http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogEtfIdgjpY

some of the best stuff on the internet right here

THIS is what a sexy politician looks like.

I always thought that those "bulk rate" business-reply envelopes were prepaid by the company you're sending them back to.  But it looks like they're actually charged by the ounce.  Maybe they'd like a small, dense gift?

As a bonus if we all started doing this it just might help save the planet.

An entirely random example of the kind of browser-embedded mp3 playlist one might make over at Muxtape, were one so inclined.

Early one morning in January, 2007 one of the most talented musicians in the world performed some of the greatest music ever written, in a heavily-trafficked subway station in a major American city.  Hardly anyone noticed.

My dear friend Andrea over on Facebook posted a link to the following video which, she claims, explained to her "why so many women are so angry about Clinton's loss":




That is indeed an informative video. As a modern day Neanderthal male, particularly one who does not watch TV news (most often for lack of television ownership, but also because I think it rots your brain, as described below), I was unaware of this troubling issue. Thank you, Andrea, for bringing it to my attention. Moreover, I signed the womensmediacenter.com petition fwiw. However:

Hopefully we all know by now that these kinds of "news" shows' only purpose is to get ratings, and they do so by inflaming people rather than informing them. Thus to hold the ideas espoused by mainstream media as anything approaching a reflection of popular attitudes is to buy wholesale into a belief system fabricated by corporate interests for the purpose of their own self-perpetuation, and to ignore the wider cultural discussion. Otherwise intelligent people living in democracies who allow themselves to be so taken in, inflamed, and manipulated by TV news shows represent a travesty of the highest proportions, especially so if such inflammation is then used to justify their spiteful support the very institutions that willfully warped the information in the first place, by, say, voting for a candidate who would perpetuate the status quo that is rightly decried.

For example, this bitch has the wrong idea entirely:



Remember: McCain's a man too.

Hey y'all.  Just ran across an awesome photo set on flickr (via Kitsune Noir) and thought I'd share.

..

I don't think I'm struggling with any of these particularly at the moment.  I just decided to round some of them up.  Feel free to answer in the comments if you'd like.

1.  What is so appealing about money and power beyond the amount needed to be secure and enjoy oneself?

2.  If I say hello to you in the elevator, and then I see you in the elevator again a week later, do either of us have a responsibility to acknowledge one another?

3.  When people tell you not to discuss religion and/or politics, whose interests are they advancing?

4.  Why don't people use their turn signals?

5.  Is there any good reason to have children other than satisfying our biological and psychological impulses?  Is that a good reason?  Is it worth quintupling the amount of stress in your life, and concomitantly reducing your freedom?

6.  Does anyone else think my voice sounds a little bit like Kermit the Frog's voice?

7.  Why would anyone want to be famous?

8.  Where is the line between pursuing one's dreams and reckless irresponsibility?

9.  In what order will these questions begin to seem embarrassingly naive upon reflection?

10. Why do people spend so much time watching TV, most of which you can't even dance to?

11. How can we spend more time focusing on what is really important?

In response to a question from a friend, I’ve spent some time recently thinking about what it is I like so much about Obama as opposed to Hillary given the similarities in their stated policies.  I gave my first campaign contribution (ten fives and ten pennies on Lincoln’s birthday) to his campaign, and my second a month or so later in response to her getting a loan from Bill.  I’m usually pretty cynical about this kind of thing; I’ve definitely never been behind a politician so much before.  That I am now is because I truly believe there is something there that’s special, but it is somewhat elusive, so it took some time to come up with a coherent response to my friend.  Here’s what I told him:

To me, and I think to a lot of other people who have been paying attention to it, Obama’s campaign is an experiment in a different style of politics than what we’ve all grown so tired of.  Specifically, he’s playing clean, saying what he believes, refuting attacks with reason, and refusing to give in to the temptation to cheapen the policy dialog just for sound bites.  Does he throw some sound bites in there?  Sure, they’re still necessary so long as Americans watch more TV than they read.  But he backs all of it up, and he’s sincere, and he doesn’t resort to name calling or other such stupidity.  It’s an experiment in honesty over pandering, and in good judgment over political calculation.  I want to see the experiment succeed.

There are still a lot of skeptics.  And that’s healthy.  After the politicians we’ve grown accustomed to, it’s tempting to dismiss them all, resign oneself to voting for the lesser evil, and get back to things that demand our more immediate attention.  But, I told my friend, you can’t deny it’s probably overly cynical to absolutely deny the possibility that any politician could ever mean what he says.  And you can’t deny that after the last eight years, this country needs someone who has conviction behind their words instead of dollar signs.

Hillary definitely is not that.  She’s a pathological  liar and always has been.  It’s kind of hilarious when people say they trust Hillary over Obama when she still refuses to give up her tax returns.  What is she hiding?  Maybe the fact that she’s bought and paid for by the same people who brought us the past quarter century of corruption?

As for McCain, he’s no better when it comes to speaking the truth.  Talk about a guy without the conviction of his words: when asked whether he personally believes that condoms help prevent HIV, he answered as follows:  "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy. You’ve stumped me. ... You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was."  Just like Hillary, he’ll say whatever it takes to get in power.  Believing it doesn’t even seem to enter into the equation.  His policies change from minute to minute depending on who’s listening, but in the past he’s said some pretty  scary  shit.  Is this really who we want leading our country?

Personally, I’m convinced that Obama really is what he claims to be.  Another cynical friend of mine dismissed my passion for the idea of an earnest President as an inexplicable lapse of objectivity.  But over the past ten years or so I’ve been pretty well trained to recognize different varieties of bias; I even know what it looks like on myself, and I can say honestly that I don’t think I’m allowing myself to be misled here. 

Recently I’ve simply found enough of what I consider credible evidence to give up my usual cynical attitude towards politicians in just this one case.  Maybe that’s what I like so much.  Cynicism doesn’t really feel all that good, and it’s nice to be free of it for awhile.  I’d like that to last for eight years or so.

Esquire Magazine's list of Best Sandwiches in America has left me drenched in puddles of my own drool.  Go get two, and mail one to me.

One thing I did unintentionally late last year was get lost in the  desert with a few people.  It was a fairly dark, cold and dangerous experience.  We weren't too worried at the time, but there's no doubt it could have ended worse.  As it turned out, we got to go on a terriffic off-trail nighttime hike through some mountains and go on a free helicopter ride with some bitchen dudes who had night-vision goggles on.  That's the story in a nutshell, but you can read a far more eloquent account (with photos!) over at my friend Jamie's blog, who was one of my co-rescuees.

Some of you people are militantly trying to get me to watch this movie, but those whom I know share my taste who've seen it universally hate it.  So I've decided I will never watch Across the Universe.  Ever.  Unless I'm paid somehow, and not nominally, either.  We can discuss a negotiated rate.  Here's why:

I could easily go the entire rest of my life without having another cliched love story inflicted on me.  Much less one that clearly butchers so many classic rock songs I love by turning them into embarrassingly campy motherfucking SHOWTUNES. So, no thanks. Musicals suck.  If you're recommending this to me and you're male, how sure are you that you're not gay?  No really, I think you owe it to yourself to seriously consider the question of your own sexuality.  We'll still be friends regardless of what you eventually decide, but...just think about it.  Okay?  I love you, man.  Hey, it's gonna be okay.

And furthermore.  Even though I once (for about two weeks) decided I was a "hippie," I have zero interest in seeing yet another 60s glorification film.  My dad took me to see The Doors when I was about 15, which was probably a poor parenting decision even though we both enjoyed the hell out of it.  And in the long run I don't think either of us particularly regret the influence it had on my formative years.  So I've enjoyed the subject matter before, but then I went on Phish tour for a number of years and now have managed (in a way my dad still hasn't, and hey, rock on dude) to grow out of that phase, thankfully with minimum long-term damage as far as I can tell.  And I'm glad as all heck to have had those experiences and made those friends and listened to that music with my ears as blazingly wide open as they were at the time.  Hoo Hah.  But I've gotten over it, and Hollywood should too; after Fear and Loathing the genre's pretty much been wrapped up.

Well, back to my Miro.

Prior to Apollo 11 the the Nixon Administration commissioned a memo/speech to advise re the administration's response had Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin reached, but been unable to leave the surface of the moon.  (Btw is it just me, or does the phrase "the Nixon Administration" seem almost cuddly these days as compared with the eschatological visions inspired by the current bunch of psychopaths we're allowing to run the country?)

Apparently the plan was, first the President would phone the astronauts' wives to offer his condolences (presumably he'd hold in check the overpowering urge to comment on what a badass way to die being stranded on the moon is); then he'd do his whole Presidential "we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming" bit and present the above linked-to speech on national television to soothe our collective horrified psyche.  This, of course, was all before certain Nixon cronies figured out that a collective horrified psyche was actually an extremely useful tool that shouldn't be soothed so much as cultivated and harnessed to leverage the rise of global corporate fascism.

Just as a matter of literary value, though, "In Event of Moon Disaster" has got to be the coolest memo title ever.  Sounds like something Tom Robbins could riff off of for a few pages in spectacular fashion, or the name of a latter day Syd Barrett ditty had his music career stagnated and he'd gone on to become a jilted government bureaucrat instead of the schizoid psychedelic rock guru to whom I owe so much of my blissed-out adolescence.  Bonus Question: Which would have been more tragic, this hypothesized alternative-universe paper pusher Syd Barrett or the real one who inspired a generation of rockers but ate far too much paper, flipped out, and went back to live with his mom for the remainder of his deranged, media-hounded existence?  Of the two options, which would you pick for yourself?  What combination of drugs are you on as you're answering this?  Is there anybody out there?  Answers must contain the word "callipygian."

I've been waiting for this one.

This morning at 9:25 a.m. I was in my apartment in Venice, facing east when I heard a "whump" off to my right, and half a second later felt a mild jolt, and then heard more whumping and stuff off to my left.  It basically felt like it did when a truck would go by the house I grew up in, except wavier, and without the truck sounds.

I was like, "whazzamawha...earthquake?" (this was prior to my morning tea, when many of my thoughts are preceded by nonconnotative thought jumbles) but I wasn't sure.  Then driving to work 10 minutes later KCRW confirmed it: a 2.7 magnitude quake, which is pretty tiny I guess, but the epicenter was basically right below me.

Maybe this isn't too exciting to all you Cali natives, but I'm pretty thrilled to have finally had the experience.  It was the first one I've felt in about two and half years out here all told.  I think I'm ready for a mag 5 next, bring it Earth!

I hold doors. As a rule for girls, and for guys when I'm immediately in front of them and we're headed the same way. It's just how I was brought up. People seem to appreciate the simple courtesy. Only once in memory did anyone ever get offended. That was silly of her.

In some circles there's a bit of a dispute over the propriety and/or efficiency of opening the second of a double-door when the first is being held (perhaps, e.g., for a line of people, and you're maybe four back).  The door is there to be used, so the argument goes, and it's not like we CAN'T open the thing ourselves, right? As for efficiency, there's a bit of a setoff since, while it's certainly quicker to use both doors, it also takes more effort.  I'm undecided on that issue.

Then there's the common door-snub faux pas.  I'm of the opinion that when someone's holding a door for you, if you happen to already be heading towards another one, the unintentional rebuff can be entirely cured with a sincere apology, and maybe a little smile to boot if you happen to be at least marginally attracted to the holder.  Let's just say that if I'm specifically holding the door for you I'd rather have that more thoughtful and extended interaction than the hasty, automatic "thanks" I'd likely get otherwise. And if I were just holding the door as a courtesy, your acknowledgment would be plenty more than I'd be entitled to.

If we're dating (we're not--I don't date people anymore; see previous blog post on the subject--but let's say we were for the sake of argument), and I make a point to open a door for you, you should make every reasonable effort to walk through it. Is it maybe an anachronistic gesture? Sure. But after all the crap girls put guys through in the dating game, playing along is the least you can do when we do something genuinely nice, no matter how scripted.

As far as car doors go, I'll maybe open one for a girl (NEVER for a guy, it's the equivalent of a foot massage) very occasionally, but it usually doesn't occur to me.  Women who demand such specific behavior clearly have WAY too many expectations of what I "should" be doing, and I generally won't bother with them much further if I can help it.

Chivalry isn't dead, it just smells funny.