A Night At The Old Ballyard

I went to a game at Fenway Park last Thursday, a nice little contest between the Devil Rays and the Red Sox. I love to go to the ballpark. But the problem with going to games in Beantown is being surrounded by crass New Englanders double-fisting beers and having to listen to them say things like ideer and pahk. Is there some sort of rule that everyone that goes to Fenway has to a Southie? And then there is the stupid jumbotrons that have ruined the baseball experience in every major league park except for Wrigley Field. And why do they feel the need to pump loud, crappy music between innings? And then there is the cold, hard fact, and Bostonians hate it when you say this, that Fenway is a damn dump. It really is the most uncomfortable, run-down, piece of shit relic of a baseball field. They won't let them tear the stupid thing down, Bostonians gasp in horror at even the suggestion, so let's just hope for a direct hit by a tornado someday. The best idea I've heard over the last few years is to let the team build a new park and turn Fenway into the new home of the Baseball Hall Of Fame, and take the HOF out of that dinky upstate New York town that has nothing to do with the history of baseball (and because of its inconvenient location makes it the least visited of all the major sports' halls of fame). But I suppose that's too brilliant of an idea for it to actually happen.

At one point I was sitting there in a cramped seat with no leg room, drinking a $7 beer, surrounded by Bostonians while a Led Zeppelin song blasted all around me and I couldn't help but think to myself, "Holy Crap! I've died and gone to Hell!"

Land Of The Entitled

Did you hear about the guy in Colorado who was using some electronic gadget to change red lights to green when he approached them? This was making all of the news shows as one of the kind of "lighter story" moments. He had this device for about two years and was caught because he was causing major traffic problems with it, all so he could cut about 15 minutes off his commute. A camera was set up to find out why traffic at a particular intersection was badly backed up at roughly the same time every day. The cost of equipment and man hours to finally catch this guy was not cheap. So what was his punishment? A $50 fine. That's right, a guy who for two years caused major traffic congestion and lengthened other people's commutes just so he didn't have to wait at a few stop lights, with a device he knew to be illegal, got a penalty of less than an average parking ticket. And in the interview pieces I've seen of him he pretty much laughs about it, even talking about how he would see other drivers look frustrated when having to stop after their light short-changed them. Now transportation officials have to spend thousands of dollars to fix the lights so unauthorized people can't do this again. And this guy only has to pay a 50-buck fine. Combine that with the $100 he paid for the device on eBay and for a measly $150 he cut 15 minutes off his commute each day (each direction I believe) for two years. I don't think he has any reason to have learned his lesson. And the news anchors laughed about it and commented how that's not a bad rate of return on an investment, meaning saving that much time over two years for only $150.

You want to know why other countries hate Americans? It's attitudes like this. "I want to do it and I'm going to do it no matter who it affects, fuck everybody else." And this attitude only gets reinforced by our government and society. The reaction I see from most people about this is "I wish I thought of it," instead of rightfully thinking this guy's a jerk. And then he gets a little slap on the wrist for "punishment." You know what I think should have been done to this guy? First, I would have made him pay the entire cost of the investigation that had to be done to catch him as well as the amount it will cost to secure the lights against this happening again (which, like I said, is in the thousands) and I would have suspended his license for the same amount of time that he was getting away with it. That's right, take away his drivers' license for two years. People I say this to think that's too harsh, but why? How many hours of time did he cost other people over the last two years? How many emergency vehicles got caught in traffic because of him during this time? How much more gas was burned and exhaust put into the air because of traffic congestion caused by this guy? But somehow taking away his "right" to drive is too harsh? Forgive me if I think he gave up that right when he refused to follow the rules.

It is that sense of entitlement in this country that has led us to this lack of real consequences for what we do. There isn't a penalty for traffic violations out there that is as harsh as it should be. Punishment for bad driving is used to raise money instead of actually attempting to change behavior. Speeding will get someone anywhere from about 50 to a couple hundred dollars in fines. Things like turning from the wrong lane or not using your signal or turning on red when it's not allowed will get even less, and often you don't get pulled over for that at all (unless you're black of course). Things like using your cell phone, eating, playing with your radio or smoking while you drive (things that are found to the cause of most accidents) aren't even against the law in most places. Hell, even getting caught driving under the influence only gets you a short suspension in most places on your first offense.

I say if we were serious about making our roads safer, which we don't seem to be even though traffic accidents are pretty much the leading cause of death and injury, we would make some real penalties. How about losing your license for two weeks on your first speeding ticket, and three months on your second? After that, a whole year. Don't you think we'd see a big difference on the freeways with those kind of penalties? And I would double those punishments in school zones and residential neighborhoods. Drunk driving would start with a three year suspension and move up to a permanent loss of license on the second strike. It's time for us to stop screwing around when it comes to this. A kid caught with a bag of weed can serve jail time, but not a guy hurling a 2,000 pound piece of metal on wheels down the road at 100 miles an hour? Which of those things is more dangerous to the general public?

And this won't happen in this country because of our misguided sense of entitlement. "Sammy Hagar doesn't have to drive 55 so why should I?" "My new Lexus can go 175 mph, why shouldn't I drive it that fast every once and a while?"

I mentioned to someone yesterday that I thought it should be a law that cars sold in this country shouldn't be allowed to be able to go faster than 75 mph and she acted like I just said that we should outlaw babies. No telling how she would have reacted if I had told her my real dream is that cars get outlawed and we rip up the interstate system and spend all of the highway money on a real national passenger rail network and transit systems in every city that rival the ones in London, Paris, and New York. She was not able to come up with one good reason why cars shouldn't be limited in speed capability by law. There is no state where it is legal to drive faster than 75, so what is the legitimate need for a car that can go 150 or more? She couldn't say anything but that it wasn't a good idea even though she couldn't tell me why and even agreed with me that speeding is bad. But sometimes she is in a hurry or running late and "needs" to speed, so that's why she wants her car to be able to go fast.

And this epitomizes the problem. Modern life has given us the attitude that because we can, we should be able to do. No matter the effect on the lives of everyone else in the world. It's also seen in things like bottled water. We can get it that way so now we think it is some sort of inalienable right, despite the environmental and social devastation it is causing around the word. All because it is convenient (because getting a glass and turning the handle on the tap is soooo hard) and people seem to think it's safer or cleaner, even though it's not. So it becomes a "need" when just a few years ago it was laughable to think that we would pay for water at something like 10,000 times the cost of the stuff that comes out of our faucet.

We could use another Great Depression. Maybe the word need would get a truer meaning again.

The President's Schedule

I'm watching CNN the other day (yes, I know, I'm a masochist) and one of the oh-so-very important news items is to tell us the menu for President Dumbfuck's Easter dinner. No matter how much I watch the idiocy on the television media I'm still sometimes surprised by how damn stupid it can get. Why the hell do they think that we care what the president had for dinner on any day? Well, I suppose if their are people who care about Brad and Angelina's personal life, there are also brain-dead idiots who care what Shrub stuffed in his face for the celebration of his lord's crucifixion. I'm sorry if it makes me an elitist snob to think that it's better to be able to name the nine members of the Supreme Court (I can really do that, honest) than the contents of someone's - anyone, not just the president - stomach. Seriously, have you ever called up a friend to ask them what they had for dinner? And I mean out of the blue just because you want to know, not like those occasions where they are telling you about a great restaurant they went to and you ask them what they ordered. That's different. I mean just randomly asking what they had for dinner, or them just randomly telling you for no reason. No one does that. But for some reason the media thinks we should know what the prez had for din-din. (If you must know, go here. What the hell is "two kinds of ham" anyway?)

This really is just another example of the media being lackeys for the government and corporations' efforts to distract the public from what's really going on in the world. And it doubles as the image propaganda to make Bushie look like a likeable, down-home normal Joe. Every news organization that reported it should be ashamed of themselves. Obvious smoke screens should be ignored and are a waste of newsprint and air-time. And when the evil-doers see that this works it only encourages them to take it farther. Do we really want that? As the public wants to know more and more about our presidents' personal lives and our Commanders In Chief continue to do worse and worse evil things, we will get more and more personal life details of the president. This will lead to finding out things like what the idiot reads while taking a dump (my guess is People or Reader's Digest, especially the Life In These United States "humor" column). The bigger the horrible thing the President is doing, the more detailed info we'll get about his personal life. Imagine how bad this kind of thing will get when he's about to nuke Iran later this year. I can see the press release now:

...and after the Thanksgiving feast the President and First Lady retired to the residence. After watching a little Cinemax the President began to nuzzle on the First Lady's neck which led to full mouth kissing, with tongue. This lasted for several minutes while he began to rub her left breast with his right hand, over her blouse, kneading it like pizza dough. He then was able to get his hands inside her shirt and on her naked flesh after Mrs. Bush removed her bra for him, as the President has always had a hard time with bras and this led to an incident during their college years that the First Lady would rather not see repeated. After a few minutes of breast rubbing, which included some light nipple pinching, she turned her attention toward his manhood. Rubbing at first over his trousers and then reaching inside to stroke on bare skin until the President achieved a full erection, the First Lady then performed approximately 4 minutes of fellatio. Cunnilingus was not performed. The President then got on top of the First Lady and attempted to wriggle out of the rest of his clothing, at which point he fell off the couch. After regaining his composure, he once again climbed on top of Mrs. Bush and commenced missionary position coitus for roughly three minutes until the phone rang. The First Lady pleaded with the President not to answer it, but he remarked that it could be his mother so he thought he should answer it. It was his mother. It is not uncommon for the Mother Bush to telephone when the Bushes are being romantic, kind of a weird coincidence. After getting off the phone with his mother, the President found that he was somewhat flaccid and required several more minutes of fellatio from the First Lady. Once again, cunnilingus was not performed. At this point Mrs. Bush assumed the top position and the First Couple had approximately 2 more minutes of intercourse before the President achieved orgasm. The First Lady did not achieve orgasm. The President was seemingly unaware of this.

At that point the First Lady retired to bed to read the newest Grishom novel and the President watched the episode of American Idol his daughter Jenna had TiVoed for him and he fell asleep on the couch during an episode of Gilligan's Island on Nick at Night. Mrs. Bush must have had a bad dream, as she was heard sobbing in the middle of the night.

This is what we have to look forward to in the future of media distractions perpetuated by the government. The sad part is, we are getting what we deserve. As long as we continue to eat up shit like Us Weekly, People, and every little bit of nonsense about Brad, Angelina, Tom, Katie and whoever JLo is fucking, then that's the kind of shit we will continue to be fed.

Now go learn your Supreme Court justices.

Gee, No Matter How Many Times I Hear That (Embarrassing) Story, It Never Gets Interesting

Just returned from a visit to Florida to meet my new 2-1/2 week old nephew, my sister's second kid and first son. I was around my mother the entire time. I'll get back to posting some (hopefully) interesting blogs when I can shake off the feeling of being 13-years old.

I (Heart) The 80s

While the media pays way too much attention to Cynthia McKinney's hair and her use of a cell phone as a shiv, the shallow Katie Couric becoming the "anchor and managing editor" of the CBS Evening News, and the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (I still have yet to see any of the media make a point about them basically having a whole long, expensive trial for a guy that has already pleaded guilty and will get no less than life without parole), there is one little tidbit that I noticed and isn't getting a lot of attention yet. Seems that Dumbfuck Dubya wants to upgrade America's nuclear weapon producing facilities to be able to start turning out 125 new bombs a year.

So while our government is out there telling every other country in the world that nuclear proliferation is bad, we are quietly working on plans to increase our supply of nukes for the first time since 1989. This is on top of the fact that we already have way more of these weapons than any other country (Thanks Ronnie!), and that this probably breaks the non-proliferation treaty. But I suppose breaking that aspect of international law is no big deal to the guy who thinks the Geneva Convention is a "quaint" idea that has no bearing on America's actions in war time.

Jesus George, I know the 80s are probably a great memory for you, I'd have great memories of that decade if I had been drunk and coked-up the whole time too, but do you really need to try to start a new cold war because of your nostalgia?

Couldn't you just watch VH1?

The Home Front

Holy shit! Yesterday morning on Meet the Press I found the person that I want to run for President. His name is Tony Zinni, the retired USMC General who was the commander of US CENTCOM (Central Command). I never thought I'd see myself wanting a military man to be president, but damn! This man is smart and calls out Bush, Cheney and Rummy on their bullshit. He knows more about the situation in Iraq than those three buffoons combined and can articulate it better than any of the idiot Democrats who are going to run. He's not afraid to use big words and actually call the situation for what it is instead of the soundbites that politicians use. In this interview on Meet The Press he went in depth on his knowledge that there was no evidence at all that Saddam had WMDs, that Dubya and Dick were pushing for war from the beginning, and how 10 years worth of planning for the day they would re-engage Iraq was just ignored and put us in this screwed-up situation we're in now. He also talked about how the administration is using the press as scapegoats for the problems in Iraq. But the best thing he said during this whole conversation was this, courtesy of MTP transcripts:

Well, first of all, you have to understand how you instill democracy. It isn't an election. An election doesn't equal democracy. Think about it. We need an educated electorate. We need political parties that are transparent, that people understand their platforms, that compete in a fair process. We have to have a governmental system that people are voting into, and they have to understand that, and then you can have elections. We've sort of reversed the process.

Look what's happened in Iraq. We've had three elections now, and we don't have a government yet that can stand up. There aren't people that, I think, really understood what they voted for. I saw a scene in Basra, one of the elections, where a woman ran in so excited about voting, and then she asked the poll tender, "Who do I vote for?" And he told her she-he couldn't tell her, but he had to read a list to her of 169 parties. She was confused. When he hit number seven that said the Islamic party of something or other, she said, "That's the one." I mean, is that democracy? Are they voting how they're told at, at Friday prayers? Are they voting for sectarian leaders that dominate their lives? Do they truly understand what it's all about?

It's not just democracy. It's economic development. It's social reform. This takes time, takes an investment from the stable part of the world and the unstable part of the world to establish these.

Isn't that just the best and most articulate rebuke of Bushie's claim that democracy has been brought to Iraq? Why can't we find one Democrat willing to say it like that? Instead, we get pictures on TV of Iraqis holding up their purple fingers as some sort of proof that they now have democracy over there, when they still don't even have anything close to it. Like the General said, three elections and still no government. John Kerry may have won if he had half the balls and brains the General has. If the Democrats are smart, and I don't think they have been lately (like 20+ years), they'll recruit this man right away, tell Kerry (Mr. Voted For The War Before I Voted Against It) and Hillary (Mrs. Pro-Flag Burning Amendment and Iraqi Invasion Supporter) to sit down and shut the hell up, skip the primaries and just anoint this guy their candidate. Don't ask, beg him to be your man, Democrats.

So there it is, an anti-war guy endorsing a military man for President. There is a group that's trying to get him to run for Senate, but I say they're aiming too low.

Zinni has a book coming out tomorrow called The Battle for Peace : A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose and I can't wait to read it. Of course, this being the Bush economy it might be a couple of afford before I can afford it (his master plan is working, keep the people poor so they can't buy books that provoke debate and ideas among the masses). I may have to wait even longer to buy the Billy Bragg box set that I really, really want so I can read the General's book.

This Is Freedom?

So I'm sure everyone has already heard about the guy on trial in Afghanistan for converting from Islam to Christianity and could, even though he's been released for now for a "mental exam" (and has apparently disappeared, possibly abducted), be facing the death penalty for that "crime".

Good job George! Looks like freedom is really on the march in the Middle East.

I was trying to come up with some sort of quirky analogy about being put on trial for your life for switching religions. The only one I could come up with is that it's a lot like being arrested and tried for wearing the wrong color of underwear. Or like, I don't know, being executed by the Taliban for converting to Christianity.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I've had such little output this last week or so. I'm in tech week for the production of The Little Prince I'm directing, so my life is hell right now.

Evil Thoughts

You know those "performance artist" that have popped up in every city these days that paint themselves white (or silver for those "cutting edge" performers) and just stand there frozen like a statue until someone puts money in their basket, and then they do some lame-ass little dance for a few seconds? It takes every ounce of energy inside of me to stop myself from running up and pushing them over.

Whenever I see Joan and Melissa Rivers on TV, which isn't often since I don't make it a habit to watch E! or the TV Guide Channel, all I can ever think to myself is "No big fuckin' mystery why that husband/father killed himself."

I watched part of President Dumbass taking questions from the (pre-approved) audience yesterday. A woman got up and, not so much asked a question, but suggested that it was really smart of him to invade Iraq because that drew all of Al-Qaida to Iraq like fly paper and we could kill them all there instead of fighting them on our own soil. All I want to do is find this woman so she can be held down and kicked in the head several hundred times.

News You Can Use

Looking through the newspaper....

So Jessica Simpson is "snubbing" Dubya and refusing to go to a Republican fundraiser just to get "face time" with him to promote her charity. I really don't have an opinion about this at all, except that I like it when people snub Bushie in any way, shape or form. Apparently she is in Washington to lobby for her charity that gives kids overseas with facial deformities free plastic surgery (I know this is a worthy cause, but I can't be the only one that finds it hilarious that Simpson's big charitable cause involves plastic surgery). Supposedly, she didn't want to do the lobbying at a fundraiser for a political party. I can respect that, which is unimaginable that I'm using that word in relation to anything about that dumb bimbo. But the reaction to her turning down the invite is the best part:

"It's never been a problem for Bono," he said, referring to the U2 rock star who has met regularly with political leaders of all stripes to promote various causes, including Third World debt relief. "I find it hard to believe she would pass up an opportunity to lobby the president on behalf of Operation Smile."

I'd be pissed if I was Bono. Not only did that guy suggest that Bono helps them at their fundraisers, but he got compared to an airhead blonde. Somebody really needs to school that dumbass on the difference between the Jessica Simpsons and the Bonos of the world. Start with the brain cell count. But you know why they're really pissed off about this don't you? They know those old, rich, white guys would have written bigger checks if they got to ogle her ass all night long.
----------------------------------------------

Alabama lawmakers are considering granting pardons to anyone ever arrested for breaking the old segregation laws. Awesome. Now maybe Rosa Parks can finally get that government job that her criminal record has kept her from. And Alabama finally catches up with its neighbor, the super progressive state of Mississippi, which just a few years ago finally ratified the 13th Amendment to the constitution, the one that outlawed slavery. Hey, welcome to the 19th century Alabama!
----------------------------------------------

USA eliminated by Mexico in the baseball world cup thingy (I find the title "World Baseball Classic" so amazingly pretentious). This is me when I opened the paper and saw this news:

"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

My two favorite things about this:

Alex Rodriguez still has won diddly-squat in the game of baseball.
Bud Selig is crying in his Metamucil this morning.
-----------------------------------------------

Amtrak board chairman David Laney says he is looking to "restructure" the long-distance routes. Let me translate this for you all. When this Bush crony says restructure, he means eliminate altogether. This administration has proven time and again it has never wanted Amtrak around and wants to get rid of it. Bush has put these idiots on the board of directors of Amtrak, several through recess appointments, who don't have any experience in the train industry. And most of them have even admitted to never having ridden on Amtrak.

Amtrak president David Gunn, a genius railroad and transportation man who is responsible for the major turnaround of several transit systems over the years, including Washington Metro and the New York Subway (he is the guy who got rid of the graffiti and crime, and got the orders going for those nice shiny new subway cars), had Amtrak well on the way to major improvements in service and financial stability. How did this Amtrak board reward him? They gave him his walking papers. Laney says he's looking at the possibility of getting someone from the airline industry as the new president. Great idea crony-boy! To try to fulfill the (misguided) goal of getting Amtrak off the government teat, he's going to pull in the leadership of someone from an industry that eats at the federal trough more than just about any other. The entire existence of the airline industry has been about losing money and government bailouts (2002 alone saw more taxpayer money given to the airlines than in the entire 35 year history of Amtrak), but this is David Laney's answer to making Amtrak profitable? And just imagine the great changes an airline professional can bring to Amtrak. Two days on a train from Chicago to Seattle with airplane-style coach seat leg room, no sleeping car options, no dining or lounge cars and just a push cart with pretzels and $6 beers/$4 sodas as your only refreshment choices. The way to really travel!

It's all bullshit. Dubya is doing all he can to run Amtrak into the ground and then say "See, it doesn't work." I hate that ass hole so much.
------------------------------------------------------

Doctors in London report a link between the Atkins diet and health problems.

Duh.

Rape Me!

The murder of Imette St. Guillen in New York has been getting a lot of coverage here in Boston because this is her hometown. Not unusual, especially since this is getting a lot of attention nationwide anyway. But there is one fucked up story, or angle, that they decided to run last week that is just so wrong. It was a story called Fearless In The City by a writer named Donovan Slack who seems to be an insanely sexist ass-hole. Basically, this article talks about how women in this day and age are careless about their safety and comes to the conclusion that it is the fault of the internet, cell phones and the TV show Sex And The City, because they've given women a false sense of security. And binge drinking. This stupid twit makes observations that seem to suggest that women get raped because they drink too much and are too young to remember the Central Park jogger rape and the movie Looking For Mr. Goodbar, which I haven't seen myself but I guess is about a woman getting murdered after (gasp!) drinking in a New York bar. And then he interviews emergency room doctors about how many women end up in ERs on the weekends from drinking too much. He also makes little observations of women at bars in New York doing shocking things like kissing men they met earlier that night. And all of this nonsense that he writes suggest an assumption that this is how St. Guillen was vulnerable to get kidnapped, raped and murdered, even though we don't know at all how much she had to drink or if she was, in fact, flirting with strange men.

And what the fuck if she had been? What is this, the 1950s? Didn't we stop blaming women for their rapes a long time ago? What, we've moved on from blaming them for wearing short skirts and low-cut tops (you know, dressing like they "want it") to blaming them for drinking a little bit and (god forbid) talking to men in bars? Women can't win with ass-holes with this kind of attitude. If they didn't talk to men in bars he would probably call them cold bitches. It's a lose-lose situation for women by his standards.

Not once in his story does he talk about the fact that the bouncer suspected in this crime was a felon who should not have been working in the position of the person responsible for the safety of the customers. It's against the law. So Mr. Slack, where is your story about the maggot bar owner who hired a criminal to be in charge of the safety and security of his place? It's not like this woman did a crazy dangerous thing like go to some dive bar full of crackheads for crying out loud. All she did was go for a nightcap at The Falls, a yuppie bar in SoHo.

What I can't figure out from this story is what this guy wants women to do. A woman gets raped and murdered and all young women are supposed to stay home? In what other situation would this kind of attitude be suggested? A guy gets shot in a bar and no one screams that men are being "too risky" by going to bars and drinking. Hell, car accidents kill a hell of a lot more people than rape/murders and you never see anyone write articles suggesting people should stop driving. Our government and a lot of newspaper writers told us after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Madrid train bombings and the London Underground bombing that we should go right ahead and keep flying, taking public transportation and going to work in our tall office buildings. To do otherwise, they all told us, would be letting the terrorists win. I guess Donovan Slack wants the rapists to win.

Edit (3/13/06- 3:22 PM) - A comment to this post informed me that the reporter Donovan Slack is actually a woman. This is somewhat surprising, but I still stick by all of my points and opinions about her and her article. In fact, it is even more disappointing to find out that a female could write such an anti-woman article. She should be ashamed of herself. Women like her and the Concerned Women For America group (the right-wing religious nut-ball answer to NOW) do more damage to women's rights than any male chauvinist does.

Unfriendly Fire

I gotta say, I have a lot of respect for Pat Tillman's family. They could have let everything go and supported the Army's story that their son died in a hail of gunfire while fighting off an enemy attack and saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. A lot of soldiers' families would have done just that, preferring the legacy of their fallen son/daughter as a hero going down fighting in a blaze of glory, even if it wasn't true. Like Jessica Lynch's family. No complaints from her or her parents when the military completely fabricated the story of her capture and eventual rescue. And they've made the most of that bullshit story too, selling it to Hollywood to make that crappy TV movie of complete fiction.

But not Tillman's family. They want the truth. Even if that truth is ugly and it tells them that their son died for nothing, or even worse maybe died for some reason more sinister. They haven't allowed the Bush administration to use their son as a propaganda tool. The truth is what they want, and they have pushed hard for it.

After he died, the conservative went out of their way to use him as a prop for their agenda. All the wacko-righties jumped on the bandwagon, from Coulter to Limbaugh, calling him a true American hero. What most of them weren't saying is that Tillman thought the war in Iraq was illegal, he hated Bush and was supporting Kerry for president. Tillman had joined up to fight for his country after the attacks on the World Trade Center but, like most smart people, he was against the Iraq invasion. I know, I know, I'm not usually in the habit of giving jocks credit for brains, but this guy counted among his favorite authors one Noam Chomsky. In fact, it has been said that he arranged to have a meeting with Chomsky when he returned from his tour in Afghanistan. There is speculation that he was going to come home and use his celebrity voice to speak out against Bush and the Iraqi war. We'll never know for sure.

The investigation into his death has been done only because his family pushed hard for it the whole time. They still haven't gotten the whole story. All they want is the truth.

Was Tillman killed on purpose or just an accident? I don't know. But the fact that his clothes, body armor and even his personal diary were destroyed right after his death says somebody is covering something up for some reason. Whether that reason is embarrassed soldiers covering up their fuck-up, or something more sinister is something his parents have a right to know.

I don't know anything about the Tillmans' politics or point of view about the Iraq situation or the Bush dictatorship. What I do know is that, unlike the Lynch family, they won't let their son be reduced to being a propaganda tool for Dubya's wars. I don't think they'd allow it for a President Gore or Kerry either. I don't expect it, but I hope they finally get the answers that the military has resisted giving them.

Boom Mic Mountain

I finally saw Brokeback Mountain last night, just in time to see it, more than likely, take home the best picture award at the Oscars tonight. And it was a great film. Romantic, tragic, great acting, a social message that I completely support and a gorgeous backdrop. Really some fine filmmaking and deserving of all the award nominations it has gotten. Except one.

I love Ang Lee's films. I think he is a great director, as long as you ignore Hulk. But he should not have been nominated for best director this year. Now, yes of course Brokeback was beautifully directed and filmed in general. All shots were wonderfully created and thoughtfully put together. But he should be disqualified from the award. The reason? I counted no less than three times (and I think it was four) that I saw the boom microphone in the shot. And one time it was really bad. Earlier in the movie the boom mic would quickly come in and out of the shot that I wasn't positive at first. But in the scene where Ennis walks into the Kitchen after the emotional scene he just had with Jack's coat toward the end of the movie that thing came swinging so far into the shot that I could make out the whole thing and the boom that holds it and the wire leading into the mic. It was one of the worst boom mic spottings I've seen in a movie since Sling Blade, which is the king of boom mic movies.

You just shouldn't be eligible to win an Oscar for best director with such amateur mistakes like that in your movie. It's like in sports, there's a ball player who hits .348, slugs 53 homers and has 130 RBIs. But if he also commits 60 errors on the field you don't give him the MVP award. If a bowler throws a strike it doesn't count if his toe went over the line. At the Olympics, after two false starts you're out of there. Race over, hit the showers.

I mean, come on. In these days of movie making you have "rush" shots on video right there on the set to look at what you just shot. How could he miss these? And then, even after that, with all the technology at your finger tips in this day and age it's not that hard to erase the mics from the scene. I watched the movie a total of once and I noticed them, Ang presumably saw each scene hundreds of times and missed them? Or decided it was OK or no big deal?

Sorry Ang, it is a great movie and you should be proud of yourself. But with such rookie mistakes you just don't deserve to be called the best director of the year.

I'd Like To Be A Vowell

I'm reading Sarah Vowell's book Radio On: A Listener's Diary right now, a gift from my wife for Christmas. It was her first book, published in 1996. If you haven't read it, here is the quick rundown of what it's about. For the whole year in 1995 Vowell listened to the radio all the time and kept a diary of her observations about radio. She listened to everything from NPR to right-wing talk radio to "alternative" rock stations, with stops in between on classical, religious, oldies and a host of other types of stations on the dial.

I absolutely love the book so far. Well, I absolutely love Sarah Vowell in general. I've said it before, but my best example of what a screwed up country, or world, we live in is the fact that people like Britney Spears, the Simpson sisters, Lindsay Lohan, Clay Aitken are more well known and seemingly more beloved by the general populace than Sarah Vowell. Something is wrong with a universe where more people have seen a Johnny Knoxville movie than read one of Vowell's books.

Anyway, this is already one of the greatest books in the world and I'm not even done with it yet. I'm surprised I didn't read it years ago. But in a way I'm kind of glad. This is an interesting book to read ten years later. The year that she is listening to the radio is a time period that I listened to the radio the most, and don't really listen to it much anymore. The diary begins on New Years Eve 1994 with her listening to a year-end countdown on an alternative rock station and hearing a Nirvana song (from Unplugged in New York) at number 23. This was less than a year after Cobain killed himself (or was murdered by Courtney Love if you want to believe that weird guy on Seattle public access TV) and she waxes very poetic about the loss as a prologue to her year with radio. And what follows is a great comment on Radio in America in all it's glory or lack thereof. There are many great observations about right-wing radio, which had just become a major force by this time (The diary begins right before the new Congress takes over after the "Republican Revolution" of the '94 election. You know, Newt's Contract on America?). But by far my favorite stuff has been her comments about the music of the time. She certainly carries Nirvana in high regard, for good reason I believe, and wastes no time busting on the bands she can't stand, which turn out to be a lot of the same that I hate. I know this phrase is over used, but Vowell is the best when it comes to irreverent humor. My favorite bit in the book so far is this, after a song that she has been kind of digging turns into something else:

But whatever distilled pleasure I derive from it is spoiled by a segue into the lame-ass intro I instantly recognize as the Spin Doctors' "Little Miss Can't Do Wrong," which is your basic "Grateful Dead for the nineties" crap. Every time I hear this song, I picture one of those neohippie girls I went to college with dancing to it in a circular fashion, thus fanning her patchouli oil aroma into my already polluted world. "I hope you hear this song and it pissed you off" cracks the scraggly, smiling lead singer. Congratulations, man, you succeeded.

Pure gold stuff, that. And it's not just the stuff that makes me laugh hard that I love. When she says that if the Nirvana song "Lithium" had existed when she was fifteen, with its line "I'm so ugly, that's OK 'cause so are you" she "might not have cried myself to sleep every night until college," I totally understand the feeling.

It probably helps that I'm the same age as her, less than 8 months separate us. As a liberal, white, middle-class upbringing kid of the same generation and of generally the same music taste, I'm completely tuned into her. I think my wife is concerned about my love of Ms. Vowell. The other night when she was a guest on the Daily Show, my wife turned to me right before Vowell was introduced and said "Do you think you'll be able to keep from drooling" or something like that. My wife was the one who bought me my first book by her, so she has only herself to blame. But that's not my love of Sarah Vowell anyway. I love her the same way I love Billy Bragg or Robyn Hitchcock. I don't want to be with Sarah Vowell, I want to be her.

This is why, while reading her books makes me happy, they can also make me depressed. Everything she does with her life is something I would love to do. Now, I don't think of myself as some great writer, or even a good one. But I'd like to be. Specifically, I'd like to be one like Vowell. Snappy little observations with a bit of attitude and smugness and hopefully funny. Granted, I like using profanity a lot more than she does, especially the word "fuck," and the rest of my vocabulary isn't as extensive as hers. Which is probably why I like to use "fuck" so much, it fills in the gaps of my lack of word knowledge since you can kind of put it in the place of anything. People have told me that they think I'm a good writer before. But these have all been my friends (like all four people that read this blog) and could totally be blowing smoke up my ass. That feeling may be left over from years of doing theatre and lying to friends about how much you like their show is in itself an art form. How many times have I myself been in the lobby, three minutes after the end of a friend's show and they come walking out and I say "great show," when in fact I thought it was a total piece of shit? A good friend you eventually tell, maybe several months later at a party when the show comes up in conversation, what you really thought. But you can never do that right after a performance. Maybe people are being honest with me, I just always assume the worst. The best compliment I think I ever got about my writing was that, if you know me, you can hear me saying the stuff I write just as if I were there. So that's cool. It might suck, but at least it's coming across as honest.

And I really only decided in the last year or so that I'd like to be some sort of writer, so I'm way the hell behind Sarah Vowell. Which is why reading Radio On can be depressing. See, it's a great personal story about a time period that I remember very well. And it's in diary form, so every entry I can pretty much correlate to where I was and what I was doing at the time. Like I said, Sarah is the same age as me. We even graduated high school the same year. But she graduated a semester early and started college that January. I, on the other hand, almost didn't graduate (In fact, I shouldn't have. I was a semester short on science credit that no one caught and I certainly didn't tell them) and then worked in a warehouse for a year before I went to college. When Sarah Vowell starts writing Radio On, she is just leaving San Francisco, where she has been working at an art gallery and writing for art magazines, to go to Chicago to study modern art history at the Art Institute grad program. So in 1995 she's working toward a masters degree at a top art school and in her spare time writes a book that she gets published the next year. I was making big moves myself that year. In 1995, I moved from being a pizza cook at Pagliacci's at the corner of 40th St. and Stone Way in Seattle to working as a barista at the coffee cart in front of the Safeway kitty-cornered from the pizza place.

Ten years later, Sarah Vowell has gone on to publish several more awesome books, become a regular contributor to NPR's This American Life, voice a character in an animated movie and author regular Op-Ed pieces in the New York Times. And I, well, haven't. I've directed some plays, some of which were great and I made no money and some that were crap but I made a few bucks for selling my soul to do them. Like directing the musical State Fair with a cast of 40 kids in the 7-15 age range. Not exactly like working with Ira Glass or David Sedaris.

But I have gotten married since then, which is great. But that's not so much an accomplishment as much as it's a momentary lapse in sanity from an otherwise intelligent, accomplished and attractive woman. Luckily, her success is in a completely different field than I have an interest in doing, or I would want to be her too. And that would just be sad, being jealous of your wife.

I guess this all comes down to me judging my 25-year-old life through the eyes of my 35-year-old self. Which I really shouldn't do just because of what Ms. Vowell was doing when she was 25. It's probably pretty dumb to reevaluate your life like that ten years later. I loved my life in 1995. I was in my mid-twenties, living in Seattle at the height of it's pop-culture coolness and going out all the time seeing tons of bands. I pulled espresso drinks and read books during the day and went out most nights. And there are festivals almost every weekend all summer long in Seattle. I was having tons of fun back then and honestly, even though if I had accomplished more back then my professional life might be more where I want it now, I wouldn't go back and change a thing. My mid-twenties self didn't give a crap about my thirties, and that's why it was so much fun. My mid-thirties self should just accept that and stop being pissed about it.

Still, why couldn't Sarah have been more of a slacker too? Didn't she get that memo back in the early nineties that us Gen-Xers are the "do-nothing" generation?

The GOP: Fighting Hard For Your Right To Agree With Them

Time once again for another episode of "Why I Hate Conservatives."

So a couple of groups at the University of California-Irvine, the Campus Republicans and the United American Committee (i.e. - right wing nutjobs) had a forum on Islamic extremism that included them showing the cartoons that are the center of all the riots happening around the world. This, of course, cause all kinds of controversy and protest at the so-called forum. All in the name of "free expression" according to the vice president of the College Republicans:

"We're not going against Islam whatsoever. This is about free speech and the free marketplace of ideas."

Oh goody for them! Suddenly the Republicans see themselves as the ACLU, defending the right of free speech across the land. Funny thing though, whenever they seem to stand up and defend the First Amendment it just always happens to be speech that they whole-heartily agree with. Amazing how we never see "open forums" and "free exchange of ideas" when the subject is something that Christians find insulting. When The Book Of Daniel had its short-lived run on NBC, I didn't hear conservatives screaming for the right of free expression and having open discussions about the topic. No, they wrote angry letters and threats to NBC and the sponsors to get it pulled off the air. They staged protests outside screenings of The Last Temptation Of Christ. They even protested Kevin Smith's Dogma.

Hell, they went nuts even when nobody was doing anything to wrong them. The imagined "war on Christmas" nonsense was way out there. They tried to get boycotts going against stores that said "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas", and claimed that these stores were guilty of "religious persecution" (I still start to belly-laugh over that one. As if any American Christian even has any idea what real religious persecution is.) Hell, there was a group that threatened a lawsuit against the city of Boston for calling their Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree" on the city website. Oh the horror these conservatives have suffered at the hands of the big mean video store clerk who had the nerve to wish them happy holidays. HATE CRIMES! HATE CRIMES!

Even beyond religion they don't believe in protecting free speech that is not their own. They have been fighting for years to make flag burning illegal. Every year some Republican brings up the Amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning. They even tried to shut down an art exhibit in Chicago that included a flag laying on the ground that people would walk on. Really, they actually tried to prohibit people from walking in the museum to see it. Great free speech defenders those conservatives.

And they continue to call the ACLU the biggest threat to America, even though the whole purpose of the organization is defending the Constitution. Bill O'Reilly has said that if Hitler were alive today he would be a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU.

But now they are all calling for freedom of speech like they are some great group of civil libertarians.

In this forum they had at UC-Irvine they showed more than just the anti-Muslim cartoons to show that they weren't just attacking Muslims. They also showed three cartoons that were anti-Semitic from an Iranian newspaper. Wow, what a sacrifice by a group of conservatives Christians to show some anti-Semitic cartoons. How daring. How brave. How full of shit can you get?

Funny, the night didn't seem to include example of anti-Christian sentiment. Not even the supposed anti-Christian stuff that they like to bitch about. Nowhere did I read that they had a showing of the "crucifix in a pool of urine" photograph that had them up in arms several years ago. Or a showing of The Book Of Daniel or The Last Temptation Of Christ.

Look, as I wrote before, I totally agree with the right to draw/say/do whatever you want. But I believe in that for everybody, not just the people who agree with the things I believe. It sure is easy to defend your own. But standing up for the ass-holes you can stand is a whole different story.

So I whole-heartily support the right of the jackasses at UC-Irvine to have this forum and show anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic cartoons. But at least be honest you stupid jerks. This wasn't a forum to discuss free speech. It was a forum to attack those who aren't like you.

At least when the KKK and the Nazis have gatherings they don't pretend it's about anything other than what it is: a hate rally. What happened at UC-Irvine Tuesday night was just that.

Oh Say Can You Retch?

I admit I'm somewhat of a dork about the Olympics. I love the Olympics, especially the winter version. It's so much cooler watching people ski down hills and skate really fast than run. And snowboarding has made the Winter Games kick even more ass. I was especially happy that, although the U.S. won a lot of them, it wasn't just a big beat down by the Americans on everybody else. That would have made it as boring as Olympic basketball was for several years. Well, basketball is boring and stupid anyway, but even more so when the U.S. team was beating everyone by 60 points. Everybody else in this country, besides me, seemed to love that for some reason. Kind of an American thing I think. Don't care how the game is played, just as long as we kick the fuck out of everybody. I guess that's why I think it's OK that Lindsey Jacobellis lost the gold medal in the snowboardcross by showboating at the end when she had a huge lead. You all have seen it I'm sure. The world gasped as she fell down on the last jump because she did a trick in celebration of her about to win. I was as shocked as everyone else, but the more I thought about it the more I thought it was cool. She may have ended up losing the race, but she lost because she was acting like a snowboarder. Trick moves like that are what snowboarders do. Remember, this sport is a derivative of skateboarding, the whole thing is based on showboating. Even when they lose, they seem to be having a hell of a lot more fun than the figure skaters. Those kids need to lighten the fuck up. Geez, you're at the Olympics, how about smiling every once and a while?

The thing I hate the most about Americans winning events is the playing of our national anthem. The Star Spangled Banner is, by far, the worst national anthem in the history of the world. I hate it. I just hate it. Could there be anything more depressing sounding than that tune? It sounds like a damn funeral march. Why can't they play something that sounds more uplifting? Like a song by The Cure? Seriously, we have a great song like America The Beautiful at our disposal and we choose the drudgery of the Star Spangled Banner instead.

At least they don't use the words at these things or it would be even worse. Nothing like a little bit of glorifying war to tell the world what we're really about in America. But it is the tune that is the worst. Who the hell writes a song that has about an eight octave range? Even if the lyrics weren't overly nationalistic and celebrating violence it would still be annoying to listen to because there isn't a person alive who can sing it. Freaking Pavarotti couldn't hit the all those notes.

Really, listen to every other countries' anthems. They sound so nice. Uplifting and celebratory. And such great melodies. Even the German one.

Our national anthem was the most embarrassing thing at the Olympics. Well, except for speed skater Chad Hedrick. What an ass-hole. And a horrible sport. Such a jerk to everyone if he doesn't win. And then accuses the first black man to win an individual gold medal at the Winter Olympics of not being patriotic enough when he doesn't skate in an event to help Hedrick win another medal. And doesn't shake the skater's hand when he wins that gold medal. So not just a jerk, but a racist jerk. What an embarrassment to our country. What a shocker he's from Texas.

What If I Said God Told Me To Smoke Crack?

A recent Supreme Court decision said that the government can't stop a small religious group from using a hallucinogenic tea in their rituals. Now the decision itself is no real surprise - they have made this kind of decision before in the case of Native American groups using peyote - but a couple of things about this struck me. First, it was a unanimous decision. So both the civil liberty type justices and the religion type justices could agree on something. Personally, I totally agree with this decision. I think what an adult person decides to put in their body is completely their business and nobody else's. Whether it's for religious reasons or just because you want to, I don't care.

But the thing that stands out to me the most in this decision is the fucking hypocrisy of (surprise surprise) Antonin Scalia. Now, I'm sure there are more justices guilty of this (hello Clarence Thomas), but Scalia is such a major loudmouth prick about everything that I love to point out his stupid nonsense.

Now let's look at this Supreme Court decision vs. other decisions made by them. So, if you are a religion you can use all the drugs you want, apparently. But, just last year the court decided that if a medical doctor wants to prescribe you some marijuana to ease your pain, nausea or whatever reason the doctor has for wanting you to have it, you don't have that right. Of course Scalia was in the camp of letting the government keep pot out of the hands of Grandma. So in his world view, medical reasons for using a primarily recreational drug is bad. Religious reasons, good. So it's OK for the government to come between you and your doctor, but not between you and your god.

This is a man who doesn't believe in the right to privacy or individual freedoms unless they are religious based. He wrote a scathing minority (thankfully) opinion when the court struck down the ridiculous sodomy laws still on the books in many states. Scalia hates gay people so much that he couldn't even consider that maybe the government doesn't have the right to tell consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies. But you can bet that if some religious sect in this country had a ritual that involved raping 12 year olds to make them feel closer to god, Scalia would say "Who are we to stand in the way of someone's religious belief?"

What I really want to do is start a new religion that has as one of their core beliefs that all males must have sex with each other. Just for shits and giggles, we'll demand that we are able to use public places like community centers to perform the sacred rituals. After all, the Boy Scouts are allowed to use public spaces as a religious organization even though they discriminate against gays. Scalia said so. And then of course get the case to the Supreme Court to make Scalia have to decide which is more important to him, hating gay people or loving all things religious.

I would love to hear the inside of his head when trying to decide the case. "Let's see, I really can't stand those fucking fags. But they are a god-fearing religion having butt sex, so who am I to tell them they can't, since it's for religious purposes?"

I'll bet his head would explode.

Idiot And Idioter

So I've explained how driving in Boston sucks and how walking in Boston also sucks. And when you combine the two elements, well, it makes for quite the interesting situation. In a city where cars don't even come close to following basic traffic rules, it is amazing how willing the walking public is willing to risk their lives by not following even basic common sense. Now, I've lived in a city that had hardcore jaywalking laws before (Seattle) and I certainly think that can be a little much. I mean, if you are at an intersection and have a "don't walk" sign but no cars are coming, I don't see the problem with going ahead and crossing the street. But you can get a ticket for that in Seattle. Boston is a place where this law might actually be a good idea. It's amazing to see what people will do in this town.

Now, most place where people walk against the light or in the middle of the street they are pretty smart about it. Not here man. I see people just walk across the street without even looking in the direction the traffic is coming. They might be on their cell phones, listening to their walkman, talking to a fellow walker or just looking down involved in thought. Seriously, I see people not even break stride like they are still on the sidewalk with no cars around even though they are walking across a city street. What's worse, I see people do this with their kids in tow. It is incredibly common to see people do it while pushing baby strollers in front of them. I'm not kidding about that. It is a very common sight. Even if they don't walk into traffic with the stroller, you'll still see them waiting off the curb to cross and the strollers will be sticking out into the road. I just want to kick these idiots. If you want to risk your life, cool. But you stick your baby out into Boston traffic like that?!?! I don't trust that I'm not going to get run over even if the car has the red light and these people act like they are walking in Venice (no cars) or something. And in this town not only do they not care, but I'm convinced they would rather hit you. Many times I've been crossing the street when I knew I had the room to get across before the car coming would get to me, when I've heard the driver gun the engine. It's like they think their in some crappy Sylvester Stallone death race movie.

But the cars are the worst though. There isn't a traffic law they won't break on a regular basis. A good friend of mine was visiting this weekend from Seattle and a point I was making about it happened right in front of us with just brilliant timing. We were waiting to cross the street and I was explaining to him that this isn't Seattle, so if you have the walk sign be sure to look really well before crossing because even if the light has been changed for even 5 or more seconds a car may still come blazing through. Right after I said it the light for the cross street turned red. Then there was a couple of second delay before our side turned green/walk. About two seconds after we got the walk a car went blazing through. Really, the car must have been two hundred feet before the intersection when he got a red light and he never even considered slowing down. It was absolutely perfect timing. It's good for an out of towner to see it right away so they know to watch their ass. And that's just one occasion. Almost every intersection in this town is "no turn on red" but you wouldn't know it. The number of times I've almost been hit from somebody turning against the red is staggering. I still can't believe they actually bother putting up those signs at intersections that say "yield to pedestrians when turning" because you never actually see that happen.

But the best is the crosswalks. Like California and Seattle, we have a lot of uncontrolled crosswalks with signs that say "Cars must yield to pedestrians in crosswalk. State Law." Now, in place like California, when you step into the crosswalk all of the cars see you and they stop. That's not the way it works here. If you want the cars to stop you have to physically put yourself in front of them. Really. So every time I need to cross the street at one of these I have to go right out in front of the crazy drivers.

This all makes for a very trying existence in Boston. Don't even get me started on what it's like to ride a bike in all this shit. I tried that all of about once and then put my bike in the basement about two years ago. I won't even try that again. The thing is, all of the things I've described to you about the whole Boston driving/walking thing happen right in front of cops all the time. I've seen the red lights run, the no turn on reds ignored, cars going the wrong way down a one-way, car double-parked and pedestrians in crosswalks almost run over in front of cops a bunch of times. Not once have I seen the cop do anything about it. Hell, a lot of the time they are the ones doing it.

And people wonder why I don't like to go outside anymore.

Please Disregard Aerosmith's Instructions

As I mentioned earlier, I hate cars. I hate getting around by car. I like to live places that I can get around by public transportation, walking and riding my bike. One of the very few nice things about Boston (the other being the squirrels that you can feed from your hand in Boston Common) is that it is a very walkable city. Well, it should be a very walkable city, but the people who live here go out of their way to make sure it's not.

Aerosmith had their biggest hit about, what, a hundred years ago with Walk This Way. I'm certainly not claiming to know exactly what message these deep thinkers of drug-fueled arena rock were trying to say with this little ditty, but they are from my own little personal hell-hole that other people call Boston or Beantown or (for a reason unknown to me) the HUB. So I hope that the message in their biggest hit song ever (Thank you Run-DMC) is not to walk "this way," as in the way Bostonians walk. You are just asking for trouble and a life of tense misery if you follow that advice. First of all, people in this town like to walk with the same attitude as the one they drive with.

The walking in Boston is a lot like the way they drive, which is the absolute worst in America. People cut you off without looking where they are going, the ones coming at you in your lane think they have the right of way even though they are obviously on the wrong side of the sidewalk (just so we're clear, the concept of move to the right to let people by coming from the other direction seems to work just about everywhere else in this country. It is, of course, the only time that moving to the right is a good thing). So you either end up bumping in to people or walking off the narrow sidewalk just so you can get around. If you stick to the sidewalk to get by these people they will in no way make even the slightest amount of room for you to get by. A group of people could be walking toward you, spread across the whole sidewalk, and you get over to the right and, the thinking goes in most places, that they will move slightly over to give you space to get by. But guess what? More often than not they won't even give you the break away soft shoulder. You just get plowed through like you weren't even there. This has happened to me on the Harvard Medical School campus from a medical faculty member. I got knocked into a wall because she refused to move her bag back a little as she went by me and I went full-on into the wall that I was already hugging because I saw her coming toward me and wanted to get out of the way. No "I'm sorry" or "Excuse me" or anything that even acknowledged what she had just done.

Walking in Boston is most like high school than anything else I've experienced in adulthood (except for the moron popular kid getting elected president). Everyday it feels like you are the unpopular kid in the hallway in high school that gets bumped all the time walking down the hallway and knocked up against the wall with "hard shoulders" all the time.

And it's competitive like that too. Or like the way people drive has bled over to how they walk here. People actually will cut you off a mere inch in front of you for no real reason. I've been tailgated many times by people who had plenty of room to walk around me, but they chose to walk as close to my butt as they possibly could. Twice now I've been in those situations and decided to just stop. They, of course, then bumped into me. And they give me a look like I somehow did something wrong. Seriously, do you know how close you have to be walking behind someone to not be able to stop fast enough not to run into them? It's the combination of the competitiveness of these people and their weird lack of any real comfortable personal space. I can be standing at a crosswalk by myself and one other person will walk up. Now, there will be a whole area of curb, sidewalk and road shoulder to stand. But people here seem to like to choose to stand right next to me so close that our shoulders are almost touching. They don't seem to have a clear idea of what personal space is all about. I think these are the same guys who will stand right next to you at a urinal, even though there are ten urinals and only the two of you in there, and strike up a conversation. Weirder still, that seems to be the only place in Beantown that anyone ever strikes up a conversation. Which is really the only place I'd rather not.

And for the competitive nature of the walking in Boston, try this little trick sometime you're in town. I usually walk at a pretty good clip if I'm going somewhere and I'm by myself. There seems to be walkers in Boston who are a lot like drivers in a lot of places, that is the attitude of "I have to get past this guy even though he's not going slower than me I just have to be in front" You've seen all of them on the road before, I'm sure. It's a bizarre alpha-male thing for sure, when it's just in driving. But to do this when you are walking around the city is absolutely nuts. And how I know it's not just that they want to walk faster than I am walking is that I've tested it. First off, the people who just want you to go faster are the tailgater types I've mentioned earlier. They don't want to pass you, they want the world to move at their speed and think they can force it to by riding your ass. The passers just want to be in front and it doesn't really make a difference on how fast they get there. I like to play a little game with them. As I'm chugging along down the sidewalk or pathway in the Common and one of them comes up along side me to pass me by there's something I like to do which gives me minute and minutes of fun. See, as I'm starting to get passed by one of these guys, which is happening slowly because I'm walking at a really good pace so these guys have to really kick it up to get past me anyway. But when they get alongside me in their passing mode I slowly start picking up my speed. Just a little bit at a time so it's not even really noticeable but he just can't quite make it past me. This forces them to make a decision, pick up their speed to make sure they pass me or just give up and be happy with your own pace and be content that you will be getting to where you need to go in plenty of time. They always choose the former. It is delicious fun watching them try to pass me when I'm fucking with them. They are so determined that one guy even decided to just start running and be done with it. That kind of entertainment has gotten me through some days here in shittown. I'll be laughing at the guy a good hour later.

I figure I helped him get his exercise for the day.




Next: The two worlds collide. And collide. And collide...

Baby You Can't Drive My Car - Or Anything Else For That Matter

I've had to do more driving lately than I'd like. I hate cars. Just hate them. Everything about them. The car culture in America ruined the passenger train business (which in turn forced people who'd rather not use cars, like me, to use them). They are the reason that you have about twenty feet of visibility in Los Angeles. They are the reason we have been in two wars in Iraq in the last 15 years. The reason our country has become a web of concrete freeways (fuck you very much, Ike!). But the worst part is that, really, human beings just shouldn't be trusted with piloting their own personal heavy piece of machinery. Really, there is no such thing as a really good driver. Anyone who really is good at piloting anything has a job flying planes or being a train engineer. And that's the way we should keep it.

I've had to use our car sometimes lately to get to rehearsals for a show I'm doing, due to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) total inadequacy at both planning and running a transit system. The fact that the coverage area in the suburbs is very underserved, and they make maddeningly inconvenient schedules. Where I need to go to when I take the train is one of the most heavily used stations on the line, but all trains during rush hour run local schedules. No express. No skip stop limiteds. Nothing. I don't think they've ever even heard of an express train at the MBTA. You get all of those things in a Chicago commuter rail system that covers more area and cost you less for much better service. But I digress.

So I have spent much more time among the polluters on the roads lately and it does not help my stress level at all. I know, every city has their issues with their drivers. In all the places I've lived, drivers all suck in their own special way. In Atlanta, they're just kind of stupid and meandering. They seem to realize every time they need to exit right at that moment and they find themselves needing to cross eight lanes of traffic to get to it. Of course the first problem there is that there are any roads in the world with eight lanes. But then you always end up with someone who has about an eighth of a mile to cross those lanes to get to the exit. And if you miss it? Well, just back up along the emergency lane to get back to the ramp entrance. I'm sure that won't cause any problems at all.

In Seattle, people just always seem to have other things on their mind. Kind of like they are out for a little stroll and they love changing minds about what direction they're going. There's just so much beautiful scenery to look at there that people are just too distracted by it all. And they are always making decisions really late. Sure, they use their blinkers, it's just that they remember to put them on as they are making the turn. Or you are behind them at a stop light, assuming they will be going straight, but when the light turns green they suddenly turn on their left turn signal and wait for an opening to make their turn. And you end up stuck behind them because there are too many cars going by in the other lane, that you would have been in had you known this guy was going to make a left turn.

Chicago drivers are just some of the most aggressive drivers you can ever come across. They will fight tooth and nail to get that one more car length ahead, even though it doesn't get them to where they are going any faster. And they are going to get ahead of everyone else on the freeway, dammit! Don't even get me started on Chicago cab drivers. For some reason making a right turn from the far left lane makes sense to them, even without looking to see if there is any oncoming traffic.

But Boston, by far, takes the cake in this country for people who should just not be allowed behind the wheel. They are the perfect combination of arrogance, aggressiveness, and stupidity. The saying goes in Boston that red lights are merely a suggestion. That's only funny if it weren't so completely accurate. But it's not just lights. One-Way signs, No Turn On Red signs, Do Not Enter are all routinely ignored in this town. And I'm not talking about the occasional person who accidentally turns the wrong way down a street and then realizes it and goes back. No, no, that happened everywhere. No, I'm talking a regular occurrence of purposeful defiance because it slightly inconveniences them for this street to be a one way right now. This is a constant occurrence in my neighborhood. I try to point out to people who are going the wrong way when I'm walking down the street and see them, but they give me a wave and a look that says, "I know, I know ass hole. Fuck off." Like it's my fault! And they act all pissed at me.

And the aggressiveness of the driving around here is amazing. Especially considering the street design. Well, street design is the wrong word. Imagine you took a handful of wadded up string of various lengths and threw them in the air. Well, where they landed is the basis of the Boston street system. Even if it doesn't make sense, and even if things like a road looping around and meeting itself happen, you have to keep it that way. Oh, and refuse to put up street signs anywhere, except where they are not really needed. And make them too small to make a difference anyway. And this is a city that people drive overly aggressive in. And they also seem to love sitting in the middle of intersections when the people from the other direction have the green light. Now, in most cities when this happens it is because some idiot found himself in the intersection when the light turned red before the traffic started to move. That's a big Chicago thing, to be sure. It was no surprise that all those cars got hit by a train a few months back when Chicago drivers were not leaving a gap for the tracks in the stop and go traffic. Everyone thinks it'll start moving in time for them to get through. But I digress.

Here in Boston they will get themselves in the middle of the intersection on purpose! I have, on many occasion, been at a red light and there is traffic at a stop going the other direction that has the green light. I will notice that there is a gap in the intersection like there should be so I'm not worried about being able to go when my side turns green. But when the other light turns from green to yellow, people that had been leaving a gap suddenly gun it to get right behind the car on the other side of the intersection. And not just one. A whole line of cars that will fit in the intersection will do it. And then I have a green light but nowhere to go. I just don't understand these people. It's like some sort of fuck you to me I guess. "If I'm going to be stuck in traffic than you are too, ass hole" seems to be what they are saying when they do this.

Yet somehow, with all of this aggressive/moronic city street driving tactics, these are the same people that get in the left lane on the interstate and go 45 miles/hour. And these people are trusted on many of the freeways here to be allowed to drive on the emergency lane during rush hour. There's a brilliant idea. Ugh.

Next: How pedestrians are just as bad as the drivers in Beantown.

I'd Rather Shoot A Republican Lawyer Than A Poor Defenseless Quail Too

Holy shit. I just watched the press conference on CNN of Scott McClellan taking questions about Cheney shooting a fellow hunter on Saturday morning. He is so irritating to watch. So he claimed that Dubya didn't know that his VP had shot somebody until Sunday, even though it happened Saturday afternoon. But then Andy Card later said that Georgie-boy knew Saturday night, so they can't even get their stories straight when they've had two days to prepare. And McClellan claimed that the reason the information wasn't given to the public until 23 hours later was because the VP and his staff were focused on getting medical attention for the wounded hunter. Why Scott thinks that people will buy the that answer is beyond me. After dialing 911 and getting the man to the hospital, what more is there to do? Did the VP and his staff and the Secret Service scrub-in and help with the operation? Nobody was available to make a phone call for the next 23 hours? I mean, the first shooting involving a VP in this country since Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, isn't this something we should know about? Like, sooner rather than later?

The people of this administration are doing so many illegal things that they just, as a general rule, lie about and cover up everything. I mean, you can't get a straight answer from these stupid fuckers about anything. Every press briefing goes like this:

Reporter: "Scott, what about reports that the sky is blue?"
McClellan: "I haven't seen these reports you are talking about. And we don't comment on ongoing overhead illuminations until the special prosecutor has finished his investigation as to the sky being blue."
Reporter: "So the sky is blue?"
McClellan: "That's how you would characterize it, I didn't call it blue. You called it blue."
Reporter: "But doesn't the president think the sky is blue, Scott."
McClellan: "That's a ridiculous question and I'm not going to dignify it with a response."

And on and on it goes....

Rule of thumb of this administration is "When in doubt, lie about everything."

Question I didn't hear asked by reporters that I think needs to be:

"Had the VP been drinking or was he in any way impaired by any prescription or over-the-counter medication?" After all, we are talking about a guy who has two separate arrests for driving while intoxicated.

And who the fuck thinks it's OK for a 67-year-old who's had 5 heart attacks to be carrying a gun? Do we really want a man who's likely to have a cardiac event at any moment to have his finger on the trigger of a shotgun? Holy shit, when my grandfather's health got too bad we wouldn't even let him drive anymore, much less go hunting. And he didn't even have the anger management issues or history of drinking problems that Cheney's got. I'm just sayin'....