Archive for January, 2009

D’JEver Notice? XXI

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

So a day or two ago I was taking an exceptionally bizarre position for a gentleman to take, supporting the right of the Hooters food franchise to discriminate against men. Well hey, I believe in womens’ equality. We’ve been oppressing ’em for five thousand years, give or take, guys…I know this is true because I grew up in the 1970’s, and I spent my childhood being told so. The “pendulum” has to swing “the other way.” Time to pay our dues. And I can think of no better way than to allow Hooters to turn the male waitress applicants away at the door; it’s only fair. We need to suffer so we can understand what the fairer sex has been going through, since the time of Abraham.

Our tirade was noticed by blogger friend Dustbury, and since people actually do read that blog over there, a lively debate seems to have erupted — or at least germinated — about the psychology of the two sexes when it comes to ordering food served by appealing specimens of the sex preferred. Do the ladies find handsome men in tiny uniforms, as appealing as the men find girls in skimpy clothing? Would it alter their food preferences? It must be so; as a child of the 1970’s, I was repeatedly told that, too. Men and women are exactly alike. Actually they didn’t state that word for word. But anybody who asserted anything outside of that, was beaten into the ground, ended up biting dirt with a boot in their neck…because hey, it was the 1970’s. Gotta crack some free-speech eggs to make a utopia omelette.

But real life keeps butting in. I know of no restaurant called “pickles,” at which horny housewives can order a glass of wine and a key lime pie served up by a stud in a thong. If there is such a thing, it hasn’t opened nearly as many outlets as the orange place with the owl.

But let’s leave that aside for a minute. I’ve noticed something about Hooters over the years —

Hooters Chicken…when people talk about it, the conversation always turns to the food.

I wish people wouldn’t trash Hooters’ food. True, the customers don’t go there for it. But in a way, they do…I mean, think about it…girls in skimpy outfits serving you cold beer and NO FOOD. Blech. So it seems unfair, to me. You can see the cooks back there. They’re working hard. I’ve never seen one yet that looks underfed. Maybe I didn’t notice (my attention, consistently, seems to be drawn elsewhere). But Hooters food is not bad food. People say it is, but what’s going to happen if you put it in a taste test against other foods?

KFC, f.k.a. Kentucky Fried Chicken, for example. It’s cooked up for little kids. I find, with my advancing years, “Original Recipe” is becoming less and less compatible to my digestive system. And I’m not talking about adventures in the restroom that are kindly bowdlerized from polite conversation. I don’t make it that far. Two big pieces are over the top for me. Something in the oils has my stomach yelling upstairs “If anything else is coming down that chute, it’d better be something different or you won’t like the way I hand it back.”

Bottom line — it’s true, I don’t go to Hooters for the food. It’s a tiny, tiny slice on that pie chart about why I go to Hooters. Bu-u-ut…if you want to complain about Hooters food, how about a taste test? What’s more appealing to you, polishing off a two-pound plate of Hooters hot wings, or a two-pound plate of KFC? I’d prefer the hot wings if they’re “naked” coated with Teriyaki. I think most people would. And yet, nobody ever complains about KFC.

The teeny waitress uniforms. They have nothing at all to do with the quality of the food. But they get everyone complaining about the food when they otherwise would not.

Humans are funny, funny people. We make perfect sense if we aren’t studied very carefully. But the closer you zoom in, it’s like one question is answered and three more pop up.

Magnificent Bastards

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

One of ’em stuck a nasty crawly bug thing in Chekov’s ear, the other one gutted Mel Gibson like a fish.

Something’s going on in the afterlife. The Good Lord needed some wonderful, talented actors who specialize in playing rotten creepy jerks.

Smooth sailing, guys. Movie business isn’t gonna be the same without you.

McGoohan obit
Montalban obit
“Magnificent Bastard” television/movie trope

Cheerleader Accident Compilation

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Just because.

Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Someone out there sharing thoughts about a book he read. Interesting point…

I just started reading “Think Better: An Innovator’s Guide to Productive Thinking” by Tim Hurson.

I just started Chapter 3 and have become amazed that I hadn’t thought about the difference between Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking…even though I’ve blogged about the subject in the past (see The Problem(s) with Linear Thinking, Critical Thinking Definitions, and my review of Jack’s Notebook).

In Chapter 3 of this book, the author does a great job explaining that these are completely different thinking processes.  The author provides the following definitions:

 • Creative Thinking – generative, nonjudgmental and expansive. When you are thinking creatively, you are generating lists of new ideas.
 • Critical Thinking – analytical, judgmental and selective. When you are thinking critically, you are making choices.

I hadn’t thought about the differences between these two types of thinking…in fact, I’ve even used them as interchangeable terms for the same thing!

The author argues that using both thinking processes together creates a much more productive thinking process. An interesting analogy that he uses in the book is:

Think of the thinking process as a kayak with 2 paddles. One paddle represents creative thinking while the other represents critical thinking. If you were to only use one paddle (i.e., creative thinking), you’d end up going in circles. To make the kayak move forward, you’ve got to alternate between paddles.

So far this is an interesting book…I plan to review it in more detail later this month.

Great point. But oh my goodness, how I disagree with that kayak analogy! And I’m not just talking about how the author means to use the term blades instead of paddles (most kayaks rely on a single, double-bladed paddle).

More importantly, it’s a far better and more apt analogy to think of tools. Hammers and screwdrivers. One’s right for one situation, another’s right for another. There are jobs you can do where you have to work from sunup to sundown, relying every minute on one tool and not the other — and that’s quite alright. So the fellow who alternates from one tool to the next, and back again, based only on a feeling that that’s what he should be doing…that’s actually the guy doin’ it wrong.

Which one of these thinking-types is in danger of being permanently extinguished in our society? Both of them. I’ve complained, regularly, about “doofus dads” in kids’ movies, whacking themselves in the forehead, five minutes before closing credits, figuring out “Omigawd, I’ve been such an a-hole!” and this leads to the happy ending that otherwise could’ve never been had. It’s blisteringly offensive to me, as a man and as a Dad. It is, without a doubt, an assault on men. But most of all, it’s theft. It is the cloaking of rite-and-ritual as some kind of creativity, creativity that’s worth the expenditure of a little bit o’money. It’s just another re-telling of a story we’ve seen and heard many, many, many, many times before. And it’s propaganda that your precious little babums should start talking smack back at you, and generally start behaving like a disrespectful spoiled rotten brat. Yes, you’re supposed to be dipping into your checking account to pay for this.

And you’re goddamned right — I can make a conversation about that, out of a conversation about anything. It’s like Bill Maher and legalizing pot. But getting back to the subject at hand…

There are other tropes recycled regularly in our movies, products in which we’re supposed to see creativity, where in fact there is none. And the problem is more widespread than movies.

As for critical thinking…well…we still have the problem of global warming in which skepticism is being undefined as a useful word. It’s been re-defined as the exact opposite of what it classically is, flipped over like a pancake. You’re a “good skeptic” if you believe everything you hear, and if you question it you’re “not showing the proper skepticism.” This is a danger to critical thinking in our culture.

What to do about it? We can’t reverse this erosion as any kind of a group; each person has to work against it, as an individual. Otherwise, there goes the paddle.

American Idol Bikini Girl

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

I’m completely virginal to American Idol and intend to stay that way. But this looks like an episode that would make fine viewing. Not because of Bikini Girl, I can watch girls in bikinis in all kinds of places.

Cat fights yeah, that’s where it’s at.

Bikini GirlThankfully, [new judge everyone’s talkin’ about Kara] DioGuardi doesn’t let ’em all down gently. Case in point: Katrina “Bikini Girl” Darrell. I know it’s hot in Phoenix — but a bathing suit to an Idol audition? What was Simon going to say about that?

Well, nothing, really. The usually bitter Brit’s eyes bulged out of his head when modelesque Darrell entered the room — and he even said “yes” (with a dorky grin, to boot) when the near-nude contender botched A Vision of Love. Ditto a beaming Jackson.

Abdul was more hesitant, but DioGuardi was downright baffled: “I can’t allow (Simon) to say, ‘Yes,’ ” she said — then proceeded to sing a significantly more melodic version of the tune.

The claws really came out when Darrell whined that DioGuardi’s demonstration “wasn’t any better,” prompting the judge to sing again before finally giving up and sending her through to Hollywood — sarcastically adding, “Next time, come naked.”

Me-ow!

Heh, the resident jerk had a “dorky grin.” That would have been entertaining to see. Mildly entertaining.

Mildly entertaining as in, worthy of a chuckle. Dedicating all of my evening time to it, week after week, year after year, gathering ’round the office water cooler to chatter away about who’s going to get booted off…not so much.

Courtney Friel Pictures Released

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

I really don’t know who this lady is, but she looks amazing. Also, there is something newsworthy about the event in which these pictures are “released,” like it has the whiff of scandal about it.

She is, it would seem, a Fox anchor-babe. Well, that would explain the hint-of-scandal; you’ll see my first link up there is to Huffington Post, no pals of Fox are they.

Someone should find a name for this…issue. A highly-recognizable, single, incendiary word — like “abortion,” but describing this issue instead. The issue in which a lady of professional stature is “caught” wearing a bikini when she isn’t on the clock at her “real” job. And the question has to come up: Does she have the right to do that?

Because we don’t ponder it very long, and because legally it is determined mostly by whatever wording might be in her contract, we haven’t come up with this word yet. But it’s an important word.

Doub-itis, perhaps?

And I can’t help noticing, people who are passionately in favor of “womens’ choice” on the abortion issue, are passionately opposed to womens’ choice on this one. That may be because conservative Republicans have a virtual lock on the women who look decent in bathing suits. I really don’t have the slightest idea where Friel’s perceived ideological leanings figure into this; her blog doesn’t give much indication one way or t’other. But working for Fox is scandalous enough, I’m certain, in the eyes of the pro-abortion anti-swimwear-after-clock-out Huffington Post writer.

Whatever. The pictures…are released. Shish-boom-bah.

Sanders Got His Way

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

The plaque will be changed. All the background info you need is behind the link.

Commenter MNice speaks for me:

For those who were awake when it happened, the 9/11 atrocities DID lead to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole world knew that the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators, and were thus accessories after the fact in their war crimes. There were very strong indications that Saddam Hussein was also providing material support to al-Quaida and there was a high perceived risk that he would [provide] them with weapons of mass destruction. There was no question that Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, not once, but many times. 9/11 made it foolish to ignore that problem any longer, given what we knew at the time. The original plaque was historically correct. Senator Sanders is wrong for trying to obfuscate and obscure the facts.

Anthrax isn’t much discussed when we talk about possible connections between 9/11 and Iraq, or whether it was reasonable at the time to tie the two of ’em together. It should be:

…the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), one of the military labs that analyzed the Daschle anthrax [spores found in letter mailed to Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader at the time of the 2001 anthrax attacks], published an official newsletter stating that silica was a key aerosol enabling component of the Daschle anthrax. The AFIP lab deputy director, Florabel Mullick, said “This [silica] was a key component. Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

Inconvenient truths. Don’t worry, they is no more.

Wedding Rule

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

The Wedding Rule determines that there is only one response possible for the guest who announces guest-list problems. You know what I mean. “Don’t invite X; X and I are not on good terms; if X is coming, I won’t.”

The one response to be given is “that is too bad, we will miss you.” The burden of an incompatibility problem is to be shouldered by whoever creates it.

This is great advice for couples’ therapy, I’ve learned. Having been “urged” by many former lovers to “go to counseling” I’ve given them all the same answer and never once regretted it. They all became “former” this way and I couldn’t be more pleased.

How many times have you heard about this as an indictment? He stole money from my purse, he slugged me in the eye, he set my dog on fire, he beats my kids, I’m pretty sure he killed my mother by pushing her down the stairs…I urged him to go to counseling and he refuses to go.

Refusing to go to couples-counseling is thought to be on par with ghastly transgressions — and it shouldn’t be, it really shouldn’t. There’s nothing wrong with refusing to go to counseling. It’s an expensive service, invariably considered by households during times in which expensive services can be least-afforded, that exists to make certain things look reasonable that otherwise never would.

Food Police

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Groan

Tea. Crates. Ships. Boston Harbor. Ker-SPLOOSH.

Deadly-Good People

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Thing I Know #91. “Esteem” is something sought with the greatest urgency by those who struggle with doubts about whether they’ve earned it.

Dick Morris on the connection between Barack Obama’s new administration, and the Warren Court of the 1950’s and 1960’s…and other stuff. “Emasculating intelligence”:

President-elect Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen, called the legal reasoning which gave the president broad powers to authorize “rough” interrogation of terrorists “shockingly flawed…bogus…outlandish.” She said it allowed “horrific acts” and demanded to know “Where is the outrage? The public outcry?” This is the person who will decide how to interrogate terrorists.
:
Doesn’t [Obama] realize that without warrantless FISA wiretaps we could never have uncovered the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (how could we have gotten a warrant for conversations about the bridge when we didn’t yet know that al Qaeda had it in its sights?) Has he forgotten that we only found the name of the operative who was tasked with destroying the bridge because we subjected Kahlid Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, to “rough” interrogation techniques? Does he really mean to leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

Yes he does. Not because he is callous or fiendish, but because the new president seems to carry the thinking that animated the decisions of the Warren Court on defendant’s rights over into the battle against terror. When the Warren Court first ruled that all defendants deserved free lawyers, that they had to be explicitly told of their right to remain silent, that evidence not obtained through warrants was inadmissible as were any “fruits of the poisonous tree” it occasioned great controversy (enough to help Nixon get elected president). Law and order types said that these decisions would lead to the release of thousands of criminals who would otherwise be in prison and would cause tens or hundreds of thousands more innocent people to become victims of serious crime. And they were right. The decisions of the Warren Court had exactly this effect.

The Warren Court is a fascinating little pearl in the big, fleshy oyster of American history. This is the chapter in which it became obligatory for our system of justice, and therefore our government, to pretend one thing was true while it knew, beyond doubt, that a contrary thing was true. Whether you believe the infectious condition in our country’s intellect is terminal, or not, this is the moment where we caught the bug. We decided material success was a loathsome thing in 1932, and then in the early 1960’s we decided it was a grievous sin to actually know something. “Rules” had to be followed, and if the rules weren’t followed you had to pretend not to know what you actually knew.

Throwing around words like “Constitution,” I’m sure, seemed so harmless at the time. That’s where the Warren Court was getting its authority, so it was mandatory to use that word, right? Trouble is, the C-word carries with it an implication of non-negotiability, at least to the atrophied mind. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan found this out…make this one guy’s day unpleasant, or let nine planeloads of people burn to death? I’ll take the latter, please, Alex.

PAT BUCHANAN: Let me ask you a couple questions. This Bojinka plot that was going to bring down nine airliners over the Pacific at one time, apparently that was broken by the fact that enhanced interrogation techniques were done in the Philippines on people they caught there. Was that immoral, to use these on an individual, which you might constitute torture if it saves nine passenger planes from going down over the Pacific?

[KRYSTIA] FREELAND: Do you think it would be immoral to preemptively kill someone who hasn’t committed a crime yet?

BUCHANAN: Let me tell you something — it would be moral to take Khalid Shaikh Mohammed out and say here, and shoot him in the head, but it’s immoral —
FREELAND: For what he’s done already.

BUCHANAN: Exactly. But it’s immoral to water board him three minutes?

FREELAND: I’m asking you.

BUCHANAN: I’m saying it’s moral to kill him and given what he’s done and what you know he’s done, it is moral to impose physical pain upon him, excruciating pain, to get information to save lives, yes.

FREELAND: I disagree. I think there’s a very, very clear line.

The tragedy involved in these arguments is that people end up shouting at each other about what’s moral. At that point, it’s clear to everybody no minds are going to be changed.

But they also — both sides — occasionally bob back into the land of where you talk about what will happen if we do this, and what else will happen if we do that. This, unlike morals, is “provable” or at least can be subject to the objective commentary of history.

On the other hand, the “waterboarding is immoral” people aren’t really headed there, they’re just providing the illusion of doing so. Nobody opposed to wiretapping, or waterboarding, really wants to get into a prolonged discussion of what happens if we repeat the Warren Court days, and just build taboo upon taboo to prove what good people we are. They don’t wanna go there.

Because what’s the first question you ask? Where’s-the-benefit. Who, back in the halcyon days of the Warren Court inventing one new “right” for criminals after another, looked to America from around the world and said to themselves, “ah…what a nice, bright, beacon of civilization for us, the rest of the world’s countries, to admire.” Who did that? Who’s ready to do that now? It comes down to that, doesn’t it…who’s ready to love us all to pieces, when our government promises never to do any wiretapping and never to do any waterboarding — who hates us today? There is nobody. Hating the country is a strategy, used by its enemies to get what they want; to peel back the armor.

If, God forbid, this nation does come crashing down in our lifetime, it will be the conclusive event to a madcap vicious-cycle fools-errand of trying to prove what good people we are, to nameless faceless strangers around the world who will never, ever, in a million years, no matter what, ever recognize it. We’ll prove ourselves to death this way. And we’ll do it without becoming better people.

As Morris pointed out, we’ve done it before. It didn’t lead to a Golden Age of worldwide opinion smiling upon America’s wonderful, wise, benevolent Government. It led to the exact opposite, in fact. People talk of that time as emotionally frayed, a vast landscape of wreckage devastated by “Vietnam and Watergate.” But the wreckage came from men not knowing if their wives and children would come home from wherever they were, each night, alive and intact. It was a triangle of unholy forces consisting of Vietnam, Watergate and Warren Court justice — that endless deadly-good cycle of proving, in futility, how decent you are. That suicide pact that somehow isn’t thought of as a suicide pact, even though it is that and is little else.

His Blank Slate IV

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

I agree with this guy nearly completely, but I also have a few…extra thoughts. Some of them are just mildly contrary.

By picking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, Barack Obama pretty well guaranteed that both men would draw heat from their respective poltiical opponents, says conservative commentator David Aikman.

“Gays on the left of the spectrum hate Warren for his forthright opposition to gay marriage,” Aikmna says in a radio commentary on Townhall.com.

Meanwhile, religious conservatives “think Warren is betraying them by endorsing with his popularity a man who is pro-abortion, very liberal and friendly to the gay community.”

Aikman’s advice to both sides: Chill.

“Obama,” he says, “deserves credit for reaching out to evangelicals. … And Warren ought to be commended for reaching out to political liberals.”

First of all, I’m sure the religious conservatives are out there. But I refuse to believe in any widespread phenomenon, because some outsider tells me to believe in it, out of a sense of anticipation. So where are they? I haven’t heard of Rick Warren being crucified because of this juxtaposition, by his ideological compatriots. Certainly not nearly to the extent The Annointed One has been by His.

Secondly, it isn’t “gays,” and no I’m not being P.C. because it isn’t “homosexuals” either. It is “the homosexual community,” a hodge-podge of shrill & strident homosexuals and shrill & strident heterosexuals who achieve theatrical horror in sync. Their job is to become offended on behalf of third-parties.

Always One AwayThey are important, for they have helped to give us our new President-Elect. They have much to teach us as well, for this episode in which Their Replacement Messiah has wandered off the path of the righteous, speaks volumes. It is a staggering shift demanded of our mindset by the events of reality — when you take the time to absorb what has happened and what it all means.

Turns out, nobody’s in a big hurry to be led by this guy.

I do not mean to say derogatory things about the intellect of The Chosen One. I’m sure Barack Obama is a bright bulb, and He has wonderful judgment, especially about things pertaining to His future political success. What I mean to say is that it is irrelevant. That it’s been demonstrated to us that it’s irrelevant. This was our Big Reveal; this was the curtain drawn back in front of the man at the controls, at the merry old Land of Oz.

“In (so many) more days, it’s gonna be pronounced ‘Nu-Cle-Ar’ again!” the “anchor” announced to wild blue-blood Manhattan applause during the “Weekend Update” segment of Saturday Night Live. What a first it would be for human history, if the content of the product matched the packaging used to advertise it: The intellectual energy radiating from the Office of the President, will explode with such a supernova that it will send shockwaves rippling through the January air, from sea to shining sea. But the I.Q. of the President doesn’t very much matter to us — really. How that I.Q. is used in the President’s job, matters somewhat more, I’d say…and Barack Obama’s quotient is not relevant to what He was put there to do.

The moral of the Rick Warren story is that Obama’s most ardent supporters don’t really want Him deciding things. As far as what should be done, they already know. His job is to sell decisions, not to make them. Because He is the “Real Deal”…the way we defined that doublet of words, here, last summer, since nobody else was or is willing to step forward and do so —

Flattering slang attached to an individual who possesses a unique ability to sell products unneeded.

Not a Messiah; not even a thinker. A salesman. This is easily proven through Barack Obama’s ability to get into trouble with his supporters for having made the wrong choice. Only a salesman can do that.

Not the last time it’s gonna happen, either.

But, as usual…you really can’t accuse Obama of having gone against a capmaign promise here, can you? He didn’t. He couldn’t have. There were none. Front to back, the entire campaign was nothing more than a tacit understanding, straddling the divide between the substantiated and the imaginary.

Hooters Won’t Hire Men

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Damn straight. Those are my two words on that.

Hooters GirlA class-action suit has been filed against Hooters of America, Inc., for refusing to hire men as waiters.

The whole thing started when Nicolai Grushevski applied for a job at a Hooters in Corpus Christi, Texas, in May of 2008 and was told to forget it. Hooters maintains that because its food servers are called “Hooters Girls,” no labor laws are being violated.

It’s up to the courts to decide, though we can think of a couple of reasons not to go there if Mr. Grushevski wins.

Actually I have two more words on this:

LOSER PAYS.

No, waitaminnit, I have a few more.

I do not go to Hooters to be reminded what a wonderful egalitarian country we have in which everybody can be anything. Therefore, as a dude, I say discriminate against dudes all you want.

I do not go to Hooters to be reminded that lawyers run everything, and we’re always one lawsuit away from the most horrible nightmares you can possibly imagine. I go there to forget about such things.

I do not go to Hooters to meet people who sued their employers into hiring them. I go there after working hard at a job someone chose to hire me into, and I expect to see folks at the other tables in similar situations, enjoying themselves after a long shift of working their enormous asses off. And the ladies serving me my food, I expect them to be more of the same…people their employers want to be in those positions. (Except the thing about enormous asses doesn’t hold. Skinny asses there. Please. Thankyewverymuch.

I do not go to Hooters to be drowned in rules, or to watch others being drowned in rules. Just keep the food clean, the beer cold, the meat hot and tasty, and politeness all around…because we choose to be, not because we’re forced to be.

In other words, I go to Hooters to be around adults. To get — the hell — away from — the “Mommy, Mommy, Make Him Let Me Play” culture. And, dare I say it, that’s what lawsuits like this one are all about. Hooters is recognized as an oasis. As a shelter. And the nannies are not content to drive us into some kind of a fallout shelter; they want to wipe out the last pockets of resistance. Anywhere. Hooters is just the last stand. They know that’s where we’re all holed up.

Obligation of Carry

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

I haven’t watched all 17 minutes yet, and don’t have the time. Just wanted to bookmark it. Yeah, I’m an “Obama-Age Gun Buyer.” We’re looking seriously at some 9mm. Neighborhood’s okay, but the comments about police response definitely apply…at least, if traffic is any indication, and I think it is. People drive however they want, not a cop to be found anywhere. So we’ll be getting some protection while we still can.

Hat tip: Odecko.

Final News Conference

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

I found The Chosen One’s comments about “the lack of clarity” to be ironic. Not just a little bit.

I disagree with the current President’s position on the bailout, to a degree I can only describe as “visceral.” But you have to admire people who have that Howard Roark thing going on. Not so much “the hell with what people think,” for to support that, you have to play to the crowd — can’t go against the popular opinion if you don’t take the time and trouble to find out what it is.

No, the determination to just plow on past the trailhead, because you’re already doing something, knowing that down that way lies a vast bunny-trail and it’s best not to take the first step down it. Really, this is why people despise him so much. It’s the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world that despise the Howard Roarks in a way nobody despises anybody else, anywhere.

When your position in the world is to mold and shape popular opinion, and fool vast multitudes of suckers into thinking these thoughts were originally theirs, it’s quite a kick in the nuts, I imagine, to see someone with real authority come along who doesn’t care too much about any of it. I suppose it might even feel like something of a fuck-you. It isn’t that, of course, but I think it certainly must feel that way if you have become accustomed to something else.

And so we’re told to despise George W. Bush, because he’s a “war criminal.”

Also because he goes to his ranch house in Texas and clears brush. Clearing brush is just as bad as being a war criminal.

We’re told these thoughts are our own, even though vast sums of money were spent to get ’em planted in our heads.

And millions upon millions of us fall for it. They’re told what to think, they think it, and they go out and brag about what independent thinkers they are. It is exactly the kind of stuff that is melted away by history, and by not too much of it passing by. Like pissing on a snowman. And so, on the long-term vision of W’s legacy, our thoughts are already on record.

Update: Fred Barnes, on ten things the President got right. Not to be missed. So don’t miss it.

Update: Also, Sean Hannity’s interview. C’mon, you’ve certainly heard the other side of the story, often enough.

Google Kills Polar Bears

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Phil tracked down something truly alarming. Two Google searches produce the same quantity of that awful, horrible, toxic poison carbon as what you spew into our lovely atmosphere boiling a kettle of water for tea.

How’d you get here?

Making two internet searches through Google produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle, it has been estimated.

A typical search through the online giant’s website is thought to generate about 7g of carbon dioxide. Boiling a kettle produces about 15g.

The emissions are caused both by the electricity required to power a user’s computer and send their request to servers around the world.

The discovery comes amid increasing warnings about the little-known environmental impact of computer and internet use.

According to Gartner, an American research firm, IT now causes about two per cent of global CO2 emissions and its carbon footprint exceeded that of the world’s aviation industry for the first time in 2007.

Dr Alex Wissner-Gross, a physicist from Harvard University who is leading research into the subject, has estimated that browsing a basic website generates about 0.02g of CO2 for every second it is viewed.

The trend continues: Whatever large numbers of people go off and do, is bad for the environment — except for things that somehow make a gesture, however meaningless it may be, toward the environment. Exactly like a deity. Have a conference on what to do about global warming, and you can send just as many 747s to that central spot, with five to ten passenger-butts per fuselage, or fewer, as you care to send. Having a rock concert as a benefit for Mother Earth? Even better.

Run a Google search to find out where the conference is, or where the rock concert is? Shame on you.

What if we get rid of Google? I guess, then, people will play video games like kids. And then that will be bad for the enviro. So then we’ll all just sit around on our asses in bistros, sipping espresso, chatting about whatever — and then that will be found to be toxic too. The movement is not about science, it’s about guilt; whatever large numbers of people are doing, that doesn’t provide the proper obeisance to Gaea, take it to the bank it’ll be found to be “bad for the environment.”

Kate Bosworth Changing Hair Color to be Taken More Seriously

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Maybe it’ll work.

Kate Bosworth says people behave differently around her when she has brown hair.

The actress, who usually has blonde locks, often changes her barnet for movie roles.

‘I just think that people take me a little more seriously as a brunette,’ Kate, 25, tells Stella.

‘I don’t know if that’s just because of a societal preconceived notion that all blondes are stupid.

‘But it’s a different kind of attitude.’

It’s a different kind of behavior from the lady with the hair, too. Sigourney Weaver said as much during the making of Galaxy Quest (I seem to recall from an interview, on the web, or maybe in the Special Features section of the disc). So…not exactly a scientific study there. Carry yerself differently, people treat ya different.

I used to have sympathy for actors and actresses in this predicament. Time has melted most of it away, I’m afraid. You’re making a generous living manipulating the emotions of others, which necessarily means you must contend with what’s already there. Just like a software developer who has to fix a bug in what someone else wrote, has to contend with the code that’s already there. The mechanic who works on your car has to contend with the apparatus that’s in there. The dentist and the plumber have to contend with what’s there. The list goes on…and on…and on.

If you don’t like the way people look at you, and their “preconceived notions,” honey you’re just in the wrong line of work. That’s the job. That’s what it is.

Why am I such a cold-hearted sonofabitch about it? Because as a consumer of movies I have to pay money, not get it, for the privilege of wrestling with society’s prejudices, even when I don’t share them. Dads are always wrong — our movie only has a happy ending when Daddy whacks himself in the forehead, five minutes before closing credits, and figures out what a stupidass bonehead he’s been by…breaking his promise to be at the moppet’s soccer game and making ‘im cry. Moms don’t do this. They don’t have anywhere else to be. They don’t do anything wrong, they’re too busy telling the Dad what a bad Dad he is, lying to his little moppet kid and making him cry.

Doofus Dads are just the beginning. I could add to this list all day long…bullshit things it seems everyone else is in a big hurry to see over and over again, that I don’t particularly want to see, but I have to shell out my thirty bucks plus overpriced soda & popcorn anyway.

Spoiled actresses who are treated differently when their hair is blonde. Heh. That’s just too bad, Katie.

House of Eratosthenes BOHICA Cycle

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

BOHICA…at work, in California. Yay!!

While it has the sixth highest tax burden in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, California is facing a breathtaking $40 billion budget deficit this year. This comes on the heels of a decade-long spending spree. Last year the state budget was $131 billion, up from $56 billion in 1998.

Citizens are burdened by all manner of state regulations. To mention just one example, this year a new law enacted by ballot initiative bans cages chicken farmers use on the grounds that it is inhuman to put birds in cages that prevent them from spreading their wings. Complying with the new law will cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars, which will force many to leave the state. And that will force us to buy our eggs from other states and, possibly, others nations, such as Mexico.

And just as a fallen tree can divert the flow of water in a creek, bad economic policies divert the flow of investment. Entrepreneurs and investors, seeking the path of least resistance, leave when it becomes easier to make a living in more business-friendly states. In 2000, according to the state’s Department of Finance, about 150,000 people moved into California. But in the years that followed the in-migration slowed, and in 2005 it reversed, when a net 52,000 people moved out. In 2008, the outflow topped 135,000 people.

Consequently, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming all have unemployment rates around 5% at a time when California is suffering an unemployment rate of 9%. Californians are moving east and creating jobs in their new home states.

And…the wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round, ’round and ’round, ’round and ’round. Our treasury is awash in red ink, and there aren’t too many folks left who can be taxed. Better raise those rates.

Over the weekend I had made some observations — actually, I had observed what someone else observed — regarding Atlas Shrugged coming true.

Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs…and the downward spiral repeats itself…

You know, it’s often said that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation, and it’s true here. We’re several loops ahead in this silly downward cycle. Same stupid things being said: “In times like these…” “The money’s gotta come from somewhere, and it can’t come from anywhere else…” “They’re millionaires, they can afford it.”

BOHICA, the acronym? Just go Google it.

The 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

security-wise, that is.

Businessman Tries to Fake His Own Death

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Life just generally catching up with him, he seems to have concocted a plan to parachute out of a private plane. But help came a bit quicker than he planned…

Marcus Schrenker has been accused of the elaborate ruse, which began on Sunday when he apparently made a fake mayday call to authorities, claiming that the windshield of the single-engine aircraft had imploded during turbulence and he was bleeding.

Military jets, which had been scrambled to help the troubled pilot, tried to intercept the plane, noticed that the door was open and the cockpit dark. The aircraft, apparently on autopilot, then crashed into a swampy area of north Florida, in a bayou surrounded by homes.

The story borrows a bit from the end of Fargo, one of my favorite movies:

Authorities believe that Mr Schrenker was last seen yesterday morning in Childersburg, Alabama — about 225 miles from where the aircraft crashed — when a man using his driver’s licence told police that he had been in a canoe accident. The man was wet only from the knees down and had what appeared to be goggles made for flying.

The officers, unaware of the air crash, took him to a hotel. He was gone by the time they returned. They learnt that he had paid for his room in cash before putting on a black cap and running into the woods next to the hotel.

Article goes on to say the investigations into the three wealth-management businesses he owned, didn’t go so well…said investigations culminating in the execution of criminal search warrants.

The Guy Who Played Q…

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

slept with Gene Roddenberry.

No, no, not him. The other Q.

Massachusetts’ Universal Coverage Law

Monday, January 12th, 2009

Yay! His Holiness is about to take up residence in the White House, where He belongs, and He’s going to start guiding us…especially with regard to requiring us all to get health insurance. With His friendly Congress already seated, it’s a sure thing. Universal health insurance is on the way!

We’re gonna be doing it just like they do it in Massachusetts already…

Small businesses with more than 10 employees were required to provide health insurance or pay an extra fee to subsidize uninsured low-income residents, yet the overall costs of the program increased more than $400 million — 85 percent higher than original projections. To make up the difference, payments to health care providers were slashed, so many doctors and dentists in Massachusetts began refusing to take on new patients. In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.

The irony is that Massachusetts officials reluctantly admitted that, despite increased enrollment, the state is still far from universal coverage — the original goal of the landmark law. To make matters worse, Massachusetts is grappling with a multibillion-dollar deficit while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick desperately tries to slow down those still-spiraling health care costs, which he said last week were “not sustainable.”

Don Surber delivers the highlights…

The D.C. Examiner examined it after 2 years and found:

1. Subsidies cost $400 million — 85 percent higher than original projections.

2. Premiums that are double the national average (they were already high).

3. Slashed reimbursements which led to…

4. …doctors and dentists refusing to take new patients.

The Examiner noted: “In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.”

This is just like any other issue. The liberal looks at exciting, good-feeling things like safety, security, new programs, bad things never happenin’ ever again, and making everybody the same, same, same. The conservative looks at boring things like cause-and-effect, historical precedent, and human nature. Mister Average Voter sends his votes wherever Oprah Winfrey tells him to, and we end up doing things the liberal way. Even with a Republican Governor at the helm. Common sense is out; feelin’ good is in.

Then it becomes much more expensive to employ anybody, and the people who are employed, are forced to blow their paychecks on things that should cost one-fifth as much, now that everybody’s required to do everything.

Which they don’t do.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Is His Holiness really going to be forcing us into something like this? Not only with regard to health care, but all other issues with regard to government, services, taxes and subsidies, across the board?

Count on it

Remember what I, and others, said about Atlas Shrugged coming true? Sacrifice for the Greater Good, here we come.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit and Maggie’s Farm.

Couldn’t Eat Another Bite

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

CommunityChannel is much cuter than I am, but her sense of humor is much the same as mine…

That’s almost as good as the other one she did that’s along the same vein…

People. Y’know. They’re funny.

Strident

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

stri·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˈstrī-dənt\
Function:
adjective
: characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound ; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins objects to being called “strident”; that’s supposed to be an unfair stereotype.

And yet he also objected, at first, to the word “probably” inserted into the slogan “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” complaining that it was a bit too soft.

Hmm. I realize he’s “come around” since then, but how else would you characterize that?

In fact, the act of raising a large amount of money to try to make people stop believing in something. Surely, an articulate and intelligent fellow like Dawkins should be able to explain to me what exactly is the point there? I mean, while putting it in terms that aren’t strident. Looks to me, to my untrained, knuckle-dragging, rock-banging-together, mud-hut-living-in God-believing mind, like that’s an exercise in sacrificing material wealth to try to make complete strangers engage in your own belief system. If that isn’t strident then I don’t know what is. It also bears some telltale signs of being a kind of — GASP! — Religion! All the ones that matter, anyway.

And please walk me through the logic — the secular mind is supposed to be obviously logical, but this doesn’t look logical to me, and if it is, it’s anything but obvious. As I pointed out at Rick’s place when guest blogger Big-Tee Tim Chesterton dredged up this gem…if you do believe there’s a God and we’re all going to be judged by Him after shucking the mortal coil, it makes complete sense to sacrifice your material possessions to get the word out to total strangers. Absolute, total, complete sense…not only to sacrifice some of your material goods, but perhaps all of them.

Now doing the same thing if you don’t believe — that’s just nuts. Sorry, but if this is all about equalizing both sides and achieving some kind of symmetry, this is taking it into the realm of lunacy. And I’m not saying that to be judgmental, I mean that really is the case. There’s no way to explain this in a sensible way. I mean, why stop there? Quick, I need to log in and check my bank balance, I’ve got a lot of money to spend on things because there are many things in which I don’t believe. Got to make sure nobody else believes in ’em either! How many days ’til payday?

How do we sum up this special kind of thinking in one or two sentences? I got an idea. Wait for it…wait for it…here it comes…

“I’m not strident. I just don’t believe in some things, and I’ll never rest until I make sure you don’t either.” That just about covers it, right?

Yeah Doctor Dawkins, I have no idea why people think you’re strident. I really don’t know where you picked up that rep. Honestly, I have no idea.

</sarcasm>

Sea Kittens

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Sea KittensVia Cassy we learn about the sea kitten campaign at PETA, who is griping again that we seem to be much more sympathetic toward warm blooded furry creatures than we are toward cold-blooded slippery creatures, and darn it, that just isn’t right.

So they’d like you to call the fish “sea kittens” from here on in. Meow, meow. They’ve even got a little kids’ storybook to go along with it.

They’re wrong, by the way, at least where I’m concerned. I personally have a great passion for the wonderfulness of fishies, especially with lemon juice and my special mudbutter recipe that calls for half a stick of the yellow stuff all smooshed in with oregano, thyme and just a hint of cayenne. The land kitties, on the other hand, I’ve never given the matter a great deal of thought. Had rabbit, once, and liked it a great deal. Land-kitties would be just about the same as rabbit, although I suspect not nearly enough meat to make it worthwhile.

Honestly, I don’t know what they’re talking about. I think very highly of the fishies. Yummy, yummy fishies. Steaming and flaky, over aluminum foil, just pulled off the propane with my special mudbutter recipe, with a small bottle of Chardonnay chilled about twenty degrees Farhenheit colder than where all the experts tell me to chill it.

Palin on Jeopardy

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

The anti-Bush anti-Palin anti-Iraq-Invasion anti-God anti-substance pro-packaging people look most ridiculous when they try to make other things look ridiculous. To find out what I’m talking about, fast forward to 2:23.

“Standard for Journalistic Excellence”?? Heh. Heheheh.

Dog Pops Balloons

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Standard Bearer?

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

I cannot find a source for this, anywhere. But I’d already researched all these facts, most of ’em anyway, at the time they rolled into my mailbox…at least, I was already aware of them at a thirty-thousand-foot level.

I don’t fault anyone for hearing of these tidbits and making a decision to dismiss them, and I don’t fault anyone for their indictments and grudges against Republicans who were deferred for pimples on their asses, or didn’t serve, or failed to fill out their billets in the Texas Air National Guard, or what-not.

To do both, however — to dismiss out-of-hand these things said against loyal democrats, and to embrace wholeheartedly the “high-grade dirt” dished out against influential Republicans — is an egregious sin of ideological puritanism. Or plain ol’ intellectual dishonesty. And it’s widespread. The effect is we now have a plurality of generations of people who are entirely unaware of what has really taken place…

Ted Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquiddick; As soon as cancer was found, I noticed the immediate attempt at canonization of old Teddy by the main stream media. They are saying what a “great American” he is. I say, let’s get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history.

1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it.. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him

2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops, the man can’t count to four. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him like “he” charged President Bush received.

3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris , never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. imagine a person of his “education” NEVER advancing past the rank of Private.

4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver’s license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959, amazing!!!

5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a “state secret” until in the 1980’s when the report was unsealed. Didn’t hear about that from the unbiased media, did we.

6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur’s keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.

7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, after passing several houses and a fire station. Then two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began “calling in favors”, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn’t call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy’s “political enemies” have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne’s family received a small payout from the Kennedy’s insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy’s family paid their attorney’s bills… a “token of friendship”?

8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the “standard-bearer for liberalism”. In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries.

9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of and increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the Pious grilling he gave the last two Supreme Court Nominees, as if he were the standard bearer for the nation in matters of right. What a pompous ass.

10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a better description than “great American”.

If you want to excuse all of the above because you like his political agenda, then fine. Just admit that’s what you’re doing, and I don’t wanna hear you trying to recruit people into hating Bush & Cheney because “he was born on third and thought he hit a triple.” There’s a saying about throwing stones when you live in a glass house, knowwhatimean?

George W. Bush’s Legacy

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Jon Swift is predicting George W. Bush will be remembered by history as one of our great Presidents.

Me? I don’t think there’s any question about it.

Although the White House has sent around its own talking points highlighting the President’s accomplishments, I don’t think they go far enough. So I have put together my own list of talking points, which should convince anyone why George W. Bush belongs on Mount Rushmore, along with Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the other guy.

I’ve been watching old Boston Legal episodes lately — pretty much everyone who knows me, and has seen it, has sworn up and down that I’d get hooked on it. They’re right, to a point, but there is one thing that bugs me.

Reports that you’d never in a million years know it was written by a lefty, I’m afraid, are mistaken. I can tell a lefty wrote it. I can tell this quite easily. Oh, the lefty lawyer says what lefties would say, that’s realistic enough. How his good bud the tighty-righty lawyer responds…some authenticity there, too. It’s what passes by without comment.

No, it isn’t the stuff about George W. Bush being an idiot. I know lots of conservatives who think Bush is an idiot. This I find realistic enough. It’s the little things. The things that pass by uncommented-upon. Here, I’ll give you an example —

The beady-eyed liberal lawyer thinks Guantanamo should be shut down. The entire episode degenerates into a debate about “this administration has kept us safe” versus “people disappearing in the dead-o-night being tortured.” Yeah, real people do argue that way, too.

Here’s the problem: The show makes the mistake of trying to address both the “Should the United States torture people” conundrum, and the thing about “Does the Constitution apply to non-citizens.” Now, the latter was decided at the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Wrongly, actually. And no I’m not saying that to address my own opinions, or what the old-n-pudgy Captain Kirk character should be saying — I’m saying what a strict-constructionist conclusion would have been. Hamdi was not a reasoned decision; it was not supposed to be. It was an “I like this and I don’t like that” decision.

But this lefty argument was presented not so much as a conclusion of the Hamdi decision, which wasn’t mentioned at all — it was presented parallel to that. So here’s the argument that was presented: Yeah, Guantanamo may or may not have to exist in order to continue to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks — but the Constitution forbids what we’re doing, like it or not. This is where the argument falls down. If it’s all about championing the death of common sense for the sake of the written law, well…the Constitution doesn’t apply to these detainees, like it or not. (At least, in the way it was described in this episode.) The left-wing argument was one of adhering to the sensibilities of nameless-faceless-strangers with regard to this legal matter over here, and then ignoring the sensibilities of nameless-faceless-strangers to uphold written statute over common sense with regard to that legal matter over there. And both of these whiplash-pretzel motions were necessary to preserve the desired conclusion of the argument, that we needed to shut Gitmo down.

All of this could be a legitimate argument, one suitably legitimate to discuss over scotch and cigars on the balcony of a law office. But it’s rather silly for that pretzel-reasoning to pass by without comment or challenge between two ideologically-opposed good-buddies. The old-n-pudgy Captain Kirk guy’s comments, instead, were used to further define what an adorably silly curmudgeon his character was…his lines had something to do with how a lot of other tyrants needed to be taken out, “and not because they’re brown people.” That’s the trouble with Manhattan humor. It’s only good when it’s potent as a tool to change real elections, and it’s only potent as a tool to change real elections when it asserts things that are not true.

But getting back to George Bush’s legacy. Quick: Name me a President that is a bad President, because he was a do-er. There are none. Presidents are bad Presidents because they’re awash in scandals, because they let things happen, because they were ineffectual, because they appointed their moral reprobate friends to high, influential and powerful positions.

Do-ers are remembered fondly, as our very best Presidents. They’re remembered even more fondly, if & when some among his contemporaries despised what he was doing. And when there were a whole lot of such contemporaries who despised what he was doing, he’s remembered by history even more fondly still…even if some of the objections to what he was doing, were in fact quite reasonable. Read some of the arguments against what Lincoln was doing. Read some of the comments against what Jefferson was doing. Read what the critics of Teddy Roosevelt had to say. Very good, morally upstanding, sturdy, reasoned arguments…far more respectable and durable than “BUSH KNEW!!1!”

Mind you, I disagree with Swift about Bush’s face being carved into a mountain. Won’t happen. But, those other gentlemen did make it up there. And this would have been quite a silly prospect to some of the folks who lived at the same time, and had things to say against what those guys were doing.

Viewed in that light, George Bush’s legacy is not only much rosier than what you usually hear of it, but in all likelihood, it’s more secure than most.

Arcata Eye Police Log

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

You know, this is exactly what we’ve been missing lately. If we stay around, and if this stays around, we should make this a regular habit. We used to read the Arcata Eye all the time, because we grew up with this kind of stuff…whoever does the police log there, used to work for the Bellingham Police Department and submit their stuff to the Herald. I’m 99% sure it’s the same guy.

I’d also like to go on record with my prediction that in 2009, this kind of humor is going to become much more popular — taking things that are usually taken seriously, less-than-seriously. Not in a John Stewart “everything’s fair game except democrats, who are perfect in every way” kind of a thing. But more in a Monty Python “nothing sacred” kind of way. Department-Of-Silly-Walks type o’humor. Think of it as the very first wave of the libertarian surge that is sure to engulf the nation when the hopey-changey goodness doesn’t work out.

Anyway…on with the show.

Me and my drool are here to stay – January 6, 2009
1:03 p.m. A man reported receiving threatening a threatening e-mail message from someone named “Boris” claiming he was an assassin who had been hired to kill him and giving the man until Dec. 21 to negotiate. The man said that he was the son of a CIA operative involved in the Watergate scandal, which was probably what got Boris on his case.

Tawdry escapades, furtive encounters, skeezy exigencies… call it a pageant – December 30, 2008
9:26 p.m. Dueling realities held each other at a standoff on different ends of the police station regarding an incident on the Plaza. A woman at the front door reported that a man had pushed her down. Meanwhile, Mr. Man was at the back door wishing to report in advance that he was going to leave his vehicle unlocked, and that stuff might go missing (a safe prediction). As for the reported assault on the woman, he said that he had only thrown a flower at her.

Sick dog and banjo accessorize plaid/green ensemble – December 23, 2008
3:15 p.m. After a while, the “dirty brown and gray” and sickly-looking dog leashed to a baby stroller in the 1000 block of H Street became a concern to a citizen, who called police. Thence came on the scene a woman in plaid pants with green shorts over them, plus a green jacket with black hoodie and carrying a banjo. Though she already had another dog with her, a retriever, she took the dirty dog, too, and was last seen with the banjo and pair of pooches, headed down I Street.

Battle of donut-engorged sexes bogs down in metaphor – December 16, 2008
11:17 a.m. Tensions bubbled up ’twixt a man and woman like a pot of boiling oil at the everlasting donut shop. In this metaphor, they would play the donuts, bobbing in the searing grease of anger. Police dunked the drama in an eye-opening cup of disturbing the peace, clearing the shop of tensions like crumbs wiped from a pastry aficionado’s double chin, leaving a surface sheen of relief.

Donut shop forays return null data set – Decmber 9, 2008
10:01 a.m. When your neighbors are already talking to the Drug Task Force about your eye-wateringly stinky grow house, you ought to keep a firm grip on your $2,964 PG&E bill. Because if you lose it near a downtown bank, someone just might turn it in to the police, who will pass it off to the DTF.

Dingbat dramaturgy, vituperative vaudeville – December 2, 2008
3:42 p.m. Try to steal something at a 13th Street marketplace, and soon you, the manager and police officers will all be watching the video of it together. No popcorn.

The tempestuous toll of textosterone – November 25, 2008
2:44 p.m. Four men and two dogs or some combination thereof got into a big argument at Samoa Boulevard and H Street. It can be stated with some certainty that the dogs were doing the best they could under the circumstances.

I’d like to order an officer, please – slender and good at lifting – November 18, 2008
8:03 a.m. A camouflaged man’s observation-deterring pantaloons proved entirely ineffectual at a Uniontown shopping center, imprinted as they were with forest-like imagery rather than more typical fixtures there, such as cars and asphalt and signholding mendicants. So, after allegedly ripping off a package of lighters, camo-boy was easily tracked down and arrested.

Johnny Potatochipseed plants asphalt orchard – November 11, 2008
11:32 a.m. Three to four imbibers guzzled booze on the pedestrian walkway, disposing of the bottles by a devilishly ingenious method – throwing them on the ground and shattering them.

Doing the agitated needle-capping/uncapping dance – November 4, 2008
4:14 a.m. A trio of kids egged cars near a K Street car wash, creating treasured memories to last a lifetime.

Rockin’, stompin’, drinkin’, druggin’ and doggin’
11:10 p.m.
A bongo cabal on the square
Made major drum awesomeness there
When someone objected
Police went and checked it
And silenced the big beaty blare.

A downed bongo pilot’s disappointing posture – October 21, 2008
11:26 p.m.
A saxophone’s schmorzando peals
Intruded on I Street’s ideals
For nighttime relaxin’
Cops talked to the saxman
And ended the tortuous ordeal.

The usual dingbat drill for alternative Army men
– Friday, September 19 1:17 p.m. A person sitting on the Plaza complained of being harassed by a juggler.

Groovy buses deliver tie-dye, sewage to your doorstep
– Friday, September 19 12:22 a.m.
The saxman’s melodious strains
Infected the slumbering brains
Of near-alley sleepers
Who opened their peepers
And called up the cops to complain.

Pills, pits, poop, purloined property… party! – September 30, 2008
– Friday, September 12 1:06 a.m.
The carport sounds, less than beguiling
Had someone awakened and dialing
Police for assistance
They met no resistance
And shut down a sax player’s stylings.

Backwards Beethoven

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Hat tip: MissC.