like I haven't seen them in awhile. Wow, how could I have JUST noticed that???]

Anyway, when the product is airing, I don't want to have to deal with commercials. It takes me out of the moment. I'm trying to suspend belief when I watch a show. I need to forget that these are actors, reading lines that someone else wrote. So when I'm watch In Treatment, and I notice an Iphone being a plot point on "Tuesday" and then three Ipods being a plot point on "Wednessday", I immediately lose my disbelief. I start thinking about a bunch of suits coming up with a great way to make money. I picture them coming into the writers' room and telling them to crowbar an Apple device into the story.

It all makes me sick. Now, I can't even look at Paul's Apple laptop without getting angry.

The day celebrates all mothers. It's their (plural) day. Mothers' Day. Not Mother's Day. Come on people!

It's already off of HBO's schedule, but apparently there the documentary Thrilla in Manila has some interesting insights on the man. I was stunned to learn that he spoke before the KKK. From what little I did know, I've always felt a bit uneasy about how Ali demonized Frasier, particularly when it came to race. If Howard's review of the documentary is accurate, this seems like something I must see. Does Ali get a pass for his past discretions because of his disease?

Last week, I was very troubled when I paid 10.05 for a salad (and yes, paying that much for a salad is troubling in and of itself, but that's a different complaint) and received 9.95 in change when I paid with a 20. Where I work, you can swing a dead cat and hit 10 different places to purchase a salad for lunch. They all cost about the same (give or take), they are all about the same size (give or take) and they all have the same types of options for ingredients (again, give or take).

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but the best way to distinguish yourself from the competition is with excellent customer service. They should make me want to give them my money. You can't re-invent the wheel when it comes to a salad, but you can try to make the exchange as pleasant as possible.

If they ran a cost-benefit analysis, they would see that the .05 they saved by not handing me a 10 dollar bill cost them a lot more in future sales. I have to assume there are people out there like me who could be annoyed enough to boycott a place after such a transaction. It shows a complete lack of concern for my well-being. Ok, "well-being" might be too strong a term, but having to stick 5 bills into my wallet plus a pocket full of change is very annoying.

It's quite possible that the owner/management has told the cashiers that their register has to match the receipts exactly. If that's the case, that's just a poor business decision. Receiving 10 dollars for a salad is essentially the same as receiving 10.05. I refuse to believe their profit margin is so slim as to actually be affected by a nickel. And in the interests of good customer service, they should have accounted for how displeased I would be with 95 cents in change.

In a perfect world, my ideal way to listen to music would be as such:

In a comfortable chair, I would be surrounded by the music. The sound of the drums would be behind me. The bass would be below me, perhaps even within me. Vocals would be directed at me. Guitars would start towards the side of me, perhaps even dancing above me, should the mood fit.

Sounds wouldn't just fade in and out. I want a sense of distance. I want the haunting piano of A Perfect Circle's Imagine to be far away on the horizon. In RATM's Freedom, I want Zack de la Rocha whispering into my ear that "Anger is a Gift". And when Dave Matthews duels Boyd Tinsley in Watchtower, I want to hear them circling around me.

The technology that currently exists could quite easily handle these requests. With home theaters becoming increasingly popular/cheaper, the average household will soon have enough speakers to simulate REAL surround sound. Being able to "feel" sound can easily be simulated too, without the need of turning the volume all the way up. If bands wanted to make three dimensional music, they could.

Sadly, however, there doesn't seem to be any pressing desire to experiment with these ideas. For too long, we've thought of music as being two dimensional: Left-vs-Right and Loud(up)-vs-Soft(down). And heck, as the Loudness War rages on, music is quickly becoming one dimensional.

I suppose technology giveth, and it taketh away. As advances in technology (file compression-->portability) increases the quantity of music that a listener can consume, it is redefining how people listen. And how you listen makes all the difference in the world.

One could argue that the golden age of music took place in the 60's. Back then, the average household had one family TV. Thus, for a television program to be popular, it had to conform to what was considered family-appropriate. Edgy shows didn't exist, much less available to a kid trying to avoid parental supervision.

But music was different. Music could be taken to the basement and listened to on headphones. It could be shared among friends; there were no time restrictions as to WHEN it could be listened to. A culture was cultivated through music, and hooked a generation that longed to be apart of something......something different than other mediums could provide.

Today, there are many more things competing for that niche market. Every kid has a TV in their own room, in addition to a computer, video game system, and smart phone. By plugging in, kids are easier to unplug from the "mainstream", whatever that might currently entail. Since music no longer needs to be the torchbearer for the edgy culture, it has faded into a commercial pop. But it wasn't just the greedy record labels that created this mess, it's the technology driving the industry as well.

Whether or not music is "dead" is up for debate. The current technology definitely makes it easier to discover new music. The underground tape-trading scene has now been replaced with a click of the mouse. Programs exist that can accurately "suggest" new music based on your current tastes. These are all great things, and without them, there would have been a lot of bands that I would have missed on the way up. But the culture of music is gone. My generation doesn't have the bands that define us. We have no flag bearer. We have no Bob Dylan. And you begin to wonder if we'll ever get back to a place where that will change.

So I don't think I've fully grown out of the phase of wanting to be in a band. And the other day I imagined would have been like to grow up in the 60's, when the music scene was just exploding with innovative sounds. Here's how my fantasy played out:

I'd be sitting around on a couch fiddling around on my guitar. Perhaps I'd go back and forth between writing down a lyric and trying to come up with the chord to go with it. Then, as I was pouring my heart into my work, someone would come over and play me this new track he had heard. He'd say he thinks it's called Voodoo Child or something. I'd take one listen, and realize that I could never come anywhere close to what I was hearing. That Jimi Hendrix on his worst day would be infinitely better than me on my best day. And remember, this is the "fantasy me" who could actually play guitar and write music.

Anyway, this fantasy ends with me smashing my guitar in disgust, and quitting my band.


Normal, eh?

wakeforest's fans "stormed the court" after beating Duke just now. It was an exciting game but the storming was awkward. They kind of walked quickly onto the court.

ESPN cuts to the NBA game, and the announcers were talking about the Duke/WF game. And one announcer says that "when you are the #4 team, you shouldn't storm the court". Then the other announcer says "you don't storm the court on a home win."

Think about that for a minute.

Serpico - Loved it. Going in, the only information I had on the movie was from the parady done in "it's always sunny". Flying blind is always better. Anyway, someone asked me "how could you love Serpico, but hate Dog Day Afternoon?". If someone can answer that for me, I would appreciate it.

Bridge to Terabithia - Don't ask, it wasn't my choice. The movie was "whatever", but I'm disturbed by one element: they crowbarred a discussion of religion that didn't fit with the rest of the movie. Literally, out of nowhere, one of the character starts talking about Christianity. And then later in the movie, that conversation is reference. I'd love to know the significance of this conversation, but I refuse to look up anything to do with this movie.

Ghostworld - Awesome. AWESOME. While I was waiting for the Giant game last week, I saw that this was on channel 11. I was stunned to see one of the first scenes entirely cut out. There were no "indoor graduation" sceenes. They immediately cut to them leaving the school. Why?

Happiness - Though very depressing, I experienced a grat deal of happiness when I later read online that people (namely, religious groups) were flipping out that the Pediphile character was drawn as a "human" instead of a one dimensional monster. Sorry that everything isn't black or white.

Mullholland Drive - I can't tell if I actually liked it, or if I tricked myself into liking it because it's so critiquelly aclaimed.

A Mighty Wind - Funny, but not as good as "Best in Show". Best in Show might be my favorite "comedy". But I never laugh during it. I laughed out loud during A Mighty Wind, but I felt the jokes were too over the top. Each scene ended with an exagerated punchline. Best in Show was better at trusting the audience to get the humor.

Burn After Reading - These Coen Brothers are geniuses.

David Cross: Let America Laugh - I found this very awkward and disturbing. It's very sad to see what a comedian must endure. It's not heckling per se, but rather drunken buffoons obnoxiously hollaring out during his set. And then when they try to interact with him after the show, I cringed. Watching this behavior made me never want to drink again.


Sorry that there were no deep thoughts on any of these movies...I got nothing.

As a frequent patron of the Clearview theater in Mansfield, NJ, I am aghast at the decision to not show Slumdog Millionaire. Since it’s release in mid November, the movie has grossed roughly 43 million domestically, received an average of 86 on Metacritic, and won four Golden Globes, including Best Drama. And yet, for some reason, I have been unable to see it at your theater.

Since this is clearly a poor business decision, one can only speculate as to other motives for not showing the film. Interestingly enough, The Secret Life of Bees is another example of a movie that you chose not to show at the Mansfield theater. Does management have an issue with movies that have a predominantly minority cast? Or does it incorrectly think that the people of Mansfield (and surrounding area) would not watch movies with such a cast? In either case, your decision is troubling, and very insulting.

Unless something is done to rectify this offensive pattern, we will no longer be frequenting your establishment. This type of problem should not be occurring in 2009, and I hope your other customers begin to take notice. In the hopes of bringing this issue to attention, I am also contacting consumerist.com

Thank you,

Tony: ...I've been thinking it's good to be in something from the ground floor. I came too late for that, I know. But lately I've been gettin' the feelin' that I come in at the end. The best is over.


Is there anyone from my generation who actually thinks SNL is good? Or heck, even "was" good at any point in our lives? While the old stuff was ground breaking, our personal "golden age" was anything but. Sure, Hartman, Farley, Sandler, et al were "funny" at times...maybe even "most" of the time. But the real SNL wasn't just funny, it was cutting edge. It was bucking the establishment. It was the kind of stuff that we can only read about in books.

Sadly, I recently learned that we came very close, on two separate occasions, of rekindling that "not quite ready for prime time" magic.

Years ago (probably around the time he was promoting his movie) Howard Stern came close to hosting the show. Like us, however, he realized how bad the show had become. So, he had a few minor requests: he wanted to write the entire show. See, instead of the normal process of the cast writing their own skits, Howard wanted Jackie and Fred to write everything. And, if that wasn't enough, he also proposed an opening monologue that Andy Kaufman would have been proud of.

In a meeting with Lorne Michaels, Howard came up with the idea of dressing down every cast member of the show. Howard would pretend that the first skit was "Howard's school of comedy, 101." The cast would act as "students", expecting to be in a traditional skit, with the standard corny jokes.

However, once in front of a live camera, Howard would go off script and explain to each cast member why they weren't funny. He would be brutal, but he would be honest. And then we, as viewers, would get to see how they'd react. Would they fight back? Would they clam up? Now THAT would be must see tv.

Although intrigued by the idea, Lorne couldn't betray his cast like that, so he had to turn Howard down. But now that I know the story, I can't help but daydream how deliciously awkward that would be.

The second brush with greatness came when Norm Macdonald hosted the show. Now, when I said that SNL had never been cutting edge in my lifetime, I wasn't being completely honest. Norm's version of Weekend Update remains one of the funnier things I've ever seen on TV. He was un-apologetically brutal. And hilarious. But politics led to him being fired.

Some time after being fired, Norm found himself hosting the show. And his monologue explaining that ironic turn of events remains a classic:

Norm MacDonald: When the people here asked me to do the show, I've got to say, I felt kind of weird. I don't know if you remember this, but I used to actually be on this show. I used to do the "Weekend Update" news routine, you remember that? That's where I did the make-believe news jokes. That was me, you know? So then, a year and a half ago, I had sort of a disagreement with the management at NBC. I wanted to keep my job. Right? And they felt the exact opposite. They fired me because they said that I wasn't funny. Now, with most jobs, I could have had a hell of a lawsuit on my hands for that, but see, this is a comedy show. So, they got me. But, now, this is the weird part, it's only a year and a half later, and now, they ask me to host the show. So I wondered, how did I go from being not funny enough to be even allowed in the building, to being so funny that I'm now hosting the show? How did I suddenly get so goddamn funny?! It was inexplicable to me, because, let's face it, a year and a half is not enough time for a dude to learn how to be funny! Then it occurred to me, I haven't gotten funnier, the show has gotten really bad! So, yeah, I'm funny compared to, you know, what you'll see later. Okay, so let's recap, the bad news is: I'm still not funny. The good news is: The show blows! Alright, folks, we've got a bad show for you tonight! Dr. Dre, Snoop Doggie Dogg and Eminem are here. We'll be right back!

The self pity, inferiority-complex-driven Mets fans forced me to renounce my allegiance in 2000. Never thought much of it. Like Redsox fans, Mets fans seemed to care more about the Yankees than their own team. And they not only expected to lose, but saw it as a right of passage.

Recently, however, I noticed fans of the Jets started acting the same way. Die hard season ticket holders talked about "the same old Jets" as they began their horrid faRve led collapse. From this casual eye, it doesn't seem like the Jets have underachieved often. Sure, they've never had the best team, but I can't picture any surprisingly poor seasons.

The Mets, of course, have had some epic collapses in recent years, but they've also experienced success. From the Miracle Mets, to the coke fueled '86 team, to a couple of recent playoff runs, this franchise seems "solid". Sure, they aren't the Yankees, and they had to play in Shea, but nobody is perfect.

But that's the thing; is all this self pity the result of being near the Yankees? Are fans of other franchises more realistic in their expectations because they aren't constantly reminded of the Yankees; success? And, with the Jets, is it extra painful to share a stadium named after a team that has won three rings in one generation?

What say you, Seattle Seahawk fans? Are you as whiny as your NY counterparts? Tell me, Houston Astro fans, are you jealous and pathetic like those fellas from Queens? I'm quite curious.

I always enjoyed the enterprise commercial where the car is wrapped in paper. Every time I would see the paperless windshield, I would be disappointed. What would it be like, I wondered, to drive with a completely covered car.

Yesterday I drove by a car that came disturbingly close to answering that question. Instead of a driver side window, there was a big piece of cardboard duct-taped on. Yes, that's right. Cardboard. Not clear plastic, but completely opaque cardboard. Taking up the entire window. In a moving car.

I could see putting a garbage bag or something similar for a parked car. However, and feel free to call me crazy, but once a car starts moving, you need to be able to see to your left. That driver's side mirror is kinda sorta important.

And it wasn't even raining out or anything. That cardboard was only there to shield the driver from a cool breeze. Wear a coat!

Not sure how I missed this moment of Hathos from 2008

Big surprise, O'reilly is involved

Is there any way that Fox could make the green screen worse?

1) It's in the absolute worst position so that it ruins the image of the pitcher while he's delivering the pitch AND
1A)ruins the image of the (lefty) hitter while he swings.

2) It's about late 1980's in quality in terms of masking the fact that it's a green screen. The pitcher's head literally glows inside the ad.

3) As soon as they show the hitter walking around in the batter's box (which is about 90% of the pitches) they cut to an angle that shows that it's just a green screen.

Zero percent of the viewers are fooled into thinking this is a real banner. We all know it's just a computer generated banner on a horrible fake screen. So why pretend otherwise? Why not just put a huge ad right in the middle of the action. Sort of like a popup that moves while you try to close it.

It's a sad commentary on society that Fox is allowed to get away with this. It's beyond distracting.

Not quite "can you name a newspaper that you read", but still pretty tough

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

Although there were times during the movie "Trade" where I got emotional, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being manipulated. I spent the majority of the movie trying to figure out if the director was trying to be sincere in his focus on the horrific subject material, or if he was taking shortcuts at making something emotional. And then, after I wrestled with that issue, I was unsure if that even "matters". If a movie is "important", does it not matter if it's "good"?

By movie standards, was the movie Trade "good"?

No.

In order to push the plot along, an amazing chain of unlikely events had to occur. I could chronicle those unlikely events, but it's not important. There are about a dozen times where you sit back and go "oh come on, that's not plausible". Dove tailing from that is the ridiculous intereactions between the brother and the cop. At one point I thought I was watching a cliched buddy cop movie. They actually argued about what kind of music to listen to! If you're stealing scenes from Rush Hour, I refuse to take you seriously. Oh, and the movie ends with a huge swat team invasion.

Oh, and if you don't believe me, check out this line from Ebert:

A nasty, vile business, made more slimy because director Marco Kreuzpaintner doesn't trust the intrinsic interest of his story, and pumps it up with chase details, close calls, manufactured crises, and so many scenes of the captives being frightened and abused that they begin to seem gratuitous, even suspect.


Was I, the viewer, manipulated?

Maybe.

I felt like the camera lingered a little too long on crying children, or horrific scenes of abuse. You need a delicate hand to handle this type of subject material, and I don't think the director succeeded. But I'm not intelligent enough to know how or where you draw the line. A movie about the slave trade is going to have depressing scenes. The viewer is supposed to be depressed during those scenes. I would love for someone to articulate why I had a problem with the way it was done in this movie, because I'm not quite sure myself.

Is this movie important?

Probably.


I guess it depends on the target audience. A big movie like Blood Diamond is important because "regular" people go and see it. I know people whose opinion on those shiny rocks has changed because of the movie. But, as best as I can tell, Trade is a smaller movie. And I really have no idea what type of person goes out of their way to see a small movie with such a sickening subject material. I fear that this movie won't have the impact that it could because of the "Rush Limbaugh effect". Rush is pretty insignificant because he only preaches to the choir. Likewise, my gut says that people who are already aware of the slave trade problem in this world (and specifically the US) are the ones going out and watching this movie. This minimizes the impact that the movie can have (especially if it's done in a mediocre way). The goal of this movie is hopefully to educate, but I wonder if it actually achieves that goal.

In the end, I suppose that, despite all of its faults, the world is a better place because this movie exists. Even if the impact isn't as maximized as it could have been, it's still a good start. And even though I was somewhat aware of the problem, it still opened my eyes a bit. As it was ending, I was bracing myself for the cliched stats that come at the end of these types of movies. But seeing 50,000 sex-slaves entering this country every year really shook me to the core. I can't even begin to understand that.

The earlier post regarding train etiquette was shooting fish in a barrel. There’s another daily event where a CotU is in their full form: the food service industry. What’s interesting in this case is that there are three distinct, yet overlapping, types of a CotU that interact with each other in this area. And when they are at their peak, it really is a site to behold.

CotU #1: The Misogynistic Server

From personal experience, it seems like the majority of food servers (whether it be deli, cafeteria, etc) seem to be male. And the majority of those male servers are misogynistic. Actually, I’m not even sure if misogynistic is the proper term. It's not a hatred of women per se (at least not on a direct level), but rather being overly infatuated with them. A guy who hits on every attractive woman he encounters isn't actually attracted to any of them. In order to be attracted to a woman you have to first acknowledge that they are a person. The type of guy who hits on every single woman he meets is actually so extreme in his objectification that he’s able to merge all women merge into a single being.

But for ease, let’s just call that objectification as misogynistic and move on. I’m not sure if the food industry has a higher percentage of this type of guy, or if the industry just provides more opportunities for them to flaunt their behavior. Whatever the case may be, these guys do not hesitate for a second to hit on every attractive girl that passes their way.

This type of server has no shame, because he’s a CotU. He can literally alternate between cold silence to faux-friendliness based on the gender of his customer. As a guy, I’m disgusted by both the objectification and the lack of subtleness involved. But more than that, I try to put myself in the mindset of a successful professional woman witnessing this while in line. I can’t imagine what it’s like to try and get through the day while being judged by these clowns. I know it’s hard to believe for these CotU’s, but maybe some women just want to get their food in a professional manner without being objectified.

It’s amazing how a person who controls food thinks they have power over someone. Moreso than any other service industry, a food server seems to be emboldened by his position of power. From the waiter who spits in food because he felt slighted, to a bartender who pays more attention to the customers who tip better, employees of the food service industry abuse their power. And for the misogynistic server, he tends to feel entitled to hit on the women without any recourse.

CotU #2: The “Customer is Always Right” Consumer

Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." A CotU focus on their costs and benefits and discount those of their fellow man. Some consumers think that their dollar entitles them to the burger king experience; they want it “their way.” They incorrectly think that the fact that they are on the demand side of the equation gives them carte blanche to affect the supply side. They are wrong.

The classic example is a crowded bar. In theory, as a patron, you are entitled to order any drink on the menu. However, common decency (something a CotU doesn’t possess) dictates that you don’t want to make a bartender suffer needlessly. If you order a round of drinks, and four of your buddies want a miller light, don’t be the guy that makes the fifth a bud light. Of course, CotU’s go above and beyond that, and usually require a drink that contains three alcohols and two mixers, and specify the number of ice cubes to boot. And when you question them on their order, they’ll usually reply with “that’s their job!” or “I’m the customer, and I get to order what I want.”

For the record, bartenders don’t usually own the bar. They aren’t reaping any profits on the transaction (other than the tip). And food servers are even less invested in the profit end of the business. It’s completely unfair to make their job any harder than it has to be. If breakfast ends at 10:30, don’t try and talk them into making you something at 10:45.

The most egregious thing I’ve ever witnessed involves chicken wings. When they are on the menu, they are always in high demand and because they are cooked in front of you, the lines tend to build up. I once had the displeasure of being behind someone who wanted her wings cooked in a specific way. Instead of the usual pan fried process, she requested that they “lightly” be cooked that way, and then taken to the back to be cooked in the oven. Something about the crispiness (or lack there of) of the chicken, I’m not exactly sure.

What I am sure of is that she said no less than THREE times “don’t worry, they’ll (the people in the back) know who it’s for. So, not only was this a regular request, but this woman actually took pride in having a personal order. This poor man had to stop his regular routine of pan frying, and hand off the wings to the back of the cafeteria. And eventually, when the wings came back out, she repeated her “did you know who they were for?” question TWICE, only to finally grin “yeah, I knew you’d know they were for me.”

Well congratulations CotU, you’ve managed to usurp some extra advantage of the process. Once again you prove the thesis that the squeaky wheel get the oil. It must make you feel really important to be able to get such personal service. Of course, any jerk could make a request. The only problem is that if everyone did it, the servers would be overwhelmed and be unable to perform their job.

And that’s why the “well I’m PAYING for this” defense doesn’t work. Because the price of the wings is based on how much it costs to make them in a normal process. The manpower to make them costs a certain amount of dollars. If you start making those employees work harder, and take more time, eventually you’re going to need to increase your staff. And eventually, the prices of the wings go up.

Sure, maybe those wings taste slightly better than the normal process. But as a consumer, you have to accept that you are not in fact the center of the universe and that the food industry is a business that survives on multiple sales. If you want a higher quality product, you don’t have the right to ask for better service …go find a higher end restaurant (which will charge more).

CotU #3: The Hybrid Consumer

When you combine a misogynistic server with a “customer is always right” consumer, chaos ensues. First, a disclaimer: I’m fully aware that I have received countless benefits being a white male in this racist/sexist society. It would be impossible for me to separate, or even recognize, all of those benefits. And of course, its males who are 99% to blame for this sexist society we live in. So, for me to sit here in judgment of women who reap the micro benefits of misogynic males (while ignoring the macro harm it causes our society) teeters on the edge of hypocrisy. But all that being said, just because I’m not the best voice to discuss the issue, it doesn’t mean the argument isn’t valid.

The misogynistic server wants to flirt with the female customer. And the female customer wants special treatment when it comes to their food. So they use each other all under the false pretense of being “friendly.” Some women might actually trick themselves into thinking the server is “just being nice”, but that has to be willful ignorance. Again, how could the server be nice one minute to them, but then cold and dispondant to the male customer. Furthermore, the server isn’t actually being “generous” by giving away his boss’ food. It’s not costing him anything, and borders on stealing.

The cafeteria at lawschool was the worst. The guy at the register openly joked to the women that they paid less money for the same items. I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the women were literally reaping a financial benefit through their sexuality. What’s the word for that again?

The woman justifies the discount by saying “if he wants to give it to me cheaper, why should I refuse? That doesn’t benefit anyone.” But just because the costs and benefits are miniscule on a global scale does not mean that they are non existent. By accepting that benefit you are in essence telling the server “yes, objectify me”. When an attractive woman gets that benefit, she undoubtedly has a less attractive counterpart who is NOT getting that discount.

It troubles me when people judge an action on the surface without trying to figure out the motive behind it. A lot of behavior that is labeled as “nice” really isn’t. It’s usually manipulative and insincere. And by accepting the benefits, the behavior is ultimately encouraged. When a guy offers an attractive woman a seat on a bus, it’s up to that woman to realize that she, and her less attractive counterpart, is being objectified.

But getting back to food…People in line notice the dance that goes on between the server and consumer. And in the end, everyone involved looks bad. The server is exposed for the misogynist that he is. And the woman’s self centeredness is equally exposed as she chooses an extra scoop of mac and cheese over the satisfaction in refusing to be an active participant in the sexism that plagues our society.




The easy answer to all of this is to just stop judging and ignore this stuff when it goes on. Everyone has their faults, and it’s unfair for me to notice these, but ignore my own shortcomings. But it’s really hard to turn these observations off, to take the blue pill if you will. Once you start getting into the mindset of understanding WHY people act the way they do, it’s hard to go back. Watching how people interact in the food industry is a depressing endeavor. If people can be this self centered and egotistical in this minor interaction, one can only imagine how deep those characteristics run.

LFoDH was on last week, and the movie really annoyed me. Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed the special fx; they reached the level of absuridty (in a good way) by being so over the top and at least they were unique. What bothered me was the overt right leaning messages of the movie.

The "bad guy" was a former "good guy" who is attacking the holes in our security system to prove a point. I know it's "just a movie", but it's hard not to notice the message they are sending with this. If you question the government, you are essentially a terrorist. And let's ignore the fact that this guy was right...there are HUGE holes in our security that are the result of laziness and incompetance.

Then you have the sidekick, who is almost equally deranged. First, he "mistakenly" helped the terrorist. See, don't associate with those dangerous lefties, because they might wind up being terrorists. Then, when he's telling McCain, er McClane, about the "corporate media" he does so in a babbling, incoherent way. What he was saying was true, but it sounded like the ramblings of a madman. McClane gives him a dismissive look, and we're all supposed to idenity with this mavverick cowboy who plays by his own set of rules.

And in the end, the sidekick just wants to be like McClane, which he achieves.

Oh, and he (the sidekick) hates the song "Fortunate Son". I mean, come on!

from the onion


Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness Of Life

When I am watching TV, these are the four options I have to put my picture in picture (PIP):



There is absolutey no reason why the PIP can't be moved to here:



However, if Cablevision cared about their customers, they'd realize that there is all that wasted real estate with the SD-bars on the outside:



Now, considering those two above options aren't being used, I KNOW there is no chance of this last option, but it is the most creative AND efficient:




By sliding the main image all the way to the left, you maximize the potential to use the space for the SD bars. You can put a PIP in the upper corner, and then use the lower corner for advertisements, scrolling information/weather, etc etc.

Six Feet Under 1-1 "Pilot"

No Loitering.

To keep me from sinking into a serious depression, I'm going to have to engage in a one person dialogue as I re-watch this show. At this point, The Wire may have surpassed SFU as the greatest show of all time, but this re-viewing will be the ultimate judge. Watching the pilot after already knowing all of the characters is very interesting. Even though these characters (no. "people" is a better term than characters) are more complex than most people I meet in real life, you get a nice slice of each one's personalty if you look hard enough. The tension that David possesses in his opening scene (where Ruth makes an offhand comment about homosexuality), the self centered way Nate dismisses Claire's drug-inducedfreak-out. It's all there. And it's all painful to relive for me.

From a stylistic perspective, SFU is beautiful. The camera angles, imagery, and yes, even the mini dream sequences, all add layers and textures.

The irony of life and death is never more evident than in Nate Sr's death. As his wife nags him about health related issues (smoking, blood pressure pills, etc), we're shown people who fear death, but don't really contemplate its power. Even if you could prepare for it (which you can't), there's no telling when it will strike. Our subconscious fear of death is always tugging at us, which Brenda aptly points out in her first real discussion with Nate. He dismisses her comment aspsychobabble, but his life has clearly been one long "run" away from the inevitable. As the ghost of Nate Sr. states, "Nobody Escapes".

In a nice little touch of continuity, not only are David's aspirations of Law School mentioned, but Billy's only scene is of him weeping (and wearing a sweater that would make an appearance years later!).

This show screams at us, in a hushed whisper, to stop loitering.

EDIT: THE PICTURE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE LAST SCENE, WHERE NATE IS STANDING BY A PAYPHONE AND THERE IS A SIGN IN THE UPPER LEFT CORNER THAT SAYS "NO LOITERING". I THINK THERE'S SOME TYPE OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION NOT ALLOWING ME TO CAPTURE THE SCREEN IMAGE.

Seahawks 7, Redskins 0

{1st quarter score!!}

SEATTLE (AP) -- Todd Collins used a no-huddle offense to complete seven of nine passes, including a 7-yard touchdown throw to Antwaan Randle El on the first play of the fourth quarter, as the Washington Redskins trailed the Seattle Seahawks 13-7 early in the final period of the wild-card game Saturday.

{A description of a drive that started late in the third quarter, and then completed on the first play of the 4th quarter. Please note that this is the worst opening paragraph ever written in the history of the AP}

Before Washington's revival, a dominant Seattle defense was protecting Leonard Weaver's 17-yard touchdown run one play after a successful replay challenge of what had been ruled a lost fumble, plus two field goals by Josh Brown.
In case you didn’t follow that, let’s look at the timeline of what happened in this paragraph:
1) 4th quarter TD by Washington
2) 1st – 3rd quarters : Seattle’s defense protects lead
3) 1st quarter TD by Seattle {Let the time that this happened be represented by T}
4) 1st quarter’s coach’s challenge being successful at “T-1”
5) 1st quarter play that was originally ruled a fumble at “T-2”
6) 2nd quarter field goal
7) 3rd quarter field goal

Washington had been the conference's hottest team, with four consecutive wins since the team attended the funeral of defensive star Sean Taylor following Taylor's slaying in his home during a robbery attempt in late November. But that surge for Taylor met a Seahawks defense that harassed Collins as much as he'd been bothered in a decade.

Naturally (sarcasm), the next paragraph then talks about the regular season streak for the Redskins.
8) Four wins to end the season
9) Taylor’s death which immediately preceded those four wins.
10) back to the game and Seattle’s defense.

Collins, making his fifth consecutive start after 10 years without one, was sacked twice and hurried into throws five other times while completing 17 of 30 passes for 147 yards through three quarters. But then the Redskins' offense finally got into rhythm by using no-huddle, shotgun sets at the end of the third quarter.

11) Collins current 5 start streak
12) 10 years immediately preceding those 5 starts.
13) Quarters 1-3 of THIS game.

Collins' five consecutive completions moved Washington from its 16 to a fourth-and-1 at the Seahawks 27. Collins then threw down the sideline to Mike Sellers, who was a step ahead of Brian Russell before Seattle's safety pulled him down with his right arm for a pass-interference penalty to the Seahawks 11.
One completion later, Collins waited and found Randle El at the 2. Randle El leaned in from there to make it a game again.

14) End of the 3rd, beginning of the 4th quarter

The game's lone touchdown through three quarters came after Shaun Alexander, who hasn't had a 100-yard rushing game since Week 3, spun and ran 13 yards during Seattle's second drive. Alexander lost the ball after both knees hit the ground at the Redskins 17 on a tackle by Marcus Washington, but officials allowed the play to continue. Fred Smoot picked up the fumble and returned it to the Washington 33 before Seattle coach Mike Holmgren's challenge led to the reversed call.


15) Back to talking about the 1st quarter touch down again!!!
13) Week three!
14) TD, after a play that was a fumble, but wasn’t really b/c of the coach’s challenge. In other words, #3, then #5, then #4 from above.
In case you’ve already forgotten, the proper order of those events are 5, 4, 3. He fumbles, then it’s challenged, then Seattle gets the td. Instead of trying to wax poetic about the game, this writer should just be giving us the information of the game. In fact, he shouldn’t even be a “writer” in the first place. His job is to convey information to his readers. If he wants to write Casey at the Bat for this meaningless wild card game, he should do it on his own time.

On the next play, Weaver ran past five Redskins on his first career postseason carry before bulling through Reed Doughty and the pylon for his touchdown with 3:45 left in the opening quarter.

15) back to talking about the 1st quarter TD again.

Seattle made it 10-0 six minutes into the second quarter on Brown's 50-yard field goal into a moderate wind. Brown tied a franchise postseason record for longest field goal, set by Todd Peterson against Miami on Jan. 9, 2000. Matt Hasselbeck set up Brown's strong kick when he beat one of Washington's few early blitzes with a 25-yard lob pass down the sideline to Nate Burleson.

16) 2nd quarter field goal
17) Boring postseason records, with the meaningless date of said meaningless record tossed in there, b/c following the timeline of this mess isn’t quite hard enough.
18) Before the field goal, there was a nice play. But since we’re apparently watching Memento here, we need this information AFTER learning about the field goal.

Hasselbeck's perfect pass to D.J. Hackett, who was well covered on a fly route by Shawn Springs, for a 25-yard gain led to Brown's 33-yard field goal with 4:30 remaining in the third quarter.

19) Now we’re getting it. A nice pass play led to another field goal in the third quarter. Gold star!

Hasselbeck was 15-for-24 passing for 154 yards through three quarters. He had a scary moment with 5 1/2 minutes left in the second quarter on one of the only times he was harried in the half. He fell on his right wrist as Chris Wilson sacked him and forced a third-down fumble that Seattle center Chris Spencer recovered at the Seahawks 12. But Hasselbeck walked off the field apparently without pain and played on.

20) QB’s stats for three quarters
21) Said QB was hurt in the 2nd quarter.
22) Harried?
23) A full description of a play in the 2nd quarter. All the way down here.

He landed on that same throwing wrist last weekend at Atlanta and was wearing a brace and ice on it after he left that game. He practiced with it sore all week.

24) Last weekend?

Seattle, staying with the approach that propelled its season from mediocrity in November to a fourth consecutive NFC West title, threw on 13 of its first 19 plays.

25) November
26) First 19 plays of the game today.

Washington's best chance to score came 3 1/2 minutes into the second quarter when Santana Moss was five yards in the clear down the middle of the field at the Seahawks 30. But just as Collins was about to throw to Moss for a touchdown, Howard Green slammed into Collins' chest. The fluttering pass fell far short of the frustrated Moss.

27) Early 2nd quarter (mind you, 3.5 minutes into the 2nd quarter means that this happened BEFORE the stuff in the 2nd quarter that was discussed a couple of paragraphs above.

Head linesman Tony Veteri had to leave the game after Seattle's Lance Laury was blocked into Veteri's left leg on the sideline at the end of Burleson's 20-yard punt return, which set up Weaver's score. Trainers helped Veteri to Seattle's bench for observation as alternate official Rob Vernatchi replaced him.

28) Back to the 1st quarter. Ref leaves the game after he got hurt on a play….a play that preceded the touchdown run.

Washington showed no early problems with the continuous roar of sold-out Qwest Field, which was louder than usual after comments this week from Sellers. The native of Lacey, Wash., mused that Seattle's home field is so loud the noise must be artificially enhanced.

29) Perfect way to bring the article on home. Discuss how Washington looked early in the game….
30) followed by comments made earlier this week about noise level.