Jump to navigation
Letters To People Who Do Not Read This Blog: The Show
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
To The Leader Of The Band With The
Hair Problem,
That bandana is ingenious. Good work.
Sincerely,
Author of the Blog You Do Not Read
Dear People Who Go To Shows And Get Right In Front Of The Singer And Then Try To Talk To Each Other Over Him,
I was not impressed.
Sincerely,
Author of the Blog You Do Not Read
To The Guy Who Was At The Boland Show And Is Probably Someone I Should Recognize But If I Ever Did I Disavow It And Have Lost All Respect For Said Person I Should Probably Know,
Are you bloody blind? I mean, I don't mean to be mean here, but damn, get a clue, buddy.
She does not dig you!
If you would have realized that as early as I did, you would have saved yourself a hell of a lot of trouble. That laughter when you were flirting with her? That wasn't flirtatious laughter. That was nervous laughter. Not even nervous like "Ohmigod I can't believe the guy who was on stage with Jason Boland is talking to me" nervous, but rather "If I laugh I might not pee in my pants cause I'm so afraid of this guy" laughter. Between the numerous times she turned away from you to talk to someone, anyone, else and the way she managed to dance with everyone (male or female) but you, I am uncertain as to how there might have been mixed signals. And no, that stunt you pulled by picking up another girl just so you could not look pathetic didn't work. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing this if it wasn't for that cause you really screwed her over.
So the lesson of the day: Find a chick that digs you.
Sincerely,
Author of the blog that you do not read
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatTriumphant Return of Jason Boland
R. Alex Whitlock
Jason Boland has reclaimed the coveted title of The Best Country Singer In The Universe According To RAW. He lost it a week ago when Edmondson claimed the title after his umpteenth consecutive great show. Edmondson now stands strong at #2.
I didn't blog on the last Boland show because it was... well... disappointing. Kevin and Callie saw him play in Oklahoma and gave him a
lackluster review. My biggest problem with his last show was that while he has some of the best songs out there, he spent all his set-list doing covers of the classics. That might be a plus for a band starting out, but he's not going to make it big singing Mama Tried for the umpteenth time, no matter how good the song is. I was a little worried going into the show tonight, which is a first for a Boland show. I was worried that with his increasing popularity, he may have lost his touch.
He hasn't. Tonight he not only put on one of the best shows I've ever seen from him, but perhaps the best weeknight show I have ever seen from anyone. He was personable without being cocky, he dealt with some rowdy fans admirably, and he played some great music. He played up until 1:30, which for a weeknight was not required, and didn't leave a single hit unsung. It was good enough that I bought another copy of Live at Billy Bob's (the old one was stolen) on the spot.
Most excellent.
-30-
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatMathematically The Coolest CD/MP3 Player Ever
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the Original RAWbservations]
A couple days back, I got a CD player installed in my car at a great price by my friend Andy. This means retirement for my portable CD/MP3 player, which is a shame because it was cool. So cool, in fact, it was mathematically one in a million. One in over a trillian, actually.
Bear with me.
I was driving up to Waco and listening to it when it played the a song two times in a row. Now, this is an MP3 CD with approximately 178 tracks. So what are the chances that it would play the same song two times in a row? 178x178=31,684. I hit Next Song and... wah-lah! Same song again. 31,684x178=5,637,952. I hit Next Song and it played the same song, yet a fourth time. 5,637,952x178=1,003,875,856
So there is a 1-in-1,003,875,856 chance that it would do that. Well, that's my player!
So what happened after the fourth? I powered it off and powered it back on. The magic was gone and it went to another song.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatWhy The Liberals Are Wrong on Education
R. Alex Whitlock
[Originally posted on the original RAWbservations]
A couple years back, I was in a conversation with the (then) president of the UH Democrats, in which she touched on just about every Republican I don't care much for (David Dewhurst, Tom DeLay, etc) and mentioned a couple Democrats that I don't hold in as low regard as others (Chris Bell, John Sharp). At some point she asked me "How is it that you're a Republican again?"
The thought has occured to me that RAWbservations has been drifting a bit to the left lately. Opposition to the death penalty, concern for wealth inequality, pro-gay marriage, and so on. Rest assured, I am no further to the left than I was when the site was started over six months ago.
So, I'll start on issue #1 with which I cannot stomach establishment Democratic policy: Education.
The Democratic approach to education seems to be "Don't change a thing! Just send more money into our failing system!"
I had to read over that statement a couple times to make sure that I'm not being unfair, but after doing so, I don't believe that I am. They state that (a) any substantial change to the system is bad, (b) the system needs more money because (c) it's failing.
One would surmise from the gyst of that statement that the system is failing for lack of money. In a way, that may be true. Not enough money makes it into the classroom and schools often cannot afford what ought to be basic educational equipment. What I don't buy, however, is the notion that there is not enough money going into the system and, furthermore, putting more money into the system would be a substantial benefit. In Texas, the average Houston Independent School District student is worth $6,500 to the district (that stats on this are a bit outdated, but the point stands). The average student in neighboring suburban Clear Creek Independent School District is given $5,500. The latter offers a substantially better education.
Of course, one could argue that the HISD needs more money than the CCISD because the latter has the cream of the crop. They have the children of engineers and professionals. They have computers and home and so forth. That's both true and valid. However, how much money would it take to compensate for parents who cannot afford to assist their children's education or choose not to? How much is that worth? In my case, it's invaluable. Without my father's demand that I stay focused, my grades would have perpetually stayed poor and I never would have gone to college. Others get by without my parental support, though, so it's a difficult thing to gauge.
So would an extra $1,000 per student do it? Apparently not. What about $2,000? What about $3,500 per student (enough for a laptop and substantial educational software for every student. Well, it so happens that $10,000 is about what the Washington DC school district spends per pupil, and it is universally regarded as one of the worst school districts in the country. You could argue that the DC school district is abnormally corrupt, but money feeds corruption. Throw enough money at the HISD without reform and it'll start looking a lot more like the DC district. Why? Because money or no, they presently have no incentive to improve. They have a captive audience and virtually no one to answer to.
So what would work? That brings me to the next part of my statement: "Don't change a thing."
Now, liberals don't say that much. They are rhetorically in favor of reform, until you start making suggestions. After which, they reflexively oppose any actual substantive change. Some may support some measures and others may support others, but at the end of the day the Democratic establishment is hostile to each and every change I have heard to date. Some examples:
Standardized tests: "They will just start teaching to the test!" and "Some students are not good test takers.
I can vouch for their claim. When I was in school, TAAS testing took up a load of my English course. What I do remember, though, is that my teachers were never more serious about anything than they were about preparing for that test. We spent class after class going over insipid analogies which were a crux of the test at the time. The answer, though, is not to abolish standardized tests, but rather make them more reflective of what students need to know so that when they're "teaching to the test" they're actually teaching the students what they need to know. Then they go to their next argument.
It's true, some students are not good test takers. I'm one of them. I failed the TAAS test not once but twice. I had to take a remedial reading course because of it. That being said, tough luck. Give students multiple chances to take the test, require remedial classes, but making them somehow prove that they've learned something and don't have a socially promotioned diploma. I have always been a slow reader and the TAAS test's time is what tripped me up. Making me prepare to take it again would have done me much more good than harm (it's a bit of a moot point since I passed the exit TAAS exam with flying colors, but the general point stands).
Charter schools: "There is no oversight"
Most Democrats don't come out opposed to charter schools outright. Instead, they promote an increasing amount of oversight. That, of course, defeats the entire purpose of charter schools to begin with. The more oversight, the less charter. They are meant to be able to experiment. They need to be able to try new things. Even new things that [gasp] the teachers unions don't approve of. They need to be able to set their own academic calender, schedule, and curriculum. Forcing them to abide by the same rules as standard schools merely waters it down. Once it's watered down, then Dems and libs can point out that they're not all that effective. The convenience of this is not accidental.
So am I suggesting that they be able to do whatever they want and thus be free not to teach the kids a damn thing? No. They would be required to take the same standardized tests as above. That way, they have to teach the same basics, but are given flexibility to do so how they choose. Ironically (and conveniently) they oppose charter schools partially on the grounds for which they oppose the remedy as well.
Vouchers: "It takes money from public schools" and "It's a violation of church and state" and "It'll only help the students that least need helping"
The first argument is just silly. Yes, it does take money from public schools, but it also relieves them of some of their responsibilities. Currently, schools are overcrowded, so think of it as a way to ease that. If the schools have too many students, then take some of them away and it's win-win. But no, schools want to have their cake and eat it too. It's a flawed argument, to say the least.
The second argument is also wrong-headed (though I'm willing to give those who make it the benefit of the doubt for good intentions whereas I'm not on the first). So does money going to religious institutions to provide an education create a problem for church and state? I would have to argue not, and I have existing law to back me up on it. Those recieving money from the Montgomery GI Bill can spend their money at any institution they choose (even Baylor and Brigham Young). Because it's there choice, it does not constitute government-sponsored religion. Now, if you believe that's wrong, I disagree but at least you're ideologically consistent. So to those who make this argument: Do you agree that vouchers or constitutional or would you say that Montgomery GI Bill folks shouldn't be able to go to Notre Dame?
And on the last argument, I concur that in its existing form vouchers would only help a small number of students. That's why they are part of the answer and not the entire answer. Additionally, when these programs are started, new schools will pop up. The same applies to charter schools.
So even though vouchers and charter schools are not the answer, they can be a part of the answer. They are at least doing something, but liberals are so interested in preserving the status quo that they find reasons to oppose anything and everything to disrupt the school system that is, in their own admission, failing the kids. So should I call them liberals, conservatives, or just plain wrong?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Goo-Goo Feingold For President
R. Alex Whitlock
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably vote against him, but I'd almost feel bad about doing so. Those who wonder if there are "any good liberals left" with Wellstone's tragic death should keep Feingold in mind. He's not quite as liberal and not nearly as professorial, but even when I've disagreed with him I've always believed he was sincere. I believe McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional and bad law, but I am inclined to be more trustful of Feingold's motives than McCain's.
Articles like
this one, which my friend Mike sent me this morning, remind me why:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) yesterday (Jan. 28) reintroduced his Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which he says will help consumers, small and independent radio station owners, and indie concert promoters by prohibiting anti-competitive practices in the radio and concert industries, Billboard Bulletin reports.
And yes, below it says that McCain is co-signing the legislation, so I am remotely grateful to him as well.
Give'em hell, Russ!
You Know, That Word, That Four-Letter One That Starts With...
R. Alex Whitlock
Arthur Silber
echoes my previously unexpressed thoughts on newspaper self-censorship:
In case you can't figure it out, the ellipses are for the word FAGS. Fags. Good lord. This isn't the point I started this post to make, but it just occurred to me: if you're going to report an incident, REPORT IT. All this political correctness is way past the point of being ridiculous. If the person said FAG, use the word FAG. If he said NIGGER, use the word NIGGER. If we don't know what they said, how the hell are we supposed to evaluate it? And for God's sake, don't make us guess when we're reading the newspaper. Report what the person said! How hard is that?
Be the word either of the above, or any other four letter word in which the word used is important, newspapers do us no favors by editing it out. If someone was shot after yelling an ethnic slur, I want to know what the ethnic slur was. If he was "taunting him" with cuss words and the cuss words underscore the nature of the taunting, say the goddamn words. I know, I know, plugging the ears of the children, but come on. They know the words. They know how they're not supposed to use them and, in the case of articles like this, it's obvious that they are being used offensively. Of course, that might make them use it when they want to be offensive... but you know what? They're going to anyway.
In a similar note,
Susanna reports that a newspaper has
changed its policy so that when they reference the Washington Redskins, they will not actually say the word "Redskins" because it's derogatory against the tribes. Now, for what it's worth, I do think the Redskins should change their mascot. I don't believe that every Indian-related mascot everywhere should be (could someone please tell me how a Brave, which is a word synonymous with courage, can be offensive in respect to the tribes?), but Redskins is the most suspect and I don't believe that it's generally a good idea to have mascots that offend large numbers of people. I don't believe they should be forced to change it, but I believe if they can change the Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards, they can make the Washington Redskins the Washington Warriors and replace the Indian with a Spartan or something. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel.
That being said, this policy is moronic! Now, they are completely within their rights to have a moronic policy,
but it's moronic. If Washington calls themselves the Chinks or the Wetbacks or the Micks, that's between the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Irish and the franchise. It is not the job of the newspaper to pick up the fight for them. Fighting Whities? I don't care, but if I did it's my job to organize a boycott (if they were more than an intramural team, that is) or get them to change their name. The Lincoln Journal-Star even phrases it as joining ranks with an advocacy group. That's objectivity? Is that even a goal anymore?
In any case, if a teach calls themselves the Honkeys or Rednecks, it is the newspaper's job to refer to the team as such. If a Public Enemy-eque band chooses to go by the name Kill All White People, then the music critics should refer to them as such, not KAWP or That Band With The Offensive Name. Report the objections to those names, sure, but do not join them in protest.
On a last note:
Finally, we've decided to drop the stereotypical modifier "Fighting" when used with team nicknames such as Fighting Sioux or Fighting Illini.
No word yet on the Fighting Irish...
Gia Punkarelli Never Took Advice*
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
It's amazing how a few misheard words can totally change a song. I was listening to what I thought was an unfamiliar Jackopierce song. This is what I thought I heard:
"It's 5:58, I can't be late
I can't miss my train
I'll go out of my brain
I need to get away from you
I'm 35 and MLK
suddenly decided to die one day
The same day they said
"I don't think I should be paying you anymore"
Then the song suddenly lead into the familiar song "Vineyard" which was not some abstract protest song (which is what it was sounding like prior to The Vineyard). Turns out it was a live version of Vineyard with a little intro that isn't in the recorded version. So I rewound and listened again, this time catching the actual words:
"It's 5:58, I can't be late
I can't miss my train
I'll go out of my brain
I need to get away from you
I-35 and MLK
my car decided to die one day
The same day you said
"I don't think I should be dating you anymore"
*- "... she a punk who rarely ever took advice" -Verve Pipe
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Gray Toll of the Presidency
R. Alex Whitlock
My hair is in the process of changing from blond to brown. This does not mean that every strand of hair is uniformly blondish brown. Rather, it means that I have blond hairs, brown hairs, and numerous in between. What I find interesting is how different my hair looks in different situations. For instance, as noted below, when it's short it's more blond, as it grows longer it darkens. Of course, lighting plays an even bigger roll. People who look at the picture to the left would say "That's reddish brown" and the second "blond, for the most part" when long or short it's neither brown nor blond and there is no red whatsoever. What's interesting is that small things such as how I comb it make a difference. Which hairs are exposed determined the color. (for what it's worth, my interest in my hair color is based on an ongoing debate with my friend Silk, who assures me that it is unquestionably "dark brown.")
Liberals are digging into George W. Bush because he is allegedly coloring his hair. The proof is in two pictures, one from November where it's gray, the other from a day or two back and it's brown. You don't have to look at
the pictures too hard to see that the lighting is quite different.
Jane Galt:
Well, my first thought was "He's dying his hair gray?" Because I'd just watched him on the State of the Union, and I recalled it as pretty, y'know, gray.
My roommate and I watched the SotU and I can't remember who commented first, but we were in such agreement that it didn't matter. We both noticed how much President Bush has aged in the last two years. In controlled lighting, his hair was graying. It's not completely gray, but it's obviously in (very fast) transition. As his hair turns gray (much like mine turning brown), it means that he has gray hairs, brown hairs, and some in between. Therefore, depending on the lighting, the length, the comb, and how is hair is feeling on any given day, there's going to be some variation. Jane helpfully links up to a number of pictures in which Bush's hair looks quite gray. More gray, in fact, than in the "gray hair" picture that the original poster, Chris Something, uses. Drudge even commented on his hair color recently, pointing out that it's becoming gray.
It's not unusual for the Presidency to do that. Clinton's transition to gray didn't take long and by the end, it was quite apparent that he'd gone from one of the youngest looking presidents into an old man. Bush, about the same age as Clinton (and will thus leave office older than Clinton was) is likely in for the same makeover.
The Hierarchial Economy (or "Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend, Part #575125671")
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the Original RAWbservations]
A little while back, I was perusing KAZAA for a couple missing Matchbox Twenty songs (note to
Owen: I have already purchased their entire collection). It's not uncommon for files to be mislabeled, so I searched for Rob Thomas (lead singer) to see what came up. One extremely large file called "4 Millionaire Next Door." Thinking to myself that there may be a song I didn't know about (and that it might be a mislabeled .wav justifying the size), I downloaded it.
Apparently, it was an excerpt from Robert J. Stanley's well-known
Millionaire Next Door series. However, once it was playing, I couldn't bring myself to delete it. It was just too... interesting.
Methinks perhaps I am a bit of a nerd and that might explain my lack of a social life, but I listened to the entire half hour, captivated by Stanley's speculations about where the economy was headed.
What he said, quite optomistically, I found quite disturbing.
What it mostly came down to was that the rich were going to get richer and that the job opportunities for the less wealthy would primarily be serving the rich. As the rich get richer, the boom industry will be in wealthy luxuries and narrow services. For instance, he suggested that someone looking to make a lot of money go into law school. "But aren't there too many lawyers?" he was asked. No, he explained, there are too many people with law degrees. There are too many plaintiff's attourneys and defense attorneys, but not enough estate attourneys and retained attourneys under one or two (uberwealthy) employer. Medical school is another option, though not to be a surgeon or general medical practitioner (of which there are plenty), but rather a doctor specializing in the needs of the wealthy. Enough dentists, not enough orthodontists. Enough demotologists, not enough plastic surgeons, and so on.
Once I recalled who the author was and what he was selling, I tried to just dismiss him as another late-night get-rich-quick infomercialite. The more I thought about it, though, the more he really was convincing before he got to his sales pitch. The numbers he through out and rationale he used were sound. When it ended, I found myself feeling rather concerned.
Now, I'm pro-capitalist and don't have a problem with people amassing large amounts of money, so it wasn't a sense of injustice that got to me. It was a sense of fragility. The economy that he described in the first half is one in which not only do the wealthy get wealthier, but it's going to be required to keep the economy going. The rich will have to get richer or there will be a lot of people who got in the career of serving them out of work. It doesn't take an economist to know that when times get bad, it's the luxury providers that get hit most of all. Bologni sales go up, veil sales go down.
The Millionaire Next Door was written during the height of the economic boom, so much of it may not apply anymore. Had it continued (or if this is just a blip and things will return to normal), the economy that Stanley prognosticated would return. An economy in which a significant proportion of the GDP goes towards catering to the super-wealthy. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing and I'm worried over nothing. After all, if a middle to upper-middle class can be provided by serving the wealthy, isn't that better than no middle class or upper-middle class at all? If people can get work serving the wealthy where they otherwise wouldn't do as well, is that not a good thing? Ideologically, I'd say it's a good thing. I just can't get myself to believe that such a vertical plantation-style (not referring to slavery, just structure) economy is such a good thing. It doesn't produce anything. Then again, a lot of what we do (all the service-based industries, whomever they are servicing) doesn't actually produce anything and I've had little reason to complain so far. I even applaud it in some cases where it gives the poor jobs they otherwise wouldn't have (such as lawn care).
So I'm stumped. What do y'all think? Am I turning into a pink hippie liberal or does anyone else see this as a little disturbing?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Great Division: Mike McClure's New Band
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations]
Mike McClure has hit the ground running with news of his exodus from Great Divide becoming public. Though there is no band name yet, he's assembled his team which disturbingly includes Bleu Edmondson's (soon to be former) lead guitarist Coby Weir. The Lester Brothers haven't announced that TGD is in fact a former entity, so it's possible that they will find another lead singer and continue under that name. McClure isn't the most replaceable person, though, as he has a rather distinct voice and wrote a good number in the TGD catalogue (in other words, he wasn't just a pretty boy frontman). But whether it's under the Great Divide name or Lester Brothers Band or whatever, I look forward to hearing them. It's a little tough now, but the prospect of two good bands coming of this leaves me room for hope.
UPDATE: Nope, Not Coby Weir. He's still playing with Bleu Edmondson.
Kevin says the guitarist they do have is pretty bad-ass, though.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
It's 1987, Do You Know What Your Children Are?
R. Alex Whitlock
1987 or 2003, judges have ruled that the X-Men and their fellow mutants are
not human.
[link via
Amygdala]
WWTOTD Redux
R. Alex Whitlock
I suppose in this case it's alright to put forth a WWTOTD scenario since Susanna doesn't actually suggest Republicans do what Democrats would regarding George Clooney's insensitive comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimers. I just thought
her scenario is almost Simpsons-worthy:
When someone like Clooney pops off like that, unless it's hammered into our faces most conservatives just shake their heads, say, "idiotarian extraordinaire" and go on with their lives. But in a similar situation, the professional victims segment of the left would immediately descend on Selleck (to continue using him as the example) en masse, and demand not only that he apologize, not only that he donate the proceeds of his last five films to their organizations for the victims of conservatives (no self-interest there), but also that the entire country wear mourning for three days and pass a tax hike to fund educational program throughout the country to teach our young people that Tom Selleck is a cancer on humanity.
The Olsen Twins, Matchbox Twenty, & Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I have a confession to make. When I was little, I watched and enjoyed the TV show Full House. What can I say? When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid. So as such I will always remember the Olsen Twins as being little baby Michelle. Post-Full House, all they are is the excess-growth of the cute little baby/kid. The things they were in after Full House annoyed me to no end because, well they were just really stupid and unlike the days where I watched Full House, I was smart enough to see how stupid they were. Then at some point they ceased being people at all and suddently became properties. They weren't selling a TV show or a movie, but rather themselves. Making a pretty buck doing it, for sure, but would you sell your soul for that kind of money? I can honestly say that I wouldn't. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one. Anyhow, to put it nicely, they're just little spoiled brat plastic doll media whores that annoy the living hell out of me.
Not that I'd make a very good spoiled plastic media doll whore.
Not that I feel particularly passionate about this.
A year and a half or so ago, I made the acquaintence of an attractive young lady named Tiana. She had connections and those connections gave her eighth row tickets to a Matchbox Twenty show. All she needed was a ride. Cool, I thought, I'll drive out to pick her up in return for 8th row M20 tickets. Good deal. Well, turned out that she needed a ride because she was fifteen. Okay, I rationalized, since there is obviously this
glaring age difference there is obviously nothing there (nor was there any indication of something their prior to the revelation), so it was all good.
Except that she was interested. Very interested. That became obvious by the way she was looking at me during the show.
Just relax, Alex I told myself,
a couple more hours and it will all be over. And I managed to convince myself this when simultaneously she put her arm around me and I had the revelation: She's younger than the Olsen Twins.
OH MY GOD SHE'S YOUNGER THAN THE OLSEN TWINS! There was no relaxation after that. My shoulders and back were stiffer than a board. I was practically standing in the walkway to get as far away from the girl that was
younger than the Olsen Twins.
After that night, I determined that I had found my permanent lower threshold. Even when I am 40 and they are 33, I will not date someone 32. Period. They would be, you see,
younger than the Olsen Twins! It's analogous to most guys I know that will not date someone younger than their kid sister. Little alarms go off in their head, even if there is only three years of difference, if their sister is only two years. So I've built some of my disdain for this pair into my eternal philosophy.
So now comes the revelation (to me, anyway), that they are two frickin' geniouses. Not only that, but they actually have interests more intellectual than any of mine, such as in Nanotechnology, which they will be studying at a prestigious school.
My reaction is best summed up in this IM conversation with my friend John H:
RAW: Check this out.
RAW: We now live in the twilight zone
JH: Aaaah. Aaaah!
JH: What is that????
RAW: I... I... I don't think I can hate them anymore
RAW: Shit.
JH: I can. I can hate them twice.
RAW: This has serious psychological repercussions for me
RAW: Did you know that I have permanently set my basement for interest in a female at the age of the Olsen Twins? Like when I'm 30 and they're 23, I will not be able to date anyone 22...
JH: They want to study nanotech. They're twins. They're the fricking Olsen. Snap out of it!
RAW: They scored perfect on the SAT...
JH: And yes I said Olsen, not Olsens. They are a unit. And DO NOT make that the excuse for your interest.
JH: I'm sure that, put together, they managed at least a 1600, yes.
RAW: It's not interest... it's... respect. Good lord, I respect them now
JH: Respect is the first step on the path of infatuation.You know where that path leads, my friend. To twin hells!!!
RAW: I respect them... as people... as intelligent minds... make it stop, man!
JH: I'm sure they have aids.
JH: I mean, aides. Like Jared, on Subway commercials.
RAW: Yes, they must
RAW: They probably have a genious on their payroll for the sole purpose of taking tests for them.
JH: Maybe he'll take classes for them as well. Grrr!
RAW: Yes... stupid rich girls.
JH: Absolutely. Abso-friggin-lutely. Stupid, and rich, and about to be a laughing stock come this fall. God, that should be televised.
JH: "Flunk Out!" The ongoing adventures of the Olsen Twins in college.
RAW: Hell yeah!
JH: Gotta go. Either I get a ticket dismissed today, or I pay 90. Only the judge can tell me.
[Note: Yes, I'm aware that the article in question is a parody]
The Subject of Which I Date Not Speak
R. Alex Whitlock
While I'm not inclined to talk about it myself, two bloggers (Rob Lyman and Gary Farber) have done a good job articulating each side of my mixed mind. Excerps below, both worth reading the entire thing on.
Pro -
Gary Farber:
Those are all entirely valid, important, points, frequently, and necessarily made.
Yet, how do they not apply to "legacy" admissions (of largely "white") students specifically given an edge over more academically qualified students solely because of "what they are," not because of their own "hard work and personal achievement"?
Perhaps there are better means to achieve "diversity" than contemporary ad hoc laws and arrangements. Perhaps some or all such contemporary laws and arrangements promote more damage than good (a difficult case to prove, but an argument with at least some valid supporting points). Perhaps soon will come the time to cease to attempt to help people discriminated against on grounds of "race" by means of continuing "racial" categories (inevitably the goal calls for somesuch time to ultimately occur). Perhaps the time is now, as many now argue.
Anti -
Rob Lyman:
I've said before that I don't really care about statistics showing that such-and-such a racial group has such-and-such and average income, or does so well on the SAT, etc. My interest is, and remains, individual people. My opposition to AA and other racial remedies is based on the fact that I don't believe that present racism is a significant obstacle to success, in school, in homeownership, etc. etc.
Not that racism doesn't exist--it certainly does--but it isn't such a dominant factor that we should simply assume it was so crippling that we must give people preferences based on race. I'm open to having my mind changed on this point, but most of the people who try to change it make outrageous assumptions--for example, that if blacks are rejected for mortgages at higher rates than whites, it just proves that white bankers are anti-black bigots. (Asians have higher loan acceptance rates than whites--are white bankers anti-white and pro-Asian, too?)
Question of the Day: Transmissions vs. Transistors
R. Alex Whitlock
Why is it that knowledge with cars and whatnot is considered masculine and therefore attractive to the opposite sex and knowledge of computers is a neutral quality, at best, and usually considered nerdy?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatKiddies in Love
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex has a
touching story about the abrupt cancellation of his four year old daughter's intended wedding to a silly boy by the most excellent name of Alex. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't have any kids with cute little stories to tell. So I'll just self-indulge a bit and show you a picture of the girl I shoulda married. Something tells me she would have taken good care of me [nodnod]
Congratulations to Austin, Texas
R. Alex Whitlock
I usually nitpick MSN lists to death, but I can't argue with an list that places Austin as one of the
top six cities to live in.
1. Austin, Texas. On the Colorado River, in the heart of the Hill Country, Austin offers an affordable cost of living, low utility costs, clean water, and easy access to outdoor activities in the surrounding wooded, rolling hills. You'll find an extensive park system with many recreational opportunities, such as boating. Austin boasts a low unemployment rate, and average commute time is only 21.4 minutes. Through its willingness to support economic diversification, Austin's job rate has grown fast in recent years and promises to grow even faster in the future, especially in the high-tech fields. Experts predict an incredible job growth rate (33.19% to 2010).
Love music? You'll love "The Live Music Capital of the World." Austin has become a center for live music and hosts the South by Southwest Music Festival. Home to the University of Texas, Austin offers many opportunities to take part in educational and cultural activities: museums, symphonies, and theaters, not to mention many good restaurants. Any negatives here? You have to like hot summers: average high temp in July is 95.9 degrees F.
I've thought about moving to Austin, but the job situation there isn't as benign as the article suggests. There are a lot of recently graduated UT students looking for work that don't want to leave the city. Because of Compaq and Enron, the job situation in Houston is worse. Where's a good ole' boy to move to? Dallas? Yeepers.
Oh, and before I get too high on MSN lists, they list San Fransisco as #2...
-30-
Return of the Genderbots: The Slut/Prude Myth That Just Won't Die
R. Alex Whitlock
Can we please put the feminist whining about slut/prude to rest? Pretty, pretty please?
It's dead. It died some time ago.
I am referring to
this piece by Nigella Lawson, who writes a column for Guardian about a new study that shows, shocker of shockers, women are more inclined to have sex drunk than when they're sober. If Ms. Lawson had left her column at "duhhhhh" I would be nodding and laughing in agreement. But nooooooooooooo. She had to go on and rant that society is having a concerted effort to suppress women by not allowing them to accept their urges, such as sex.
She is upset about the "shock" people felt when they read the survey. She didn't provide any examples of this shock, she just said it was there and the shock is an example of how we seek to suppress womanly sexuality.
Suppress womanly sexuality? Men are trying to do this? Tell us who, please, and I'm certain that there are a number of men who would like to pay these people a visit. Most men do not have a problem with aggressive women, sexually or otherwise, anymore. Not some men or enlightened men or liberal men. Most men. Some men might prefer the silent woman, but, ahem, the "strong silent type" has been known to appeal to certain women, too, and I strongly doubt that's an attempt to supress masculinity.
Of course women, men too, tend to wild behaviour when drunk, but that must be the point. People drink for a number of reasons - I'm not talking about alcoholics here, which is a deeper issue - and one of them surely is to lose their inhibitions. And maybe that is why some consider even these tame findings alarming. Drunk women are looked upon more harshly than are drunk men because femininity - as a construct - relies on, is defined by, inhibition. What is natural - sexual appetite, anger, body hair - is deemed unfeminine. Being drunk is worse: it's a brazen refusal to be quiet, well-behaved and ladylike.
It's not surprising that many women, too, are ashamed of their behaviour when drunk, protesting that their actions are out of character, but people often need to have drink inside them in order to do what they want but wouldn't dare to do sober. This purportedly out of character behaviour might horrify them, but this hardly supports their claim. If they weren't so horrified, then maybe they could be more themselves when sober. While inhibitions aren't necessarily bad - civilisation in some parts rests on them - to go through life feeling that only certain behaviour is acceptable is almost guaranteed to lead to bouts of immoderation once restraints are loosened.
For women this is particularly difficult because we have been conditioned to believe that we are acceptable only when we are pleasing. Agreed, men who behave loutishly are scarcely nice to have around, but they are not rejected wholesale for bad behaviour. Indeed, a certain amount of forcefulness and loudness is thought to be masculine; boys will be boys. But what can girls be? Do we really have to sip from scant saucers of champagne giggling that the bubbles go up our nose?
Well cry me a fraggin' river. Some women have to get drunk before losing their inhibitions. But, as she says, "men too." At the Bleu Edmondson show on Saturday night, a girl in a green sweater caught my eye. I never pick up women in bars (though I've been picked up a couple times), but I'll tell you that just going up and talking to her seemed like a lot better idea at the end of the evening than it did at the beginning. Of course, I don't have gender repression to rely on as an excuse. Or, I guess, in a way I do. The way my mind works, and why I never pick up women in bars, is that I figure they get guys coming up to them looking to get some that I would seem like all the rest, even if my intentions were more pure (and being who I am, they are). So then do I get to whine about gender roles and how they screw up my social life because they inhibit me from just going up to every woman that catches my eye in a bar? No, because it's not gender roles, it's me. I could if I wanted to, but sans a whole lot of beer, I don't want to.
I'd be willing to bet that most women don't really care to just go up to a random man and take him home with her, either. Some want to, of course, and they probably do. If they don't, don't blame me (singularly or as a man). Let's just say a woman doing that is more likely to meet with success than a guy is. Unless of course she's looking for such with me, in which case she's going to be disappointed most likely. Oh wait, is that because she's aggressive and I don't like aggressive women because I'm hardwired not to and age-old gender oppression tells me not to? Or, more likely, is it because I'm just not interested in one night stands with random women? It's hard to tell, isn't it, since you don't know me or know what really goes through the mind of any man (only they individually know).
Which is why the way she frames the entire subject is a losing proposition. You can infer or dismiss anything by applying it sociologically to gender. If a woman picks up a man in a bar, has sex with him, and regrets it the next day, well it's naturally because she's oppressed, right? What happens when a man, as in Charlie Robison's "Life of the Party" song, wakes up and realizes that the woman she took home "gained herself two-hundred" pounds? Oh wait, that's probably because of the gender oppression of men's excessive weight of importance on weight (no pun intended). No matter what we say and do, it can be traced back to our role as the oppressor. No matter what women say and do, it can be traced back to their role as the oppressed (or, in this case, inhibited).
I don't think this is a game I really want to play.
Earnest Opposition to Iraq
R. Alex Whitlock
Despite my derogatory reference to the Idiot Mothers For Global Peace below, I do want to say that I don't consider those who oppose the war idiots. Just those ladies.
I think Bush did a good job on Iraq, though others will disagree. I think it all comes down to "job doing what?" People looking for new evidence obviously came up disappointed. I'm not sure what those looking for a "smoking gun" are looking for precisely. I don't think there will be one in regards to Iraq as whatever links exist are infirm. For those of you looking for a smoking gun in regards to his building up weapons with intent to use them, what precisely are you looking for? The weapons inspectors to find something? Hussein has become very skilled at making sure that doesn't happen. Do you honestly doubt that Hussein intends to build up his arsenal? If so, what for? Even if he's not capable of attacking us directly he can pull all the same tricks that the leader of North Korea presently is. Those who point to Korea as a reason why we shouldn't be so obsessed with Iraq are, it seems to me, missing a rather large point.
Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if our ability to move and operate throughout the world is hindered by nuclear threat because you don't think we should be acting aggressively anyway. Maybe not, but can you imagine how much tougher Afghanistan would have been if Hussein decided to pull a stunt and making threats about an agressive military campaign in his back yard? What about if he invades Kuwaitt again and threatens a nuclear response if we interfere?
For my part, there is no leader presently more isolated, ambitious, and dangerous than Saddam Hussein. North Korea may be isolated and dangerous, but they are not ambitious. China is dangerous, but neither isolated nor ambitious (despite what many right-wingers argue). Saudi Arabia is dangerous, but neither isolated or ambitious. The ambition is important because it helps explain what they will do with the power once they have it. Do they intend to use it defensively as China has? China is largely a protectionist government with no real ambitions outside what it already considers its own (Tibet and Taiwan). North Korea just wants food and a little respect. Hussein, on the other hand, wants power and as much of it as possible and as far reaching as possible. Since he's isolated, there are little diplomatic relationships with the US that he could harm. When his days are numbered, and they will be someday whether we attack now or not, he will have nothing to lose. Do we want to wait until he has the better weaponry before that loose cannon lines up to fire?
Prior to 9/11, I opposed invading Iraq vigorously. I even supported lifting sanctions. If there's one thing that 9/11 taught me, it's that we can't wait around for things to keep getting worse before we act. I was more or less supportive of Clinton's lackadaisical approach to bin Laden, believing that there was more harm in going to war than he could possibly accomplish. Besides, he knows if he does that we will bring the wrath of god down upon him, doesn't he? Apparently he didn't. Who knows what's going through Hussein's head and who wants to gamble Hussein's virtue and capability against American lives?
These are questions I can't answer. Until I can, I support the invasion. There are others with other questions that I believe are answered, but at least they're asking the questions.
What gets my goat about Idiot Mothers For Global Peace is that to them there are no questions and there is no discussion. They oppose it because war kills children and other living things. There is no arguing with that and, quite frankly, that's not an even remotely sustainable position. The likes of ANSWER don't have a problem with war or bloodshed or dead children, just America, which is ten degrees worse. But I recognize that there are a lot of people with more brains than IMFGP and more heart than ANSWER. I don't understand their point of view all that well, but I do accept it as earnest.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatLetters To People Who Do Not Read This Blog: SotU 2003
R. Alex Whitlock
Dear Dude Who Was On Channel 13 Denouncing The Idiot Mothers For Global Peace Women,
Next beer is on me. Next five beers are on me, dude.
Sincerely,
Author Of The Blog You Do Not Read
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatBlogging The State of the Union
R. Alex Whitlock
[Posted on the original RAWbservations. Comments Unavailable.]
I didn't agree with a lot of what Locke had to say, but I still maintain that he is a lot more impressive than any of the candidates I've seen step up to the presidential plate. He's probably waiting for 2008 or beyond and that's probably wise, but I'm not sure what a 2 term governor of a mid-to-large-sized state has to prove.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:30 PM
2 Observations
Locke complains that we shouldn't be drilling in Alaska because we should invest in technology to reduce need. Uhhhh Gary, Bush had a plan for that. AND IT'S NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION!!!!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:26 PM
Observate!
"That wouldn't save Medicare... that would privatize it." -Gov. Locke
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:24 PM
Observate!
So tax cuts + more spending = less debt... that's politician math for you.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:21 PM
5 Observations
"Prosperity is only a Democratic victory away!" -Locke, more or less.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:20 PM
Observate!
I'm watching Gary Locke now... Democrats have a "specific plan?"
Greg, can you tell me what the hell this specific plan is?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:19 PM
2 Observations
Response from Senator Kennedy: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 9:04 PM
Observate!
One of the camera angles they're using makes the auditorium look a lot like a small room like a VFW hall.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:59 PM
Observate!
Bush is talking about Iraq right now... and talking and talking. It's quite potent stuff and it's rather obvious that Bush feels very strongly about it. I haven't actually seen him talk about it before, just read clips of what he's had to say. It's much stronger delivered in person. The plain language (for the most part) is more penetrating than would be Clinton's more gusto speech. I think this style hurts him on the speeches on the domestic programs, it really, really helps here.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:57 PM
Observate!
Mark my words: John Kerry will never be President.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:50 PM
Observate!
Is it me or was Arlan Specter looking at his cell phone during the ovation?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:50 PM
Observate!
John McCain ain't lookin' so good...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:48 PM
2 Observations
"It's more than to follow a process, it's to achieve a result."... I like that line.
"Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others"... BEAUTIFUL!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:46 PM
Observate!
Bush's point about a single location for all terrorist threats to go is one of the reason I'm not as uncomfortable with the DHS as I otherwise would be. If there was one thing that I took from it, it's that we had all this information in all these different places, but no one could do a whole lot with it. It'll be big and bloated, sure, but it's necessary. Those who say "this war will be fought overseas" act as though it's an either/or. That's like saying "World War II will be fought in Japan" and leaving Europe aside. We can follow them across the globe, but as long as they can come here, the war will be brought home to us. God willing, the DHS will help us fight that war. The lack of Civil Service Protection hopefully means it will stay limber enough to be as big as necessary, but not become an aggregate interest in its own via the government workers unions and the like.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:45 PM
Observate!
"And look at it this way, they are no longer a threat to America and their allies." -GWB
Is it me, or did the Democrats take an unusually long time to stand up. Not intending innuendo, I think they were just caught off-guard. I was a bit.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:38 PM
2 Observations
Mark my words: John Kerry will never be President.
If he ever becomes such, God help us. Not because he would screw things up that badly (he would be bad, but not that bad), but because if the United States turns to him as the answer, I'd hate to know what the problem is. It would have the be the stuff of apocalyptic science fiction novels.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:36 PM
Observate!
The partial birth abortion issue is a winner for Republicans and those who have been suggesting that it's a sign of Republican overreach are out of touch with the public discomfort with abortion in general, particularly the more gruesome methods. Politically, abortion is a loser for Republicans... but that's the exception.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:32 PM
9 Observations
I actually appreciate Bush's plans to throw more money into research. It's one of the few things that the government really can compete with the private sector on, in part because it's usually done through contracts. If the University of Houston fails, University of North Texas might get the next contract. And, despite my political leanings, I am in favor of much greater gasoline efficiency, if it's carried out right. I'd feel more comfortable with General Motors at work on it, but if the government can help, then by all means. Republicans say that our dependence on foreign oil means that we should drill in Alaska and so forth, Democrats say it means that we should create more efficient cars. I think both are a good idea.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:27 PM
Observate!
That was beautiful! Bush is complaining about frivolous lawsuits and they show John Edwards! Beautiful!
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:22 PM
4 Observations
"The choice for" stuck in front of a phrase can mean so much
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:21 PM
Observate!
George W. Bush For Hospital Cheif of Staff? Hurm... [tapping foot]
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:19 PM
Observate!
[This line of criticism of Bush was removed prior to actually posting it. Good work, W.]
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:19 PM
Observate!
Hell F'in yeah! He's finally getting to SS reform.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:17 PM
Observate!
"Spending discipline in Washington DC."
That's like "snow in Houston" or "St. John in Hell."
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:17 PM
Observate!
You tell'em, Dubya! End the Dividend tax now! That's not just a lower-taxes thing, I'd rather see regular rates higher without a dividend tax instead of lower rates with one.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:16 PM
Observate!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Tax credits. Dammit Bush you're a Republican. Throwing more credits and nonsense in the tax-code just makes it that much more complicated.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:15 PM
2 Observations
Hey, a Democrat just stood up for cutting taxes! Is that Zell Miller?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:13 PM
1 Observation
I strongly hope what he means when he says that we won't put the problems off a generation that he is serious about reforming Social Security.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:11 PM
Observate!
... or, for that matter, "our union is patheticall weak. How the hell did that happen?!"
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:10 PM
4 Observations
Has a president ever said "We are now at a time when there isn't anything important happening whatsoever." ?
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:08 PM
Observate!
Denny Hastert, please don't retire in 2004.
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:08 PM
Observate!
Tom DeLay and Nanci Pelosi side by side. How appropriate...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:05 PM
Observate!
You hear that potential assassins? John Ashcroft is the designated survivor. They should do this year around so as to make sure that President Bush is safe...
posted by R. Alex Whitlock at 8:03 PM
Observate!
At the request of a friendly blogger, I will be blogging my thoughts throughout President Bush's State of the Union speech. No, no, hold the applause. It's the least I can do. Really. No, really, it's too much!
Anyway... on with the show.
-30-
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
There Goes Kevin Again, Always Having to Outdo Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I may have gotten to drive Mark David Manders to the airport, but Kevin got into a
political discussion with
Randy Rogers. Politics and country music. What's not to love?
Watching The Sun Set Down on You
R. Alex Whitlock
Kris Lofgren is on a roll. If's not easy to get a good jibe at France these days. Not because France isn't deserving, but because so many are doing it that few stand out. Well, Kris's stands out as someone who is not a warhawk and falls left of center, he says:
Why do the French think they have so much power? They have almost no military power, their economy, along with the rest of Europe, is struggling under the weight of a burdening social safety net that no longer provides security but rather retards their prosperity, yet they cling to the remnants of Cold War political power that no longer hold any worthwhile significance. They cling to these institutions, such as the U.N., because without them the U.S. could easily dominate the world agenda. They finagle the methods of change and action because with every day that passes, the façade of French influence is undermined by the will of the powerful.
During a punctuated moment in history in which power shifts become apparent and pretenses of authority are shown for what they are, nations that have seen their day in the sun and now must watch their slow decline become nothing more than obstructionists in the path of safety, security, and general prudence for what is acceptable and what is not.
This is what has happened with the French. They no longer have the influence that they once had, and that America once required of them. They have become politically insignificant. Their U.N. veto is now one of the few traditions of power with which they can still justify their worldly pretension. The French have been flying under the radar for far too long, and they have been doing it on our dime.
Start there and just keep reading down the page. Not a bad post among'em.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Hammer Has Fallen: The Great Division
R. Alex Whitlock
When I first saw The Great Divide play, I hadn't seen a good show in several weeks. In fact, I was wondering if I was losing my taste for live music. Mike McClure and the gang changed all that. It was there first show at the Firehouse, so there weren't all that many people there, just the usual Oklahoma State contingent that makes an appearence at all the Ragweed and Boland shows, so it was a unique opportunity to see a truly awesome band without the crowds. I was only familiar with a handful of their songs, but it didn't matter. I usually don't like a band until my second or third outing with them, but they are one of the few exceptions. In the closing encore, they played the best version of Everclear's Santa Monica I've heard to date.
As readers of RAWbservations know, I've been fearing that they were on the road to breaking up. Today I learned lead guitarist (and vocalist) J.J. Lester has
confirmed my fears.
The time has come for me to let you know what is going on with the band. As of March 31st Mike McClure will no longer be a part of TGD. We (Scotte, Kelley, and myself) apologize for holding this as long as we have. I will elaborate more on the
reasons in the coming months but for now I will leave it at that. Please believe this has been a very difficult time and we are trying to make the right decisions for our fans, families, and future. Thank you for your prayers and support. GOD BLESS, TGD
They are doing another show at the Firehouse in February. I don't know whether to stay sober and appreciate every drop of it or get drunk and mourn their passing.
WWTOTD Redux
R. Alex Whitlock
I suppose in this case it's alright to put forth a WWTOTD scenario since Susanna doesn't actually suggest Republicans do what Democrats would regarding George Clooney's insensitive comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimers. I just thought
her scenario is almost Simpsons-worthy:
When someone like Clooney pops off like that, unless it's hammered into our faces most conservatives just shake their heads, say, "idiotarian extraordinaire" and go on with their lives. But in a similar situation, the professional victims segment of the left would immediately descend on Selleck (to continue using him as the example) en masse, and demand not only that he apologize, not only that he donate the proceeds of his last five films to their organizations for the victims of conservatives (no self-interest there), but also that the entire country wear mourning for three days and pass a tax hike to fund educational program throughout the country to teach our young people that Tom Selleck is a cancer on humanity.
Question of the Day: Erase What, Precisely?
R. Alex Whitlock
Why do makers of mechanical pencils seem to go so far out of their way (a) to make worthless erasers and (b) design their butts to make it impossible to put a cap eraser on them?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
I'm One Degree Away From Singing With the Rolling Stones
R. Alex Whitlock
The Rolling Stones were in town on Saturday night. Two people of note (other than the band, of course) were there. Blogger
Heidi Rogers and Texas country singer
Mark David Manders.
It didn't even occur to me until Bleu Edmondson mentioned at his show how honored he felt that we all chose to see him instead of the Stones. Manders had mentioned at his previous show that one of his sponsors had given MDM's latest CD to Keith Richards, who loved it and invited him to see the show from the 15th row and get backstage passes. I briefly hoped MDM was having a blast before starting to move and groove to Bleu's next song.
I spent my Superbowl at the Firehouse, where lo and behold, hanging out amongst the commoners was Mr. Manders himself (as was Derryl Dodd, another local who used to play with Martina McBride, if I recall). I asked him how the show went and he just lit up. We talked about it as we watched the Bucs lay it on the Raiders. He booed and I cheered, he let me mooch off his crawfish and bought me a couple beers, and he went on and on about what will likely be the best musical night of his life.
Apparently, they'd reserved him a room at the Four Seasons where they all ended up after the show. Learning of Texas's no-beer-after-two law, Mark somehow ended up at his suite ("Bigger than my house! More TVs!" he exclaimed) where they hung out, smoked, and jammed. Mark mentioned previously that he'd kill for the Stones to do a version of his (stellar) song "Just Me" and the ones that were they sang backup for him as he sang it (the chorus is from "Sweet Chariot", so it wasn't hard for them). Around three or four with some damage done to the room, they kicked him out, adding the prestige of getting escorted out of the Four Seasons to the incredible evening. From his point of view, I cannot imagine how it could get any better.
Later in the night, I gave him a ride to Hobby Airport for his trip back home to Dallas. In the tape player in the car was a mix-country tape. The first song that started was Jack Ingram's awesome single (and I'm not an Ingram fan) "Biloxi" in which we both preceeded to sing along with, followed by Charlie Robison's "Caviar and Cocaine"* for which we did the same. The next song was a somewhat obscure West 84 tune with a really soothing melody. A minute into it Mark fell asleep. I raced over to the airport to meet the 9:30 deadline. Took a lot of work getting him back awake, but I managed to. He stumbled out and I handed him his suitcase and got back into my car.
A minute later I noticed that he was so dazed that he was walking the wrong way so I drove up beside him and pointed him the right way and drove off.
I must have been in that parking lot all of ten minutes. It was pretty quickly in and out. Only I could manage to somehow lose my fraggin' parking ticket in ten daggum minutes! But I did. I searched the car up and down, no luck. I told the guy at the ticket-taking counter, who had me fill out a long form. I then had to wait for airport security to get there so they could make sure I was legit (for a missing parking ticket? Apparently). The charge for a missing ticket is $30, but I managed to convince them of... something... I don't know what exactly, and they only charged me $6. They photocopied my drivers license, took a picture of my license plate, and let me go on my way.
So what was the point of this story? Oh yeah, I sang with a guy who sang with the 'Stones! Go me!
Superbowl Commercials
R. Alex Whitlock
I laughed out loud at it. I don't do that often. Congratulations, FedEx!
Update: The upcoming Hulk movie looks to be quite good, but didn't they get the memo that Superbowl ads are supposed to be funny? I didn't laugh at that one at all...
Update II: As much as I'd like to give the play by play, I got some crawfish poundage calling to me right now...
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThat Was Soooooo Not a Fumble (and Madden's an Idiot)
R. Alex Whitlock
So I'm watching the Superbowl. That wasn't a fumble. It was quite obviously not a fumble, but the refs goofed. Now Tampa Bay loses one of their two challenges because the refs are blind. That's a pisser.
Oh, and Madden is an idiot. Michaels is trying to make a legitimate point as to why TB has the right to be pissed, and Madden just can't seem to get it through his thick skull. Yes, there was a wrong and it was righted. But now Tampa Bay has lost the right to challenge a future wrong.
I think that rule needs to be changed. Challenges that are accepted should not count against the wronged team.
So say'eth Alex (whom, in case you can't tell, wasn't entirely familiar with this rule and doesn't watch football all that often, though used to be an avid fan before the Oilers skipped town).
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Things I Do To Avoid Drinking and Driving
R. Alex Whitlock
One of the great things about where I live is that it's about a 20 minute walk from the Firehouse. I just thought I'd mention that the twenty minute walk is a LOT longer in 40 degree weather, winds, and rain.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Why We Watch Joe Millionaire
R. Alex Whitlock
Okay, well I don't actually watch it. I haven't watched a TV show regularly since the first season of West Wing. But if I was watching a show, that would be it.
Why? Ask
Richard Roeper:
'Joe Millionaire" is one of the most morally bankrupt shows in the history of television--and I wouldn't miss a minute of it. This is must-glee TV, an electronic elixir that makes me feel so smugly wonderful about myself, my family, my friends, my enemies, my favorite banjo players and the entire population of these United States that, when I watch it, I want to trampoline up and down on my sofa and sing, "We're all so much BETTER than these people!"
Because we are.
That explains about a lot of what's on television, doesn't it?
Speaking of Sitcoms...
R. Alex Whitlock
Take a look at this and tell me they didn't get the idea from watching the animal-driven machinery on the Flintstones:
It's powered entirely by hamsters.
Gilligan's Land Mass
R. Alex Whitlock
According to the EU, Britain is
not an island. I certainly hope that they go back and change the definitions in all the textbooks to reflect the changes.
Dictionary.com will also have some changes to make (in
italics for your convenience):
island
n 1: a land mass (smaller than a continent) that is surrounded by water, has more than 50 residents, doesn't have a whole lot of bridges and stuff, and doesn't have the capital of a state in the European Union. 2: a zone or area resembling an island, unless the EU deems otherwise.
They're also going to have to go back and correct a whole bunch of episodes of Gilligan's Land Mass Smaller Than a Continent And Surrounded Entirely By Water But Not Legally An Island:
Skipper: Ever since we've been trapped on this land mass surrounded entirely by water that is not legally an island due to the lack of fifty residents, I haven't had an ounce of steak!
[laugh track]
Gilligan: I don't know, Skipper, what I miss most about civilization is my endless collection of hats. Seems the one I have here on the land mass that is neither on a continent nor an island and therefore devoid of any geographic destination has lost all it's padding.
[Skipper hits Gillian on the head]
Gilligan: See?
[laugh track]
Whatever Floats Your Boat
R. Alex Whitlock
Maybe it's me and my historic fear of the terms "forever" and "always." But is this not just a little bit creepy?
Especially that bold "Forever." at
the end.
Letters To People That Probably Don't Read This Blog Anymore
R. Alex Whitlock
Lisa,
I'm sorry.
Best wishes,
Author Of The Blog You Probably Will Not Read Anymore
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatHonky Tonk With a Dress Code?
R. Alex Whitlock
I needed to get out of the house last night, and it just so happened that
Phil Pritchett was playing at Big Texas, a honky tonk down near my old neck of the woods in Webster. At least, I thought it was a honky tonk. I mean, the people there had on cowboy hats. There was a big dance floor. It was called Big Texas. The motif was certainly country/western. However, it must be the first "honky tonk" I've ever been to where they had a dress code that I didn't meet! It's ironic because I spent more time than usual figuring out what to wear, mostly because I didn't want to wear anything I'd want to wear later, and I'm running out of clothes before the next laundry day. I settled on a simple white t-shirt and jeans which, apparently, is against their dress code (and he said, specifically, "we don't ordinarily let people in a plain white shirt and jeans in, but I'll let it slide this time"). He let me in anyway because he could tell I hadn't been there before (I spent five minutes trying to find the door), but nonetheless, what's up with that?
Phil was great, as per usual. He even did the first Cross Canadian Ragweed cover that I've ever heard from a non-Oklahoma band.
I'm Tech Support, It's My Job To be Snotty
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex
clarifies and extends his comments regarding his reluctance to upgrade his computer and OS. Just a few points:
My point is not that I am so wedded to Win98 that I want to keep it even if I get a newer, faster computer. My point is that the computer I've got right now does what I need it to do while running Win98, so why should I want to upgrade my OS before I'm ready to upgrade my hardware? As a consumer I just think it's reasonable that Microsoft provide at least security upgrades for Win98 as long as it remains in wide use, however "wide use" is defined.
Well, to the extent that Lex is satisfied with Windows 98, he can keep using it. It's not going to up and die the day they decide to stop providing updates for it. They're just not going to spend much time and money on driver and security updates. For what Lex uses his computer for (and several of my coworkers around here, many of which I bumped down from Win2k to Win98 because their computers make Lex's seem like the latest and greatest model (for those of you wondering, Windows 2000 can run on a Pentium 166 with sixteen megs of RAM, though Win98 runs a lot better)), Win98 should work well for a while. It's only when he upgrades his computer that he'll upgrade his OS.
Of course, Lex states that he doesn't wish to upgrade OSes when he does upgrade his computer, in which case that's tough luck. Windows 98 is four years and four releases old and I don't believe MS is duty-bound to provide support indefinitely. Which is not to say that I can't relate to Lex's disgruntledness at Microsoft or over this issue. Heaven knows I spend enough time railing against the corporate giant and I don't believe they should have intentionally retired the text-interface shell, but to the extent I'm bound and determined to keep them I can just hold on to Windows 3.1 and 95 and buy hardware that'll go with it.
I back up as much as is possible, feasible and practical, which is what I've always done. But "get out of the Stone Age"? Dude, that's harsh, and it leads me to my original rant point, from which I somehow got temporarily sidetracked. As I pointed out in the comments, my wife and I have a number of financial commitments -- our kids' day care, the mortgage, her MBA program, pets -- that compete with computers for funding. Moreover, we're journalists. We don't work in tech support, which means we damn sure don't get paid like we work in tech support. And even if, as Alex pointed out in his comments, a decent upgrade were available for $300, most of the time I just don't have the $300 to spend.
The stone age comment wasn't meant seriously or as an insult (it was my impersonation of a techie Dr. Phil). For the most basic purposes, a Pentium 200 will get the job done. Half our fleet here are Pentium 166s and if it weren't for our constant use of Microsoft Access (and complex queries therein), they'd work, albeit slowly and sometimes reluctantly. My parents have a 200 machine that is used as a glorified typewriter and if it hadn't died on its own accord, it'd still be usable as such. That being said, I really would stress the tangible difference between a 200 and 400MHz machine. I'd state that it's more substantial than 400 to 800 or even to 1GHz. I feel like a dermotologist pointing out the importance kiwi facial lotion. My file server is a 350 and my parents have a 600 and for what they're used for, they work. To the extent that that Lex's computer is used for a typewriter/ledger/internet box, then a 200 is fine and should be perfectly fine without anymore help from Microsoft.
And we're relatively well off. There's a helluva lot of people out there in worse shape financially than we, and when some of them are at the public library surfing the Web because they can't afford a computer at any price and they read what some of these techies have to say, I imagine they get even more incensed than I do.
Which I'm pretty well aware of. My coworker still runs on a 486 that I helped her get working again. She just doesn't have the money to upgrade. I've offered to help her find the best deals and to build it for her, but the money just isn't there. I also spent a little time with an organization called "Technology 4 All" which takes refurbished computers and puts them in "computer gymnasiums" so that children without access to computers can learn how to use them and become familiar with them. To an extent, though, Lex is right and we are removed. Not so much by money (I'm sure many of us are surprised to learn that tech support pays "well"... I'm well paid for tech support, but that's because it's only one of many hats that I wear) but in large part by culture.
When I was in college, I determined that i needed a file server, but I didn't have any money for one. It was rather important, though, because I kept losing my data because whenever I had to format and restore a machine (it was a lot, I was a student), I kept accidentally deleting my data. Unfortunately, new computers costed around $1000 at the time and I just didn't have anywhere near that kind of money. But my then-roommate Adam (who posts and comments here), a fellow techie, had a spare motherboard and processor. My friend Brian had a spare case. Another friend had a spare CD ROM. I already had an extra network card. Bits and pieces, here and there I was able to build it for around $50. All being computer professionals (and we all are now, save one who is still getting his CS degree) we were just surrounded by the stuff. We'd help someone out and take payment in computer parts (which was where the case came from) or replace a part we thought was bad and find out that it was another part that had cratered, or replace a part that was okay, but not good enough for what it was being used for (the motherboard had a couple issues). You get the idea. Some of us have better computers than others (I'm pretty sure Adam is ahead of me, I'm ahead of Brian), but we all have something and when we help each other out, it invariably involves computers. Christmas a couple years back, we bought a friend a new machine because he couldn't afford it, and, well, what else are we gonna get him? So even the poorest among us are well stocked.
I've never thought about it, but apparently my friends and I are a bunch of damned communists!
There's also another cultural difference that I believe applies to this Alex/Lex brawl specifically. Lex says:
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about lacking the money. I chose this career with my eyes wide open on that point. I am, however, complaining about the tendency of techies -- not necessarily Alex, mind you, but a lot of techies, particularly younger, single, unattached ones who get a new scream machine every year at work because their employer needs them to have one to do what they do -- to presume that everyone ought to get a faster computer every year or two whether they need one or not and that the only reason I haven't laid out $300 for a faster computer is because I don't want to.
My initial response upon reading that was "Wait, you expect to buy a computer and that's it until you want to upgrade to another one?"
Lex seems to view purchasing a computer as though he is purchasing an appliance and that's probably the way most people see it. I (and I suspect most people like me) view purchasing a computer like purchasing a car. That's only the start. Parts break down and need to be replaced. Upgrades are required here and there, most free, some requiring money. Eventually the whole thing will need to be replaced. I don't know about most people, but I earmark money I get every month into my "computer fund" the same way my parents do for their "car fund." I don't go out and blow it every month, but it's there just in case I need it because, at some point, I will.
And yes, Lex, no argument that the cat is more important than the new computer :).
Cachetracker Update
R. Alex Whitlock
It's done, but I haven't told him yet.
Oh, and for those of you wondering, all posts related to this will be taken down on 1/31/3
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
D-Day Is Upon Me
R. Alex Whitlock
I was ordered to have the Cachetracker ready before I leave today. I will continue to post until the end of the month, though probably less.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatWhat's The Precise Hispanic Bean Count at the University of Houston?
R. Alex Whitlock
That question is apparently important:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) ? President Bush will propose spending $371 million, a 5 percent increase, for grants to historically black colleges and those where at least 25 percent of the students are Hispanic, the White House said today.
The increase in the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 was announced on the eve of Martin Luther King's Birthday, and a White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel, said it was in keeping with Dr. King's calls for equal opportunity.
We'll just have to make sure not to ask Jesse Jackson. For those who recall the UH-TSU funding flap, UH is a "white" school. News to the minorities who made up a majority of my classmates, I'm sure.
WWTOTD: They Started It!
R. Alex Whitlock
WWTOTD would be short for What Would The Other Team Do. I can't help but get the feeling that's the gist of the debate going on in this Kuff
post and its comments. It can be more or lessed summed up in Charles's addendum:
UPDATE Max has a pretty clear conscience, too. Patrick, in my comments, thinks I'm bending too far backwards to be fair, and that I'd get no such consideration in return. He's very likely right.
My take is this: Allying with ANSWER is either right or wrong, regardless of what Republicans and conservatives say. Republicans can try to draw links between ANSWER and Trent Lott and Democrats can point out the distinctions all day long, but at the end of the day it's right or wrong independent of Trent Lott. ANSWER is pretty obviously a crummy organization and I'd say that few bloggers (that I would read with any regularity) would dispute that. So does that make marching with them against a war you oppose wrong? Personally, I wouldn't do it. Then again, I am the type to write 10,000 words in front of a keyboard about it rather than march, so it's easy for me to say. As noted in the post below, I see a key distinction between ANSWER taking part in the march and organizing it.
To look at it another way, politics is merely a series of coalitions. Readers of RAWbservations know that I have recently posted on the major ideologies of the Republican Party and plan to on the Democratic ideologies soon, as well. Those are the broad strokes. Look closely enough at the painting, and there are plenty of things not to like about both parties. Members of the KKK are more likely to vote GOP than Democratic. Communists are more likely to vote Democrat. So does that mean that the GOP has to spend all its time rooting out those sympathetic KKK and Democrats rooting out those sympathetic to Communists? That's merely a parlor trick played by members of one side to put the other on the permanent defensive. I can talk all day about how racism is wrong and the KKK are a bunch of idiots, but at the end of the day they agree with me on enough policies that we stake our tent in the same political party. Ditto for Democrats and Communists. It's depressing, but there is little we can do about it in a free country.
To pull it away from the strawmen of the KKK and Communists, let's talk about racists and race-baiters. Confederate-Americans make up part of the GOP coalition. These people are, if not outright racists, guilty of serious racial and historical ignorance. Personally, I'd rather they go away. I'd rather they not be a member of my party. However, if we were to lose all of them and the Democrats did not stop catering to the likes of Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters, we'd be at an inherent disadvantage. Similarly, if the Democrats were to clean there house and the Republicans didn't, they'd be the ones to start losing. It would be nice if all the reasonable people of the country could get together and boot out the malcontents and undesirables, but the rules of Game Theory suggest that when two people are supposed to (a) do something against their interest and (b) rely on someone else to do something against their interest for mutual benefit, it's unlikely to happen. Particularly when so much is at stake.
But with that in mind, there has to be limits. We have to have parameters if we're going to have a civil discourse. When someone on our own side does something clearly wrong and makes no apologies, action must be taken. When Trent Lott pondered how good things would be if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, that was so clearly wrong that many Republicans jumped on board quite quickly in denouncing him. These are times that you speak out because you know that they're wrong and not because of some face-saving distancing. I hope those of you who read my comments at the time believe that they were, if nothing else, heartfelt. What we cannot do is always think of things in terms of WWTOTD, What Would The Other Team Do. Neither side ever believes that the other side plays fair so it becomes carte blanche to do whatever you choose.
During the Lott affair, some
Republicans suggested that those of us who spoke out were merely being tools for the Democratic Party, Sid Blumenthal and James Carville. Others (Novac and Coulter) suggested that we should circle our wagons because that's WTOTWD. To a degree, many Democrats were demonstrating that this was just a partisan ploy. One thing that struck me about the incident was that the many of the Democrats who raised a ruckus quickly would denounce what Lott was said and then quickly tuck it in to terms of Republican hypocrisy. Joe Klein said something to the effect of "Republicans would be raising hell if a Democrat had said this about Henry Wallace and they're silent now, damn hypocrites." Before most of us were even given a chance to respond, we were deemed hypocrites. This is similar to the tactic used by Tacitus, which was posed less as a "Do you agree with ANSWER and if so how do you justify marching with them?" and more a "Denounce them now or you prove yourself to be the authoritarian-loving American-haters you claim not to be."
This is obviously not the stuff any real dialogue is made of. Nor was it apparently meant to be. But the Republicans can say "You did it with Trent Lott" and it's true, many of them did do it with Trent Lott, and when they finished with him they found an obscure congressman from South Carolina and a senator from Montana. They decided that the speckles here and there constituted an entire painting and then put the ball in our court to prove that our party wasn't racist. So then Republicans can then do what Tacitus did and claim that they are only returning the favor, because Democrats did that before. Next time Democrats can say Republicans (or conservatives or anti-Democrats or whatever Tacitus is) did it, so they can do. Slowly, we start taking on the most embittered, partisan faces of our parties.
Charles bent over backwards to be fair and told that he shouldn't cause the other side wouldn't show the same courtesy. That's true insofar as many on the right would not show the same courtesy. If the situation were reversed, many on the left wouldn't, either. But many on the right have (see my post below), and of course many (Tacitus) haven't. The question is, which type of person would you rather be?
HPD's Esteemed Former (and Future) Cheif of Police
R. Alex Whitlock
"I categorically deny what you cannot prove and do not recall what you can" -Clarence O. Bradford,
more or less.
I Always Wondered If There Was a Character Cap on Domain Registrations
R. Alex Whitlock
Authoritarian Opportunists Who Cozy Up To Genocidal Dictators - for Peace (dot org) apparently prove that there isn't. By now, just about everyone knows about ANSWER's dirty connections, but I give these guys points for demonstrating it with style.
Frustrated Anti-war-in-Iraqer
Sean Church ponders:
Nice work there. It associates the management of the bulk of public anti-war protests with the Workers World Party. Communists? Communist sympathizers? What!?!
To date, I've been convinced that the people putting on the anti-war demonstrations are comprised of this crusty layer of either:
a) a bunch of looser tot commie pinko European-wannabe whiner tots.
b) Ashcroft's tools, or the forces of the OSI, or some unamed but well directed set of groups taking directions from 1600 PEnsylvania Ave.
I'm not inclined to judge the anti-war effort by its worst elements. God knows every view has its share. There is a problem insofar as the effort is spearheaded by these types. It's analogous to the difference between the GOP's problem with having a racist legislator from South Carolina and a racist legislator who is Senate Majority Leader. There really should have been more of a debate than there was, but the reason there hasn't been isn't because of George W. Bush's secret police as it has been by the ineptitude of the opposition. They are either spineless itchy-backs like Daschle and Hillary Clinton or creeps like ANSWER.
[AOWCUTGDFP link via
Frankenstein]
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatAOL To Users: Upgrade or Be Bugged To Death
R. Alex Whitlock
I am a big fan of WinAmp, save for one thing: The constant hit-ups to upgrade. I intentionally install version 2.64 because that is by far the best version available. It was before they had those damn ID3 File Tags that screw up every fourth song on my playlist. It was before they added a series of pointless and stupid features that bog the system down. It was before they ran out of things to do and paid programmers to just "come up with something."
While the old versions always worked, I always got that darn "upgrade to 2.8!" message every time I opened it. I'd ask my friends if I could get rid of it, but they all told me to upgrade. It'd be worth it, they said. It is better, they said. Poppycock. MP3s loaded slower, the damn ID3 tags screwed things up, I'd always have to go to the trouble of uninstalling the newer version and reinstalling the old. Then I would install Netscape and have to start all over (Netscape automatically installs the latest WinAmp, the bastards).
I experienced the same thing with ICQ a couple years back. Every version of the internet chat program was bigger (ICQ 2001! With Calendar!) and better (ICQ 2002! With satellite image integration!!) than the last. They got so good that my brother and I just stopped using the program because it took up way too many resources (My old 512MB RAM machine couldn't handle WinAmp and ICQ at the same time!). Only with the advent of Trillian do I actually talk to my ICQ friends these days.
Then something strange happened. I was needing WinAmp and didn't have access to the file server. I groaned and downloaded WinAmp 3.0 from their webpage... and it's good! It's not quite as flexible as 2.8 or 2.64, but it's got a much better interface.
I hope to the heavens they never come out with WinAmp 3.1...
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Types of Democrats Out There, Warliberal's Take
R. Alex Whitlock
I meant to post this a while back, but
Mac Thomason was kind enough to respond in email to the question I posed on how the Democratic Party divides up. I'm about to post mine, but before I do, read Mac's uninterrupted analysis:
UNIONISTS are an obvious group, if declining. The labor unions are the fiscal core of the Democratic Party still. They tend to be socially/culturally more conservative than the rest of the party base, more likely to favor government intervention in the economy while opposing foreign trade -- though I think that's less of a problem than it once was. However, they have little problem with military intervention. Unlike Labourites in some other countries nationalism trumps class among American union members.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS are a core Democratic group but not an ideological one. It's my opinion that this is motivated less by agreement with the Democratic agenda (outside preservation of some form of affirmative action) than by the (to my mind justified) mistrust of the Republican Party on racial issues. Still trend economically to the left for pocketbook reasons. LATINOS are a growing element in the party for similar reasons.
ECODEMOCRATS are strong on the West Coast but not a major factor elsewhere. Concerned heavily with environmental issues. More likely than the above groups to oppose foreign military adventures or "unilateralism". Socially liberal or libertarian in many areas but concerned about "the children"; fervently pro-gun control. Pro-choice and generally feminist. Related to
NANNYCRATS who are less concerned with environmental issues but still think they're important. The Lieberman wing of the party, socially fairly conservative and moralist. Pro-gun control -- a core issue. Wilsonian foreign policy that favors American intervention for humanitarian reasons.
BOLL WEEVILS are a dying breed as the South turns Republican and what Democrats remain tend to be African-American or Latino. The last survivors of the New Deal coalition. Economically pro-business but also pro-government intervention. Favor low income taxes but would prefer relief focus on poor/lower middle class. Culturally conservative but with a Libertarian streak of wanting the government to stay out of personal matters. Hawkish, against gun control, fervently local. Richard Shelby, my Senator, went from Democrat to Republican in '94 while not changing any major views. Could be thought of as "Legacy Democrats"; they do differ from the GOP in some areas but the similiarities are greater.
FEMOCRATS are concerned with women's issues, primarily but not limited to abortion; also include economic issues (equality of pay, child support, etc.) and political representation for women. Tend to be as fervently gun control as the Nannycrats, and concerned with portrayal of women in the media. Environmentalist, though that's a secondary issue. Generally liberal on economic issues with no explicit feminist component, but it's not a core concern. Tend to be non-interventionist on foreign policy.
I think there's a broad concensus in the party on certain issues... Tax policy is the biggie; no matter what they think of government spending most Democrats would prefer a more graduated income tax with lower rates on people in the lower percentiles. (Some, not all, would want a much heavier tax on the wealthy; most would agree that if taxes must be raised the wealthy should go first. If you get the distinction.) Social Security/Medicare preservation is a big Democratic issue, but what form that would take varies.
Now, most take on different parts. Bill Clinton, for instance, had elements of all of these, though he was exceptional. Al Gore is an Ecodemocrat basically but also a Nannycrat. Both were fervent free traders; all members of the coalition are more in favor of free trade than they were even a decade ago.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong, and I'm sure I've left some out.
Coming up: Ted Barlow's (when he writes it), links to those who have responded, and my own take on it.
Micro$oft To Users: Upgrade or Die!
R. Alex Whitlock
Lex Alexander
laments Microsoft's decision to cease support for Windows 98. I think both he and ABC News, the host of the article he sites, are overstating matters. Most people who are still using Windows 98 are quite obviously not too concerned about being up-to-date and Microsoft's support for Windows 98 has never been too great. In fact, the only way I see this being a problem for 98 users is when it comes time to upgrade their computers. New hardware will undoubtedly not be registered with 98 and drivers will not be available. For the most part, though, those that are looking for hardware upgrades are going to need to look for a new computer, anyway. As SDRAM gets phased out, they're going to need motherboards that can hold DDR RAM. PCI video cards are also getting harder to find so upgrading video (on older computers or any stock machine) isn't fun, either. Many of their faster processors are going to need better cases to supply sufficient power and cooling. Half of the office I administer runs Windows 98 and most of them will require complete replacement when the time comes. If individual part breaks, parts compatible with Windows 98 will still be available for some time, I suspect, though increasingly hard to find (even know it isn't easy with some parts).
Dr. R. Alex's diagnosis is to get out of the stone-age (200MHz Lex? [shakes head]) and upgrade. Quite honestly, I wouldn't feel safe working on a machine that old. At least be sure to back up all your information if you are.
Windows 2000 is a substantive improvement over 98. It's not one I could have appreciated until I had one running along-side the other. Indeed, the difference was so stark that I threw out a perfectly good sound card because Win2k drivers were not available for it and I wanted both running 2000. Win2k is much more stable, less buggy, and an all around better OS. I upgraded somewhat reluctantly because of all the warnings (55,000 bugs!! 55,000 bugs!!), but it turns out that most of the Chicken Littles were people who hated MS anyway. Same with XP, actually, which is running on 3 of my four systems presently.
Erring In Favor of Life: Why I Oppose the Death Penalty
R. Alex Whitlock
I've had this post in the Drafts folder for a while. I thought I'd take the time to actually post it.
This is one of the issues where I've moved to the left over the past few years as my views on abortion have moved to the right. My reasoning on the two is very similar today as it was when I held the opposing positions half a decade ago. To make it short, my old philosophy was that life was for the priviledged. Life is for those fetuses that are wanted and those grownups that don't go around killing people. I don't know if I would have phrased it as such, but that's more or less the guts of it.
When the two subjects are combined, the argument focuses on the hypocrisy of each side: "How can the (left / right) say that it's perfectly okay to kill (an innocent fetus / a living human) but not to kill a (murderer / piece of tissue)."
Both sides might have a point, but it's trying to compare apples to oranges. To the liberal, it's not about the fetus insomuch is it's about the rights of the mother. Pro-lifers can argue till their faces are blue, but it'll still be about the mother. With pro-capital punishment folks, it's less about actual people and more about the concept of justice. Those that oppose capital punishment can similarly blue themselves pointing out the flaws int he system and how killing them makes us no better than they, but they'll get nowhere.
I take the tact that they're both about people, potential people, or deeply flawed people. To me, they're all people and ought to be allowed to remain as such.
As a former death penalty advocate, I am aware of the arguments in favor. The utilitarian argument suggests that it's a deterrant. The idealistic argument is rooted in justice being served.
As for deterrance, I am personally unconvinced. It's nearly impossible to gauge the impact of crimes not committed, but I can't imagine a person screwed up enough to go out and deliberately kill someone (the only way you can get capital punishment in most states) would reconsider because they might get executed instead of spending their life in prison. Might is an operative word. Even if you're convicted of capital murder, you're still not guaranteed the death sentance. Particularly if you're wealthy and have a good lawyer. That means that most people who get the death penalty are the ones that fall through the cracks and the ones who don't care about the penalty because either they think they're going to get away with it or they're too depraved to care. If they're not afraid of spending 30 years in a prison with a bunch of killers, I doubt that death in ten or fifteen years will have too much effect.
Measures could be made in order to make the system act as a deterrant, but it would involve mandatory sentences and speeding up the system. The first would run the risk of people getting the gurney that aren't deserving of it or juries giving someone who ought to be in prison the rest of their lives a 2nd Degree conviction because they don't believe he should be killed. The second increases the likelihood of a false conviction, which of course is a reason in and of itself a reason to oppose capital punishment. The more that happens, the more reason to oppose.
So, discounting the deterrance factor, there remains the argument that justice is served by killing the killers. To that, I can only say... they're probably right. Most of the people on death row deserve to be there. Most of them have taken a life and therefore have forfeited the right to live themselves. I've difficulty saying that there's no justice to be found there because there is. But I can't help but ask: to what end?
How is society served by justice and what limitations should we put on it? If justice was all that we were interested in, we would torture those who tortured their victims and we'd sodomize those who raped and molested. As a society, though, we've moved beyond that. We have said "Even though there would be justice and symmetry here, we will not do these things because they are an indignity to the rights of all people."
Instead, even when we kill people, we do it in as humane a way as possible. They may have taken a pick-ax to the forhead of their victims, but we simply place a needle in their arm. In our own way, we've tried to humanitize the taking of a life. Why? Again, because even though there may be justice and symmetry in a grotesque, painful death, we've decided that there ought to be something better. I propose that we take that mentality and apply it to the death penalty at-large. Just as we don't need to torture or mutilate someone to kill them, we don't need to kill them to incapacitate them. There is a better way.
There is one argument that death penalty advocates argue that is unquestionably true: If we don't execute them, they'll end up back out on the streets.
As a civil society, it is our first responsibility to maintain a semblance of order. Having a revolving door prison would unquestionably undermine that. This is where liberals seriously undermine their opposition to the death penalty. Before the death penalty can be abolished, there must be life without possibility of parole as an option in every state. There must be a way where juries can sentence someone to life and remain confident that they will never be able to get out. Furthermore, juries must be assured that the prisons these criminals go into will not be a country club. That it will be, as intended, punishment. That means in addition no early release, no cable TV. Nothing that has given our prisons a reputation for being anything other than something to fear. As liberals often argue for softer prisons in addition to the abolition of the death penalty, they try to have it both ways.
I may agree with Amnesty Internation on the death penalty, but I am certain they'd be horrified with the rest of it.
So why should we go through all this extra effort? For the sake of murderers? In part, perhaps, but also for the sake of ourselves. As a Christian, I firmly believe in the power of redemption. I believe that anyone, regardless of where they've been and what they've done, has the ability to be forgiven. With the death penalty, they either find that redemption or don't prior to their execution. If they do, then what's really the point in killing a reborn person? If they don't, then maybe they still might. Not many, perhaps, but more than would if executed. Ironically, many liberals argue that views based in a religious pretext would be therefore invalid, but that you go.
If during prison they become trouble-makers or hurt or injure someone else, they can be thrown into The Pit or The Gulag or, more conventionally, a Supermax prison. The place where they don't get human contact enough to do damage. Only four walls, a cot, a Bible (and/or other religious material), and a lot of time to reflect on matters. A whole lot of time. Maybe they'll find their way, maybe they won't, but I'd feel better in a country that is receptive to the redemption of the human spirit than one that puts people to sleep.
So, in ending the death penalty, we'd have nothing to lose and souls to save. Sounds like a good bargain.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThe Condition My Condition Is In
R. Alex Whitlock
"I'm cold and hungry. I don't like being cold and hungry." -Clark Kent lamenting his loss of power in the Superman comic books.
For those of you who have noticed, yes, I tend to get very grumpy when I am sick. That mostly comes from very, very rarely ever actually being ill. In all my years of working (I've had a job off-and-on since I was sixteen, 3 years of full-time work) I have missed 1/2 of 1 day due to illness. So while I may not be a baby when I get sick, I am quite the carmudgeon fellow. It's just not something I'm used to and there are aspects of being sick I don't understand like a more normal person would.
For instance, I ate some spoiled meat. My bad. My stomach hurts, as well it should. What I don't understand is why my entire body today feels like it got hit by a Mack Truck when it was just my stomach that got the bad food.
Harrumph.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatMaybe it's Cause I Haven't Eaten for a Couple Days...
R. Alex Whitlock
but this non-work-friendly
thinger makes me hungry.
[via
Fat Guy via
Ravenwolf]
RAWbservations Gets a Reprieve
R. Alex Whitlock
I'm taking off early today, and my boss gave me a new assignment. I can't have the Cachetracker done until next week.
Darn.
Actually, RAWbservations will be up until the end of the month. Thank
Tony Pierce for that, who named me one of his links of the month. Can't end in the middle of the month, can I?
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Dept.
R. Alex Whitlock
Yesterday I came up to work half-dead because I promised my coworker I'd upgrade her computer over the weekend. It's got twice the speed, 4x the RAM, and is an all-around much better computer.
Her show of appreciation?
"I hate the keyboard. It doesn't have the nubs."
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
This Post Is Not For the Weak Stomached
R. Alex Whitlock
Top 10 ways to know you had some bad meat:
10. You can't tell which is more comfortable, sitting up or laying down.
9. Your friend says that it's probably a case of "mild" food poisoning and you want to rip out his intestinal tract and make baloon animals.
8. It feels like a rib fell off your right side and another off your left and they've decided to have a free-for-all wrestling match in the pit of your stomach.
7. You're in too much pain to laugh at your quirkly analogies.
6. Even though you have a piss-poor sense of smell, you can tell that your belches smell like dead animal carcas.
5. You have to burp every 15 seconds.
4. It pervades the room to the point that you need to go out and buy air freshener.
3. It's more pleasent than other things you are periodically needing to do.
2. You are worried about being in your car for more than 30 minutes without having to make an emergency stop.
1. You are instantly over your decade-old addiction to convenient store hotdogs.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
TMR Profile: Django Walker
R. Alex Whitlock
Friday night Kevin, Callie, and I went to see
Django Walker play. Django is primarily known for two things. First, he is the son of Texas music legend Jerry Jeff Walker. Second, he is the writer of Pat Green's biggest going-national tune, "Texas On My Mind."
Regarding his father, one of the interesting (and admirable) things about Django is that he doesn't play up his legendary father at all. In fact, I don't think believe he mentioned his father in the entire show, save for the lyrics to Waylan Jenning's immortal "Luckenbach, Texas":
Let's go to Luckenbach, Texas with Willie and Waylon and the boys
This successful life we're livin's got us feudin' like the Hatfields and McCoys
'tween Hank Williams' pain songs and Jerry Jeff's train songs
And blue eyes cryin' in the rain
Out in Luckenbach, Texas there ain't nobody feelin' no pain
Given his swift rise through the ranks of Texas country, however, it's impossible to deny that his father had something to do with it. On one hand, as a relative novice he's one of the most energetic performers I've seen. I didn't see that so much last night because he was nursing a cold, but the energy was still there between sneezes. The other advantage is that there isn't a bit of pretention with the lad. Much like equally young performer
Bleu Edmondson, he appreciates every audience member out there. The reverb on the PA system was set too high and he ended up making a joke about it (I was afraid pretention had crept in and he wanted it there). I don't get the impression of Jerry Jeff Junior at any of his shows. Django is younger and less Luckenbach and more Austin. He mentioned his upcoming CD and left me with the distinct impression that it'll be more rock and less old-time country. Bleu made a similar transition between his two albums and it turned out excellent.
On the downside, he comes up a bit short on some of the fundamentals, such as remembering the lyrics to his songs. I've yet to be a show where he didn't flub up somewhere, and last night was no different. He always picks it up really quickly, though, and has a comfortable "oops" smile on his face.
But then again, that's all part of the fun.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Letters To People Who Do Not Read This Blog: The Looooser Theif
R. Alex Whitlock
Dear Fucktard Thief Who Steals Other Peoples' Shit,
Ha-fucking-ha!
I mean, I apologize for the nasty tone of my last letter. I didn't realize your predicament until I was setting up my new laptop. I was running through the motions creating my network identity and password when it suddenly hit me: My computer was password protected. Not crappy Windows 98 password protected, I mean protected as in you can't get in to it unless you know the password. Good luck figuring it out.
Now, there are ways to get in to it without knowing the password, of course. You could format the HD and reinstall Windows. Of course, you'd need to know where the drivers are so that everything installs correctly. Of course, you need to know what the hardware is. Want to venture taking the computer apart to find out? Sure you can put it back together? Notebooks are finicky, you know. You could also get in by going into My Computer-Hardware-Dev... oh wait, you can't log in to do that. So tragic.
Now, if you're a computer techie it won't be all that difficult. I mean, I could do it. Then again, I am a technology professional and not a scum-sucking theif.
Of course, I figure you planned to sell it to a pawn shop. How did you explain to them that you couldn't log in? Or are they in on your little secret? Seems that they have some difficulty selling an obviously hot laptop. All the red flags are up. After all, the serial number of the laptop could be reported to the police. Oh wait, it is. Seems an awful lot of risk all around. I'll bet that drastically cut the price that you sold it for.
You probably sold my $1,300 laptop for just a couple hundred, maximum. Kinda a let-down, isn't it?
It must be a let-down for you, cause it's surely brightened my day.
Best,
That Stoned Looking Guy In The Picture on The Log-In Screen You Can't Get Past
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatEndorsements: Yes on IBM Laptops
R. Alex Whitlock
I got it in the mail earlier this week, but haven't had a whole lot of time to play on it. I installed OpenOffice, got Trillian running, the Internet all set up, and I'm about good to go.
When I still had my last laptop, I told myself that next time I get one (years into the future, I thought), I'd get another IBM. My first one was a Sony Vaio, which are supposed to be good. Mine, though, was a lemon that started leaking the minute I got it. In under a year, the monitor was washed out, the battery wasn't working very well, the trackpad was all messed up, and the video kept flickering in and out.
It's not just that the IBM worked that I decided to become a loyal customer, though. It was their customer service. Every three months I would get a call from a rep asking me if everything was going alright and if there was anything they could do for me. At one point I reported a problem with my mouse and a couple days later he had a tech support person call me with the solution to my problem in-hand. I didn't know customer service like that existed anymore.
It was a little more expensive than getting a computer elsewhere, but I got a doozy. It's a 1.8 GHz with 256MB RAM (I know, that's not much, but it's enough), WinXP Pro, and it doesn't have one of those nasty trackpads. Unfortunately, IBM's don't come with floppy drives for the most part, but in my case that's good cause then I might have to actually install the floppy drives on my desktop so they could talk to each other.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatNote to Self (45-Minutes Later)
R. Alex Whitlock
When backing up emails to the office file server, CLEAR THE DAGNAB DELETED ITEMS AND SPAM FOLDERS!
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatQuestion of the Day: Still Outta That Pop-Culture Loop
R. Alex Whitlock
When exactly did punk rock (or punkrock) become an adjective no longer denoting a music genre?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatForsaking Nirvana
R. Alex Whitlock
My record is a week and a half.
For a week and a half last October wherebouts, my computers worked. All four.
A little background. For the past 7 or so years, I've had four computers: Two desktops, a laptop, and a file server. I've gone through numerous machines (current set bold, laptops italicized: 166MHz, 233MHz, 300MHz, 350MHz, 400MHz, 450MHz, 850MHz, 950 MHz, 1.2GHz, 1.4GHz, 1.8GHz). I've never thrown away a computer or upgraded from a processor that worked. That means, in the past 7 years or so, I've had a computer die almost at a rate of one a year. That doesn't bother me so much, though. What bothers me so much is that when they're alive, they almost never work!
I mean, they're generally usable. But there is always some sort of problem. I have long since stopped dreaming of being able to use it for complex tasks such as video capture or multimonitor. I just want a computer working at all times, and I generally get that. I'd really like both of the desktops working at once. What I'd really, really like is having everyone work without the feeling that I'm walking on thin ice and they could go any time.
Last night, I started working to try to get Maverick back up and running (For networking purposes, my computers have names: Maverick and Doral are the desktops, Heineken is the file server, and Flask is the laptop). It's been down since October, The Golden Week And a Half. I've finally determined that the problem was, in fact, the HD (which means the 850MHz may actually work). So I bought a new one, stuck it in Heineken, took one of the smaller ones off the file server and popped it into Maverick. Nothing. Same problems as the dead HD, sans the beeping at me.
So maybe it isn't the HD? No, it must be the HD because earlier in the week I took Doral's boot drive and it worked fine in Mav. I try it again, nothing (and for those of you wonder, yes I did check to make sure the ribbon wasn't backwards and whatnot). So I took the HD out of Doral and put it back into Mav and it works perfectly.
I was left with two choices:
(1) I could spend hours upon hours investigating as to the precise reasoning so that I can get the Former Heineken HD in there. I can figure out why the Doral HD is working without any jumper in the MA/SL/CS slot and the FormHein HD won't work no matter where the jumpers are (or aren't). I could achieve Nirvana and suddenly learn why technology hates me so, prove me its superior, and emerge victorious.
or
(2) I could say Screw It! and leave the Doral HD in Maverick, take the FormHein HD and make its new home in Doral and forsake any hope of a normal non-jerry-rigged computer set-up.
Anyone wanna guess what I did?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Why I Don't Usually Post on Affirmative Action
R. Alex Whitlock
All of this makes it sound like you apply to an institution, they turn you down because you are not a one-legged black lesbian, and so you go back home and pump gas for the rest of your life.
The truth is, you get into a different institution, which wasn't your first choice. My God, the inhumanity of it.
Anyway, the real solution is to make the pie higher, as our Language-Mangler-in-Chief says.
Posted by Craig Z at January 16, 2003 04:52 PM
I'd say the same for a black person in Texas who didn't get into UT law school and would have with Affirmative Action.
The point is that no matter what color you are, if you work hard enough and make high enough grades (and have the money), you can get into any college you like. If you didn't get into the college you wanted to because of Affirmative Action or the lack thereof, you could have tried harder to get in.
The rest is just a racial tug-of-war I have no interest in.
[Craig's post a
comment on Matthew Yglesias's blog]
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThis May Be The Best Movie Review Introduction I Have Ever Read
R. Alex Whitlock
f I tell you "Two Weeks Notice" is a romantic comedy and it stars Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant, what do you already know, and what do you need to know?
You already know: That when they meet the first time, they don't like each other. That circumstances bring them together. That they get along fine, but are sometimes scared by that and back off a little. That they are falling in love without knowing it. That just when they're about to know it, circumstances force them apart. That they seem doomed to live separately, their love never realized. That circumstances bring them back together again. That they finally cave in and admit they're in love.
You need to know: What her job is. What his job is. What they disagree about. What their personality flaws are. And whether, just when their eyes are about to meet, it is a woman who seems to lure him away, or a man who seems to lure her away? You also need to know certain plug-in details of the movie, such as which ethnic groups and ethnic foods it will assign, and what fantasy dreams it will realize.
I have not, by making these observations, spoiled the plot of the movie. I have spoiled the plot of every romantic comedy.
What's interesting is that Ebert writes such about a movie he gives
three stars.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatAnother MSN List That's Actually Useful!
R. Alex Whitlock
One of their business writers discusses the ins and outs of
instant messaging at work. Despite the prohibition on surfing, messaging is allowed here. Good thing, too. Nothing more productive than networking with fellow techies to figure out what a system problem might be.
The Lofty Endorses George W. Bush!
R. Alex Whitlock
Of course, only if
Carol Moseley-Braun wins the Democratic nomination for president.
Of all of the current Democratic contenders, or soon-to-be announced contenders for President in 2004, I could see myself voting for virtually any of them over Bush (and in light of my previous post Sen. Bob Graham is looking better and better). But I'll say it here and now, if former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of my home state, Illinois, runs and, god forbid, wins the nomination, Bush gets my vote. There, I've said it. I will vote for Bush if the Democrats mess things up that badly.
I might have to change my official endorsement in the Democratic Primary from Kerry to Braun. The problem, though, is that if Braun wins the Democratic nomination, it could have record-low turnout. If Hell is freezing over, imagine how cold the continental United States will be!
brrrrrr....
[link swiped from
Susanna]
Maybe The Dog Really Did Eat His Homework
R. Alex Whitlock
I'm not a big fan of The Who. I've never really heard that much of their music, or what I have heard of theirs I didn't know was theirs. That being said, I've always liked Pete Townshend. Whenever I've heard anything about him or read anything written by him, I've really gotten the sense that he was a pretty good guy. I get the same feeling about Fred Durst, the closet-nice guy behind Limp Bizkit, another band whose music I'm not that familiar with.
So when I heard that he was picked up for child porn possession and that his only defense was the lame excuse of "doing research," I was pretty disappointed.
Turns out, though, that might have been
exactly what he was doing.
It's Problem With Education Today...
R. Alex Whitlock
I suspect Mr. Kaplowitz's
problems are just a matter of mixed up priorities. He just goes on and on about assault, extortion, and the failure of children to learn in a school. Really, though, there are more important things to worry about. What's really important here is that there's no insidious
prayer going on and that this is a
public school, unobstructed by the financial interests of would-be charter school directors and religious propaganda of would-be parochial voucher schools.
Besides, just throw more money at it and wham-zam-boom, it all gets fixed, right?
[like via
Owen]
Freeing The Free Market (or It's a Start)
R. Alex Whitlock
U.S. officials will probably not radically lift ownership limits on television stations, newspapers and other media when they take up the issue this year, the top telecommunications regulator told Congress on Tuesday.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said the agency would not allow one company to dominate local airwaves or other media outlets when it revisits the long-standing rules under court order.
As most readers of RAWbservations know, I'm generally anti-regulation and with the exception of the most egregious offenses, I'm inclined to let the market sort it all out.
When it comes to radio and television, though, the government
must be proactive. The market simply cannot be free because the supply/demand curve is skewed by the lack of frequencies for television and radio channels to begin with. So when Clear Channel Communications owns 15 radio stations in the Houston area, it's
inherently at the expense of other entreprenuers. Since it's the government's job to hand out licenses, the argument as to who should own the airwaves is inherently a public matter, independent of the free market. And, unlike public funding of PBS and the like, this is one way they can ensure diversity without having to spend a dime.
Now, it's very possible that even if CCC didn't own every pop/rock station on the airwaves, it would still be just as bland. However, the competition would cease to be a zero-sum game. As it stands now, whether I'm listening to 94.5, 96.5, 104.1 or 107.5, Clear Channel gets their money, so there is little incentive for them to actually compete with one another. Little incentive to try something new. And, unlike in other sectors, another company can't just set up shop and provide competition because there aren't enough frequencies. In country radio, there is an actual competition betweek 92.9 and 100.3 and it shows, they'd carved out there own little niches and 100.3 has taken to playing local music. They have ads that go after one another ("92.9 has less commecials than 100.3!" "100.3 plays better shit than 92.9!!") and
that, my friends, is the market at work.
So, ironically, the government needs to maintain limits (in fact, it ought to make them much tighter) and free the free market.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatJerry Jones Needs to Fire Jerry Jones
R. Alex Whitlock
Since Dallas is one of the places that I may end up moving when I find a new job, I feel compelled to throw in my two cents.
Some time ago, Jerry Jones wasted a lot of time and energy pursuing the "next big thing" for the Cowboys, throwing all else by the wayside. He got one of those highly touted quick, rambling QB's and set him up as the starting QB and it went bust. So did Jerry Jones learn his lesson by
tossing aside common sense for the QB Flavor of the Day?
"When we see some of these veteran quarterbacks like they are having success with in Oakland (Rich Gannon), then we know Troy, with his skill level, could have a lot of success in the NFL," Jones said.
Oh, he's learned his lesson alright. Instead of trying to emulate the success of the rambling QB model that's worked here and there, he's going to try to emulate the Oakland model.
Jerry, you've screwed up the Cowboys so much over the past several years that it's going to require more than a quick fix to get the team back on track. That's what got the Cowboys into this mess to begin with. Troy Aikman is not Rich Gannon. Aikman in his prime was better than Gannon in his prime. Gannon now is better than the Aikman who got cut in two years ago. So just get the hell out of the way and let Bill Parcell do his job.
Reverse-Discrimination Against the Attractive
R. Alex Whitlock
Heidi Rogers thinks back to her catty days, in which she was subtly hostile to her attractive peers.
I have grown cynical, I think, judging the prettier girls as harshly as I, myself, would hate to be judged were I in their place. And it's unfair of me. And petty. And jealous. And it goes against the very nature of who I want to be. I blogged once before about the cattiness of women, how it stems from our duality--always feeling as though we're on one end or the other of the whole "beauty vs. brains" spectrum, and distantly respecting (and hating at the same time) our nemesis at the opposing end of the spectrum.
This recalls something that happened to me last year that I almost posted about, but for whatever reason didn't. I was at a party, talking to my friend Dale about a possible future
No-Lyfe Productions project that he was signing on for. So Dale and I were going over the various proposals I'd come up with when Erik, another attendant of the party, started throwing in some suggestions. I glanced over at Erik and saw this kid with flawlessly gelled hair, standing about 6'2" or so with a thin, solid build. He had a smile that could have put him on television and a gold chain dangling over his designer shirt. I didn't say a word and kept talking to Dale. He threw in another suggestion and I shot him a look like "Excuse me, you aren't a part of this conversation," after which he moved on to talk to others in the room. Now, I am generally a very polite person and NLP is always open to new ideas. I'd had a bit to drink that night and that might have had something to do with it, but part of it was that when I looked at him, I saw someone who was too attractive to be interested in our nerdy productions.
When I thought about his ideas later, they weren't bad at all.
Not too long ago, Edie Singleton
wrote about a similar sentiment, albeit in a different context. She was approached by an attractive guy and was somewhat dismissive because she assumed that he wasn't interested in her.
I went to a party this weekend and while there this really cute guy totally chatted me up. I guess it might be more accurate to say he was pretty. Not usually the type to even recognize my existence on the planet. I think I initially subconsciously held his prettiness against him, but after talking to him for a while I realized he was really cool guy. So weird. I wasn't attracted to him at first because he was pretty, but then later grew attracted to him in spite of it.
...
Anyway, I realized my reaction to his appearance is just as bad as holding someone's unattractiveness against them, which I have condemned here in the past. But at least I quickly saw past his attractiveness, right? Man, I can be so perverse!
Edie's too hard on herself, as she's not alone. My best friend Jay and I have developed the concept of "attainably attractive." That is, the ideal attractiveness that, while attractive, is not so much so that we'd be dismissed out-of-hand. Anything above that threshold we rarely look at twice because there isn't much point in it. In his dating days, my brother had a policy of finding the second most attractive at whatever female group with which he was talking. If you do this enough, the things that seperate them from Carmen Electra actually
become attractive. The pudgy nose, the crooked smile, the slightly bushy eyebrow. As I've gotten older, I've become to appreciate rather than eschew a few extra pounds.
Someone once said (someone famous, I'm sure, and someone I am a moron for not knowing) that we are defined by our vices. In many ways, I am often attracted to women by their imperfections. God knows I have a few imperfections of my own.
It's reminiscent of the explanation Rob Thomas (lead singer of Matchbox Twenty) gave for their hit single, "Bent." It essentially goes that the singer is pretty messed up and the girl that he's talking to is messed up, but it's okay because they can be messed up together. Truth be told, I would feel amazingly awkward with a girl of perfect dimensions (unless, of course, I had them, too). In fact, some time ago I dated a girl that many would consider quite ideal. I know I certainly did. Perhaps if she'd been able to understand a word I'd said and I'd have been able to understand a thing she did, things might have worked out, but my admiration for her "perfection" wasn't terribly effective in dealing with out many, many, many problems. In fact, it added to the disconnect because she was a girl used to getting what she wanted (from guys) and I was a guy from.. well, the real world.
None of this is to say that I would dismiss, out-of-hand, a woman with perfect dimensions, but I'd be much more likely to intially be looking past her at the cute girl with glasses and slightly crooked teeth across the room.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatWhy Blissful Ignorance Leads to Lower Taxes
R. Alex Whitlock
Kris Lofgren points to a New York Times column by David Brooks about why class warfare
doesn't resonate with the American public and comments:
He says people have an inflated view of their economic position either in the present or in the near future, and this prevents them from seeing the truth of their economic condition. Brooks argues that Americans are more offended by social injustices than economic injustices because those economic injustices ( i.e. being too rich) may be their doing some day, while social affronts are a flaw in a person's identity.
...
Oblivious to the truth, America still dreams.
I'd argue that it's more complicated than that. And more benign.
People believe that their economic position is better than it is because they believe that they are doing well and are, from a financial respect, satisfied. If not satisfied with where they are, then satisfied with where they're headed.
This is not a bad thing. Oblivious to the truth? Maybe. I'd say oblivious to the negativity that seems to be the Democrats gameplan for the past couple of years. Oblivious to the benificence of pitting economic classes against one another. In fact, not accutely aware of class at all (I suspect a majority of Americans would consider themselves in the "upper middle class.") Americans believe they are doing well (even if they believe the economy isn't, paradoxically) and that they, too, can be rich.
The extent to which the Democrat's game plan is to say "No! They're rich, you're not, and you're never going to be like them and they are therefore your enemy!" is the extent to which they are doomed. With the exception of George H. Bush, every president elected since 1976 has been the candidate of hope.
This is not a bad thing. This is what makes America so successful. The belief that you, too, can have it all backed up by people who have done it.
I don't believe this is (or should be) a necessarily conservative point of view. Successful Democrats have said "You, too, can get there, and we can make the government help!" That's why education has historically been such an amazingly good issue for the Dems. Clinton's liberalism was focused on education programs and job training programs and the public bought in to it. The current liberal program is dependent on dissatisfaction and anger (much as the conservative programs of yesteryear) and things will have to get a lot worse for them to become effective.
Here's hoping they never do.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Political Camps For a Black-and-White World
Adam S. Taylor
Hello all! Been a while since I posted, and when I did it was so little that you probably hardly remember me, if at all. But here I am now because Alex thought I should post this here for all the world to see.
Completely seperate of Alex's challenge to come up with Democratic Ideologies, I was thinking about chairty and social programs the other day while waking up and showering for work. In my sleep-tainted wisdom, I had a revelation. Not the "Oh my God, the world is different now!" kind, but the "This makes everything a lot cleareer now" kind.
To give you some background, I am a Democrat. Have been all my life. Do not see that changing. I was having a political discussion over dinner at Jason's Deli one Sunday night with some friends from church after services had ended, and the topic of politics came up. They seem to like brining it up as I am usually the only Democrat there. I guess you could say the exception is the Egyptian national who goes to church with us. He's fairly liberal as well and would consider himself a Democrat if a citizen. So, by and large, I am The Democrat. They keep asking to see my membership card, but I digress...
So, I was thinking about the political parites and their view of social programs, charities, and the government. In my thoughts, I hit upon these four camps. Like referred to above, it's a pretty black-and-white picture of the situation, but as always, people can fall somewhere in between. This is just an opinion on the conflicting motivations within each party in regards to social responsibilities. Starting in the middle and moving outward, to the right first.
Social Republicans - Republicans who feel that social programs are needed for the benefit of society but are best carried out by non-governmental entities (churches and the like). They are weary of government backed initatives, but feel it is every American's duty to give when they can to help the less fortunate. They tend to have a strong sense of community. Not likely to have been raised in a "corporate" culture regardless of current wealth. Often strongly religious.
Lip-Service Republicans - Says that people should give what they can, but the underlying message is "no one should have to give anything if they don't want to". Whereas Social Republicans would try government incentives to get people to give to private charities, Lip-Service Republicans don't really care, going only so far to say that chairties are good and backing initiatives to support those charities when it is personally/politically profitable. The flip-side of Social Republicans, most likely raised in a corporate culture and less likely to be strongly religious. On the extreme of this group, and possibly unto a much smaller group of their own, are those Republicans who believe that aiding the poor is inherently wrong. They give their own lip service about "pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps." There is a small percentage that does truly believe this, but it is also all too often an easy way to say "I don't want to give anyone anything."
Service Democrats - Feel that social programs are needed, much like the Social Republicans, but fear that if left completely to private charities that not enough would get done. Very likely to support government measures to help private charities or to establish services where private chairites just do not exist. They like the efficiency and community-mindedness of local charities, but again, do not feel they have enough resources to adequately carry out what needs to be done on their own. Middle-class, suburban raised Democrats would make up a large majority of this group.
Control Democrats - They believe that charities are well and good, but could never guarantee that everyone who needs help (in their view) gets it. To them, it is the government's duty to do everything it can, even when local charities might be able to do it on their own. To them, the government is the only way to guarantee anything and therefore must control any social programs. Much like Lip-Service Republicans, they give lip service to charities, and may fund them, but only as a means of controlling those charities through the money they give them, thus making them a virtual arm of the central government. Very likely to have been raised in a more urban and less affluent setting. Also like the Lip-Service Republicans, there is an extreme faction of this group (again, possibly a much smaller group unto themselves) that believe that nothing should be left to private charities because of the belief that all organizations have their own agendas they want to promote. Again, there are some who truly bleiev this is the only way to take the agendas out of social programs, but that's also completely ignoring the fact that a lot of these Democrats have their own agenda they are trying to promote. But it wouldn't help their cause to say that...
Social Republicans and Service Democrats could easily work together if not for the Lip-Service Republicans and Control Democrats pulling them away from each other with their loud rhetoric. And on each side, it is the the smaller, more extreme factions that are likely to be driving a lot of the rhetoric pulling the SD's and SR's away from each other, clothing their arguments in more publicly acceptible terms.
The LSR's and the CD's also share another thing in common that the SD's and SR's share the flipside of: LSR's and CD's both believe it is not their personal responsibility to deal with social programs, they just differ on whether social programs should exist or not. SD's and SR's do belieeve in a personal responsibility to help out, but disagree on the way to go about that.
Personally, I find myself as an SD who has encountered many SD's and SR's over the course of my life but has also because fairly distraught at the fact that it seems like the most prominent leaders on our political stage are of the CD and LSR bent.
I will stop rambling now. I am tired from a day of getting my 1995 Dodge Neon in running condition again after sitting in the my garage for the past 8 months since I bought my new Civic Hybrid. I gave it to a friend at church. She works hard, is a good and kind person, and a very sweet girl. She is also very strong and can do things on her own for herself. But she has also been having some tough times with money and jobs. She had her car rear-ended and totalled yesterday by someone with no insurance, just one day after paying a few hundred dollars for repairs on that same car. She is a good example of how no matter what, sometimes we can't do it all on our own and a little help goes a long way. I am so glad that I could help her.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatNow That I'm Retiring, I Don't Have to Watch My Language
R. Alex Whitlock
Some buttmunch named Brian Mansfield from USA Today had the gall to put The Great Divide's "Remain" CD (The one that stayed in my car CD player for an uninterrupted, unprecedented week), on his
"Worst country albums of 2002"
Instead of explaining what he didn't like about it, he just made a flippant remark about Jon Bon Jovi and
Young Guns II. Then again, this asswipe chose CDs by Tim McGraw and Shania Twain for his "best list," so TGD must be doing something right.
He also introduced me to a new band, also on his "Worst Albums" list:
Brooklyn Cowboys,
Dodging Bullets
. The Cowboys' '70s country-rock shtick works only with those who slaver over anything tangentially related to the late Gram Parsons.
Fuck you, Brian, but thanks for the tip. I'll be checking them out as soon as possible.
I Can't Eat Half a Cupcake
R. Alex Whitlock
By a strange turn of events, I saw Office Space on Saturday evening. It honestly couldn't have come at a better time.
Working 8-7 or so every day, most of the friends that I have that know about the blog wonder how I've made time to write it all. The answer is my credo of "blog first, think later" and a series of breaks that I get throughout the day. Mornings and afternoons I get breaks from 10-10:15 and 3-3:15 respectively. I also get an hour lunch which I rarely actually eat on and I take a personal break from 5-5:15. Some days I stay after I've finished my work and write something. Also, at various points during the day, I get a minute here and there while a complex query is running and polish it and send it out (hence the variety of times you see on the posts).
I write posts nights or weekends, but I generally post them during the week so that weblogs knows that I'm actually writing stuff.
On Wednesday of last week, I was directed to write a program that swipes everyone's Internet cache, compiles it into a report, and sends it off to the company president. I asked if he was looking to make sure that no one was accessing porn sites or whatnot and he replied that he didn't want anyone looking at anything non-business related, on the clock or off. New policy.
I've thought of dozens of ways to circumvent this new rule. I could keep my own cache clear, I could check and see if other browsers set up folders independent of the standard directory. Regarding the blog, I could simply email my posts in (emails are not monitored -- yet). But I'm not going to. Given my signature carelessness, I'd screw it up at some point and get caught.
So I've spent the last five days or so figuring out what I am going to do, and unfortunately continuing RAWbservations at its current pace is not a feasible option without making sacrifices that I'm not prepared to make. I've thought about slowing it down and posting less, but I question whether or not I can do that. No, I'm not deluding myself into suggesting that I am a productive blogger. I don't post nearly as much as I'd like to. That's exactly the problem. I always want to post more. I always have more to say. I couldn't cut back below my already minimal (in my eyes) amount of posting. That means I'd either start putting my job on the line, cut in to my personal writing time, or cut in to my already minimal free time and social life.
At the same time I'm really reluctant to give up the world of blogging. It's hard to express how much I've really enjoyed it all. My first thought of anything interesting happening in my day is "I should blog this!" I get roughly 50 visits on a given day that I'm not linked by someone else and 30 or so on a weekend day, which may not be much compared to many, but impresses the hell out of me. I could have gotten more if I'd found a niche or stuck to more sober and substantive topics, but I wrote exactly what I wanted to and a couple dozen people a day wanted to read it. Most of whom don't know me (most of my friends are only vaguely aware of the blog).
Well, before I start crying and saying "You like me, you really like me!" I should say that I'm not going to retire completely. I'm not going to do RAWbservations anymore, but I'm certain I'll think of something. The basic problem is that I won't do enough blogging to carry a blog (in my view). That leads to a number of options. Perhaps some illustrious blogger or team blog will invite me to join them. Maybe I'll find some other bloggers in similar situations and we can start up a group blog. I've got a couple other ideas, including a humorous tech blog that I've already set up but never actually started, a blog with my best friend Jay (topic undisclosed), or recruit some other people and do a team blog of that sort. If nothing else, I may start posting on Blogcritics as I'm kinda obliged to do.. Whatever I do, I'll announce it here. Whatever I do, though, it won't be RAWbservations. And whatever it is, I'm probably going to take a couple weeks off to think about it and... ahem... start looking for a new job.
I told my boss that I couldn't have it ready until 1/20/3, so until then posting will resume as normal. So till then my motto shall be "RAWbservations, get it till it's cooked!"
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatI'll Never Go To a Single Bars Again!
R. Alex Whitlock
I've always wondered about singles bars. Partly because I've never been to one, partly because I wouldn't know where to look if I ever felt inclined to go to one. Is there an entry in the phone book for "Bars, Single"?
Apparently, though, if I didn't write about politics, I'm already in the Internet equivalent of
one! Maybe it's my politics, but I can't help but notice that zero (0) women have slipped me their numbers cause of the blog yet...
[Thanks to
Charles for the link]
Waiting On the Hammer to Fall: The Great Division
R. Alex Whitlock
Kevin
laments the future dissolution of the great Oklahoma band The Great Divide:
Unfortunately, the interview they do with The Great Divide leads me to believe that band isn't going to be together much longer (page three of the interview here, but read the whole thing). That's too bad, because those guys are excellent.
I can't say that I'm surprised. I saw Mike McClure, the main lead singer, a couple months back doing a songwriters gig along with Kyle Hutton. McClure had just released his first solo CD and mentioned that he was working on a project with the lead singer of the one-hit wonder band The Nixons (but a good song it was!) and a couple other side projects. I strongly suspected that TGD's days were numbers. They are a formerly signed band that had their shot at the big time and missed (they were signed and dropped by a label, Universal I think). They have two lead singers (guitarist Scotte Lester sings a track or two on most CDs, Scotte's brother, the drummer, has a track or two himself) and that kind of thing can be hard to manage with any band, regardless of success (see The Eagles). There is also an increasing disconnect between the more rockish stuff that McClure is moving to and J.J. Lester's firmly country voice. I lament their probable passing, but look forward to what McClure has in store and I've always wanted to hear more of Lester.
For anyone interested (with a high speed connection), you can see two of their three music videos
here on Launch.com, including
Never Gonna Be, one of my favorite TGD tunes. While I'm hawking Launch.com videos, Cross Canadian Ragweed has their videos for
Look at Me and
17 uploaded there. I can say without exaggeration those are probably their two best songs. Incidentally, Mike McClure has a cameo in the
17 video as the store clerk.
UPDATE: Kevin is under the silly idea that I went to bed last night. Ugh... today is going to be such a looong day. Forgive any and all incoherence on my part.
The Search for Harry Lime, The Third Man Bruce B_ugh, Weblogger
R. Alex Whitlock
Kevin
laments the future dissolution of the great Oklahoma band The Great Divide:
Unfortunately, the interview they do with The Great Divide leads me to believe that band isn't going to be together much longer (page three of the interview here, but read the whole thing). That's too bad, because those guys are excellent.
I can't say that I'm surprised. I saw Mike McClure, the main lead singer, a couple months back doing a songwriters gig along with Kyle Hutton. McClure had just released his first solo CD and mentioned that he was working on a project with the lead singer of the one-hit wonder band The Nixons (but a good song it was!) and a couple other side projects. I strongly suspected that TGD's days were numbers. They are a formerly signed band that had their shot at the big time and missed (they were signed and dropped by a label, Universal I think). They have two lead singers (guitarist J.J. Lester sings a track or two on most CDs, J.J.'s brother, the drummer, has a track or two himself) and that kind of thing can be hard to manage with any band, regardless of success (see The Eagles). There is also an increasing disconnect between the more rockish stuff that McClure is moving to and J.J. Lester's firmly country voice. I lament their probable passing, but look forward to what McClure has in store and I've always wanted to hear more of Lester.
For anyone interested (with a high speed connection), you can see two of their three music videos
here on Launch.com, including
Never Gonna Be, one of my favorite TGD tunes. While I'm hawking Launch.com videos, Cross Canadian Ragweed has their videos for
Look at Me and
17 uploaded there. I can say without exaggeration those are probably their two best songs. Incidentally, Mike McClure has a cameo in the
17 video as the store clerk.
UPDATE: Kevin is under the silly idea that I went to bed last night. Ugh... today is going to be such a looong day. Forgive any and all incoherence on my part.
What Are the Democratic Ideologies?
R. Alex Whitlock
It's not meant to be a derogatory or facitious question. It was just something that popped into my head while I was thinking about the Republican ideologies.
Last night I had dinner with
Kevin,
Callie, John,
Catherine, and UH foreign policy professor Terry Hallmark. Those of you under the impression that Republicanism and conservatism are one-dimensional concepts should have been there. There was an ongoing political debate about a national service draft (military or otherwise) and despite the disagreements
everyone there used a Republican rationale to butress their arguments, one of which even included targetting SUVs. That had me thinking about the ideological conflicts within the Republican Party and the camps from which they spring. I was able to, more or less, divide the GOP into five seperate camps:
1. Corporate Republicans - Pro-business, fiscally conservative, and socially moderate. This would probably comprise of most of the Republicans in the northeast as well as the business communities across the country that veer Republican. They take a Hamiltonian view of foreign policy, intervening when it's in the national interest, whether it be financial or security interests. Also known as "Country Club Republicans." Examples would include Homeland Security Cheif Tom Ridge and former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp.
2. National Greatness (neoconservative) Republicans - Though not a fan of big business, even less a fan of liberal thought. This camp is composed largely (but not exclusively) of former liberals who have shifted right over the years for a variety of reasons. Unlike Liberty Republicans and (to a much lesser extent) Corporate Republicans, they don't disdain big government. They do disdain a big
liberal government. Their view of the role of government is to promote civic virtue (as opposed to the more liberal view that government's job is to take care of people that need it). They are right of center fiscally but too eclectic on social issues to gauge. They are probably best known (right now) for their pro-military, Jacksonian view of foreign policy. Examples include Senator John McCain and former Senator Fred Thompson.
3. Liberty Republicans - Fiscally libertarian, socially moderate. While they agree with Corporate Republicans on tax cuts, they disdain business subsidies and incentives that the Corps support. Free market, free market, free market. They are the least "law and order" faction of the Republican Party, uncomfortable with big government in any form, including the police. Examples include former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Congressman Tom Campbell.
4. Theological Republicans - The much-maligned "Religious Right." Fiscally neutral, but very socially conservative. They oppose the welfare state, but often for more social than economic reasons. Their forebears were populists, though, and you're likely to find an economic liberal streak in many. Generally, though, they've cast their lot in with fiscal restraint in light of government money being spent on artwork they consider repulsive, social programs that undermine the family, and a government whose agenda is suspect. Examples include Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating.
5. Legacy Republicans - These people should be Democrats or just not vote at all. They are Republicans because their parents were Republicans or most of their friends are, but they've never really thought it through themselves. Party identification and ideology is primarily a matter of convenience. Examples include former Senator Warren Rudman and Senator Linc Chafee.
So I enumerated these camps and started trying to do the same for the Democratic Party and I kept getting tripped up. It was actually a little easier for the Libertarian and Green Parties. So this is a question for you Democrats, in what ideological camps would you divide up your party? Or would it have to be less by ideology and more by demographic? (Black Democrats, Hispanic Democrats, Gay Democrats, etc?)
Note that not every member of your party will fit in to one group. For instance, I am probably a combination between National Greatness and Liberty Republican. Bush would be a Corporate and Theological one. Generally, though, people will only fall into one or two of the camps.
So, either here or on your blog, tell me what you come up with!
Owen Courreges vs. All (Including the Evil Owen)
R. Alex Whitlock
I'll try to get some posting done today. In the meantime, though, Owen Courreges takes on
Glenn Reynolds,
Michael Morgan, and
Bo Cowgill on cloning.
With the recent blustering by Clonaid that a cloned child has already been born, the issue of reproductive cloning has come to the forefront. For the most part there is general agreement that reproductive cloning -- bringing a cloned infant to term -- is an ethical nightmare and should rightfully be outlawed. This is certainly my view, and I have naively believed it to be universally intuitive. However, it has come to my attention that at least two of the web logs I link to, those of Glenn Reynolds and Michael Morgan, take the opposite stance.
I think support for reproductive cloning is downright sociopathic, so I feel obligated to put forth the argument as to just why it is so awful. To begin with, I suggest that anyone interested in the subject read two crucial reports: Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002) from the National Academy of Sciences, and Cloning Human Beings (June 1997) from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Both of these reports outline key reasons why reproductive cloning should be outlawed.
But now for my own contentions...[more]
How is harm "wrong?" If it isn't self-evident, where are we in any moral argument? On the issue of reproductive cloning, the overwhelming majority of the population agrees that it is morally wrong and should thus be illegal. All rights-based theories, like all morality, eventually comes down to core moral assumptions which cannot be proven on a slide rule. To wit, if I were arguing with a moral relativist (i.e. on who believes there is no universal morality) who contended that the Holocaust wasn't an immoral act because morality is based on personal and cultural prejudices, I would simply have to fall back on self-evident truths. [more]
Cleaning the Treehouse
R. Alex Whitlock
T
here's a name for the special kind of woman to volunteer to spend a whopping 10 hours hepling to clean up a man's pig-sty after just having met him less than a week before.
That name is clean-freak.
Lisa: Are we still going to hang out today?
RAW: It looks like probably not. I need to clean up my apartment.
Lisa: How long will that take.
RAW: Got any plans next month?
RAW: Woah! This stuff is awesome! What is it?
Lisa: Tilex, Babe. Your Tilex, in fact.
RAW: We should be in a commercial.
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: Good god, Alex, how much Tilex are you using? How can you even breathe in there?
RAW: I have no sense of smell, remember?
Lisa: Want mine?
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: You're wiping the mirror wrong.
RAW: There's a wrong way to wipe a mirror?
Lisa: If you don't want streaks.
RAW: They're better than spots. I'm not aiming for perfection here.
Lisa: No, no. Wipe it in really small circles.
RAW: [looks at large mirror] That's a lot of small circles.
Lisa: I know, but you gotta do it. It's like waxing a car.
RAW: [blink]
Lisa: You know... [does small circle motion with hands]
RAW: [blink blink]
Lisa: [throws hands into the air]
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: What are you doing?
RAW: Typing something...
Lisa: [looks] Alex... you're a Republican?
RAW: Wow! We sure have been on break a while. Back to work for us!
Lisa: Got any paper towels?
RAW: Of course...
Lisa: Go get them?
RAW: Sure [thumps down stairs]... [thumps up stairs] No paper towels. Will toilet paper work?
Lisa: ...
RAW: Okay, what else WILL work?
Lisa: Dry cloth.
RAW: Don't have any...
Lisa: You don't have ANY towels? What do you use to dry off??
RAW: Oh! Towels? Sure, I have those.
Lisa: Cloth... dry... [shakes head, wonders what language he might be fluent in]
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: I need a duster.
RAW: DOn't have one. Don't worry about it.
Lisa: No, I NEED a duster...
RAW: There isn't THAT much dust.
Lisa: Doesn't matter... dust... dust is bad... so very, very bad.
RAW: [blink]
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: Where's the vacuum cleaner?
RAW: Don't worry about vacuuming. As long as we get all the coins off the floor we'll be fine...
Lisa: Where's the vacuum cleaner?
RAW: The floor isn't that dirty. Besides, what stains there are will require Oxy-Clean..
Lisa: Where's the vacuum cleaner?
RAW: There's also cables everywhere. It'll take forever and a day just to get them out of the way...
Lisa: Where's the vacuum cleaner?
RAW: Downstairs by the kitchen door. It's an old Kirby.
Lisa: Oooooooh... Kirby!
RAW: I'm tired. Break?
Lisa: You okay?
RAW: I'm fine.
Lisa: You just have this look on your face.
RAW: I feel like I'm in a hotel room.
Lisa: Why?
RAW: It's clean. Not used to this. It's kind of neat.
Lisa: Uhmm... Alex. It's not as clean as most hotels.
RAW: Why not?
Lisa: They dust.
Playing the Stereotype So Well
R. Alex Whitlock
Despite being raised out there, I never heard of Seabrook City Councilwoman Margaret Kidd Duncan since I heard about her
witchy flap with her town police department, but somehow I
knew she absolutely looked like this:
With a little effort, I can probably imagine exactly how her husband and kids look, too...
In Tech-Speak, We Call That "Typing"...
R. Alex Whitlock
I ran across this last year when I was desperate for work. I went by the Houston ISD site again today and it's still there.
Behold, what HISD considers a job requirement to be a techie:
"Ability to... reach with arms extended and use hands to manipulate the keyboard."
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatWhy It's Getting Harder To Take J.M. Marshall Seriously...
R. Alex Whitlock
"What are some of the great political betrayals of history? One certainly would be the federal government's betrayal of the ex-slaves of the South at the end of Reconstruction. After a dozen or so years trying to impose biracial democracy on the conquered South, the then-party of emancipation and civil rights, the Republicans, abandoned the freedmen to the tender mercies of Jim Crow for about a century. Then there was the shameful, though likely inevitable, abandonment of the fledgling electoral democracies of Eastern Europe. Those which were occupied by the Red Army -- Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and others -- at the end of World War II had to endure about four decades of Stalinist tyranny.
Of course, now we have a much more recent example: the Bush White House's betrayal of the administration-obedient scribes who rushed forward in recent weeks to defend the White House's folly in North Asia."
-JMM,
TPM
Whatever your views on North Korea are and even your views on Bush, the idea that this can hyperbolically is ludicrous. I could respond to Marshall by recollecting a certain president that sent out all his horses and all his men defend him against accusations of sex with an intern that later turned out to be true. I could also compare that to Reconstruction and East Europe and Stalin, but that would be silly and I'd like to have some credibility as being something other than a crass partisan warrior.
Too bad Marshall could care less.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatQuestion of the Day: This Is Counterintuitive, To Say The Least
R. Alex Whitlock
Why in the world am I supposed to pay $15 extra to download a
program and then have to take the time to burn it instead of getting it sent to me in a box?
Box: $9.95
Download: $24.95
An American Senator
R. Alex Whitlock
In An American President, Republicans sought to legitimize attacks on President Andrew Shepherd by asking the appropriateness of a President dating a lobbyist.
It seems that Slate's Timothy Noah would
agree with the Republicans.
No Breakfast Should Ever Be This Good
R. Alex Whitlock
Chicken-friend steak, gravy, cheese, and a friend egg on a bun.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
My Brain Usage Profile
R. Alex Whitlock
Your Brain Usage Profile
Auditory : 50%
Visual : 50%
Left : 63%
Right : 36%
R. Alex, you are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant with a balanced preference for auditory and visual inputs. Because of your "centrist" tendencies, the distinctions between various types of brain usage are somewhat blurred.
Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor, unless it requires total spontaneity and ability to improvise, your weaker traits. However, you are far from rigid or overcontrolled. You possess a degree of individuality, perceptiveness, and trust in your intuition to function at much more sophisticated levels than most.
Having given sufficient attention to detail, you can readily perceive the larger aspects and implications of a situation or of learning. You are functional and practical, but can blend abstraction and theory into your framework readily.
The equivalence of your auditory and visual learning orientation gives you two equally effective sensory input systems, each with distinctive features. You can process both unidimensionally and multidimen- sionally with equal facility. When needed, you sequence material while at other times you "intake it all" and store it for processing later.
Your natural ability to use your senses is also synthesized in your way of learning. You can be reflective in your approach, absorbing material in a non-aggressive manner, and at other times voracious in seeking out stimulation and experience.
Overall you tend to be somewhat more critical of yourself than is necessary and avoid enjoying life too much because of a sense of duty. You feel somewhat constrained and tend to sometimes restrict your expressiveness. In any given situation, you will opt for the rational, and learning of almost any type should be easy for you. You might need certain ideas explained to you in order to fit them into your scheme of things, but you're at least open to that!
It seems to overestimate my organizational abilities. I tend to organize computer files pretty tediously (for instance, there are four layers of folders for mp3's), but my room and car are and always will be a mess. On the other hand, this part is dead on: "However, you are far from rigid or overcontrolled. You possess a degree of individuality, perceptiveness, and trust in your intuition to function at much more sophisticated levels than most."
Losing things has always been a specialty of mine. It also tends to overestimate my learning capabilities, but one trick of the successes of some of these tests is to make the test-taker feel smarter and better than they are. I tend to actually learn things more by internalizing and working through them in my mind. Seeing or hearing something rarely does it. In one ear/eye and out the other unless I can find a way to relate it to what I already know or use it somehow.
It does seem to fly in the face of Typology, however, which suggests that I am very right-brained.
Quiz is
here and I found it via
TPB.
UPDATE: I was talking to someone earlier this evening who suggested that I was taking a narrow view of "organized" by using a clean car or room as examples. The more I consider it, the more she is correct. I am actually very organized in a number of other ways. Anally so. I tend to categorize people and situations, not to mention organizing my thoughts to an arguably excessive degree. In fact, one of the things that induced me to blog was the realization that I need to analyze my view of the situation (ie organize my thoughts) less and simply act more.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatTrick Questions
R. Alex Whitlock
Lesson to self:
It doesn't matter how safe you think you are. It doesn't matter how long you've been friends or how close your friendship is. That she knows you think the world of her is irrelevent. Nor does it matter how many times she proclaims to desire honesty. Even if your answer is something she's said a million times. Qualifications and explanations mean nothing. The answer to "Do I look overweight in these pictures" is an unthinking, unflinching "No!"
Lesson to others:
Don't ask me that question.
Ever.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatTonight on Fox: When Politicians Turn Human!
R. Alex Whitlock
I'm not exactly Comptroller Carol Keaton Rylander's biggest fan, but I was actually moved by this story I found at the
Quorum Report:
Carole Keeton Rylander, who will be sworn in again as Texas Comptroller today, will also announce that she was married over the weekend.
Rylander was wed to Ed Strayhorn, who is the founder of the largest tennis court construction company in Texas.
Strayhorn originally proposed to Rylander over 45 years ago but her parents told her she was too young to marry at that time. Eventually he left for the military and the two ultimately ended up marrying other people.
In a romantic twist, Strayhorn kept the same diamond ring he proposed to Rylander with 45 years ago and presented it to her this weekend.
The Second To Last Show at the Bar Soon To Be Formerly Known as the Fabulous Satellite Lounge
R. Alex Whitlock
I actually don't have a whole lot to add to Greg's
post on the subject, except that those women
did introduce themselves to me. Seeing as how women like that ordinarily want nothing to do with me, when they were hemming and hawing I assumed they were looking and pointing at someone behind me. Except their points moved with me.
What can I say? They dug my
Phil Pritchett t-shirt.
Of course, that one of them was Phil's sister-in-law didn't hurt in that regard, I'm sure.
Persistence, Failure, Blacks & The GOP
R. Alex Whitlock
Kevin McGehee and
Frank Martin trade barbs on whether or not blacks have been wise throwing their lot almost entirely in with the GOP. Unsurprisingly, Republican Kevin says no while Democrat Frank says yes.
Owen Courreges and I have exchanged similar barbs in the past and Republicans have debated it internally since the begining of time (or whatever point it was realized that the GOP gets less than 10% of the minority vote and this might be a bad thing).
I'm not personally inclined to agree with my fellow Republicans that black's "blind support" for Democrats is illogical or just a matter of perceptions. Now, that it is 90% instead of say 80% may well be a matter of illogic or perceptions, but in my view the Democratic Party ostensibly represents their narrow interests moreso than the Republican Party. I don't say "narrow" to suggest that their interest are more shortsighted than the Republicans as I would say that most wealthy Republicans are representing their narrow interests. Now, Republicans will argue that their policies are better for the whole (I do, anyway) and Democrats argue that theirs are, but to keep this from being a partisan point (any more than it has to be), I'll look at the issues narrowly.
Democrat
Greg Wythe has gone on a tear against his own party for equating everything (minimum wage hike, for instance) as a civil rights issue, but there is a reason that it resonates with some people. Blacks are disproportionately unemployed, poor, and/or working for minimum wage. Therefore they would be disproportionately helped by a minimum wage hike. Elderly blacks are more likely to rely on social security checks than are whites, so social security is more important.
The government programs that Republicans are least comfortable with (if we don't outright oppose them) are the ones that blacks rely on. Of course, since poor whites rely on them too, they're not racial issues, but that has absolutely zero to do with black support for these issues.
Of course, there are increasing numbers of blacks in the middle class that are not specifically helped by these pseudo-civil rights issues. These would be the blacks that Republicans are dumbfounded that they still vote Democratic. Out of context, the confusion is quite understandable. Think of it this way, even if suburban blacks have made their way to the middle class, a great many of them did not grow up that way. Even if you obtain wealth, if you grow up with the support of the government (or seeing the government as being supportive, or wishing the government offered more support) it's going to stay with you even when you don't need that support anymore. That applies to many people of all races that grew up poor and then worked hard, saved up, and joined the middle class (including my father, an FDR Democrat).
A lot of it is based on perceptions. Not necessarily perceptions of Republicans and Democrats, but perceptions on what the government's job is. The Republican Party may be the Party of Lincoln, but it's the pro-government interventionists that have been the heroes in their story and it's the states-rights ("The fedril guvment can't make us let'em in our schools") and free market folks ("A private company should not be forced to serve those it does not wish to") on the wrong side. As someone who is states-rights and free-market, I understand (and agree with) the principles behind both of these stands (broadly, I mean, obviously not in the case of integration or discrimination), but what Republicans need to understand is why these principles do not register with blacks and most likely will not for some time to come.
So does that mean that we just give up on the black vote? Do we try in vain to bring them over and fail, election after election? In the longer term, I don't think that we can just write it off. Frank takes a couple pot-shots at the Republicans by pointing out that with Watts gone there is not a single black Republican in the House of Representatives. Of course not. With the exception of Nevada, black congressmen come from black districts, and with 90% of blacks voting Democrat, what does he honestly expect? It's reminiscent of the 2000 convention when the media gleefully pointed out that despite all the minority speakers and the loud effort to recruit minorities, a super majority of delegates to the convention were white. I'll just refer here to an old
Daily Cougar column I wrote on the subject:
The Democrats said a couple months back that the GOP convention would likely be very "male and pale." As it approached, and more minorities were given good time slots and conventions chairs, it was accused of tokenism. For anyone who saw the convention, it went far above and beyond tokenism. A token is when you have one or two minorities. The first day it had maybe one or two white guys.
...
The press, while dutifully reporting the GOP's attempts to get as many minority Republicans (and sympathetic Democrats) on stage, also proudly showed that there were few minority delegates. That's fair enough. However, it then used that to argue that the Republicans were insincere, or in the words of a Chronicle commentator, a "sham."
Think about it really hard. The party is currently made up mostly of whites. It wants more minorities, thus it reaches out. Therefore, you cannot call into question the sincerity of the reach out by the current membership. If it already had a large number of minorities in the delegation, it wouldn't need to reach out!
Let's say that UH starts a new national campaign to make it less community-oriented. If the media treated UH as it has treated the GOP, then it would say, "The University doesn't really want to reach out. If you look at the numbers, most who go to UH live in Houston." The same way that the UH ad campaign would be an effort to change existing conditions, so, too, is the GOP campaign.
But as long as the Republican Party is primarily made up of whites, we're open to this kind of criticism. It becomes self-perpetuating and stygmatizing not only to minorities, but to whites who would prefer not be associated with a party that draws most of its support from a single demographic.
We're going to have to do a lot more than just talk about the Party of Lincoln and vouchers to destigmatize it, though. Honestly, I'm not even convinced a black at the top of the ticket will bring in a black majority. However, with prolonged and sustained effort, I believe that it is possible to bring enough minorities over that the stigma of minority Republicans will dissipate. It's not a matter of winning them over with a candidate or issue to club them and bring them over to our house, but rather a matter of leaving the lights on. Blacks are individuals, too, and eventually they will begin to vote individually instead of collectively. We're seeing some of that now with the oustings of Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney for a new generation of black leadership. It's a longer leap from (D) to (R) than it is from liberal to moderate Democrat, and it's going to take years of failure and persistence to prove our sincerity, but it's the start of a process that is going to take a long time.
In the meantime, just leave the light on.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Letters To People Who Don't Read This Blog: Do You Know Where Your Husband Is?
R. Alex Whitlock
Dear Woman Whose Husband Andor Boyfriend Drives a Red Pickup Truck With The License Plate REDAWG,
I sincerely, sincerely hope you are a thin blond that drives a beige sedan with a car alarm.
Best,
Person Whose Blog You Do Not Read
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatQuestion of the Day: Media Bias?
R. Alex Whitlock
What kind of article in the New York Times quotes The Cato Institute (libertarian), The Buckeye Institute (libertarian/conservative), Manhattan Institute (conservative) with only one corresponding liberal organization all in under 1,000 words?
The answer:
[Read More!]
Jackass of the Day: The Red Pickup
R. Alex Whitlock
I got a doozy.
When we got to the movie theatre to see Lord of the Rings, there were two people in the red pickup next to the car. I stayed seated for about ten seconds or so waiting for them to get out, figuring that I didn't want our doors to collide. Upon closer examination, they appeared to be... ahem... occupied. Now, the Marq-E theater is not exactly desolate and they were surrounded by parking traffic. I grumbled but didn't say much. If they want to make out in their pickup for a moment or two, well okay, I've done that. Of course, I was probably half the age of this couple at the time and in my past it never consisted of actually being on top of one another nor a parking lot in which I am surrounded by people, but okay, just call me Mr. Modest and them Mr. and Mrs. A Little Less Than Modest.
When we got out of the movie, I comment to my date that we should wait for the people in the car beside mine to get out before we get in. It took me a few seconds to remember that they're getting out. It took me more than a few extra seconds for it to sink in that they'd probably been out there thoughout the entire movie. Not just a movie. The three-fraggin' hour Lord of the Rings movie!
We walk across to the other side of the car and try to figure out what to do. I don't want to look like a peeper or anything, but I can't exactly miss two forty-year olds (at the very least) making out in seat I gotta walk right past. Not that they weren't probably oblivious to the entire world, but remember I'm Mr. Common Decency.
Before we could figure out what to do, a car alarm goes off. I am happy to Mrs. ALLTM get off of Mr. ALLTM so I can get into my car until Camryn notices... it was her car that had the blaring alarm. She zaps it quiet and back on top of him she goes. Hmmm. Two people in their forties arriving at a third location in different cars. Camryn suggested that they're having an affair. Either that or they have nothing better to do than fool around in a parking lot on a date.
Either way, GET A ROOM!
[insert my own word for jackasses here].
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
In The Words of Daniel Goldberg: Profound
R. Alex Whitlock
Me: Guys are generally more in touch with their feelings than girls are.
Her: What?!
Me: Guys are more in touch with their emotions than women are.
Her: What are you talking about?
Me: How many times am I going to have to say it?
Her: You can't be serious.
Me: I am dead serious. Granted, girls think about their emotions a lot more (on average), but it doesn't lead to any clear communication between their mind in their heart.
Her: And not thinking makes that better?
Me: That may be the secret. I don't know. I just know that girls often say they love someone when they don't but think they do and guys may be telling the truth or lying when they say it, but at least they know which.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Compromising the Uncompromiseable
R. Alex Whitlock
Alex Knapp has an idea for a
compromise between pro-lifers and pro-choicers:
The standard for determining when death occurs is the cessation of brain function. This makes sense, because for all intents and purposes, the brain is what makes us human. So, to be consistent, the standard for when a fetus becomes a person should be when brain functions begin. (Off the top of my head, I believe that this about the beginning of the second trimester.) So after brain functions begin, abortion should not be allowed except to save the mother's life, or in the case of birth defects so severe that the child is unlikely to survive for long outside the womb. However, before the brain starts functioning, it should be legally anything goes. Abortion on demand, no mandatory waiting periods, allow the use of abortion pills, etc. But there's a caveat--in respect for a very large minority who honestly and truly believe that every abortion is murder, there will be no federal funding for abortion, except perhaps in cases where it's necessary to save the mother's life. (State funding can be fought over in state legislatures.)
I believe the battle over abortion will largely take place in hearts and minds rather than law, and all in all I would probably accept that compromise (certainly over the status quo, anyway). I think. He's right though that it would make little to no headway. There are too many financial interests if the debate were taken off the table. Feminist groups and pro-life organizations would lose all political clout, and who (other than most people) would want that?
Have Mace, Will Club
R. Alex Whitlock
Prof. Reynolds warns the Republicans that Trial Lawyer isn't derogratory. I adamently oppose the guts of tort reform (settlement caps) partially for the reasons that they suggest. There are times when civil trials are the only recourse and, very oftenly, fear of tort reprisal lead many corporations to take precautions that they would not otherwise take. For every $3 million coffee-spilling incident, there is another slum landlord taken to court by one of those "evil" trial lawyers.
That being said, it's still an achilles heel for the Democrats at large and, once out of the primaries, will do Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards more harm than good. There are tons of ridiculous verdicts and punative punishments out there for things that are ostensibly the plaintiff's fault. When people can get millions of dollars for ruining their lungs by sucking on
burning tar and toxins, there is clearly an injustice and one that Edwards and his ilk continually perpetrate. Every news item of some outrageous penalty reminds people of the term "ambulence chasers" and the shoddy (if legal) way plaintiff's lawyers drum up business. There are no accidents anymore, only potential lawsuits. This has not gone unnoticed and when people think of Trial Lawyers, a great many of them think of the coffee-spilling incidents and not the more numerous slumlord ones. While the general public does not have the same vitriol for trial lawyers as do Republicans, there is a reason that "tort reform" remains a popular issue for Republicans and it's not difficult to see the percieved villains behind excessive lawsuits. This can be a powerful campaign point for the Republicans to make. As (both) political parties are apt to make use of every weapon in their arsenal, expect them to use this and expect it to be effective without a good counterstrategy.
Therefore, I think the warning should not be aimed at Republicans, but rather Edwards (and Democrats, more broadly). If Edwards wins the nomination, this is an issue that he cannot run from. But it's not up to Republicans to refrain from using the weapons,
it's incumbent upon Edwards to counter it. He's the one that needs to make the case for trial lawyers (and as mentioned above, there is a case) because it's not one a lot of people in some pivotal states are going to be too keen on until he does. It also provides Edwards a chance to make the People vs. Powerful argument more credibly than Gore could. Edwards's job is just to pursuade the people that the lawyers aren't the Powerful in that debate.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Last Year's New Years Resolution
R. Alex Whitlock
I am not, in general, a foul-mouthed person. But a week or so after last New Year I noticed that I had not cursed a single time. I'd even used those fun cop-out words "dag nabbit" and "frag." Little did I realize that I made a New Years resolution without even realizing it. I had always wanted to cut down and I was doing it.
Then I found out the new scanner I got for Christmas came out of the box broken... and so then was my New Years Resolution.
I was wondering "Would I try to refrain from cursing again this year?"
The Internet connection here at work has been down all afternoon.
Nope.
UPDATE: Nope a hundred times over. I was held up on the drive home by not one, but TWO passing trains. Add my two hours of sleep last night and my tendency to get cranky with sleep deprivation, well, it's not been my most pristine day. Good night!
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatThat Was Just Sad...
R. Alex Whitlock
Sans CD player, I had to listen to the radio.
I used to listen to Mix 96.5, a pop-40 station, all the time until I abandoned them when Britney Spears and BSB and the like dominated it. I never really listened to 94.5 (formerly 107.5), 99.1, or 104.1, which are the only other stations I know of that play the latest and lamest of popular rock.
So today I tuned in to The Mix and I was familiar with every song that they played.
I haven't listened to 96.5 for the better part of 3 years.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
New Years With Roger Creager
R. Alex Whitlock
Last year I boasted the New Year changeover at the
Firehouse with a beer in one hand and a cigar in the other. This year I boast... well... the same. I think I was more metaphorical and pomp with the celebration of the end of what was a very, very trying year. This New Year celebration was kind of like a bad sequel. The same things happened, but it all seemed less important. Because it was repetitious or I'm getting older? Don't really know.
But enough about me, let's talk about the show!
All things equal, this year's show was much more enjoyable than last's. First, it wasn't nearly as crowded. They upped the ticket price from $25 to $35 and that probably had a lot to do with it. At first I thought they were just trying to milk the populace, but I think it was intended. Last year was like a show at New Years, but this year was like a New Years party with a show. They served breakfast, Creager took a break at midnight but played longer overall. Most importantly, I could comfortably breathe and move around at a Roger Creager show, which is unlike any Creager show I've ever been to.
He played every song from his CDs except three (one was a duet with Jack Ingram, one didn't fit the occasion, and one was a slow song that's similar but inferior to one that he did play). He also played
Piano Man, which he does at a number of shows and I wish he could get the rights to put it on record because his version is spectacular. He didn't sing his
Ice, Ice Baby / Slim Shady combo as he has in the past, opting for
Born in the USA / Jack and Dianne instead. Maybe next year.
Depending of course on what's going on in my life and assuming he plays, I think I'm gonna be there.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobatYeehaw.
R. Alex Whitlock
Happy New Year from the Bayou City in the Lonestar State in the Greatest Country in the World!
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
