A somewhat more modest festival is planned for this evening. If you know where I live, odds are you're welcome.
]]>Some time ago, I turned 30. (March, 2000.)
What follows is something like a photographic record. These shots were taken by my brother, who was apparently flummoxed slightly by his new camera; they're a bit hot in places. Additionally, the photolab transfer to lo-res .jpg files didn't do them any favors. Even so, however, here they are.
They are in no particular order. Though it should be rather clear which are early and which are drunker (er, later) in in the evening.
Yeah, now I'm even older, but in reformatting these pages for use on the new server, it occurs to me that a monstrous number of these pictures are, well, waaaay out of date. Certain people have gently pointed out that, well, their sister is my girlfriend now, and she even lives with me and stuff, and why is that other girl in my 30th birthday pictures?
The answer, gentle reader, is that Erin wasn't even AT my 30th birthday party. So there. I mean, there was an Erin, but not THE Erin.
Also, I intend to keep these pictures up long enough for them to be embarrassing to certain children whose parents are shown here (when you're old enough to read the Internet, kids, give Uncle Chet a call and he'll tell you stories about your parents; Eva, Matilde, and Hadley, I'm talking to YOU).
Now I'm even older than I was when I commented in 2003, but I'm not sure I'll cop to wiser. Anyway, these pix have been forgotten for years, but looking at 'em now made me smile enough that I wanted to put them back online. But the bit about your kids calling me for an explanation in a few years? That's still TOTALLY on, except now we have to add Gwen, Carl, and Layla to the list.
I'm a lucky, lucky boy. Cheers, friends.
]]>A somewhat more modest festival is planned for this evening. If you know where I live, odds are you're welcome.
]]>The next show, Wallace Shawn's "Our Late Night," opens on March 19 (special opening night performance, $50) and continues Wednesdays through Saturdays through April 3. All tickets after March 19 are pay-what-you-can.
The Catastrophic Gala is April 24, with special guest Jim Parsons. See you there.
]]>WASHINGTON—Unable to rest their eyes on a colorful photograph or boldface heading that could be easily skimmed and forgotten about, Americans collectively recoiled Monday when confronted with a solid block of uninterrupted text.
Dumbfounded citizens from Maine to California gazed helplessly at the frightening chunk of print, unsure of what to do next. Without an illustration, chart, or embedded YouTube video to ease them in, millions were frozen in place, terrified by the sight of one long, unbroken string of English words.
"Why won't it just tell me what it's about?" said Boston resident Charlyne Thomson, who was bombarded with the overwhelming mass of black text late Monday afternoon. "There are no bullet points, no highlighted parts. I've looked everywhere—there's nothing here but words."
Go read all of it.
]]>Yeah, it's like that. A bit more context, in case you need it.
]]>You a big fan of aggressive IP enforcement? Like to think a well-litigated market is a healthy market? Hate those little entrepreneurial nuisances like “competition from emerging media?”
Well, then, you would have loved the early 20th century.
Because you had to get Thomas Edison’s permission to make any movie. Then you had to pay him.
Read the whole thing.
]]>Sigh.
]]>
Two: Ahem.
]]>One called me to complain about “promoting a faggot lifestyle.” Another complained about the photo in an e-mail to the two Post reporters who wrote Thursday’s story about the licenses: “That kind of stuff makes normal people want to throw up. People have kids who are being exposed to this crap. I will be glad when your rag goes out of business. Real men marry women.”
Your kids are not to blame for your politics. Your kids are not to blame for your decisions. Your kids are not to blame for any way in which you choose to live your life. Your kids are your kids, and they're people, and I know this is me saying this, childless whore, etc. And I'm not saying having children can't inform your worldview. I'm saying own your worldview as YOURS, instead of hiding behind your children's blankies and pretending you can't help yourself.
Jesus H. Gentle Cycle Christ, I hate this. Like, how are we to suppose this works, that you used to be a fair and decent person but then you had a kid and decided, "You know, white sheets look fucking good on me now!" You had a kid and then went, "Hmm, suddenly ladies kissing each other is just not on!" Bullshit. You always felt this way, and now you can justify it with somebody who is more into playing with blocks or reading comic books than realizing his parents are total assholes.
Problem is, he won't always be too into his own stuff to notice yours. So won't it be fun for junior to read someday that you used to be a good person and now you suck, and he was the line between before and after? And not only do you suck, but you're such a stupendous pussy that you can't even give yourself credit for the decision to suck, you've got to shove it off on him? Isn't that charming? Do these people listen to themselves?
You wanna be a bigot? You wanna hate gay people? You wanna wax redneck in the pages of the Post about faggot lifestyles and shoving things down people's throats? YOU DO THAT THEN. You just go do it. You go and do that all on your own, slick. You go and do that because YOU want to do it, you stupid motherfucker. You go and do that because you've taken a good long hard look in the mirror and decided that writing pissy letters to the paper about how you don't like reality anymore is the best way to spend your time. You do that because being a bigot is what you want to be.
Leave your children out of it.
(Via TBogg.)
]]>One reason for the current non-debate over health care reform is that the Republicans and Democrats are playing different games. Democrats, and President Barack Obama especially, are playing Jeopardy. Republicans are playing Family Feud.
On Jeopardy, facts matter. On Family Feud, all you need to know is what 100 morons might've told some pollster.
More:
]]>At the recent health care reform "summit," Republican leaders made it clear that they're not interested in playing Jeopardy. That would be a losing proposition against President Ken Jennings. Obama was eager to show that he really does have the right answers -- cost containment, near-universal coverage, lower premiums, better quality care, deficit reduction. All of that is well covered in the plan he's pushing and any attempt to challenge him on the facts would be doomed.
So the GOP has decided to play a different game -- to switch from Jeopardy to Family Feud. That way it's not about the facts, or about what works, or about the actual effect of actual policies on actual people. In the subjective guessing-game of Family Feud, none of that matters. Family Feud is all about perceptions -- about what those hundred people surveyed think or guess or dimly remember having heard something about.
And the Republican Party -- with tons of financial support from their allies in the health insurance lobby -- have been working very hard for many years now to make sure that those hundred people surveyed have a distorted, confused and mostly ass-backwards perception of the facts.
This is how you play Family Feud politics:
Step One: Redefine the facts. If a policy works, claim it doesn't. If it will lower premiums, say it will raise them. If it would reduce the deficit, claim it will bankrupt the country. Obfuscate. Distract. Confuse. Lie. Lie some more. Throw random nonsense at the wall -- death panels! -- and see if any of it sticks. Don't be troubled by contradiction or worried about consistency. It's perfectly fine to simultaneously propose eliminating Medicare while posing as its defender. That's absurd and confusing, but confusion is the whole point here. Confusion is good. If those hundred people surveyed aren't completely confused, then you haven't succeeded in rigging the game.
Step Two: Poll, poll and poll. Hire Frank Luntz. Poll some more. This is all you can afford care about. Family Feud politics isn't about ideology, principle, values, good government, effectiveness, solutions, reality, facts, science or truth. It's about perception and the shaping of that perception by any means necessary. Obsessively polling and recalibrating the message and then re-polling is the only way to be sure that you're shaping perception in a winning way. Keep this up until the polls show that the confusion and disinformation sown in Step One have taken root among the hundred people surveyed.
Step Three: Cite the polling data. Call it that: polling data. The word "data" there makes it sound kind of like you give a damn about facts or reality or truth-telling. You don't -- you mustn't if you intend to win this game -- but you need to sound like you do. Argue that the polling data proves that the right answer is unpopular and therefore wrong. Argue that the facts are contrary to the will of the people. Argue that it would be undemocratic, tyrannical even, to insist on the right answer when the majority clearly disagrees. If you do this properly, you can congratulate yourself for being a champion of the very people you're screwing over and even get some of them to thank you for robbing them blind.
(Really, now, isn't Central Asia the logical homeland for all heathen?)
]]>