Wednesday, July 26, 2006

A bad man who did good things

It sort of bothers me that I still need to listen to people who think women were denied education in Iraq (although I can't pretend I really listened to what this guy had to say). Anyone who thinks Saddam didn't let little girls go to school needs to Google "Tigris Secondary School for Girls," and then they need to sit down and be quiet. It's pretty well-known that Iraqi women were some of the best-treated in the Middle East. There were compulsory primary education laws for both sexes, and there were laws prohibiting sexual discrimination in the workplace; Iraqi women held roughly 25% of professional jobs; Iraq was one of the first countries to ratify the CEDAW (the United States, you may not know, never did).

It wasn't until after the Gulf War, when Saddam decided to embrace Islamic tribal traditions in order to preserve his political power (because no one in this country ever catered to religious groups for their own political purposes), that women's position began to deteriorate. In addition, the poverty and economic collapse that resulted from the UN sanctions meant that sending their daughters to school was a financial impossibility for most Iraqis. So if we're going to blame someone, let's pull an Israel and blame the UN. I agree Saddam was a jerk, but we should all try to keep a better bearing on our facts, because this really is one of the reasons why the Islamic world isn't too nuts about us: we get them all confused.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Where fake smiles and shallow questions are the pith of beauty

I caught a little bit of the "Miss Universe" pageant last night. I can't decide whether that title is arrogant or just misleading. It's like how we call our baseball championships the "World" Series. Miss Universe? Was everyone in the universe represented in the pageant? Was Miss Rigel 7 there? What about Miss Alpha Centari*? I don't see how someone can be crowned "Miss Universe" when the only contestants were from one measley little planet. Apparently the Miss Universe pageant welcomes even less delegates than the more appropriately named Miss World. Miss Solar System I could have swallowed; maybe Miss Galaxy. But Miss Universe? This time they've gone too far.

* She has brains; she has charm; she has tentacles that go all the way to the floor, my friend.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

4 8 15 16 23 42

I really like t-shirts with numbers on the back. You know, like I'm Number 54 for the Abercrombie football team or something (as is apparently everyone else who plays football for Abercrombie, but that's beside the point). I think I like wearing them because they make me feel like a little kid again. When you're little you're always playing sports that require you to wear these numbered t-shirts - baseball, basketball, soccer. But when as an adult do you get to put a number on your back anymore? If Big Law had numbered jerseys I'd seriously consider a career with them. "And now your starting line-up for Fredrickson & Byron. In the employment discrimination department, from Ann Arbor, Michigan, Number 54!" And then the crowd would go wild.

Everyone loves free speech...

...Except when they don't.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Rick Santorum's Wonder Emporium

Poor Rick Santorum. I suppose I could denounce him as yet another conservative douchebag (he respect homosexuals, just not the things homosexuals do that, by definition, make them homosexuals; how does that work, exactly?), but I actually feel a little bad for him. As if having your name transformed into a synonym for fecal matter wasn’t bad enough, he then had to go blow it with this whole “500 WMDs found in Iraq” thing (500 WMDs in Iraq…500 WMDs…smuggle one to…some Syrian dudes…499 WMDs in Iraq). Personally, I’ve reached a point where I just can’t have an opinion on this WMD thing. I’m on information overload. So there were weapons, but they’re from 1989, they’re not the weapons we were looking for, and what does that even mean, but they’re still WMDs, but they’re not even weapons of mass destruction anymore, since they can’t be used as weapons, they can’t be missilized, and apparently they aren’t capable of real destruction, massive or otherwise, and the fact that the DoD keeps saying they aren’t WMDs probably means they aren’t, and why isn’t any other news source besides Fox picking up this story, is it just the slant in the liberal media, but then there’s this guy Georges Sada who says Saddam did have WMDs, but they were sent to Syria, but then he doesn’t actually know they were sent to Syria, but this friend of his, HE knows, and why are we trusting Saddam’s top general anyway, if Saddam was such a bad guy why do we think his upper echelon is so trustworthy, but then why would he lie, and anyway even if Saddam had WMDs the real issue was that he intended to use them against the US, which clearly he couldn’t do with these…

I mention this because I was watching an old Santorum interview on the Daily Show from last year, and it’s about gay marriage, and since I sort of just did a big rant on it I thought I’d comment on the clip. So…

Like Ann Coulter's, I haven't read his book, either, so I'm not really in a position to say. But once again it feels to me like Rick is just bending over backwards to find rationales to deny gay marriage. His argument seems to be that because hetero marriage is the ideal format for child-rearing and gay marriage isn't - an argument which, by the way, is interesting from a theoretical standpoint but yet to be proven scientifically - we should outright outlaw anything less than the ideal. But he doesn't really seem to ACTUALLY believe that; he only believes it in regards to gay marriage. For example, he says, “Government should be for the ideal. That doesn’t mean that a single mom can’t, and in most cases will, raise great children. That [doesn’t] mean[] that other forms can’t, won’t raise good children. But what government should be for is what’s best.” But the thing is, Rick, we’re not making single motherhood illegal. If government should only permit the ideal family unit, then it has to prohibit single motherhood along with gay marriage.

And earlier he says, “The criticism I get all the time is: yeah, you talk about protecting marriage, but where were you when the divorce culture came in…you don’t seem to be concerned about that. Well, if you read the book, the answer is I am concerned about that.” And I haven’t read the book, so I don’t really know, but I’m guessing he’s not proposing LAWS that prohibit divorce. That’s the issue. We’ve got all this energy on banning gay marriage, and then people say they’re also concerned about divorce when the fact of the matter is they don’t invest nearly the same level of energy. Where’s the legislation? And once again, and this is a point I’ll make often, there are no studies showing that being raised by gay parents has any sort of real impact on a child, while there are many showing that divorce can and does have a significant impact. So if we’re going to amend the Constitution to protect the American family, shouldn’t it be on the issue that is really – if not literally – dividing families?

He says this stuff, but if you think it through - and I admire Jon Stewart's respectful tone, but I'm a little disappointed he didn't press Santorum on this - he's just not particularly committed to the rationale. If government's only going to allow the ideal, then let's really go for it. No divorce. No single parents. And really, since children grow up better in wealthy households, maybe we should outlaw procreation below the poverty line. Nothing less than the ideal is acceptable. When asked by Jon whether you can legislate an ideal, Rick declares, "You have to." But he doesn't really seem to be committed to it.

Where the anti-gay marriage crowd loses me, honestly, is in this basic assertion that marriage is all about the children. I really don't think it is. I think it's about state-sanctioned lifelong compatibility. When I look for a wife, I'm worried more about how I get along with her than how great she'll be with my kids. Quite frankly, that's gonna be their problem; they're just gonna have to learn to get along with the woman I love. Kids are an important part of marriage, but so is the house you buy and the jobs you take. There's more to it that simply waising wittle wugwats.

Rick disagrees. “The reason societies elevate marriage to a special status is not because they want to affirm the relationship between two adults. That’s important, that love relationship is important, but…What’s society’s purpose in marriage? Society’s purpose, the reason civilizations have held up marriage, is because they want to establish and support and secure the relationship that is in the best interest in the future of the society, which is a man and a woman having children and providing that stability for those children to be raised in the future.” I’m not sure I agree with this argument, though I think it has its merit, but irrespective, it’s still not a sufficient reason to actively ban gay marriage. By this rationale we'd have to outlaw hunting, since the state's guarantee to the right to bear arms is about public safety (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…”), not what to do with yourself and your bloodhound on a Saturday morning. If we're going to permit people to pursue state-sponsered rights only based on the state's stated interest, then anytime they pursue it for another purpose it has to be forbidden.

Monday, July 17, 2006

The day I lost complete faith in the law

I’ve been delaying writing this post because it just has me so incredibly mad that I can’t get a handle on myself and organize my thoughts, but the day I lost complete faith in the law was July 6, 2006, also known as the day the New York Court of Appeals issued its ruling on same-sex marriage. That’s it. I’ve had it with these people. They win. I just can’t take lawyers anymore.

I’m not real familiar with the facts of the case, and I sort of lost interest in the opinion after a while because it’s 70 pages all told and I’ve got places to be and pornos to masturbate to (not the two of those at the same time, obviously), but the section that has me irritated, and the only section that anybody is talking about outside of law professors who get positively wet at the mention of procedural frameworks, is the section that says the NY legislature could rationally find that the state’s interest in marriage is predicated on the concern that children who are born out of wedlock have a harder time of it than children who are born within - studies show it!* - so we need to have marriage incentives to get Ma and Pa to stay together should le condom break. But gays don’t run the risk of accidental procreation, so they don’t need no stinking marriage incentives, so they don’t need no stinking marriage. The NY Court of Appeals is Helen Lovejoy, shriekingly beseeching us to "please think of the children!"

* First of all, this is so wrong I just can’t stand it. This is the general marriage incentive argument all over again. Yes, children grow up better in two-parent households…but only when the parents AREN’T FORCED TO MARRY EACH OTHER OUT OF CIRCUMSTANCE. And not to rehash the ole interracial argument, but do you seriously think there aren’t any studies showing that children grow up better in households where the parents are of the same race?

You read something like this, and you just lose all faith in the legal system, to say nothing of your fellow man. It’s amazing just how far over backwards these people are willing to bend so they can keep the queers down; it’s up there with the Ann Coulters trying to convince our children that Creationism is still a viable explanation for the way the world works. And not to change the subject, but where the hell are all the “sanctity of marriage” people on this? Marriage is sacred, so fucking so that it needs to be incentivized. Wow. Sure is special.

Why do we tolerate these people who masquerade their homophobia under these guises of supposed rationality? All these topics: gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military. This isn’t about the definition of marriage or the anatomy of the family unit. It’s not about rationality. It’s that some people in our society just don’t like gay people.** Admit it. You just don’t like them. It’s okay. There are some things in this world I don’t like. Like rugburns. They suck. Somebody starts floating around a rugburn marriage amendment, they’ll be hearing from me.

** “I am so off-the-charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around words like 'personal freedom' and no one calling ‘em on it. It's not about personal freedom, and it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns.”

But okay. If the State’s interest in marriage is all about keeping the kid’s parents together, then let’s actually make it about that, you know? Let’s make people submit to fertility tests before they get married, to make sure we don’t have a bad case of “that sperm won’t hunt” on our hands, because otherwise what the hell would we let them get married for? If it’s just about procreation, let’s make it JUST about procreation. In fact, if it's just about the child, then let's prohibit ANYONE from getting married unless they've got a baby on the way. If we’re gonna believe this, let’s actually believe it. If you seriously think the state's interest in marriage is about baby making three, don’t half-ass it. Go the distance. BELIEVE IT. Ban ALL kidless marriages. The commitment can't be that hard, not for something as important as America's children, not for something like the family, that fundamental building block of society. This is why I completely agree with the dissent on the Michigan affirmative action cases. If diversity is so important to student education, let’s really GO for it. Don't make Michigan yet another higher-education bastion of progressive liberalism. Federalist Society, bah! Give me White Supremacist Lawyer and the disciples of Jerry Falwell, all legislating "in the name of the Lord."

What pisses me off the most is the legal blogging community’s response to this. “While I don’t agree with the ruling, I think it’s an interesting argument…” Shut the fuck up. You’re part of the problem. This isn’t a theoretical problem in a poli sci class, this isn’t your Con Law prof asking if you have a constitutional right to subsidized cable. This is people’s lives you’re fucking with. Take it seriously.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Quote for thought

"Lawyers as a group are no more dedicated to justice or public service than a private utility is dedicated to giving light." --David Melinkoff

Friday, July 14, 2006

Ann Coulter is a traitor to America: Gays and child-molesters, gays ARE child-molesters

Let's talk about Godless. I haven't read it. Not because I'm necessarily opposed to reading it. I'd read it. It might be an interesting read. But I'm not gonna spend money on it. I'm not going to subsidize Ann Coulter. But hey, if her publisher wants to send me a free copy, I'll flip through it. Crown, are you reading this?

But I have read the free excerpt from the first chapter on, and assuming that at least some of the statements therein are not vastly expanded upon in later sections of the book so as to render a current discussion ill-informed, let's talk about one quotation:

"As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference.* If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up?"

First, I gotta say, given the history of homophobia in this country, I think it's sort of in bad taste to equate homosexuality with child-molestation. Of course, if her media-frenzied quote concerning the 9-11 widows/Jersey Girls is any indication, bad taste may actually be an incentive for Ann Coutler TO do something, not a reason not to.

I suppose I should also pay lip service here to the many scientific studies that have documented how homosexuality is actually prevalent in nature, which would suggest that homosexuality is determined by birth. Of course, given Ann's seeming derision for science generally ("liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader") as well as the fact that she spends half of Godless in a passionate attempt to debunk evolution (Ann Coulter of course being eminently qualified to publish a book on the subject, having had extensive training and experience in the life sciences field), I don't imagine she puts much stock in these studies, anyway.

She certianly has a point about Darwinism weeding out the whole homosexuality thing. It's a point I've made before, and one I find difficult to explain: seems this is the exact kind of thing natural selection would take care of, if the whole system is based on reproduction. I guess my own hypothesis would be that, while I'm no more qualified to speak on the life sciences than Ann Coulter is, I do recall there being these things called dominant and recessive genes, so maybe the nature of evolution involves a little more than out with the bad, in with the good.

Of course, if it seems preposterous that people are born gay, it seems even more preposterous that they would choose to become so. Especially for all these gay people who emerge in conservative households where they're taught that homosexuality is an abomination, who would choose to practice a way of life that would get them ostracized by their family, friends, and church, deny them access to marriage rights, and get them beaten to death if they have the initials M.S. and are ever in the Laramie region? Is it all just an aggravated form of teenage rebellion?

The real issue isn't that people who are born a certain way can't be rehabilitated. Alcoholism, for example, is genetic, yet alcoholics are rehabilitated all the time. So I don't think the issue is that gays CAN'T be rehabilitated. They probably can be. I was talking with one person who said that the "people are born gay" argument is silly because gays still CHOOSE to act on their sexual urges, rather than trying to control them. I think that argument has some merit insofar as that child-molesters also CHOOSE to act on their sexual urges, when society expects and demands them not to. Of course, that whole argument suggests that heterosexuality is also a choice that can be "rehabilitated," that heteros can be taught to savor the joys of homo-luv. I suppose that's what prison is, if the popular preception is any guide: a place where inmates abandon their hetero predispositions and succumb to the glorious passions of male sodomy.

But the issue isn't that gays can't be rehabilitated and child-molesters can be. It's that gays SHOULDN'T be rehabilitated. There's nothing wrong with it. There's no harmful social result. It's a decision between two consenting adults. But when wicked Uncle Ernie fiddles about with his 10-year-old niece, there's a social harm done. That's why child-molestation is illegal and homosexuality is not (although if the conservatives had there way...). Homosexuality isn't a crime, child-molestation is; and rather than locking the latter up for the rest of his life in an already overcrowded penal system, the liberal ambition is to teach him to control his urges.

A more persuasive argument might have been recindivism rates for child-molesters. But that would involve statistics, and perhaps statistics are too closely related with science to be tasteful.

* Ann Coulter says, "Pedophilia: it's a child, not a choice. "

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Ann Coulter is a traitor to America

Pundits like Ann Coulter are traitors to America. There are two kinds of people in this world - those interested in making noise, and those interested in making progress - and Ann Coulter is unequivocally the former. Rather than attempting to illuminate serious social problems in the hopes of resolving them, she's obsessed with simply demonizing the liberal camp to the point where liberals are forced to demonize her in response. Her rants divide the country rather than unite it, and all for the sake of Ann's significant personal profit. And that's traitorous - dividing the country for one's own profit.

It's not just limited to Ann. All pundits are guilty of this, whether it be Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on the right or someone like Maureen Dowd on the left. Coulter, though, is the anorexic, androgonous man-goddess of the movement, the epitome of what John Stewart went on Crosstalk to denounce: that pundits don't heal social issues, they pick at them till they blister.

Everytime I read about Ann Coulter on another talk show, I always have to tolerate the liberals simply denouncing her as an idiotic whore and the conservatives praising her for such winning rejoinders. And I'm tired of it. So I'm going to start listing some of the stupider arguments Ann Coulter makes, to provide conservative America with an itemized list of some of the shortcomings of the Coulter intellectual psychosis. But not now, because a Blogger outage is scheduled.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Law Revue, Part 2: Outrunning the bear

Law school is like three years of being trapped in the woods with a bear: you don't need to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun everybody else. I'm referring, of course, to the dreaded grading curve. There seems an element of preposterousness to the idea that your Con Law exam didn't actually test how well you understood Con Law, but it's the truth; it only tested how well you understood Con Law as compared to everyone in your section. I suppose that's the unfortunate reality of the adversarial nature of the practice of law: that it's not about how well you know the case, it's about how well you know it as compared to the opposing counsel.

But consider this. I recently read a report that law schools are one of the few grad schools to impose grading curves. I'm not sure whether that fact is true, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the proliferation of the grading curve is partly to blame for the high rates of depression and substance abuse among law students. And why wouldn't it be? Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that from the moment you are Oriented you are in a constant state of competition with everyone around you. The people you drink with at Bar Review, the blond with the legs in the first row, that handsome fellow whose blog you read: these aren't your friends. They're your ENEMIES. CRUSH THEM. DESTROY THEM. Unless you want to be condemned to a life of suing insurance agencies on behalf of people who can't speak English, then these people are the only thing that stand between you and six figures of glorious salary and a loan-free life. Think about that, and then wonder why so many law students go into law school with the hope of crafting a better tomorrow and come out cold-hearted, calculating, and cutthroat.

Some people say that the grading curve is a necessary evil because, for better or worse, it serves as a means of ranking students, thereby making Big Law Firm's interview process easier. That's wonderful, except law schools don't exist to make things easier for law firms; they exist to make things easier for law students.* They're SCHOOLS, see? I suppose by making things easier the firms schools thereby make things easier for the students by making it easier for them to get jobs after graduation, and I could swallow that argument from lesser-tiered schools like the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Want To Practice Law Good. But does anybody seriously think that if Harvard and Yale got rid of the grading curve Merger & Acquistion LLP would stop hiring Harvard grads?

* MARK: Sam, why did the President veto the bill?
SAM: There are--
AINSLEY: Because it guaranteed by law that ninety-five percent of the money go directly into the classroom and bypass the pork-barrel buffet, which is troubling to this President because he doesn't work for the students...
SAM: Well that's just--
AINSLEY: ...and he doesn't work for the parents of the students. He works for the teachers' union.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Putting the "GOL!" in "GOL!!!!!!!!!!"

Today marks the culmination of both Wimbledon and World Cup, and I'll be happier when they're both over. Between tennis and football, I've just been watching way too much sports these past few weeks, and it'll be nice to get back to caring about things that matter, like the difference between a fee simple determinable and a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent.

If you care, in Wimbledon I'm rooting for Federer, both because he's like the Michael Jordan of tennis and is such a pleasure to watch on grass and also because I can't stand Nadal - with his sleeveless tees and baggy shorts and excessive stalling Ralph tries taking the hip/rebellious tennis player thing to a level that it just doesn't need to be taken to. And in football I'm rooting for France (even though George Bush would probably say that by rooting for France in the World Cup I'm supporting the terrorists), partly because I love Zidane but mostly because I just like shouting "VIVE LA FRANCE!" at random intervals. Anyway, to mark the end of our love interest in football for another four years, here are some World Cup thoughts:

1. I hate to admit it, but all those smelly foreigners are right: football isn't football, soccer is football. I could talk about the common sensibility* here, and that if 90% of the world refers to a sport as football, then it's called football. But really, it's just common sense. When you have a game called "football," you would think that the foot would play a determinative role. In American football, you kick the ball on maybe...what...10% of the plays? In soccer, however, all you ever do is kick the ball. So it's football. Not soccer. Vive la France.

* TOBY: It’s not the new millennium, but I’ll just let it drop.
SAM: It is.
TOBY: It is not the new millennium. The year 2000 is the last year of the millennium. It’s not the first one of the next.
SAM: But the common sensibility, to quote Steven J. Gould...
TOBY: Steven J. Gould needs to look at a calendar.
SAM: Gould says that this is a largely unresolvable issue.
TOBY: Yes, it’s tough to resolve. Yes, you have to look at a calendar.

2. Some people think World Cup is good because it brings the nations of the world together, that it's a shiny emblem of international cooperation. Those people are wrong, and idiots, to boot. International sports competitions don't bring countries together. They set them apart. We all end up victims to national prejudices and triumphalism. The anti-American sentiment that prevailed at World Cup is a good example. Vive la France. I was reading on a BBC football chat board about the US loss to Ghana, and one chatter wrote something like he thought it was funny that America lost to a country we all condescend on. And I've never held anything against Ghana, but I read that and thought, "Of course we condescend on Ghana. Everybody in our country has running water and they, you know, don't. So let them dominate us in a game that nobody in America cares about. Vive la France. They can have cricket to, because nobody understands cricket. You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket." Vive la France.

3. A lot of Americans think football players are big sissies, and I can kind of sympathize with why. Vive la France. There's a lot of acting in this sport. I understand that sometimes you are tripped and sometimes it hurts, but really, EVERY TIME you get knocked down you don't need to grip your shin and grimace in agony. You're a professional athlete, to say nothing of a man. Personally, when someone trips me, I don't get hurt; I get mad. Vive la France.

The other thing I don't agree with in this sport is the holding your opponent back when chasing the ball. Someone accused me of playing sissy soccer for holding this belief, but I say it's the opposite. Vive la France. I say it's sissy soccer to constantly be grabbing your man. This is a sport of speed. If you're so slow that you can't outrun your opponent without holding him back, maybe you should get off the field and play a game more suited for your slow-ass ass. Vive la France. Like golf. Vive la France. Or checkers. Vive la France.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Putting the "GOL" in "GOLF"

I understand why ABC doesn't show World Cup on its main station. Not that many people want to watch it. Americans find football boring. That's okay. But to show GOLF instead? A bunch of middle-aged guys walking around a grassy knoll? This is the spectator sport Americans hunger for? The only thing I can think of that is more boring than golf is NASCAR. Guys driving around in a circle. Three-hundred times. Riveting.

Friday, July 07, 2006

ITube, MeTube, YouTube

I'm such a nerd. Last night someone was trying to tell me this joke/pick-up line...

Guy: Whenever a girl asks what your profession is, you say doctor. When she says what kind, so say, "I'm a doctor in pussyology, baby."
Me: You mean a gynecologist?

Would someone please explain to me what is so funny about this Brookers girl on Youtube? Apparently the majority of the YouTube community thinks she's just HILARIOUS, and I just don't get it. Each video is basically 3-4 minutes of her doing mediocre impressions. Why is this hailed as high comedy? Like this one. How is this funny? Maybe I should ask this kid, who filmed himself watching it and posted it on YouTube. Does anybody else think this is creepy, because Lord knows I DO. What is wrong with America? Were there really people like this before the advent of the Internet, or has the Internet just endowed them with the means to extract themselves from the woodwork? I guess I can't totally hate on YouTube, since it did proffer me the Hakuna Matata video, but the proliferation of these people was a steep price to pay.

I read in Variety that Carson Daly was so impressed he signed her to a talent agency...although we also have to raise our eyebrows at Carson Daly. I thought putting the words "Carson Daly" and "talent" in the same sentence would cause the world to implode. Why is this guy so popular? His late night show is decidedly NOT FUNNY. I heard a joke once that Carson Daly is the opposite of Christopher Reeves - dead from the neck up - and I have to agree. He's so dull. He's a guy who was plucked out of obscurity and given a job as an MTV VJ, joining the hallowed halls of such media giants as Pauly Shore. I used to like Carson a bit when he was on TRL, if only because he was obviously something of a tool but girls loved him because he was on TV. "Oh my gawd, I love you, Cawrson!"

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

It's pronounced "touchy"

As has been pretty-well documented, I don't much care for those "I'm aMac" commercials. The new ones are no exception. Like this one. "Hello, I'm a Mac." "And I'm a PC." "And I'm a PC, too." This is the one where Mac chastizes PC for not using "touche" correctly.

"Yeah, see, now you can run Mac OS10 or Windows on a Mac, so in a way I'm kinda like the only computer you'll ever need."
"Ah. Touche."
"No, I don't think you're using that right."
"No, listen, see, you can only say 'touche' if you make a point and then I make a counterpoint, you see? So I said I run Windows but you haven't made a point yet."

This lecture is entirely incorrect. PC's point was that he's a PC. Mac's counterpoint is that he's a PC, too, BECAUSE he runs Windows. That he runs Windows is not by itself a new point. Ergo, PC's use of touche is correct.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Gravity's a bitch, and then you die

Today I went to the park -- AGAIN. Apparently it was Family Day, since there were all these grandparents walking around with their wittle wugwats. I suppose I suspected as much on the day before Independence Day.* What I enjoyed watching was all the little kids who were finding out the hard way about GRAVITY and that eternal maxim that it is far easier to climb UP a rocky slope than it is to get back DOWN. The woods were filled with panicked little voices: "We need to find another way down!"

I also saw something I've never seen at the park before: guys with metal dectators. Not sure what they were looking for. Spare change? Buried treasure? The One Ring? Remember, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master. It WANTS to be found.

* "Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world, and you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. 'Mankind.' That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom...not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution -- but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: 'We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!' We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Those Latinos and their football

So back when I complained about how I couldn't watch any World Cup because there's a public Spanish channel but no public sports one...Well, it turns out I can actually watch World Cup ON the Spanish channel. Arrogance, thy name is Dr Farnsworth.