A Cautionary Tale

Let me tell you a story about a guy who led children away from their homes. He created an elaborate wonderland for them to escape to, in part in their minds and in part in reality. He took them away from their families and then slowly started to warp their fragile young minds. He did all this without a lot of media attention at first, but then the public started to catch on. Not long after the public caught on he did something major to disfigure his face and most people who saw it found it very disturbing, indeed. To this day he denies that he has done anything wrong, although it is well documented that he slept with at least some of them.

Michael Jackson? No. Charles Manson. Do you care if HE wrote a couple hit records before he did any of those things? I sure don't.

Before you get all heated about comparing the two, consider this: at least Manson's victims were mostly old enough to make their own decisions! Other than that, the similarities are quite striking other than the record contract.

So why does the public care so much about the death of Michael Jackson? We haven't lost the music, only the horrible pedophile that created it.

Worse yet people are going to start labeling him "mentally ill." Well, yes, probably, but so what? You could likely call 90% of criminals "mentally ill" if your definition is simply that their brains do not function in a manner that allows them to fit comfortably within the confines of our society. Does that mean they have any less control over their actions than someone not "mentally ill"? Absolutely not. So they are equally liable for their actions. And just in case you want to argue the converse - that they have less control over their actions - consider this: doesn't that make them more important to remove for society? After all, if they have less control, they are less able to be rehabilitated. And, finally, to quiet the drug dealers: in giving them back lost control aren't you giving them just enough control to go off drugs and lose it again?

Seriously, America, get your damn priorities straight. Years ago we were given great music and we still have that music. Yesterday a harmful pedophile died. Play his records if you want but stop mourning his death. His victims aren't (unless they have Stockholm Syndrome. I'm looking at you, Macaualy Culkin).

One more for the road...

Observe, to my left, 1970's singer-songwriter Boz Scaggs. What does ol' Boz here have in common with left socks and car keys? Scroll down to the bottom of this post to find out.

***************************************

When people ask me where I'm from, I have difficulty answering. I was born in Jacksonville, Florida, but grew up at the Jersey Shore. Since the beginning of college, I've lived in a half-dozen other places in New Jersey and I also lived in Massachusetts for two years.

So is where I'm from where I'm "from" (like the "Born:" line on a baseball card)? Or is it "home" (like the place I have listed on my driver's license)? As a result of this strange, almost-paradoxical problem I have, people will ask me perhaps one of the simplest questions in the world to answer ... and I will exhibit the kind of difficulty in answering it one might expect from a developmentally-challenged first grader.

The things I am good at do not make me smart - they make me barely function at adult life. I'd be better off having talent at knitting.

***************************************

Without sounding too romantic (which I know isn't manly, and I have to be manly in the OTHER parts of a blog post where I'm executing a Boz Scaggs running gag) - I love the Jersey Shore, and I've completely forgotten what it's like spending the summer within spitting distance of it.

Wait, you may argue, have you been to the Jersey Shore at all yet this summer? (Yes, I would reply, two times.) But hasn't the weather sucked all year? (Yes, except for three days since the end of the month of April. I spent both of these days at the Jersey Shore. So there!)

Even though the government is using its Evil Weather Machine to control our emotions and keep us in line, when the weather gets nicer - and it will - I plan on spending lots of time down the Shore this summer. People give the Jersey Shore a bad rap, and I suppose it makes sense. There are a lot of douchebags down there, but if you pick your spots correctly you can avoid most of them.

For instance, Long Beach Island is way tamer than Belmar. I'm 25 and now a little old and a little lame, so I definitely prefer bars/clubs on LBI to other places at the Jersey Shore. In addition to there being less douchebags (the higher cover charge and the fact that it's LBI deters them), LBI beach bars are legitimately on the beach and often have looser restrictions about what can be done on said beach. All in all, these are very good things.

(*ASIDE: It's a running theme between some of us on the Damaged, Inc. team that we're going to focus our resources and write a book about a summer at the Jersey Shore where we would presumably spend a lot of money in order to get drunk at a lot of different places. This book would basically consist of a lot of jotting down strange things that happened on a notepad, interviewing popped-collar douchebags and douche-baggy cover bands, and drinking all of the ingredients for vomit. Because this book may never happen, I'm making the concept public and if anyone wants to run with it, you just need to thank me in the acknowledgements.)

(*ASIDE: There was an article in the New York Times today about how Jersey Shore bars were starting to become classy. Fuck you, New York Times, and your faux-journalistic pretention! For instance, check out this quote:

“A lot of people don’t realize there’s Jersey after Atlantic City,” said [name redacted, for reasons to be made clear shortly], 32, of Manalapan Township, N.J., as she sipped a martini at Elements in Sea Bright, a restaurant with a lounge (including D.J.’s and bottle service) that opened in 2003.

[redacted], who goes to Elements three or four times a month, is a sales representative for a liquor distributor, and works with bars all over the state. “I wanted that Manhattan atmosphere at the Jersey Shore, to get dressed up and get a $10 or $12 martini,” she said.

Yeah, I want you to contract AIDS and die in a fire, lady. Take your $12 martini and shove it up your ass lengthwise. If I'm paying more than half that for a drink - any drink - I'm going to be super pissed. People who want to spend recklessly in order to pretend to be cool have a place to live, and that place is Brooklyn. I suggest you move there.

And what's with that Atlantic City quote? Surely you doth not speak geographically? Because Atlantic City is not the first thing anyone (except for maybe 15,000 degenerate gamblers living in Chinatown) thinks of when they think of New Jersey. Fuck the heck are you talking about? /Rant.)

***************************************

To answer the Boz Scaggs randomness from earlier in this post: like left socks and car keys, people often completely forget Boz Scaggs' music.

There is a deja vu-type feeling that happens a lot to me and the rest of the Damaged, Inc. crew. We'll be at some bar somewhere, and we'll hear a random better-than-average song from the 1970's (e.g., America's "Sister Golden Hair"). Someone will immediately recognize that it's a good song and that its etymology should be recognized. Of course, we'll have no idea who performed the song.

Because we're precocious by nature, we ask someone (usually Brainpan, who has firsthand experience with the decade). At this point, we will be informed that the song is, in fact, "Sister Golden Hair" by America. We will then return to our cold beverages and all will be well.

(*ASIDE: In my opinion, this situation occurs way more frequently than it should. I think this is made worse because the New York City metropolitan area does not possess an unironic classic rock FM radio station. There is Q104.3, of course, but they care so much about trying to be hip that they only play the top 500 classic rock songs of all time. They're practically Z100 for old people, and there are already 4 Z100's in NYC, and that's enough. To be frank - and yes, I know I'm Fred - if it weren't for the part of my daily commute where I get to listen to Philadelphia rock radio, I would switch to satellite in a heartbeat.)

Anyway... getting back to Boz Scaggs. Boz had a couple of hits in 1976, one of which was a song called "Lido Shuffle". (Go ahead, click on the link. Put the song on and come right back here. It's a good song, right?) "Lido Shuffle" was my aural nemesis for the better part of a year. It was the Vader to my Skywalker. The Rommel to my Patton, if you will.

Over the past year, I heard this song in a number of different contexts - in a Wegman's grocery store in New Jersey; at Roggie's Bar and Grill in Brighton, Mass.; at a bar in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Every place I went, "Lido Shuffle" followed me. The only problem was, I had no idea what "Lido Shuffle" was called.

Lots of different people had guesses. Most often, people guessed Chicago or Van Morrison (Van the Man was an especially good guess; if you listen carefully to the song, it's difficult to tell the voices apart). Unfortunately, all these guesses were wrong, and I remained flummoxed until May 14, 2009 (my last night in Boston).

Boston (like Sheboygan, Wisconsin, one would assume) has a better FM radio repertory than New York City. As an example, Boston has a radio station called Mike-FM (if you're from the NYC area and you remember Jack-FM, it's the same concept). Mike-FM is designed to be a mostly random, iTunes playlist of music. That last night in Boston, I heard "Lido Shuffle" on Mike-FM driving back to my apartment and was FINALLY able to online-search my way to the answer. I immediately downloaded the song on my iTunes and haven't gotten enough of it for the past month.

So, Boz Scaggs, you magnificent bastard, I've defeated you. Enjoy your royalties.

Stay classy.

On Fresh Starts, Growing Up, and Changing Expectations

1999's "Office Space" is either my favorite movie to loathe or my least favorite movie to love. It is maybe one of the five funniest movies I have ever watched (along with "Supertroopers," "Caddyshack," "Animal House," and "Amistad") and is painstakingly accurate in how it depicts the very worst aspect of very many of our lives -- that is, work.

(*ASIDE: 1999 was, by any set of standards, a fantastic year for cinema. Using Wikipedia as a guide, below is a partial and alphabetical list of good-to-great movies that debuted in 1999: "American Beauty," "Being John Malkovich," "The Boondock Saints," "The Cider House Rules," "Dogma," "Girl, Interrupted," "Liberty Heights," which is the most underrated movie on the list and perhaps the second-best piece of drama ever set in Baltimore, "Man on the Moon," "The Matrix," the aforementioned "Office Space," "The Sixth Sense," "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut," and "The Virgin Suicides". You may not agree that every movie on this list qualifies as good-to-great, but I've just listed 13 movies and if we can even agree on ten of them, that's fucking amazing. I can't think of ten movies I've seen over the past three years that I've liked as much as I enjoyed the above 13. That's how amazing of a year 1999 was for cinema.)

Anyway, getting back to "Office Space." I can only watch this movie during times of my life when I am not actively a member of the American workforce. Why, you ask? Because it's just too damned accurate, I respond. Between the literal references to things that suck in the workplace (e.g., printers that don't work, commutes that don't work) and the more metaphysical references to things that suck in the workplace (e.g., that vague feeling that time is just slipping by and we're just getting older and there's not much that can be changed about the situation), "Office Space" just plain gets it right.

Here's the kicker, though. I think I really, really like my new job. I have an office the size of which I realistically shouldn't deserve for another 10-15 years. I have real responsibility and occasionally assist on "client calls," where I'm expected to exert actual expertise and answer statistical queries with precision and aplomb. Even my commute is not that bad. But I guarantee you that if "Office Space" showed up on the TV (or if my girlfriend, with whom I now officially reside, were to pop her copy into the DVD player), I would have to turn away.

Because "Office Space" is too real, and reality is something that we all have to turn away from on occasion.

*********************************************

(*ASIDE: For the first time in the history of this blog, I was just disrupted by my live-in girlfriend; she walked into the spare bedroom, where the Internet is presently stored until we obtain a router, to pick out some clothes. Having to roll my chair out of the way, I did my best Jack Nicholson impression and faux-screamed 'I'm writing!'. She immediately knew what I was talking about ("The Shining," of course). I heart my girlfriend.)

Getting back to this whole reality thing, however. I am a pretty firm believer that reality is something that we actively construct. Our opinions about things, our attitudes, our feelings; all of these things are interactions between our brains and the immediate environment. The reality of my present moment is that one month ago, I was a graduate student of Psychology, living in Massachusetts. Right now, I am a Project Director for a marketing research firm, living in New Jersey and learning how to act like an adult, essentially from the ground-up.

For instance, I didn't know that I still had to cuddle. It's not that I don't like cuddling, as it were. It's just that, for the most part in my life, laying in bed and cuddling was something that I did because there was no space to stretch out and watch the NBA Finals on ABC. But no, my girlfriend still expects me to cuddle, pretty much all the time.

Also, living with your girlfriend is more or less like having a roommate (except much better, for obvious reasons). There will still be dishes in the sink and garbage to be taken out. I've learned that I can be the garbage taker-outer, and my girlfriend can take care of different, other chores! Isn't this lovely!

********************************

My point is this: Because we construct our own respective realities, we have enormous power over deciding what we love and what we don't love. Some things are stable; for instance, I've loved my girlfriend for a number of years and I don't think this will change any time soon. Other things aren't; in five weeks, I may strongly loathe my job, for instance.

Since January, when I decided to leave graduate school, I started to love the *idea* of my life as it's presently constituted. As an immediate consequence, I began to dislike the life I was living at the time. Looking back, I have no clue how I made it through two years of graduate school, removed for the most part from the people in New Jersey I care for so much. (*NOTE: I think a big thing that helped was knowing people in Massachusetts who cared for me a great deal.)

But ideas are not the same as reality. Ideas are projections, and they are prone to being inaccurate. I consciously understood that my *ideas* were attached to long commutes, printers that don't work, and bosses like Lumbergh who may want me to come in on Saturdays. But life is good at the moment, reality is what I make of it, and right now I am completely digging reality.

Stay classy out there.

'Tis The Season to Spend Money...

...and I'm not talking about Christmas.

Greetings, lovely readers of the Damaged, Inc. blogatorium. My name is Freducate, and I haven't posted around here in, like, forever. Happy Memorial Day weekend, and - as with every three-day weekend - I hope that everyone has taken the time to relax, eat a cheeseburger or three, and take a long summer's nap (perhaps on the nearest beach).

I've personally tried to accomplish all of this. However, because:
(a) I just moved back from Massachusetts last weekend;
(b) I'm moving *again* to another apartment, with my girlfriend (the occasional Damaged, Inc. contributor ARoll), next weekend;
(c) I'm starting my new job on Tuesday, which gave me nine days to put all of my affairs in order between moving out of Massachusetts and starting my new job;
(d) In the meanwhile, I had family visiting from Florida this week because of mine and my little sister's graduations;
(e) I still have manuscripts and projects from my grad school days to wrap up and send out; and because
(f) all of items (a)-(e) take a LOT of work, I've spent most of the weekend buying bedroom furniture, packing boxes and thinking about proper paragraph transitions.

If you've never bought a bedroom, if you're going to do it right it is EXPENSIVE. Between the bedroom set, the ultra-soft, 372-coil mattress, the 600-thread count sheets, etc., it's a lot of money. I'm not going to say how expensive per se, because this isn't a blog about financial issues. Let's just say however much it was, it was completely justified. This is why. If you're going to work hard, you might as well have a bitchin' bedroom to come home to. If there's one important thing to splurge on in a new home, it's the bedroom.

And, of course, a huge HDTV for the living room, and a knife set, and all the other little things that start to add up over time.

*******************************************

I was once in credit-card debt, and I think it's worth telling the story because I'm probably about to be in credit-card debt again. At the time, I was a senior in college and I just started dating my girlfriend. She had a real job, with a real salary, and I was making $2,200 a semester as a Biology TA. Now, I wanted to impress her because she was (and is) beautiful, smart, and awesome in just about every way imaginable.

To do this, even though we'd only been dating for three months, I decided to go all-out on a Christmas present for her. I had already bought two tickets to see "The Producers" on Broadway, and in retrospect this was probably enough of a present to make everyone happy. I should have stopped here, but I didn't. You see, I also - and here's where I shat the bed - decided to make this venture a "night out in New York City."


Specifically, I purchased a hotel room at a 3 1/2 star hotel in Manhattan, and also took her out to a relatively expensive dinner. If my memory serves me right, I insisted to pay for everything. It cost so much money. I was such a tool. This, combined with an overall pattern of reckless financial behavior which culminated in an awesome but account-draining trip to Las Vegas, put me into credit card debt. Which sucked.

Just to sum up, the morals of the story are as follows:
(1) In a relationship it is perfectly acceptable to share expenses for things, proportional to the salaries of the people therein.
(2) I used to be really stupid with money.
(3) In all probability, I remain really stupid with money (and in general).

************************************

One quick note, and then I'm done with this post. Now that I'm back in New Jersey, there's going to be lots of good times and drinking libations this summer in New Jersey. I will be a part of this, and you should, too (even if you're just visiting New Jersey). The official Damaged, Inc. housewarming party awaits!

Stay classy out there.

Fagelas? No we're just merry....

Since it seems like everyone is talking about gay marriage these days, I figure I'll join the fray. Recently several states have passed legislation making gay marriage, which brought to reality something that was once not even to be spoken of. My basic assesment of the argument is a relatively simple one.

Gays would like to have equal station and rights as straight, married people in the eyes of the government. They should already be accorded this right under the equal protection clause, but leave it to Scalia and the other "traditional" justices to keep them at bay "using" the right hand of god. Seriously, like 100 years ago it wasn't legal for a black person and white person to get married... and now 2 men or 2 women. What if it was a black man/white man and a black/white woman? What then? I'll tell you what then... Scalia's fat head would implode into his fat neck. The Legislature attempted to bribe them with Civil Unions which offered gay couples a legal status and some if not all rights. The rights varied by country and jurisdiction and inherently resurrected the concept "separate but equal" in the eyes of many homosexual couples. The rights sought/provided for by civil unions vary widely from tax benefits, adoption, healthcare/medical decisions. Gays feel that if they this separate category of domestic partnership/civil unions permanently brands them as inferior to married couples, that there is no valid ,compelling state interest in preventing them from getting married, and that they are justified in demanding that they be treated the same as everyone else.

Many people are vehemently opposed to the idea of gay marriage for several reasons... none of which have to do with logic, which is the only thing I hold sacred. God... er... Darwin bless my graphing calculator, wherever it may be... damn law school. Anyway some of the major arguments presented by the Catholic church and conservatives across the land are the degridation of the sanctity of marriage, morality and reproductio/child rearing. I'll address each in turn.

I truly believe in the idea of marriage, though I have not taken any steps to progress toward that final destination because I naturally sabotage every relationship I have had. And curiously my ex-girlfriends have gotten engaged to the guy they date after me... am I Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck? No, i'd rather tear off all my nails, eyelids and a few other body parts before being Dane Cook. But I digress. The Church and its sheep argue that it is a holy bond joining them for life, which I agree, Divorce is the devil, but straight people get divorced all the time so you can't argue that against the gays because there are gay couples that have stayed together for decades without any realistic expectation of becoming married one day. But I believe that they feel the name is holy as well. I have to say that I think the term marriage should be reserved to the ceremony that takes place in the church. However, I also believe that a long time ago all forms of government were controled by the church and there was too much intermingling going on, which made up common law, which dictated what many modern date statutes would look like. Thus the term marriage which was a completetly religious thing became all tied up with the government and subsequent rights that it bestowed. My proposal is that a new word be created to encompass all couples and bestow rights upon them and that marriage conveigh nothing other than recognition by the church. Let's use __________ to symbolize the new word. Marriage is gone, the church owns it, gay couples can try to petition the church to let them in but I see very little chance for success there. Seriously, everyone just go down to city hall for your __________ certificate and then you are legally bound and will receive all the same rights. The rules of monogamy still apply just so the system won't become entrenched with paper work. If they didn't then equal protection would fail as well a pair is not similarly situated to a trio.

Morality. Seriously? Because they have sex with someone of the same gender they are a bad person. I don't see the Boondock Saints going to kill Willem Dafoe, and they are the Right Hand of God. PS the sequel to Boondock Saints is slated to come out sometime this year... but what the hey it's only been 10 years... it's gotta be perfect by now. Scalia once compared homosexuality to people that rape barnyard animals.

Finally, reproduction/child rearing. Do you really think that just because gay people can't get married to each other that they will fight every natural feeling of theirs and marry a person of the opposite sex and what's more they will have a child. NO more or less children will be created whether or not gays marry. And I like to think, deep down, that if gay couples get married and can adopt, that some of them will adopt, as opposed to finding a surrogate. There are far too many children in "the system" and it screws a lot of them up for life. There is no data to prove that gay people would be any better/worse at raising children than a straight couple. Which is sad on the part of straight people because they have had so much more experience. And don't preach that... if they're raised by gay people they'll be gay garbage. Plenty of people raised by straight people nevertheless many who were later reveal the fact that they are gay and somehow the world hasn't come to an end.

In conclusion, to each their own. Stop bogarding equality, or I'll send the Somalian Pirates after you. PS how did California shoot down gay marriage? Are San Francisco and Hollywood not two of the gay meccas of the western hemisphere? FALE!

On a personal note... Congratulations to Scottery and his pending nuptials, to a WOMAN. Sorry Freducate, you missed your opportunity by only a few weeks.

A Lighthearted Romp Through Our National Identity and Ethics

Dick "Vader" Cheney has been going on Fox news to talk smack to the Obama administration and basically everything they're doing. As he said himself, this shouldn't really surprise anyone. However, the fun stuff about torture is what we're talking about today. Recently, Obama released a bunch of Bush-era memos that detailed the torture program. Now, we could argue about whether or not this was a good idea ("Transparency to possible crimes against humanity" vs. "Emboldening our enemies"), but I'm interested in the deeper question: Cheney has said that there are specific documents, intelligence reports or whatever, that show a direct connection between their programs and information gained that has helped to deter or protect against terrorist attacks. Based on some quotes below, and the dodginess with which administration officials have been dealing with questions based on it, I'm inclined to believe him that these memos are real.

See, this is what happens when you aren't careful with your arguments. The argument against harsh interrogation has typically been "We shouldn't torture because torture doesn't work, the information is unreliable and probably untrue." But of course, that's the wrong argument. It should have been "We shouldn't torture because torture is fundamentally evil, and in order to maintain moral superiority over terrorists we must refrain from torture." Which immediately begs the question: Under any and all circumstances? Is that really "morally right?"

The moral objection doesn't really fly, especially when you're talking to someone who lost someone to a terrorist attack. The issue here is that a demonstrable hypothesis is set up, and you have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you are correct. What if, indeed, there WAS valuable information that was uncovered as a DIRECT RESULT of torture, and NO OTHER MEANS were possible to extract that information? In other words, what if torture DOES work? Does that make it okay to torture people?

That's not a hypothetical anyone wants to consider, which is why the argument became "torture doesn't work." You circumvent the discussion by providing something for pragmatists to grab onto, and for the moral objectivists to tack onto their teary lamentations. In addition to all the psychic, social, and spiritual harm it does to our country, our torture programs don't even work, so let's get rid of them already.

But the flipside is this: let's say "torture is evil, and therefore forbidden" becomes the rule. Well, if "torture works" is a fact, you invite the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario, which necessitates torturing another human in order to save lives. And let's face it: This is Amurrika, those are terrorists, so beat them with wrenches until they tell us where the bomb is. I would wager that the polls are off, and that most of America is okay with a torture program. Fueled in equal parts vengeance, rage, grief, and holy righteousness, all brought to bear on the inhuman and the foreign and dangerous enemy of the state. Even if you remove racism and xenophobia and nationalism from the equation, it's difficult to have sympathy for people who seek to kill innocents.

Asked another way: Who, in this day and age, would hesitate to waterboard Heinrich Hiemmler? Even if it was just for shits-n'-giggles and there was no strategic advantage? We all would. Of course. So what makes him different from the terrorists today? What is so different about the hypothetical torture of Adolf Hitler and the actual torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

It's a tough question. And consider this, from CNN:

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," the Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, told colleagues in the two-page memo April 16.

But then:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in the prepared statement. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Blair added that he supported the release of the Bush memos, as well as Obama's decision to officially ban the interrogations. "We do not need these techniques to keep American safe," he said.

Trust me, Admiral Blair: Once you say "high value information came from [these] interrogations," nobody is listening. Our countrymen don't deal well with statements like "there is no way of knowing," which to them equates to "we tortured and it worked."

The REAL bottom line is this: The argument revolving around torture must rise above one of utility. It cannot come down to "Torture works" or "Torture doesn't work," because to be honest, when it's done with the expertise that the American military has, I think it does work. The argument must be this: LOTS of things "work" that we don't do. We don't do saturation bombing. We don't do germ and biological warfare. We don't do napalm. We don't do slash and burn. We don't do death squads. All of these things get the motherfucking job DONE, and with a lot less effort than the house-to-house urban fighting that we've been doing. The reason we don't do them is because they are atrocities, we've learned from Vietnam and we are trying to adhere to the ethic we're setting up.

That ethic is what we, as the supposed defenders of freedom and justice and equity, must keep sacred. Our morality should be what keeps us from torturing, because it's what makes "us" better than "them."

So, that's what I was thinking about this afternoon. Sorry that my posts all have to do with politics or some other serious topic. I promise my next post will be about boobies. Big ones.

A Love Note to New Jersey, Part 1

If living in Massachusetts has taught me anything over the past two years, it's that I love New Jersey*. (*NOTE: I may not love the Southwestern part of the state of New Jersey. Philadelphia can have that part of NJ, if you know what I'm saying.) This may strike some readers as a funny thing to say, for (at least) two reasons. One, it may be sort of strange to love any particular United State, because states are pieces of land with arbitrary, fuzzy borders and any attempt to label states as discrete "things" is stereotypic and stupid. Two, even if it's OK to love a United State, why the fuck would one ever choose to love New Jersey?

Well, I've come to the conclusion that it's perfectly okay to be proud of where you come from. Whether it's your home town, your home state, or your county (which is admittedly sorta weird), everyone needs some place to call "home". And after having moved out, and now that I know I'm moving back "home", I know that home is the place where I feel most comfortable. Home, for me, is New Jersey.

(*ASIDE: For those of you who laugh at the idea of loving New Jersey, please note the following. New Jersey residents have the second-highest per capita income of all the United States, as well as one of the longest life expectancies in the US. New Jersey has over 100 miles of pristine, syringe-free coastline; mountains and lakes for hiking; and the vibrant resorts of Atlantic City. New York City and Philadelphia can both be less than an hour away. Long Beach Island, in particular, may be the most beautiful place I've visited in my life (and I've been some beautiful places). In short, New Jersey is awesome, and if you don't like it, you should go fuck yourself with a red-hot poker and subsequently die of AIDS. Slowly. That is all.)

If you're one of those people who've been paying attention to the progression of what I've been typing over the years, you'll know that I haven't always loved New Jersey. In fact, as recently as 2007, I couldn't wait to get out. I was tired of the crowded places, the terrible drivers, the rude people, and the crappy weather. So naturally I moved to Massachusetts, a place with even more crowded places, even worse drivers, lots of Red Sox fans, and (at least for 10 months out of the year) the most terrible weather I've ever seen.

I was not a good decision maker in my youth, but I am a better decision maker now. For this reason, I will present to you my List of Reasons Why Moving Back to New Jersey Is A Fantastic Idea...

Reason #1. New Jersey is where my girlfriend lives, and I get to live with her, and there's going to be flutes playing and trombones and flowers and garlands of fresh herbs. And we will dance till the sun rises. And then our children will form a family band. And we will tour the countryside and you won't be invited.

Now that that's out of the way... ahem...

Reason #2. It hardly ever snows in New Jersey, and when it does snow, it's melted away in 1-2 days. New Jersey residents never have to navigate six-foot high snow piles in order to make turns on their daily commutes. Additionally, the weather can occasionally be "perfect" on any given day from April through October.

Reason #3. There are Wegman's grocery stores in New Jersey. In our apartment search, my girlfriend and I have been thinking about the "must-haves" -- you know, the things we absolutely need in our apartment. For instance, we definitely need a large kitchen, because we like to cook and to entertain. We also need a washer/dryer in our apartment, because we're not going to live like college kids at this stage of our lives. A third factor that is almost a must-have is proximity to a Wegman's grocery store. It's a grocery, a pharmacy, a full-service restaurant, a bakery, a coffee bar, and a neighborhood butcher shop, all rolled into one! Plus the lines are quick and everyone smiles. Wegman's is a god-damned happy-narium, and I will shed a single tear if I don't live close to one when I move back home.

Reason #4. I can wear my Yankees cap anywhere in New Jersey without the realistic fear of getting mugged by some pasty dude named Sully or Murph.

Reason #5. The beaches in New Jersey are underrated. If you can tolerate that the water almost never gets warm enough to allow swimming in the ocean (except maybe for a few weeks in early August), the beaches in New Jersey are otherwise almost perfect. Also, when the sun shines in the summertime, it's possible to get a real sun tan.

Last June, we had a heat wave in Massachusetts -- it was perhaps 95 degrees out, and my apartment (like almost every house up here) doesn't have central A/C. I spent one Saturday afternoon on my outside balcony, mostly to cool off but also expecting to get a tan because it was 95 degrees out. Except, it never happened. The sun was not strong enough to burn me. Now I must admit that I have studly, almost Mediterranean skin. But still, it's ridiculous that I couldn't get a suntan. Maybe that's why Murph and Sully get along so nicely up here...

Reason #6. I am aware of enough low-to-medium stakes poker games in New Jersey to allow poker to be an actual, part-time hobby again. You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to getting my non-Psychology-related hobbies back, now that I am leaving graduate school.

Reason #7. New Jersey drivers are terrible drivers, just like Massachusetts drivers are terrible drivers. The difference is, drivers in Massachusetts go about 10 mph faster, on average, than drivers in New Jersey. Also, the terrible drivers in New Jersey are actually from New York, which explains their erratic behavior.

Reason #8. The food in New Jersey is fantastic. The extreme ethnic diversity in New Jersey has its faults (see Reason #7, above). However, it also has its benefits, one of them being that no matter what kind of food you're craving on a particular night, you can get above-average food, that night, without having to drive someplace far. The major complaint that people from NJ who watch "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle" have is not that it's a terrible movie (although it is a terrible movie), but that it's implausible -- no one from New Jersey would have to travel that far and endure that much to get the food they're craving. Harold and Kumar should have just driven to South Plainfield. They would have gotten their sliders, no problem.

Reason #9. You may say that you hate Guido douchebags, and you probably do hate Guido douchebags. But think about a world where all the Guido douchebags went away. What else would there be left to make fun of? Let's face it. You need Guido douchebags, and New Jersey, with its shoreline and close proximity to Staten Island, NY, is more than happy to provide them!

Reason #10. Just by getting back into the "New Jersey" mode, it's so much fun making fun of New York. I miss making fun of New York, but I feel like I'm getting back into a rhythm now...

Reason #11. I'm a little bit of a Momma's boy. There, I said it. I am looking forward to being closer to home, because I like having my close friends and even (some of) my family around. Now pardon me while I cry into a used tissue.

Reason #12. Jughandles fundamentally make sense and improve traffic flow. They keep stupid people from making rash decisions, which should be the ultimate goal of any police state.

Reason #13. New Jersey, compared to Massachusetts, has (a) more cops who are (b) less corrupt. At this stage of my life, it's comforting to live in a police state (Yes, NJ, comparatively speaking, is a police state) where people actually get pulled over for doing retarded things while driving. it makes me feel like the world is just.

***************************************

There's a Baker's Dozen of reasons for you. I probably have two or three dozen more ideas on deck, but I'm tired from writing 25 pages of a Stats assignment today. Just four more weeks and I don't have to be a student any more, woo hoo! Anyway, stay classy, and keep an eye out for Part 2 of my Love Note to New Jersey.

Don't Criticize It, I'll Advertise It

And still I see no changes, can a brother get a little peace? / There's war in the streets, war in the middle east / Instead of a War on Poverty / They got a War on Drugs so the police can bother me

One of my earliest TV-related (non-video game) memories involves one of those "Just Say No" advertisements, involving some ridiculously 80's-ed out guy prancing around a rough-looking (at the time) pool hall wearing sunglasses (at night) singing a song about how "It's right (or cool) to say 'no'!" Although I don't remember specifically, I'm sure that I ran around the house singing about saying no to drugs, even though I didn't know or care what drugs were.

GOD, the 80's sucked. Awesomely.

The "Just Say No" campaign was the most ridiculous of a long line of efforts to get These Damn Kids Today to avoid drugs (and other fun activities), part of the PR in the War on Drugs. Now, the people who listened to terminally unhip adults preach in black-and-white terms about the evils of drug use are all growed up. And they have jobs as commentators, and they're commentating on the futility of the War on Drugs -- like most smart people were doing 20 damn years ago.

The whole conversation got started up again over the killing of a U.S. Marshall by a Mexican drug cartel. Which is tragic and all. But now a bunch of people in establishment media (for our purposes, "establishment media" = CNN) is suddenly sounding off about the futility of the War on Drugs and how much more awesome legalizing all drugs (not just pot, but damn near everything) would be. "Just think of how many people would be out of our jails!" "Just imagine all the tax revenue we could collect!" "Oh Gawd, we could put the cartels out of business!"

Like it's that easy.

This conversation has already taken place, and the arguments have already been made. Why isn't anyone bringing up the arguments from the 80's and 90's, when the cost of the War on Drugs was first realized? Is it because it's not until U.S. Marshals' lives are lost that the establishment tries to run behind legalization, and when it's just inner city kids and crack mothers, enforcement is the way to go?

Nobody is bringing up the fact that the enforcement policies of the 80's and 90's impacted poor people the hardest. Nobody wants to mention the fact that the War on Drugs was interpreted by many as a War on Blacks, leveraging a large budget and a larger public opinion against a population that had few, if any, advocates in the mainstream media. As soon as the economy is in the crapper, as soon as whites are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet, all of a sudden legalizing drugs doesn't seem so crazy anymore. NOW all options are on the table, NOW we should re-examine the cost of this fight, this shit is getting serious. Shame on you.

And shame on you for taking such a one-sided look at the issue. In all honesty, the "keep-it-illegal" folks have valid points as well: legalization is tantamount to endorsement for many people. "It (the War on Drugs) is expensive" is hardly an argument for "It should be eliminated." Hard drugs have much more devastating effects on people than alcohol or cigarettes, you can't just look at death tolls. The process of legalizing drugs may put cartels out of business, it's true, but we might start to see drug-related assassinations targeted at politicians pushing legalization.

And then there's the big unknown: How many people in America would start doing drugs -- from pot to heroin -- when the pharmacy starts selling them, with the stamp and approval of the government? When the "Nanny" State becomes the "Do Whatever You Want, I Don't Care" State, what do you do? After being taught that the law is the arbiter of Right and Wrong, does that mean that drugs are now right? We are a culture that, for better or worse, looks to our government and the law for guidance on what is and is not acceptable behavior; in America, the phrases "I've done nothing wrong" and "I've done nothing illegal" are one in the same. To assume that after decades of preaching and guiding we can suddenly make drugs legal and let people decide for themselves what to do is criminally naive. Interestingly this is the main failure of the anarchist philosophy as well -- "Don't tell me what to do" only works if, when left alone, you do the right thing. Not only you, but everybody. Take a drive on a highway during rush hour in New Jersey, and then come talk to me about how people will do the right thing for humanity when left to their own devices.

To argue, as some people are doing, in favor of legalization without a passing glance at the negative side-effects is irresponsible and juvenile. To argue in favor of enforcement without understanding the HUGE negative impact on society -- morally, financially, socially -- is equally irresponsible and flawed. I don't have many answers (besides those that have already been discussed), but I do think it's hugely offensive that nobody is talking about the havoc that this war has visited on the impoverished for the past two decades.

For the record, I happen to be in favor of legalization, but I have no interest in using drugs. In fact, people who use drugs now should be the LAST advocates for legalization: you really think you'll be able to get primo chronic at a decent price when the government is busy regulating imports and exports and THC levels? Good luck with that, let me know how that works out.

Why I'm Leaving Graduate School

I have decided to leave graduate school, effective this May, with my Master's degree. This May, I will permanently move from the city where I attend graduate school, back home to New Jersey. Once moved, I will pursue full-time employment in an industry to be named later.

I've told lots of people already, many of whom are and will remain graduate students. They've been generally (and surprisingly) OK with my decision, although they've asked me a lot of questions. Some of these questions I've answered well (I think), others not so well. I am writing this post mainly to organize my thoughts in writing, but also to help answer some of the difficult questions that people have asked me over the past few weeks.

This was a decision that I made in January. I made it happily and of my own volition. A number of factors played into my decision, many of which are worth discussing. I will discuss them here.

Factor #1: Academia, while illustrative, meaningful, and unique in its strengths, is also kind of silly.

I actually really liked (and still do like) being a graduate student in Psychology. I learned so much about my strengths and weaknesses, how to assess other people's strengths and weaknesses, and how to be an effective manager through graduate school. I also learned a lot about theory, experimentation, and statistics. After two years of graduate school, I thought about what I enjoyed learning most. I decided it was the managerial/statistical stuff. I cared far less about theory and experimentation, and I also realized that I'm not enough of an intellectual to create my own theory of something.

Academics consider other, more successful academics to be minor celebrities. There's nothing wrong with this, per se. Compared with non-academics of similar talent, full professors are overworked and vastly underpaid. They deserve to be minor celebrities, but on the other hand, we all have free will (Yes, even graduate students have free will). I deserve to decide that I'd rather have weekends off and be paid more money, thank you very much.

Factor #2: Holding a Ph.D. degree appears to be very useful in some contexts, and less useful in some others.

I've spent a lot of time over the past two years thinking about usefulness. I knew from the outset that I probably wouldn't be happy as an underpaid, overworked professor. What, then, is the usefulness of graduate school? Teaching's never been my thing, and (as mentioned above) theory isn't, either. My interests have shifted to more methodological and practical concerns. At this point, my decision had already, mostly, been made for me.

Factor #3: Mortality matters, and I'd like to make less sacrifices.

Graduate students, because they're mostly young and extremely driven, always forget that their hearts will inevitably give out one day. Not to be a downer, but yeah, that's going to happen to each of us. Given this, I'd prefer to spend my weekends hanging out and working on hobbies (instead of plain working).

Factor #4: Money matters, and I'd like to make more money.

With my master's degree, even in the midst of this horrific recession, I can reasonably expect to make 2.5-3.0 times more money in industry than I do right now. This means I'll soon be able to afford "real" things, like a house and a nice car. These things matter to me, because reality, like prosperity, is hard to come by these days - and should be cherished.

Factor #5: For some people, it really matters whether they solve their own problems or some company's problems. I am not one of those people.

My dad worked in industry my whole life and I think he really liked it, so my attitudes toward industry are skewed in a positive fashion. I've seen firsthand how a good career can be financially and emotionally rewarding at the same time. Industry is not an intentionally-evil system that destroys the lives of people who work in it. It is somewhat cold and, well, "industrial". But on the other hand, some jobs are very interesting. I am only applying for interesting jobs... in an industry to be named later.

******************************

If I learned anything from the 1999 movie "The Matrix", it is that reality is a completely subjective thing. My reality is not your reality, and you may have already thought of 16 different reasons why I am an idiot for leaving graduate school. By the metrics you use to determine success, you may end up completely right -- even when, from my point of view, you end up being very wrong. Only time will tell.

I do not hate Psychology, and I think it is a very useful social science. I do find several of its current major questions inaccessible to the general public, and that is a major issue (for me). I feel like Psychology matters to the extent that it helps regular people live their lives more successfully and with a firmer understanding of this thing we call "reality". Whether that is currently being done is sort of an open question.

The bottom line is, in two months I get to come home (where I've always felt most comfortable) and fall asleep with my girlfriend every night. This is a big deal to me, and as we all navigate our way through life, we should try to focus on maximizing the issues that we consider to be "big deals" for us. That's how I think we wind up happier and healthier.

Stay classy. Oh, and something having to do with gambling.

My 25 things... part 1

1. When I was little I made “traps” everywhere, because I saw the Ninja Turtles do the same thing in the sewer. They only ever worked on my step father. He was not pleased.
2. I am a Green Bay Packers fan. The reason is because my step father is a Vikings fan and at the age of 6 or so I realized I was his intellectual superior and wanted to spite him because he hated them Packers. I like to think this choice has worked out well for me.
3. My friends, my inner circle, my adopted family. I can be completely honest with them and I show them the same unflinching loyalty they show me. There is one exception, if there is a conflict between 2 or more members of the inner circle and both make logically sound arguments I will side with whomever I have known longer. Let me tell you member #1 dates back to diaper days, so trying to make me side against him would be a poor life choice.
4. My greatest fear is being forgotten. I attribute this to my father’s one fault. He is almost always late to things. When I was little and he had to pick me up from my mother’s house and he was late I always got really scared that he forgot because he was busy working or something and I would have to stay with her.
5. I say non-sensical things… a lot. A good deal of the time it’s because I don’t think before speaking. But sometimes I do think about them pretty in depth and say the ridiculous things anyway because I think it will be funny. I’d rather be thought of as ridiculous and weird than forgotten. My friends usually can translate what I mean to say. But sometimes people that don't know me that well take offense from something I say and I want them to know that I would not say something to a friend with any animosity and that I would not be having a conversation with someone I didn't consider a friend.
6. When people are dogmatic and refuse to listen to reason it drives me up the wall. No one is always right. Whether you base it on your preference or religion or whatever. If the logic and data are there just accept that you have been bested. At least be able to say to each their own or live and let live. Don’t force you’re personal/religious beliefs on people. Ex. My stepfather thinks that just because music wasn’t made when he was young that it is better than anything made today.

Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!

Today is Chucky D.'s 200th birthday. Cue balloons and cake and hookers and drugs. Biologists do it up RIGHT!

But after that, down to business. An article from CNN commemorating the birthday has this scary -- er, terrifying -- no, apocalyptic passage:

"A Gallup poll released this week shows that 39 percent of Americans say they 'believe in the theory of evolution,' while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36 percent don't have an opinion either way. This follows an earlier Gallup poll on the issue, conducted last May, that found only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time."

Wait, what? WHAT?! These numbers cannot be right. There's no way. There's no POSSIBLE way that only 39% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. No. Uh-uh.... But this is GALLUP. They do this stuff all the time. I can't believe that Gallup would botch the numbers that badly.

FOURTY-FOUR PERCENT of people think that an invisible man created humanity out of nothing, instantly, in the past 10,000 years. The U.S. population is around 300 million. That's equal to 132,000,000 people who think this. Millions and millions of people. That is a huge, scary number.

Now of course I could rant about this all day. (And I might.) But I'm not interested in arguing with people who are so committed to their delusions that they are content to fly in the face of reason and evidence and logic to believe in a fairy tale. That's... well, it's not good, but there's no use arguing with those people. No, I'm after that 36% that believe "God guided humans' evolution from animals."

Honestly, it reminds me of parents who try to teach their kids about Santa Claus. When someone supposedly reputable (your parents) tells you the story of a magic fat guy who breaks into your house and leaves toys, you believe it because you're a dumb kid. As you get older, you think of questions: at noontime of Christmas Eve, was he delivering toys to Chinese kids? What about houses without chimneys? How does he fit billions of toys in one sleigh? If Santa is flying around, does he coordinate with air traffic control to make sure his flight path is clear? And parents, rather than admit that it's a story (albeit an important character-building one), perform mental gymnastics to explain away these questions: Yes, he starts in Australia and spends one hour in each time zone, following midnight around the world. Sometimes he goes through doors or windows if there's no chimney. He periodically goes back to the North Pole to pick up toys when his sleigh runs out. And yes, Santa obeys all relevant aviation procedures while in flight, and respects the proper no-fly zones in hostile countries (where he hands toys out to relief workers to distribute).

This is similar. People already believe in one story, and they are so desperate to cling to that story -- even though the truth is much easier and simpler to accept -- that they perform some quite impressive mental gymnastics to keep the original story intact. For some reason, people have this idea that "reconciling faith and science" means that faith and science need to coexist in the same place at all times, otherwise you're believing in one in exclusion to the other. Why does believing in God AND evolution mean that the two are directly related? Why can't God's involvement in evolution be no more or less than his involvement in everything else that goes on? Why can't God be God and do godly things, and let biology explain evolution?

Let's take the belief of this 36% to its conclusion, lest we rest our faith on half-baked ideology. Let's pretend that God is the manipulator of mutation and recombination and multiplication, He guides the amino acids to their destinations, He arranges the codons and the proteins and His divine hands fold our tertiary and quaterniary structures into the Holy Puzzle that constitutes our being. He is the force that drives us to eat, and sleep, and hunt, and procreate. He has crafted ecosystems over millions of years by piecing together the genes for sharper claws, stronger wings, and longer beaks, and breaking and re-making the environment to favor those children whom He saw fit to grace with the fruits of His sub-cellular works. (Still no word on what the deal is with the platypus.) But now we have a problem. Evolution is directed by our mutations, our DNA, our chemical gradients. If God controls our cells, then that means our action potentials and our neurons and everything is also under control. We've now given up a whole big chunk of philosophy: the idea that our decisions and actions have some consequence, and that we have a free will to speak of. Now, I'm not a philosophy or a religion major (ahem), but I think that's a major plot point in the Deist worldview: you must act a certain way, and consciously make decisions that would please God, or be punished. But with our brain tissue under wraps, God controls what we think. Our decisions are not our own, and therefore our behavior cannot be used to judge us.

Obviously this is ridiculous. Now you can probably come up with all sorts of conveniences and plot twists and contrivances to try and make your theory sound LESS ridiculous (God only influences the environment, not our bodies! God influences chance events but doesn't make crazy things happen -- except for miracles! etc.), but that's just proving my point.

Which is this: the truth is simple, it doesn't need to be complicated by trying to mash together two theories which work perfectly well on their own. Let God be God, out there doing whatever it is God does, and let our biology and our physics and our evolution be as they are -- as we know them to be.

Also: God's not real. But I'll settle for separation of church and cell.

25 Random Things About Me

1. I am obsessed with maximizing the number of hits to my blog. Although I'll never know who reads this blog, I do know that in 2009 alone, there have been two days of 40+ and 50+ page views, respectively, which are amazing stats. So, thanks for reading something that should be on Facebook in the first place.

2. I have one piece of Boston Red Sox memorabilia in my apartment, even though I hate the Boston Red Sox. It's a 1950's-era Ted Williams soda advertisement, and I refuse to take it down because (a) I don't disrespect the dead, and (b) I especially don't disrespect the dead when you're talking about the greatest left-handed hitter who ever lived.

3. I love frozen Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. I eat an average of one "Big Bag" a week, and somehow have not yet acquired diabetes.

4. I've had jobs that I love. I've had jobs where I've been well-paid. I'm still waiting for the first job of my life that accomplishes both these things.

5. I have the lowest LDL cholesterol my doctor has ever seen, even though I eat lots of steak (and Reese's).

6. I check my E-mail at least 10 times a day during the workweek, and 5 times a day during the weekends. E-mail is my crack.

7. Speaking of addictions, although I quit smoking cigarettes 3+ years ago, I still smoke one cigar a month. I smoked last month's cigar in my Honda Civic, and will never smoke in there again because the car smelled like an ashtray for a week afterward.

8. Speaking of addictions, I really like to gamble, but I don't think it's an addiction yet. I'm counting on my friends to tell me when/if I cross that threshold...

9. In high school, I was known as the "Dark Cavern". This is because certain parts of my body were (and remain) unnecessarily hairy. I bring this up when I see people I went to high school with, both as a pseudo-party trick and also to show that I've gotten over it (even though it bothered me at the time).

10. I am a male feminist, which is a function of my extreme laziness (not some sense of social justice). I want women to be equal to men in responsibility because, as a result, I will have to do less work. This gives me more time on the couch, watching TV, which is a good thing.

11. My perfect day involves breakfast, a good long run, lunch, a nap on the couch, steak dinner, a bottle of wine, and quality time with my girlfriend.

12. Out of all the things a graduate student in psychology does, I enjoy advanced data analysis the most. This convinces me that I'll probably make decent money some day.

13. I get angry approximately 20-25 times a day, but mostly about little things.

14. I talk to myself - only when I'm alone - and the most frequent thing I say to myself is, "You're retarded."

15. I actually am retarded, at least when it comes to physical coordination. I can barely move on skis/skates/ice/hard-packed snow.

16. I'm additionally a bit of an asshole, as partially evidenced by my lackadaisical use of terms such as "retarded." But I'm a fair asshole. People know where they stand with me.

17. I may be unable to fill a large lecture hall with my acquaintances, but I have an amazing group of friends. My friends mean everything to me. They keep me in my place, and help me up when I'm down. My friends are the people I can be 100% honest with, in a world that keeps me from telling the complete truth sometimes.

18. People's tastes in music tell me a lot about them. I have an aunt who claims not to trust people who don't like dogs. I don't trust anyone who doesn't like Stone Temple Pilots.

19. Although I despise romantic comedies as a genre, one of my favorite movies is "Wedding Crashers." This is true even though "Wedding Crashers" is a diagrammatic romantic comedy. The moral of this story is, concepts can be blended. If done appropriately, you can convince the world that the same old pile of shit is something new and innovative. This is true for movies, and for legislature.

20. I'm going to turn 26 this year. I look like I'm about 26, which is fair. Physically, I feel like I'm 18. After a long day's work, however, I feel both older and wiser than I am. This may actually be a good thing.

21. I think the reason why "The Wire" is the best piece of drama ever created is that it convinces us that everything which is bad is good, and vice versa. Just like in science, a perfectly creative mind matched with the perfect situation can completely change the way questions are asked. This is known as a paradigm shift, and David Simon shifted the entire paradigm for drama when he created "The Wire." The show confirms every lingering suspicion I ever had about law enforcement, drugs, crime, politics, education, and - quite literally - life. All of this in one show, which may be a little complex but I swear you're smart enough to get it. So, please - PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE - watch "The Wire." For me. Okay?

22. I am ambivalent toward drugs. On one hand, I am convinced that the dangers of most "illicit" drugs (e.g., marijuana) are completely overblown. In fact, I am convinced that marijuana is absolutely harmless. On the other hand, I am evangelical about reality. I love reality, and I feel like reality is something everyone should embrace. Further, I feel that "illicit" drugs bend reality and make people sort of... I don't know, weird. They make me question, what is it about not-high life that is so bad to necessitate being high all the time? I mean, why not smoke crack instead? Some of my best friends smoke weed all the time, and more power to them. But still... come on, weirdos.

23. Item #22 (above) may be influenced by the fact that I have not smoked marijuana in over three years. The last time I smoked, I was invited into a "Devil's Threeway" (which I politely declined).

24. I complain... a lot. But that's just my personality. Most of the time, I'm very aware of how lucky I am to have my life. I mean, I could be way stupider than I currently am.

25. I actually am approachable. I'm just kinda like Dikembe Mutombo; you need to bring your A-game when you approach me.

Things The Super Bowl Taught Me About: Football, Advertisements, and The Boss

First up, the thinnest of the three: Football. I know the least about this, and to be honest, The Bowl didn't do much to elucidate things, other than:

1. You can get (score? make? receive?) a safety by committing a personal foul in the end zone. I didn't know that.

2. John Madden loves to say "penetration" as many times as possible, as fast as possible, regardless of the situation on the field.

3. I love John Madden.

Ok, now that that's over with, on to advertisements:

1. The people who advertise hilarious shows apparently don't talk to the people who actually write the hilarious shows. Probably because the people who write hilarious shows look down upon the people who write the commercials for the show, making fun of them in the hallways and throwing things at them in the cafeteria.

2. Speaking of commercials.... WTF? By my count, there were 3 good commercials total during this Super Bowl: 1. Chimps advertising motor oil (I buy anything advertised to me by chimps), 2. Those stock trading ads with the talking babies, which have gotten progressively better over the years ("Maybe read the rules, Shankoppotomus!"), and 3. JESUS CHRIST ITS G.I. JOE! Although to be honest, I'm sure the G.I. Joe movie will suck, I just didn't know they were making one until I saw the commercial. I think we all know where this is going. I'm waiting for the teaser trailer.

3. Pepsi and Coke have apparently fired their advertising team, told the word processors at the ad department to "switch to autopilot," and then put whatever crap they produce onto the screen.

4. 3D movies have existed for... holy Hell, 87 fucking years (according to Wikipedia). Are we supposed to assume that this is a new development? The way they're pimping it out now, it certainly seems so.

And finally...

Bruce. Good lord. Now, make no mistake: I have a soft spot for The Boss. I grew up listening to his songs, and before I discovered the radio, he was all I listened to. As the less-pussy of the two internationally-renowed New Jersey superstars of classic rock (Joan Bon Jovi being the other), he represents the old-school blue-collar New Jersey of our fathers, now lost to the newer, more New York prone white-collar New Jersey of our bratty Guido brethren. Unfortunately, he's starting to represent the blue-collar New Jersey of our grandfathers at this point. Now, I don't think it's sad when rockers who became famous in their teens or 20's stay active well into their later years. In fact, I think it's cool to think that there are some people who will never give up the music, who still "have it." But it's important to be realistic. Bruce Springsteen is 59 years old. He has no business jumping up on pianos and falling to the ground. He could seriously hurt something.

Now, this isn't a problem specifically with Springsteen or his E-Street band. KISS formed in 1972. Aerosmith was in 1970. AC/DC formed in 1973. All of these bands are still technically "active," and to be honest, I mean... for fuck's sake (Exhibit A: that photo). I think it's great that you want to keep playing music, or if you want to stay touring and whatnot. But I think at some point, you need to re-invent yourselves as "not the same band you were 30 years ago." There's nothing shameful in that, but listening to someone who is 35 years my senior talking about life as a teenager just comes off as... well, weird. Or sad. Or the kind of nostalgia that isn't good. I'm not sure what the word is, but it's not the kind of feeling you want to be having.

Edit: After re-reading, I've decided to add a qualifier. Talking about your life as a teenager is fine. "Glory Days" is still a relevant song, and it's a good kind of nostalgia. But mashing up those kinds of lyrics -- wistful for the bygone days of youth -- with the "LOOK AT ME I CAN STILL ROCK IT" theatrics of the aforementioned piano jumping and limboing is what gets me. Yes, it's the Super Bowl, and big theatrics are the standard (for details, Google "Tit-star" and "His Purple Majesty" for previous offerings), but in that case, why book Springsteen and the E-Streeters? And why, after being booked, did Springsteen feel the need to compete with younger acts on that level? It's just... wrong. Edit #2: The fact that I just referred to Janet Jackson and Prince as "younger acts" should be enough to illustrate my point.

Anyway Bruce, re-invent yourself as the grandpa rocker you clearly are. You're a titan of the music industry, and you don't need fireworks or gymnastics to prove it. There's nothing shameful about calming down at 60 and playing mellow. Your shows will still sell out, and you'll still be able to bang every MILF in Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean counties. Provided Max Weinberg doesn't get to them first.

The Office... I'm over it

I recently began one of those "all important" internships that will skyrocket my legal career... if it does not I am going to file suit against career services for giving me false hope and unreasonable expectations... the scariest part... I could succeed. You've gotta love frivolous claims. Anyway I am now sitting in a cube in an office that doesn't have more than 30 people in it. But it's odd because there is only 1 row of cubes so I only have 2 walls. My chair lines up off center with the office door in front of me, which is occupied by a not unfriendly army veteran who has this gem outside his door. But that is beside the point. The point is that I saw a a lot of traffic going into and out of this office today by the same 2 people. Apparently these 3 were exchanging emails on a project with a 4th undisclosed party regarding an upcoming project. These '3 musketeers' seemed to think that the 4th was incompetent and an all around horrible person. I realize that I have only been working here for a few weeks and I only know 2 people's names but how often have you noticed this happen? Anywhere? People start complaining about someone else's job performance when things are not going smoothly.

I find it hard to believe that when someone is bitching that they know all the complexities and nuances of that person's job. I've done it. But I realized I don't know anything about those jobs that I complain about and I have been trying to not give people a hard time. Like when only 1 teller is working the counter at the bank and the line is huge and there are 5 others in close proximity behind the counter during peak hours. The same is often true for the post office. But unless you have worked in one of these positions in the last few years the chances are you have no idea what is going on. But back to the story at hand. This group of 3 people congregated in the office across from me every single time an email was sent by the 4th person. This happened every 1.5 minutes or so for 2 hours.

I wished I had a stop watch to verify my ballpark guestimate of the total amount of time they spent complaining today. My guess is they spent at least 45 minutes in their group therapy sessions today. Again, I don't know their names, their positions or the difficulty of this project or anything else about it, but it seems like that if they spent 45 minutes problem solving/compromising in a face to face conference with #4 present a meaningful solution could have been devised or at least hatched out. I mean, I mean if they had just properly addressed the issue when it came up it could have avoided later frustration and there might not have been 45 minutes wasted complaining. Just talk it out kids, don't make the office completely inefficient by wasting time and then leaving early. PS my boss has THE life. He is the only attorney i know who makes 6 figures, arrives at 10 am, leaves at 5, dresses extremely casual for an office (not one tie since i started), only reports to the lead in-house attorney, gets to shoot the shit with 3 interns all day and here's the kicker... HE JUST GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL LAST MAY. In his defense he is really smart. Plus I really am enjoying the work... learning how to play the IP game. Respect the game son.

As for my superbowl pick. Indeed, it always seems like we are waiting to see who will win this 5 month race to the finish (front of the bus). Some may say go Cardinals (apple) they've never won one, they're hot and larry fitzgerald is incredible. Others may say go Steelers (orange) because one superbowl isn't enough for Big Ben and the rest of his pennsyltucky ore harvesting crew. I say... Go Zebras (banana)! Because if the Packers aren't playing with favre gun slinging their way to victory... who the hell cares. They don't call it the Lombardi trophy for nothing. And for shame on Freducate. Going to see a concert on this the holiest day of the year. A wag of my finger to you sir. And today I tip my hat tooo... my evidence teacher for canceling class the Friday before spring break.

The Only Way Out

I know its been a while since I posted last, so I'm going to make this one count by talking about what is either the most insane or ingenious idea I've ever had. Probably some mixture of both. While it'll never win me a nobel prize, it just might make me (and you!) the most happy person on the face of the Earth.

Recently I've reached an age where everything around you starts to die. Pets you've had since childhood, beloved gradnparents, the occasional aunt or uncle, etc. I doubt its any coincidence that this tends to happen around the time we begin to become established professionals in our field. It is a real rather than symbolic shedding of our youth, which we have literally now outgrown. Its a simple fact of life that people with gray hair starting to come in rarely have a grandmother doting on them anymore.

I expected all of this and am coming through it just fine. There was, however, one thing I was not prepared for: dying SUCKS. I was lied to all my life and you were too. When I was younger I was told people died of "natural causes" all the time. NO THEY DIDN'T. They suffered weeks and months in hospital beds with people desperately trying to keep them alive while their children wept at their bedsides and their grandchildren (you and I) were sheltered from the experience. Their bodies slowly, painfully decayed whether they were ravaged by cancer or dementia or just normal aging that makes things like bladders and kidneys less functional (and the first part of functional to go is the "fun," let me tell you). No matter what the cause, the result is the same: death by extended pain and torture.

The normal way out of this is to have a living will where you cannot be kept alive in said hospital bed. This doesn't work! There's always one weak kid (since we can't cull the litter anymore...that's another post for another day) who can't stand to see daddy/mommy go and will torture you until you die of it.

That leaves me with only one way out, and here it is: make enemies. The only way to die quickly is to be killed and the only way to be killed is to be involved in a fatal accident or to be murdered. Fatal accidents happen all to infrequently and are, by nature, unpredictable and could happen too soon, so the only choice left is to be murdered. The problem is, I want to live a decently long life, perhaps 70 years or so if I'm lucky, so I don't want this to happen any time soon. On the other hand once you're 70 if you start acting like a complete bastard out of the blue to try and get yourself murdered you're just going to end up in a home on experimental medications for dementia. Also no good.

So here's my solution: The older I get, the more enemies I make. At the fairly young age of 29 I'm not looking to make very many. The more I age, the more of a bastard I'll start to become and the more enemies I'll make. This should hit some critical tipping point and before my body starts to decline, someone will shoot me in the brainstem (I've decided to tell them how best to kill me, if given the opportunity).

While the solution sounds good, there is hidden genius to it. The older I get the less I have to give a shit about what people think! The more enemies I can make, the more I can tell people what dimwitted imbiciles they truly are, and point out everyone's smallest mistakes while I casually search for my car in yet another parking lot. You wonder why that crotchety old man drinking scotch and smoking cigars complains about the entire world with a twinkle in his eyes? Its because he figured it out too.

The other option is, if I can make it to 70 or 80 in incredible physical shape, I'll just put on a skull t-shirt and be like The Punisher played by George Burns. But since I already have a bad back...have I mentioned yet that she left you because she said you suck in bed, and I'm better? Mwaahhahahahah, it begins...

Things That Are Awesome, January 2009 Edition

This is my favorite type of blog post to write, because it's quick-hitting, irreverent, and very difficult to mess up. So without further ado, let's get to it. Our latest installment of things that have struck me as awesome recently...

Airport bars. I suffer from moderately crippling social anxiety. Under most circumstances, I would never be caught dead having a drink by myself at a regular, run-of-the-mill bar. However, airport bars do not apply, because the social norms that apply to the real world don't apply once you've taken your shoes off at a security checkpoint. As an example, everyone at airport bars strike me as unnecessarily friendly (especially when said airport is somewhere in the South). I'm never sure if it's the airport context that makes people friendly, or if only people who are friendly go to airport bars. Regardless, because of this, I end up having surprisingly enjoyable conversations with people whom I'd never otherwise talk to. At a recent stopover in Balt'more, I was educated by a friendly bartender as to the various historical spellings of "Yuengling." This was something I'd never known, and found extremely important. Plus, the buffalo chicken wraps* at airport bars are typically above average. (*NOTE: "buffalo chicken wrap" to appear on a later "Things That Are Awesome" list.)

The fourth and fifth minutes of Radiohead's "Paranoid Android". I am never asked my opinion on the most beautiful moment in alternative rock. This is because I have zero credibility about anything, particularly the things that I think I know a lot about. I've given this particular question years of thought, particularly those times late at night when I can't sleep and end up listening to my iPod. Right before I eventually fall asleep, I end up gravitating toward "Paranoid Android", and I think it's because it contains the most beautiful musical moment in all of alternative rock. This moment lasts approximately two minutes.

The first half of the song is unspectacular if above-average Radiohead, although it's a harder sort of rock than most Radiohead songs. At around 3:30, however, the entire tonality of the song changes. The music changes from driving, harmonic rock to a near Gregorian chant. Thom Yorke's voice changes from man to scepter, and all of a sudden the listener feels everything in the world raining down on them, from a great height. It's a wailing coda, it's darkly beautiful, and it's what I think every piece of emo-rock written over the past decade aspired to but could not be. (*NOTE: In general, I'm not really a Radiohead fan. I can't really converse about Radiohead, the way I could converse about Metallica or Toad the Wet Sprocket. I have five Radiohead songs on my iPod. But, that doesn't keep what I wrote above from being what I believe.)

Skiing. I went skiing for the first time in my life last week. I think it's the most unique sort of physical activity, because it completely shifts one's seasonal- and movement-related paradigms. I don't really like snow. I think it's nice enough the first couple of times it happens in a given winter, but after that it's just an annoyance. I'd just as soon move someplace like North Carolina, where (I think) it only snows a few times a year, than have to deal with snow all the time. All of this is true, except for when I went skiing, at which point I considered snowfall to be the most amazing meteorological phenomenon possible.

It's not that I was a good skiier; I barely got off the bunny slope. But I was amazed at how fast I could move - it was like the bottoms of my feet were slathered in warm butter and I was sent down a hill with my center of balance shifted to about three feet behind my ass. I am unsure how anyone who skis regularly avoids serious spinal cord disfiguration as a function of the awkwardness of skiing. However, I'd gladly do it again.

Obscure "Simpsons" references from 1996 on this blog space. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the photo from Scottery's post below (re: balls), and the comments section for the post. "Citizen Kang" is, in my opinion, the best Treehouse of Horror short of all time, and I'm thrilled that in this new era of change and hope, we can take the time to reflect on things that made us laugh about Presidents past. Remember, a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote thrown away...

Buffalo chicken wraps. Oh, fuck it, let's talk about it here. I've been on a HUGE Buffalo chicken wrap kick lately - I've had like five of them in the past three weeks, and I'll probably have another one within the next couple of days. It's practically the perfect sandwich. It has tortilla, fried chicken, hot sauce, bleu cheese dressing, lettuce, and tomato. Is there a food group that this sandwich cannot represent??!

(*NOTE: On a somewhat unrelated topic, I had the worst Reuben sandwich of my life yesterday, and it cost me $7 that I'll never get back. The place where I go to graduate school generally has good [if somewhat overpriced] cafeteria food, but I've never had the Reuben before. I was the only person in the panini line, and I saw three candidate Reuben sandwiches in front of me. Two were voluptuous - piled high with delicious corned beef, sauerkraut, and Russian dressing. The third was puny, with maybe two slices of corned beef. After asking for a Reuben, I stared pointedly as the dumb bitch behind the counter silently put the puny Reuben on the panini press. She kept it there for all of 28 seconds, after which she silently [I think she might have been mute, as well as fucking stupid] added potato chips and a sloppy pickle. By the time I got back to my office, the Reuben was ice-cold. I could only finish half the sandwich, before throwing it out. I thought about taking the rest of my ice-cold sandwich back to the dining hall and throwing it back in the sandwich maker's face. I decided against it, of course.

I suppose the quesiton here is, at what point is it necessary to call the Dining services office and complain? If it were a Buffalo chicken wrap, I would have complained already. No question. That's how much I adore the Buffalo chicken wrap. It's fucking sacred.)

****************

Stay classy out there.

Please Stop Saying "Inaugural Balls"

I'm at home today, and I just walked past the TV where one of those morning "news" programs are discussing "fun and inexpensive ways to throw your own inauguration party." Trappings include drinks named after the president-elect (an "Obamatini"), presidential trivia, and a life-size cutout of our new Presidential Overlord. There are also American flags... everywhere.

My feelings about this are pretty mixed. I mean, on the surface, the kind of overwhelming support for the new guy is probably a good thing. There will be less infighting in Congress when new legislation is passed (at least for awhile), and any initiatives he announces will be taken up more quickly than if he'd won with a 50.1% margin. Volunteers and job seekers have flocked to D.C. to be a part of the new administration in numbers that are rarely seen. And these aren't your College Democrats; scientists and lawyers and all sorts of people are applying for jobs in the administration. AND it's not just the elitist northeastern news shows that are all up on his nuts, either, since (according to CNN) six in ten Republicans have a favorable view of Obama.

On the other hand, does "cult of personality" mean anything to anyone? It seems like the populist media (not the "news" media, which is pretty even-handed) is playing to the high poll numbers by discussing whether Obama is "Amazing" or "Awesome," but since most people formulate their opinions through populist media, it definitely puts an image in people's minds that is difficult to shake. If the image of female anchors on "Good Morning, America" hanging all over cardboard cutouts of the new president doesn't give you pause, well... it should.

Now, there's a huge difference between the cult of personality in history (see: go-to examples of evil dictators) and what's going on now: namely, that Obama has (relatively) nothing to do with the unrelenting showering of praise. In America, despite what a lot of people think, the press is free to say whatever they want about politicians. The catch-22 is that the press also wants to say what people want to hear, so that papers get sold and websites get hit and media gets consumed. Thus, if people are hating on Bush, then the media has a lot of Bush-hating stories. The stories are true, of course, but they don't present a whole picture, since there's a lot of things Bush has done which don't suck (AIDS funding, for example). Conversely, media coverage of Obama has been pretty positive, because people have a high opinion of him (and not because of coercion of the media outlets, which is a big difference). But there are a bunch of things (retraction of FISA during the campaign,

Now, I'm an Obama supporter. I think it would be a little cynical to suggest that the only reason he gets positive press is because of his popularity. He seems to be making swift moves to put a lot of his campaign talk into action; at least, as much as he can without being president. In the next few weeks we'll see how much of it has been posturing and how much will be real. Until then, everyone should keep their heads.

(Side note: CNN.com's front page, at 9:30 AM, has the requisite set of news stories talking about the inauguration and the significance of this year's MLK day. And then there's a story whose title reads, "Going With The Flow: Learn why people tend to go along with the majority view, even when it's wrong." I can't make this stuff up.)

(Side note #2: After Israel and Hamas decided to fuck the shit out of Gaza, people observed that they were probably getting their last licks in before Bush leaves office. I thought that was a little silly, but if you're someone who espoused that view, another headline on CNN reads: "Israel: We'll exit Gaza by time Obama sworn in." Seriously.)