Finally - Something Happened on "Lost"

I've been really disappointed with Lost the season, mostly because all of the episodes have developed the plot about as much as 1 episode did during the first season. But this past Wednesday they finally covered something about the hatch again, and while it wasn't much, it was at least something.

Now there are many MAJOR Lost fans on the Internets, and while I'm a fan, I'm not going frame-by-frame through the show to try and see everything there is to see. Lucky for me, there are fans who have done this, and they screencapped the blastdoor map that Locke saw in blacklight, and they even transcribed the writing that was on it. This is what they came up with.

After reading through the notes the island makes even less sense to me than it did before, so now I can only hope that it doesn't take them another 10 episodes before the plot moves forward again.

* For those of you that don't watch "Lost," this post won't make much sense. If you have a Tivo or some kind of DVR, you really should tape it. I know this season is a lot worse than the first season, but it's still better than most everything else on TV.

Never Believe Generalizations

I don't have a bumper sticker on my current car, but I used to drive a hunter green mustang with this one in the window:


I loved that car.

But that's beside the point. There are a lot of anti-Bush bumper stickers out there, and there are a lot of anti-anti-Bush people out there too. Some of them are in law enforcement, which is cause enough for alarm, and have taken umbrage with stickers that portray the president in an, ahem, unpleasant way. My personal favorite is "Fuck Bush." Concise.

As far as I can tell (with my exceptional googling abilities), bumper stickers are protected under the First Amendment even if they use profanity. There is a ton of case law out there and some very helpful FAQ's about the use of profane language on bumper stickers, and it seems to me that people should be able to display their ideas in whatever language suits them. One person's offensive pornography is another person's art. I am often offended by people's faces, but that doesn't mean I can punch them.

And those who put "I'm Tired of All the BUSHIT" on the back of their cars shouldn't be subject to fines or punishment either. If Dick Cheney can tell someone to Go Fuck Yourself on the floor of Congress, I should be able to shoot him in the face. No wait, I'm all confused...

The Most Disturbing Piece of "Art." Ever.

Honestly, I'm so awed by how disturbed I am by this that I just can't find words at the moment. Make the jump and see for yourself. Be sure to read the description.

Hint - here's the title of the page:

"Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston"

Pretty in Purple

Let me put one thing out there. I used to be a Republican. Honest. I like the idea of states' rights - different states have different needs and should be free to govern accordingly. I like the idea of fiscal responsibility. I don't think tax payers should foot the bill for enormous federal programs that purport to help everyone and actually help no one.

Let me also put out there that some of my friends used to joke that I was a Republican Socialist. In addition to states' rights and fiscal discipline, I like the idea of a social safety net - that a country with the highest GDP in the world should be able to provide for its poorest citizens. It seems only rational that people living in this country should have food, clothing, a roof over their heads, and access to jobs. All people in this country should be provided an education. All people in this country should be free from oppression. These seem like no-brainers.

Here's where the GOP and I go off track. I think abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It is private. And personal.

I believe that gay people have just as much a right to marry as straight people. This is a stupid issue, and in no way dangerous to children.

I don't think that our country was based on Christianity. I think it was based on freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion if that's how you roll.

I don't believe that guns protect people. More than one of our former presidents has been shot while surrounded by heavily armed and very well trained Secret Service.

I don't think that video games make people violent. In fact, when I am feeling a little rage I often play Grand Theft Auto to blow off some heads steam.

I believe in sex education. I don't think that talking about sex sends the message to kids that they should have sex. I think it sends the message that they should have sex safely. I think that everyone should get an HIV test. Right now. Go get one.

I believe that people should wear their seat belts and not talk on cell phones when driving. I believe that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I believe in patience. I am not always as patient as I should be, but I do try.

So where in the political spectrum do I sit? I can't be a Republican, because I'm such a hippie-commie-liberal. I can't be a Democrat, because I think that the federal government should pretty much stick to enforcing the Constitution, interstate highways, and foreign diplomacy (read: not wars. Wars bad. Peace good.) I think that a lot of people probably feel the same way I do about political parties - it's hard to subscribe to every tenet of each one, but it's also hard to get an independent invited to the debate.

My registration card says independent, but my heart says revolution. I'm tired of the whole Red vs Blue dichotomy, and think it fits the population just about as well as a fat guy in a little coat. This year, I'm voting purple.

Redcoats and Guinness

It may be a little late to recap my St. Paddy day adventures, but I would like to give a special thanks to the lovely (and shivery) city of Boston, land of beans, tea parties, but sadly, not car bombs. And by car bombs, I mean Irish Car Bombs. And by sadly, I mean because you can't order those in bars because of the Boston blue laws that prohibit serving more than one drink at a time. You can, however, order a half pint of Guinness, then order a half shot of Jameson, then a half shot of Bailey's, but who has the coordination to put those together surrounded by Bostonians on the fabulous Day of Evacuation?

A history lesson:
On March 17th, 1776, the British were run out of Boston after General George Washington (Hail to the Buff) and his rebel alliance climbed a hill and pointed some artillery at the pansy-ass redcoats. Who then shat themselves and took off in their ships towards New York. Read more here, or here. Luckily, Evacuation Day also falls on St. Patrick's Day, so those working in the city of Boston get a government sanctioned day off. Needless to say, bars in this fabulous city open on March 17th at 8am with live Irish music and breakfast buffets with your choice of Killians OR Guinness. Wonderful town.

I have to give a special shout out to the following people for making my Evacuation Day celebration ineligible for family photo albums:

Miami from Ohio
Pierce
The Yankee
Brandon and Mike
Harvard and Holland
ESPN Girl and Bachelorette Girl
Amanda and Heather
Vigor and Pep
Irish Guy Paul
G-U-I-O-U
Green Tea Guy
The Bouncers
Bloody U2

Also, thanks to George for being so kick-ass and founding the country and stuff, to Madame C for letting us crash and being a wonderful hostess, Dave for backing up Folk Metal in numerous (almost) bar fights, and to the city of Boston for the Big Dig and the Boston Museum of Science. I've been Scienced!

The Land of Mary vs. God

I read this fabulous post on ScienceBlogs.com regarding the ridiculous debate over gay-marriage.

At a March 1 hearing on a proposal to ban gay marriage in Maryland, one republican state senator whined, "but the Bible says it's baaaad..." (not an exact quote).

The democratic state senate hopeful replied, "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Let's put that shit on a bumper sticker.

Watch out breeders, the gays are coming to steal your caterers and florists! Lock up your children!

Read more here.

When should politicians start listening to approval polls?

As I've read the news over the past couple of weeks and seen President Bush's approval ratings sag to record lows in the most recent opinion polls, I'm constantly reminded of how the President has repeatedly said that he doesn't listen to opinion polls. His stance on opinion polls, given his current approval ratings, has made me curious: at what point does a politician have to concede the proverbial high ground and change their policies (or at least day-to-day behavior) to improve the public's opinion of them? The President is an obvious target here given his past statements on opinion polls, but I think this holds true about any politician.

The most recent CNN/Gallup poll places President Bush's approval at 36 percent. In fact, according to their poll results, the President's approval rating has not been above 50% since May 5th, 2005. To be fair, this is the result of only one poll, but if you look here or here, you'll see that a fair number of other polling agencies place his approval rating below 40 percent. But despite current opinion, in November 2004 there was a popular majority of people that thought his policies were the right course for our country and voted him back into office.

Now it's clear (based on multiple opinion polls) that a solid majority no longer feel that way. Does this obligate the President to concede that the American public no longer believes his policies are the right course, and change them accordingly? The President's job is to serve the American people, so when the American public is telling him that he's going in the wrong direction, is it his responsibility to do as they say, or is it best for him to simply ignore the polls and do as he sees fit?

My view is that the President (just like any elected official) is there to serve his/her constituents. As a result, those officials should be obligated to do as their constituents desire when possible. Obviously this is not the course that President Bush will follow, but he damn well should IMHO.

Opinions welcome.

DC Tea Bagging

So at 4pm today, Sen Feingold will speak on a resolution to censure the president for high crimes an misdemeanors. I mean, this charge could be for any number of crimes and misdemeanors (being a liar, being an asshole, being a warmonger and a tyrant, etc.) but specifically, the Senator wants to call the President out on illegally wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. Which is illegal. And also, not legal at all. But the real bitch of this is that I don't have a senator to call if I want to lend my voice to support this censure. So I looked through my hanging files and found the one marked "taxes" and sure enough, I've paid federal taxes since I moved to DC almost nine years ago. I'm also subject to all federal laws and contribute to the $2000 a day that it costs for Dick Cheney to get a motorcade from the Naval Observatory to the OEOB. And yet.

DC gets three electoral college votes, which is the bare minimum a US citizen paying federal taxes should get. I guess. And we have a representative in the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is officially a "non-voting delegate." Which is some shit. Unlike Puerto Rico, which has both an Olympic Team and its own representatives for Miss World and Miss Universe, DC is under the sole authority of Congress. Terrifying. We have a population of 563,384 (2003 census) but no representation in the federal government. Bring on the redcoats, I'm loading up my musket.

All this history to say that I'd support the censure if I had a way to do so. So to the three people who read this post, use your powers of citizenship to call your Senators and support the censure (contact info). The first step that King George took when he got to the White House was to remove the District license plates from his limousines that read "Taxation Without Representation." Asshat.

Open your mouth Potomac River, cause I'm gonna dip my tea in it.

Please, PLEASE stop with the damned commercials!

A few nights ago Jezebel and I were watching an episode of the syndicated version Sex and the City (and yes, I do like the show). For those not familiar, the syndicated one has all of the best material taken out: the cursing, the comedy, and the nudity. Oh, and the end of the episodes. They don't seem to think that's as important as squeezing another commercial break in. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in a 30-minute time period, they had no less than 6 commercial breaks. Needless to say by the sixth I had vowed that we would never again let our Tivo tape the syndicated version of the show, and I would write a strongly worded letter to station complaining. The letter never got written, but I have managed to write a blog entry on my discontent.

Why in the hell are television stations increasing commercial breaks instead of spending time finding new ways to make money? With broadband penetration rates still rising and the popularity of video-enabled devices (iPods, cell phones, etc.), shouldn't the television companies start to look for new angles or production avenues to ensure that they still provide a service that we couldn't otherwise get from the Internet? I know that Internet video is sometimes littered with ads as well, but they're at least marginally smarter about it. Most of the time the ad is a single ad placed at the beginning of the video. As long as you're willing to sit through 30 seconds of advertising, you can watch the rest of the video in peace, instead of piecemeal.

Why no television station has begun to experiment with new advertising methods (single sponsors of segments, using the ticker to advertise instead of cutting to commercial, etc.) is beyond me. It's seems like its a method that continues to make just enough money for them that they're unwilling to experiment, something that is openly embraced on the Internet, often with great success.

DVRs and the like have made it abundantly clear that television viewers are sick and tired of commercials, particularly when an hour-long show has over 20 minutes of them interspersed among the program. Why not experiment with new models that people might not actually skip? How about making commercials 5 minutes long at the end of a program, and interactive? DVRs are usually hooked up to some kind of information distribution service, meaning there are ways to make the commercials interactive. Tivo has done this to some extent with their "Thumbs up for more!" crap; though I think that was a bad attempt, I give them some points for at least making an attempt.

Sadly all the television companies are content to do is come up with new ways to restrict what we can record, force us to watch ever more commercials, and sell ad space to companies that have made absolutely horrible ads. The few commercials that are good never get the repeated airplay of the utterly horrible ones. Case in point: Nationwide Insurance played a bunch of commercials during the Superbowl, including one with a woman on an airplane, and another with Fabio. Which one continues to get airplay, and which one was never shown again? If you saw both of those commercials, then you already know the answer. I hate Fabio, and he's not even pretty, he's just scary. Terrifying even. I think the bird that broke his nose some years back was just trying to do a public service.

So the moral of this post: be afraid of Fabio. Very, VERY afraid.

I'm sorry your Honor, but my invisible friend just asked if you could repeat the question.

Last week I had to report for jury duty for the DC Circuit Court. Traveling downtown early in the morning was a lot easier than I would have expected, but apparently when they tell you to report at 8am, they mean 7am. But then I might have actually gotten there early had I not been held up at the security checkpoint having to explain that a 3-inch aluminum bookmark I was carrying was not in fact a deadly weapon. So by the time I got to the juror check-in office, I was the 400th person in line.

After signing in I headed off for the "jury lounge," which is really just a government name for a room with 500 chairs stuck as close together as possible and 3 tiny televisions hanging from the ceiling. After waiting about an hour while watching the "jury orientation video" (a monosyllabic tour de force to be sure), they called the first panel. I wasn't called, at which point I became convinced I was going to be sitting in the jury lounge for the next 8 hours solid, only to have to go to class straight from court. But living in DC has its benefits, meaning in this case that we have so many people going to court that there were a lot of panels called. I was called to the 2nd panel (of 4 being announced at the time), and headed off in giddy anticipation of doing my civic duty.

The first thing you notice about the hallway leading to the main courtrooms is how depressing it looks. There's a framework for fiberglass ceiling tiles, but no tiles. There's a lot of light fixtures, but no light bulbs. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but the dank little hallway leaves you with a feeling that you're headed for a medieval court trial that will end with some kind of purification through fire or stockades. Lucky for me the orientation video had told me that DC doesn't do that (anymore).

I don't think they intended for us to wait in the hallway since most of the people in the hallway were defendants and their lawyers, and it turned out that one pair of unfortunate souls there were the defendant and lawyer for the case for which we were being called. Luckily they didn't say much of anything, but I was treated to another lawyer's lecture to his client about cognitive dissonance.

Lawyer: "Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?"
Defendant: "What? Just get this over with."
Lawyer: "It means that you're saying you don't want to go to jail, but you're acting like you want to go to jail real bad. At this point, I think the best we can hope for is 100 days in minimum security."
Defendant: "What am I paying you for then?"
Lawyer: "You're not. I'm your public defender."

2 hours and 2 courtrooms later, we were finally put through the "voir dire" process. When I first walked in, the defendant and his lawyer looked right at me and quickly started whispering away and jotting down notes to each other. I'm not really sure why, but I was sure they had decided they wanted me on the jury. The judge went through a bunch of basic questions, and at the end we had to fill up the jury box 12 at a time. After more whispering at the defense table (I think the prosecutor was asleep), the clerk would stand up and call out juror numbers, and if yours was called you were excused and had to go back to the lounge to go through this all over again (including the video). I was in the second group to get up to the box, but just as I was starting to get excited to be up in the jury box (also a little disappointed since I didn't see the cameras or Sam Waterston), my number was called and I was shooed from the courtroom.

Did they not like me? Did I not have the right clothes on? Did I hate freedom? I felt rejected, but when I left I realized that I had just served my civic duty. I guess sometimes civic duty means voting, sometimes it means going to war, and sometimes, just sometimes, it means getting kicked out of the jury box before the trial starts.

The judge sent me to lunch, and luckily when I got back (look, try to stab me with the bookmark if you want, it's NOT a weapon), I was immediately dismissed. And thus ended my jury duty. Do you get a pin for that?