The Thought Process, Out Loud

Quality Television

2007-01-17T10:28:00.000-06:00

I'm not even gonna explain the long lay-off. All I'm gonna say is "I told you so". On to the blog.

I've spent probably the last 6 months catching up on Television shows from the past 5 or so years that I never watched. After spending that time effectively watching a mixture of ESPN, MTV, 24 and whatever reruns I could catch of my favorite old shows, I decided to hop a few bandwagons. Frankly, all I'm wondering now is what took me so long.

1. The Wire: Well, my excuse for not watching this show was simply that I didn't have HBO. I actually watched the first episode one vacation when I was home from school (right when my dad first got HBO) but didn't keep up because there was no way for me to continue watching. Then I sort of forgot about it.
Well, I'm sorry I did. I started my bandwagoning with this show, and as my friends over at General Musings from Generalists and Bill Simmons (towards the bottom of the column) can attest to, this may just be the best show ever made (and I'm only through season 2). There isn't much I can really say about it that hasn't already been said, but it's just a really well done show. I highly recommend this show to, well, everyone.

2. Rescue Me: This isn't so much a bandwagon show as just a really entertaining show. I'm only through season 1 right now, but had Blockbuster Online gotten their stuff together I would have been through season 2. It's not for everyone, and it's really not near as good as the other shows on this list, but as far as quality Television, and compared to most of what is on TV today, this is well done.

3. Scrubs: This is actually my most recent bandwagon show, as I started watching it over the Christmas holiday. I don't really know what kept me from watching it initially, or what got me watching it now. All I know is that each time it comes on (which is about 10 times over the course of the day) I pretty much have my TV tuned to it. It's amazing to me that the best shows are the ones nobody watches, and that this show was almost cancelled on several occasions.
I think, what I like about it, more than anything else is the realism that it brings. Now, if you've ever seen it, you understand what I mean by "realism". The fact is, it uses the old trick comedies used back in the 90's, when characters learn lessons within each show. However, the difference between this show and others is that nothing is shoved down your throat. The lessons they're learning are for their benefit, not for ours. They're not trying to teach or preach or anything like that. It's a comedy about working in a hospital, but they have no problem reminding you that these people do, in fact, work in a hospital, which can be a very emotional and depressing place. But they do it with charisma and style, and there really isn't a bad thing I can say about this show. I feel like, if you haven't gotten on the bandwagon, it's not too late. I think I've seen half of their six seasons in the last month just off syndication (Comedy Central, 11am and 11:30am Eastern, and 7pm and 7:30pm Eastern). So, check it out.

Other than that, I feel like there hasn't been Quality Television quite like there currently is in a while. Shows that I personally enjoy include Lost, Heroes, How I Met Your Mother, My Name is Earl, Numb3rs, Las Vegas, and House. And there are apparently good shows that I don't even pay any mind to (Desperate Housewives, Gray's Anatomy, etc.) as well as old favorites (Law and Order, etc.) So I'm just happy I have my TiVo. Because without it, I would probably have even less to do here in St. Louis.

Coming Soon: Why 24 is like my best friend from Elementary school who suddenly became cool in High school and stopped talking to me.

Bianca Ryan

2006-10-19T11:57:00.000-05:00

Bianca Ryan

This just left me absolutely speechless. If you haven't heard of this girl yet, you're really in for something here.

If only life didn't get in the way...

2006-10-16T16:27:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to pass on a hilarious post on a friend's blog, which is especially funny if you hold an appreciation (as I do) for fantasy sports.

Just can't get rid of me...

2006-09-11T11:58:00.000-05:00

Things I should have blogged about or thought about blogging about during the longest month and a half of my life:

1. V for Vendetta is probably the most intellectual action movie you'll ever see.
2. Freakonomics was not really that impressive a book (more on this later).
3. Every trip to the Big City of Dreams is fantastic/overwhelming/thrilling/non-stop/too short. I think that each day that passes I come closer to deciding to move back home.
4. Re-reading "The Things They Carried" and how it seems a lot shorter the second time around. Maybe I have developed my reading abilities a bit since high school.
5. The Yankees taking over first place.
6. How St. Louis takes the life out of me sometimes.
7. Everything that I wanted to put on this list and now can't remember.

I guess this is what I get for being so busy/lazy/tired. But I'm going to work on getting back into this, if for no other reason than it's good for me to keep writing.

On another note, normally I share something I wrote on September 11th, 2002, retelling my story of that day, I suppose. I think at this point we've all heard enough about it. So the best I can do is to offer up my love to those that have been there for me throughout the years, and attempt to not take for granted the blessings I have in my life.

I encourage anyone else to do the same.

The Da Vinci Code, Follow Up

2006-07-26T09:15:00.000-05:00

It has recently occured to me, that towards the end of my Da Vinci Code post, I stated that I would later discuss the impact of the movie and the discussions it started. Well, I cleary have not followed through in my pledge. So I ask that you give me a couple of days to get my thoughts together, and I solemnly swear that by this time next week, I will have a post up on the subject. I do appreciate the patience, however.

In the meantime, I would like to quickly talk about a recent bill that was passed in the Senate. Essentially, the bill makes it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without her parents consent. (For your reference, it was voted in favor of by 51 Republicans and 14 Democrats).

Personally, I'm a bit torn on this issue. As a person classified as pro-choice (and please, before anyone lights up my message board with anti-abortion comments, pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion - I'm keeping those thoughts to myself - and if you don't know that by now, well, you've got some reading to do), I don't agree with any bill that prevents a person from their right to have an abortion if they so choose. The fact is, I believe this bill is an attempt at the beginning of the end of abortion (which will, in fact, not end it at all, just end it in a safe and legal manner). However, one thing that strikes me about this bill is that it's claiming to be "in the best interest of the safety of the minor." Personally, I don't really buy it, but it does bring up an interesting point.

I think that it can be dangerous for a young girl to be traveling hundreds of miles to places she doesn't know to get an abortion from a doctor she may not trust. Personally, I think it would be much better if parents would be more open to discussion with their children, as well as if children would be more open to discussion with their parents, and if everyone would put their sense and safety ahead of anything else. However, that's not the case, and therefore the only thing I really have to go on is my dislike and distrust of Congress. I guess, in that sense, I've made my decision.

Maybe one of these days I can get something positive in here.

Frustration, Part 2

2006-07-20T13:39:00.000-05:00

From today's New York Times, an article on Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Bill:

Critics of the legislation have said it still involves “taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research,” as the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, put it on Tuesday.

Just wondering how that would be different than possibly "taking something that is living and making it dead for the purposes of oil, fattening pockets, etc."?

Frustration

2006-07-19T10:18:00.000-05:00

After reading both an article on the new Stem Cell bill (that will be vetoed by "President" Bush) and an article about the arrest of the head of a Sports Betting company in London, I think I may be hitting a new point of frustration.

Now, I don't know much about stemm cell research. I haven't been keeping up to date in the political bullshit because, frankly, I believe it's bullshit, and so I've separated myself from it. However, so far as I can tell, the idea behind stem cell research is simple: it will help to attempt to find cures for diseases such as Cancer and Parkinson's. So maybe I don't get it. Perhaps I'm simply naive. But as simple as I can really put it, isn't curing diseases a good thing? But I guess it makes sense. As more Americans and Iraquis and countless others get killed for oil, there's no reason no to sacrifice those at home so Congressional pockhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifets can stay fatter, right?

Meanwhile, the government is going all out attempting to indict Barry Bonds for *allegedly* taking steroids (and while I do believe he did, I think the government is wasting it's time, his time, my time, and money), and they're now targeting online gambling. Now, I understand gambling is illegal (unless of course you're in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Tunica, Reno, on a Native American Reservation, in any one of the legal Casino's that are "on the water, not on land," etc.) But come on. Ralph Reed just lost the Georgia Lieutenant Governor Republican Nomination because he was involved in the Jack Ambramoff scandal where they took money from a Louisiana Native American Casino to illegaly shut down a competiting Casino in Texas. Clearly gambling is not a problem with the government. People making money overseas on Americans, is.

Frankly, I'm sick of Congress. We've got a growing problem of Global Warming, more diseases spawned every day that we can't fight, hunger, poverty and violence the world over, and they're wasting their time attempting to send Bonds to jail and arresting people who take sports bets. We're trillions of dollars in debt, gas prices are rising and the disparity between rich and poor is growing daily.

I consider myself a Democrat, more because to me, it's the lesser of two evils. But frankly, I'm more anti-politician than anything. I don't like, appreciate, or have patience for bullshit (which is a cause for my current dislike for my job), and Congress is full of it.

In lighter news, good look to DJ Bnapperish, for shouting out The Thought Process, in her blog Brittany Goes To Washington (and has since come back).

Conservative Hollywood?

2006-07-17T14:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/movies/16ande.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

After reading my blog the other day, my father e-mailed me this article. Kind of funny how things work. And apparently people do read this thing. Who'da thunk it?

(Actually, quite a few people have let me know that they check for updates semi-regularly. And for that I thank you.)

Trying to get back into the swing of things...

2006-07-14T08:38:00.000-05:00

Due to my recent work load/exhaustion, I've been lackadaisically posting external links that have interest me, but provide me the minimum amount of work while still attempting to keep up the blog. And because some of that weight has been lifted as of today (read: business trips) then I thought perhaps this would be a good time to get back into the swing of things.

A question was posed to me a few weeks ago (in my Oscar's post) as to whether I agreed with a Tony Kushner statement that "political theatre is usually theatre of the left. That right-learning theatre tends not to be progressive or socially engaged theatre." I attempted to look for the article of which this reader was mentioning, and couldn't find a free version (I really need to set up my Times Select account...), and will therefore have to take this quote as is (not that I assume he was misquoted, I just prefer to get an entire background on something before forming an opinion).

As for the question, I would honestly have to say I don't know. As I'm not a huge theater buff, I couldn't tell you that I know a lot about theater, political or not (though having a sister obsessed with Broadway has kept me in the loop). It would seem to me, however, from life experience, and theaters distant counsin the cinema, that Kushner's comment would be a true one.

Considering my recent viewing of An Inconvenient Truth, (which Puff over at General Musings for Generalists recently blogged about), and the wealth of documentaries out there, I supposed I can come to a reasonable conclusion as to why this is.

What it seems like to me, is that "the political left," to me, is nothing more than advents of positive change (or perhaps not-so-positive change, but generally people don't like for things to change for the worse). The reason I say this is not because I think "the political right" doesn't want positive change as well. The way I see it is that we still, today, have a conservative leaning society (which I beleive will always be the case), and because of that "the political right" are more comfortable with the way things are. If you're comfortable with how things are, you're not going to make a documentary (like Who Killed The Electric Car?), a movie (like Brokeback Mountain), or a play (like Caroline or Change). It would seem to me that the point of writing political theater is to stir up something - be it a movement, an idea, or whatever - to change the way society behaves. Nobody would spend their best efforts writing/producing/filming something that would cause you to leave thinking "boy let's keep things the way they are," because that would be a waste of time, energy and money (and as much as we in this country like to waste all three, we prefer to be less obvious about it).

I think another reason for this would be that, it seems, those in Hollywood and in the Broadway community are more "left leaning," (or so they say), and therefore what they put out would generally have more of a "left leaning" tendancy. I think, the ultimate fact is, that it's "cool" to be a rebel, to disrespect authority, and even in your adult years the "popular" people will express that. In this case, government and society are more "right leaning," and therefore any type of response from what would be considered the popular crowd would be opposite of that.

That's really just my take on it. Feel free to add yours.

Crazyness

2006-07-11T13:57:00.000-05:00

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/07/paperclip-house.html

It's stories like this that make me think I need to get out there and make things happen.

2006-07-02T16:36:00.000-05:00

Gary Matthews, Jr. robs a HR from Mike Lamb

I guess it turns out I did see Superman this weekend.

Why I Hate The Mets, reason number 18,452

2006-06-13T14:30:00.000-05:00

Click it. You know you want to.

St. Louis Drivers

2006-06-13T11:14:00.000-05:00

Growing up, we had a term for people who couldn't drive: "New Jersey Drivers." Well, since spending the last five years out in the Midworst, I have a new term: "St. Louis Driver."

You see, to me, one of the greatest feelings you can get is when you first get on the highway and are able to hit that accelerator and feel the car jump into a higher gear. It's a freeing feeling, like there's nothing standing in your way. And the exact opposite of that, then, would be traffic.

Most traffic I can deal with. I mean, everyone hates traffic, but bumper-to-bumper, big-city traffic, accident traffic, it's all within reason. There is a method to the madness. It's not unfounded.

St. Louis traffic is just that. Unfounded.

St. Louis traffic comes as a mixture of several things:

1. Poor planning. Interstate 170 ends at the intersection of Highway 64/40 and Eager Road. It just stops. What kind of a highway, a three lane highway, for that matter, just stops? Anytime there's an average amount of cars on the road, the amount of congestion at that intersection is ridiculous and unfounded. There are various places around this city in just that manner. The highway 70, 44, 64/40 intersection by the Arch. The traffic lights by the Landing. Random stop signs where there should be lights and lights where there should be stop signs. It's like someone took a map of the street of St. Louis, closed their eyes, and played pin the light on the intersection.

2. Lack of knowing what you're doing/where you're going. Clearly St. Louis residents have absolutely no idea what is going on. Despite that they've been here long enough to figure it out, they still don't know when their exit is, what lane to make right turns from (right lane), to look in their side mirrors and blind spots, etc. Between the Skinker Road exit on Westbound Highway 64/40 and the intersection of I-170 and Brentwood, there is ALWAYS traffic. However, there's no cause for this traffic. The highway doesn't suddenly merge two lanes, it doesn't have a lower posted speed limit. It is a mixture of a few large turns and people getting over too early/too late. The traffic is pointless and unfounded, and it's enough to drive you insane.

3. Lack of courtesy. I don't know if it's the fact that people in St. Louis are stubborn or what. I do know, however, that they don't have the proper courtesy. While they'll sit at a stop sign for five minutes waiting for you to go when they, in fact, have the right of way, on the highway they'll do whatever they please, whenever. One of the main reasons there is traffic in St. Louis is because people drive too close together. Why do they do that? Because they don't have the courtesy to either a) speed up or b) slow down. Instead, they will tail each other - six, seven, eight cars at a time. The first car will not speed up to gain separation, and none of the cars following behind will slow down. However, since they're driving so close to each other, to be safer, they drive slower as a group (especially when making turns - they've never heard of accelerating into the turn?), and make it worse on everyone around them. I've had constant traffic issues because of this fact. I like to call it "The Clump Phenomenon."

My last point is not a reason for traffic in St. Louis, it's just an example of why they're the worst drivers I've ever seen. When a light turns green, the cars at the front will sit there a good 10-15 seconds before they begin to (slowly) accelerate. Why do they do this? Because red lights mean nothing in this city. A just-turned red light only means that you can get three more cars through the intersection. Therefore, the cars waiting at the green light take longer to start, causing the cars in the back to run the red light so they can make the light they should have made in the first place, wash, rinse and repeat. It's absurd. Factor that in with unusually short lights at some major intersections, and you can spend more time at one light than it will take you to make the entire rest of your trip combined.

On second thought, though, maybe they're the best drivers. They would have to be to not have 100 accidents a day.

The DaVinci Code

2006-05-31T08:32:00.000-05:00

I'm back. And since it's been a while, how about we just get right to it, huh?

I went to see The DaVinci Code this past Memorial Day weekend. Initially, I felt that I was going to go into the theater mostly bored, and dislike the movie. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. However, I felt that the intellectualism of the book, the aspect I enjoyed so much (the story didn't do as much for me, I felt it was a bit predictable), was going to be hard to translate on screen.

Boy was I wrong.

Now, first, let me say that I read the book two years ago. I didn't remember most of the little details, just the major essence of the story (the aspects that moved the plot, the general idea, etc.). The person I went with, however, read the book about a month ago or so, and his experience was almost opposite of mine.

We both enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed it a lot more, however, because I wasn't sitting there picking apart the movie, seeing what was different from the book and what was the same. The fact is, they had to remove a lot of interesting and cool stuff because the movie was 2 and a half hours as it is, and it felt like it moved really fast. It was impossible to make a 400+ page book that's written like a movie into a normal length movie without removing some things. But we found that reading the book recently enough to remember most or all of it - then seeing the movie - is not a good mix. It disappoints you, and you miss what the movie does really well, which is capture the essence of the book.

I was certainly intrigued by the intellectual aspect (even though I already knew most of the things they revealed), and generally entertained by the movie. The only thing that seemed to move slowly was the end, but that was done well also, I think, and it was necessary to slow it down a bit. There was one change at the end that I initially was put off by, but after a couple minutes of thought I decided I actually liked that change better than the original (it made more sense, in my opinion). So, all in all, it was an enjoyable time, and certainly worth the money.

What's my recommendation, you ask? If you haven't read the book yet, don't. Go see the movie. Enjoy the story. Then go read the book and enjoy the intellectual aspect. The movie shouldn't ruin the suspense of the book, especially since there's more in the book, and the suspense that's built up for the end is (mostly) predictable anyway. If you have read the book, however, don't fret. Just enjoy the movie. Don't pick it apart, compare it. Think of it as two different entities. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised if you let the movie take it's course.

One last thing. Something that I'm probably the only person in the world who cares about: in the movie, one thing Ron Howard made sure to do was to have French people speaking in French to each other. It seems like a simple idea, but in so many American movies French people speak English to each other. It's something that has frustrated me for years. So props to Mr. Howard for the realism. We're all adults. We can read a couple of subtitles.

Later in the week I'll discuss the impact the movie had, the discussions it started, and why I think they're important.

I sound like I'm teaching a class or something.

And since I've figured out how to embed videos...

2006-05-18T10:59:00.000-05:00

This cat's dexterity is ridiculous:

The Atlanta Hawk

2006-05-18T10:38:00.000-05:00

So a good friend of mine took this video, and he's gotten 23,000 views on You Tube in the past two days. So I figured I'd throw it up here so my reader(s?) know that I saw it first. Haha. Enjoy.

The Game

2006-05-08T11:46:00.000-05:00

In my attempt to regain some of my reading prowess, I've been hitting Amazon a lot lately, checking out their best-sellers and looking for material that I can get at the University City Library. Upon looking at the top 100, I came across The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.

I know, most people's intial reactions to this book have been, "what are you reading it for?" As I am currently involved, they wonder what reason I would need to learn to pick up women. My answer was simply that it was intriguing. And it got even more inriguing as time went on.

From my intial encounter with the book, it seemed it was going to be an interesting ride. The book is leatherbound, designed, it seems, to look similar to a bible. Clever, it seems, to create this "bible for men" more than just figuratively.

Once I started, I was pretty much wowed from jump. Not that the ideas in the book were so novel, just the way these pickup artists seemed to study, craft schemes, and create this community, was crazy to me. While I have yet to decide how much of the book is fact and how much is fiction, the fact is, regardless, it was an enjoyable read (not necessarily for females, however). The first half of the book reads more as an advice book (how I did this, how I did that, ways you can imitate me, etc.). The second half, however, was more of a story, and a love story at that. It turned out to be a really wonderfully written, well thought-out, caring book about relationships with people. The author, Neil Strauss, is a talented writer who clearly understands the emotions behind everything he went through. It was a wonderful study of human interaction, if nothing else.

I think what I most enjoyed about the book, however, was that from the beginning I could see in the author what, throughout the whole book, he was struggling to see in himself. It's somewhat of an affirmation that the person we all want to be is inside of us, we just have to go about finding that person, and letting them out. It doesn't mean who we are now is bad or wrong. In fact, the person we all want to be will have more of the qualities of who we are now than we ever expected. It will just be able to bring all those qualities to the front and help them shine.

So, do I recommend this book? I actually really do. While I hesistate to recommend it to women simply because I feel as though they will lose some faith in their interaction with men, if you read it all the way through, you begin to understand somewhat of what the author is trying to convey, which is that the true human interaction, and the true success with the opposite sex, as well as within any other interaction, comes from within, and not from well crafted schemes and lines.

I Lost Paris

2006-05-04T10:16:00.000-05:00

"Your blog is boring"
- Anonymous

Perhaps this is why it seems as though I have a lack of readers (or perhaps just a lack of responses?). I, personally, don't find my blog boring, but then again, I do not have to read it. I simply write, and to me, that's almost never boring. So please, speak up. If I bore, then suggest topics for me to blog about. Is it my writing style? Am I attempting to be too intellectual for my own good? Criticism is always welcome. That's the only way to get better. All I have to say, however, in regards to the person quoted above, is that [said person's] favorite movies include "Legally Blone," "It Takes Two," and "The Fast and The Furious, Part 2." Enough said.

Now on to the blogging. I thought, since I broke the 500 visitor barrier, it was indeed a good time for a new post (not to mention yesterday's post was pretty much not about anything at all). Initially, I thought I would just post something small in reference to the milestone, but as recent crazy events have happened since, I thought I would venture into those.

Paris Bennet, for those that don't know, my beloved favorite on American Idol, was indeed voted off. Now, I knew it was coming, as she was never able to eclipse (or even reach) the greatness of her audition throughout the show. In fact, I'm actually surprised America elected to keep her this far, as I expected they would take obviously worse singers over the young, cute, black girl with a voice like you can't even imagine. The fact is, in my opinion, she was the best singer on the show this season. To be 17 and have a singing voice like that is incredible. I knew she was too good for America though, and never expected her to win.

The fact is, however, I'm a little upset about how they continually attempted to push her into genres that weren't for her. When she did sing something similar to her abilities ("The Way We Were") they called it "old fashioned." While Chris Daughtry was able to find a rock genre song every week, they didn't allow other contestants the same luxury, which has translated into him becoming the frontrunner. He's got a great voice, but I still maintain that a voice like Paris' doesn't come along that often. You can watch her audition here.

I don't know how many of you out there actually watch Lost (so far my count is The Generalist, Puff and myself), but if you don't, I seriously recommend you get the season 1 DVDs right now and watch them, then either download season 2 on itunes and watch it so you can catch up in time for the finale (May 24th), or wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it then. Either way, get on the bandwagon. I told people to hop on the 24 bandwagon years ago, and they're just doing it now, when, in my opinion, the show is going downhill. But the writers of Lost seem to be too clever for that to happen. I've read interviews with them, and they seem to write (or at least conceive ideas) way in advance. It's the only way this can be done. The fact is, Lost is by far the best show on television right now, and possibly the best drama/mystery I've ever seen. And it's just gotten crazier. It's to the point I don't know if I can ever watch it again, because I can't wait for the next episode. I would have to wait until they all came out on DVD and just watch them then. I think I was spoiled by watching season 1 in a matter of 5 days this past September. Either way, I strongly suggest you get on Lost. If you appreciate well written, well thought out, well made, well acted programming, then you can't not like Lost. Plus, I could use more people to talk to about it.

That's all. Comments welcome.

Resume's, anyone?

2006-05-03T08:18:00.000-05:00

While in actuality I have no idea if anyone actually reads this blog, I would like to take this time to apologize to any of those loyal readers who wish I would post more. The combination of 10-12 hour work days, and lack of any type of subject that moves me into writing has lead to my recent dearth of contributions to the blogger system. Now, I initially predicted this imminent fall-off, as previously I have tried two blogs prior to this one, both on livejournal, and they both fell upon similar circumstances, though my lack of writing in those blogs was much worse than going almost two weeks without writing in this one. Having anticipated this, I attempted to pre-empt the situation by finding a partner to blog with (an insipirational idea I stole from my good friends Aristocrates and The Generalist), someone who could invariably keep the energy up and keep me blogging, as well as keeping the place fresh while I went through my regular lack of posting. I approached a friend about this situation prior to starting a blog, one who I felt would have a similar taste for discussion as myself. The following exchange occured:

Me: "I need a partner to blog with, so that I don't just stop blogging out of laziness."
Friend: "I would do it, except everybody has a blog now. I don't want it to look like I'm jumping on the bandwagon."
Me: "They don't even have to know it's you."
Friend: "I don't want to do it! Besides, I already use my away message as a blog. People look for that."

While I see and understand his point of not wanting to look like he's attempting to follow everyone else, it's hard for me to not attempt to be selfish in this situation, as I have already proven my need for another contributer. And though it may be easy to just find a contributer, to find someone who compliments not only your writing style but your opinions (not necessarily agrees with them, but is able to have an intellectual discussion despite disagreement), has proven difficult. After my last two blogs, I vowed not to start another one until I actually had something to say, and I would ask my contributer to stick to that idea as well.

So here I am. I suppose I would be accepting resume's, if anyone were actually to submit them. But in actuality it would just be nice to have a person to vibe off of. The fact is, though, that I have a few simple rules that would probably keep me from making this happen:

The First: I must know the person.
The Second: They must not speak about themselves in any manner of speaking, unless:
a. It pertains to their post.
b. It's an interesting story that simply must be told.
The Third: Their posts must be intellectual in nature. That's not to say they have to read like science journals, or 19th century novels. They just must bring about thought, in some way or another, be it funny or not. There is a lot of freedom in this, the idea is just to keep away the mindless dribble that you see in most blogs.

I realize most people will probably think these rules foolish. The fact is, that I didn't want this to become the usual "today sucked because..." blog. I would like it to be a forum of discussion. Something to read/write at work, a place where I can continue thoughts and have others respond. That's all. So, if anyone would like to join me, please inquire.

"Somehow I'll Spend It"

2006-04-21T10:09:00.000-05:00

An 84 year old woman hit the jackpot on the nickel slots at Harrah's in Atlantic City two days ago. What was that jackpot? $10,010,113.48. Here, read it again. $10,010,113.48. Still don't believe?

$10,010,113.48

That's right. A nickel (or actually, 3 or 4 nickels, depending on the machine - you have to generally bet the max to win the max) won this woman over 10 million dollars. I mean, shoot. She can give me the $10,113.48, keep a cool, even $10 million, and still be straight. And then I can buy a new car.

She's 84 years old.

And do you know what she said?

"Somehow, I'll spend it."

And

"I'm just happy I won it, for my family, although they don't need it."

Read that last part again.

"...although they don't need it."

This my friends, is not justice. An 84-year-old woman, wins a record sum (no nickel machine in the country has ever given away that much), tells people her family doesn't need the money (who doesn't need $10 million?), and makes no mention of donations to charity, Katrina, Sudan, the Tsunami victims, nothing. She could donate the $10 million to the state of New Jersey so they can clean up their swamp land. Something. Anything.

The lone bright spot, however, was watching last nights sportscenter, as Stu Scott offered a marriage proposal to this 84-year-old woman, and then Scott Van Pelt quickly got in on the act. The faded to black as the two playfully argued over this woman's "love."

I gotta go to Vegas.

Gas

2006-04-19T17:18:00.000-05:00

Here is an e-mail I recieved, and I thought this would be a good place to tell others, without having to send mass e-mails. It's a pretty good idea:

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one
of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It ' s worth your
consideration.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon
by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down?
We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered
this good idea.

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day"
campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just
laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves
by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a
problem for them.

BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really
work. Please read on and join with us! By now you're probably thinking
gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently
$2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the
OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas
is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them
that BUYERS control the marketplace..... not sellers. With the price of
gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only
way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in
the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT
hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop
buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together
to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest
companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any
gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their
prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and
Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this
point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions
of people.

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten
more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x
10 =3D 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group
of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three
million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million
people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed
it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you
don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send
this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician.
But I am, so trust me on this one.)

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten
more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could
conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!

I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?

Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please
pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY
LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.

THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

Now, I don't know if this can actually, in fact, work. However, it's worth a try, right? So tell everyone you know about it. Let's see if we can't make this idea tip.

St. Louis Public Transportation, part 2

2006-04-14T08:01:00.000-05:00

So, while riding the bus to the Metrolink to work today, I saw something that didn't complete change my mind on public transportation, but made my feelings towards it a hell of a lot better.

You know so many people bike around NY, but it's really a pain in the ass when they ride the public transportation because their bike is so big and the buses/trains are always so crowded? Well St. Louis has solved this problem. They have a bike rack that can hold two bikes on the front of the bus. It's ingenious. The most amazing thing I've ever seen. It more than makes up for further disenfranchising the poor in the city.

Well, not really. But it's still a very good idea.

St. Louis Public Transportation

2006-04-11T13:05:00.000-05:00

I rode the Metrolink to work today, and a couple of things struck me:

1. The Metrolink comes relatively on time (the time that is posted for each station on their website), which, compared to NY transit is an amazing feat.
2. The Metrolink needs to come on time because the come every 10 minutes, and if you miss one, you're screwed.
3. When you arrive at the Metrolink at the same time the train is arriving, and have yet to buy a ticket, the station attendants do not ask the conductor to hold the train for you for a moment, while you "do the right thing."

Point number 3, however, leads me to the actual topic of my post: The Metrolink as a tool to further segregate the black/poor from the white/rich in St. Louis.

I say this, not because I think that it's purposeful on the cities behalf to make public transportation nearly completely inefficient just because it's primary riders are poor (though I do feel the sense of apathy that comes with attempting to improve transportation is there solely because nobody cares about the poor who are relegated to riding it).

I say this because, for one, the Metrolink costs $2 to get a 2-hour pass, in which you can ride any mode of public transportation (busses included) during that time span. $2 is the cost of NY Public Transportation, and any that have been to New York, or know about it, know that the Metrolink cannot possibly be comparable. Overcharging the public for a less than mediocre transportation system (if you're lucky, the bus you need comes every half hour) is the first offense.

The second offense, however, is the way the Metrolink is run, and how it coincides with this outrageous cost. When you ride the Metrolink at peak hours, there is generally a station attendant who asks to see your ticket or bus transfer before entering the platform. I say generally, because they're not always there, and peak hours because it's usually early mornings when people are off to work. However, these attendants are only at the most crowded stations, and they only stand at one entrance, so when there is more than one this point is moot. Next, you have people on the train asking to see your ticket, and in turn giving you a fine if you do not have one (what that fine is, I have yet to determine, but I will find out).

This all seems like a decent system for a small time train, doesn't it? The fact is, however, that the people on the train looking at tickets are rarely, if at all, on the train. I've encountered this situation twice, and I've ridden the Metrolink well over a dozen times. The people at the station checking if you have your tickets are also rarely there (with the exception of the peak hours at crowded stations I just mentioned). This creates quite a conundrum for those who don't have a lot of money. If there is no person on the platform, do you take what appears to be a 25% chance (figuring conservatively) that you will be asked for your ticket on the train, or do you "do the right thing" and buy your ticket regardless? If you're making a short trip, that significantly decreases the likelyhood that you'll be asked to show your ticket, and even further so if the train is semi-crowded, as anytime someone is caught without a ticket the transportation working is forced to remove the person from the train and get their information on the platform. Therefore, it would seem that the chances of getting caught were slim to none.

So now you have this system, designed to overcharge people (particularly poor people, of which make up at least 50% of the Metrolink riders, I can safely assume), and you have a government that is almost entirely too trustworthy, almost to the point of an attempt to trap those people. The fact is, that if the NYC subway were an "optional" payment as the Metrolink is, I probably would not pay it as often either. The fact that I generally have to take a bus before I get to the Metrolink is mainly the reason I pay my fair, other than the fact that I do have the money to afford it, and therefore don't see the point of forcing a negative consequence on myself.

But if I didn't have the money? Well, you can bet I would take my chances. And why shouldn't I? It's practically encouraged. The fact remains that what the Metrolink needs to do is institue a smaller fare, and a more exact measure in being able to determine who has payed that fare. It's not to catch people that don't pay it, but simply to be fair to the people that can't afford to pay it as easily. As it stands, most people on the Metrolink that get caught without a ticket, seem to me, not to be trying to get a free ride, but feeling like what's the sense in paying money that you don't have when the odds are with you that you won't get caught. It's an unfair system, and something's gotta give.

Just for the heck of it...

2006-03-30T11:09:00.000-06:00

I know I'm a few months late on this, but in case you missed it, like I did, Foxy Brown was in some trouble.

Ridiculous. Thoroughly.

Blink

2006-03-24T11:50:00.000-06:00

"I'm back like cooked crack, Yep!"
- Juelz Sanana

That's right. For those who missed me, I'm back. It's been a busy couple of weeks, what with my starting a new job and everything. I've had a lot on my mind, but I've been thoroughly exhausted, and so I haven't had much time to blog.

I just finished reading Blink: The Power Of Thinking Without Thinking, by Malcolm Gladwell. For those that know me, I don't read often. I chose this book, however, because I read an article by Bill Simmons "about" Gladwell. In the article, Simmons and Gladwell e-mailed back and forth for a period of time, discussing a bunch of different sports-related topics. It was Gladwell's responses to the topics that really caught my interest: for instance, "people think that Tiger Woods is tougher than Phil Mickelson because he works harder, but Tiger Woods is tougher than Phil Mickelson, and because of that he works harder."

It's statements like that, an alternate way of looking at things, that truly intrigues me. Which is why I enjoyed Blink so much. It was all about looking at things from a different perspective, and your mind playing tricks on you, in a sense. The book discusses what Gladwell calls "thin slicing," which is when our mind makes decisions based on very small bits of information, usually generated upon first impressions. Gladwell contends that our subconscious knows a lot more than we give it credit for, and if we learned to control our subconscious thoughts, and trust our instincts more, we would be able to recognize a lot of things that are hidden in everyday life.

He makes his point through examples of a man who can tell, with 95% certainty, by a 3 minute conversation between a couple if their marriage will last for the next 15 years, a gambling experiment where drawing a certain card would cost you to lose money, an army general who took on the entire U.S. amry in a war game and won, the Amadou Diallo murder, and countless other examples. It's really a wonderfully engaging read. If you're a fan of intelligent books, and just using you mind and finding new ways of thinking, i urge you to pick this book up (or at the very least, hit up the library like i did).

One thing Gladwell points out, that has definitely changed my perception of what I currently do for a living (advertising), was that, in the 1980's, Coca-Cola was losing market shares to Pepsi and decided that, because of blind taste tests, people liked Pepsi better. So they devised a product called "New Coke", which failed miserably. As it turned out, Pepsi tasted better with an initial sip, but not through a whole can. Not to mention, so much stock is put in the name of Coke, that many people just like the taste because it's a household name. Now, I know some of you are thinking that you already knew this. Sure, we al know a ton of people drink Coke because it's Coke, but one thing that Gladwell brings up is the psychological aspect behind it, that it's not just that Coke tastes better, but that the sight of the Coke label can make the product taste better because we expect more from Coke.

To me this is fascinating. Psychology is something I've always been interested in, how the brain works, etc., and this is right up my alley. I mean, just look at the title of my blog. Thought is something I'm incredibly interested in, and here Gladwell presents us with an entire book on the subject.

Anyway, I'm done babbling. Pick up the book for yourself and see what I mean.

More to come after lunch.

Barry Bonds

2006-03-09T16:23:00.000-06:00

A few days ago, an article broke about a book written on Barry Bonds and his suspected steroid use. This book apparently claims that Bonds used not only previously undetectable designer steroids, but also insulin, human growth hormone, and winstrol, a steroid currently associated with Rafael Palmeiro. The book claims that from 1998-2004, Bonds was using these supplements in order to get a leg up on the competition.

Now, personally, I don't need a book to tell me Barry Bonds used steroids. I've seen the ridiculous growth he's had in recent years. I've watched as he sat out much of the 2005 season for injuries, the same season where the harsh punishments for steroid use was put into place, and I've seen an incredible swell in his stats. For those that know baseball, if a player hits 40 home runs in one season three times in the first fourteen seasons of his career (topping out at 46), and then in conescutive seasons hits 49, 73, 46 and 45 home runs, at the ages of 36, 37, 38 and 39, respectively, while in each season having fewer at-bats (opportunities to hit home runs) than in all but three of the fourteen seasons prior, well, let's just say there's something fishy about that. Granted, it doesn't all come from steroid use. Bonds has a much better understanding of the game than he did in those first fourteen seasons, a better eye, and is a more feared player. As well, the San Francisco Giants built a stadium specifically for him, with a closer right field wall in an area where the ball is more likely to travel farther when hit well. Do these factors alone account for the sudden and drastic change in Bonds' numbers? I don't believe they do. I, personally, believe that he used supplements.

ESPN's Michael Smith believes he did as well. However, on today's Around the Horn, Smith, in my mind, put this argument to rest. You can't punish Bonds for what he may have done, since there were no rules governing steroid use in baseball (law governing it in the U.S. is a different story, and the California District Attorney's office can follow up accordingly, if they like). The fact remains that, Bonds was not alone in this, you can't, as J.A. Adande put it, "posthumously strip Ken Caminiti of his 1996 NL MVP, so how can you punish Bonds?" As Smith put it, if you take away Bonds' home runs, what's next? Lowering pitchers ERA's? Giving wins to teams who were beat by a Bonds home run? It's impossible to really tell the implications this could have. Not to mention the fact that if Bonds gets an asterik, then should you give asteriks to Mark McGwire? Sammy Sosa? Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson since they played in an era where some of the best baseball players weren't allowed to compete because they were black? Should Cy Young no longer have an award named after him since Satchel Paige could have easily won as many games if he was allowed to play major league ball?

Now, personally, I don't want Bonds to have an asterik next to his records. I don't want him to break Hank Aaron's home run record, or Babe Ruth's, for that matter, but he will, and there's nothing I can do about it. I just want it to be acknowledged that clearly the man had some help. And I think a reason so many people are in an uproar over Bonds is because of the villanous attitude he is perceived to have, for which, he is largely to blame. He has made it clear that he wants to break Babe's record, mainly because Babe is white. That has nothing to do with my distaste for Bonds, but I can bet that it has a lot to do with why much of America hates him. Personally, my distaste with Bonds lies more in his lack of humility, not to mention the fact that I feel much of his career he has been overrated. Now, his overall stats are impressive (though currently are under scrutiny), but I feel like if in 1999 he wasn't named to the All-Century team (50 best players ever), then he shouldn't be considered the best ever, let alone top 5, currently, just because he hit 73 home runs in a season or walks 200 times a year. That says more about the scope of baseball today than it does about Bonds.

Any thoughts?

Just saw a ridiculous commercial, part 2:

2006-03-09T12:58:00.000-06:00

Asian Sensations treats

"Everyday Asian for any Occasion!"

Are people getting fired for these?

The Oscars

2006-03-08T15:54:00.000-06:00

I know it's a bit late to be posting on the Oscars, but I've had an odd few days, where in the span of 24 hours I worked 12 hours at my job, and then, 12 hours later, proceeded to be offered a new job at an advertising company, which I promptly took. I've been kind of all over the place, and so I haven't really taken the time to post. And on to the post!

1. Watching the Oscars really just reminded me of why it is I don't watch the Oscars in the first place. It was pretty boring, and having not seen 90% of the movies up for awards, I really had no vesting interest in the awards whatsoever.
2. The performances were horrible. The only highlight came with the unintentional comedy of the song from Crash, and the subsequent rehashing of the movie in the background, burning car complete. Was it wrong that I half expected the flaming wreck in the back to explode and just ruin the Oscars? I have issues.
3. Academy Award Winners Juicy J, DJ Paul, and the rest of Three 6 Mafia. 'Nuff said.
4. Crash was, in my opinion, wholelly overrated. Sure, there was a star studded cast. Sure, it was about time Hollywood addressed racial issues with vigor. But as Bill Simmons said in his post-Oscar article, "at any point did you ever think, 'Wow, I'm watching the 2005 Oscar winner right now'?" Personally, I wasn't impressed by the movie, though I thought there were some very well written and very well done parts. It just wasn't best picture material to me. And if I offend anyone (as I seem to do whenever I go against popular opinion), I'm sorry.

That's really it. I wasn't impressed by the show, by the awards, by anything really. I thought John Stewart did a pretty good job as host, but his humor is clearly over the head of Hollywood. And it's a shame really. But I suppose it's better that way. I really only watched the Oscars because John Stewart was hosting (and because there was nothing else on TV), and so better he doesn't host again so I don't have to watch again.

Just saw a ridiculous commercial:

2006-03-05T19:04:00.000-06:00

http://www.lipodissolve.com/

"...it doesn't suck."

Wow.

Clarification

2006-02-28T21:59:00.000-06:00

It has come to my attention that my previous post has been looked at as "taking shots" at certain people. I wanted to make it clear that in no way was that my intention, I was merely using examples to prove my point. If those persons were insulted, for that I apologize. The fact is, I was just trying to make a statement about men in general, and how we as a group have become much more submissive in relationships than we used to. To illustrate that point, I had to use actual occurances.

Today's Man

2006-02-28T09:04:00.000-06:00

As I was sitting in the nail salon the other day, waiting for my significant other to get her pedicure/eyebrows done, I was reading an article in the most recent GQ magazine, the one with Matthew Fox on the cover. I found an article about a NYC public school teacher (who, incidentally, happened to teach at my rival high school). This teacher apparently moonlighted as a wrestler, and when he once appeared on WWE Smackdown, it was found that he had been using his sick days to wrestle. He was forced to resign, and out of it he actually was able to make his dream of being a professional wrestler come true, as Vince McMahon saw this potentional media cash cow and hired the man to become known as Matt Striker. Now, I don't watch wrestling anymore, but perhaps someone else may have heard of him. Anyway, his character is a bad guy, the teacher everyone hated in school, and he tries to teach various "lessons" every time he is on tv:

"Today's lesson is a question. What happened to the real man? Where are the Tom Sellecks and the Clint Eastwoods? Instead we have the dainty Jude Law or the diminutive Tom Cruise. Ask yourself, whom would you rather see coming over the horizons to protect you from the enemy: John Wayne, Ronald Reagan or Ross, from 'Friends'?"

Now, this was an interesting point he raised. While personally, I don't generally agree with the people he has chosen to idolize, I think he has a point. I mean, here I am, sitting in the nail salon, waiting for my girlfriend. Now, I'm not getting my nails done or anything like that (though I have had a manicure before), but the fact is, ten years ago, would I have just sat there with her had I been in the same position? Granted, it was her birthday, so I was not about to tell her I didn't want to come with her when she wanted me there, but I digress. My point in this matter is simply that I wonder if so much has been made of men needing to be more sensitive and caring, that possibly, this ideology has had too much of an effect. I mean, it seems that the average man has become less concerned with power in the relationship than ever before, and, while this is not necessarily a bad thing, they have also mostly relinquished power to the woman.
For instance, I was reading an article on espn.com the other day, a follow-up to another article, about a man having an argument with his wife about whether or not he is allowed to call another woman good-looking in front of her. What began as an interesting topic, and study in man-woman relations, somehow transformed into a man making jokes about how he never wins this or any argument with his wife. From there , he posted comment other men have e-mailed him, which have included a man complaining that he can never leave the toilet seat up (though his wife had a very clever retort when he asked her why the seat belonged down, and she replied, simply, "gravity").
Another man asks "If we're watching 'Dancing With The Stars,' she'll say, 'Isn't Stacy Keibler hot?', just waiting for me to respond with any type of affirmation. Most times I give her the 'Yeah she's pretty…' but the wife will keep on until I agree. THEN, and only THEN, she blasts me!!! I'm newly married, Greeny -- is it always going to be like this?"
Now, seriously. I love my girlfriend. I tell her all the time how attractive she is, etc. I comment on other women in front of her. She's one of my best friends, and those are the types of things I say to my best friends, male or female. If she complains, I simply remind her every time I tell her how attractive she is, she tells me no, she's ugly, or doesn't even thank me. I'm not going to stop thinking or saying other women are attractive just because I'm in a relationship. I'm just not.
I feel like this idea has been compounded in my head recently as well, because a couple of friends visited this weekend, and I noticed that their girlfriends demanded their full attention while they were there, and they seemed powerless to give these women anything but. Now, I understand when you haven't seen your significant other in a month or so you want to spend as much time with them as possible, and that's fine. But in this case, we were just hanging out and waiting for other people to come join us to watch a movie. Us men decided to play a video game, and the women decided that "no, we want to talk," and the men just said "oh okay, well, I can't play." It reminded me of when you're a child and you tell your friend "I can't play because my mom said so." Do men have no power over their own lives anymore? I've actually had a female tell me, about one of my own friends, "you can hang out with John Doe when I say so, I own John Doe-time."
Now, I'll be damned if I let a woman say this about me. Like I said before, I love my girlfriend. There's nobody in the world I'd rather spend all my time with. However, she understands that it's my time, and that it's my choice. She does not force me to spend time with her, or nag me when I want to spend time with friends. It's a give-and-take.
Personally, I blame television for this. The fact is, today's man on television is most likely fat, lazy and not so smart, while his wife is attractive, hard working and smart. Polar opposites. And maybe it's because the man is not as attractive as his wife that he must relinquish power in order to stay with her, but the fact remains that most sitcoms today run the format of an "Everbody Loves Raymond" or "King of Queens," where the less attractive man just says stupid things and has to make it up to his wife and admit that he's an idiot, etc. I feel like, in an effort to make women equal, we have emasculated the man, like saying that we can't have a masculine man and a feminine woman coexist. I don't see why that's the case, and I'm not saying all men have to me fully masculine and women feminine. But that's what we are. I'm a man, and I don't think it enables me to anything more than a woman, but I don't apologize for finding women attractive, wanting to spend time with my friends, or anything of the sort. I just think that in this day and age, it's cool to show how whipped you are. Or how much you "cake," as we Wash U. folk say. The fact is, spending time with your significant other is not a bad thing - when you want to spend time with them. It's doing it becuase you have to or they want you to that it get's to be something it's not. A relationship should be about choice, and if you're doing something because you have to, then, well, you're not making the choice.