The whole "we can't win the war on terror" thing, coming from whom it came from and all, deserves some derision, and it's receiving some.
But it's derision I can't personally share in, since it's also the very first thing B*** has said since 9/11 that's made any sense at all.
Still waiting for him to give that speech about sending troops to Sudan. Thursday's only a couple of days away....
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Even Better...
Switched from CNN to E! (they're doing a show on Hollywood's obsession with Kaballah), and heard this:
In Hollywood, there's no doubt that today's craze can be tomorrow's fad.These posts write themselves.
overheard
Watching CNN just now, and heard this gem from Carol Lin, the anchor, referring to a piece on the NY protesters:
I know it's democracy, but sometimes it's hard to take seriously!Yes.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
And in summation...
The typically dry Matthew Yglesias says:
When you have a country where internecine disputes are being resolved by having one side bring on board the assistance of a foreign intelligence service while the other side decides to enlist the support of that country's domestic counterintelligence agency to discredit its opponents, something has gone a bit wrong with the interagency process.Yes.
Pathetic vs. double-plus pathetic.
If my previous post, regarding the Republicans fighting Bruce Springsteen with Foghat, showed a desperate level of rock me-too-ism, then this:
U.S. News & World Report mistakenly reported that the band would be joining Randy Travis and Bobby Womack on a pro-Bush concert tour designed to counter the anti-Bush rock roadshow featuring Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne. "I have no idea where they got that," Foghat drummer Roger Earl tells PAGE SIX. "Foghat are not supporters of George Bush, and we're certainly not going on the road with him." In fact, Earl seemed downright smitten with the John Kerry-favoring Springsteen tour. "I'd like to see Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt for president. We'd go on tour with them in a minute!"Well, fill in the blank. At least they still have Bobby Womack.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Saturday, August 14, 2004
On becoming what I most despise.
I'm bi. I'm bi and I'm out. People look at me like I'm crazy. People I don't know give me derisive looks; my friends are sympathetic but more than a little sad. Although the people I'm closest to seem to understand my life choice, and even covet the advice I can give them having lived on both sides, I've also had people laugh in my face when I tell them. But I don't care. I've been bi since the mid-80s, and I'm tired of hiding it.
I use both Macs and PCs.
There, I said it.
You'd think this wouldn't be a big deal. I mean, if you were an alien from a far off galaxy (and were oblivious to industrial design), you'd look at the two types of computers and proclaim (I'm translating here): "eh, what's the diff?" But to Earthlings, apparently, there's a huge diff. The rivalry between Mac people and PC people is like that between Yankee fans and Red Sox fans...wait. That's actually the wrong simile. The rivalry is like that between San Franciscans and Los Angelenos: Mac devotees (San Franciscans) furiously despise PCs (Angelenos), while PC people really don't give a shit one way or the other about Macs.
In Los Angeles, the Mac maniacs rule. If you think anti-Bush partisanship is bad, try walking into a meeting in Hollywood with a PC laptop. "Microsoft is the devil." "Bill Gates wants to control your brain." I try to explain that I'm comfortable with both Macs and PCs. "System 9 Mac software lacked the pre-emptive multitasking and memory management of Windows," I'd explain. "But ever since OS X came out, I've been waiting for a stable version so I can try it out." Blank looks from the Mac partisans. "Bill Gates wants to eat your children and bathe in their blood," they'll eventually sputter.
Okay, so Macs are the computers for the rest of them. I shouldn't get all tech-y with people who want a computer that just works. After all, Mac partisans pre-OS X had no idea what they were missing out on. So, after the sputtering, I'll switch tactics to one that should sway every non-Commie American: cost. "Yeah, the other thing about Macs is that they're so expensive, and you can't upgrade them like you can a PC. I mean, I'd probably buy a Mac laptop, but I can totally upgrade my PC desktop a piece at a time as technology improves."
This line of reasoning has produced so many befuddled stares that I've been able to come to only one conclusion: a lot of Mac owners are Commies.
Recently I put my money where my mouth is and bought a Mac laptop. I did it a little bit so that I'd have familiarity with OS X (I work with a lot of Macs in my line of business), somewhat more so I could have Final Cut Pro at my fingertips (again, Final Cut Pro is getting a lot of buzz in my line of work), but mostly I did it so the fucking Mac partisans would shut the fuck up about my fucking computer.
(I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better.)
It worked, too. When I go into meetings now, people are all, "hey, nice laptop." Or, "is that the titanium or the aluminum?" Or, "wanna go out sometime?" My laptop has had the same effect on my image in the Hollywood film community as a good suit might have in the banking community. I walk tall now (well, mostly that's because my Mac weighs about 4 pounds less than my old Dell does, but pride must enter into it somewhere).
When I have my Mac with me and I proclaim I'm bi, everyone assumes I mostly hit for the right team, only occasionally, begrudgingly and drunkenly straying to the dark side.
They're wrong, of course. My primary computer remains a Windows XP desktop. My desktop has 2GB RAM and about 1TB of disk storage on it, so it's hard to give up.
But a funny thing is happening. I'm finding myself more and more attracted to getting rid of all my XP machines and switching over to Macs.
I'm not considering this because I think "Macs rule, PCs drool" or anything like that. The things that make an all-Mac household attractive to me are the same things that have me using as much Microsoft software as I can: each company is designing a holistic approach to solve various problems, and while each claims its approach works with outside hardware/software vendors, it only really, truly and properly works with its own products.
Here's where I'm headed with this: in the PC world, the problem Microsoft has most recently tried to solve is the Internet. If you use XP with Internet Explorer and, say Outlook, you get a very rich internet experience. If you have an "always on" connection, the internet becomes a fluid extension of your desktop. Fully integrating the internet into the OS makes me happy. It works the way I think.
Apple is doing something similar. They're offering pieces that, when combined, can integrate, index and control all of your digital media (music, photos and movies). For instance, I'm having an outdoor BBQ next weekend. I'm going to be able to hook a little box up in my backyard that will allow me to play the music residing on my computer on my outdoor boom box. But the kicker? I'll be able to control the music (volume, songs, etc.) using my cell phone. Geeky, yes, but useful. And there's nothing in the PC world that can, right now, offer the tight integration that can be achieved by a single hardware and software manufacturer.
So basically, I've decided rationally that buying Macs for the house is probably a better bet than buying PCs. And yet...I'm worried about making the switch. I'm worried that I'll end up buying into a more expensive set of components, just so I can streamline my music and (eventually) video watching at home. I'm a little worried that Apple, with its ever-shrinking market share, might not be around for the long term (even though it's sitting on a mountain of cash). But mostly, I think, I'm worried that before long, the mutant brain wave machine that surely lives inside each Macintosh will activate and turn me into a Mac-loving zombie.
It's going to be a fine line to walk, but it might just be worth walking.
I use both Macs and PCs.
There, I said it.
You'd think this wouldn't be a big deal. I mean, if you were an alien from a far off galaxy (and were oblivious to industrial design), you'd look at the two types of computers and proclaim (I'm translating here): "eh, what's the diff?" But to Earthlings, apparently, there's a huge diff. The rivalry between Mac people and PC people is like that between Yankee fans and Red Sox fans...wait. That's actually the wrong simile. The rivalry is like that between San Franciscans and Los Angelenos: Mac devotees (San Franciscans) furiously despise PCs (Angelenos), while PC people really don't give a shit one way or the other about Macs.
In Los Angeles, the Mac maniacs rule. If you think anti-Bush partisanship is bad, try walking into a meeting in Hollywood with a PC laptop. "Microsoft is the devil." "Bill Gates wants to control your brain." I try to explain that I'm comfortable with both Macs and PCs. "System 9 Mac software lacked the pre-emptive multitasking and memory management of Windows," I'd explain. "But ever since OS X came out, I've been waiting for a stable version so I can try it out." Blank looks from the Mac partisans. "Bill Gates wants to eat your children and bathe in their blood," they'll eventually sputter.
Okay, so Macs are the computers for the rest of them. I shouldn't get all tech-y with people who want a computer that just works. After all, Mac partisans pre-OS X had no idea what they were missing out on. So, after the sputtering, I'll switch tactics to one that should sway every non-Commie American: cost. "Yeah, the other thing about Macs is that they're so expensive, and you can't upgrade them like you can a PC. I mean, I'd probably buy a Mac laptop, but I can totally upgrade my PC desktop a piece at a time as technology improves."
This line of reasoning has produced so many befuddled stares that I've been able to come to only one conclusion: a lot of Mac owners are Commies.
Recently I put my money where my mouth is and bought a Mac laptop. I did it a little bit so that I'd have familiarity with OS X (I work with a lot of Macs in my line of business), somewhat more so I could have Final Cut Pro at my fingertips (again, Final Cut Pro is getting a lot of buzz in my line of work), but mostly I did it so the fucking Mac partisans would shut the fuck up about my fucking computer.
(I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better.)
It worked, too. When I go into meetings now, people are all, "hey, nice laptop." Or, "is that the titanium or the aluminum?" Or, "wanna go out sometime?" My laptop has had the same effect on my image in the Hollywood film community as a good suit might have in the banking community. I walk tall now (well, mostly that's because my Mac weighs about 4 pounds less than my old Dell does, but pride must enter into it somewhere).
When I have my Mac with me and I proclaim I'm bi, everyone assumes I mostly hit for the right team, only occasionally, begrudgingly and drunkenly straying to the dark side.
They're wrong, of course. My primary computer remains a Windows XP desktop. My desktop has 2GB RAM and about 1TB of disk storage on it, so it's hard to give up.
But a funny thing is happening. I'm finding myself more and more attracted to getting rid of all my XP machines and switching over to Macs.
I'm not considering this because I think "Macs rule, PCs drool" or anything like that. The things that make an all-Mac household attractive to me are the same things that have me using as much Microsoft software as I can: each company is designing a holistic approach to solve various problems, and while each claims its approach works with outside hardware/software vendors, it only really, truly and properly works with its own products.
Here's where I'm headed with this: in the PC world, the problem Microsoft has most recently tried to solve is the Internet. If you use XP with Internet Explorer and, say Outlook, you get a very rich internet experience. If you have an "always on" connection, the internet becomes a fluid extension of your desktop. Fully integrating the internet into the OS makes me happy. It works the way I think.
Apple is doing something similar. They're offering pieces that, when combined, can integrate, index and control all of your digital media (music, photos and movies). For instance, I'm having an outdoor BBQ next weekend. I'm going to be able to hook a little box up in my backyard that will allow me to play the music residing on my computer on my outdoor boom box. But the kicker? I'll be able to control the music (volume, songs, etc.) using my cell phone. Geeky, yes, but useful. And there's nothing in the PC world that can, right now, offer the tight integration that can be achieved by a single hardware and software manufacturer.
So basically, I've decided rationally that buying Macs for the house is probably a better bet than buying PCs. And yet...I'm worried about making the switch. I'm worried that I'll end up buying into a more expensive set of components, just so I can streamline my music and (eventually) video watching at home. I'm a little worried that Apple, with its ever-shrinking market share, might not be around for the long term (even though it's sitting on a mountain of cash). But mostly, I think, I'm worried that before long, the mutant brain wave machine that surely lives inside each Macintosh will activate and turn me into a Mac-loving zombie.
It's going to be a fine line to walk, but it might just be worth walking.
Los Angeles Insight
I'm taking the folks at lablogs.com up on their weekly quiz:
1. Where is the last place you ate out?
El Guapo Mexican food, on Melrose just west of Formosa. The food was so-so, the Olympics were screeching too loudly from every TV (wtf with the DNA strands? I thought I was watching a remake of Logan's Run), but the company and the margaritas were good. Parking, not so much.
2. How often do you eat out?
I won't count lunchtime trips to Subway. Probably 2-3 times a week.
3. Where is the place you eat most?
Zankou Chicken.
4. Where do you tell your friends that they "have to try"?
Sushi Hama on 2nd Street in Little Tokyo.
5. What dish do they have to order when they get there?
As silly as it sounds, I tell people to try the salmon. I think salmon is a great way to tell a good sushi place from a bad one, since it's hard to make raw salmon actually taste good. When in season, I also insist they try the TWO kinds of toro.
6. Where do you eat when money is not a concern?
Tam O'Shanter
7. Where do you eat when money is tight?
Zankou Chicken (money must be tight a LOT, since that's also my answer to #3).
8. What restaurant have you wanted to try but haven't been to yet?
Langer's Deli
1. Where is the last place you ate out?
El Guapo Mexican food, on Melrose just west of Formosa. The food was so-so, the Olympics were screeching too loudly from every TV (wtf with the DNA strands? I thought I was watching a remake of Logan's Run), but the company and the margaritas were good. Parking, not so much.
2. How often do you eat out?
I won't count lunchtime trips to Subway. Probably 2-3 times a week.
3. Where is the place you eat most?
Zankou Chicken.
4. Where do you tell your friends that they "have to try"?
Sushi Hama on 2nd Street in Little Tokyo.
5. What dish do they have to order when they get there?
As silly as it sounds, I tell people to try the salmon. I think salmon is a great way to tell a good sushi place from a bad one, since it's hard to make raw salmon actually taste good. When in season, I also insist they try the TWO kinds of toro.
6. Where do you eat when money is not a concern?
Tam O'Shanter
7. Where do you eat when money is tight?
Zankou Chicken (money must be tight a LOT, since that's also my answer to #3).
8. What restaurant have you wanted to try but haven't been to yet?
Langer's Deli
Thursday, August 12, 2004
If George Bush...
...gave a speech tomorrow (or...um...at the Republican National Convention?), taking the lead in bringing food and santiation to the Sudan, and really televised the shit out of it, he'd probably win this election. And it would have the bonus of being the right thing to do, which would have the further bonus of being probably the first real anti-terrorist act George Bush will have initiated.
Unfortunately, we have no troops, and probably no supply-moving aircraft, because of that other country we're in right now.
But, spitballing, what if George Bush gets up and takes the lead in bringing food and sanitation to the Sudan, and then announces that he's diverting civil aircraft and working with private industry in order to take the lead?
Shit. I'd consider voting for him if he did that.
Anyone want to make book on the chances?
Unfortunately, we have no troops, and probably no supply-moving aircraft, because of that other country we're in right now.
But, spitballing, what if George Bush gets up and takes the lead in bringing food and sanitation to the Sudan, and then announces that he's diverting civil aircraft and working with private industry in order to take the lead?
Shit. I'd consider voting for him if he did that.
Anyone want to make book on the chances?
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)