Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Wanting

Judging by their covers, women's magazines are obsessed with lists of what men are looking for.  I've read some of these lists (generally in waiting rooms) because I want to know what I allegedly find interesting in women.

Here's a short list that's readily available on the internet (and there are numerous others if you want to bother), with my added comments:

1.  HE WANTS A WOMAN WHO IS PLAYFUL

The point here is you can't just talk your way into a man's heart, you've got to do things, like, they suggest, play ping pong.  Maybe, but sometimes men just want to sit down and rest.  The argument is that men don't "feel it" for you because of what you say.  I don't know--talking is a good start.

2. HE WANTS A WOMAN WHO IS INDEPENDENT

There may be something to this, but it shows how these lists are affected by social change.  Would this have appeared on a list published in the 1950s?  (And, in general, are these lists about what men want, or about what women want men to want?)

3.  HE WANTS A WOMAN WHO IS EMOTIONALLY MATURE

Well, yes, if given the choice of a bawling baby, a drama queen, a screaming harpy or an emotionally mature woman, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he leans toward the last one.

4.  HE WANTS A WOMAN HE'S INTENSELY ATTRACTED TO

Are they even trying?  There are only four items on this list and they come up with this tautology?  Yes, I agree, men are attracted to women they're attracted to.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Where was Posner?

Severed head found inside bag floating in McKinley Park lagoon

Coming Of Age

A few years ago a friend who worked in show biz called me, incensed.  The IMDb had started listing his age.  He even thought I might have given them the information, though I had no idea when he was born.

The main thing he wanted to know was how he could get it removed.  I told him he could ask them to take it down, but it's doubtful they would.  Otherwise, there was nothing he could do--if the information was accurate they had a legal right to put it out there.

Until now.  Governor Brown has just signed a bill that requires the IMDb to remove people's ages from their website.  The law is supported by actors' unions who believe their members are discriminated against due to their age.

I assume the IMDb and other affected by the law will challenge it in court, and I assume they will win.  It seems pretty clear the First Amendment gives them the right to publish the truth.  An actor's age is not a state secret.  If others discriminate based on this information, the IMDb can't be held responsible.

In fact, this seems so clearly unconstitutional that I wonder why politicians--who took an oath to uphold the Constitution--are wasting our time with this nonsense.  If it's repealed, will they try something else, or will they shrug and tell their constituents "hey, we tried"?

Monday, September 26, 2016

Under Cover

Today is the first Presidential debate.  It may determine who'll be our next chief executive.  Will I be watching?  No.

For years--as far back as the 90s--I have been avoiding debates, speeches, almost any appearances of politicians.  I find it better for my digestion.  Most of the things they say are annoying, since they manage to promise everything while saying very little. (Actually, they sometimes make specific promises which end up being annoying as well.) Having to watch them speak in real time isn't worth it.

Even before the internet was everywhere, you could find out what they said in their speech/debate the next day or so.  And anything important would be reported widely.  Nowadays, you can find out everything almost immediately afterward, and that's good enough for me.  And while we're at it, if you're reasonably well-informed, you'll see they rarely say anything you didn't expect them to say.

Reading a transcript is much more enjoyable.  You can stop whenever you like.  You can speed through or skip past the most irritating parts.  And you can drill in on something if it truly makes you laugh.

I admit Trump adds a new element.  He's a compelling figure because you never know what will come out of his mouth.  But it's still not worth it.  I'll forgo the joy of seeing something unexpected to avoid all the disturbing things that will predictably be said.

So don't expect a deep analysis of tonight's debate the next day on this blog (from me, anyway).  And certainly don't expect liveblogging.  I've got over a hundred channels--there's got to be something worth watching when they talk.  Or maybe I'll just read a book.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Speaking of intromittent organs

Not fun. The Italians would tell you, it's a duty.

Picture This

It's Comic Book Day.  Yeah, I didn't know about it either, but it's here, nevertheless. (Not to be confused with Free Comic Book Day, which was in May. Sorry.)

At Pajama Guy we've debated the worth of comic books.  Are they a true art form?  A useful stepping stone to real literature?  Or just cheap enjoyment for the semi-literate? If that last characterization seems harsh, remember the scare in the 1950s when parents across the nation worried that comic books were leading to the destruction of American youth.  That's why the Comics Code Authority was imposed in 1954, and kids have been well-mannered ever since.

There have been a number of books written about the form, but let me take this day to recommend what many consider to be the classic, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, by Scott McCloud.  Published in 1993--as a comic book, of course--it shows the grammar of comics, and explains what they can do, looking into the past but also toward the future.

The book notes that comics engage us in a special way, since we the reader finish the comic, as it were, by filling in the gaps between its panels.  And McCloud himself is the narrator, appearing to us, explaining things to us, moving the story along in which he is a character.

He followed this book with Reinventing Comics in 2000 and Making Comics in 2006.  Both worth checking out, but Understanding Comics is the essential one.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

When I was younger it was every day


I'd say it's surprising we need a government program for that, but apparently nothing exists except for government programs. Hmm. Maybe George Soros would help fund ObamaF*ck.

September Singalong

Lots of birthdays today.  Let's have them sing out.

Anthony Newley



Jim Henson



Linda McCartney



Gerry Marsden

Friday, September 23, 2016

The GF experience


"Freeing up money from our general fund to invest in other academic programs would generally be viewed as a positive" says the school district about a program in which districts pay college credit expenses (usually to public universities, though not always).

It's all about how the state would pay for it, he says.

Because the state doesn't have a General Fund, or for that matter taxpayers.

Thank God for free healthcare, or I'd go insane.

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuce!

Readers of this blog may have picked up a sense that I'm only a half-hearted fan of Bruce Springsteen.  Not true. I think he's really good.  I just don't think he's the greatest, as so many others do, so it may seem like I damn him with faint praise.

But it is his birthday today, so let's celebrate all that is Bruce.










Thursday, September 22, 2016

Because alcoholic hacks who will betray you for a dollar are good partners

Doesn't the code of professional responsibility prohibit practicing with non-lawyers?

"Boehner will work frequently from both the D.C. and Cincinnati offices, but will also be traveling to the firm's other 44 offices around the world."

A Prince Among Men

Prince Buster died last week.  One of the top names in the early days of ska, let's pay tribute.






web page hit counter