In The Big Inning...

I'm watching the Oscars. I figured I'd provide a running commentary and see if it's interesting at the end.

- For the first time, I watched the Red Carpet before the Oscars. And I kinda wish I hadn't. Is there anyone more worthless on the planet than Joan Rivers? I can't imagine such a person.

- Billy Crystal really is better at this than anyone I've seen. I think part of is it his physical appearance - he pretty close to an everyman - short, balding, so people think of him as a little more down to earth, I suppose. But he's funny, somewhat self-effacing, doesn't seem TOO ego-centric, and pretty intelligent. Does he do his own writing? Even if he doesn't, the delivery is pretty solid.

- It must really suck to be a Best Short Film nominee. I mean, it's cool to be nominated for an Oscar, but pretty much everything exists to remind you that you're a second class citizen. I wonder if when you're sitting among the "Real" actors, people point and stare and wonder who you are. Halle: "Who is that? I've never seen him before." Alec: "Oh, don't mind him. He's a Best Short Film nominee. Ignore him and he'll go away." You don't get any speech time, either. And, no one has seen your films. If they're that good, maybe they should be shown before full-length films. I'd definitely like to see them - but I'm too lazy to track them down, that's for sure.

- Do you really think Nicole Kidman is that attractive? Really? More so than, say, Liv Tyler? Charlize Theron? Catherine Zeta-Jones? Naomi Watts? Jennifer Garner? No, no, no. She's kind of weird looking. She CAN look pretty (think the movie "Malice"), but I think she either look orange, or like her forehead is gigantic, or her nose is craggy. Her prettiness hype/actual attractiveness ratio is extreme, I think.

- Could you cut glass with Angelina Jolie's nipples? I think you could. Good for her.

- Right now, we're in the middle of the song presentations. Is this intended to be the time at which everyone goes to the bathroom? It seems to me that the songs nominated are usually pretty arbitrary. What criteria do they use? The ones that best enhance the movies? The best overall songs? Personally, there were some songs that fit the movie a lot better and were cooler in Kill Bill. I guess this all goes back to the Awards commentary - how do you judge a song objectively? And, clearly, to be nominated for Best Song, you have to be in a Best Picture type movie. That kinda sucks.

- Lord of the Rings is about to go 3-for-3...it damn well better. Visual Effects - Master and Commander? Please! There were two ships! That's it! Lord of the Rings had like a billion different CG things. And there we go. It won! Will it win all 11? It could.

- Along the LOTR line, if it does go all 11-for-11, or comes close, will it be considered legitimate, or that they're just recognizing the complete body of work? If I had made the movie, I'd want them all to be considered on their own merits, but I guess I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

- At the Scientific + Technical awards, Jennifer Garner was the host. Was that really the best idea? To get the hottie star of a sci-fi show to host an technical awards show? How many of them were just drooling over her? I imagine some of those speeches were cut short because they just couldn't stop staring at their hero. Trust me, I know geeks.

- Jim Carrey looks like a cancer patient. Do you think his shtick will ever wear thin? It may already have... This is why no one saw "The Majestic". That, and it probably sucked.

- Why is the show long every year? I don't think it's the speeches of the main performers - I think it's the damn speeches of the honorary Oscar recipient. Maybe I should know who Blake Edwards is, but I don't. And I don't care about his anecdotes, even if they're cute. I suppose that's your award - if you hang around long enough to win an honorary Oscar, you get to talk for as long as you damn please. Oh yeah, the songs, too. Get rid of those things. Provide a link on the Oscar homepage for people to listen to them if they want to. And maybe if they made the stage smaller, the women in their ridiculous shoes and tight dresses wouldn't take so long to walk to the podium.

- Ok, now they're 4-for-4 (Makeup). Could be a sweep! I do think they legitimately deserve everything they've won so far. You'd think that frickin' Peter Jackson would SHAVE for these stupid awards, given how many times he's going to be seen on camera. At least straighten your shirt. He looks like a hobo who can't afford a razor. Tuck in your shirt! Comb your hair! At least pick the food pieces out of it. Maybe he's just falling into the stereotypical "genius who's too smart to groom himself" category.

- Hmmm...John Travolta and Sandra Bullock are presenting together. This must be the "career is going down the tubes amazingly quickly" presenter slot.

- 5-for-5. Sound effects editing! It could happen! I'd be inclined to say that people are just voting for the front runner, except I learned a while ago that only the people that are eligible in the specific area vote for a particular category. So, clearly, the sound editing people think that LOTR has some snazzy sound editing. I'd just like to say to all you non-nerds, you really are missing a magnificent trilogy. Sometimes, it pays to be a nerd. Woohoo!!

- I love how regal Dennis Haysbert sounds, especially since his roles as President Palmer on 24 and at that black gardener guy in Far From Heaven. No one remembers his all-important role in Major League has Pedro Cerrano. ("I say, 'Fuck you, Jobu!' I do it myself!") Tell you what, I'd buy a car from him.

- Kevin and Sam are watching with me. They are the wind beneath my wings. The bubbles in my Coca-Cola. The batteries in my wireless mouse. The HD in my television. The shoelaces in my sneakers. The absence of pickles on my hamburgers. (I don't like pickles.)

- Ha ha, John Cusack! You have to present "Documentary Short Subject" ! Who did he piss off?

- Yeah, the message from the President of the Academy can go too. Put it during the commercial break or something. Jesus. He seems so nervous! Don't waste my valuable time! There are important, rich, attractive people that need to be speaking right now! Ok, well, Gregory Peck is cool, but why did the President need to say that stuff?

- Michael Kamen died. I forget about him. That's a shame. He did Metallica S+M. (Among other things, I'm sure.) And Gregory Hines! That's also a shame. He always seemed like a nice guy.

- Hey, did you know this was the 76th Academy Awards? They put it on the screen all the time. I'm sorry - I only care about multiples of 5. Please, leave me alone until at least number 80.

- Can it go 6-for-6? You betcha! Original Score. Wow!

- Ok, so I now I know why none of the LOTR cast was nominated for any of the acting awards. Because they probably wouldn't have won. And then it wouldn't have gone 100%.

- 7-for-7! Film Editing! Sweet Jesus. It's a good damn film.

- Jamie Lee Curtis needs more boob makeup. You can see her boob veins. I wonder if her boobs are falling asleep.

- Did they change conductors? Did the relief conductor come in? I'm pretty darn sure the first one was white.

- What talent do you have to have to be the vacuum cleaner guy in the group that played the song for "The Triplets of Bellville" ? Is it like being the dancer guy in the Mighty Mighty Bosstones?

- Uh-oh. LOTR is threatened for Best Song. Can it pull it off? Does it even matter? I mean, really, does Best Song have anything to do with the movie itself? It doesn't matter!! 8-for-8, baby! Uh, Annie Lennox is weird. I think Peter Jackson is drooling. Someone clean him up, please!

- Hmmm...a Canadian movie won for Best Foreign Film. Is that really foreign, eh? Hell, LOTR should be up - it's New Zealandese!

- Best Cinematography to Master and Commander? (Don't worry - LOTR wasn't up for it.) But really, it was just kind of wet. And bumpy. I didn't see any of the other movies, but I'm sure some of them were better. Heck, give it to X-Men 2. That had some nice action shots. And funky colors.

- Has Francis Ford Coppola done anything since that movie with Robin Williams as a kid who looks like a grownup? "Jack", I think was the name of it. I guess not.

- And, there you go. Best Adapted Screenplay to LOTR. 9-for-9. I think they did a pretty good job in that adaptation. I think Mystic River had a shot at an upset there, but really, LOTR deserved it more. 2 left - they're the big ones.

- Fran Walsh is wearing a dead bat on her head. Maybe she shouldn't help Peter Jackson with the grooming after all.

- For a second there, I though Sofia Coppola was going to disappear into Susan Sarandon's cleavage. It was a close call.

- Phew. I was worried Tom Cruise wasn't going to show up. I can sleep well tonight.

- Best Director.....could it be that disgusting slob Peter Jackson? He could be the Lord of All Geeks. And he is! 10-for-10. What's he gonna say? "I'm the Lord of the Rings!" He'd still be cooler than Jim Cameron.

- Samantha Morton should have no doubt that she is amazingly talented, because she certainly hasn't gotten any of these jobs based on her looks. Sorry, was that mean? But it's true. She's just weird looking, and she never styles herself to emphasize what attractiveness she does have.

- Well, no need to see "21 Grams", now. Why give away the ending while showing a clip? Argh!!

- Charlize Theron (the Great Pumpkin) thanked her lawyer. That's the first sign of the apocalypse, I think.

- Bill Murray doesn't seem to like his own work. It still would be cool to see him win, even though I haven't seen the movie. Sean Penn is good, but I'm a bit tired of him. We'll see...Penn again. Well, good for him, I suppose. He was married to Madonna once, remember.

- I think Marcia Gay Harden is going to explode. Can you be over-pregnant? I guess she's having twins, but it looks like she's going to give birth to a small car.

- Steven Spielberg's eyeballs are a little too close together. Is his nose shrinking?

- Best Picture. This is it! Will it be LOTR? I think so....bold prediction, I know. LOTR. 11-for-11. Pretty darn amazing. Well, go see it.

- Ok, I'm done. Good night, all! It's been great! See you next year.

Hugs and kisses,

Dave

Calling technical support may be one of the most frustrating experiences in the world. Now, I'm not talking about calling general customer service - when, for instance, you have a problem with your credit card, or bank account, or need to return the electronic toenail clipper you bought over the internet. The can certainly be infuriating - I have set many a telephone on fire in anger after not being able to talk to a human in customer service. Let me give you a piece of advice - stay away from the fumes created in a telephone fire. At any rate, I'm not talking about that horrendous experience of waiting for hours on hold and talking to a freakin' robot that only knows how to answer three questions. Rather, I'm talking about the experience of buying, say, a Dell computer, and having some obscure problem, so you have to call Dell tech support to fix it.

It can be frustrating waiting around to get a human on the line, but usually it just requires patience. Inevitably, they treat you like a 2-year old. "Is the computer on?" "Did you insert a ham sandwich in the CD drive?" "Are your eyes closed?" Once you get around the obvious questions, then you have to attempt to describe the problem in detail. Often, the support engineer is impatient and/or stupid. Really, it's generally quite unpleasant.

Well, tough! I completely and utterly empathize with disenchanted tech support engineers. Why? Because I am one. My company makes software. Some of it is amazingly complex software. I've been there over 3 years and I would consider myself very familiar with maybe 25% of its functionality. Now, it's not consumer level software: It's network simulation and analysis software, so it's really only intended for people who know their way around a network. ("Take a right at the router, then a left at the hub...don't get tangled up in that Gigabit Ethernet cord!") As part of our responsibilities, all software engineers are required to put in a four-hour tech support shift once a week. I can honestly say that aside from having to clean the urinals with my tongue, that's far and away the worst part of my job. And some weeks, I prefer the urinals.

One reason tech support sucks is because of the complexity of the software. The pieces I don't know, I don't care to know. Let's look at this from the other end, though: When the customer calls TS, they expect the person they talk to be an expert. But, let's be reasonable, folks. Do the Dell guys know everything about a computer? Does anyone know everything about a computer? No, of course not. They likely have a set of webpages or documentation in front of them, so they can answer commonly asked questions. Not only that but, I imagine the Dell guys are full time TS engineers. (How they keep from going utterly batshit crazy, I have no idea.) We are not. We do have a database of frequently asked questions, which are helpful for about 20% of the questions we're asked. The other 80% require more effort.

I'd say in a given four hour shift, we receive about 40-80 questions. There are usually between 3 and 8 people on a shift. That averages to about 10 questions per person, per shift. Maybe you think that's not a lot. You're wrong. Like I said, maybe 20% of these can be answered by pointing the user to the FAQs. Out of the 8 other questions, maybe 1 or 2 are so inherently obvious that it boggles my mind how someone clearly so inept would be allowed to use software that costs at least tens of thousands of dollars. What a waste. These questions aren't easy to answer, mind you. If the person doesn't know how to "double-click", or has tried to install the software on an Apple IIc, it's pretty much futile to try and reason with them. Usually I have to pretend to sympathize with these people. "Yes, sir, of course our software should be designed for people who have had lobotomies. I'll make sure to recommend that to management."

So now we're down to 6 questions. Most of these (let's say 5) are so obscure that there's exactly one person in the company who knows the answer. And no, I'm not that guy. I'm glad I'm not that guy, because I don't understand how that guy gets any work done. Sure, you can try to figure it out without him, but how much of a waste of time is that? I mean, there's a guy that knows the answer. Just ask him! Maybe, if you're clever, you can search through past answers and find an identical (Just similar won't do - it has to be identical. We use lots of acronyms. I'll provide an analogy: You look up a question that you think is similar to "Whenever I go for a ride, there's a lot of friction and bouncing around, and the person I'm riding with experiences a lot of discomfort. What do you recommend I do to fix my VW?" You find the answer is: "Well, you need to get a professional to clean out the engine and lube up the shaft before going for a ride." Turns out the question was actually "What do you recommend I do to fix my VD?") question and then provide the response. This doesn't happen a whole lot, though, so you're left to try and hunt down that one guy. And usually, he's none too happy about being bothered. Personally, I think he should have chosen a less used feature to implement - then he wouldn't have this problem. On the other hand, he does have a lot of job security.

So, there's one question left. This is the question I boycott. There are a few clients that are more like "superclients". That's too laudatory. They're more like tech support groupies. I'm convinced that whenever there's a new release of our software, they take the documentation and read it cover to cover, like a novel. Mind you, I can't imagine what type of person would use more than 25% of our product. Now, different people may use a different 25% - I'm not saying what we make is useless, but NO ONE needs to know everything about all of it. I sure as hell don't. These people have a question pretty much every day. Sometimes they're obscure, sometimes they're obvious, but it doesn't matter. Answering these people only feeds their addiction. They need a support group, not tech support. I refuse to be a part of the problem. I just leave the question there for the next sucker to answer.

The next time you call tech support for your Dell, or for your cell phone, or for your lederhosen, please be understanding. Actually, don't. What do I care? Just don't call me. Or if you do, don't expect an answer.

I don't think I could ever be a professional writer. Maybe I'm just not creative enough. I'm sitting here, trying to write a post, waiting for inspiration to strike me like a car on the interstate strikes a bug. I got nothin, folks. I have a host of minimally interesting things that I could write about. For instance, by co-worker told me a story today about how he was vacuuming his car and some soccer mom yelled at him about taking up too many parking spaces. Sounds compelling, yes? Of course, it's not like it would be any less compelling than a post about my failure to find something compelling. I rest my case.

I'm off to fly around the interstate, waiting to become plastered against the windshield of inspired writing.

Everyone reading this needs to own a TiVo. I'm not talking about "need" as in "I really need to have some ice cream now", or "I need you to not be late to this meeting", or even, "I need you to give me a heart transplant or I'll die." No, this is much more important. I am making the assumption that my readers watch television, which I think is reasonable. If you don't, well, good for you. Go back to eating your tree bark and knitting your own underwear.

I've been a proud TiVo owner for probably about three years now. I feel a little guilty that I do not know the exact date my relationship with TiVo began - in fact, I should know the date and start celebrating the anniversary. I really don't want my TiVo to feel neglected, especially not after all it's done for me.

If you've never watched TiVo, you really don't know what you're missing. Usually, I find "you don't know what you're missing" to be a stupid statement. Really, it's pretty obvious. If you're missing something, then you don't know about it. Duh. So, to be more specific, if you've never watched TiVo, then not only do you not know what you're missing, but there's a big gaping hole in your life and you need to patch it immediately!

I could enumerate the advantages of TiVo, but I fear they are far too numerous to list in any human-readable form. I'll try to just mention the highlights: Have you ever wanted to watch TV, but there was nothing on you wanted to watch? Have you ever wanted to record a program but figured it was too much effort to change the tapes every week, and even then, video tape was too expensive? Are you too stupid or lazy to program a VCR? Have you ever had a scheduling conflict - say, having to decide between going to your brother's wedding and watching the season finale of ER? And, the best yet - have you ever wanted to NOT sit through commercials? If you haven't answered yes to any of these questions, then you must be some sort of robot, which, admittedly, is kind of cool that a robot is reading my blog. But if you answered yes, then you need TiVo immediately.

I will admit that it's kind of a catch-22. While television can contribute greatly to one's life, it most likely does not actually give it meaning and worth. (That is the job of my blog.) I know this might come as a shock to some of you, but there is a thing as too much television. Of course, I firmly believe that my non-TiVo television threshold is much lower than my TiVo-television threshold. And therein lies the rub, dear friend. For TiVo will vastly improve your television-watching experience. Not only that, but it will make it more efficient, since the average hour long show has 16 minutes of commercials, you can watch it in 44 minutes. That's a greater than 25% time savings! But, because watching TiVo'ed television is such a superior experience, you may be inclined to watch more television than usual, since the quality of the experience has been vastly improved. I'm just pointing this out as a fair warning. By no means should you use this as an excuse to avoid getting one.

It's time to come out of the dark ages of television. Let me lead you into the light. The eerie glow of the television screen, enticing you with its images of lurid melodramas and lurid comedies and lurid reality shows and really lurid business news reports. Trust me - I will show you the way. The TiVo way. More lurid than ever! Now with no commercials!

I'm going to make a concerted effort to make this blog sillier. Maybe some entries with be logical, but I'd like it to be entertaining in its own right, not just thought-provoking, especially for you lazy bastards out there that don't like to think. Please let me know if I succeed. Some possible future topics:

- Dave's useful tips for removing bubblegum from your armpit hair.
- The relative merits of Christina Aguilera vs. a bag of filthy socks.
- Why are engineers so lovable?
- Men with back hair and the women who love them.
- Screw Mars! Let's go to Pluto!
- My fellow co-workers need to bathe more regularly AND more thoroughly.

I know you're waiting with baited breath. You damn well better be.

For a while now, I've been tracking the progress of the San Diego Padres pitcher Jason Szuminski? Why do I care about how this guy does? Well, because I played baseball with him in school. Right now, he's at spring training, trying to make the cut to be in the majors. By all reports, he's got a pretty great shot. Check this link out for more information.

I played with Jason for 3 years - my sophomore, junior, and senior years, he was a freshman - junior. I was surprised to find out that he had been drafted, because when I played with him, he was good, but probably wasn't even the best pitcher on the team at the time. Clearly, he turned a corner in his senior year.

One great thing about this is that he was genuinely a nice guy. I wrote a bit about the team a couple of posts ago, and suffice it to say, there were a decent number of jock assholes on the team. He was always one of the better players, but he treated me with respect. On top of that, he was friendly, and often entertaining - he was from Texas and had quite an extensive repertoire of insulting chatter he'd humorously spew at the other team from the dugout.

So, when I found out he had been drafted, I started following his progress. It seemed like an way outside shot he'd make the majors. He started in the Cubs organization, in A ball. Last year, though, he got bumped up to AAA (one step from the majors), before the season ended. He did pretty well there. Then, during the offseason, he got drafted (in the Rule 5 draft) and traded to San Diego. Teams don't trade for players they're not interested in keeping around.

It all kinda hit home when I was doing research for fantasy baseball the other day, reading through a magazine. This magazine had the 40-player spring training rosters listed for all the teams, and when I got to the Padres, Jason was listed. In a backwards sort of way, I realized that if he was being mentioned at all for fantasy baseball, then he really could be in the majors. It seems he only has one hurdle left, although it's obviously a big one - he's got to make the cut from 40 to 25 in order to make the roster. Currently, they're not projecting him to be in the opening day lineup, but things can change in a hurry. If he was lefthanded, I'm sure he'd already have a spot.

I can only imagine what a great time he must be having. The Padres are a serious team - they have players like Brian Giles and David Wells. It must be tough not to be somewhat awestruck to be in spring training with those guys.

One other important thing to mention - I'm certain he doesn't remember it, but I do: I once got a hit off of him in a scrimmage. (I didn't get very many hits.) At the time, he probably was only throwing around 80, but it was a hit nonetheless....

Anyways, Zoomer, I'm pulling for you. The next guy you face, make sure to throw 'im a chair!

When I was in college, I was on the baseball team. I've never been a jock, or one who could be mistaken for a jock, but I've always loved baseball, and played all through high school. Fortunately, my college was a Division III school, and therefore the standards were low enough that I was able to join the team. I was your typical no-hit second baseman. I was a pretty good fielder, but really couldn't hit well at all. I spent a lot of time on the bench.

I was on the team for three years, though, and I like to think that I earned the respect of my teammates through my dedication, if not through my skill. Most of the guys on the team were nice, solid, friendly guys. A few were elitist jock jerks, but that's to be expected. At any rate, I was friendly with almost all of them, and close with a small number of them. By my last year on the team, we were all decently tight.

A little backstory is necessary here. At the beginning of my senior year, I began dating a girl, who we'll just call "Guadalupe". Many of you reading this blog know the end of that relationship, but that's another story for another time, and I'll urge you to put it out of your mind for now. When I met Guadalupe, it was through a mutual friend, and we started off just as friends. At the time we met, she was engaged (although that clearly meant less to her than it would to most other people), and I had a serious girlfriend. As Guadalupe and I got to know each other, we became closer friends. As we got closer and closer (although never crossing any inappropriate lines), she became more distant from her fiance. Eventually, they broke up. After a few months, I broke up with my girlfriend as well, and then started dating Guadalupe shortly thereafter. Both breakups were in some ways related to the developing friendship between Guadalupe and I, but at the same time, there were plenty of other reasons as well.

As it turns out, Guadalupe knew quite a few guys on the baseball team. Basically, many of them were in the same fraternity, and one of Guadalupe's sorority sisters was dating one of their brothers, so Guadalupe had visited their house a couple of times. They knew she was engaged, and then knew she had broken off the engagement. When I started dating her, they started calling me the "Homewrecker", mostly as a term of endearment. There's a comment in the comments section that refers to this. I found it amusing and had no problem playing up to it. It was fun to go up to bat with the shouts of "Home-wreck-ahhh!" coming from the bench. (I went to school in Boston, hence the "-ahhh!")

And that's where the coolest thing I've ever said comes in. Maybe I've said cooler things, but none that I remember. My legions of blog fans will have to remind me if there's anything that tops this. At any rate, the ball team was traveling in a van to an away game. Somehow, the topic of my relationship with Guadalupe came up. I told them an abbreviated story of how it had started. One of the guys said, "So, she broke up with her fiance so she could start going out with you?"

Wanting to emphasize that I had still been dating someone at the time she broke up with her fiance, and that we hadn't started dating each other immediately, I said, "No, no, no. She broke up with him for the chance to go out with me."

That earned me quite a few laughs. One guy said, "That's the coolest thing you've ever said. You should not say anything ever again." (A bit of a dig, I suppose, but at the time, he sounded awestruck. Really.) Another guy used that as his senior quote in the yearbook, attributing it to "Dave 'Homewrecker' Berman". And that's the coolest thing I've ever said. So far.

Ok, I had been trying to keep off of serious/political topics for a while, but the issue has become extremely topical, so I might as well stop avoiding it. That topic is the ridiculous amount of anti-homosexuality that's in our culture today. Frankly, it's disturbing. Honestly, I believe that fifty years from today, being anti-gay will be viewed as racism is now seen. It's this simple: If you are anti-homosexual, you are ignorant.

Why is this issue important to me? Because, it's an issue of justice. I not gay, and have only a couple of gay friends, so it's not particularly personal. It's only personal in that I'm a human and find the way we act as a culture with respect to gays disgraceful.

I think it starts at the lowest levels: When a boy acts feminine, other call him "gay". Heck, even I've done it at times. Now, I'm the first to state that words, in and of themselves, don't do harm. BUT, I think this is one colloquialism that has gone too far. People use the term "gay" without even thinking of what it means or how it affect people. Frequently, kids' will use this as an insult without knowing anything else about homosexuality - they're too young to understand the try meaning of the word, and before they know what it really means or have a chance to understand it, they're conditioned to think it's bad. Parents, who themselves are often uncomfortable with discussions of sexuality, certainly aren't comfortable with discussion of homosexuality. The ignorance is perpetuated, and kids, fearing public embarrassment, have no incentive to educate themselves. Of course, with age, it just gets worse - from "gay" to "fag", from an ignorant, yet relatively innocently-intended insult, to a slur said with hatred and alienation in mind.

That's just the cultural approach. The religious approach, in my mind, is even worse. As I've stated before, I'm an atheist, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice of religion...unless it harms other people. And, I believe the religious view on homosexuality brings untold harm to not only homosexuals themselves, but to all the people that take those ignorant and bigoted views to heart. Some of them just don't question what they're taught (a grievous error), and some of may just like to perpetuate hatred because they're not comfortable with anything that's significantly difference. Nevertheless, the arguments are pretty similar and narrow, and NONE of them make sense.

One of the main arguments is that homosexuality is a choice. The whole nature vs. nurture thing. While certain people may make this decision for themselves, I believe a lot of people are just born gay. People being "conditioned" to be gay doesn't make sense to me. I don't really understand why, given another option that would make them happy, people would choose that lifestyle, knowing all of the intolerance and assumptions that would be heaped upon them in the foreseeable future. That certainly doesn't make sense. One of the main concerns about gays that the anti-gay movement has is that it's a "deviant" lifestyle, and exposing children to deviancy makes them more likely to accept it as normal and ok. Well, for one thing, this isn't true - homosexuality occurs just as often in children of gay parents as it does in children of straight parents. But it begs a couple more questions: What makes it "deviant"? And, even if it is "deviant", what makes it wrong?

The latter question is actually more relevant. By a strict definition of "deviant", without the bad connotations, yes, being gay is deviant, in that it does differ from the norm. I think many people would like to categorize homosexuality as strange sexual behavior that has just gone out of control. To these people, I imagine, their view of healthy sexual behavior is very narrow. To them, enjoying sex may even be seen as a sin, or at least, sexual variety is sinful. On a religious level, there's not much to argue about. They may quote the Bible to show how different sexual acts are wrong, but I'll say it for the first time on the blog here: Quoting the Bible is a terrible argument for ANYTHING. Arguments have to make sense within the confines of society. The Bible says a lot of things. I'm particularly familiar with one section, which was my Bar Mitzvah passage - it says that a man with a mangled penis can't be let into the "House of God". It says that if a child is insolent, he should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. Same goes for adulterous women. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that thinks that's ok nowadays. Standards have to adapt with the times. Of course, you can always change your interpretation of the Bible, but if everything's up for interpretation, then you can't take any words of the Bible as gospel. (Heh. Nice pun, eh?) I'm serious, though. Times change. The Bible was written by people. It's not the word of God. Even if you believe it was the word of God, it was written down by people, and interpreted by people who are always flawed. So arguments have to make sense in and of themselves.

What, then, is morally wrong about "deviant" behavior? It may be weird or different, but who does it hurt? The answer, any way you slice it, is no one. The one people that may get hurt by homosexual behavior, are those that then have to deal with any shame or intolerance that society brings upon them for doing those acts. But whose fault is that? The people that are just acting in the way that seems natural to them? Or the society that condemns them for being themselves. Each of us gains pleasure in a different way. Many say that as long as a behavior doesn't hurt someone else, it's ok. I'll make the rules even stronger - I think you have an obligation to accomplish all that you can with what you've been given - it's not ok to just seek pleasure and waste whatever natural gifts you have. Nevertheless, being gay, or doing whatever you like in the confines of your own bedroom, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and as long as it doesn't prevent you from fulfillment in other areas of your life, is therefore not morally reprehensible at all, but any reasonable definition of the term.

So, back to the other question I skipped over: What makes the behavior "deviant" in the first place? Sure, it's different than the majority of people, but I imagine that if you look hard enough at enough people, you wouldn't be able to find two whose sexual proclivities are identical anyways. Some prefer it once a week, some once a day, some once a month. Some prefer one position. And some prefer same-sex and some prefer opposite-sex.

But, the main argument here is that homosexuality isn't "natural". Imagine if the whole world was homosexual? We'd never be able to procreate! And procreation is a moral obligation - we need to further our species and propagate our genes. Except that this is crap as well. First of all, the concept of "natural" is suitable for an entirely new blog entry - this one's getting damn long as it is. But, let's say we go with a standard definition of natural - scientifically, nature decides what's right by determining what will effectively promote a species' longevity. Birds having wings are natural. Fish having gills are natural. But humans have long ago surpassed the evolution argument. If we only want to promote those genes that would naturally be selected, then we shouldn't figure out ways to help disabled people. Technology is wrong because it makes things easier to obtain or accomplish, thus subverting evolution. In fact, following the laws of nature, humans should never marry - men were created as so to be promiscuous, and women were created so as to form a bond with their children so the baby would have a caretaker while the father went out and fathered some more. We've made natural selection obsolete. Natural does not necessarily mean right.

So, it's with a lot of fondness that I look upon the recent actions of Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, as he ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. I think there are some legal ramifications of this, and they're surely be addresses, but I really think it's about time someone took a moral stand on this issue. Bans on gay marriage are absurd and a disgrace.

Pardon my lack of historical knowledge, but someone had to take a stand for schools to be integrated in Alabama. At the time, it may have seemed radical, but now, it seems heroic. I think this action should be seen in the same light. Maybe the courts will overturn it - as I said, I'm sure there will be legal ramifications of this action. But I think it needed to be done.

This comes shortly after the President threatened a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a women. Putting aside the federal vs. state issue on this matter, this is incredibly absurd. Proponents of the ban will say that allowing gays to marry threatens the sanctity of marriage. Did allowing blacks or women to vote threaten the sanctity of your vote? No, in fact, making an establishment more inclusive, in this case, makes it more worthwhile and valuable. This isn't economics, this is about society. Marriage has religious implications, to be sure. But it has legal ramifications as well, and if the government is going to provide benefits to straight couples, there's no rational justification why it can't provide them to gay couples. I'm willing to bet (without any evidence to back me up - please let me know if you have some) that gay couples are at least as stable, and likely more stable, environments - I'd imagine the divorce rate is lower, the abuse rate is lower, and that their children generally grow up to be healthier and more well-adjusted, on average, as compare to the average straight couple. These things are all in society's best interest.

I believe Gavin Newsom has done America a great service, by waging a little guerilla warfare against intolerance. Maybe it'll pan out, and maybe it won't, but someone needed to do something - a lot of this anti-gay rhetoric, sometimes shielded in discussions about "the sanctity of marriage", or "preserving our families", or whatever, was starting to become accepted. But it shouldn't be, and I'm glad someone with some measure of power decided to take a small stand. I hope we can all start to do the same - it's tough to confront anti-gay rhetoric, because it appears so often that I think we've become more comfortable than we should be with it. But it really does us a great disservice as a society, and it really needs to be combated. Especially kids - don't let them slip into intolerance just because it's easier or doesn't personally affect you. It's hard to predict the future, and even harder to do what's right, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Fifty years ago, people grappled with similar issues, except it was blacks instead of gays. That battle is still going on, but it's come a long way. Think about how history views the issue now. Maybe you don't agree with me now, and maybe you think I'm making too big a deal out of it, but once again, it's not about if it affects you - it's about justice. In fifty years, will you be able to explain to your grandkids your role in what could end up being one of the defining issues of our generation?

Well, just because there's an editorial that agrees with me doesn't mean I'm right. Hell, there are so many "pundits" out there that I imagine if I searched hard enough, I could find an editorial that agrees with almost anyone. Yes, even Dennis Kucinich. There's gotta be someone out there, right? Somewhere? Hello? Why do I hear crickets chirping?

Anyway, here's the link that makes almost exactly the point I made two posts about about Kerry. I should be writing for MSN. I can't imagine it takes anything like experience or credibility, right?

Ok, that's enough politics. I think I need to write more fiction. But that's so time consuming. Damn, my life is tough.

I'm what you would call a "picky" eater. I think this is somewhat of a misnomer, but still accurate. I believe that I just, generally, gain less pleasure from food than your average person. Maybe I just have very simple tastes - I like sweet things. I like meat. I like some salty things. I don't like fish, or any seafood for that matter. No eggs, no salad. I don't mind some vegetables. Basically, complicated foods seem like too much work. When someone tells me that something's an acquired taste, I believe them, but rarely do I think it's worth the effort to acquire that taste. In fact, most of the time, I see eating as a burden, not an act of enjoyment. When I get hungry, I get annoyed that my body is betraying me. I should get to do what I want to do! Don't make me eat!

Don't get me wrong - there are some foods I like very much. However, even those foods, I believe that I enjoy less than the average person enjoys their favorite foods. Also, going out to restaurants is certainly enjoyable as well, but mostly, I think, for the company and the atmosphere. (And the advantage of not having to cook - it's tough to justify working hard to make food that will only provide a moderate amount of satisfaction, especially because it's also hard to justify learning how to cook well if it's not going to benefit me that much.)

I think this may help explain a lot of behavior that my friends may find strange. It explains why, once I find something I like at a particular restaurant, I rarely will order something different - I know there's only so much "food pleasure" I can maximize. People may not believe this, but it's also the main reason I don't like alcohol - not because I care about not being drunk, but rather because I don't like any drink with alcohol in it. Beer's an acquired taste? Well, it doesn't seem worth the effort to me. And even the "fruity" drinks, which I've tried plenty of, I can always taste the alcohol, and almost never think they wouldn't be better without said alcohol. (There's a whole different component to this as well - the part that makes me not really want to try to like alcohol, which is that I find the "alcohol is cool" culture extremely stupid. That's for another blog entry, however.)

My particular food quirk has health benefits and deficits. The obvious health deficits are that I don't like a lot of healthy foods - salad probably being number one, and fish number two. On the other hand, I like a lot of things plain, and it seems to me that the devil's really in the condiments. I don't like cheese, I don't like mayo, I don't like butter. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of this country's eating habits, I imagine those three things are some of the leading killers of Americans.

I've been trying to stay away from politics in this blog, but I can't resist it completely. Let's just take a couple things as a given and not up for debate right now: I think Bush is a horrible President, and I want the Democrats to elect whatever candidate has the best chance of beating him. If you don't want to discuss politics, then just skip this entry. I'll try to keep it high-level, though.

So, a Kerry win seems inevitable, and this frustrates me a bit. A lot of people are voting for him because they think he's got the best chance to beat Bush. Why do they think this? I have no idea. Really, none. I'm not going to say that he's not likely to beat Bush, but the actual arguments for why he's the most likely to win are a bit fuzzy. The best argument seems to be that he's winning now, so we want a guy with a lot of support to go against Bush. This is silly. Basically, he won Iowa on his own merits, and then people started voting for him because he won Iowa. Maybe they like rooting for a winner, cuz it feels good. It's a tautology: I'm going to vote for Kerry because he's winning now, so clearly he has the best chance of winning in November. Why does he have the best chance of winning? BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL FRICKIN' VOTING FOR HIM! Unfortunately, that's not true. Just because he has Democratic support does not mean he's going to get swing support or steal votes from Bush. In fact, I think he's the least likely to do so.

I don't buy the argument that it's important to show a strong display of support for one guy, in order to demonstrate strength and conviction. First of all, if Bush brings that up, it's pretty easy to point to the fact that less than 50% of the public wanted him to be elected in the first place. Secondly, I think the debates between the Democratic candidates have actually been productive, forcing the media to report what the Democrats are saying, and finally giving the Bush opposition a forum.

The primaries are where you get a chance to make a decision. When the general election rolls around, the options are much more limited. Choose someone different, someone a bit riskier. I don't like Dean, but I'm almost thinking that he'd be a better choice than Kerry - he's interesting and different, maybe even a bit controversial. A ballsy choice. That's something the Democratic party is really lacking - balls. I think they're loathe to take a risk on an exciting, and possibly controversial candidate. Choosing Kerry is a "safe" bet - if the Democrats think that Bush will continue to screw things up (Iraq, Economy, well, pretty much everything), then Kerry's a good choice - I don't think he'll offend too many people, and he's a pretty bland politician, or at least seems to be acting that way. Dean, Clark, or even Edwards stand a better chance of turning off people. But, I also think they stand a better chance of turning on the voters, and motivating them to go to the polls. I don't see a whole lot of people getting "fired" up by this Senator of 19 years. If they're disgusted by politicking in Washington, then Kerry's not going to appeal to them. It's kind of like placing the ball in the Republicans' court - counting on them to keep screwing up and thus Kerry winning by default. I don't know about you, but I've seen the Republican strategists be particularly cunning, and I'm willing to bet they have a lot of cards to play against Kerry. He's too traditional of a candidate, and I fear Bush will play things just smart enough to win re-election.

In general, the point of this post is not supposed to be politics, but rather the frustration of group thinking. A month ago, Kerry was left for dead. Now, just because he's won Iowa, he's the front runner. This is not how things are supposed to work. Kerry hasn't changed in the past few months. Certainly, if Kerry already had the nomination, it would be nice to see him having such widespread support. I'm glad the Democrats realize how important it is to oust Bush - now think strategically and practically instead of jumping onto the horse that's leading the race. We're not even halfway there.

So, as I mentioned earlier, I was in Colorado this past weekend for my fraternity brother Craig's wedding. I flew into the Denver airport. On my way back home, I was going through security, as usual. I've done this silly little dance a billion times. I'd write another blog entry about it, except I fear it would be redundant. Suffice it to say that I imagine the security line would be a tad faster if people actually followed the goddamn signs and took all their metal stuff out of their pockets BEFORE getting to the front of the line. I know, that would make too much sense.

Well, this time, I guess I was a hypocrite, since I forgot to take off my watch, and so I beeped. Usually I go to extreme lengths to avoid beeping, but I guess I was distracted this time. At any rate, they redirected me into this little plexiglass cell for a bit, before releasing me and allowing the guard to pat me down. This time, I got a rookie. He was clearly a little nervous, as he spoke really quickly and with a definite lack of confidence. This made him a tad bit unintelligible, and he was forced to repeat his commands a few times. This was compounded by the fact that he was very thorough - I had to raise my hands with the palms up, as he patted my arms, and then he patted down my ankles, asking for permission first. As he wanded me, it beeped as the wand went over the metal rivet on my jeans.

This triggered phase two of the pat down, which apparently he hadn't been fully trained in, because the rookie guard then had to be given step by step instructions from his looming mentor. "Pat down his waist." "Have him turn his waistband out." "Pat down his stomach." And, finally, "Don't touch his junk."

I had to try very hard to keep from laughing. Maybe I should have said, "No, no, go right ahead." I wonder what would have happened. Anyways, next time I know - if I want to smuggle a weapon on board an airplane, I'll keep it next to my junk.

A short post upon my return from a friend's wedding in Colorado:

When I was in college, I had a subscription to Maxim. At the time, I thought it was the coolest magazine. It was clever and original, and didn't take itself too seriously. Now, about 5 years later, it feels like that old friend that's still living in the past. It's the same jokes, the same topics, the same principles, and it's just old. Yeah, sometimes it's funny, but grow up already. Ok, you like beer. We get it. You like hot women. Who doesn't? I think they write the same "15 Tips To Give Her Extreme Pleasure In Bed" every month.

I think it speaks a lot about the country that this is the best-selling magazine in America. What's even worse is to see how many magazines have copied Maxim. Men's Fitness is just like Maxim, but with more workout tips. What's scary is that magazines like GQ, Razor, and even Playboy seem sophisticated by comparison, but even those have compromised a bit. Its effects are everywhere - even Entertainment Weekly, a fantastic magazine, has copied the "clever captions" idea, and now almost every picture in the magazine has a smarmy caption. Usually they're not funny, AND, it's obvious they're just imitating Maxim. It's kind of sad, really. Try harder, people.

In keeping with one of the principles of my blog (originality, or at the very least, the lack of being trite and predictable), I usually don't like to talk about the "hot button" issue of the day. And doesn't it seem like there always is one? You could keep track of a year just by marking down the hottest issue of each day. When you looked back on it, I bet you'd find that, as a whole, we're all pretty stupid.

But, I'm going to break my principle a bit and talk about the whole "Janet Jackson's Super Boobies" issue. Something tells me that this won't be very timeless if I talk about that particular topic. I imagine we'll think of this issue in a few years just like we know think of, say, Roseanne Barr grabbing her crotch while singing the National Anthem - silly, overblown, and not worth one percent of the time spent discussing it when it occurred.

So, I certainly don't want to add fuel to that fire, or at least more than necessary. I'll try to skirt the issue a bit. I'm not quite sure what outrages people so much. (And they are outraged, let me tell you. I spent a lot of time in the car today, and it dominated the radio.) Is it that people are offended by the sight of a female breast? Is it that it occurred in front of 100 million people? Is it that the show is supposed to be "family oriented"? Is it the blatant lies of the parties involved when they claim that it was an accident? I'll tell you what annoys me the most about it - that so many people are talking about it so much and overshadowing what was an excellent football game. If you're really upset about it, don't mention it again! It's just what they want you to do!

I think I've made my point earlier about our society's ridiculous notions of what's explicit. It's just a boob. For, like three seconds it was on screen. It kind of reminds me of that scene in "Fight Club", where Tyler Durden has a job as a projectionist and splices very short clips of male genital into the films, and one kid just starts crying in the middle of a cartoon. Did that happen around the world? Of course not. Once again, if you don't make a big deal out of it, it goes away. And even if it is a big deal, what's going to happen? Are kids all of a sudden going to become promiscuous because they see a breast on TV? Of course not. Maybe this was not the most natural display of sexuality, but you don't have to look very hard to see almost naked women all around. Maybe these people should start looking into healthy ways of dealing with their boob issues.

As for the "family oriented" argument, you've got to be kidding me. Let's look at the people that were involved in the half-time show: P. Diddy, Kid Rock, Nelly, Janet, and Justin Timberlake. P. Diddy is a wanna-be gangster. Kid Rock talks about his "heroes in the methodone clinics", and how he's a pimp. Nelly states that "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes". Janet Jackson released an album called "The Velvet Rope", talking about her S+M fantasies. Justin Timberlake's biggest accomplishment is having sex with Britney Spears and then telling everyone about it. Somehow, had no boobage been shown, I doubt anyone would be complaining that this wasn't suitable family entertainment. Well, those people are oblivious idiots.

The media knows that "sex sells". The boundaries are going to keep getting pushed. You can keep getting outraged, which is counter-productive, or you can start teaching your children about the media and how it works, and how to intelligently consume media in a responsible manner. I know, maybe that's too much work. So go back to complaining and see how much it helps.

Well, that twerp Kevin mentioned a lot of what I wanted to talk about in this section, so if I'm repeating him, well, I'm sorry. I'll try to be original, but he was pretty square on the mark of what I wanted to talk about.

Basically, in Part I, I discussed why the Grammys were so lame and off the mark. In this part, I'd like to expound upon why I think the Oscars are dramatically (ha! pun!) better. However, I don't think they're perfect. In fact, I think recently, they've begun to lose a bit of their luster.

So, there are about 200 Oscar-eligible movies released per year. As opposed to the thousands of Grammy-eligible albums, one could conceivably watch every Oscar-eligible move in a year. Furthermore, one could most likely exclude about fifty percent of those movies out of hand. You might think I'm being a bit hypocritical here, since earlier I complained that there's no way that the few popular artists that are nominated for Grammys are the best out of the multitude of albums released, but I think there's a significant difference. I think there's a generally accepted idea of what types of movies should be eligible for "Best Picture", or Oscars in general. While I think there may be some flaws in having preconceived ideas about what pictures should be considered for awards, the fact that there are widely agreed upon criteria, even if they're not formal or explicit, allows for a filtering of the field.

Contrast this to the Grammys. Can you tell me what the criteria for "Best Album" should be? Right now, it seems to be related mostly to airplay and sales. That's backwards, to me. The Oscars don't generally seem to look at popularity, and that's good. The Academy, AND the population, want a distinction between their award-worthy movies, and their fun, popular movies. You may think that makes the Oscars more elitist - I think it, for the most part, given them their stature. There are plenty of other awards (MTV movie awards, People's Choice, etc.) that rely on popularity, or other less "serious" criteria. People may enjoy these awards, but they're not generally held in high esteem. If the public really cared about the "Best Fight" or the "Best Breakout Action Hero", then these awards would be more important, but, honestly, they're just novelties because there's an unspoken, but pretty explicit distinction in the American public's psyche between Oscar-worth movies, and fun movies.

Sometimes, people want to go to the movies and have fun, and they certainly should be able to. There's certainly an amount of artistry that goes into make an movie enjoyable and fun - I enjoy movies like Die Hard, Austin Powers, Swingers (just to name a few off the top of my head), as much as anyone. I think Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made. In fact, I think Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) is one of the best movie villains ever. But I don't think it should have won any Oscars. And I don't know of many people who would disagree with me. But, if Die Hard were a song, I think it would have won Best Song, because there's no artistic distinction made for the Grammys. Furthermore, because songs are more emotional experiences than movies, I don't know if there ever could be an objective "Best Song" set of criteria developed.

I do firmly believe that songs are deeply and inextricably related to the subconscious of an individual person, and this makes them experienced at a more visceral level, and thus the affinity a given person will have towards a given song is much tougher to predict. Furthermore, it means that it's very difficult to figure out what songs will (or should) gain widespread approval and acclaim. This almost implies that if you are to have musical awards, you might as well use popularity as a criterion, since at least your awards show will appeal to the most number of people. (Of course, my theory is that you really shouldn't have a musical awards show, or at the very least, don't try to pretend it's not simple pandering in order to generate more business.)

This is not to minimize the emotional experience of going to the movies. Personally, I have found myself deeply moved by movies an numerous occasions. However, I think, by and large, when I connect with a movie, I think it's more of a cerebral experience, at least initially. I understand the characters. The story seems plausible and true. The entire experience as a whole created a convincing world that draws me in. I almost think that songs that do that have just gotten "lucky" - maybe the singer appealed to my subconscious, maybe the lyrics happened to resonate with me or a particular event I remember. But I can really like a song and have no one else like it. Very rarely do I love a movie and not have at least a good number of my friends and acquaintances also hold it in high regard. Braveheart, Schindler's List, Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption - You'll find these movies on a lot of people's lists, and with good reason.

I think the language of cinema has become more universal. Maybe instead I should refer to it as the language of storytelling, because that's what it is. I think of moviemaking as a craft, whereas singing is much more of an art. Trying to label and categorize art is just asking for trouble. And while cinema can and should be artistic, I think it fundamentally needs to be about storytelling. We spend a lot of our lives engaging and perfecting storytelling, be it in casual conversation, in reading books, watching TV, recounting our days to our friends, and so we often become very skilled at it. I think the Oscars do an excellent job of identifying the stories that touch a lot of people - the ones that have universal appeal because they are told masterfully, not just because they were marketed well, or had a great release date, or were pushed by a big studio.

Once again, I've gone on for a while, but I hope I've made my point. I think I'll continue this discussion later, because I think the Oscars have created a little problem for themselves, and are in some danger of alienating a significant portion of the public.