On Christmas Day, some jackass decided to try to blow up a plane coming into Detroit using a liquid explosive with a chemical detonator strapped to his underpants.  The response from the US Government has been to require everyone to have no more than one carry-on, be subject to a pat-down before boarding (concentrating on the upper legs), and sit quietly with nothing in your lap for the last hour of the flight. Because, obviously, someone is going to try to do the exact same thing again. This is simply ridiculous.  It does nothing to make travel safer, and does plenty to make it far more inconvenient. I hold to the sensible yet controversial point of view that the response should have been a big fat nothing.  Security cannot catch everything, and people need to understand that.  If every action by some asshole with a religious or ideological grudge causes a disproportionate reaction, then we as a society are forced to give up all pretense of freedom and liberty to be "safe".  Do you want to see magnetometers at shopping malls?   Do you want to submit to pat-down searches before entering your workplace?  Do you want to book a "flight plan" for your daily car trips?  Do you want to have your book purchases okayed by a screening agency?  All of these things are possible reactions to the next "terrorist attack". The irony, of course, is that these "failed" attacks are working quite well.  They are instilling a sense of fear and uneasiness in society, and are costing the "evil empire" millions upon millions of dollars. Well, I've had enough.  I was planning a couple of overseas trips this year, but not anymore.  Instead of flying to Finland, I'm going to drive to Quebec City and take in the Winter Carnival.  Instead of flying to Moscow, I'm going to take a train to the coast and take a cruise. Make no mistake, I'm not afraid to fly, I'm just tired of the B.S.  And the people of the country don't seem to have the will, desire, or ability to effectively lobby against these asinine rules, so I'm doing my part to make the airlines lobby to change them.  I'm voting with my dollars and not feeding another penny into this system until they figure out how to stand up to useless rules and make flying something that approaches a good experience and not the hostile, accusatory, inconvenient mess that it is. I'm writing this after spending my entire day yesterday either waiting to take off, or standing in line for hours to get a hotel room due to an industry and government that can't get its head out of its ass long enough to understand what's really happening.  So, perhaps I'm a bit jaded.   But, to the industry and government, I say this.  Stop making your reaction based on the pretense of "Well, we have to do something."  Because no, you don't.  Sometimes shit happens, and most of us get that.  Not everything is preventable, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we can go back to being a normal society.

Okay, folks, I'm  going to come right out and admit it.  I don't get vampires. Well, I mean, I get them -- immortal dudes, sucking blood, pet peeves include garlic, wooden stakes, and sunlight -- I just don't get the appeal.  And by appeal, I specifically mean this weird romantic appeal that they seem to have with females. I'll come out right now and confess the obvious in telling you that I'm a geek, so I can completely understand the weird fanboyisms that I and those of my ilk have.  Star Trek was easily the coolest thing I've seen all year.  Last year, I was excited about Iron Man and the Dark Knight.  I got a kick out of 300, I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, and even though it was a horrible, horrible movie, I saw The Phantom Menace more times than I'll admit to when sober. So, yeah, I understand having a thing.  I just don't get what it is with the ladies and their vampires.  I bring it up now because of all this Twilight stuff that's getting the teenage girls all aflutter, but it's hardly unique to this movie.  For years, the vampire has been this romantic figure, be it the Anne Rice novels or the old black and white movies where lady swoons so the caped immigrant can chow down on her jugular. But what I don't understand is why vampires.  I can explain all of my geek loves in pretty simple terms.

• Star Trek: What doesn't it have?  Spaceships!  That fly in space!  Exploring worlds that have never been seen!  Bold and brash heroes brandishing their laser pistols against the enemy!  An optimistic future where everyone can succeed and there's no race or class system.  Star Trek is a geekboy utopia where you get to blow stuff up once in a while.
• Superhero movies: Pure fantasy.  Every man dreams of being invincible, of being stronger than strong, of being admired.  It doesn't matter if you have real superpowers like Spider-Man, or are just someone with really cool toys that make you nigh-invincible like Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne -- who doesn't want to be the hero?  And this extends to things like 300, the Bourne movies, and the Bond stories.  All about men not endowed with super powers, but keenly able to take advantage of their every sense and ability to appear to be able to do anything.
• Lord of the Rings: Magic!  Heroes with infallible aim with a sword and a bow (and my axe)!  Evil rings than can make you invisible!  A hidden and unknown king who knows how to kick ass when necessary!  These are things that many young boys dream of, and you don't necessarily grow out of it.  Awesome is timeless!
• Star Wars: Take all of the above, and add magic ninjas with laser swords.  Dude.  Magic ninjas with laser swords!

Any man reading this is going to understand it.  They will nod.  And possibly say "Hell, yeah!" depending on present company.  We get this. But Vampires?  Sure, I get the appeal to a guy: immortal superhuman cannibal monster!  It's from that place that you get movies like Blade and Underworld.  Even The Lost Boys has a kickass vibe to it, despite the abundance of Coreys. But I just don't get Twilight.  I don't get the female romanticism of the vampire.  What's romantic about an immortal superhuman cannibal monster? Meh, maybe I'll never understand.  Maybe they think they can change him or something. I'm just thankful I stopped getting bitten by vampires on Facebook.

In my Google News front page: Now, what's that picture over on the right? Dude.

Yesterday was positively historic, make no question.  And enough words will already have been written on how great this election outcome is by the time I hit "Publish" on this sure-to-be-overlooked-by-the-Pulitzer-committee piece, that I'm not going to waste time waxing eloquent on Obama's win. But I have some things I want to get off my chest. First of all, I'm really proud to be a citizen of the United States right now.  As a country, we sent a message to the world -- we get it.  We understand.  We'll be worthy of respect again.  Despite the beliefs of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, the opinion of the rest of the world matters.  The United States isn't a world power just Because We Say So.  Without the respect of the other nations, the United States is doomed.  We took a big step. I'm also very proud that my first ballot in a general election in this country went towards the first African-American president.  We made history, and my ballot, in its own little way, was a part of that.  For the first time since 1976 a Democrat received better than 50% of the vote. It's big, no question. But I'm angry.  Angry that in this day and age, so many people still feel the need to pass some laws defining marriage as something exclusively between a man and a woman.  Florida, California, and Arizona passed initiatives to prohibit same-sex marriage.  This simply leaves me irate, andI'm just going to throw it out here right now, laid bare.  If you have no opposition to same-sex marriage for other people, this article is not speaking to you.  But for the others... The only marriage that concerns you is yours.  That's it.  If you're opposed to same-sex marriage, then I recommend you find someone who is not of your gender and set your sights there.  You have no say in anyone else's marriage. If you think I'm wrong about that, I want you to pick up a dictionary.  Go ahead.  I'll wait. Now, look up the word miscegenation.  It's a mouthful, I know.  Got it?  Good.  Now, hie thee to yon encyclopedia, history book, or friendly neighborhood Wikipedia and look up "anti-miscegenation laws" and bask in the glory of what happens when people get concerned about other people's marriages when they clearly shouldn't. As recently as three years before I was born, my marriage would have been illegal in Virginia.  My.  Fucking.  Marriage. To what end?  Why? You think people of the same sex shouldn't marry because it's some sort of affront to God?  Perhaps your should remember that people once thought that of interracial marriages.  I'm sure some still do.  If you tried to pass an anti-miscegenation law today you'd be chased out of town with pitchforks, and rightly so.  If your affront to same-sex marriage comes from a church's view or a quote from the bible, I strongly encourage you to read the rest of Leviticus.  Soon you'll be keeping kosher, sacrificing animals and engaging in a spree of mayhem and biblical killing the likes of which have not been seen in eons.  So, unless you're going to be taking everything in that book literally as The Word, and I mean everything, climb down off the pulpit and mingle with the rest of us heathen. That the Supreme Court has not yet overturned these horrible laws is astounding to me.  Let's look at what the Supreme Court said in its unanimous decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Look at that.  "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"  Wow.  Just reflect on that for a moment. The Fourteenth Amendment is that which ensured equal rights to all Americans -- it abolished slavery and prohibited discrimination based on race.  It was part of the basis for striking down these horrible laws. When one couples this with one of my favorite amendments, the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), it is staggering to me that these laws can even stand up to a Supreme Court challenge. I'm one of those people who believes, fundamentally, the concept of 'marriage' is not a matter for the government anyway.  If it's some religious church ritual, keep it in the churches and out of the government.  But that's across the board.  If what the government recognizes as the union of two people of the same sex is a "civil union", then that should be the case universally.  Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman -- if it's a government official's stamp of approval on said union, then by the very constitution, all those unions must be labeled and treated equally. And if some church wants to have a holy ceremony with all sorts of pomp and circumstance and call that a marriage, fantastic.  But that ceremony should have no legal status.  It's something the church does.  My first communion and confirmation weren't government events logged anywhere, why should any other church ceremony? I'm hostile, because I'm angry.  If I've offended you, I want you to consider the offense of someone in California who's just been told their marriage is invalidated.  There is no logical reason to preclude a loving couple of consenting adults from joining together in a lifelong partnership.  And unless you're one of the people in that couple, it's really none of your business. I'll end with the comic from February. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Gay Marriage"] [/caption]

I can tolerate a certain amount of overly flower language, but there's one phrase that just needs to die. After numerous Customer Service interactions with various companies, I can say that the phrase "I do apologize" is perhaps one of the most annoying, empty, and meaningless things someone can say. It doesn't mean anything.  If you apologize, say "I apologize" or "I'm sorry".  But "I do apologize" is empty, meaningless, script-reading. I get fed up.  I have a personal policy of not yelling at phone reps -- they're rarely the problem I'm trying to solve, and in fact are usually the only ones who can help solve it.  A company's ridiculous policies are not their fault, and they shouldn't bear the brunt of it. But I just can't hear another customer service rep start a sentence with "I do apologize".  Last time this happened, I somewhat lost my cool, and said,

Stop apologizing and just fix it.  Saying "I do apologize" isn't making this situation better, because you haven't done anything you need to apologize for, and "I do apologize" isn't even an apology.

Stop telling me you do apologize, and either actually apologize or shut up. Hm, that's an angry post, so let's end with something that's been making me laugh. [caption id="attachment_372" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="I am a frog"] [/caption]

George Carlin was among my first comic idols. It's a real shame he's not with us anymore. Almost every eulogy and obituary I've seen on the talking picture box and the interwebs makes mention of his Seven Dirty Words bit, but he was much more than that. He was a great observational comic, a gifted wordsmith, and shied away from nothing. The profanity was nothing more than a tool in the toolbox, and he often used it to poke fun at society. One of his bits that I always held close as a personal philosophy centered on how words in and of themselves are meaningless and harmless, and therefore inherently inoffensive. Context is what should offend people, not a word. I can use a string of profanity while praising you to the highest levels, and I can not utter a single four letter word while belittling and insulting you, and in this so-called enlightened age it's the former over which people will get their panties in a bunch. It's ridiculous. Alas, now there's one less person praying to Joe Pesci. I guess I should start.

Turn Me Up is a group devoted to a noble cause: bringing dynamic range back into music. The age of the CD was supposed to make music clearer and bring out details we couldn't hear before. Alas, the idiots behind the bulk of the music these days (RIAA, I'm looking at you) are driven by this inane concept that louder is better. Layers upon layers of compression leads to a waveform that looks like a jumbled mess and all nuances in the music are lost. It's sad, and it needs to stop. The wikipedia page linked from the site has a telling graphic. It's the waveform of the song "Something" by the Beatles, on 4 successive remasterings: Abbey Road (1983), Abbey Road (1987), 1967-1970 (1993), and 1 (2000). A couple of examples of musicians whose studio mastering seems to have avoided this technique, and it shows in how dynamic the music sounds: Tally Hall: Good Day Vampire Weekend: A-Punk Now these are YouTube videos, not renowned for their audio clarity. But if you can, listen to high quality recordings, and you'll hear it.

Google does some great stuff. I use them for searches, obviously. They've got a great RSS reader that I love to death, and gmail's a wonderful throwaway mail account. I don't have anything sensitive sent there -- mainly because I simply don't trust them. Today, I learn ofGoogle Health, and I am afraid. Not for myself, mind you. I'm not going near it. But under what circumstances could someone possibly want to do something like this? I barely trust them with throwaway e-mail information -- why on earth would I want them indexing my personal medical information? What possible good can come of this, for anyone? Google may have a mantra of "Do no evil", but y'see, that's not actually a legal and binding document. In fact, legally, Google is beholden to shareholders, since they're a public company. Their first and primary obligation is to maximize shareholder return on investment. And if maximizing share value means selling off your medical data, they're going to do that. But, even if they don't, you're still sharing way too much with them if you sign up for this. Maybe one day you're searching for something on Google, or reading your mail... maybe looking at your RSS feeds while someone's shoulder-surfing. And up comes an ad for a medication that's perhaps a bit personal. Because, really, serving up ads is the only revenue stream this has for them at the moment. I don't really have a point here -- I'm just simply dumbfounded at the amount of trust people put into Google because it was founded by a couple of techy hackers.

This is long, but worth reading/watching. I can't say how angry this administration makes me. The outright lies are bad enough. That there's a large base of gullible people who lap it up is even worse. And, worst of all, is that nobody in the mainstream media except Olbermann seems to be calling them on it. January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.