So Brian Said

Today was funny at work because an old guy came in to tell us about his girlfriend, an Alzheimer's patient who walked out of the house after they fought on Christmast Eve. He couldn't find her, so he filed a police report and all that. After he went home from the paper, he found her lying dead behind her house. The paper will probably be linking to it in an hour or so.

Come to think of it, that probably isn't really funny. At least I didn't say it was ironic.

Anyway, am I going to be forced to watch Martin and Katie make out, or is anyone else going to the Black Keys tonight?
--McJangles 12:42 AM
|

After listening to some griping by an individual about what crappy gifts were received this year, I thought I should share the secret to having a great Christmas.

Step 1: Have a life-altering experience with Santa Claus at Denny's at 4 a.m. Revert to believing in him and realize that Christmas is in fact about giving.

Step 2: Always empty your change for the Salvation Army.

Step 3: Buy good gifts, buy them early, and try to spend beyond your means. You'll be happy you did.

Step 4: Do not rush at any point in time. Take it easy and browse slowly, especially in places you don't normally shop. You'll find all sorts of things for people who are hard to shop for.

Step 5: Someone's still being hard to shop for? Think of what annoys you about that person and find a gift that will facilitate it.

Step 6: Don't want anything. Failing that, don't deliberate about what you want. If you don't know what you want, you can't be disappointed when someone doesn't get it for you.

Step 7: Be strongly enough interested in something that people are guaranteed to be aware of your interest. If a person needs to buy you something, they can probably find you a book on the topic. And if you're strongly enough interested in subject matter, you will read the book.

For instance, I received a total of about 15 gifts this year. Almost every single one was purchased because people knew that I liked reference books, media issues and Cheez-Its. I will keep all my gifts, with one exception, which I will exchange for building blocks.

Since meeting Santa at Denny's, it's become very distressing to see the way everyone treats Christmas. Some people want and want and want, and others are so stressed out because they have to buy this and this and this for whoever and whoever else is always so hard to shop for.

I've written several endings to this post, but I just start sounding really arrogant about appreciating Christmas as a holiday and not as a nuisance. I don't want to do that, so you'll just have to feel like this post ended prematurely. Maybe I'll come up with something more eloquent later.
--McJangles 4:37 AM
|

I'm getting sick of nothing new on here. I wish there were someone to blame other than myself for that.

As you all know, Christmas, as always, was perfect. I got to spend time with my family and take lots of their money. Nobody got me an atrocious gift and I won about $100 gambling. Which is easy to say when you're up $100.

Now I'm back at work. It appears we had someone local die in Iraq. Too bad.
--McJangles 2:11 PM
|

Don't you hate it when people write things on online message boards and it's anonymous, so you can't tell them what a waste of 1s and 0s their writing is.
--McJangles 8:51 PM
|

One of the times The Tavis Smiley Show came through.

"The educational system has failed us because the United States government realized it was not in its best interest to have an educated population, black or white."

"I think that we've seen—particularly in this administration—this is an administration of the sort of the most powerful elite, and you know, if you look at the various activities they've been engaged in around the world and domestically, they don't care about anybody. I mean, yes, they don't like black people, but quietly, they really just don't like anybody. And you know, their primary motivation, which it seems to be the motivation of most people in power through history, is to keep power.

An educated person just might be smart enough to take some of your money. And if you have, you know, 300 million or so educated people, it's really hard to keep the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of less than one percent of the population.

So it does seem to me that if you can make money of prisons—cause if you have an uneducated population, you'll have a lot of people in jail—if you find a way to make a lot money off that, and you know, you've got the country and the world pretty much on a military lockdown, that there isn't a high motivation to have the American people, black or white, receive any type of decent education, because again, that person, by definition, becomes a risk to the power you're trying so desperately to hold on to."
—Aaron McGruder, Aug. 11, 2003

Four months after hearing this, the first sentence keeps ringing in my ears. I have more to say on this, but I'm going to save it for my upcoming, comprehensive anti-Bush screed.

Until then, you can read The Boondocks.
--McJangles 5:33 AM
|

A note: I asked Michael today when the last time was that I posted something that was longwinded but neither enthralling nor hilarious. I don't know when that was but the next time turned out to be now. It's not quite me talking about my feelings, just something introspective. My apologies.

I spent two hours at the airport last night. It would have been about five minutes, except that Michael didn't know the difference between left and right.

Sitting there for two hours made me think about a couple of things.

(1) Anyone who knows me—and I hope that if you're reading this, you do—knows that I'm not really the kind of person to get depressed. But I'll be damned if I can think of a place more depressing than the airport. I've picked Michael up there several times in the past month, and each time, life just seems worse and worse.

If you're at the airport, you're most likely there for something significant, right? I find myself wondering what's going on in the lives of every person I pass. Every person waiting in a car outside, every person watching for their car to pull up, every person sleeping across three chairs, every couple making out in their car in the parking lot, every person waiting with family at the baggage claim. All those people have something big going on in their life right now, and I'm not privy to any of it.

I started to think that only a person who felt truly fulfilled in life could manage to spend a lot of time in airports without catching a bad case of the suicides. I imagine that if I had everything I wanted—which really isn't that much—it wouldn't matter so much what was going on people's lives. As much as I'm not inclined to depression, I'm not so interested in having drama in my life, but seeing all these people does make me wish I had something going on in my life beyond having a job that kicks ass.

(2) You forgot there was a 2. Besides the lack of rope, the only thing that kept me from hanging myself at the airport was the constant interruption from my thoughts and my book. It went like this: "From now until the time you board your plane, do not accept any packages from persons unknown to you," etc., etc. There's another to tell you to keep your identification with you at all times, and there's one that says that all persons and packages are subject to search prior to boarding.

It seems innocuous enough, but after hearing it every five minutes or so, it starts to feel very Big Brother and to the paranoid like myself it stops saying "don't take candy from strangers," and starts saying, "Hey, the world's a dangerous place, and we've got our eyes peeled for the bad guys, but we've also got our eyes on you. We're watching you and we want you to know we're watching you. We're just doing our job, but sometimes the pretty dolphins get caught in the tuna nets, you know? Sorry kid, that's just the way life is, you just better do everything you can to make yourself scarce."

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
--McJangles 7:30 AM
|

I realized that I forgot to give you the final results of my cheesy-potato making.

Although I burned and threw away many, many corn flakes, made an atrocious mess of the kitchen and burned some butter (I didn't know that could even be done), the potatos at least looked good when I was done.

I took them in to work for a Christmas party--a side note: I really don't like these kinds of events, but a buffet at work is not such a bad idea--and thought about how embarrasing it would be if no one ate them.

I took a helping so that no one would think they were venturing into unknown territory and left the potatoes to fend for themselves. Eating them, I thought they were either to cheesy or too sour-creamy, but the first person after me to take them said the sour-creaminess was great.

Soon, everyone was eating them and it was insinuated several times that I did not make them. Sports girl said that she had thought an old lady must have made them.

I now reign supreme both over logs and cheesy potatoes. Feel free to kneel or bow.

--McJangles 8:56 PM
|

Not exactly, but it'll have to do. Remind me never to do that again.
--McJangles 9:33 PM
|

Hello?
--McJangles 9:28 PM
|

Hello?
--McJangles 8:54 PM
|

WHAT HAVE I DONE!
--McJangles 2:59 AM
|

I'm not sure I have anything to say, but I feel the need to blog to keep in shape, so:

I can't recall a year I've been less in the Christmas spirit than this year. I'm usually really into it, but it's just not happening this time.

Those who attended the camping trip at Punderson will recall that the only thing marring my triumph over The Log was my cheesy potato failure. I have made another go of it 18 months later and I seem to have come out on top.

What would we think about me returning to the Buchtelite? That would be pretty funny. And possible.
--McJangles 2:48 AM
|

It's great that Saddam has been found, but I'd really prefer if somebody would capture George Bush.
--McJangles 3:27 PM
|

Usually the Washington Post is the paper to read for real news presented in a hilarious way, but today the New York Times did it.

"PowerPoint Makes You Stupider"
--McJangles 3:58 AM
|

Regarding that last post about women in football. I didn't want to post it yet, because I didn't feel like it was well-written enough (read: at all). That means you can't hold it any poor reasoning against me.

In a very convenient twist, which also happens to be true, due to the Blogger meltdown, it's all screwed up and I think it's going to delete, so we'll see what happens. I may be able to save it. We'll see.
--McJangles 3:10 AM
|

It was so much fun to say "Jean Chrétien," but now the Canadian prime minister has retired, leaving us to say "Paul Martin." That is really boring. At least there's still Jacques Chirac.

EDIT: The following post was deleted in the Great Blogger Meltdown of December 2003.

I am really surprised that people disagree on the women-in-football thing. There are so many reasons that I don't know where to start.

As Alecia pointed out, I'm not the shining example of masculinity, though I watch quite a bit more football than she would believe. So I don't know for sure if guys are actually buying into this. I mean, there are plenty of commercials where guys get all hot over some chick who gets into a football game, and I've noticed Martin trying to train Katie into understanding the game, but does it have the same allure when it's just some bimbo on TV?

Is it sexist to not want me to come to a wedding/baby shower? Not to invite me to Girls' Night Out? No. It's just that those are things for girls, and I'm not a girl.

Further, I don't want a women interviewing Butch Davis as he runs to the locker rooms at halftime because she's never made that run to locker rooms at halftime after getting knocked on her ass by five guys weighing a total of half a ton. I wouldn't ask Michael for spelling and punctuation advice because he's incompetent. I wouldn't ask my parents for sex tips because they've never done it. You have no credibility; don't talk to me.

Further still—and maybe this is where the sexism comes in—I do still subscribe to the notion of traditional gender roles, and I do believe them to be useful. I don't think that the pursuit of masculinity or femininity should be some cumbersome as to weigh a person down, but some things just fall outside of those roles. I don't want to see a woman picking at her ass, and guys should not obsess with their hair. Not that I want to see the opposite sex do either of those things, but your gender just gives you a pass sometimes.

And this is the realm in which participating in football falls.

The most important facet of femininity is its ability counter masculinity, especially in its appreciation and desire for violence. The feminine is supposed to be more enlightened, doing what it can to disarm our destructive impulses. Instead, we have women talking about what a great hit the defensive line put on the quaterback. When somebody goes down with a broken ankle, she doesn't care. It probably doesn't even occur to her to help bandage up an injured player.

The only way to make it right is to put gigantic women on the sidelines. Gigantic women with baritone voices and giant mustaches. Women who you actually believe can appreciate the pleasure that comes from knocking someone on his ass.

This is unnatural. Guys giving guys oral is nothing compared to women calling football games. This is against God.

--McJangles 9:42 PM
|

I'm surprised that Giselle would be surprised by my advocacy of the homosexual agenda. It's not that I have a personal stake in it, though I've many times thought it would be easier to make my arguments if I just said I was gay to remove that distraction.

The fact is that it's a relatively harmless group of people who want to do something harmless but are being told they can't. They've been told they can't for thousands of years and they've been told that they never will be.

It's only natural that a person like me, who so loathes authority, would be peeing his pants in joy everytime the gays take another step forward. Also contributing is the ignorance and wrong-headedness of people who oppose gay marriage.

People who oppose gay marriage are fags.
--McJangles 5:21 PM
|

It doesn't really get much more hilarious than this.

You should do your part.

miserable failure
--McJangles 5:01 PM
|

And if I'm going to be accused of sexism, I might as well actually be guilty of it:

If, somehow, there comes to be a possibility of a Constitutional amendment to bar gays from marrying, I would oppose it. It would be, I believe, the only amendment to the Constitution to say that some people had more rights than others—a bad precedent to set.

If it became clear that the amendment was absolutely going to pass, though, I would start lobbying for an addition to it, providing that no woman may provide commentary or analysis for football games.

EDIT: It appears Section 3 of the Thirteenth Amendment bars treasonous dogs from serving in Congress, but that's their own fault. It hasn't been established that gays choose to be gay. Let's find some more exceptions.

EDIT: People who have been president twice no longer have the right to be president, while other people do.

So those are the exceptions. But barring homos from getting married really doesn't jive with those kinds of restrictions.

Here's how amendments go:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election [...] shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Now, tell me if this one seems to fit in nicely with the rest:

"DON'TCHOO LET THEM FAYGS GET MURRIED! GODDAMN QUEERS!"

It just doesn't have that Constitutional ring to it, does it?
--McJangles 1:45 AM
|

ORC 2907.02 Rape
(D) Evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity, opinion evidence of the victim's sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the victim's sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, or the victim's past sexual activity with the offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
Evidence of specific instances of the defendant's sexual activity, opinion evidence of the defendant's sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the defendant's sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, the defendant's past sexual activity with the victim, or is admissible against the defendant under section 2945.59 of the Revised Code, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
(E) Prior to taking testimony or receiving evidence of any sexual activity of the victim or the defendant in a proceeding under this section, the court shall resolve the admissibility of the proposed evidence in a hearing in chambers, which shall be held at or before preliminary hearing and not less than three days before trial, or for good cause shown during the trial.

These rules are well-intentioned, and therefore pave the road to hell.

I wasn't even aware of them until probably about a year ago, when Quinn, D'Lareg and I covered the end of the Nathaniel Lewis rape hearings. Here's the Beacon's story. I'd link to the Buchtelite story, but you know....

In a nutshell: Two UA students have sex. One says rape; one says consensual. At trial, the defense isn't allowed to present the diary of the "victim," in which she says she's "tired of being a whore," says that she just can't tell guys no, etc. It doesn't say that the rape accusation is untrue, but it's definitely suspicious. The guy is convicted and sentenced to eight years. He serves five before being let out on appeal.

I was reminded of the insanity of these laws recently in an episode of The Practice, and again today by a story that I'm going to try to write.

Several people have argued with methat the names of victims of sex crimes shouldn't be public record, and that argument always reduces to "Why should they be?" and "Well, why shouldn't they be?"

This is exactly why. Because there are psychotic women out there. Because they use charges of sexual misconduct to even petty scores. Because those psychotic women will make up sex-crimes so they can sue for $4 million dollars. Because those women will then pass on the scheme to their daughters.

A woman scorned hath all that fury, so it's not really fair that she gets the shield as well.

I'm not so ignorant that I can't see the value and purpose of such a law, but I'm also not going to dwell on concessions. The problem with these laws, as Lewis' appeal attorney was so fond of saying, was not with a law to shield victims, but with its use as "a sword against the accused."

The law is written so tightly that it doesn't allow for judicial discretion. The trial judge, by letter of the law, probably made the right decision at trial. She didn't have the option of admitting that evidence. The law says that it doesn't matter if the "victim" is a convicted prostitute who happens to have $100 with the defendant's fingerprints on it; you can't tell the jury that she's a hooker.

Had I been on the jury with all this information, I know what I would have decided. What occurs to me now and is even more distressing is the fact that even with this evidence, the jury might just as easily have convicted Lewis.

To summarize:
Psychotic men: Quit raping people.
Psychotic women: Quit being psychotic.
--McJangles 8:46 PM
|

Stop saying "a perfect storm."

Thank you.
--McJangles 3:16 AM
|

Everyone always complains about being sick. "Ohhh, I was so sick and I just had to stay in bed all day and I couldn't do anything!"

I've been sick for about a week now, and let me tell you something: Other than at work, this is great. I'm not going anywhere, I'm not doing anything, I'm just parked in the comfy chair and watching Season 2 of Alias. Aside from having to put my lungs back in after coughing them up, there has been essentially no downside to any of this.

I don't want to hear any more complaining. Pansy.
--McJangles 9:49 PM
|

Blanche is having a CD-release party on the 13. Is that doable for anyone? I can't drive, unfortunately.
--McJangles 1:37 AM
|

So I've got throat cancer.

Well, not really. But this cough is annoying anyway.
--McJangles 1:20 AM
|

Odds and ends:

There's a problem when getting to Blogger is a higher priority than getting to the bathroom.

After living here for six years, I've finally had a dream where this was my house instead of the old one.

In high school, I think I kissed Melissa Petras one time at church. A few hours later, I wasn't sure if I had or not, and I'm still not 100 percent positive what happened. Usually this sort of thing happens to people who are drunk. Again sober, I am trying to figure out if I actually said what I think I said last night.

Work has been unbearably slow. Days go by without me writing anything substantive, so I'm always terrified that the Chronicle is going to beat me on something. They don't, though, because nothing is happening.

As you may have noticed or heard, I lost far too much money in my latest gambling expedition. We wont' talk about that.

Baby, it's cold outside.

More notes on Columbus:

Just from driving and walking through on my most recent trip, I had agreed with Martin several months ago that Columbus is "a giant Applebee's," devoid of any character. But when I went again for the geek convention, I actually got to notice people, and they were painfully cookie-cutter. As I noticed at the Chinese restaurant, "Even the black people are lame."

Also about black people: It seems that people in Columbus are able to much more easily have relationships that bridge the racial gap. It is painfully apparent, though, that this is probably because they are much more assimilated into white culture. I'm not entirely sure on whether that's a good thing or bad.

I wonder if the way that Columbus sucks so bad has to do with it being the state's capital, with scads of government workers.
--McJangles 12:40 AM
|

Delete.

That felt really quite good.
--McJangles 2:18 AM
|