Top 5 Politician/Celebrity “Dream Tickets”

Although I’m sure some beg to differ, we have now reached the point in the presidential primaries where presumptive nominees have essentially been chosen by each party, and the focus has shifted to who each candidate will choose as a vice presidential running mate. What was once thought of as a “Dream Ticket” of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama now seems like a longshot, given the harsh words and rifts between the two Democratic candidates. If that won’t happen, one has to wonder — are there other “Dream Tickets” out there that we haven’t even considered yet? I believe there are, and here are five (well, six) of them for your consideration:

Honorable Mention: Bill Clinton and Wilt Chamberlain

This combination is not really possible, because Bill Clinton is no longer eligible to run for president, and Wilt Chamberlain has been dead since 1999. Hence the honorable mention. But for sheer verility, sheer charm and machismo, for sheer manwhoreitude, I’m not sure this combination could be beaten. We have, in Bill and Wilt, two men who not only dominate their own career fields, but also play “the field” more than the vast majority of their contemporaries. We have all seen and heard about the infidelities and extra-marital wanderings that took place during Bill’s presidency (Lewinski, Jones, Flowers, etc.), but those are just the ones that are well-documented. I’m sure there are a score of others, and who knows how much tail he got before he was married. It is possible that Clinton is just your average, run-of-the-mill politician in this regard, and his reputation for being a Cassanova is simply a result of media hype, but I tend to think that he’s probably just a smooth operator, and his reputation is well-deserved.

Wilt the Stilt, however, undoubtedly puts Bill to shame. According to Wikipedia:

“In 1991, Chamberlain wrote his second autobiography, A View from Above. There, the lifelong bachelor claimed he had sex with 20,000 women. For this to be true, he would have had to had sex with 1.14 women per day from the age of 15 up until the day of his death, a rate of almost eight women a week. “

This is clearly impossible, but even if Chamberlain achieved even half of the numbers which he claims, you still kinda have to be impressed (or disgusted, or both). Wikipedia’s article did also cite documented episodes where Wilt slept with 23 different women over the course of 10 days, so maybe his numbers are actually in the thousands (although I would imagine that number would have to include many women he had already slept with, and just didn’t remember). Anyway, my brother has a theory that Wilt Chamberlain would actually make Bill Clinton feel inadequate if they got together and shared stories; I only know that as running mates, they would have been an unstoppable sexual force.

5. Mike Huckabee and Stephen Colbert

I would enjoy this ticket simply for the entertainment value. Colbert and Huckabee are both extremely intelligent individuals, who don’t take themselves too seriously, and who are both adept at making light of both their competition and the greater process. Mind you, I could never actually bring myself to vote for a ticket with Huckabee on it, since I am diametrically opposed to his policies, but I do admire and respect the way he runs a campaign, and I enjoy watching him on television. Huckabee masterfully ridiculed Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC after McAuliffe predicted that Clinton’s West Virginia victory speech would be one of the greatest speeches in the history of the world. He envisioned Hillary descending Mount Sinai with two stone tablets, outlining the ten reasons she should be the Democratic nominee. I actually thought that Huckabee made a better correspondent that Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann. I would be anxious to see what kind of ridiculous Doritos sponsorships they would promote, and I would be happy to watch Colbert “nail” the opposing vice president in the VP debates. It it wrong to want a candidate to run, but not to win? I guess that would be like Republicans encouraging Ralph Nader to run again and again.

4. Barack Obama and LeBron James

After the Jeremiah Wright Controversy, I can understand how Barack Obama might not want to run with someone whose campaign slogan is “We Are All Witnesses”, but I would totally vote for this ticket. This ticket is all about complementing Obama’s foreign policy. Lebron James has already taken efforts to learn Mandarin to help the NBA go global, so he already knows more foreign languages than our current president, and I can guarantee he is a much more popular figure abroad than George W. Bush. In addition, LeBron regularly makes other grown men look like little boys on the basketball court, so his intimidating presence would undoubtedly help Obama negotiate with our enemies. I can see the headlines now: “Putin gets posterized by Lebron” or “King James shuts down Ahmedinejad with suffocating defense”. Plus, LeBron would also put to rest the complaints of any people who believe that Barack is “not black enough” (I know, this segment of the population is not nearly as significant as the people in the Appalachian mountains who believe that Barack is too black, but that’s why this ticket isn’t higher on the list.)

3. Ron Paul and Sean Paul

Let’s be honest — when it comes down to it, these two men are basically the same person. And as my friend Anna points out, the lyrics of Sean Paul’s music would make great campaign songs to fire up the American people. “Get Busy” would be a great song to motivate American workers to work harder, fueling our stumbling economy. “Temperature” would be a great song to tout Ron Paul’s potential solutions to global warming (“I’ve got the right temperature for shielding you from the storm…”). Finally “Give it Up to Me” would add sex appeal to the standard garnering of the people’s votes. Don’t we all want to see Ron Paul dancing to “Give it Up to Me” in front of a crowd of thousands of his supporters? I know I do.

2. John McCain and Dick Clark

These two men have the experience, the pedigree, and most importantly, the Oldness to lead our country. Seriously, what better way is there for John McCain to make himself look more young and spry than to choose a stroke victim as a running mate? I suppose he could choose Muhammad Ali, but that would forfeit his Whiteness advantage over Obama. He could run with Katharine Hepburn to try to show sensitivity to the gender issue, but I think she might actually be dead. Really, I think Dick Clark is a good choice. They could host “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” at the White House (honestly, I can’t think of two people who rock harder than Dick Clark and John McCain). The one weakness I see with this ticket is the fact that Dick Clark would inevitably be phased out and replaced by Ryan Seacrest, and I’m not sure anyone wants that guy as our vice president.

1. Barack Obama and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson

So, I chose two dream tickets with Barack Obama, and none with Hillary Clinton. If that makes me sexist, then I’m sexist. I’m okay with that. Honestly, though, I don’t understand why Hillary doesn’t get more respect. Everyone wants her to drop out of the race, and she has consistently been the target of the most slanted, biased, viciously attacking media coverage the world has ever seen. She is dominating the primaries in the most important states in the country, nay, the world, and yet still no one believes her that she is the strongest democratic candidate the US has ever had. LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!!!! SHE’S A HUMAN!!!! SHE LOST HER AUNT, AND SHE WENT THROUGH A DIVORCE!!!!! HER HUSBAND TURNED OUT TO BE A CHEATER, AND ALL YOU GUYS CARE ABOUT IS TAKING PITCURES AND SELLING STORIES AND MAKING MONEY!!!!!! LEAVE HILLARY ALONE, RIGHT NOW!!!! IF ANY OF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HILLARY, YOU DEAL WITH ME, BECAUSE SHE’S NOT WELL RIGHT NOW!!!!

Anyway, moving on, I think that The Rock would make a great running mate for Obama. Obama already appeard on WWE, and asked The People, “Do you smell what Barack is cookin’?” Plus, is there anyone better than the Rock to help Obama garner the white tras…er, white “ethnic” vote in this country? I suppose he could run with a NASCAR driver, but in my opinion, The Rock is simply more presidential than Tony Stewart or Dale Jr. Plus, the fact that The Rock is half-black can serve as a reminder to white “ethnic” voters that at some point in their lives, they actually loved and supported someone darker than themselves. The Rock made has been a prominent figure in the last Republican National Convention or two, and so if Barack could manage to get him on his ticket, it would really show his ability to bring the opposing parties together, and break his image as a far-left liberal. Meanwhile, the Rock could campaign as “The People’s Vice President”, which could help garner support from Populist voters. The major problem with this plan is that hardcore WWE fans now dislike the Rock, because he is a movie star now, and they all think he’s a sellout, so he might not win as many white ethnic votes now as he would have 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe in that respect, Dale Jr. would be a better choice, or someone like Jon Cena (although Obama might have trouble trying to sell the people a platform of Thugganomics).

A Obama/Johnson vs. Huckabee/Colbert Election will probably never happen, but you have to admit, it would be more entertaining than the Democratic primary that is currently (and it seems, idefinitely) taking place, or any presidential election that is likely to be held this fall. In any case, I’m glad we have a candidate with the Oldness to make this election mildly amusing, no matter what happens. Tootles.

Top 5 Commercials I Don’t Understand

In my most recent post, while writing about an utterly nonsensical McDonald’s commercial, I realize that there are a good number of commercials I don’t understand. It’s not always that I don’t understand the premise of the commercials; normally what I don’t understand is something along the lines of “what is that line/image/gesture supposed to mean?” or “what were the advertising executives thinking when they approved this commercial?” To give an example, when Comedy Central shows commercials for a stand-up special, and they include 3 jokes that are appallingly unfunny, or they are promoting an event, and have Jon Stewart say something as wonderfully witty as “You know that big screen TV you were thinking of getting? GET IT.” I wonder to myself, “Who finds this funny? How is this supposed to make me want to watch their show?” These are five recent commercials that have left me boggled, for a number of reasons:

5. Alltell Commercials (Chad et. al)

I’m sure you’ve seen these. Basically it’s a group of nerdy guys, allegorical symbols for Alltell’s four competitors (Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T), stumbling through their plans to outdo Chad, the metrosexual representative of Alltell, to bring more customers to their companies. They always fail, of course, because they are bumbling idiots, and they sell an inferior product (obviously). The most recent ones feature a wizard that they summon off of the side of a van, which I guess reflects their nerdy Dungeons and Dragons affiliations. Anyway, the wizard inevitably takes Chad’s side, because Chad and Alltell are just that awesome.

What I don’t understand: Why anyone thought it was a good idea to turn this into a franchise of commercials. They even have TWO commercials with the Wizard! TWO! Really? The first wizard commercial was so good that it needed a sequel? They even had a clay-mation Christmas commercial with Chad and company. Is it really that fun to watch four guys being losers, and one other guy, who is marginally cooler at best, showing them up all the time? Throw in the annoying cover of “Come and Get Your Love” that they play at the end of every commercial, and you have a recipe for one of the worst recurring commercials ever. Who are the advertising executives willing to pay for this? Honestly, I don’t get it.

4. Yellow Book Commercial

This commercial features a young boy who comes home, discouraged that bullies have been picking on him (as evidenced by the fact that he says “Bullies…”, and his underwear is pulled halfway up his back). He uses Yellowbook.com to do research about martial arts so that he can defend himself, and boost his self-esteem. We never see him actually use this newfound martial arts knowledge to confront the bullies, because this would never work in a million years. But it’s a nice gesture, and a cute idea, and we get the point.

What I don’t understand: Why doesn’t the kid fix his wedgie? Throughout the entire commercial, as the child gets home, does research, and practices karate, you can see his wedgie riding up the back of his shirt. Couldn’t they have shown the wedgie, shown him fixing the wedgie, and moved on with the commercial? Does he like the wedgie? If so, aren’t the bullies really just doing him a favor? Maybe he was leaving the wedgie as a reminder to himself what he has to overcome. Or maybe this was simply a gross oversight by the people who were likely given a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a nationally broadcast television commercial. Personally, I like to go with the theory that the kid likes the wedgie.

3. Subway “5 Dollar Footlong” Commercial

This commercial is basically a bunch of random characters, from weather ladies to cops to Godzilla, holding up their hands in gestures that mime the lyrics of the song playing in the background, a song which goes a little something like this:

Five…

Five dollar…

Five dollar footlong…

Five….

Five dollar…

Five dollar footlong…

This could be catching on…

What I don’t understand: I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why this song is so catchy. It haunts my dreams. At work, on the toilet, lying in bed at night, I find myself singing, “Five, five dollar, five dollar footlon…damn it!” And, on top of that, when I find myself singing it, it kinda makes me want to buy Subway. It reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons, when the cult members convince Homer to join the cult by singing “Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na LEADER!!!!” to the Batman theme music, which they had previously heard Homer singing when he was fishing. Am I getting dumber, or are Subway’s advertising people just so good that they’ve found a way to cut appeal to my baser instincts and brainwash me with catchy melodies? I haven’t asked any of my friends to see if it has the same effect on them, so it could be a Curtis-only phenomenon. Then again, it could be the most brilliantly catchy commercial ever…

What I don’t understand (part 2): If Subway had the power to make their commercials this catchy, why did they stick with Jared for so long? Seriously, it’s great that he lost a lot of weight, but does anyone really believe that Subway is the only reason he lost that weight? Five, Five Dollar, Five Dollar Foot…oh, there it goes again…so catchy…

2. Heineken Light Commercial

You’ve probably seen this commercial at some point. It’s basically a bunch of different people, in a bunch of different costumes, from a bunch of different countries, presumably, passing a bottle of Heineken Light from one to another, while some alternative band plays a song in the background that goes something like this “It’s love, it’s love, it’s love, it’s la la la la la la la love, it’s love, it’s love, it’s la la la la la la la love”, and at the end of the commercial, you see “Share the Good” it flowery handwriting.

What I don’t understand: Aside from the reason why the commercial is so long, the main thing I don’t understand about this commercial is what the message is supposed to be. They never show anyone drinking the beer (which I understand, because I think it’s not legal to show people actually drinking beer in commercials), but the effect is that it just looks like people are passing one bottle of beer around the world without ever actually drinking it. It seems like instead of “Share the Good”, the slogan at the end of the commercial should be “Heineken Light: the beer you’ll want to regift, over and over and over….”

1. McDonald’s Dollar Menunaire Commercial

I have already given a brief synopsis of the plot of this commercial and what I don’t understand about it in my last post. I will touch upon it once more, though, as a quick refresher. At the end of the commercial, after a McDonald’s Cheeseburger restored the faith of a bunch of office workers in the value of the dollar, one worker asks the worker with the McDonald’s food how he’s fixed for fries, and another worker who observes this question makes the astute observation “That’s cold, man, that’s cold.”

What I don’t understand: Aside from my previously stated lack of understanding about WHAT IN THE WORLD IS COLD ABOUT ASKING SOMEONE HOW THEY’RE FIXED FOR FRIES, I can’t understand who the target audience for this commercial is. It clearly isn’t me, otherwise I would probably understand their witty dialogue better than I currently do. But the commercial is the latest in a series of commercials set in a corporate office environment, which begs the question: Is McDonald’s trying to market their products to Corporate America? If not, what is their angle? Do they think that, buy showing corporate people eating McDonald’s food, they will somehow make their food more appealing to poor and/or blue collar people? Given the culture of anti-elitism in this country, I have trouble believing that such a strategy would ever work. Then again, I think that adding fast food to the stress of an office environment is a recipe for really fat, unhealthy people. Allow me to write is as a mathematical equation: Cortisol + Double Cheeseburger = Obesity. I guess it is fast and convenient, but a white-collar worker really should be able to afford something fast and convenient that’s healthier than McDonald’s. So really, I don’t get who McDonald’s is targeting with this line of commercials.

After reading this list, you might come to the conclusion that I watch too much television, but I would also like to think that this list is also proof that I think about the television that I’m watching, which has to count for something. It counts for something, right? Five….Five Dollar….Five Dollar Footlong…..

Damn it.

Tootles.

Top 5 Books I’ve Read in the Last Year

Now, the title of this post might be a little misleading. I often give off the impression that I am someone who is well-read, and while I would like to think that this adjective fits me fairly well, I don’t want to give off the impression that I am someone like Jon Stewart, who reads the book of every single guest who comes on his show, or Tav, my Sociology professor at Dension who reads a book a day every summer. That’s right, I said a book a day. That kind of blazing reading speed just boggles my mind. I’m lucky if I get through a book a month. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m not pulling this Top 5 from some huge number of books that I’ve read this year. In fact, the number of books that I’ve read in the last twelve months is….um….as far as I can remember….seven. Well, technically nine, but I bought the His Dark Materials trilogy in an omnibus form, with one cover, so I’m counting it as one 900-page book. I read it pretty much as a single book, and I’ll be discussing it as such. The thing is, almost every book that I’ve read this year has been pretty good, or at least worth discussing with people. I wish I could say the same for the movies I’ve seen over the last year. So if every book I’ve read is at least decent, I’m confident in my ability to rank them as a Top 5, and besides, there are two books on this list that I’ve read just recently that I’m itching to talk about. If I decided to include all of the books I’ve read in the last two years, some other real gems could be included, such as The Constant Gardner, The Partner, The Camel Club, and…wait for it…The Secret. However, it is hard enough for me to remember which books I’ve read over the last year, so I’m pretty sure the borders of the last two years would get kinda hazy, unless I just made the post “Top 5 Books I’ve read since college”. Besides, as I mentioned, touting the fact that I’ve read more than 5 books in a year makes me sound more well-read. Anyway, on to the list:

Spoiler Alert: Plot and/or ending details follow. I’ll try my best not to deliberately give away the best parts of any book discussed here, but it’s difficult for me to discuss the merits of a book without discussing the content, which in the case of fictional novels means plot details. If you come across a book you haven’t read, and feel like I might spoil it for you, by all means skip the paragraphs I write about it.

Honorable Mention: I Am America (And So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert

As much as it pains me to leave this out of the top 5, I actually didn’t finish reading this book, so I can’t really justify placing it above any other book on this list. I really wanted to love this book. The title is hilarious. The book jacket is hilarious. The Colbert Report is possibly my favorite show on television right now. Colbert’s shameless plugging promotion of the book was a consistent source of humor on the show when it was released. I bought the book for my twin brother’s birthday, hoping he would let me borrow it, only to given a copy for my birthday by my mother. When I actually started to read the book, however, my enthusiasm waned. Don’t get me wrong — the book is funny; it just doesn’t live up to the TV show. The book kind of reads like an extended “The Word” segment from the show, only the fact that both Colbert’s words and the asides are written kind of ruins the effect. The book is kind of a testament to how funny Stephen Colbert is in person, and how important timing and delivery are to comedy. The little side pages and features were funny for the most part, but on the whole it was fewer laughs per minute than the show, and I wasn’t compelled to keep reading. I’ll probably finish it at some point, and I’m sure I’ll get some more laughs out of it. I’m just not expecting pure brilliance anymore.

5. Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki

This book is more of a conversation starter than an all-time great book. A friend lent me this book so that I could learn more about Buddhism, and I must say, mission accomplished. As far as books about Eastern thought are concerned, I prefer The Tao of Pooh,  but that’s probably because it’s more watered-down and catered to the Western reader, and it makes more heavy use of analogies, which are one of my favorite teaching/learning devices. Zen Mind  was transcribed from spoken lectures, which I’m sure were quite fascinating and informative. However, given the fact that it read like a practical study guide for meditation, I would have liked to be at the lectures in person. If I’m going to learn a practice, I would rather learn it in person, given that I am more of an auditory and kinetic learner than visual.  It did make me think a lot, though, and it gave me a new perspective on something that I didn’t know a lot about. So books like that are always worthwhile.

4. His Dark Materials by Philip Pulman

You might better know this trilogy by the name of its first book, The Golden Compass. I first became interested in this book (whenever I say book from this point, know that I mean trilogy) while reading Gregg Easterbrook’s “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” column on espn.com. He criticized the book for being too harshly anti-religious. Given that the trilogy is considered children’s literature, I figured it wouldn’t be like Neitzsche or anything, and given the fact that I often find atheist perspectives at least intriguing, if not refreshing, I began to wonder what the book had to say. I saw The Golden Compass at the cinema this winter, and I picked up on few anti-religious undertones, and got the feeling that the movie had been watered down for Hollywood’s sake. Although, I must say — kudos to the film for finally harnessing the evil potential of Nicole Kidman! Anyway, I bought the trilogy, and I just finished reading it yesterday. Its message was a fairly straightforward humanitarian message: if the idea of God/Heaven is a farce, then we must take it upon ourselves to create a Heaven here on Earth. Believing in a fictional God hampers our freedom and ability to reason, and thus detracts from our end goal of maximizing our earthly lives, because we follow irrational rules in preparation for a nonexistent afterlife, rather than focusing on making our present world the best it can be. The book also conveys the message that people as beings are neither Good nor Evil, but rather these labels should be reserved for our actions. On the level of message, I’m totally on board with this book. What I didn’t like about this book was the ending, and Pullman’s failure to create a self-contained, fully coherent and consistent universe. I had many unanswered questions at the end of the book. For example, if people were going to continue to worship God after his death, and if God as a character was not going to make any impact on the storyline, why include him at all? I guess the Kingdom’s forces needed a leader, but they had Metatron, so why include God? What did he add to the story? If the Subtle Knife created the Specters, and the Specters came from the abyss (a God-neutral zone), why did they join up with the forces of the Kingdom in the Final Battle? Shouldn’t they have been attacking parties from both sides, like the cliff ghasts? Also, where did the Land of the Dead come from? Didn’t that seem kind of like Hell? If someone (like the Authority) bothered to create a Hell, wouldn’t it be more logical and balanced to include a Heaven in the universe as well? Pullman makes dissolving into atoms and dispersing throughout the universe sound like the best possible outcome for dead people, but this only holds true because the Land of the Dead sucks so much. What about the people who become Angels when they die? Wouldn’t that be better than just dissolving? Why didn’t anyone in the book explain any of this? Does it make any sense to have the only two death alternatives be Punishment or Nothingness? I could understand if there was just Nothingness, but if there is going to be a Punishment afterlife, shouldn’t there also be a Reward afterlife? Also, it just seemed like Pullman was making up too many rules at the end about “the way things are”. For the book to claim that Lyra was going to put an end to Destiny, she didn’t seem to have much of a choice at the end. “Yes, you have put an end to the Authority, and now you are free to mold your own life as you choose, but if you make any of these choices, you will die and the Authority’s followers will win”. It’s kind of like the Matrix in a way. Neo was supposed to bring an end to the Matrix, and lead people into a new age of freedom, but by the end you found out it was all just one big stupid cycle, and everyone dies and it starts over again with a new group of people without anything actually changing. What was accomplished? That was the lingering feeling I had at the end of the book. Overall, though, I thought the book was a creative, entertaining read, with a message that is worthwhile, despite its shortcomings.

3. The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

This book was the opposite of His Dark Materials. The end of this book made it great, rather than snatching it from the clutches of greatness. I spent the first 180 pages of this book wondering what everyone thought was so great about it. I was like, “Great, a story about a sniveling, cowardly protagonist who ruins not only his life, but the lives of his father and best friend because he’s too afraid to face his own fears and inner shame. Why does anyone like this book?” I felt like I was reading A Separate Peace all over again, only with Afghan boys instead of Americans. In both books, you can sort of empathize with the protagonist, you can say, “He’s had a tough life; I understand why he would be afraid/ashamed. What I can’t understand is why he thinks he can fix the situation by continuing to act like a giant douche.” Then, all of a sudden, Amir starts to grow up and improve as a character. First, he begins to work, and take care of his dad in America, and you get the feeling he might not be totally worthless after all. Then he goes to Afghanistan, and continues to do the right things, even if he complains unceasingly about it. Then he gets the ever-loving crap beaten out of him by Assef, and you feel like, “Wow, maybe now he’s repaid his debt and I can stop hating him so much.” By the end of the book, he’s a fully sympathetic character, and it’s wonderful to see how far he’s progressed. And Hosseini accomplishes this without even resorting to a Hollywood, storybook ending. While the ending isn’t a happy one per se, I was overjoyed that it didn’t have an ending like The Awakening, which I almost expected it to have after the first 180 pages. I was glad the author didn’t go the Chopin route of “See? People in Afghanistan have it rough. Their lives are so hard that they have free license to act like idiots, ruining the lives of everyone around them, just like my protagonist.” So why is this book number 3, and not higher on the list? Well, I probably would have put it at number 2, except for 2 reasons: 1)I still feel like the book is kind of overrated, because everyone who told me about the book before I read it just told me how amazing it was without giving me any warning of how painful the first 180 pages were. 2) When I enjoy a book, I normally either feel entertained, or like I’m learning something. While I was reading this book, I mostly felt depressed. It was probably the best written book on this list, but it just didn’t evoke the same reactions for me as the top 2 books on this list.

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by JK Rowling

I know, I know, I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who are thinking, “You like Harry Potter better than Kite Runner? You uncultured consumer whore!” And to be fair, I don’t think that book 7 was the best in the Harry Potter series (although I would probably rate it above book 1, and possibly book 2, and definitely above the angsty parts of book 5). I don’t want to make it seem like I’m giving Deathly Hallows a make-up award, like the Academy did in giving Return of the King best picture honors, even though it was clearly the worst of the 3 films. I actually would probably rate this book on an even par with Kite Runner, but my expectations of Kite Runner were so much higher I feel like I enjoyed it less, and Deathly Hallows was simply more entertaining and less depressing. The conclusion to Harry Potter tied up many more loose ends, and left the created universe much more coherent than His Dark Materials did, although I still had a few questions at the end, mostly pertaining to why Rowling decided to kill off the characters that she did. (I won’t list them here, in an effort not to consciously spoil, but let’s just say I don’t understand her preoccupation with creating orphans). And while Rowling didn’t pull anything that unexpected, I felt she ended the book the way she had to, and I respect that (she had kind of written herself into a corner once she killed off Dumbledore in book 6). My one other serious objection to the book, although I saw it coming, was the over-glorification of Snape. I’m still convinced that he’s a giant tool, no matter what anyone tells me.

Oh, and I’m discounting the epilogue as part of the book. The epilogue is garbage! And the editor that let it come out is garbage! THAT’S WHY I DON’T READ THE NEWSPAPER! If you include the epilogue as part of the story, then that would easily drop this book to third or fourth on this list, if not lower. What a freakin’ copout. Are you kidding me? Who’s the kid here? That’s all I’ve got to say. Makes me wanna puke….

side note: Why is Dumbledore gay? Why does his sexuality matter? I always thought that Dumbledore was kinda like an incredibly powerful Teletubby; he is a character designed to entertain children, so his sexuality is quite beside the point. In fact, none of the characters in any of the Harry Potter books have any significant degree of sexuality, aside from puppy love (kissing, holding hands, etc.) among the students of Hogwarts. Why complicate something that stands so well on its own as a work by trying to throw sex into the mix? I just think this was a publicity stunt by Rowling, because she was sad that the series is over now. Or maybe she regrets not writing more Wizard Sex into the books now. Fellatiorum! Cunilingulo! Intercoursus Canidae! Oh well, I’m sure there’s probably enough fan fiction out there already….

1. The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan

This book fits the second category of books that I enjoy — books that make me feel like I’m learning something. It was also entertaining, I suppose; the third of the book that was actually an autobiography had a storyline and plot that were interesting enough, or at least as interesting as I would expect a nonfiction book to be. Alan Greenspan has met and worked with some very interesting people in his lifetime, and it is fun and exciting to read his perspective and dirt on all of the presidents that he worked with. It’s kind of like People magazine, only it’s written by one of the greatest minds of a generation, and the gossip is about policies that have shaped a nation, rather than what clothes celebrities wore to an awards show. Then, of course, you get to the meat of the book; the final two thirds of the book read more like The Capitalist Manifesto than an autobiography. While I was reading it, I found myself wishing that I was still in school, so that I could go to class and have a pointed discussion about the book and the issues it raises. While I might not agree one hundred percent with everything he says in the book, there is no denying there is wisdom in Greenspan’s words. He supports all of his ideas with numerous real world examples, and the manner in which he constructs his arguments makes it clear that Greenspan is one of the most intelligent, pensive, and deliberate people on the face of this planet. His intellect seems on par with someone like a Richard Dawkins, but the subject matter that he works with is much more real-world, here-and-now than evolutionary biology. He brings together, in his economic analysis, fundamental questions not only of finance, trade, and governance, but also human nature and the perspective and the individual. He seems to see both the forest and the trees, and take them both into account when making judgments. He lets you know where his biases are, but is willing to temper them with exceptions according to his own reasoning. He labels himself a Republican, but he reports that he feels that Bill Clinton made better, more responsible economic decisions than the presidents Bush that preceded and succeeded him.  While he understates them, he seems to recognize the weaknesses of capitalism, which gives credibility to his argument. He states very clearly what capitalism does well, and where it falls short (although I would probably use a stronger word than “stress” if I were in his place). He notes that no system is perfect, but he also shows that free markets are the most efficient system that has been tried at present (as demonstrated in the last two centuries in developed and developing countries). He also has progressive ideas about things such as the energy crisis, taking into account that the best ideas are not always the most popular ones. For example, in his book, he proposes a $3 a gallon tax on gasoline, taking into account that expensive gasoline is a prerequisite for the infrastructural changes that need to take place if America wants to achieve the oil independence politicians claim that they want us to. Like hiking interest rates or income taxes, this is something no politician would ever espouse if he/she wanted to get elected, but if oil dependence and global warming are outcomes we wish to avoid, it might be necessary, especially given the fact that 1/7 of the world’s oil is consumed on America’s roads and highways. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn about the world, the economy, and some sides of America we can really be proud of (or improve).

Worpress is telling me that this post has surpassed 3300 words, which is like 11 pages, double-spaced. Anyway, I think I’ve typed enough for one day. Keep reading, check these books out if you haven’t, and I’ll see you for my next top 5. Tootles.

Top 5 Fallacious Reasons that Gays Shouldn’t Be Equal

According to a poll conducted by The Economist, over 80 percent of Republicans and over 30 percent of Democrats oppose gay marriage. According to the same poll, roughly 30 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans consider Gay Rights a “very important” political issue.

A somewhat mortified analyst of the poll results cited the following statistics: “A 52% majority of Americans thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. One man in five thinks it should be illegal.” *

These statistics depressed me a little bit, and reminded me of the same way I felt in 2004 when Ohio, along with 12 or 13 other states, passed anti-gay amendments to their state constitutions (proponents likely considered them “pro-sanctity-of-marriage” amendments). Anyway, back during the 2004 election, I was not a blogger, and had no venue for venting my frustrations. I realize relatively few people read this blog, so I might not change a lot of minds out there, but at least I will feel better having externalized my thoughts and feelings about the issue.

Anyway, as the title implies, this week’s Top 5 outlines reasons that people justify discriminating against homosexuals, and why I think they are bogus. And here they are:

Note: I am leaving out perhaps the biggest reason of all that people discriminate against gays, namely that homosexuality is against God’s will. I am leaving this out because of the nature of the “God” argument. I cannot honestly claim to know what God’s will is, and even if I did, I doubt I could convince anyone of it through rational argument. So, for purposes of this blog, I will stick to ideas that can be argued empirically, not from feelings, beliefs, or Bible passages.

5. Homosexuality is a perversion of sexual normalcy, akin to other perversions, like bestiality or necrophilia.

While homosexuality is clearly different from heterosexuality, there is an important distinction to be made here. Aside from being listed in the Bible as sins, there are other reasons that bestiality and necrophilia are deplorable from a moral standpoint. As a society, we place a high value on consent as a participant in the sexual experience — hence why we consider rape a heinous crime. In the case of bestiality, there is no way to obtain consent from the animals that people are having sex with. Even if this were possible, I doubt that most animals would consent, and in any case, I don’t think consent is a prominent concern in the minds of the people who commit acts of bestiality. Ditto for necrophilia. I think that homosexuality is more comparable to oral sex. Oral sex could obviously never be used for procreation, thus it is solely for pleasure, and differing from the sexual norm of intercourse, but nonetheless an act that lovers engage in voluntarily (under normal circumstances, anyway). Thus, people who want to legislate against sodomy or homosexuality on the grounds that it is a sexual perversion must also be willing to legislate against oral sex. I realize that some states like Georgia have upheld laws punishing oral sex in our lifetimes (there was a high school football player jailed in Georgia a few years ago for engaging in oral sex with another minor), but again, I think this is a mistake.

4. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

Really, this argument boils down to, “the way we’ve always done things is the right way.” Again, God and Bible aside, there is no indisputable reason that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Traditionally yes, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman that creates new family bonds, typically when the man and the woman involved plan on having children to create a “nuclear” family. However, many of the traditions having to do with marriage are religion specific; e.g. a Greek Orthodox wedding is different from a Jewish wedding is different from a Roman Catholic wedding, etc. Also, traditions change over time. No one would hold it against a heterosexual married couple if they didn’t have children (in fact, sometimes they can’t). Also, divorce used to be socially abhorrent; now it is practically the norm. I’m not saying that any of these statements represent progress or steps backward, I’m just saying that the specifics of marriage as an institution need not be set in stone. If the state wants to sanction state marriages for Gay and Lesbian citizens who love each other and want to become family with one another, it wouldn’t have to step on the toes of any religious ceremonies. This is a logical extension of the policy of allowing different religious wedding ceremonies to exist and embrace their own respective traditions.

Why is it important that gays be allowed to marry? In the name of social tolerance and equality, we should allow all productive members of society equal opportunity to the same rights and privileges. We already let gays vote, we let them drive (an example of privilege), and they pay the same taxes that we do. If we hold something like marriage over their heads and say, “we can have this, but you can’t”, it implies that we are somehow special or superior. It is discriminatory, like “separate but equal” schools, or the infamous Jim Crow Laws. Giving a certain group of people inferior citizenship status should never be a goal of our government.

Note: for those who argue it’s just the word “marriage” that bothers them, and that we can have “civil unions”, I have no real problem with this, as long as all included rights, benefits, privileges, etc. are the same. Then again, this is a form of word discrimination. Couldn’t we just as easily make a distinction between civil and religious marriages? It’s not like “marriage” is a proper noun. You could say, “this song is a perfect marriage of rhythm and melody”, and no one would call you a heretic for sullying the sacred word of Marriage. They wouldn’t say, “Marriage can’t be between abstract ideas like music! It’s only between a man and a woman!” That’s why I find the “word” argument slightly silly.

3. Homosexuality is unnatural.

This is an argument that I cannot scientifically prove or disprove. I have heard people claim that there are biological studies out there reporting homosexual behavior in animals. I know male dogs hump each other, which dog owners will tell you is a dominance thing (I don’t know if this really proves anything though, because male some dogs will hump almost anything — leg, pillows, whatever). While I cannot disprove this argument, I don’t really need to. This is because the question of whether homosexuality is natural or not bears no relevance to whether we should legislate or discriminate against it. There are lots of things that are “unnatural” that we aren’t averse to — in fact, we benefit from many of them. Was industrialization natural? Is Western medicine natural? Are cell phones and computers natural? Not that I am trying to claim that Homosexuality is some kind of step of evolutionary progress (although tolerance of it might be). I am simply saying that “Natural” doesn’t always mean better, and “Unnatural” doesn’t always mean bad. Again, you can use oral sex as an analogy. Do you see animals engaging in oral sex? No. Is the “natural” purpose of sex reproduction and not pleasure? Arguably, yes. Should oral sex for pleasure then be a crime? Hells no. Again, if you disagree with me on this point, and you think oral sex should be a crime, then I probably won’t convince you, but I hope you can see my reasoning.

2. Homosexuality is a choice.

Again, while this statement has yet to be empirically or scientifically proven or disproven, it is not relevant to the issue of Gay Rights. True, scientists has yet to find a “Gay Gene”, but something doesn’t have to be genetic to be involuntary. There are many factors in the environment that can lead to involuntary changes in a person’s body and mind, including hormone imbalances, nutrition, etc. I have read theories that homosexuality may result from exposure to different hormone levels in the womb, but that is beside the point. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice, we do not necessarily have the right to legislate or discriminate against it. Do you know what is indisputably a choice? Religion. You know what else is a choice? Owning a gun. These two choices are defended as “rights” in our great country’s Constitution. So clearly, choice is not the issue here. You might come back and say, “Well, murder is a choice, and we have laws against that”. The key difference is, we make laws against choices that hurt people, or society as a whole. Which leads me two my final reason…

1. Homosexuality is somehow harmful to the fabric of society.

This is sort of a synthesis of the other arguments, I know, but I figure this must be the root of the anti-gay argument, because most other things that we legislate against are harmful to the fabric of society, such as murder, theft, rape, fraud, slander, jaywalking…okay, maybe jaywalking is a stretch. But jaywalking makes the road more dangerous for drivers, right? Homosexuality doesn’t even harm society that much. Honestly, who is harmed by other people being gay? Who is even placed in danger by others being gay? I suppose, if you absolutely had to find a danger posed by homosexuals, you could say that by harboring gays in our country we are incurring further threats from radical foreigners who hate them, such as Mamoud Ahmadinejad, but then you’re implying that people who want to discriminate against gays have something in common with Mamoud Ahmadinejad, which I don’t think they would appreciate. But really, if my neighbor decides to be gay, am I harmed in any way? My property is not damaged in any way, my neighborhood becomes no less safe, no one in the neighborhood is more likely to be oppressed, chastised, or alienated (besides perhaps the gay man himself), and I endure no physical or mental suffering (aside from mental suffering caused by my own intolerance). Where then is the damage done to society? I realize that in Biblical times, population growth was a paramount goal, so things that prevented procreation — such as homosexuality, masturbation, and contraception — were disadvantageous to society as a whole. But now that the world is pretty overrun with people, procreation is not as high of a priority as it used to be. As a society we’re pretty much okay with contraception and masturbation now, so why does homosexuality still draw so much fear and loathing? The primary threat of homosexuality is that it takes potential baby-makers off the market, and aside from the looming collapse of our Social Security (not entirely the fault of gay people, by the way), I don’t think that really poses a serious risk to society anymore. And with the aide of surrogate mothers, gay and lesbian couples can even produce children if they really want. So why, then, do Gays pose such a serious threat that we need to legislate against them and subjugate them to a less-than-equal status?

In terms of immediate, tangible urgency, this issue is perhaps not as pressing as say, the War in Iraq, where thousands of lives may depend on the decisions we make in the immediate future. But from an ideological standpoint, this issue is of grave importance to the future direction to our country. Will we continue to be a country who, as a majority, discriminates against a peaceful, productive group of our own citizens? Are we going to continue to codify our own fear and prejudice into state law? Or will we wake up to the reality that most of the Western World already has, that Gay and Lesbian citizens can be valued, equal members of society? I hope, for our sake, that the forces of love and tolerance will prevail. Vote Kucinich. I’m just kidding; vote for whoever you want. Just don’t be a hater. Tootles.

*http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/polls/

Top 5 “Control” Super Powers

Okay, now that I’ve vented sufficiently, let’s move on to this week’s Top 5, shall we?

Parental Advisory Warning: The following top 5 list ventures into some topics that should not be viewed by children. Okay, really just one topic, and I’ve never given this kind of warning before, but I figured no time like the present.

Brief Intro/Explanation: I’ve been wanting to create a top 5 super powers list for quite some time now, but “super powers” is so broad and sweeping that almost anything could be included, and choosing which 5 would actually be the “best” would be incredibly difficult. I would be too tempted to have a million honorable mentions, or otherwise feel like I was leaving perfectly legitimate super power contenders out of the picture. Thus, to qualify for a spot on this list, the super powers in question had to fit certain criteria:

- the powers in question must involve controlling something with your mind (hence the title of the post)

- the powers in question must be somehow amusing/comical to me

- super powers of supreme magnitude (e.g. controlling time, matter) are ineligible, due to the vast, almost unfathomable power involved, and the complications that arise (e.g. the paradoxes of time travel).

- “broken” super powers (to use gamer-speak) such as controlling the weather, the ocean, plants, insects, electricity, etc., are ineligible, because I would never want that much power to be in a single person’s hands.

Now that we have those ground rules out of the way, on with the list:

5. The power to control SQUIRRELS

This super power would be particularly useful on college campuses. How many times have you walked on a college campus, and been just blown away by the number of squirrels scurrying about. I am a huge fan of squirrels, mostly because of how they move. They don’t trot, or march, or waddle, or gallop, or even meander; they undulate. Their body looks like a sinusoidal wave, bobbing up and down vertically as it transverses horizontal space. I also like how they can cling to vertical tree surfaces. If you could control squirrels with your mind, there would be no end of the fun you could have. You could walk around with a squirrel familiar perched on your shoulder for the world to admire; You could have a squirrel deliver a flower to a girl you were trying to impress; You could send a mob of angry squirrels to maul someone you’re not particularly fond of; You could even film enormously popular YouTube videos of squirrels performing inane actions, such as dancing, riding on a skateboard, playing a piano, or flushing a toilet. These are just a few of the countless amusements you could enjoy with the control of squirrels at your command. Sounds pretty tempting, doesn’t it?

4. The power to control SOUND MIXING BOARDS

As a musician, and as a music fan, this is always a power I thought could come in handy.  How many concerts have you attended where the music was blemished by poor sound mixing? There are countless problems that can arise with sound systems: inappropriate master volume, inappropriate levels of distortion, issues with feedback, and the one token guitarist or vocalist who either can’t be heard, or who comes through way louder than the rest of the band. Imagine if you could fix any or all of these problems instantly — with your mind. Your band would always be putting off it’s best sound, as would any band you went to see. Even the Third Eye Blind concert in Mitchell wouldn’t suck so bad…..

Best of all, you would always have a lucrative job to fall back on. Bands can always use a competent sound guy. You could pretend you were adjusting all the levels with your hands, like you were some electrical expert, but really you’d just be controlling it all with your mind! Don’t worry, I won’t tell — we’ll just keep it a secret between us.

3. The power to control BOWEL MOVEMENTS

This super power has been oft proposed and frequently discussed by my twin brother. When ever he begins to bemoan the woes of the BM’s he describes as “peanut-buttery”, he says something along the lines of, “I wish I could cause my enemies to constantly have peanut-buttery [feces]! It would easily triple their wiping time, and they would eventually end up with terrible chapped ass! It would be the worst!”

He eventually extended the reaches of the super power until it ended up as the following: Ultimate control over the frequency and consistency of any person’s bowel movements (self included). Imagine, when you’re in a public restroom with awful toilet paper, you could give yourself one of those hard, dry poops that requires no wiping, and then you wouldn’t have to use the nasty paper. Come to think of it, you could have those poops all the time, and never have to buy toilet paper again! If someone in the street were trying to rob you, you could make him simultaneously poop and piss himself, and then escape while he tries to figure out what the heck just happened to him.  If you saw your dog about to poop on your brand new carpet, you could constipate him until he makes it outside. You could potty train your children almost instantly!

And, of course, you could visit terrible wrath upon your enemies, in the form of constant diarrhea, gas with oily discharge, and “peanut-buttery” poops. But really, I’m not even sure this is in top 5 reasons to have this power. In any case, I have to admit that it would be funny to be able to make people shart whenever to wanted.

2. The power to control HUMAN METABOLISM

This is probably the cash cow super power of the list; although admittedly it would be scamming people. If you could control the metabolism of any person you wanted with your mind, you could make millions of dollars promoting any diet you wanted. You come up with something arbitrary to eat, and possibly some arbitrary behavior for people to follow, and then you stage clinical trials where people who eat according to the diet you structure lose massive amounts of weight, because you raised their metabolisms with your mind. Your diet gets endorsed by labs, doctors, etc., and you sell millions of books, videos, commercials, herbal extracts, or whatever else you want to sell. You could even get industry sponsorship if your diet included a big-money market food, such as beef or dairy. Plus, you could also always be as skinny as you wanted, raise your levels of energy, or even warm yourself up when it gets cold. Aside from the used-car saleseman nature of this super power, I think it would be a pretty sweet one to have.

1. The power to control ORGASMS

Just to clarify, this was the topic I referenced earlier as child-inappropriate. Imagine you could control the frequency and intensity of any person’s orgasms instantly with your mind. In my opinion, this is simply an improvement on the Bowel Movement power. It’s slightly less disgusting, and has an undeniable hotness factor.

In fact, it incorporates advantages of almost every other super power on this list. Let’s think back to the girl you were trying to impress with the squirrel candy gram back at #5. Instead, you could deliver her the flower yourself, and when the flower touches her hand, she is overcome by the most intense orgasm she’s ever had. I think that would leave quite an impression. Let’s think back to the rock band you play for from super power #4. What if, instead of a perfect sound mix, you had the ability to make every woman in the audience simultaneously orgasm when you get to the high point of a song? Your band would either be outrageously popular, or investigated by the federal government. Thinking back to power #3, the man who is trying to rob you will be just as distracted if he spooges in his pants as if he pees and poops in them, and probably just as confused as you run away. This power doesn’t have quite the same cash cow appeal of super power # 2, but you still could probably have a very lucrative career as a sex therapist, or possibly as a pornographer.

The most obvious benefit of this power is the fact that you would be the greatest lover of all time. You would have complete control over your own stamina, as well as your partner’s. You could give your partner countless mind-blowing orgasms via foreplay, intercourse, or even talking dirty. You would even be able to co-ordinate your intercourse so that you always came together if you wanted. Basically, the greatness of your sex life would only be limited by the bounds of your own creativity.

Now, you might be thinking to yourself, “Typical guy, ranks the sex power first. Is that all men ever think about?” First, of all, yes. Second of all, you can’t tell me this wouldn’t be a sweet super power to have. Maybe it’s not as good as some of the powers that were ineligible from this list (say, the ability to fly, or control the weather, etc.), but it’s up there. Male or female, almost anyone could benefit from this power. It certainly wouldn’t save the world; it wouldn’t even solve all of an individual’s problems, but all in all, it would be pretty great.

Alright, after two posts in one day, I’m feeling pretty blogged out. Hopefully this makes up for the fact that I didn’t post last week. Thanks to those of you who are still reading (you stalwart few, you know who you are). I’ll try to write again soon. Tootles.

Top 5 Ways You Can Tell “Grey’s Anatomy” was Created by/for Women

I came up with the idea for this post this summer while I was watching a bunch of Tivo’d Grey’s Anatomy season 3 episodes on my parents’ DVR (Sometimes you need to fill your unemployed free time with something other than job search). However, after the premier of season  4, I thought perhaps of changing it to, “Top 5 reasons that Grey’s Anatomy is now a terrible, terrible show”. I figure I should probably just stick with my original idea, because otherwise I’d just be pointing out the obvious. And after all, maintaining a quality sitcom year in and year out is a difficult thing to do — Scrubs and Family Guy both saw a substantial drop-off in coherence and originality after their third seasons; Lost quickly nosedived after the end of season 1. I’m not sure when Friends became terrible, but boy was that show terrible in its later seasons. When you have no new quality plot lines or characters to develop, it is difficult to prevent your show from becoming hackneyed, exaggerated, or otherwise generally crappy. That’s why Seinfeld quit at the height of his show’s popularity; he didn’t want the show to die the slow, painful death of almost every other sitcom.

Anyway, there’s another point to be made here: Even when Grey’s Anatomy was good (for those of you who share in my opinion that the show was once good), it was still very heavily catered to/viewed from the perspective of women, which is not surprising, given the fact that the creators of the show are women themselves.

Note: I’m assuming that the show is created largely by women, given the fact that the creator’s name is Shonda Rhimes, and the production company is Shondavision. Obviously some of the actors are men, but the driving creative force behind the show strikes me as clearly female.

Note # 2: There’s nothing wrong with being catered to women. I’m not trying to make any kind of value judgment here — I watch the show, so clearly I don’t think it’s bad (with the exception of season 4). Men (myself included) are allowed to like things that were invented for the sake of women. In less progressive times, this might not have been as socially acceptable. But as we move toward a more gender equal society, I would like to think that we will start to see some of the once clear gender lines blurred a little bit, such as women receiving equal pay, or women asking guys out on dates, or men watching Grey’s Anatomy. At some point we might not even worry about whether our actions are masculine or feminine/effeminate, and just get on with our lives.

This already happens to some extent. Case in Point: Body Spray. All things good-smelling have been traditionally under the jurisdiction of women, but as part of the metro-fication of men,  these once-feminine odor-enhancers have become not only acceptable for men, but even masculine, due to some extensive advertising. The logic of the advertising is this: Our product makes you smell good. Smelling good gets you laid. Getting laid = masculine. QED.

But should we really buy this? I mean, men have traditionally had fragrant MAN-sprays that we called our own, such as Deodorant and Aftershave, but come on, Body Spray? I mean, does that sound to anyone else like it should come with glitter and throw pillows? Not that there’s anything wrong with a man who likes glitter and throw pillows. I’m just saying…

Now that I’ve ranted and gotten entirely off subject, back to the Top 5.

5. The Genre

It’s a tv drama, that has nothing to do with sports or crime investigation. Enough said. Actually, this is a fairly good marketing strategy. The most religious tv show followers that I know of are, in no particular order: Men watching NFL games on Sunday and Monday night, college students watching Daily Show/Colbert Report, and women/girls watching evening dramas (Grey’s Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, and Friends [kind of a comedy, but also kind of a drama]). Since you can’t script an NFL game, and college students aren’t that large of a target audience, an evening drama that appeals to women sounds like a good idea to me.

4. The Lingo

This is mostly in reference to the constant slew of Grey’s Anatomy slang that I hear used almost exclusively by women. Honestly, how many male friends do you have who have ever used an adjective like “McDreamy”? How many male friends do you have who have ever used the phrase “Dark and twisty”? How many male friends do you have who have ever used the word “Va-jay-jay”? Actually, I have been known to use the word Va-jay-jay from time to time, but mostly only when mocking Grey’s Anatomy. Also, according to my brother in med school, Grey’s Anatomy has also sparked among girls/women an intense desire to use terms relating to the medical profession. He says conversations with girls who find out he’s in med school go something like this:

“Wow, you’re in med school? So you’re gonna be like, an intern, right? And then you’ll start your residency? And then you’ll be a resident, right? Like, that’s so awesome!”

I’m truly grateful that we have shows that give people such a profound understanding of the medical system.

3. The Plot Lines

Plot lines in Grey’s Anatomy generally run something like this: Drama. Lots of Drama. Medical drama. Baby momma drama. Baby daddy drama. There are few shows on television that are more emotionally heavy than Grey’s Anatomy. A medical drama, by definition, should have many moments of intense medical drama, such as having to awaken someone with a defibrilator. But what makes the show for women is all of the gossip, lying, and cheating. I swear, there isn’t a married man on that show who hasn’t had an affair at some point. It’s like a cross between ER and Closer (the movie, not The Closer like the tv show). All they’re missing is an episode where Natalie Portman makes a cameo and tells Dr. Sheppard that lying is the most fun a girl can have with her clothes on. I guess this doesn’t necessarily make the show for women, it could also make the show for French people. It is very similar to a lot of classic French literature. You know how those French love their cheating.

2. The Dialogue

Granted, sitcom dialogue isn’t always supposed to be like real-life dialogue; if it was, it probably wouldn’t hold people’s attention as well. It’s understandable that on a tv drama the dialogue will be loaded with over-the-top monologues, etc. However, the men on Grey’s Anatomy don’t talk to each other like men really do. A prime example comes from the season 4 premier (which is not from the show’s glory days, but it’s the freshest example in my mind. In said episode, Mark and Derek had a conversation that ran something like this:

Mark: “Looks like you could use a friend. That Meredith girl really jerked you around.”

Derek: “Don’t ever talk to me about Meredith! Meredith’s mom wrecked her, and her father abandoned her. Now Meredith doesn’t know how to love. She has real love, but she doesn’t know what to do with it. So don’t ever talk to me about Meredith. And I don’t need a friend.”

(one scene later)

Mark: “I’m the one who needs a friend.”

Derek: “What?”

Mark: “I know I said you need a friend, but I’m the one who needs a friend. I didn’t come here for Addison, I didn’t come here for the chief’s job, I came here for you.”

Derek: “Dude, I’m so gay for you right now.”

Mark: “Same here, bro. Totally gay for you.”

Well, maybe I improvised the last two lines, but that’s totally where that conversation was heading. If Mark were a real friend, and a real man, he would have stuck to his guns about the fact that Meredith was crazy. The conversation could have gone like this:

Mark: “That Meredith really jerked you around.”

Derek: “Don’t ever talk about Meredith, not her fault, etc.”

Mark: “I might be true that Meredith had a bad upbringing, but that doesn’t give her free reign to treat people however she wants. At some point she’ll have to assume responsibility for her own actions and relationships. By the way, Derek, maybe you should consider washing the sand out of your va-jay-jay and stop crying like a little McBitch.”

That would be some MAN-dialogue. Don’t get me wrong. Men talk about their feelings from time to time. They just do it in different ways from what you see on this woman-show.

1. The Characters

Have you ever noticed how there isn’t a single stereotypical MAN-character on the show, except for the occasional patient? Maybe it’s just because they’re doctors, and doctors aren’t like other people, but take a look at the main male characters of the show:

Derek: Quintessential nice guy character. Doesn’t really do much other than smile and be supportive. Fortunately, he is also good-looking, and successful, and thus confident, which allows him to still be appealing to women, but for some reason he still loves Meredith, who clearly sucks. This gives women hope that even if they suck, there’s a McDreamy out there waiting for them.

Burke: For those who don’t go for the Nice Guy, here is your alternative. The strong, silent type, filled with intensity and driven by an almost compulsive passion to be the best. Intolerant of failure, stubborn, yet somehow still possessed of a profound emotional understanding and patience when it comes to women. Gets shot, and needs to depend on a woman to get him through it. Women who want to be needed, this is your guy.

Alex: Bad boy character number 1. For the women out there who go for that kind of thing. Early in the show, he was stubborn, egotistical, emotionally unavailable, but confident and attractive enough that Izzy fell for him. Lo and behold, he turned out to have a sensitive side, as TV bad boys generally turn out to. Love for a disfigured pregnant woman caused him to become the kind, generous person we all knew he was deep inside. If you think I find this plausible, kindly read my post about bad boy appeal.

Mark: Bad Boy character number 2. Mostly there as a plot device to create more tension between Derek, Addison, Meredith, and everybody (after all, you can never have too much tension). Actually, pretty convincing bad boy character early on. Good looking man who takes what he wants without apologies. Then he got all sensitive to try and win Addison, then Addison got her own show and now he’s sensitive all over Derek and anyone willing to listen to him.

George: Used to be a realistic Nice Guy character when the show began (at that point he was my favorite character on the show). Genuinely nice guy who was less confident around women; at a disadvantage because he’s short and not as good looking as the other doctors. However, the producers of the show didn’t stick to their guns, and slowly became more and more dramatic and crazy like all of the female characters on the show. At the same time, they somehow turned him into a ladies man, tagging two of his coworkers simultaneously, in spite of the fact that he’s married to one of them.

Chief: Could be a real MAN-character, but maybe I’m just not old enough to relate. Seems to me like the wise old mentor figure who has been through it all (inculding affairs and divorce), who constantly teaches everyone else life lessons about love and surgery. There as an example that you shouldn’t let work overrun your personal life, which is a real problem for some men in society.

Okay, so I guess some of them approach real MAN-traits. But compare them for a second to the female characters, who all seem to possess, and even glorify, typical human compulsions and insecurities. Note the fact that Mark was a “Bad Boy” for sleeping around when his character was introduced, but it’s somehow okay for Meredith to sleep around when she’s trying to get over Derek (a reversal of the usual cultural double standard). Compare the male and female protagonists, Meredith and Derek. Derek is a fairly flat character, without many flaws, but without many traits that make him very complicated or interesting. Meredith is a total headcase, filled to the brim with emotional issues and backstories. Simply in terms of character development, the women seem to have gotten the lion’s share.

Also, you may often hear girls talking about how badly they want a McDreamy in their life, or which character they would date if given the choice. You’ll rarely ever hear that kind of talk from guys. First of all, fewer guys watch the show. Secondly, the female characters just aren’t built to be as appealing to male viewers as their McDreamy counterparts. I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with any of the women in that show. They’re more flawed, more human. I mean, Izzy is hot, but she only goes after guys that are married or dying. Meredith and Christina are crazy, and Dr. Bailey just doesn’t do it for me for some reason.

It’s probably good to have a show like Grey’s Anatomy that favors women, given Western culture’s centuries of male-dominated cultural phenomena. Like I said, I enjoyed the show up until season 4. On the other hand, I can see why my roommates mock or question me when I change the channel to ABC on Thursday nights. Tootles.

Top 5 Things that should be in all Public Restrooms

This may seem like a somewhat obscure top 5, and really it’s more of a set of suggestions than demands. I realize public bathrooms are a privilege, not a right, and that in a world with limited resources, we can’t always have our cake and eat it too (although, on second thought, we might not want to eat our cake in the bathroom). Anyway, this is basically a list of things that I’ve seen in bathrooms that I’ve particularly enjoyed, and that I think could benefit any public facility. And here they are: 

5. Super Soft Paper Towels

Have you ever been to a country club or really fancy restaurant where the paper towels almost resembled a fine cloth? They are truly amazing — I have no idea how they get the paper so soft. They are also slightly thicker and much more absorbent than regular paper towels; normally I use at least two recycled brown paper towels to get my hands dry, but the soft luxury paper towels normally take care of me with just one use. I almost feel bad throwing them away — I feel like I could dry them out and use them over and over (although I’m not sure that would be sanitary). These could go higher on the list, but I believe there is a better alternative, which I will discuss shortly.

4. Moisturizing Soap and/or Lotion

This one is important to me because I am a semi-religious handwasher. I wash my hands not only every time I go to the bathroom, but also before every meal (and often before lunch I end up washing my hands in a public restroom). If you study at a school or work at an office or store for 8 hours a day, odds are you wash your hands at least twice a day in a public bathroom. That can really dry out your hands if they have cheap antibacterial soap in the dispensers. If they used something like Dove, or Softsoap Milk & Honey, or a soap with Shea or Cocoa Butter, hand softness would increase, morale would soar, and the world would be a better place. As an alternative, they could offer lotion for post-washing moisture renewal. In men’s bathrooms they might want to be careful about the scent of the lotion — no cucumber melon or night-blooming jasmine, obviously. Unscented lotion would probably be a safe bet in both men and women’s bathrooms, actually. Some women already put on so much perfume, body spray, etc. that if they put on more smelly things every time they went to the bathroom, it might cause a nasal overload. But the moisture, the softness, that’s what’s really important. On to more manly topics…

3. Xelerator Hand Dryers

The first place I ever saw this brand of Hand Dryers was at Cedar Point, in the bathroom near the Magnum. It was fitting, because the air that blows out of the dryers is of a comparable intensity to the air-resistance on a high-speed roller coaster. I’ve seen them spring up in assorted grocery stores and restaurants now, and I couldn’t be happier. I realize that air dryers are much more environmentally friendly than paper towels. Like I said, I use at least two paper towels to dry my hands after a minimum of 2 public handwashings a day. That’s a lot of wasted paper. However, many blow dryers fail utterly to dry my hands. I can stand with my hands under some dryers for a full minute before they are sufficiently dry — I feel like I could drip dry them at a comparable speed. Not so with the Xelerator. A few seconds under the dryer, and done. Sure, it’s a little intense, but it’s effective, and a huge time saver. The difference between a normal hand dryer and an Xelerator is like the difference between a wimpy showerhead and a showerhead with adequate to intense water pressure; once you’ve used one you’ll have no patience for the other.

2. Candles

This one isn’t too complicated. Sure, candles can add ambiance and mood lighting to any setting, but this is primarily an odor issue. I’ve been in a lot of public restrooms recently where they place cans of air fresheners in the stalls. That’s a step in the right direction, but do you know what the resulting smell is? Poop covered in air freshener. Candles are superior in this regard, as they burn other bad odors out of the air. Plus, candles only put a limited amount of fragrance into the air at the time, thus eliminating the possibility that overzealous odor-concealers will spray enough chemicals into the air to kill small animals. Sure, candles may present a fire hazard, but that’s a chance I’m willing to take. If someone burns down a room largely composed of tile and porcelain with a candle-sized flame, I would be utterly impressed. Candles are really the way to go.

1. Ambient Music

Now, at first glance, you might think that this is not very important. You may ask yourself, “Why did he put music as number 1? He must really be a music lover.” Well, I am, but that’s not why this is number one. Honestly, how many things can you think of in this world that are more disgusting than when someone sits down in a bathroom stall next to you and you hear every step of the defecation process? Seriously, do you want to hear every plop, every fizz, every “Oh, what a relief it is”? (Ok, it’s probably mostly plops, to be honest, but 10 points to whoever can tell me what I’m referencing). I’ve been in bathrooms so silent that sometimes I’ve heard people grunting, wiping, even holding their breath when they start to bear down (btw, “bear down” is the official medical term for the pushing you do when you pee, poop, have a baby, etc.) I really don’t need to hear what’s going on in the stall next to me in that much detail. Even Toby Keith set to muzak would be better than that. And also, do you really want people to be able to hear you in that much detail? Some of you probably don’t care, but I know that if I see someone’s feet at the urinal or sink while I’m making poop cacauphony in the stall, I think twice before coming out. For the sake of our ears and our inhibitions, I think that music in public restrooms should become a nationwide standard. And, to be fair, I must credit this idea to my twin brother Evan, who mentioned this to me when we were in college.

 Well, that’s all for this week. I’m a little behind, but still on track to write approximately one post per week. I hope at least some of you are still reading and enjoying this blog.   Happy Birthday to my sister in-law Claire — I hope you do something fun to celebrate. Also, congratulations to Andrew Keller and Moon Chong, who are getting married this weekend. I wish you guys the best, and I’ll see you soon. Tootles.

Top 5 Future Presidential Policies

So this week I thought I’d jump on the early presidential election coverage bandwagon and write a post about our future president. I know the primaries haven’t even happened yet, but I have some good policy ideas for the next president elect. I think, given our country’s history and current political landscape that each of these ideas are a sure-fire way to bring about some changes that our country desperately needs. Not too much else to explain about this one, so without further ado….

5. Gay Marriage — Free Trial Period

Now, gay marriage has always been a somewhat controversial issue in our country — one that many candidates wish to distance them from. Republicans pander to their base by promising anti-gay legislation, but then they never carry out this legislation once they get elected (at least, on the national level — 13 states banned gay marriage in 2004). Democrats (aside from Kucinich) generally try to skirt the issue, saying things like, “I’m personally against it, but I wouldn’t vote against it.” In general it seems like an issue our country is somewhat confused about. Some say marriage is a States’ rights issue, and has no place in National jurisdiction. Some people say marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Some of those people also say that homosexuals are the reason that 9/11 happened, so who do we listen to? I have a solution that will put all of our questions and doubts to rest. When you want to try a product, but you’re not sure if it’s worth purchasing, the seller will sometimes offer a free-trial period, often 30 or 90 days. This allows you to get a taste of the product without any serious financial commitment. Why wouldn’t this work with gay marriage? We try it as a country for 90 days (possibly calling it something else for those who are nitpicky over the word “marriage”), and we observe the consequences. If we noticed a serious decline in the sanctity of marriage or our quality of life,  or if god begins turning people into pillars of salt, we send gay marriage back for a full refund, no questions asked. If we decide we like it, we put it on the books, make it legal, and enjoy our new purchase. You could think of it as a nationwide social experiment. I would bet money that things would be okay if we let gay people marry each other. If you look back through history, our country has benefited whenever we have extended human rights (e.g. Civil Rights movement), and struggled when we have taken rights or privileges away (e.g. Prohibition). But you don’t have to take my word for it; that’s the beauty of the free trial! Call this toll free number to order now!

4. Stem Cell Imperialism

Another controversial issue facing many politicians today is Stem Cell research. Do we allow it, and if so, to what degree? Do we use Cord Blood? Adult stem cells? Embryonic stem cells? Cells from aborted fetuses? Clones? (Most people aren’t against those first two, by the way) . For the record, I am totally in favor of embryonic stem cell research. I trust scientists who tell me that because we limit the cell lines we are able to study, we are severely hampering the scientific progress that could  be made, and thus the benefits that could be reaped from it. Plus, there are over 400,000 embryos currently left unused in different in vitro fertilization clinics around the country. They have a limited shelf life. If they will eventually become medical waste, why not use them for our scientific benefit? Yes, each of those embryos is a life, but none of them will survive on their own, and no one is stepping up to adopt them. Where do they benefit us more, in a lab, or in the garbage? Here’s what I think needs to happen. When Bush was running for President in 2000, he claimed that America should not engage in Nation Building, and that we weren’t responsible for policing the world. Two elections later, we’ve been nation-building in Iraq for 6 years, and we are the world’s anti-terrorism police. One of next year’s candidates needs to do the same thing with Stem Cell research. During the election, he can claim it’s playing God, and it’s not our place, but once elected, he should massively step up our Stem Cell research efforts, until we become the world leader. Otherwise, someone like China is just gonna beat us to the punch. We need to fight genetic diseases over there (in test tubes) so that we don’t have to fight them over here (in our bodies). Nuff said.

3. Massive Retaliation Gun Control (MGRC)

This is actually an idea I had my junior year of high school when we were studying the Cold War. We learned that during times of nuclear proliferation, the arms race between the USA and the USSR actually prevented nuclear strikes from occuring, because of the theory of “Massive Retaliation”. The general idea is that the US and the Soviets had so many nukes that they could destroy each other several times over; and so neither one could strike the other without both powers being destroyed, and thus fear served as our best form of missile defense. I’ve always thought that this would be an interesting way to approach gun control. Rather than taking guns away, or regulating them, give everyone a gun, or multiple guns, even concealed weapons, assault rifles, and rocket launchers. That way, everyone will be surrounded by so much firepower that they will be too terrified to use their own gun. It’s the perfect plan; I mean, it worked during the Cold War, right? I think we should give it a try. In the words of my friend Anna, NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG.

2. Trickle Up Economics

Many of you may be familiar with the idea of “Trickle-Down economics”, the idea that when money is placed in the hands of the wealthy, it eventually makes its way into the hands of the poor. Among proponents, it is known more specifically as “supply-side economics”, stipulating that the money must make its way into the hands of suppliers in the market, who in turn will create jobs, thus passing the money on to the less wealthy. Whether this works is up for debate; some claim that Reagan’s economic actions in this vein led to the eventual economic prosperity we experienced during the Clinton era. Others believe that there is no proof that the rich have any market-driven motivation to actually pass their wealth on to the poor in forms of jobs or charities or anything whatsoever. What, then, is “Trickle Up” economics? Glad you asked. It would take a very special candidate, someone who has street cred with the poor (I’m thinking John Edwards). This candidate would make many appeals to the “Other America” during his campaign, and then use all his political might and sway to then push tax cuts for the poor through a Democratic majority congress (assuming the Republicans don’t take any seats back).  These tax cuts can only go to the poorest 20 percent of the country, or even a smaller percentage if Congress deems it necessary for budget purposes. The candidate will be a beloved champion of the poor, but what the public won’t see is the massive number of shares of WalMart stock that the candidate is buying. Poor people will shop at WalMart with their extra money (as poor people do), WalMart will show unprecedented growth and their stock will skyrocket, and the candidate will make money hand over fist. Thus, the money will pass through the hands of the poor, eventually back up into the hands of the rich. The only way this plan would work better would be if the candidate could purchase stock in local liquor stores, or possibly Goodwill. How will this benefit America, you ask? I’m not sure — I’d just like to see someone pull it off. I’m convinced it would work at least as well as all of those contracts that Cheney shored up for Haliburton.

1. Iraq – Surgeus Interruptus

Fittingly, the number one policy on my countdown represents what will likely be the most important issue in the upcoming election: the war in Iraq. Many questions surround the issue, and will most likely haunt the next president for the first years of his/her presidency, regardless of action taken. It is clear that we as a nation are between the proverbial rock and hard place, losing billions of dollars and dozens of lives per week, but with no clearly feasible exit strategy that leaves Iraq in decent shape. So what is my plan? Well, to understand my plan, you must first accept the analogy that America has been screwing Iraq for the past six years. Sure, when we entered, both sides were kind of nervous and excited, and since then America has certainly impressed with its masculinity and stamina — I mean who would have thought we could have kept it up for six years? However, there must be something wrong with America’s technique, because every time America asks Iraq, “Are we almost finished? Have I gotten you there yet?” Iraq looks back as if to say “Nope, not even close.” Now, in the later thrusts of the war, both sides are getting worn out, chafed, and frankly, a little bored. It’s time for America to accept that Iraq just isn’t going to get there. We’ve already screwed Iraq, we weren’t using adequate protection and we certainly don’t want to bring any more unwanted war children into the world, so the only respectable thing we can do is pull out — quickly and abruptly, without warning. Sure, it might be a little rude, and their might be a little awkwardness afterewards, but if we want to be gentlemen about it, we can pay for Iraq’s cabfare home. (Don’t ask me what the cabfare represents metaphorically. Financial governing support, maybe?)

I hope that all of you who read this are savvy enough to discern the points of levity and sarcasm in this post. It would be a shame if people thought I  was actually a proponent of Massive Retaliation Gun Control. I would probably end up getting quoted on the O’Reilly Factor, being compared to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan for my insipid hatemongering (actually, I would be flattered if Bill O’Reilly actually read my blog).

Alright, it’s late, and I need to work in the morning, but thanks to those of you who are still reading, and I’ll try not to leave you hanging for too much more than a week at a time. Tootles.

Top 5 Questions About Michael Vick

Okay, I know it’s been a while; at this point, I’ve given up on making resolutions to post on any schedule, and I’ll just post when I can, and I feel like it. Anyway, I assume all of you have heard about Michael Vick and the allegations facing him, but in case I still have any readership abroad here’s a quick summary. Michael Vick is a Quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, an American Football team (basically one of the biggest names in one of the biggest sports in the US). He has been charged with being the ringleader of a dogfighting organization in Atlanta, as well as assorted gambling charges which would obviously accompany a sport like dogfighting. The most gruesome charges against him describe what he did to the dogs after they lost fights, including executing them by shooting, drowning, electrocution. This has obviously aroused quite a response from animal rights activists, and Vick’s skin color has added to the controversy, because many Falcons fans in Atlanta feel Vick is being unfairly condemned because he is black. This story has dominated the news here in the States, especially on espn (my tv channel of choice), and many of the facts and opinions I have seen on these news programs sometimes boggle my mind. I have many questions about this case, and I have compiled a list of the most persistent and pressing ones.

Note:  Many of these questions presuppose Michael Vick’s guilt. I am not trying to assert that I am sure he is guilty, although the evidence against him certainly looks pretty condemning. If you like, you may insert a “Assuming the allegations against Michael Vick are true,” in front of any of these questions. I just thought actually typing it might make the questions a bit redundant to read. On to the questions:

5. Why did he do it in the first place?

It can’t be about the money, can it? I’ve heard on the news that the average pot size in a given dog fight is in the thousands, or tens of thousands.  Given the fact that there are only two dogs in fight, and everyone who is betting can only choose one or the other, I would imagine the individual winnings a gambler could make from this would be greatly diminished from the total pot size. Even if Michael Vick were the “bookie” of such an event, and he made more from each fight than any individual better, I can’t imagine his share of a ten-thousand dollar pot would even approach significance when compared to his $100 million football contract and his mutli-million dollar endorsement deals. Even if Vick made money from selling the dogs he bred and raised in his kennel, it would all have to be chump change to him, wouldn’t it? This would be like a GM executive getting busted for selling marijuana to college students. Why would anyone risk such a lucrative legal job for petty criminal activities? Maybe it was motivated by a compulsion to gamble, but then why not play poker or something legal? The only remaining explanation is that he just enjoys watching the dogs suffer, which could be corroborated by the unusually cruel treatment detailed in the charges against him. But if that is really the explanation, then he needs some serious counseling, and I hope he does go to prison.

4. Why leave so much evidence?

It boggles my mind to think how stupid some people can be while breaking the law. When I was in high school, a nearby high school girls’ soccer team videotaped a hazing session in which older girls hit younger girls on the team with baseball bats and dumped pig entrails on them, while parents stood by watching and distributing alcohol to minors. This tape was copied and released to the media, and everyone got in big trouble. You would think if you were headstrong enough to commit to a large lawbreaking activity like that, you would be shrewd enough to cover your tracks, or at least not dumb enough to bend over backwards to give the police something as damning as video evidence.

In the case of Michael Vick, he has been interviewed multiple times on national television talking about his passion for breeding pit bulls (the primary dog breed used in dogfighting). Federal agents found dozens of dog carcasses on his property. So far all three of his co-defendants in the federal case have agreed to testify against him. However, in spite of all of this, Vick claims that he has nothing to do with dogfighting, and that any dogfighting that has happened on his property was organized and carried out by relatives that he trusted to run his property, which he rarely visits.  If everything Vick says is indeed true, then either his relatives really didn’t merit his trust, or someone did a really good job of framing him.  And if no one framed him or betrayed his trust, then Vick ranks right up there with the people who videotaped their hazing, or the soldiers in Iraq who took pictures of all the perverted things they did to the Iraqi POW’s. Why would people do this kind of thing? Your guess is as good as mine.

3. What were they thinking?

This question is not actually about Michael Vick himself, but rather about other NFL players and sportswriters I’ve seen making comments on espn. Thee players and commentators make observations to the effect of the following hypothetical quote: “I don’t understand why everyone thinks that dogfighting is such a big deal. I mean, they’re just dogs”. First of all, having witness the fire and fury of PETA and similar organizations that the Vick controversy has stirred up, do you really want to attract any of this negative attention to yourself? Second of all, even if you don’t value dog life in the same way as human life (which you probably, and perhaps justifiably, don’t), wouldn’t you at least find the way in which Vick allegedly killed the dogs disturbing? For example, I’m not a big fan of insects, but if any of the kids I watched in Day Care had ever killed ants slowly and deliberately by drowning and electrocution, I might have voiced concern to their parents. Can you really dismiss something like that as “not a big deal”? I have no problem with the people who defend Vick using claims such as “innocent until proven guilty”, but at least recognize the heinous nature of the alleged offense.

2. Why are we responding only now?

Now, this question has been posed in many different ways on espn discussion shows, such as First Take, PTI, Outside the Lines, etc. The gist of it comes down to questioning an apparent double standard in the sporting world, which can be phrased in the following way: “If sports stars like Ray Lewis can be implicated in the murders of people, then why is the media suddenly so concerned with someone who may have killed dogs? Do we value canine life more than we value human life?” Other commentators say that other human-related offenses, such as spousal abuse, are more severe than dogfighting and regularly overlooked. Hence, is it really fair to come down so harshly on Michael Vick. The way I see it is this — Yes, the situation may be unfair or hypocritical, but the problem is not how we’re treating Michael Vick, it’s how much we’ve coddled the other people. If Ray Lewis killed somebody, that’s a big deal. If Kobe Bryant raped somebody, that’s a big deal. They should be punished accordingly. However, if others have avoided punishment because they were star athletes, that doesn’t mean Vick should as well. You have to start correcting the problems somewhere, even if there’s no precedent and it seems “unfair” to the person you crack down on. Thus, I worded the question,  “Why are we responding only now?”, to reflect the fact that the problem lies in our past favoritism of athletes, not an unfair strictness toward Michael Vick.

1. Where are our priorities?

Now, the last question already hinted at this. The obvious broad question would be, “Is watching athletes excel at a sport really worth giving athletes legal leeway and preference?” However, the misplaced priorities I wonder about are much more specifically Vick-related. As some of you may know, there is a concurrently running sports scandal right now involving an NBA referee named Tim Donaghy. He recently pleaded guilty in a federal case in which the allegations leveled against him were largely gambling-based. Vick currently faces a possible guilty plea to dog murder and gambling, with jail time estimated at under a year (I’ve heard 10 months). Donaghy, who pleaded guilty to gambling and wire fraud, faces up to a possible 25 years of jail time. Also, Vick faces a possible 2-year suspension from the NFL if he pleads or is found guilty of the charges against him, but not for the dogfighting, which is only a misdemeanor in the state of Georgia. Rather, the act of gambling can cause a player to be banned for life from the NFL, at the discretion of the commissioner, and so the suspension would likely be gambling-related.

Really?

Do we really punish gambling more harshly in our society than we punish animal murder? I mean, I guess since we kill animals for food and sport, punishing people who kill animals for sadistic pleasure could be a slippery slope. But really, punishment 25 times greater for someone who fixed basketball games than for someone who organized and carried out the mass murder of dogs that he bred for the express purpose of killing them? Also, the fact that Vick gambled on the fighting is the only reason that his crimes include felony offenses, and the only reason the feds got involved in the first place. If Vick had run the dogfighting league without actually betting, his crimes would have been limited to misdemeanors and he might not be facing any jail time.

Personally, given the nature of our relationship with dogs over history, we should give them a little more respect. At least in the western world, dogs and horses have a privileged place in our society. We use them as helpers and companions, and in return we don’t eat or hunt them. Yet, if someone wants to murder them, that’s not even a felony? Killing dozens of dogs with your bare hands isn’t as bad as beating your wife? When we put dogs to sleep, it’s merciful, but if a suffering cancer patient asks to be euthanized,  it’s murder? Okay, that last one isn’t exactly Vick related, but it still represents the same double standard (for the record, I think euthanasia can be merciful for both people and animals in the right circumstances).

Don’t get me wrong, gambling is bad, but is it really as bad as strangling, drowning and electrocuting innocent creatures? Or 25 times worse? I realize a referee fixing NBA games could have damaging effects on the whole league, and thus countless jobs, but something about these hypothetical sentences still sits wrong with me. I’d be interested to hear any of your opinions on this (assuming people are still reading this blog).

This is all, of course, assuming that Vick is guilty of the charges set out against him. If he’s been framed, I hope he is exonerated. But if he is indeed guilty, I certainly hope he goes to jail for more than 10 months, with the promise of lucrative NFL seasons when he gets out. Well, that’s all for now, and hopefully sometime soon in the future I’ll write some more. Tootles.

Top 5 Reasons to NOT Stay in a Hostel (Imagine Borat saying it)

So, my goal of establishing a weekly Monday post was kind of killed by the fact that I had a job interview on Monday, but the good news is if I get a job, then my schedule should regularize again and maybe I’ll find a consistent time of the week to write these things. Although, to be fair, I don’t think the blogging gods will ever provide me with an ideal writing environment like I had in France ever again. Seriously, there’s nothing to spur creative impulses like a 12 hour a week job. Nothing. Beautiful women and unrequited love might come close, but how can you really take time to feel and emote about those things if you’re working 60 hours a week? That’s right. You can’t. Actually, the job I interviewed for is 40 hours a week with 25 vacation days a year, so it’s probably as close of an equivalent as I’ll ever find. Let’s just keep our fingers crossed.

Anyway, back to my unfinished business with hostels. Now, we covered last week the reasons that these fine institutions can be advantageous to a budget traveler, and if you are truly on a tight budget when you travel, I would encourage you to adhere to the platitude that beggars can’t be choosers. However, if you are not a beggar, but a well-to-do chooser planning a dream vacation, there are a few reasons that hostels might not be to your taste. Again, none of these reasons has anything to do with Quentin Tarantino movies. I haven’t seen them, and I don’t want to, but I would imagine that comparing a real hostel experience to those movies would be like comparing a nativity play to “The Passion of the Christ”. That being said, although the odds of being tortured in a hostel are comparable to the odds of Jon Greene finding Jesus, here are some mishaps and discomforts that might befall you:

5. Accessories (or lack thereof)

You know what I love about hotels? They always provide all your sheets, your towels, even soap and shampoo for the bathroom. Sometimes the even give you mini deodorants, aftershaves and mouthwashes. Everything you need for an overnight stay, except maybe a toothbrush (in all honesty, though, who would want to use a hotel toothbrush? I would imagine they would be as useless as hotel razors). Not only can you use these accessories, you can steal them (and it’s not really even stealing; it’s like taking mints or toothpicks from the little bowls at the front of a restaurant. This way, even when you’re paying exorbitant hotel prices you can say to yourself, “at least I got something out of it.” It’s like in Liar Liar when Jim Carrey steals the car air freshener and he’s like “I’m taking this!” It just makes you feel better. Do you know how many of these little goodies are provided at hostels? Zero. You’re expected to bring your own sheets (or pay the hostel for a set of theirs), your own towel, sometimes even your own pillow. There’s normally toilet paper in the bathroom, but you’re not going to find soap or shampoo unless an unlucky traveler forgot theirs and left it there for you (which has actually happened to me two or three times). This even sometimes cuts down on the money advantage hostels have over hotels — 25 euros a night doesn’t seem as cheap when you have to shell out another 7 euros for your sheets, and another 3 euros for your towel. And you’re not going to walk out with any stolen souvenirs unless you steal something from one of your roommates, which you could get caught and prosecuted for. So unless you travel with a full set of toiletries, sheets and linens, you might want to consider a hotel the next time you travel.

4. Silence (or lack thereof)

A hostel is not a very happy place for light sleepers. This is because hostels are able to offer cheap beds by piling as many as they can into a room at one time. The fewest number of beds you will ever encounter in a hostel room is two or three, and this is very rare. Reasonably, you should expect to stay in a room with 4-8 beds, and sometimes be placed in a room with as many as 20 or 25. The most populated room I ever stayed in held 16, but I’ve seen multiple places on hostelworld.com that have 20-person rooms. Believe me, 16 is no walk in the park. I mean, even in a fairly large room, sixteen people and all of their luggage can make for a crowded situation. Crowded situations typically make for noisy situations. Think about it, which would you expect to be louder, a dinner for two at a restaurant, or a school cafeteria? That’s a slight exaggeration of the difference between a private hotel room and a 16-person hostel room. Another problem is the fact that it is highly unlikely that 16 people will all have the same sleep schedules. There are few things in life that I find more irritating than being woken up by rowdy drunk people at four in the morning after a long, tiring day of sightseeing. Wet socks, chapped ass, and the rest of my top 5 pet peeves are probably more irritating, but this merits at least an honorable mention I think. The noise doesn’t even always come from inside your room; another side effect of hostel cheapness is thin walls. In some cases, the obnoxious drunk people could be two rooms over, or outside, and still wake you up. If you want peace and quiet, stick to hotels (and libraries). You won’t always find it at a hostel.

3. Comfort (or lack thereof)

This was already led into by my accessories rant in number 5. Sometimes in life, you just want certain creature comforts. You won’t find these creature comforts at a hostel. Even if you buy (rent?) their sheets and pillows, they probably aren’t very high thread count (you can tell someone knows their sheets and pillows when they can talk thread count). Also, the beds that you put the sheets and pillows on leave something to be desired. Pretty much every hostel I’ve ever stayed in uses bunk beds, and even though I thought that bunk beds were the coolest thing of all time when I was ten years old, something about them just doesn’t appeal to me all that much now that I’m twenty three. Maybe it’s the fact that the guy in the bunk above me is one of the drunk obnoxious people that wakes me up at four in the morning. Maybe it’s the fact that my feet hit the footboard because the bed isn’t long enough. Maybe it’s the fact that there’s a tear in the mattress that I can feel through these low thread-count sheets. Maybe it’s the fact that they use those green, plastic covered army mattresses that sound like a tarp being ruffled every time you roll over. Now, not all of these have happened at the same time, but they have each happened during nights I’ve spent in hostels. But isn’t the bunk-bed thing an interesting question. I mean, we all love them as kids, and then something changes. I loved top bunk as a kid; I can’t stand it now. Bunk beds went the way of egg salad, PB&J sandwiches, and candy corn. Wait, that’s not true. I never liked candy corn.

2. Privacy (or lack thereof)

This is another side effect of cramming 16 people into a room. Aside from the noise level, it tends to have a detrimental effect on your personal space. Add to that the fact that the rooms are generally coed, and the fact that bathrooms are shared (often also coed), and you have a situation that was not designed for the socially inhibited. If you’ve ever lived in a dorm, a hostel won’t be anything that new or scary to you, but if you like to be able to change into your nightclothes without the company of five or six members of the opposite sex, then a hostel could pose some slight social discomfort to you. I know, some of you are probably thinking, “Wow, girls change right there in the room with you?” but it’s really only a positive when the girls in your room are attractive. If the girls in your room are from Germany, you probably have nothing to worry about, but think about what percentage of people in the world you’d actually like to see in their underwear, and that’s probably representative of what you’ll see in a hostel.

There is one other problem with the masses of people in hostel rooms, and that problem can be summed up with two letters: B.O.  You might not think this is a major problem; you might think that you’re exempt, or that not all people stink, but under the right circumstances, anyone can fall victim to their own glands. I know that I sweat in my sleep, and if you fill a room with 12-16 guys like me, it can make a room pretty rank pretty quick. You never notice it when you first wake up, but you notice it as soon as you come back from the shower. “Oh my God! Did something die in here? We need to open a window, stat!” You female readers out there might be laughing at this phenomenon as a guy problem, but I just this year shared a six-person room with five girls, and believe me, it wasn’t any better. I was surprised; I thought that woman-sweat smelled like pretty flowers and baked goods. Turns out it smells pretty much like MAN-sweat, only you can still smell undertones of perfume and body lotion under it. That’s one reason I like staying in a hotel; I know the only MAN-sweat stinking up the room is my own. It’s more pure, somehow.

1. Extreme Shadiness (or lack ther…wait a minute…)

For the record, most hostels exhibit a fine and upstanding lack of shadiness (especially Swiss hostels, or Hosteling International ones). If you decide to take your chances with a cheap online venture, however, you never know what you’re getting yourself into (except for the fact that you know that it will be nothing like the Quentin Tarantino films). To illustrate my point, I will now relate the anecdote of the sketchiest hostel I’ve ever stayed in (for those of you who know me, you’ve probably heard this already). Anyway, my friend Jon Greene and I went to the South of France for our February break, and spent four days in the lovely town of Nice. During our trip planning, which we did probably two days before we left we found a hostel that was super cheap (I think it was something like 10 or 12 euros a night) during a search online. We booked two beds online and printed off directions. When we read the directions, we became a bit curious about the nature of our hostel. The directions told us, once we arrived at the given address, to enter the main floor of a restaurant and ask for the “pink lady”. Jon and I were wondering if we had booked four nights in some kind of brothel, but as it turned out the pink lady was like 70 years old, and our hostel was just a cheap, crappy hostel. There were cracks in the walls, we had to cross through someone else’s room to get to our room, and the bathroom was about the size of a broom closet (seriously, I could have peed into the toilet while standing in the shower without any particular effort). Worst of all, though, were the creepy crawlies. I remember an ant crawling up the wall one afternoon as I lay in bed, and another crawling on me one night as I lay in bed. Then, one night, as I went to the fridge to get a drink (because I didn’t trust the tapwater, although, come to think of it, it was pretty sweet that we had a fridge), the light from the refrigerator caused several small creatures to crawl away into the corners of the room, and I was suddenly very grateful I’d put my sandals on.

Thats about as bad as it can get, I think. Any exceeding sketchiness that I can think of would have to come from your roommates, and I don’t think you can blame that entirely on the hostel. I’ve never roomed with anyone that creepy, most of my roommates have either been kind and interesting, or obnoxious, drunken party fiends, or both. Hopefully if you ever stay in a hostel, you’ll meet an exotic foreign person who’s as hot as Aram’s sister (trying to get back to my roots with Aram’s hot sister references).

Well, that rounds out today’s top 5. I really should try to stay on schedule and write at least one post per week. If I get lazy again, feel free to comment on my posts and say something like “HEY! STOP SLACKING OFF AND WRITE ALREADY!” Comments get forwarded to my email, and so that is a good way to get my attention.  Tootles.