One of my more guilty pleasures when I'm at my folks' place is watching CMT (Country Music Television). I'm not a big fan of most of the music that plays there (anymore), but I generally enjoy country music videos because they are the best music videos out there. I have a lot to say about music videos and why Country is on the top of the music video totem pole (followed by rap, R&B, pop, rock, and last of all heavy metal), but I'll just say right now that country music videos are often everything other music videos should be but are not. Anyone wishing to challenge me on that point is welcome to do so.

Anyhow, a music video by one Shania Twain came on. It was a real high-budget affair with Shania riding some high-tech motorcycle through some high-tech superhighways analogous to some N64 video game whose title I cannot recall (G-Force maybe?). Obviously a lot of time and money was put forth into this music video that will not make a dime. Oddly enough, I can't remember the song itself other than that it conspicuously had nothing to do with high-tech motorcycles, computer generated highways, or G-Force... but I'm not going to talk about how terrible most music videos are, dammit, so let me get to the point.

Until I saw this video on CMT, I had completely forgotten that some people still consider Shania Twain to be country music. It's possible that at one point in her career she was, though it has not been the case since I have started following country music (which started in about 1999 I'd guess). However, I'll temporarily put aside the hysterical laughter at the thought of Twain wearing so much as a cowboy boot and assume that she was, in fact, a country artist at one point in her career. I'll even grant that as Twain has moved into pop music, country stations and music video networks like CMT and GAC are inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that, while her current album may be more poppish than her (allegedly, but benignly assumed at this point) earlier country ones, she may yet return to country music and thus it might not be a good idea to alienate her by applying a litmus test to what does and does not constitute a country artist based solely on their last album. The same benefit of the doubt is granted to Faith Hill and probably just about anyone else who has nice hair and looks good in skimpy outfits.

So be it.

But Faith Hill, despite her having moved away from country music in more recent, has three things that Shania Twain does not. First of all, she was very definitively a country music artist for some time in her career. I've seen the videos with her in country & western attire, and however silly she looks in them (she does), she at least had the gumption to wear them. Secondly, anyone who has seen Hill interviewed will note that she is definitely a southern girl in both accent and demeanor. She is a proud mother of two, three, or sixteen hundred kids and, however silly she looks in C&W wear (and she does), she at least looks like she would fit in at a barbeque in Alabama. Third, she is married to Tim McGraw, who is not only considered a country musician in most quarters (outside of Texas) but wears a cowboy had and boots for bona fides.

Shania Twain, on the other hand, pictured in country-wear evokes the hysterical laughter that I'm trying very hard to avoid to maintain at least a veneer of objectivity. Miss Twain is also not from the South, but rather Canada. She does not speak with the accent of a southerner, but rather with the accent of a spoiled bitch who has had everything handed to her on a silver platter because she has a 36-22-36 figure and looks so good in tight leather and skimpy outfits that no one bothers to ask why she isn't wearing more modest attire that someone ostensibly country might wear.

But I digress.

The point of this is that, even though I give her the benefit of the doubt as having perhaps been a country musician at one point in her life and even though I am not in favor of litmus tests for what is and is not considered country, I have to ask: At what point can we kick her out of the club?

I can put up with Kenny Chesney and his pool pictures, Tim McGraw and his tight leather pants singing songs that is a drumline and fiddle away from belonging on bland adult contemporary radio, and Brian White standing there and looking pretty because while Chesney, McGraw, and White may symbolize everything that is wrong with country music, they are at least country musicians insofar as country music stations play them repeatedly and non-country music stations generally do not (as they do, for instance, Twain and Hill). With these things in mind, what exactly does Twain have to do for people to realize that this snobby Canadian with not an ounce of cowboy hat, twang, authenticity, fiddle, steel guitar and/or anything else that actually differentiates country music from pop is not actually a country musician in any sense of the word "country?"

Recently, Dixie Chicks frontgirlie Natalie Maines took a swipe at President Bush and, by extention, those that voted for him and supported him. Since Bush draws most of his support from the south and the south listens to country music, they have been met with a hostile reaction the likes of which I have personally never seen. Former Dixie Chick fans started running over their CDs with tractors, burning them, and calling radio stations to keep them off their blessed country airwaves.

Is that what it's going to take to get Twain off said blessed country airwaves? Will that do it? If so, I'm sure I can find something.



Is this enough? Please? I have the PSD file saved so I can make her say just about anything. Whatever it'll take, let me know. For the good of country music, I'll waste my time and make her say it!

I hated geology in college, but Nina showed me this last night and it's just gorgeous. Requires a good Internet connection, though.

Heidi posts on unrealistic expectations, how we have them, what they do to us, and how to deal with them. I have a lot more to say on this, but don't have my thoughts together on the subject yet. In the meantime, take a look at what she's got to say.

The difference between anticipation and the reality of a vacation or a relationship is not just the profusion of details that life insists on showing us. The difference also lies in the part of ourselves that we forget to include in the equation while we anticipate. We don?t plan a vacation realizing that our minds will wander from the backdrop of scenic perfection to the newspaper we forgot to cancel, the bill we forgot to pay, the work that will be waiting upon our return. Similarly, in anticipating a relationship, we forget to include in our mind?s eye all the quirky details of ourselves. We forget that we are sometimes impatient, sometimes moody, sometimes self-absorbed.


Or, perhaps we don?t even forget. Perhaps, in anticipating a vacation or relationship, we are simply hoping that the transformation of our surroundings will also transform us. Somehow, that beautiful ocean view will whisk us away from our hectic work schedule and all its associated worries and headaches. Somehow, that romantic new relationship will transform me from the moody, impatient person I am to the thoughtful, carefree person I wish to be.


And, perhaps that works. For a while.

While I was gone, not one, but two regular Friends of No-Lyfe wrote absolutely stellar posts.

Daniel's prose poem is hard to explain, but it's on the subject of depression and the little devil on all our shoulder and the monkey on our back. It evokes powerful images in my mind as I read it and reminded me of one of my favorite songs. If I can find the lyrics to it, I'll post them later.

Like any good doctor, Jack wears a white lab coat, the uniform all of the healing profession wear. The irony of this is lost on Jack, as he sees himself as a healer of himself, as his Ripping is the only sustenance he knows, the fuel for his jagged existence. Scotland Yard's Ripper files suggest that Jack had some kind of surgical or butchery training, so completely did Jack disembowel, gut, and mutilate his victims. The Surgeon. The Butcher. The Barber. These are all Jack. Jack is all these. He wears all of these masks, and he wears none. He needs none. He is the Jack-of-all- trades. He is Janus. He is the Ripper, the Mangler, the Masher, the Joker. He is Jack.

Jack's skin is pale green, the color of mucous, the color of pus, of putrescence. The green skin is mottled with brown and black spots, which fester, turgid and angry, like Jack himself. And hungry. Always hungry. Never satisfied, even while Feeding. Insatiable. Scylla. Charybdis. Dr. Jackal. Jack. His skin is stretched taut over his bones; Jack is skeletal, gaunt, and this shames Jack, so he wraps his white coat tightly around his putrid body, shuffling from shadow to shadow, from streetlamp to streetlamp, from heart to hearth.

23 Things To Do In Oklahoma

Disclaimer: In a break with tradition, I am not giving everyone a pseudonym, but in a couple (pretty obvious) cases, the below is more true than factually accurate.

Links in the Table of Contents area take you down to a specific item. Naturally, I recommend you read it all.

1. Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left. (A,B,C,D,E,F)
2. Change camping grounds, suddenly gain three brothers.
3. Become married in a mutual partnership (as defined by Hawaiian law, sweetheart) without actually going to Hawaii.
4. Remember that everyone who knows of you on this trip thinks you don't smoke anymore. Remind them one by one that you still do. Absorb sense of disappointment.
5. Gain new sidekick (or become sidekick, depending on your perspective).
6. Get sugar craving at three in the morning, have no sugar available anywhere.
7. See man who may be a crazy stalker while searching for sugar, but just go back into your tent and fall fast asleep again.
8. Wake up, meet someone new (sort of), insert foot into mouth.
9. Learn Spanish and teach someone more English.
10. Get wet without swimming
11. Learn the physics of paddling. Relearn. Relearn. Repeat process.
12. Consider the anthropological mechanics of male and female urination habits.
14. Democratize someone into (almost) exploding.
15. Learn that people react differently to fire
16. Learn that they're just fattening you up to be sacrificed to the Sun God and that people don't like to go kayaking in cold, drizzly weather.
17. Rearrange the ice chest on the Titanic
18. Outpace the Deathstar
19. Go up a creek with a paddle, go down it without one.
20. Get good, belated, and much needed backrub.
21. See visions in embers of a fire, including a face, poorly done CG Satan skin, and Batman.
22. Pick up various themes of the trip.
23. Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to make sure you had everything when you left

·
1. (A) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

I never made a list. I should have made a list. I never did. Even though I should have. Instead I repeated what I needed in my head a hundred times what I would need. Kind of like how I'm repeating that I should have made a list but did not. Over and over again. Unfortunately, I have the worst short-term memory of anyone that I know save fellow No-Lyfer Brian, whose short-term memory is so bad he keeps forgetting about this blog. So I took a trip down to Clear Lake to get what I needed from my parents (I don't keep camping gear and the like cause they have it) earlier this week. I brought back a chair, sleeping bag, and a water cooler. Kept thinking that I was forgetting something.

Thursday night I remembered that I forgot to pick up my bathing suit. Oops. Callie said I could just pick one up at Wallmart, so I didn't worry about it. Then I remembered that I also forgot sun tan lotion. So Thursday night after leaving the Mucky Duck, I drove home to pick up the bathing suit and lotion. I quickly picked up the bathing suit, got a pack of cigarettes for the trip, and trucked back up and made it home by about three or so and went to sleep.

Kevin and Callie arrived at 7:30 or so and I went to the car and threw in the chair the chair, the bathing suit, and the sleeping bag.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes

On the way up, I picked up a pack at the convenience store.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes

··
2. Change camping grounds, suddenly gain three brothers.
3. Become married in a mutual partnership (as defined by Hawaiian law, sweetheart) without actually going to Hawaii.

When we got there, we discovered that there wasn't nearly enough room on our plot for all our tents. Furthermore, Micah was worried about his two year old son being so close to the water. Micah asked to be moved up, but was assured and reassured that he was given the Number One Spot. The fact that it's not an acceptable spot withstanding, it was certified Number One. Oooh and ahhh at your own leisure. So in a quick decision, we decided to relocate to the public grounds next door. The only problem is that the state of Oklahoma charges not by the car or the person, but by the family.

The attendants included:
Kevin Whited, Callie's boyfriend
Callie Mark, Kevin's girlfriend (last name abbreviated due to laziness of the author)
Louise Whited, Kevin's Mom
Frank Whited, Kevin's Dad
Mrs. Mark, Callie's mom
Micah, Kevin's childhood friend
Tom, ditto
Gladys, Micah's wife
Adric, Micah's son
Camille, Kevin and Callie's friend who was going to arrive later in the evening.

So that's a total of five families. We decided that it would be a lot easier if we'd just all pose as Frank & Louise's children. So I became R. Alex Whited and suddenly gained three brothers. As it turned out, we all had the glasses + goatee thing going for us (cept Tom, who had the goatee but no glasses) and I actually look more like Kevin's Mom than Kevin does. So that made us one big giant extended family (Gladys, Adric, and Mrs. Mark being in-laws and Camille, if asked, either Tom's or my wife presumably).

When the Park Ranger arrived to collect his due, he informed Callie (who was our frontwoman on the matter) that Oklahoma considered a family to be a mother, a father, and 2.3 children, rounded down to two. So Callie went ahead and posed as Kevin's wife and asked for leniency. Eventually she struck a deal and that the Whited and Mark familes were considered one. Micah's family was considered another one, and Tom and I slipped in together under Oklahoma's unstated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. We'd have some explaining to do if they saw Camille, but we'd have figured something out for certain (happy gay Morman family, anyone?), and three families was a lot better than five.

·
4. Remember that everyone who knows of you on this trip thinks you don't smoke anymore. Inform them one by one that you still do. Absorb sense of disappointment.

When I first met Louise, she asked me if I was the one she'd sent an email of encouragement after he quit smoking.

I had a cigarette in my hand.

The next morning when I officially met Camille, she asked "Aren't you the one that quit smoking?"

I had a cigarette in my hand. Again.

I didn't smoke all that much (five cigars and 3/4 of a pack for the entire weekend), so it was just my luck that everyone I met who knew of my faltered quest would meet me with a cigarette in my hand. Louise, being a former smoker herself, gave me a hard time with it. The second day she wore a lunch cancer pin. It was all very good-natured, though. To be honest, I really don't mind people giving me a hard time smoking. I actually appreciate it as long as it's not antagonistic. Given my temperament, whoever I settle down with will not be a smoker and thus push me to quit. And I will (at least then, probably before). I don't intend to be a smoker for life and I did well on my last attempt until I was thrown a pretty big curveball in my life.

·
5. Gain new sidekick (or become sidekick, depending on your perspective).

Adric is the two year old son of Micah and Gladys. The kid is a firecracker. One of the first things Micah said to me about his little boy was that he's (a) indestructable and (b) while he doesn't try to hit sensitive areas, he's about the right height that a randomly thrown punch will land there. So don't worry about playing rough but be sure to protect yourself. His mother is Dominican and Micah thoroughly bilingual (he plans to teach Spanish down here), so his primary language is Spanish. As with most bilingual kids, he's a little behind the language curve (but will catch up and excel his peers in a couple years). So we couldn't really speak to one another and he didn't understand most of what I said and vice-versa. More on this later.

All in all, he's a real neat kid.

I first actually met him at the Number One Spot Campsite. I'm not generally one to fawn over children. Don't get me wrong, I love them. But so do most people and I don't make it my business to compete for the attention of someone else's child. On the other hand, I babysat for a few years and am good with children. When we were all moved to the Public Lot, Adric was throwing a beach ball around and I retrieved it from across the wire fence, where he'd thrown it. "Uh oh," he said, with the cute voice that kids have at two with a limited vocabulary. I smiled and retrieved the ball, which he threw right back at me. I threw it at him. Repeat process until bonding occurs.

Later under the canopy, I was sitting in my chair when he ran up and flung himself across my legs. I thought he was just goofing off, so I just let him lay there. Not long later, he officially climbed on me and sat in my lap. I rearranged him around and we danced (I bopped my leg and he bopped up and down) to Randy Rogers, playing from Kevin's SUV.

It became a common theme for the trip. We played a lot of "ball" and he'd climb on me. Sometimes he'd take my finger and walk me around the campsite. When he'd get too close to someone else's area, I'd turn him around and he'd contentedly walk the other way. until he found something of interest to him.

At one point, he was being kept away from the fire and was getting restless in his mother's arms, so she unloaded a crying Adric on me. Within a minute he was smiling and dancing with me to whatever Rogers tune was playing at the time (we played a lot of Rogers that weekend). He lost interest in me after a few minutes, but it was nonetheless a serene moment.

My father has always been really good with children. Times like this weekend give me hope that I picked that up from him.

·
1. (B) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

I had planned to use my jacket as a pillow. Unfortunately, the sleeping bag only went halfway up my chest and without the jacket, I was freezing. If there is one thing I fear, it's sleeping cold. It's the most consistent precursor to waking up feeling ill the next morning. At home, I generally sleep in my clothes (or at least long pants) and socks for that reason. It's my kryptonite.

So I was at a loss as to what to do. I meant to bring a pillow with me, but I forgot about that until I had to sleep with the back of my head on the cold plastic tent.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow

··
6. Get sugar craving at three in the morning, have no sugar available anywhere.
7. See man who may be a crazy stalker while searching for sugar, but just go back into your tent and fall fast asleep again.

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night with sugar cravings. I've never really understood why, but I'll have a lot of trouble getting back to sleep if I don't find something sugary (or nutrisweetish) to consume. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night, swipe one of my roommate's Pepsis, drink it in as few gulps as possible, and go right back to bed.

On Friday night, our first evening there, I got such a craving. Unfortunately, there was nothing remotely sugary around. Nor were there any vending machines. The store was closed and the only soft drinks around had been taken by Frank and Louise for the evening. I wandered around aimlessly in search for some sugary refreshment, but to no avail. While looking, I saw that there was a man leaning against Micah's SUV. I didn't have my glasses on so I couldn't see it. I figured if it was Micah he would have said something. Hoping beyond hope Thinking it was Micah, I went in my tent to hide sleep.

I finally fell back asleep. When I woke up in the morning, I went around looking at shadows in tents to make sure everyone was alive. Reassured, I went to the store, bought a coke, and finally got my sugar. I don't think I did a very good job of looking around to make sure everyone was alright, cause a bright orange tent popped up and I completely missed it. Thankfully, it was Camille and not a psycho-killer camping out waiting for us to all wake up so he could kill us without further disrespecting us by going into our tents.

·
8. Wake up, meet someone new (sort of), insert foot into mouth.

Note to self: When you meet someone you know is in the medical profession and they refer to the hospital that they're working at, do not, do not, assume that they are a nurse. Cause they might be a week away from being a full-fledged doctor and tired of being accused of being a nurse because of their gender. Especially when they don't know how cool you think nurses are. Not that being a doctor isn't really cool, too. I just didn't personally know any medical doctors until Camille and do know some nurses and nurses are cool, not that being a doctor isn't cooler, and not by thinking she was a nurse instead of a doctor meant that she was less cool cause I think doctors are cooler than nurses, cause I don't necessarily think they are cooler, I just don't think they're necessarily not and mphmuhmmphmumph... ahem, sorry about that. My foot seemed to find its way into my mouth again.

Also note to self: If you don't know a woman's age or approximate age, just avoid the subject of ages (including yours) entirely. Don't even bother professing ignorance and just referring to your generation, cause she might pointedly note that she is part of your generation and assume that you assumed she was younger even though you assumed she was older and mphmuhmmphmumph....

Also also note to self: Find some mouth-repellant shoes.

·
1. (C) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

Camille is quite the forgiving sort, and when I mentioned that I was without a pillow, she offered me one of hers. Score!

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow

I got my things together to take a shower...

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow
Towels

Whiff.

·
9. Learn Spanish and teach someone more English.

During my adventures with Adric on Saturday and beyond, he would go around pointing to things and sounding out the words. For instance, he would look at dew on plants and say "aqua!" which, of course, means water. Similarly, whenever he wanted to play with the ball, he would point and say "bol!"

Some words were more complicated, however. He would point to bugs and say "pica!" So I thought that pica meant bug. Then he pointed at my cigar and said "pica!" I finally had to turn to Micah and ask what "pica" meant, and he said it was a derivative of the word "picar" which means to bite or to sting. Picante sauce is derived from that word.

Most were pretty simple. For instance, whenever he pointed to cars (toy or real) and said "vroom" I could rest assured that was Spanish for "car."

·
1. (D) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

Steel-toed boots are not good swimwear.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow
Towels
Swimming shoes

The store has a pair... three sizes too small.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow
Towels
Swimming shoes Ouch.

·
10. Get wet without swimming.

We woke up on Saturday to a chill and fog. Everyone crossed their fingers hoping that the weather would get better. Everyone except me, of course. I dislike the sun. I like overcast, dreary weather. As we were all huddled on the raft, my views on the matter turned out to be very unpopular. The more it rained, the more Callie looked at me and scowled. When the sun came out, I grunted a disapproving "mmmmh" and the sun would go hide again.

The more this happened, the less popular my views on the subject became.

·
1. (E) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

When the sun finally did come out, Camille came to the rescue again! She was the only one who'd thought to have some sun tan lotion ready for application.

Things I forgot:
Lotion
Cigarettes
Pillow
Towels
Swimming shoes Ouch.

·
11. Learn the physics of paddling. Relearn. Relearn. Repeat process.

Apparently, most people spend their first trip doing most of the paddling while everyone else just drinks beer. It's not any sort of hazing or initiation, but rather us newbies are unaccostomed to the point of the trip: drink beer and float. Apparently this has been a real problem in years past when one particular guest thought that this would be an ironman (or ironwoman) endurance contest and that there would be racing and competition involved. Not being the competitive sort, I was quite sure that I would not be bit by that particular bug.

Camille and I ended up sitting together in the back of the raft. Camille is not one for drinking. Even though she spent the previous year being the only paddler on two rafts, she was still inclined to paddle this year. Since I was back there with her and can walk and chew gum drink beer and paddle at the same time, we were the steering department for the course of the afternoon. Unfortunately, I had more upper body strength than she did so while she had to paddle constantly, I need to be less constant about it. The problem was that I kept forgetting which way the raft would steer when I paddled, so I'd think that I desperately need to paddle to catch up I was actually ahead and thus threw us further off-course.

Camille very patiently explained, over and over again, that by paddling my side it'll steer the boat to the other side, but like Bart Simpson and the electrical cupcake, I just kept doing it.

At one point she just told me to go hog-wild and spin us around. The rest of the gang (not to mention other rafters and kayakeers) looked at us like we were crazy, but it was thrilling fun for a spin or two.

I'd had some beer to drink. I don't know what Camille's excuse was.

·
12. Consider the anthropological mechanics of male and female urination habits.

We had to take numerous pit-stops along the way. We stopped to eat at one point, but it was generally for us guys to relieve ourselves. I say "us guys" literally because Callie and Camille never went. This brought up a rather serious boozed up intellectual conversation on the urination habits of men and women. Namely (in Camille's words) "Girls don't feel the need to announce to the world that they're taking a leak."

Indeed.

Some guys would make a cursory effort to conceal their actions. They might go behind a bush or something. Most of the time, it didn't take a rocket scientist (or glasses) to see what they were doing. Callie said that she wishes she had a camera to take a picture of the four of us lined up, sprawled across the scenery, with our backs to the river but completely unconcerned with the reality that everyone knew what we were doing. I only saw one girl squatting at a point during the trip, but she had two girls lined up in front of her so that we wouldn't see. That was kind of a mistake, either in thinking that it would work or using two scantily clad girls to block her. If not for them, I'd not have noticed at all.

Callie and Camille, the only two ladies on the raft (Gladys, Louise, and Mrs. Mark stayed behind), managed to hold it. Camille didn't drink much so it wasn't that hard for her. Poor Callie needed to go after a couple hours, but refused to compromise her femininity by going anywhere but in a restroom. So she held it. And held it. And held it. Eventually we found a place that had restrooms marked, so we docked. Turns out it was merely a barrell surrounded by something or other and even though it was designated male-female, twasn't gonna happen. Callie held it some more.

At one point, a couple of us conspired to throw her into the water so that she'd just be done with it. She indignantly replied that she would make a point not to go if we did such, and our plans were scrapped.


13. Become more superstitious

·
14. Democratize someone into (almost) exploding.

We reached a stopping point and debated whether or not to utilize it. Some of us wanted to keep going, but Tom was ready to call it a day and Callie was about to explode. So we held a vote. 4-2.

Poor Callie.

·
15. Learn that people react differently to fire

Frank: We should put more lighter fluid on this fire.
R. Alex: Hmmm. Fire warm. Warm good. Wait, too warm. Move chair back. Good warm. Not warm enough. Move chair forward. There we go.
Camille: Fire good. My pocket of zen is right by fire. Yay fire. Nice fire. Sincere fire. Good fire.
Adric: ¿Por qué no puedo jugar yo con la cosa dinámica brillante? ¡Quiero jugar con la cosa dinámica brillante!
Kevin: Beer. Fire. Paradise.
Tom: Hmm. Is my shirt on fire? So it is. So it is.
Micah: Uhhhh, Tom....

·
16. Learn that they're just fattening you up to be sacrificed to the Sun God and that people don't like to go kayaking in cold, drizzly weather.

On Sunday afternoon we were eating tacos everyone was looking to the sky to see if it would warm up. Periodically the sun would come out, I'd scowl, and it would go away, as per Saturday. Finally, Tom suggested that I be sacrificed to the Sun God so that the Sun will come out. Callie noted that they were already fattening me up. The idea became very popular.

Too popular.

But not popular enough for me to stop eating tacos. Alex:Tacos::Camille:Fire::Kevin:Beer

·
17. Rearrange the ice chest on the Titanic

As the morning wore on, more and more of the old fogies (as defined by anyone older than Camille, the next oldest person) determined that it was too cold and wet (waaaaaah!!) to go kayaking and that they wanted to "stay at the camp" because it was "cold" out and fire is "warm" and "stuff."

Since this was my first trip, I definitely wanted to go out again. However, because I wasn't familiar with the river, I didn't want to go alone. As it turned out, Camille was interested in going as well, and since we were going kayaking instead of rafting, we didn't need to likes of them and their aversion to "turning purple" from the cold. (the air quotes are not quoting their words, merely my mimicking them out of pure pettiness cause Cam and I ventured the river and they did not, so there).

Kevin was good enough to give me an ice chest to take with me with some beer and, water, and diet coke. We weren't sure where to put the chest on the kayak, but there was an area for it behind the seat that looked like it would hold it pretty well. So I tied it down and we were on our way out into the river. For about two seconds. Then I nearly capsized. Being a novice, my balancing skills were already not so great. During the initial jolt, the cooler got off-center adding to my difficulties. I made it across the river and she fastened it better than I did and I was ready to roll.

Or not.

It seemed that no matter how hard I paddled, I wasn't going anywhere. Furthermore, over half the kayak was under water. Paddle paddle paddle. Camille was suddenly 20 feet ahead of me. Paddle paddle paddle. Forty feet. I checked out paddling rates and I was paddling (slightly) faster than she, but to no avail. She slowed down and I sped up, but the half-sunk Titanic wouldn't go. The fact that half of my energy went to balancing the top-heavy beast didn't help. The only places I made ground was when we were caught by the currents.

When we were confronted by the Monolith, she started paddling as fast as she could, leaving me behind to suffer its wrath. Finally, when we managed to outrun it, we pulled ashore and I tried to just tie the cooler onto the back. The problem was that there was no fastener to keep it closed. All I knew is that my arms could not take much more. I seriously considered just buying Kevin a new chest and leaving it behind. But I hate hate hate admitting defeat. Seeing my plight, Camille agreed to take charge of the Titanic, figuring it would give her more of a challenge.

That it did. Once we switched crafts, I was steadily ahead of her and was able to relax my aching arms. She'd underestimated the effect of the chest, much to my glee. But my tired arms and the lighter craft more or less matched her superior paddling skills and higher energy levels against the heavy chest. And when she had trouble keeping up, I got to rest. That in and of itself made me quite thankful.

·
18. Outpace the Deathstar

I initially dubbed it The Monolith and later, when talking to someone else about it, The Deathstar. It was about 15 rafts or so all interconnected and loaded with excess of fifty drunken assholes. I do not mean to corrolate drunkenness with assholishness, but in this case it fit. They were loud and obnoxious. But not in the cool way we were loud and obnoxious the day before. In an obnoxious obnoxious way. For instance, One lady in the Monolith commented that I'd better unload the cooler from the Titanic cause I was sinking. I ignored her and another guy from the craft pointed at me and warned me that I'd "better look at her when she's talking to [me]."

We only wish Kevin, Micah, Tom, and Callie were there. When we'd had water balloons flung at us the day before, they knew all the right cursewords the yell. My arms were tired and my creative well tapped dry. I grunted and sped up as best I could to catch up with Camille, who'd sped up the second that she saw them.

We finally regrouped later when she was comfortable ahead of them and stalled to wait for me. We went a little further along the way before I needed a quick break.

R. Alex: Hmmm... how far ahead are we from the Monolith?
Camille: I don't know. We've probably got about ten minutes.
R. Alex: Okay, I need to take a nine minute break.

We ended up breaking for a slightly longer period of time as we rearranged things. We'd apparently left them in the dust. Or they got out. Or drowned.

We can hope, right?

··
19. Go up a creek with a paddle, go down it without one.
1. (F) Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to prepare and make lists before you left.

On the last series of turns, Camille and I became increasingly more risk-taking. Well, Camille was risk-taking most of the time, but the ice chest added to the effect. To give you an idea, when the Titanic was mine, the front hit a rock or some wood and the entire thing flipped backwards. I'd managed to jump out the side to avoid getting water up my nose. Three cheers for thinking off my feet to the effect of clean nostrils!

So anyhow, I made it through a particularly iffy current that she was going through. I was curious how she was going to make it through. Unfortunately, I was in my own heep of trouble with a giant fallen tree and missed it all. I got tossed and when I got up and regrouped, I looked up and saw all the beer and coke floating away from her capsized craft. She came over to where I was and we laughed about it for a bit. We were not in a particularly advantageous spot and our kayaks kept flipping and doing wacky things even as we were trying to just get it level enough to sit on.

We watched the last remaining item she had on her, the sun tan lotion, float away.

When the sun finally did come out, Camille came to the rescue again! She was the only one who'd thought to have some sun tan lotion ready for application.

Things I forgot:
Lotion Lotion (again)
Cigarettes
Pillow
Towels
Swimming shoes Ouch.

She finally hopped across the log and tried it from that side with great success. I, on the other hand, was far too stubborn. So I tried it again. Not only was I tipped in under two sections, I was caught by the currents and thrown against the troublesome log. If I'd been wearing my life vest, the kayak would have floated away. But since I'd taken it off and tied it to the craft, I was able to grab hold of it and consequently the kayak.

We never saw the paddle again.

I was paddling with my arms when Phil, the campground manager that we were using, saw us and our predicament. I paddled in as best I could, but reached a stalemate right before the spot where I could get out. Camille extended her paddle to me to pull me in. Of course, she pulled me but not the kayak and I was dunked one last time. Thinking quickly off my feet again, I captured the kayak with my legs and was successfully pulled in.

Phil is a great guy. Not that you'd know it on meeting him. He had a very gruff demeanor. He was a chain smoker, but he really should dip instead of smoke. Not that one is healthier than the other, but he looks like a dipper. If he didn't spit out the side of his mouth every few seconds, he's the type of guy that would. Even though we'd not stayed at his campground as we'd had reservations to do, he didn't charge Kevin for the space (even though Kevin offered). Most importantly (to me), he didn't even charge me in the case of the mysterious missing paddle.

I was apologetic to Camille for making us have to stop early, but we only had 3/4 of a mile left so all was right with the world.

·
20. Get good, belated, and much needed backrub.

When I commented how tense my muscles were and how much I'd be willing to pay a messeus, she offer to trade backrubs.

Best trade I've brokered in a long time.

·
21. See visions in embers of a fire, including a face, poorly done CG Satan skin, and Batman.

On the last evening there, we finally built a real campfire. The previous night's was on a stove. This was was on the ground, as fires are meant to be. Louise, Frank, and Mrs. Mark had left. Adric and Gladys and eventually Kevin and Callie went to bed, so Micah, Tom, Camille, and I all hung out by the increasingly dwindling fire. As the night wore on, we all became increasingly sleepy (as night wearing on tends to make us). When I saw a face in the embers of the campfire, people assumed I was getting delirious. I was not, of course, cause there was a face in there. Little eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Camille looked, but couldn't see it. Harrumph. She must have been too delirious in her pocket of campfire zen. I eventually got tired of it staring at me, so I poked it with the stick and went away.

So far so good.

Then one side of the campfire started looking familiar. It looked like CG for a planet or something. Then I realized that it actually looked a little like skin. Satan's skin, it occured to me. It took about fifteen minutes of pondering where I'd seen that CG skin before (and about ten minutes of Micah and Tom ridiculing me. Harrumph again). Then I remembered it from a movie, but my companions were unconvinced. Bah to them all, I thought.

Then I saw something colossaly weird. It looked like a BTAS version of Batman's torso and head. Not just any torso and head, but one I've seen before on little Batman bottles where the squirter is coming out of his back. Though the embers lacked said squirter, I felt it was time for bed.

·
22. Pick up various themes of the trip.

Theme song: "Rhonda's Prayer" by Dead End Angels. ("Thank you Lord, we don't need any more rain")
Beer commercial motto: "No one cares about your beer quite as much as you do" -Kevin Whited
Camera effects: Lowered contrast. Grey skies meet lush green wood.
What made the trip so enjoyable: The people, without a doubt. In a situation like this (cold weather, rain, etc) the key to enjoyment is flexibility and we had a wonderfully flexible group. Many bitched about the weather, but no one let it stop them from enjoying themselves. On the first day Camille and I paddled and most of the other people didn't and no one complained that we were moving too fast or too slow or steering wrong. Also true for Camille on the kayaking day where a number of things went wrong but we had a great time.When Kevin's beer was lost, for instance, her verifiably did not kill me. I can't remember the last time I was with a group that large without factions being formed or anyone really getting angry with anyone else. Those are many of the reasons I avoid large group activities and they were notably absent.

I can't wait for next year.

·
23. Make lists all the way up on all the ways you failed to make sure you had everything when you left

Things I could have forgotten, items scratched off in my possession:
Bathing suit
Chair*
Sleeping bag
Cooler**
Cigarettes
Glasses

*- I techically have it, but it was crushed when a certain two year old was jumping up and down on me.

**- Crap.

I'm about to head out. I'll be back Monday night!

Apologies for not posting on what I said I would before I went and not getting able to respond to a couple emails. Get to it all Monday night!

Kevin shows the way to this music review by Houston "We-Wish-We-Were-In-Frisco" Press music critic William Michael Smith, who uses what is ostensibly a review of F-Co's latest album to rip into Texas Country Music.

Unfortunately, impressive press kits aside, [F-Co's] The King of Texas is simply another entry in the overcrowded, rapidly-going-stale Texicana New Wave, where me-too bands are cloned faster than lab rats.
[...]
The King of Texas follows the commercially successful least-common-denominator formula developed in the Pat Green kitchen and scrupulously imitated by Cory Morrow and a jillion other neo-Texas country acts that are almost indistinguishable from one another in their kitschy taco'd straw hats. Those partial to music that doesn't dare even the slightest deviation from the original mashed potatoes recipe will probably catapult The King of Texas to the top of our Texas music charts with considerable haste. Yee-haw. Yeah, buddy.

I come here not to praise F-Co, a band that I was probably the least impressed with when we saw them open up for Roger Wilko (whom I'm positive that Mr. Smith would put into the redundant category as well). I come to bury Smith's idiotic notion that Texas Country Music is built on conformity.

In fact, that Cory Morrow is the only one he specifically mentions merely illustrates that point. Just about everyone else he could mention has significant distinctions from Green. Juxtaposing Morrow and Green as an example of the subgenre's monotony is itself redundant because Green and Morrow have been juxtaposed since day one. Why? Because they went to Texas Tech together. They used to play Wednesday night shows together at a bar in Lubbock. They are artistic siblings. Morrow isn't imitating Green any more than the reverse, and Green being signed first (Morrow was actually in talks with a label a few years ago, but they broke down) doesn't suddenly make Morrow an imitator.

There are others that could plausibly fit this format. Roger Creager has a number of beer hall tunes, but he also has a Tejano tune and a touching anthem about getting his deceased grandfather's guns. Kevin Fowler might if you read his lyrics sheet, but his sound is different from most of the subgenre (I don't care for it much, personally, but many many others disagree). Dub Miller writes about beer halls, but also cowboys reacting to the changing world around them. And of course love songs. They've all got love songs that have nothing to do with "kitschy taco'd straw hats."

Now, not having heard F-Co's CD, they may well be the band with nothing else to offer but derivatives of Green, Morrow, Creager et al. If Smith were to leave it at that, neither Kevin nor I would be compelled to write about it. But to dismiss the entire subset would be analogous to dismissing a Smith favorite, Max Stalling, cause Stalling's work is similar to Robert Earl Keen's with only half the range of music.

But Stalling, in Smith's assessment and mine, has quite a bit of talent. Stalling has a narrow range of music but does it extraordinarily well. Why doesn't Smith spend more time explaining why F-Co doesn't have talent (and they might not) and less time explaining why those of us who enjoy the music are mindless conformists with no apparent taste in music.

What Is Your Animal Personality?
brought to you by Quizilla

I figured I'd get "bear" as I tend to fit the description I saw on Owen's blog. Didn't know there was a wolf. This kinda works too.

I actually have a lot of t-shirts and such with pictures of wolves on them. At some point, my then-girlfriend Anna was under the mistaken impression that timberwolves were my favorite animal so she made it a theme of our first birthday together. I got a wolf shirt, stuffed puppet, and a couple other things. I didn't really have a favorite animal, so I ended up adopting it as mine for the course of the long relationship. I've not picked a favorite wild animal since so I suppose that it still has that honor.

A. Since the current primary system has been in place, has any presidential incumbent running for re-election who did not have a serious primary rival lost a general election?

B. Since the current primary system has been in place, has any presidential incumbent with a serious primary rival won a general election?

Now, the "current primary system" was not, I believe, in place when Eisenhower ran for re-election in 1956, but even if it was, Eisenhower was unchallenged in the primaries and won.

The next incumbent to run was Johnson in 1964. I do not believe that he had any serious internal opposition and won re-election. Is that belief correct?

Nixon in 1972: Did Schmidt run against him in the GOP primaries or did he simply bolt to run third party? Would he count as a serious intraparty challenge? I really don't know.

Ford in 1976: Reagan ran against him in the primaries, he lost the general election.

Carter in 1980: Edward Kennedy ran against him in the primaries, he lost the general election.

Reagan in 1984: Did not have any serious internal opposition that I know about, won handily.

Bush 1992: Buchanan won New Hampshire and would thus qualify as a serious challenger. Bush lost the general election.

Clinton in 1996: No primary challenger, won.

So the questions then become:
(A) Do weak incumbents simply draw primary challengers and thus a primary challenger is indicative of a problem?
(B) Do primary challengers make the candidate appear even weak and therefore have a detrimentally negative effect on the president's odds for re-election.

Democratic Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey considered running against Clinton in 1996. For whatever reason, he chose not to. In the run-up to the election, Clinton's re-elect numbers were not all that great. In fact, I believe a "generic Republican" ran about even with him. Nonetheless, when Bob Dole won the nomination, Clinton's re-election seemed imminent. Would a Kerrey challenge have changed that perception? Or did Kerrey simply know that since the economy was doing well, Clinton would thus be strong because that was the issue he'd run on in 1992? In other words, was Kerrey's decision not to run based on a percieved lack of weakness (A) or was Clinton's sailing through to re-election a product of coming out of the primaries with a party unified behind him (B)?

What did Bush's numbers look like when Buchanan filed to run against him?

Anyone have any thoughts or answers?

A couple brief stories:

1.
My mother was once on a plane with James A. Baker, who was serving as Secretary of Treasury at the time. He was approached by someone who had an idea for easier taxation. The man said that everyone should have to pay for things with what today are called debit cards (but were not as prevalent at the time) and a portion of each purchase should just go straight to the government. Baker was polite (one suspects that he got ideas on taxation from strangers often) and explain, "Yes, that would make it simpler to collect taxes and a lot simpler to raise them."

2.
A left-of-center friend and I were getting gas on our way out of town for a road trip. Gas prices were abnormally high at the time and there was an ongoing debate as Republicans were pushing for them to be lowered. My friend saw a sticker on the pump that explained that fifty-three cents of every gallon was going to pay for local, state, and federal taxes. "Why do they do that?" he complained, "it's like they want to blame the government for the high gas prices."

I responded that if the government was responsible for fifty-three cents on the gallon, it's more than fair to say so. It's like when stores don't include sales taxes on their prices.

Turns out he also had a problem with that.


Charles Kuffner links to a report on taxes in passing that caught my interest. It explains the good and bad ways that states tax:

Of course, the burden a tax system must carry varies from state to state. There is no such thing as a perfect structure, no template that all, or even most, of the states could use. One of the glories of the American system of governance is that states are free to offer different degrees of service to their citizens. The main commonality is that they must raise whatever revenue they need to meet their chosen level of service. Raising money to meet irresponsible spending doesn?t make for a good tax system. But utilizing well-balanced streams of revenue and avoiding unsupportable tax cuts are critical, regardless of whether a state wants to have a Cadillac government or a Chevy.

Fair enough. I am generally in favor of balanced budgets, so tax cuts that create massive deficits are undesirable to me (though much more desirable than spending that creates deficits, which is why Democratic criticisms of Bush ring hollow to me, but that's an aside).

The question is what makes a taxism more or less fair than another? After all, a balanced budget is balanced whether the revenues are generated via sales, income, corporate, or property taxes. There's always the question of who is getting taxed. Income taxes are usually favored by liberals and sales taxes favored by conservatives since the former can be aimed at the wealthy and the latter are less likely to be targetted. There is also the question of what the taxing promotes and penalizes, conservatives arguing that the progressive income tax penalizes work, many arguing that property taxes discourage home ownership, and so on. But the report doesn't really explore these issues.

It's primary concern is making taxation as psychologically untaxing (pun intended) as possible.

States with unbalanced tax systems are particularly ripe for misinformation and misconception. In Texas, sales and property taxes are high because there is no income tax. Even though Texas ranks near the bottom in tax burden ? per capita or otherwise ? its citizens ?think of themselves as overtaxed,? reports Judith Stallmann, a professor at the University of Missouri.

This kind of veracity vertigo wouldn?t be such a bad thing if complaining about high taxes were like complaining about the weather. But politicians who want to stay in office regularly disregard their better instincts and follow their citizens on a path to misbegotten policies. Tennessee?s tax structure, with its over-reliance on high sales taxes, is, for instance, famously dysfunctional and inadequate to state needs. Well-informed observers have long argued in favor of adding a state income tax to the mix. ?Many in the legislature believed the income tax was the right approach to funding government,? says Bill Fox, a nationally known tax expert and professor at the University of Tennessee. ?But the percentage who was willing to vote for it was different.?

Damn those voters! Always complaining about taxes! Except their complaints get in the way of bigger government!

I'm being hyperbolic, but I get a whole lot of that in Texas. Over and over again I'm told how low our state taxes are compared to other states and how if we're really going to be able to pay our bills, we're going to have to incorporate a state income taxes. Whether or not we should have a state income tax is, of course, open to debate. But I don't want to sign on to more taxes and more government in Texas because taxes are higher elsewhere. If the current taxes are "inadequate," as they presently are, they we either need to pare down state government to the point that they are adequate or raise current rates to meet our needs. How we raise rates is statistically insignificant as long as the money actually comes in.

That last part is important as in recent history states (including Texas) have pursued quick-fixes in the forms of state lotteries that have promised more revenue than they've brought in. But the article states as clear as day that income taxes are just as susceptable to the ebb and flow of the economy as are sales taxes and so on. So really it's not so much pushing for a state income tax.

What it is pushing for, though, is diversified taxation. In other words, a little taxes everywhere (income, sales, corporate, and property) so that people are less inclined to notice or be deeply psychologically scarred for life by the government taking its chomp out of our wallets. Hyperbolic again, but you get the point. What they're getting at is a desire to make taxes easier and less noticeable.

That's where I just can't agree. I want taxes to be noticeable. I hate counting out pennies because of sales taxes, but that reminds me that $8.25 of every $10 goes towards the government. When Pasadena raised their sales taxes from .075 to .0825, I didn't notice some macroeconomic manner of mildly increasing prices, I noticed that something $20 costed a buck and a half more. Black and white. Cut and dried. As it happens the people of Pasadena voted for the tax increase and that's perfectly fine. I'm sure they're happy with it. The buck-fifty isn't the point. The point was that taxes went up and people were made immediately aware of it.

Truth be told, I might not mind a state income tax if it were institution in place of, instead of in addition to, the current structure. Like the federal income tax, it wouldn't be hard to determine exactly how much bite of the apple the government is taking. It'll make voters think twice before that next tax hike. As someone who is generally anti-tax, I consider that a good thing. That's why I don't consider psychologically painful taxes to be such a bad thing: they keep us from getting to economically painful tax rates.

On a last note, there is one area on which I do agree with the report.

the golden rule of tax equity: collect the lowest possible rates on the widest possible base of taxpayers.

I call this the "divide and conquer" strategy. Tax hotels because theoretically (but not actually) those are paid for by out of towners (and some of those in-town hotel guests would just assume no one know that they... ahem... frequent hotels). Tax cigarettes cause smokers are a minority and you can add a moral dimension to it. Tax every concievable vice, and we'll all end up paying in the end, but we'll all have our barrels pointed at different taxes and they'll be much more difficult to fight.

The article calls that form of taxation the most "fair." While I maintain that the difference in fairness is marginal, I would call that taxation the most likely to be passed and the least likely to be reversed, so Ima ginnit.

INS AND OUTS OF POWER

Jane Galt has a great post about the parties in and out of power. The crux of it is Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

She also goes on to explain her belief that Clinton's impeachment was done right: Clinton should have been impeached, but should not have been removed from office. While I don't precisely agree with her and believe that Clinton should indeed have been removed from office, her explanation of the entire situation is stellar:

I am the only person I've ever met who actually thinks we got about the right result in the impeachment. We impeached the guy, to say "No, you can't just commit perjury", but we didn't remove him from office over a minor civil suit. (Although Democrats who are planning on deluging me with elegant arguments about how he shouldn't have had to answer those questions -- I agree with you, except for one little thing, which is that he signed, with great fanfare, the law that made it so he had to answer those questions. As far as I'm concerned, therefore, he's the only guy in America who should have had to answer such questions under oath.)

But I could see how you wanted him impeached, and I could also see the argument for not impeaching him. It was a judgement call.

Except that a substantial portion of the Republican Party seemed, long before, to have lost all judgement. They were insane on the subject of Clinton. It wasn't enough that they disagreed with him politically; nothing would do but that he be the AntiChrist. They flooded the airwaves and newsprint with vituperative rants about the veriest trivialities of his administration. They raged impotently at the people in America -- THE FOOLS! -- who couldn't see that Clinton was the AntiChrist, even though it was as plain as the nose on your face. Every tiny shred of news about Clinton, no matter how innocuous, was waved about as evidence of his perfidy. I recall listening to some radio commenter go on and on about some Rose Garden ceremony for some law that was, as laws go, blandly heartwarming though ultimately useless, rather than, say, totally antithetical to basic concepts of liberty. The radio host used this law, which was so boring that I can't remember its topic except that it had something to do with kids and learning, as proof of Clinton's inherent evilness. How dare he cavort with children in the Rose Garden when, as we have already seen, he's EEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLL.

This was my conflict during the entire process. I was a Clinton defender and later apologist for most of his presidency. In fact, my very first column for the Daily Cougar outlined why I viewed impeachment as a mistake. In my generally tempered style, I fell short of explaining what I really thought: Republicans were insane.

And even though I now agree that there were grounds for Clinton to be impeached and removed from office, I still believe that they were. Not those that thought that lying under oath was an impeachable offense, of course, because I'm one of them. However, that's just the charge that they caught him one. Republicans had been aiming to get him removed since the 1996 election for whatever it was they could find. An investigation of a land deal became an investigation of marital indescretions resulted in impeachment on a crime that had not yet been committed when the investigations began. I don't say this because I think it lets Clinton off the hook because I obviously don't believe it does. Instead, I want to look at how irrational it all was and how they innoculated Clinton to the point that the public rallied behind a confessed adulturer, liar, and perjuror.

Bill Clinton was accused of everything from murder to treason. The former charge is thoroughly discredited and the latter is specious at best, but the point is when you accuse a man of being the Satan incarnate, discovering that he is an adulturer, liar, and perjuror just doesn't seem so bad. They had spent so much time trying to charge so much against the man that by the time actual wrongdoing was discovered, the people were sick of it.

On political grounds, Republican criticisms of Clinton's politics were equally inept. I remember a classic political cartoon that explained it all in a nutshell:
Panel 1:
Republican: Bill Clinton is liberal, liberal, liberal!
Arrow to Panel 2
Panel 2:
Democrat: Isn't it great to have a president that stands up for what he believes in?
Arrow to Panel 3
Panel 3
Republican: Stands up for what he believes in? Bill Clinton has never stood up for anything in his life!
Arrow to Panel 4
Panel 4
Democrat: Doesn't that just go to show how nice it is having a president that is so open to compromise.
Arrow to Panel 5
Panel 5
Republican: Compromise? Bill Clinton is taking credit for all our ideas!
Arrow to Panel 6
Panel 6
Democrat: How wonderful it must be for you that Bill Clinton supports Republican initiatives.
Arrow to Panel 1

The Republicans tried to attack President Clinton on every front at once to the point that the attacks were mutually exclusive. I don't know if it was irreconcilable hatred of the man or a desperate attempt to see what will stick.

Whatever the case, the parallels with Democratic criticisms of President Bush. Whereas Republicans vascilated between Bill Clinton having no principle and being a liberal hatchetman, Democrats do so between the notion that Bush is this machiavellian prince and that he's a moron (or smirking money or empty hat). Bush may well be defeated in 2004, but it will be despite, not because of, the Democratic's undisciplined, unfocused opposition to him.

In the post-Watergate era, only two elected presidents have not been re-elected: Jimmy Carter and George H. Bush. In both cases the economy weighed very heavily in their defeats. More than that, the opposition was able to make the case that the problem was the man in the White House and that replacing him would amount to change. More than even that, the case against them was very focused on their job performance. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that neither were hated by the opposing party nearly as much as Reagan and Clinton were. To put a finer point on it, Carter and Bush were difficult men to hate on a personal level so they were able to approach the situation with more level-headedness. Or maybe they were difficult to hate because they were inept.

Either way, at the present time Bush is more reminiscent of Clinton and Reagan. The Democrats lack a unified theory. Is Bush a conservative firebrand out of touch? Is he a machiavellian prince without any principle other than politics (note: you are running against Bush, so don't say "well Rove is this way and Bush is that way and together they unite to form the Axis of Republican Evil!")? Is he inept and his incompetence is to blame for percieved failures in Iraq and on the economy?

Lieberman presently strikes me as the only candidate who has a chance primarily because he's the only one who has picked an answer (ineptitude) and run with it. Unfortunately for him, his answers on foreign policy are largely incompatible with the Democratic primary electorate, so he will not win the nomination. Edwards is the only candidate that has to potential to have a chance because he hasn't closed any doors yet so he could make a case that he would be better than Bush on both foreign and domestic policy. Given his lack of experience, it's an uphill climb, but his lack of exprience also serves to explain why he hasn't developed a comprehensive plan, as opposed to John Kerry, where every new thing he says that contradicts something he's previously said serves as yet another example that he is a victim of a Gorean identity crisis and given that just about everything he has said this point has been already contradictory of something else, I just don't think there's much hope.

Bob Graham also could win, but by all indications he has appeared to have lost his mind, so I'm not sure what to say about him. Gephardt is running on the economy. He didn't get the memo.

Of course, the above analysis is in large part dependent that Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war that we're involved in and we're not in the middle of the Second Great Depression. If that's the case, everyone who isn't named Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich could concievably win.

But praying for rain is not a political strategy.

So to wrap this post around, the point is that unbridled hatred only serves to insulate the party that's in power. The "insanity" of Republicans prior to impeachment innoculated Clinton when wrong-doing was demonstrated. Similarly, the current "insanity" of Democrats is innoculating Bush for 2004.

Things to buy or otherwise procure:
1. Garbage bags
2. Light bulb
3. pillow covers
4. topsheet blanket

What to be done Monday
1. Call TWC at 8:30, 9:30, 10:30, 11:30, leave message at 2:00
2. Laundry Axis of Necessity: Blankets, whites, jeans
3. Clean floor of room
4. Clean chair
5. Drive home and send check to Jay
6. Send application for at least 5 positions

What to be done Tuesday
1. Clean table downstairs
2. Clean car
3. Clean bathroom
4. Laundry Axis of Other Stuff: blanks, blues, lights
5. Send application for at least 5 positions

What to be done Wednesday
1. Clean closet
2. Clean main area downstairs
3. Send application for at least 5 positions

What to be done Thursday
1. Clean kitchen

1. If I don't get ahold of the Texas Workforce Commission by 3pm tomorrow, I may not be recieving unemployment. I've called four times a (week)day since Thursday, to no avail. Long story, I'll explain later.

2. Remember that whole "quitting smoking" thing? To make a long story short, that was thrown out the window and in to moving traffic below. When I lost the job, I had too much time on my hands and too much to think about. My apologies for not mentioning it sooner, but I didn't right away because there were things on my mind and then forgot about it. I was reminded Thursday night when Cathy, who reads this blog from time to time, expressed surprise when I lit up. I'll get back to you on this one.

3. Even though I spent four hours yesterday writing a week's worth of posts, I'm not going to post them this week.

4. Even though I have three things I definitely want to post about this week, I'm probably not going to post on those either.

5. I am leaving town Friday morning, so no posting next weekend.

6. Between now and then, though, I'm going to be officially posting about the crap that no one cares about. Specifically:

7. I couldn't sleep last night because my bed made me itch. When I finally got up this morning, I had no pants. I am on my last pair of socks and underwear. I'm out of t-shirts. I haven't done laundry in one (1) month. Unlike previously when I ran into this problem, I can't afford to just go out and buy new clothes.

8. My room is a pig-sty, and I don't use that term lightly. So:

9. I'm going to use this blog as a listmaker for the various things I have to do and my progress. By the time I leave Friday morning, I'm going to have this place cleaned up, because if I do not:

10. I am going to call a certain figure from my past that was obsessed with cleanliness and I'll ask for her help. That means that (a) I'll be repeatedly reminded by her that I terminated the relationship before she could make a clean man out of me, (b) I'll owe her, and (c) see her again before she's over it and all the complicatedness that entails.

Stay tuned...

I don't often laugh out loud at something I've read on the Internet, but this did it.

Kevin, Callie, John, Cathy and I were at the Randy Rogers show last night. Kevin was trying to get it on dat, but unfortunately the table of contents on the minidisc screwed up. It was quite tragic as Randy put on a great show with his own solid music as well as some great covers including the classic "Dead Flowers" and somewhat obscure Chris Knight Sorryville tune. Such is life, of course, and if anyone knows how rebellious computers and electronics can be, it's me.

Of course, later in the show we were panicking when Randy, in between songs, looked up at us and asked if we (I say "we" meaning Kevin and Callie and not so much me, but some of the glory and fame must rub off on me, right?) were getting a copy of it on tape. Alas, we had to yell back, it was not to be.

Then Randy Rogers goes into one of his best anti-Nashville rants ever. And we're not getting it recorded! Quickly we scrambled for some way to get it down somewhere. Kevin had a sharpie and I had the back of a paper CD sleeve so I quickly scribbled it down as best I could.

After the show, we talked to Randy (as has become custom) and told him about the rebellious recorder and how we furiously scrambled to get the quote written down. Turns out that it was derived along with Phil Pritchett, a No-Lyfe favorite. No-Lyfers Jason, Brian, and I used to go to all of his shows before he hightailed it to Nashville. We still catch him whenever we can now that he's back, though it's harder to coordinate now that I'm the only one living in Houston. Now I just try (with mixed success) to convince friends to go (Kevin, Callie, Ed - my novel editor, Elciem - long story, Anna - my ex-girlfriend, Pierce - Anna's future husband, and anyone else who will listen). And so it all came together.

If you want to know the select quote from the rant, click on the image above the post.

For those of you interested, over at The Texas Mercury author and former cop Bob Weir has a rather measured but skeptical view of the the Green Arrow lookalike above and beyond the simple "He's guilty cause he just looks scummy" variety I'm so used to seeing. Choice quote:

The fact is, spousal murder is the easiest homicide to solve because, not only is the spouse the prime suspect, but the detectives who do the investigating are experts at breaking down the guilty party. You only commit murder once; they investigate it for a living. They have heard every alibi, witnessed every reaction, studied every facial nuance, and evaluated every feigned attempt at sadness by the ?grieving? widow(er).

It would take someone with nerves of steel and frigid blood to withstand the relentless probe of skilled interrogators. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so they can take their time, if necessary, to put the pieces together over months or years. In the Peterson case, Scott?s nerves must have been shredded to the point of panic when he decided to do a Miss Clairol and head for the border.

I tend to turn the channel when they start talking about it on TV, but I found Weir's observations worth my time to keep things in perspective.

Is there anything more sapping than spending TWO HOURS filling out an online application, having to look up irrelevent information like your daggun' blood type and then when you finish getting a message saying something to the effect of "Unfortunately, we cannot respond to all applications. but we will look over yours soon. If there is a match, we will contact you. Please do not call and follow up. Thank you"?

I don't think that there is.

Finally, someone explains women in a language I can understand!

In database terms, men are hierarchical and women are relational, unless we decide we're temporarily hierarchical, but:

The database is made up of an infinite number of tables, with no fixed or defined keys. The keys can be changed on the fly, as needed. Each record and field in the table is of variable length and is constantly and dynamically changing. The purpose of the database is determine how you feel about us, to gauge how well you will or do take care of us, and want you want us to do (at any given moment) to create a response that will confirm or deny something specific you said, that cannot mean what you said, because you never say what you mean.

Any suggestions or inferences to standardize the tables or normalize the data are proof that you DO think we look fat in that outfit.

Max Stalling: This next song is gonna be a little French existentialism or some other foreign ism or something.
R. Alex: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Elciem: Uh... Alex? What's so funny?
R. Alex: Nothing.
Elciem: Oooookay....

Update:
Overheard this quote on Houston Marchman's signiature song, "Vietnashville"
"Country music ain't in to no existential angst."

I need y'all's input.

Let's say you really needed a big favor from someone. Only one person you know can do it, but you don't care all that much for the person. They either don't know or don't care and like you a lot anyway. Here's the kicker: You know that if they asked this of you, you would tell them to drop dead, but you don't expect that to be their reaction at all.

The question: Is it ethical to ask?

[Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with any No-Lyfe Productions members or readers of the No-Lyfe Journal]

[In the middle of a conversation about jury duty]
Lisa: am i lovable?
RAW: lovable?
Lisa: yes lovable
RAW: explain
Lisa: you don't know what lovable is?
RAW: In better languages than English, love is split into many more specific words. Unfortunately, English just has that one-size-fits-all inspecific word.
Lisa: having qualities that attract affection
RAW: romantic affection or the general sort?
Lisa: both
RAW: I think everybody is lovable in the general way.
RAW: In the romantic way, you have been loved, so you are lovable.
Lisa: ok
Lisa: but i've changed since then
RAW: I don't think one can intrinsically change from "lovable" to "unlovable" in the romantic sense.
Lisa: ok
Lisa: nice diplomatic answers
RAW: For someone who continually railed against diplomacy with Iraq, I'm surprisingly good at it in my personal life.
Lisa: so I see

I backtracked a Google land on our site and ran across this press release.

Batman/Superman is pulling in some great numbers now that WB has decided to keep it on their schedule for next year with all-new episodes. WB has decided to drop Batman Beyond, The Zeta Project, and Static Shock to focus on bringing in a new era of Batman/Superman with all-new creators!

"Bruce Timm & Paul Dini have been fired so we bring in some new blood! We want to bring a whole new angle to Batman and Superman!" says new Batman/Superman exec Jon Peters. "We'll be completely changing these characters and making them accessible to everyone. We want to make these heroes "everyday" heroes, know what I mean?"

Peters, a self proclaimed long-time fans of about 10 minutes, proclaims he'll be making alot of alterations to the backrounds of the heroes and bringing in new voices and characters.

Peters says of Superman: "Well, we're gonna ditch that whole alien thing. I thought that made Superman completely dull and unapproachable. Is made him seem more super than any other man, and I don't want that. His new origin will be very simple. When he was biking riding at the age of five he fell down a well and landed on a genie lamp. His wish was for powers! I'm sure anyone can relate to falling off their bike! He'll also be a garbage man now, as well, becuase we couldn't think of any other job to give him."

Then I saw that it was dated 2001. Whew, I thought, they apparently canned this idea. But the more I read, the more I feared that this idea even made any headway.

Also, due to the success of 1997's movie Batman & Robin Joel Schumacer was brought in as a consultant, producer, and director of the new animated Batman shows. Schumacer thinks that he and Peters will turn the animated world on it's ear (or as Schumacer said: Nice round beautiful bottom) with these new visions on these already classic series.

Schumacer told us all about his plans for Batman and Robin. He too will be retooling Batman origin and his backround. Batman's retooled origin will be changed just a little bit. Schumacer explains:

"Batman's parents will still be alive and will live in a trailer outside the mansion. Tantalizing!"

It wasn't until I met Superman's new origin and sidekick, Andros (which actually occured earlier in the article, but I have a tendency to skip around articles while I read).

Peters says of Superman: "Well, we're gonna ditch that whole alien thing. I thought that made Superman completely dull and unapproachable. Is made him seem more super than any other man, and I don't want that. His new origin will be very simple. When he was biking riding at the age of five he fell down a well and landed on a genie lamp. His wish was for powers! I'm sure anyone can relate to falling off their bike! He'll also be a garbage man now, as well, becuase we couldn't think of any other job to give him."

Peters also reveals that even his classic suit will be changed. "It will be beige with a hint of orange. Those colors symbolize...ah...something that's near to him, like his super-ally Andros: The Multi-Cultural-Everyone-Can-Relate-To-Lad. We're bringing him in so we can relate to every single demographic. Expect him to be a different race every week! Crazy!"

Okay, so yeah, the joke is on me. I would just like to say that it took me WAY too long for me to realize that this was a joke. It's not cause I'm stupid, either. It's cause the Batman/Superman TV serials (as well as the Justice League cartoon) are about the only thing WB has done right in marketing its characters in a number of years. I guess it's good those serials were ended before too much damage could be done. Though Justice League is still on, I guess (I don't have cable). They're also working on a Teen Titans that's going to be pretty lame, but I guess you can't hit all the right notes all the time.

Now, if only they'd get Paul Dini to do the next Superman movie. Or Batman. Or Ambush Bug. I don't care! Just stop the madness!

(Caution, Ambush Bug site bugs you with ambush of pop-up ads. Ha ha ha.)

I shower in the morning, though I've been second-guessing myself on it. Like Daniel and Heidi, I'm not the greatest at getting up in the morning. Sometimes, sometimes I am annoying-happy in the mornings. The problem is that getting out of bed is one thing, but "waking up" is another. Showers wake me up, and when I know that I have to do something after I wake up that I don't want to, it's rather difficult to get me in the shower quickly and when I do finally go, I'm already running late.

On the other hand, like Adam, my hair in the morning is not acceptable if I don't shower. So even if when I do shower at night, I have to throw a lot of water in my hair, which strikes me as being redundant and impractical. I hate impractical.

On the other hand, when I do take a shower, I'm ready to conquer the world and that's a great feeling. When I'm out of town and wake up on Sunday morning, if I decide to shower when I get back, I almost always end up leaving pretty early (even when there's a blue-eyed reason to stay). If I bite the bullet and shower there, I'm inclined to be a lot more social and want to stick around.

So what to do? What do to? I'd like to get in the habit of doing one or the other...

I had my second interview at the Courthouse today. We're still in the general phase of the selection, however, but on certain questions we were pulled aside to answer specific and personal questions. There are, by my estimation, approximately 180 of the original 240 candidates remaining for the thirteen existing positions. More interviews will be held later this week. Mine is going to be Thursday morning. If I survive that cut, there will likely be a final interview at the beginning of next month.

I am legally barred from telling you what exactly the position is and from discussing any of the specifics. If I do get a spot, I will likely not be posting much for the two-week or so duration of the job.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get it. The odds are still roughly 15-to-1 and some of my views pertinent to the position are statistical outliers, meaning that one of the interviewers has a vested interest in my not taking up a slot that could be used by someone with more conventional Texan views of the criminal justice system.

A few interesting facts:

California:
2000 Election: 58% Gore/Nader, 42% Bush
Statewide elected officials: 10-0 (100%) Dem.
Congressional Delegation: 34-19 (64%) Dem.

Texas:
2000 Election: 59% Bush, 40% Gore/Nader
Statewide elected officials: 29-0 (100%) GOP
Congressional Delegation: 17-15 (53%) Dem.

If the 2000 elections had gone to the U.S. House, the same state that elected and re-elected Bush (by an astounding margin) would have cast its congressional vote for Al Gore.

In February I commented that while the House Majority Leader whose initials are TD (I am not supposed to mention his name in a negative context. Long story, bear with me) had a point about the Democratic tilt of Congress's congressional delegation, the GOP had its chance at redistricting to change that and they blew it. As such, the Texas GOP should not be pursuing redistricting after the 2002 election.

I take it back. Goodspeed House Majority Leader Tommy D!

When I first read the title "Democrats AWOL" peering over at someone else's edition of the Houston Chronicle on my way to jury duty today, I assumed it was a hyperbolic title about the relative impotence of the Democratic Party in our fair state. But no, a fair number of those little buggers, henceforth referred to as the Texas Democratic Coalition For a Permanent Minority (TDCPM) have actually fled Texas proper into our northern-most county, Oklahoma, which is by some freak occurance of history outside Texas's jurisdiction.

For those of you unaware, Texas legislature rules require 2/3 (100 of 150) to meet quorum. In order to duck the redistricting fight, Democrats have taken over 50 legislators across state lines. Why across state lines? Because Texas Rangers (the real ones, not the ball club) and the DPS were looking for them. Their jurisdiction ends at the Oklahoma border and as such, the Texas Democratic Coalition for a Permanent Minority have become the opposition in exile. Meanwhile, MSNBC, CBS News, and Fox News are eating it up. Why not? It's a funny story.

Except the joke is on us.

And I'm not laughing.

In fact, I am completely reversing my position on the issue of redistricting. Why? Because before I felt that the Texas GOP, lead by Tommy D, were using dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcomings in redistricting. While I didn't disagree with their aim of having a state delegation that represents the views of the state, I did disagree with the notion that they get a "do over" just because they didn't like the results last time around. So what do the Democrats do? They use dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcoming of being in a state whose electorate repudiates their politics nearly every chance it gets. While I am sympathetic to their arguments that the GOP shouldn't get a do-over, they took our dirty laundry and waved it in front of the rest of the country.

Kuff and Lofty suggest that this is only a rational response to GOP strongarming. Quintessentially, the argument is that "They started it!"

That's true, but this little publicity stunt has taken it up about sixteen notches. The last time this parliamentary trick was used was in 1991, when liberals used it to get Governor Ann Richards to promise to return funding for Kindergarten programs. While I'd need to know the specifics to know whether or not I agree with the liberals on that issue, at least they pulled out the biggest gun in their arsenal for an actual issue! What are they doing it for right now? So that a staunchly Republican state continues to send a Democratic congressional delegation, all the while moaning and groaning on how it's the Republicans that are trying to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. Democrats are losing on almost every issue in the state (even some that this writer wishes that they were winning) and their response for being continually beaten up in the boxing ring of politics is to blame their opponent.

Well, Dems, you've drawn the line in the sand. It's not progressivism vs. conservatism or active government versus limited government, it's Republican vs. Democrat in a state that leans at least 55% Republican. Good luck with that.

It's the best description of modern conservatism I've head in a while and it's from a die-hard liberal who is frightened by it!

These broad objectives may sound reactionary and destructive (in historical terms they are), but hard-right conservatives see themselves as liberating reformers, not destroyers, who are rescuing old American virtues of self-reliance and individual autonomy from the clutches of collective action and "statist" left-wingers. They do not expect any of these far-reaching goals to be fulfilled during Bush's tenure, but they do assume that history is on their side and that the next wave will come along soon (not an unreasonable expectation, given their great gains during the past thirty years). Right-wingers--who once seemed frothy and fratricidal--now understand that three steps forward, two steps back still adds up to forward progress. It's a long march, they say. Stick together, because we are winning.

He goes on to explain why this self-assessment of conservatives is wrong. He's right, to a degree, that the effects of conservatism are not as grand as the vision. The same, of course, can be said of liberalism. This brings me back to my tug-of-war theory which states that one must not agree with one side or the other completely to be constantly tugging the political center to that side.

Most of y'all oughta know what the Friday Five is, but if not, it's rather self-explanatory. Today, it's my turn to give it a go.

1. Would you consider yourself an organized person? Why or why not?

See Daniel Goldberg's answer.

2. Do you keep some type of planner, organizer, calendar, etc. with you, and do you use it regularly?

See Daniel Goldberg's answer.

3. Would you say that your desk is organized right now?

See Daniel Goldberg's answer.

4. Do you alphabetize CDs, books, and DVDs, or does it not matter?

See Daniel Goldberg's answer.

5. What's the hardest thing you've ever had to organize?

See Daniel Goldberg's answer.

I hope next week's are as easy as this one's.

"Everyone sometimes feels like they are the sum of all their bad decisions" -Stephen Trask

Unlike most Lyrigraphs, this one is not based on something that happened. Rather, it's based on a rather elaborate dream that I had last night. Most of my dreams have anamolies in them as dreams are wont to, so I wittled this one down into the coherent story of the dream. All of the discriptions are as real as I remember them. Lastly, I'm not aiming for any ethnic slurring inuendo with the landlord character. That just happens to be the only thing that I remember about her.

When the earth was still flat and clouds made of fire
and mountains stretched up to the sky
sometimes higher

My estranged girlfriend and I were going to a Blue October show. We'd gotten lost a couple times on the way up, but eventually found our way. Our car trip had just given her more time to drink so by the time we got there, she was plastered. Unlike most Blue October shows, this one was at the Astrodome and not Fitz. The stage was set up on where the field used to be, but now only resided a concrete floor. No one sat in the bleachers, so it was not a show big enough worthy of the huge venue. She raced onto the concrete field leaving me behind. I wasn't in the mood to be amongst the big crowd, so I decided to go find a bite to eat.

folks roamed the earth
like big rolling kegs
they had two sets of arms
they had two sets of legs
They had two faces peering of one giant head
so they could watch all around them
as they talked while they read
and they never knew nothing of love
It was before the origin of love

The restaurant was actually inside the Dome, running along the wall where hot dog stands or restrooms usually were. It was an actual restaurant, though, with an entrance and places to eat. They're all the rage in the new stadiums, but I hadn't recalled the Astrodome ever having one. The diner was long and narrow, with only one booth to either side of the walkway. There was a counter to the left of the entrance, a fountain beside that, and a restroom in the corner on the left, so there was actually only a couple booths on the left side with several on the right. The floor was concrete, but they'd added a superfluous wooden wall to give it the "feel" of a place that was not actually just a little restaurant in a nook or cranny of the stadium. The tables were also wood with a red and white plastic tablecloth. The wooden benches had red pads that were added for comfort, but looked odd hanging off the unfinished wood. The lighting was the ultrabright lighting that when poorly kept up with flickers and hurts the eyes of everyone around. The kind you usually see in offices.

There were a couple people in line ordering food and a couple taking their burger and fries, cobbled together in a red plastic basket with wax paper lining. There was only one person seated alone in a booth. She was looking in my direction, but quite obviously staring into the abyss. I, along with the passing Blue October fans outside the door, were invisible to her. That gave me the opportunity to look at her without being seen, an opportunity that people-watchers such as myself love.

Now there was three sexes
and one that looked like two men
glued up back to back
they were called the children of the sun
And similar in strength and girth
was the children of the earth
looked liked two girls rolled up in one
and the children of the moon
looked like a fork stuck on a spoon
it was part sun, part earth,
part daughter, part son

Her hair was bleached blond, a few shades too light to be natural, coming down to her shoulders before falling behind them to be caught by a scrunchy I couldn't see that was probably half-way down her back, only holding her hair enough to keep it out of her eyes.. It was so straight and thin it looked like it had been ironed. Her hair was apparently naturally pretty dark, or at least that's what her dark brown of black eyebrows told me. At one point she was wearing black mascara and lipstick, though both had worn away. The mascara had either been worn off or cried away by tears that had apparently dried. Her lipstick was still slightly darkened at the edges, but their pinkness had snuck through. Her skin was extremely pale, so much so that she looked completely white where the bright lights glistened off her skin of her collarbone, nose and a couple other places. Her collarbone and a little bit of the cleavage borne from her full figure were exposed by her liberally unbottoned plaid red and black flannel shirt. It was too sizes too large. She wore a tight black spandex bra beneath.

I slipped into the bench opposite of her in the booth and started talking. I couldn't hear what I was saying and when she replied, I was equally deaf to her words. I wanted to get a better look of her face, but from the moment I sat down on, she kept looking down. We talked for what seemed like hours. I just kept looking at her while she periodically looked up at me with her pale, pale blue eyes, before looking back down. As the conversation rolled on, I decided I wanted to do something to make her feel better, or at least make myself feel better by trying. I placed my hand on hers and noticed in a horrifying instant that she was wearing black nail polish. For whatever reason, nail polish is the biggest repellent that any woman can wear and that was a bigger sign of our impermanence than my loud, obnoxious girlfriend by the stage fifty yards away. But it was too late. Once I did that, she finally looked up at me and grasped my hand. Suddenly, it didn't seem to matter anymore.

Now the Gods grew quite scared
of our strength and defiance
And Thor said, I'm going to kill them
all with my hammer like I killed the giants

But Zeus said, "No you better let me
use my lightning like scissors.
Like I cut the legs off the whales and
and Dinosaurs into lizards"

We talked about a lot of things while our hands were touching, then holding. I was still oblivious to most her words and mine, though I could feel the tone change. Periodically she'd stop from telling me something and I could read her lips asking "What?" And I would say "nothing" and smile. My smile kept getting bigger.

Finally, we got up and walked out, arm in arm. In the chair she had slumped. With our arms locked, she stood taller than I had expected. I left my soon to be ex-girlfriend at the show, but I don't think I cared.

Then he grabbed up some bolts
and he let out a laugh
Said. "I'll split them right down the middle and
cut them right up in half
And the storm clouds gathered above
in great balls of fire

It was some time later when we were having another fierce argument. When we first got this place, I remember it seeming so large. Now it's just a mid-sized room with a corridoor hallway. The wood is finished, but it's scratched here and there. While I recall their having been doors in the hallway before, right now the only one leads straight to the bedroom. She looked different. Her nail polish was gone and her thin bleached hair had given way to a full brown color. The nail polish was gone. She still kept the mildly pudgy figure that she had when we met, but it was so much more attractive to me. Her face hung down over her face. Periodically, I could see one pale blue eye looking at me through tears that wouldn't dry. She was no longer standing tall, instead sitting slumped on the edge of our bed.

And then fire shot down from the sky in bolts
like shining blades of a knife
and it ripped right through the flesh
of the children of the sun
and the moon
and the earth
And some Indian God, sewed the wound up into a hole
pulled around to our bellies
to remind us of the price we paid

We were interrupted by a pounding at the door. I walked out of the room and across the thin hallway and answered it. It was a thin, elderly Jewish woman who immediately began yelling at me with some paper in her hand. I yelled back, but there wasn't much I could say to her. She peered over to see my partner, but the hallway was far too thin and long for her to see much of anything. Did the woman think she'd left me? I didn't know, but I know that thought would have pleased her immeasurably. I wasn't going to let her in, but she brusqued right by me. When I caught up she'd made it in the room with my estranged lover laying on the bed, crying. I told the woman to leave, but she chose not to. I think it was her property and she had the right to stay. She yelled some more and handed me the folded paper with our room number written on red ink on the outside. I didn't need to read it to know what it said.

I kept asking myself "Where are we going to live?" Or maybe I was just worried about where I was going to live.

And Osirus and the Gods of the nile
gathered up a big storm
to blow a hurricane
to scatter us away
in a flood of wind and rain
the sea of tidal waves
wash us all away
and if we don't behave
they'll cut us down again
and we'll be hopping around on one foot
and looking through one eye

The woman finally left, but didn't close the door behind her. I walked over, shut the door and walked back. I wondered to myself when our bedroom had become so small. She shuffled over to the corner of the bed and looked at me through the one eye that could see through her hair.

The last time I saw you
We'd just split in two
You was looking at me
and I was looking at you
You had a way so familiar
I could not recognize
coz you had blood on your face
and I had blood in my eyes
but I could swear by your expression
that the pain
down in your soul
was the same as the one down in mine

I sat down next to her and talked to her in a softer tone. I still couldn't hear what I was saying, but she seemed to be feeding off of it. For the first time in what must have been a long time, we really talked. I think I asked her to look at me and I raised her chin with my fingers. Then we kissed.

That's the pain that cuts straight line
down to the heart
We call it love
So we wrapped our arms around each other
tried to shove ourselves back together
It was making love
Making love

As she laid against me comfortably, but not happily, I was unable to sleep. The paper was sitting on the dresser across the way. As long as it was there, I sleep was beyond my reach.

I looked at her one last time as she slept. I could see the uncertainty in her dreaming face. We both knew that when we woke up this morning, we'd be facing the same problems that we had when we woke up yesterday morning. Or not. I grabbed my bag and started throwing things inside of it. We'd sold most of everything along the way, so there was very little to pack. She snuggled against the blanket as she slept calmly, but not happily.

I, put my key on the kitchen table, and left.

It was a cold dark evening such a long time ago
when by the mighty hand of Jove...
It was a sad story
how we became
lonely two legged creatures

It's the story of the Origin of Love

Song: Origin of Love
Artist: Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Album: Hedwig and the Angry Inch Soundtrack

Nerddom has become a common theme here at the No-Lyfe Journal. Particularly how one is defined and differenciated from a dork. In any case, Michael Duff has a wonderful article at University Daily on how nerds need to get over it and grow up:

Nerds hate teamwork. They're so brilliant, they think they should be allowed to break the rules. You may be the most brilliant programmer on Earth, but if you can't get along with the finance, distribution and marketing people, your brilliant code will never see the light of day.

Success requires diplomacy - the ability to recognize and adapt to the needs of others. Nerds resent this. They call it sucking up. There's plenty of sucking up done in the corporate world, but there's also a lot of genuine cooperation.

This ability to cooperate is what separates the nerds from the popular people, and popular kids learn this early, engaging in projects that require cooperation within a recognized organizational framework.

Like it or not, politics is a legitimate part of our world, and people who practice it get good at it, just as surely as the computer geek will get good at software.

Popularity is not simply a matter of natural gifts. It's a series of conscious choices. You have to choose your path, and you have to make sacrifices along the way. Maybe you'd rather be home writing a Quake mod, but you show up at the fund-raiser because you value your place in the organization.

This feeds in to one of the many subjects I've been wrestling with. To what degree must one sacrifice oneself for a better standing in a social environment. The First voice suggests that one mustn't at all and that each sacrifice of ones thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and interests is a betrayal of oneself. The Second voice suggests the exact opposite, that we are nothing that the world doesn't see. So however grand and wonderful we may be, however smart we may be, it doesn't matter because no one ever sees it. Theoretically there is a tradeoff somewhere down the line and one can start being more authentic once genuine friendships (outside the insular society of introverted nerddom) are achieved. But once one pretends to be something they're not (in my case, comfortable in large social gatherings), it is often difficult to backtrack without feeling at least a little dishonest. Which, of course, such a person has been (and to a degree we all are in the name of "diplomacy").

Between these two extremes lies a middle ground of sorts. The nerd in Duff's passage above can still program Quake mods, but ought to get out more and at least try to be more comfortable out there in the big, bad, world. I am also a believer that many extroverts often lack an internal focal point from which their personality eminates. The term for this is often "empty suits" but one needn't be stupid to be a victim. Former President Bill Clinton, a classic extrovert, was unquestionably a very intelligent individual but often seemed so wrapped up in trying to please so many that there were always questions as to what, if anything, he stood for. The same could be said of President Bush before 9/11, wheeling and dealing, having a cute nickname for political allies and opponents alike. He's taken on a more serious edge since the attacks and many of his critics that used to accuse him of being an empty suit have switched tracks by now painting him as being insular, in the case of some more extreme critics, psychopathic.

Which is to say that I believe in most cases, one must err in one direction or the other as it's impossible to maintain complete equilibrium between solitairy fortitude and self-promotion.

If we bring this to a favorite subject of mine, Typology, we are each born with tendencies towards extroversion and introversion. Theories diverge as to whether this is the most or least important trait, but it is the first one in the four-letter description. One can be "in between" the two, but like most ambidextrous people, they will instinctively rely on one or the other. Nerds are generally of the Introverted pursuasion, so their instict is to work alone whenever possible. While I'm relatively close on the E/I axis, I am more inclined to place myself in the "I" in part because I work better on projects individually than I do on team ones. It's one of the reasons that I spend most of my creative energy writing novels (and blog posts) where I can do things on my own terms.

Whichever side of the axis one finds themselves, whenever placed in an uncomfortable postion, they are more likely than not going to slide further down that axis. An introvert will thus become more isolated as they try to figure things out or avoid society altogether in their own little world. As such, when faced with turmoil, that is exactly the point that they need to insure that doesn't happen. Most nerds, however, have had an uncomfortable childhood and thus spent a lot of time in their own little worlds, be it creative alternative universes (such as myself) or copiously investigating the nuts and bolts of technology or creating things via programming. As such, many are so completely out of touch with society to the point of being indignant, or even proud, of their unpopularity. Oftentimes failing to realize (a) the power of social acceptance was likely in their grasp to begin with and (b) as we get older, nerd-like behavior becomes less socially demoralizing. In the case of (b), the entire world around them has changed and they refuse to recognize it because they have become so comfortable in their own little pocket of zen and able to direct all the unfortunate consequences towards the outside world.

That can become dangrous circular thinking ("they don't like me, so I won't try to win their acceptance, they still don't like me, so I will try even less for their approval," etc), which is why I argue that they need to expand their horizons.

This is a question that I've been dealing with in regards to myself and my current pocket of zen (writing in solitude, reading about Typology in a social vacuum, remaining eclectic to a fault). I'm more than comfortable where I am, yet the feeling that there is a world out there that I am not experiencing in my introverted bliss will not leave me be. Yet I enjoy doing what I do. I enjoy having three novels under my belt and a fourth one to be picked up soon. So am I looking to mess up a good thing or do I think that just because I'm sliding further into introversion?

I'm typing this from my folks house, where I'm staying tonight. I just finished having a few drinks with a couple friends and am about to go to bed. Tomorrow I'll be recording for Adjusters for most of the day and hopefully catching a movie tomorrow night. Thursday I have my first job interview at the County Courthouse. It's temp job at only $6 a day, but money's money, right?

If I don't get said job, there may be some posting on Thursday. I wouldn't go counting on much of anything till then. Adam will be recording with me tomorrow, Jason is knee deep in exams, and Brian has forgotten that he's a blogger. Don't worry, though, Richard Simmons's Severed Head will be joining us shortly and so our ranks will not quite be so thin.

First Terrifica and now THIS!

Well I got me an everyman suit and a firm handshake
I'm looking for a line of work and some money to make
I just hope I don't have to take a job in Cleveland
It's just a little too far from my current state

Elciem was sipping coffee, looking out onto the cars creeping by on the busy street adjacent to the coffee shop where we decided to meet up. I didn?t like coffee, but the weather was cool and windy enough that I?d decided to partake in some hot chocolate.

?I don?t understand it,? she said, ?Devin doesn?t have a job, Bin doesn?t either. All they do is sit around the apartment all day and play those video games and then go out and get drunk all night. Even when they do get jobs, all they do is bartend. I was sure they were going to make a lot more of themselves.?

?Well, they did both drop out of college-? I interjected.

?That?s not what I mean. They should at least be working towards something respectable. They?re all just bums. Even Ed, who has a degree and a job just works tech support for $8 an hour.?

?He has a degree in English. But besides, you have to start somewhere, don?t you?? I asked.

?So says Mr. Unemployed.?

?I?m a college student!?

?No excuse. You know you could handle a job. You just aren?t looking for one.?

?I am, actually.?

?Not hard enough. You?re just like the rest. Bums! The whole lot of you!"

Now it helps in an interview to be a little insistent
that you never pumped gas you were a customer fuel assistant
mowing lawns was a stint in agricultural landscape
and your paper route was a journalistic means of escape

Some months later, we were engaged in a romantic entanglement too complicated to really explain. I?d moved out of the dorms to an apartment, but was still unable to find work. She was still plugging away at the staffing agency?s headquarters. She?d left Devin and Bin and their sloth behind. That I was unemployed was not exactly of a whole lot of comfort to her.

One night were eating at an Italian restaurant. I was a little underdressed for the occasion because I?d been scrambling around all day doing chores. She was wearing her clothes from work, including a sweater and a skirt. Her nails had a flawless French manicure. I?d forgotten to shave.

I was telling her all about my day. Unlike most days where I was trying to find anything I could to keep busy, I?d had a really productive day. I?d gotten some writing done, taken care of a number of chores, had a long talk with my roommate, and made some trades on my fantasy baseball team. When I was excitedly telling her about my day, she started squinting a bit. She raised her hand to stop me, before lowering it again to straighten out her skirt. I raised an eyebrow as she cleared her throat.

?So, find a job today?? she asked, ostensibly joking but with a piercing seriousness. I?d sent out a couple resumes the day before, but that day I?d done nothing.

?I?m sorry. Continue,? she said with an air of superiority and an intentionally obvious disinterest in anything else I had to say.

Things ended not long after that. Ironically enough, just after I?d found a job.

Resume, resume, resume, resume
There's no job for which I seem fit
so I'll have to bend the truth a little bit
It's hard to sum up your life in just one page

Things had been over for over a year when we met up again at a twenty-four hour diner down the street. We had just met to touch base.

Her manicured nails had given way to short, stubby nails. She wore a casual jacket and blue jeans while I hadn?t changed out of my work attire.

She was talking about her efforts to please everyone, who seemed to believe that she had nothing but time to devote to them because she?d been laid off a couple months earlier. She was working on a web site for her father, trying to mend fences with her boyfriend, and helping the Houston Anime Club to-

I interrupted. ?So, find a job today?? I asked and grinned.

Now the older generation has gotten the wrong impression
cause I never went to war of had to live through a depression
they said "Son give thanks for the places that you get to"
In the meantime I'm still looking for something tough to live through

I?ve been unemployed for roughly a week now. The company I worked for did all of their human resources through the company that she worked for, so all of my termination papers were blazon with her company?s name across the top. She told me that she?d been let go just when she thought the worst was behind her, at work. Just after she no longer feared it. As I signed the papers, I couldn?t have put it better myself.

She called me up as soon as she?d heard. She asked how I was doing. ?Pretty good? for a bum,? I answered.

"I know what you mean," she replied.

Resume, resume, resume, resume
There's no job for which I seem fit
so I'll have to bend the truth a little bit
It's hard to sum up your life in just one page

Lyrics:
Song: Resume
Artist: Phil Pritchett
Album: Suburban Legends

There were some points I meant to get to in the below post that I never quite did because below was focused primarily on Bill Bennett. Now I'm going to take it to the abstract.

What makes someone a hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is conventionally defined as a "do what I say, not what I do" mentality. Thus, someone who is doing one thing but then saying that it shouldn't be done or vice-versa, they are a hypocrite. That much is pretty clear. If Thursday night, with a beer in my hand, I call a friend and tell him that alcohol drinking is a sin, then take another swig of my beer, I am a hypocrite.

Past vs. Present
Someone can also be a hypocrite for having done something and then telling someone not to do it, provided that they do not renounce their former deed. So, if I spent my teenage years getting high, I cannot tell my future kids not to do so unless I make an admission that I was wrong for doing so. If I make such an admission, then I am actually free to lecture hypocrisy-free. If I were to say "It was different in my day" and try to convince the kid that it was okay for me to do it (and therefore fail to renounce my involvement) then that is hypocrisy unless a forceful distinction can be made between "in my day" and "now." That would be possible when it comes to an older person's sexual escapades younger in life and now because of the prevalence of STD's. (inversely, the kid could argue that abortion is legal now so the difference actually works in his favor in that regard).

Rationale Overlap
Additionally, someone can be a hypocrite by condemning one thing and doing something else when the reasons for prohibition of one ought to apply to the other. For instance, if I am a Catholic woman preaching against homosexuality because it is contrary to my church's faith and then turn around and take the pill, I am being a hypocrite for engaging in an act different from the one I am committing by virtue of the rationale overlap (if one shouldn't be gay cause Catholicism says it's wrong, then they shouldn't have abortions either). Even if I don't invoke Catholicism but argue that homosexuality is wrong because it does not lead to procreation and yet I take the pill, I am also being hypocritical by virtue of the rationale overlap. This, like PvP, can be avoided with credible distinctions. In the case of the pill and homosexuality, I cannot think of any distinctions remotely credible. In other cases, their may be but such distinctions usually lead to two distinct rationales (homosexuality is wrong because it leads to indefinite non-procreation while one can go off the pill, thus not making the issue non-procreative sex but rather the indefinity of it).

Same But Worse
Lastly, someone can be a hypocrite by a hypocrite by condemning one thing and doing something similar. If I say "Heroin is bad because it messes with your mind" and then turn around and take LSD, I'm being a hypocrite. This is ostensibly similar to rationale overlap, but is different insofar as it is generally harder to get out of. If I say that heroin is bad because it messes with your mind but next Friday, just like last Friday, I'm going to get drunk again, I may or may not be a hypocrite depending on if a distinction can be made. Needless to say, it's much easier to make one between alcohol and heroin than LSD and heroin. For instance, if you are publically intoxicated, you have more freedom to roam about because you don't have to worry as much about getting caught. and therefore the amount that it messes with your mind is of less importance. Mostly, however, one messes with your mind to a much greater degree than the other so a distinction can be made about how much of the mind is messed with by any given narcotic.

There may be other cases where hypocrisy charges ring true, but these are the ones that come to mind. The only time that it is necessarily hypocrisy is when one is committing the very same act that they are condemning. Beyond that, it is up to the accuser to explain where the hypocrisy has occured, because this is not hypocrisy:

Sins In The Eyes Of Some
Someone is not necessarily a hypocrite if they engage in acts viewed wrong by many if they preach against other acts as viewed wrong by many, even if the finger-waggers are in league on some, or most, issues.

For instance, if I'm pro-life and so is Jerry Fallwell, and I donate money to his pro-life organization, does it then follow that I am held accountable for his views on homosexuality? Generally not. But let's say that I am someone believes that gambling, smoking, and drinking are wrong. Can I not be outspoken on those matters if I engage in homosexual acts because most organizations that oppose drinking, smoking, and gambling also oppose homosexuality? Would it make me a hypocrite if I was outspoken? It might if the reason I used was that "The Pentacostal Church says that gambling, smoking, and drinking are wrong, so we must not do it. Now, excuse me while I go have sex with other men." That would be hypocritical because Pentacostals also hold homosexuality in very low regard.

On a tangent, I once saw a CNN debate between Pat Buchanan and another fellow on abortion and the death penalty. They literally alternated in pointing out that the Vatican says that what they oppose is wrong. Neither addressed any form of distinction as to why the Vatican was right as far as they were concerned and wrong as far as the other was concerned. Both left themselves very much open to charges of hypocrisy as there were not any other substantive cases that either of them made.

My point is that it does not follow that someone who preaches virtue would necessarily have a restricted role of what's acceptable in every aspect of life. By viewing some things more restrictively than others isn't hypocritical, it's making distinctions.

There is a view on the left and the right that it's all black or white when it comes to intellectual consistency. If you're not a puritan but you're outspoken on the things that you do believe are wrong, you are a hypocrite to the left. The endgame of this is to just get you to shut up. It's a sign of the moral relativism on the left. Just because you view it wrong for you to do doesn't mean that you should view it wrong for others to. Or at least if you do, don't tell anyone lest we hold you accountable for views that are not your own.

On the other side of the gallery, of course, are the moral absolutists of the right. Those that believe anything fun is wrong. As for sex, well go ahead and do it since we have to for the preservation of our race, but don't enjoy it, lest you be labeled a hedonist.

In between is the center left, which doesn't mind vague platitudes of right and wrong but get very testy when someone says "It's wrong for me to do this, but it's wrong for you, to" when it comes to something not everyone agrees with. In an age where infidelity is publicly defensible, the boundaries of acceptability are becoming quite broad indeed. The epitome of this mindset are those that are pro-choice who say that "I wouldn't have an abortion but I believe it should be a woman's right" (a perfectly respectable position) but then when I say I view abortion as being wrong regardless of who is having it (with some very narrow exceptions) object not on the grounds that my views are wrong, but rather because I am judging others.

To the right of them and left of the puritans are those of us that are very vocal about what we view as being right and wrong, though are not inclined to push laws forcing our views on everyone else. I find myself getting increasingly testy when I'm constantly being told that I shouldn't call what's wrong wrong because I'm not allowed to judge the actions of others.

Chuck says in a comment to my post below, "It really is about glass houses and stones. If you care that much about how I lead my life, you'd better be sure your own life is in order."

That's a perfectly reasonable position insofar that if I say "Joe, you're doing wrong because you are cheating on your wife," Joe can turn around and say "You're doing wrong because you're living with a woman you are not married to"

Now, I either believe that premarital cohabitation is right or wrong. If I believe premarital cohabitational is okay and Joe doesn't, he is free to call on me and I am free to ignore him. If Joe believes in polygamy but that that premarital cohabitation is wrong, he can then disregard my condemnation as someone whose moral axis is screwed up. If he views both as being wrong and he sleeps better at night believing that all sins are created equal, power to him, I guess.

However, if Joe does not believe that premarital marriage is wrong but is merely bringing that up to shut me up, he is being fundamentally dishonest.

That is my problem with what Bill Bennett's critics are doing with him. I'd be much less bothered by all this if I believed that his critics actually believed that gambling is morally wrong. If I felt that were Joshua Green and Jon Alter's point, I likely wouldn't have written either of these two posts. I wouldn't agree with Green (I am generally in favor of legalizing gambling), but I'd chalk it up to a difference of opinion and my post (if I had one) would likely be on the subject of legalized gambling.

What they're doing, however, is telling us what we should believe. He's telling Bill Bennett what Bill Bennett must believe. It would be one thing if he made an argument that Bennett's views are inconsistent (as Michael Kinsley did), but it was not posited for a discussion and it did not invite any rationale response. Instead of making Bennett's beliefs (and the possible incoherency thereof) the issue, they made Bennett himself the issue. In the end, I'm forced to conclude that either Green and Alter are startlingly inept, or that was precisely the point: To silence a critic.

The message: Don't even speak of morality or we will hold you to standards above and beyond those that you are advocating.

Let me be clear that I am not a Bill Bennett fan. I disagree with him and his ilk on a number of issues. That's not the point, what is the point is that my personal views on premarital sex should not be the fodder by which my views on drug laws are shot down.

I'll go even further to say that I consider his actions, if true, immoral. Not the gambling so much as squandering $8M on such a self-gratifying enterprise. If I had $8 million, I would put quite a lot of it into an industry that didn't make its money in the dubious ways that the gambling industry does. It's one thing to gamble away play money (and I don't care how rich you are, $8 million is not play money, it's money that could go to some very worthy investments either via charities or companies that would improve our way of life) where you are essentially paying for the entertainment it provides. There isn't enough time in the world for that to be worthy of $8 million. But wait, since I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral, I suppose since I consumed a bunch of alcohol before hitting 21, I'm not allowed to talk about Bennett's immorality...

UPDATE: OTHER PERSPECTIVES

In the Comments Section below, Daniel pointed to a Michael Kinsley article on the subject that is definitely worth reading:

1) He never specifically criticized gambling. This, if true, doesn't show that Bennett is not a hypocrite. It just shows that he's not a complete idiot. Working his way down the list of other people's pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient. Is there some reason why his general intolerance of the standard vices does not apply to this one? None that he's ever mentioned.
[...]
2) His gambling never hurt anyone else. This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it's a good one. If a hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another, the problem with Bennett is what he says?not (as far as we know) what he does. Bennett can't plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about. He wants to put marijuana smokers in jail. He wants to make it harder to get divorced. He wants more "moral criticism of homosexuality" and "declining to accept that what they do is right."

In all these cases, Bennett wants laws against or heightened social disapproval of activities that have no direct harmful effects on anyone except the participants. He argues that the activities in question are encouraging other, more harmful activities or are eroding general social norms in some vague way. Empower America, one of Bennett's several shirt-pocket mass movements, officially opposes the spread of legalized gambling, and the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, one of Bennett's cleverer PR conceits, includes "problem" gambling as a negative indicator of cultural health. So, Bennett doesn't believe that gambling is harmless. He just believes that his own gambling is harmless. But by the standards he applies to everything else, it is not harmless.

Bennett has been especially critical of libertarian sentiments coming from intellectuals and the media elite. Smoking a bit of pot may not ruin their middle-class lives, but by smoking pot, they create an atmosphere of toleration that can be disastrous for others who are not so well-grounded. The Bill Bennett who can ooze disdain over this is the same Bill Bennett who apparently thinks he has no connection to all those "problem" gamblers because he makes millions preaching virtue and they don't.

3) He's doing no harm to himself. From the information in Alter's and Green's articles, Bennett seems to be in deep denial about this. If it's true that he's lost $8 million in gambling casinos over 10 years, that surely is addictive or compulsive behavior no matter how good virtue has been to him financially. He claims to have won more than he has lost, which is virtually (that word again!) impossible playing the machines as Bennett apparently does. If he's not in denial, then he's simply lying, which is a definite non-virtue. And he's spraying smarm like the worst kind of cornered politician?telling the Washington Post, for example, that his gambling habit started with "church bingo."

Even as an innocent hobby, playing the slots is about as far as you can get from the image Bennett paints of his notion of the Good Life. Surely even a high-roller can't "cycle through" $8 million so quickly that family, church, and community don't suffer. There are preachers who can preach an ideal they don't themselves meet and even use their own weaknesses as part of the lesson. Bill Bennett has not been such a preacher. He is smug, disdainful, intolerant. He gambled on bluster, and lost.

This is the most worthwhile commentary I've seen on the subject. This one actually bothers to make an argument that Bennett is hypocritical. A pretty good argument, too.

This falls into the "Rationale Overlap" category above. If he opposes pot because of the "environment it creates" and does not oppose gambling, he is either (a) completely unaware of the troubles gambling causes or (b) draws a distinction between the two. One such distinction may be that pot is illegal and gambling is not. Given that likens gambling to alcohol, which is legal and also ruins some lives, that is actually a quite plausible. So what about legal behavior such as infidelity? Presumably he gauges those by the damage they cause to non-participating parties. And homosexuality? The only thing I can think of is that homosexuality always hurts the participants in his eyes, whereas gambling only hurts the poor. It's a stretch, but being pro-gay rights, I am biased towards seeing it as such.

So, if Bennett believes that something must be (a) illegal, (b) injurious to non-participating parties, or (c) always harmful to the participants, it is immoral. Of course, it would be immensely helpful if he would explain it this clearly, but then again politicians (which I consider him one) rarely explain everything clearly.

On the other side of the aisle is a great column by Jonah Goldberg.

I guess Aesop's Fables are now wrong.

You see, Bill Bennett's Book of Virtues contained various moral lessons from Aesop's Fables. So, if Bill Bennett has made a mistake in his personal life, he must have been wrong about the educational utility of everything in his book. And, come to think of it, every other virtue and moral and fable and story he ever promoted, advanced, or advocated must be wrong now as well. It's okay for kids to do drugs now, too, I suppose. And I guess it's okay for the president of the United States to enforce sexual-harassment laws while he plays the Sultan and the Slave Girl with an intern and then lies about it under oath. Hell, it must be okay for terrorists to blow up the World Trade Center now.

This sea change is all because Bill Bennett plays high-stakes video poker from midnight to 6:00 AM.

That seems to be the upshot of Joshua Green's and Jonathan Alter's newsitorials about Bill Bennett's gambling.

I find it hard to recall a more asinine and intellectually shameless "gotcha" story in my adult lifetime.
[...]
I can surely see why some religious conservatives who take a dim view of gambling might be disappointed in the man. But I can assure you that any man ? or woman ? held in high esteem will disappoint the public in one way or another when scrutinized. "Disappointment," however, is not a standard taught at the Columbia School of Journalism. Usually, to have caused a "scandal," a public figure is supposed to have broken the law, lied, cheated, stolen, been hypocritical, or victimized someone in some significant way. But no one has charged any of these things. The only conceivable victims here are the Bennett family, and a little bird tells me that they'll do just fine. The same bird tells me that Alter and Green couldn't give a fig about Bennett's family. As for hypocrisy, neither author mentions the word.

Indeed, the stunner of the story ? that Bennett wagered $8 million over the last decade ? isn't even as stunning as Green and Alter desperately want it to be. There isn't any evidence that he lost $8 million dollars, only that he's bought $8 million in chips over a decade. If, as is more likely, his losses are half that, he'd have spent less than what numerous movie stars and CEOs spend on their country estates, private jets, and divorces.
[...]
In fact, you can always tell there's a hit job in the works when the victim is criticized for not being hypocritical. "The popular author, lecturer and Republican Party activist speaks out, often indignantly, about almost every moral issue except one ? gambling," writes Alter in Newsweek. "It's not hard to see why." Green is windier on this point, but writes, "If Bennett hasn't spoken out more forcefully on an issue that would seem tailor-made for him, perhaps it's because he is himself a heavy gambler." In other words, if Bennett had spoken out against gambling he'd have been denounced for hypocrisy. And if Bennett had spoken in favor of gambling, he'd have been denounced for defending his preferred vice. If he's in the crosshairs for A, he'd surely be in the crosshairs for not-A as well.

I don't know that liberals are saying or implying that everything Bill Bennett says is naturally 100% wrong. They do seem to be (a) saying that this demonstrates that because Bill Bennett doesn't make it so, which is quite true, and (b) implying that anyone with a percieved moral blind spot has no business talking to anyone about morality. This argument would carry a lot more weight if his accusers actually thought Bennett had done something wrong. Instead, they're telling Bennett that he should believe that he has done something wrong. Why? Because people who are not Bennett say so.

But I digress. The lack of a journalistic angle is one of the things that has bothered me. If the articles hadn't been written by two liberal figures I wouldn't be reacting as I have. Even if it had been the New York Times (which I consider to be a liberal publication), it would have at least explored the issue from a couple of angles, gotten a substantive POV quote from someone against gambling, in favor of gambling, a Bennett support and a Bennett opponent (or six).

Which brings me to my primary disagreement with Goldberg, his assertion that there is no story here. I'll also tackle Andrew Sullivan's assertion that Bennett's privacy rights have been violated.

I believe that someone who puts himself into the public square automatically sacrifices some of his privacy. This is particularly true of someone who makes personal morality a staple of their niche. If a self-described paragon of immorality is doing something that many of his fellow travellers consider immoral, that's news. Why? Because it raises questions. It raises questions as to what Bennett truly believes, if he is a hypocrite (note, this is a question, not an answer), and why he breaks with his fellow social conservatives on this issue. But these are questions it raises, not answers.

Where I fall out of agreement with Bennett's critics is the "so what?" phase of the article. Namely, that Bennett is a hypocrite that should be ignored seems to be taken for granted, with only Kinsley explaining why that's the case. The "hypocrite" assumption is what I am mostly objecting to, not the "invasion of privacy."

For those of you that that are not politically inclined and yet for some reason still read this page, critics of conservative moralizer Bill Bennett have discovered that he has the gambling bug and accused him of... well that's just it, they haven't accused him of anything. In fact, there isn't too much to accuse him of unless you're willing to go out on a limb. Except gambling, of course, but most of his accusers don't have a problem with gambling. But what they're really trying to say is... what, exactly? They're just trying to say that Bennett is a gambler, shame on him (even though they don't necessarily think that his gambling is wrong), and leave the readers to fill in the blanks.

So what are the blanks that need filling? Bennett is a moralizer who is doing something that many view as being immoral.

Well, yeah, that's true enough.

The missing link here, I believe, is a misperception among liberals of conservative thought. While I won't go as far as to say that liberals lack moral conviction -- because they don't -- they often misunderstand the unilateral and multifaceted nature of the conservative view of morality. They are also deeply uncomfortable with the conservative black/white view of the world in which they call what they see as a spade a spade, when liberals (and libertarians, moderates, and even other conservatives) see a club. When many conservatives see someone doing wrong, they are more inclined to say "that's wrong" and, for them, the discussion ends there. With liberals, on the other hand, that's where the discussion begins. "Did they do wrong? Well, what makes it wrong? What makes this wrong committed by him worse than the wrong committed against him by society? If it is in fact wrong, will punishing him really make him less inclined to do wrong in the future or will it in turn isolate him and thus make him more likely to commit wrong in the future?"

To be sure, I'm painting both sides with a very broad brush here, but in their most extreme forms conservatives clutch to their inner convictions even when they're based on ignorance and liberals eschew not just easy answers, but often any realistic answer. Bill Bennett and his accusors, Joshua Green and Jonathan Alter, are not at the extremes of conservatism and liberalism, but nonetheless often see each other through that lense. I got a letter from Bill Bennett the other day, in fact, suggesting that contemporary liberalism's goal is to bring us all into some post-reality world in which all wrongs will be overlooked in the name of tolerance. Green and Alter, on the other hand, naturally assume that because Bennett is a conservative, his doing something that conservatives oppose is scandalous and make the assumption that Bennett doesn't have a problem with gambling because he is a compulsive gambler as opposed to the notion that his ambivalent views towards the evils of gambling influenced his decision to go on numerous trips to Atlantic City.

The undercurrent of Green's and Alter's arguments are basically "Conservatives view gambling as wrong, Bennett is a conservative, and Bennett is a gambler. Discuss. Condemn.

This is in many ways an effort to catch conservatives with their pants down. Conservative opponents of gambling must either condemn Bill Bennett, with whom they agree overwhelmingly on other issues, or they must face the charge of hypocrisy. Inversely, Bennett must eschew his fellow-travellers and would-be condemners or face a similar charge of hypocrisy by allying himself with those that believe his actions are immoral. Charges of hypocrisy, sometimes righteous and sometimes not, are the stock of liberalisms opposition to conservative moralizing. It essentially sets the bar for personal morality so high that one must be sinless to have anything to say on the matter of sin.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the impeachment trials in 1998. Liberals combed over the history of all of Clinton's accusers for cases of sexual infidelity. In many cases they hit their mark. Henry Hyde not only cheated on his own wife, but he did so with another man's. When Newt Gingrich resigned and was replaced with Bob Livingston, they hit the gold mine. Case after case and woman after woman came forth and Livingston was exposed as an adulterer the likes of which Clinton surely envied. Then a funny thing happened, Republicans called on Livingston to resign. It would later come out that those that exposed Livingston never intended that to happen. Rather, they were trying to prove a point. Conservatives, as usual, didn't get it. There are those that suggest that conservatives only pushed Livingston to step down as a public relations measure, and that's partially true, but a good part of it was the sincere belief on the part of many Republicans that such a person was not suited for leadership of the party. People within the GOP who ordinarily would have bit their tongue instead spoke out and, before he was even elected leader, Livingston was driven to early retirement.

It has since come out that many others involved in the proceedings had skeletons in their closet. Gingrich himself was cheating on his cancer-ridden wife and outspoken Clinton critic Tim Hutchinson later left his wife for his twenty-something secretary. Liberals are inclined to say "See? Hypocrites!" but the anger directed at these two individuals within the conservative community was palpable. When Gingrich resurfaced condemning the state department (an argument conservatives are partial to), it mostly fell on deaf ears. Mainline Republicans didn't appreciate the attacks on Bush and grassroots Republicans had forsaken Gingrich some time ago, in part because of his failure as a leader but in large part because of his hypocrisy. Hutchinson got the GOP nod for re-election, but when he lost the general election I don't personally know a single conservative that felt the fault lied anywhere but with him and his actions.

In Dinesh D'Souza's Letters To a Young Conservative, he argues:

The conservative virtues are many: civility, patriotism, national unity, a sense of local community, in attachment to family, and a belief in merit, in just desserts, and in personal responsibility for one?s actions. For many conservatives, the idea of virtue cannot be separated from the idea of God. But it is not necessary to believe in God to be a conservative. What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.

Conservatives recognize, of course, that people frequently fall short of these standards. In their personal conduct, conservatives do not claim to be better than anyone else. Newt Gingrich was carrying on an affair at the same time that Bill Clinton was romancing Monica Lewinsky. But for conservatives, these lapses do not produce an excuse to get rid of the standards. Even hypocrisy?professing one thing but doing another?is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos or nihilism.

While people may philosophically have a problem with the notion that we should hold ourselves to a standard that we cannot all achieve, this succinctly explains the conservative view on the subject. Puritanical ideologues aside (and no, we don't all fall into that category), most conservatives have a rather realistic grasp on the impossibility of human perfection. Nonetheless, most of us also see a reason to strive for these goals as much as possible and when people falter, not to make excuses for them. So if a Republican president were caught with his pants down and lying about it, would the GOP step up to the plate to defend him? In the name of pragmatism, most people allied with said president would. However, that would not fly in the conservative community and such a person would likely face a serious primary challenger in the next election, but I'm almost certain that he would meet a fate very similar to Mr. Hutchinson's. In an increasingly conservative state, he lost the conservative vote. Most straight-ticket Republicans still voted for him, but conservative-leaning independents didn't and many party-liners stayed home.

Liberals oftenly take a different view. Namely that personal morality should not only be taken out of lawbooks (which I agree with), but taken out of the public square. The recent round of attacks on Bennett are an indication of that mindset. The idea that "You should be careful to condemn others for what they do because there are those that would condemn you for what you do."

And there is some logic to that argument. Perhaps Bennett should have just stayed out of the morality racket altogether by virtue of the fact that he has what many view as an immoral hobby. But I think this line of reasoning lends itself to a number of dangerous ideas. Namely "let he that is without sin cast the first stone" squared is that no stones are ever cast ever. I think we've seen a lot of that in recent decades. Spouses are replaced with newer or more luxurious models while the welfare of children hang in the balance and people no longer bat an eye as long as that person's name isn't preceeded by Senator or Congressman. Even then, it's often overlooked. If we don't enforce morality by legal codes, and I don't believe we should, it makes it all the more imperitive that we do it societally.

Whether gambling or pornography or other ostensibly victimless crimes (except, perhaps, for the people that choose to participate) fall into this category is subject to debate. But waving your finger and saying "hypocrite" is not an adequate substitution for debate. Neither is yelling "homophobe" or "religious zealot." Inversely, societal standards are not adequately defended by saying "moral relativist!" or "heretic!"

I'd love to know what Green and Alter think about gambling and whether or not Bennett is right or wrong. Alter's article is typically vapid, but Green has the following to say:

Few vices have escaped Bennett's withering scorn. He has opined on everything from drinking to "homosexual unions" to "The Ricki Lake Show" to wife-swapping. There is one, however, that has largely escaped Bennett's wrath: gambling. This is a notable omission, since on this issue morality and public policy are deeply intertwined. During Bennett's years as a public figure, casinos, once restricted to Nevada and New Jersey, have expanded to 28 states, and the number continues to grow. In Maryland, where Bennett lives, the newly elected Republican governor Robert Ehrlich is trying to introduce slot machines to fill revenue shortfalls. As gambling spreads, so do its associated problems. Heavy gambling, like drug use, can lead to divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, and bankruptcy. According to a 1998 study commissioned by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, residents within 50 miles of a casino are twice as likely to be classified as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers than those who live further away.

So then am I to understand that Green views legal gambling as a threat to our national health? Is he opposing casinos? He mentions the problems associated with gambling on a couple of occasions, but fails to take a position or cite anyone else taking a position on the issue (as opposed to making Bennett the issue, which he does). I suspect that's because Green isn't opposed to gambling as a public policy (though probably opposed to the Maryland governor instituting it), but saying or implying such would take all the air out of the story built on the hot kind.

One of the oddities of being unemployed is how time and space mean nothing. this happened when I was unemployed too. Without work to anchor my day, I can stay up later, which in turn has me getting up later, which... night becomes day and day becomes night.

Thursday night I slept from 4:30-10am or so.
Then, last night, I laid down at 10 or so to kill time before going to see 1100 Springs play and the next thing I knew it was 3:30 in the morning.
I couldn't get back to sleep, so I was thus awake until around 2:00, when I sat down to kill a little time before going to the International Festival with Kevin and company, and of course fell asleep until 9 or so this evening, missing it all.

Anyone wanna take odds on my ability to return to a normal sleep schedule by Monday?

Anyone want to fill me in on the details?

Punisher is one of my favorite Marvel characters, so be gentle.