Last night I watched "Adventures in Babysitting" at a party. I didn't see it when it originally came out, but I might as well have, because it contained just about everything I learned from TV and movies in the '80s. To wit:
1. Punching someone in the face is a perfect solution to any problem. When someone says something really terrible about a woman, you're supposed to punch him in the face. Or if he's threatening someone, and there seems to no way out -- one punch and problem solved! The great thing about punches to the face is that the guy immediately falls into deep unconsciousness. And you know that, given a reasonable amount of time, he'll get up again, no permanent damage done, and will never bother you or say such terrible things again. He knows he has been defeated.
I actually tried this once. In eighth grade I had a friend named Nathan whom I couldn't stand. I was a passive and overly polite kid, so I tended to attract the kind of people who got on everyone else's nerves. They got on mine too, of course, but I was too nice/timid to tell them to go away.
So Nathan was always annoying me, and I secretly resolved to punch him in the face next time he did. Sure enough, the next day, he was being a jerk, and I punched. But it was a light, ineffectual little punch that just glanced off his chin and didn't hurt him at all. He was more like "Uh, what was that?" I tried to pass it off as a little joke. He seemed to accept that.
2. Cities are horrific, lawless wastelands filled with gangs, hookers, homeless schizophrenics, and gangs of homeless hooker schizophrenics. Suburbs are the the place for normal, safe life, in which you biggest worry is acne. As soon as you cross the border into a city, you will immediately be attacked by screaming lunatics and street gangs that, by the way, happen to be very multicultural. That was another interesting part about the '80s: Each street gang had a good mix of white people, Latinos and black folk. I understand that it was due to the hiring quotas mandated by the affirmative action laws of the time.
3. Black people are always scary at first, but usually turn out to be super cool. If you're going to have a character who is just some guy, you'd make him white, of course! If you're going to make him black, he needs to start out with some level of menace to him. That menace is usually contradicted by him doing something awesome to help you out.
Granted, in "Adventures in Babysitting," there is one black guy chasing our heroes around the hellscape of Chicago who's pretty mean. But even he's really more of a middle-management guy, taking orders from the truly evil person, a white dude.
Every other black person scares our heroes at first, but later becomes awesome. One is a car thief that inadvertedly gets our heroes in trouble. But he always wants to help, and in the end he gets the chance by (spoiler alert) punching the evil white dude in the face.
The other prominent black guy is a blues musician -- our heroes wander onto his stage and are frightened of him and the crowd (all black people). But the bluesman says "you don't leave here until you play the blues," and of course they do so. And the crowd quickly turns from hard-eyed disdain to launching an overwhelming ovation. That's a great thing about performing in the '80s -- all you have to do is be on a stage and try really hard and the crowd will explode with joy. It doesn't matter if you're white as all hell and can't sing (this was the founding principle of The House of Blues, by the way).
4. When you raise your voice in a fancy place, every other patron immediately stops talking and all music stops on a dime. At one point, our heroes barge into a fancy French restaurant to confront Elizabeth Shue's two-timing boyfriend. As soon as things get heated, everyone else in the restaurant suddenly stops talking and stares at them like toddlers watching Elmo. And the violinist in the corner had to cut himself short at the exact same time, so as to not drown out the show. It's really out of consideration -- fancy people LOVE gawping at confrontations. Of course, no restaurant employee intervenes -- hey buddy, down in front! We're trying to watch two kids fighting here! Anyway, the scene ends with (spoiler alert) actually not a punch in the face, but a kick in the butt that pushes the mean guy onto a table. Problem solved. Next scene.
5. Quicksand is everywhere. OK, this wasn't in "Adventures in Babysitting." But it is a very prominent lesson I learned by watching TV in the '80s. I don't know if it was mainly old reruns or what, but somewhere I got the impression that falling into quicksand is a very common occurrence, and it's a good idea to lay out a contingency plan now. I know that after you fall in you have to stay still -- the more that you move, the faster you will sink. You have to hope you can grab onto someone's arm ... but uh-oh, you might pull them in too! Great! Now what?!?! Wait, there's a long vine over here that we can use to pull ourselves out! And it's a vine strong enough to withstand the downward pressure of an entire human being's weight plus the suction of quicksand! Phew!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
If I Ruled the World ...
... I would feed the children and fix global warming and kill all Republicans and blah blah blah. But then I'd get to the real work, which would be:
Making Public Restrooms Less Ambiguous: If there's one thing I hate about public restrooms, it's ambiguity. Ya know? If it's a one-person restroom, I try the knob. It seems to be locked. So I stand and wait. But wait, maybe I didn't try hard enough? I mean, I encountered a little resistance, but maybe it needs a bit more? I really gotta use the restroom here -- this is no time for half-measures!
So maybe I should try again. But then, I don't want to be that jackass who yanks at a locked door furiously, incredulous that a public restroom could be occupied with another human being. So I stifle the growing urgency in my bowels and wait a bit more.
Has this happened to you? Probably. I don't know, who gives a shit about you? This is me we're talking about. And I don't like not knowing for sure whether or not a bathroom is occupied. So that's why, if I ruled the world, all bathrooms would be like the ones on planes.
Except, not in almost every way. Bathrooms on planes are tiny and harsh, and like all things on planes, they transform what should be a glorious adventure (We're flying, goddamn it! A thousand million feet the air!) into a horrorscape of cramped, sanitized, polite agony.
But the one and only thing they do right on planes is the little light on the very top of the bathroom door that indicates whether or not it's occupied. And there's really no way that thing could lie. You slide the lock firmly into place, and the light goes on. Simple. Unambiguous.
And it spells comfort on the other side of the door as well. There are too many public restroom locking systems that are way too unreliable. I'm at the point where, if I encounter one of those locks where you press button inside the knob, I assume it's broken. It scoff at locks in knobs. I spit on them and curse them to El Diablo Chupacabra Hombre, the twisted demon child of Satan and the Chupacabra who is also a hombre, whatever that is exactly.
But a nice latch -- that's a different story. A big, solid latch that fits firmly into place, that is. Not one of these puny-ass little pencil-sized rods that casually slide into a shaky latch that hangs onto a door frame for dear life. I once went to the bathroom at Robert Frost's ancestral home in Vermont, "locked" one of those pathetic little wangles, and then had two people, in quick succession, burst through that flimsy facade straight into the bathroom. Each time I shouted "Someone's in here, SOMEONE'S IN HERE, SOMEONE'S IN HERE!!!!" until the fucking morons realized that someone indeed might be in here. This is the kind of emotionally scarring personal tragedy that I'm trying to avoid, people. To this day I still can't read Robert Frost without wanting to shit on his head. (I don't know if that's exactly related. Something about Robert Frost's head seems very shit-on-able. Maybe that's just me.)
Anyway, point is -- when I rule the world, all public bathrooms meant for one person will have massive deadbolts. And closing the deadbolt will trigger a massive light taking up the entire door that flashes the words "SOMEONE'S IN HERE!!!!!" If it breaks, you better fix it immediately, or I throw you in the pit of lava with the Republicans.
Banning the "Two Words: Blah Blah" Thing: You know this. People think they're hilarious and sassy when they say, "OK, two words: Less makeup" or "Three words: Shit on Robert Frost's head." I don't know why, but I hate it. So it's out.
OK, that one wasn't that great. So I'm going to switch tracks and talk about the English language. It's awesome, you know that? Through thousands of years of evolution, this marvelous language's glorious history of artistic achievement has culminated into a blog post about shitting on Robert Frost's head! Isn't that marvelous? And Awesome?
But it really is a very unique language. It's a language made up of a whole bunch of other languages smooshed together, like a turtle in a vat of peanut butter. That made no sense at all, but I'm going with it. Not sure why.
So we start our story with the Saxons. They were minding their own business up there in England, worshiping Baal, eating mint chutney, and playing the mezuzah, a traditional Jewish fife that is very small and is attached to doors. Then along came the Romans, who conquered them for no reason besides that they just liked to do that sort of thing.
The Romans eventually went away, and ended up not having a lot of lasting effect on the language. So I'm not sure why I mentioned them. But I'm on a roll, so here we go.
Then just dumb stuff happened until England was conquered by the Normans in 1066. The Normans were French, and they brought over a whole bunch of Frenchies to rule everything. And of course, because they were French, they preferred to continue to speak French and to be real dicks about it. Their words eventually got smooshed into the turtle/peanut butter pie like so much mayonnaise. Words like "rapport" and "pistol" and another 30% of all English words, according to this Wikipedia article I just found, are of French origin.
So now you have Saxon and French words living in the same language. But wait, there's still the Catholic Church. It was really into speaking Latin, because Jesus spoke Latin, seeing as how He was such a fan of the Roman Empire and all. Latin became the language of all written texts. And even though the few cognoscenti who could read Latin also spoke English, they couldn't bear to utter many of those low-class, insufficiently syllabled Saxon words. So they had to shift Latin words into English, words like "cognoscenti."
They ended up creating loads of synonyms. They would say "feline" instead of "cat." They would say "timorous" instead of "weak." They coined thousands of words that meant exactly the same thing as existing words, but you know what, those Latin-based words just sounded better, more sophisticated, more ... what's the word I'm looking for ... elitist. No other language has this sort of parallel construction, in which there's a "high" and "low" way to say almost everything.
Hence, business-speak. Listen to a businessperson talk and all those ten-dollar words where a one-dollar one would do are of Latin origin. That "professional" air he/she's trying to cultivate is just the elitism of the medieval nobility in a modern guise. It's a time-honored way of saying "Hey, I'm a one of you superior types. Not one of THOSE people. We will now get along famously and wear polo shirts and play golf and laugh loudly and shit on Robert Frost's head!"
Oh, I'm sorry. I meant to say "defecate on Robert Frost's cranium." Now you're with me, right, fellow elite! A-shitting we go!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Things I Love: Lawns
Lawns rock! Here’s why:
1. Kids. A visit to a public park with a wobbling toddler often involves one or more of the following:
a. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave the stinking, fly-infested trash can alone
b. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave the stinking, fly-infested pile of dog shit alone
c. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to that damn dog to leave your terrified child alone
d. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave that other kid’s half-eaten and discarded Glutino cracker alone
e. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to please stop wobbling over to the busy road and just stay in the grass for chrissake
All of that can be avoided on your own, quiet, peaceful, fenced-in lawn.
2. They’re soothing. The uniform greenscape is a much-needed respite from the busy jumble that has become the modern world. People in cities are overwhelmed and assaulted by visual stimuli, from billboards to overly-complicated and asymmetrical architecture to the 35 signs necessary to explain a single neighborhood traffic circle. A nice, green lawn, preferably without any curving mulch borders or mounds of wispy ornamental grasses, is a reminder that simple is beautiful.
3. They’re a heckuva lot easier to take care of than the ugly licheny rock-ridden xeric landscapes that enviro-yuppies spend a fortune on creating and then never maintain. In my artificially-watered little town, the properties that have created little native plant havens usually end up with prickly messes overgrown with bindweed, cactus, and dandelions. Nothing’s easier than firing up the ol’ mower once a week and trimming everything into a nice carpet.
Now I realize I should address the things that certain lawn haters like to claim as part of their anti-lawn agenda. And I realize that these are indeed embarrassing little problems with lawns. But they’re not insurmountable!
1. The pollution argument: Ha ha! The enviro-yuppies are totally all over this one. There’s no reason why you can’t have a lawn and use one of those little whirling blade push mowers. Those little whirling blade mowers actually kind of suck for all but a very small, perfectly flat, square lawn with wispy grass, but they make electric and battery-powered mowers that are just as good as the old gas-powered ones, provided you don’t mow over the cord or get too ticked when the battery starts losing its charge after 3.5 minutes of mowing. Someday maybe I’ll get one of those awesome mowers.
2. The pain in the ass argument: Mowing a lawn is waaaaaaaaaay less of a pain in the ass than pulling weeds. It’s also waaaaaaaaay less of a pain in the ass than always keeping your kids inside because your beautiful nature is also a habitat for cougars.
3. The toxic chemical argument: A thick, healthy lawn doesn’t need herbicides because the herbs can’t take root. OK, it may take a few rounds of Weed-n-Feed to get that nice, thick, healthy lawn, but really, once you have that good grass, all you need to do is fertilize (which can be organic or whatever) and pull out the few weeds that wiggle their way in there.
4. The water argument: Oh, OK. Lawns take a lot of water. Fine. You can have that one.
5. The weird huge lawn argument: Some of those rural Midwestern lawns really are weirdly huge. And they’re even mowing their ditches. I hear it’s in part to control the mosquitoes, but I really think it’s just a way for a fat man with a riding lawnmower to avoid his family for five or six hours and call it exercise. So OK, you can have this one too.
I should also mention that I do not in any way support the giant industrial lawns around office buildings that aren’t even used for dull office parties. What a waste those are. And in some towns in Colorado, really nice lawns are maintained (and watered!) in the No Man’s Land by freeway on and off ramps and that’s just ridiculous. But, in sum, nice home lawns are pretty awesome. There’s no reason why we all can’t responsibly enjoy a nice green lawn and still feel like good decent, Capitalists. Because I vaguely remember that Commies are somehow responsible for lawns and dammit, let it be known that I am no Commie!
1. Kids. A visit to a public park with a wobbling toddler often involves one or more of the following:
a. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave the stinking, fly-infested trash can alone
b. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave the stinking, fly-infested pile of dog shit alone
c. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to that damn dog to leave your terrified child alone
d. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to leave that other kid’s half-eaten and discarded Glutino cracker alone
e. Repeated, but ignored admonitions to your child to please stop wobbling over to the busy road and just stay in the grass for chrissake
All of that can be avoided on your own, quiet, peaceful, fenced-in lawn.
2. They’re soothing. The uniform greenscape is a much-needed respite from the busy jumble that has become the modern world. People in cities are overwhelmed and assaulted by visual stimuli, from billboards to overly-complicated and asymmetrical architecture to the 35 signs necessary to explain a single neighborhood traffic circle. A nice, green lawn, preferably without any curving mulch borders or mounds of wispy ornamental grasses, is a reminder that simple is beautiful.
3. They’re a heckuva lot easier to take care of than the ugly licheny rock-ridden xeric landscapes that enviro-yuppies spend a fortune on creating and then never maintain. In my artificially-watered little town, the properties that have created little native plant havens usually end up with prickly messes overgrown with bindweed, cactus, and dandelions. Nothing’s easier than firing up the ol’ mower once a week and trimming everything into a nice carpet.
Now I realize I should address the things that certain lawn haters like to claim as part of their anti-lawn agenda. And I realize that these are indeed embarrassing little problems with lawns. But they’re not insurmountable!
1. The pollution argument: Ha ha! The enviro-yuppies are totally all over this one. There’s no reason why you can’t have a lawn and use one of those little whirling blade push mowers. Those little whirling blade mowers actually kind of suck for all but a very small, perfectly flat, square lawn with wispy grass, but they make electric and battery-powered mowers that are just as good as the old gas-powered ones, provided you don’t mow over the cord or get too ticked when the battery starts losing its charge after 3.5 minutes of mowing. Someday maybe I’ll get one of those awesome mowers.
2. The pain in the ass argument: Mowing a lawn is waaaaaaaaaay less of a pain in the ass than pulling weeds. It’s also waaaaaaaaay less of a pain in the ass than always keeping your kids inside because your beautiful nature is also a habitat for cougars.
3. The toxic chemical argument: A thick, healthy lawn doesn’t need herbicides because the herbs can’t take root. OK, it may take a few rounds of Weed-n-Feed to get that nice, thick, healthy lawn, but really, once you have that good grass, all you need to do is fertilize (which can be organic or whatever) and pull out the few weeds that wiggle their way in there.
4. The water argument: Oh, OK. Lawns take a lot of water. Fine. You can have that one.
5. The weird huge lawn argument: Some of those rural Midwestern lawns really are weirdly huge. And they’re even mowing their ditches. I hear it’s in part to control the mosquitoes, but I really think it’s just a way for a fat man with a riding lawnmower to avoid his family for five or six hours and call it exercise. So OK, you can have this one too.
I should also mention that I do not in any way support the giant industrial lawns around office buildings that aren’t even used for dull office parties. What a waste those are. And in some towns in Colorado, really nice lawns are maintained (and watered!) in the No Man’s Land by freeway on and off ramps and that’s just ridiculous. But, in sum, nice home lawns are pretty awesome. There’s no reason why we all can’t responsibly enjoy a nice green lawn and still feel like good decent, Capitalists. Because I vaguely remember that Commies are somehow responsible for lawns and dammit, let it be known that I am no Commie!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Things I Hate: Lightning Round!
Because if you say "lightning" it sounds exciting! Rather than, say, a tedious list of minor annoyances! Excitement, dammit!
Jeans pockets: Man, I hate jeans pockets. See, I'm an adult. That means I have to put more in my pockets than, say, a single paper clip. Ergo, I need more room in my pockets than the amount required for a single paper clip. And a need to access those paper-clip-plus materials through an opening large enough to accommodate a human-sized hand.
I understand that jeans pockets are supposed to be tiny, with a miniscule opening, because your typical jeans-wearer undergoes innumerable rough-and-tumble activities daily, such as riding buckin' broncos, fightin' gators, revisin' spreadsheets, and so forth. Facing such a square-jawed, two-fisted, penis-pumpin' existence, you need your goods tightly ensconsed in hard, unpliable fabric with no access except via extremely long and nimble fingernails, which of course all self-respectin' cowboys own. I know that whenever I wear jeans, I'm in my preposterously gigantic American truck hauling large blocks of something in slow motion as Bob Seger yells in the background. Then later I sit around a campfire with my closest entirely male compadres drinkin' some flavorless American beer and laughing deep, throaty guffaws. Then the gay sex. AmericCUHH!!! Eatin' from a SINgle BOWL!
But between you and me and that disgusting thing on the wall, there are times (shudder) when I wear jeans (shudder, shudder) and am not doing anything remotely physical (Shame! Dishonor! Hari-kari right now! I'm dead!). I would survive, believe it or don't, if my jeans pockets could hold objects large enough to conform to the principles of Newtonian mechanics. And I would prefer to be able to access them without taking the jaws of life to my crotch.
Pockets inside pockets: A related issue, obviously. Especially in right-side front pockets in jeans, you often get a pocket within a pocket, pressed against the skin, which is designed to help you lose spare change and then launder it. The idea, I suppose, is that without these, you would have a chaotic, sloshing soup of objects flying around your capacious jeans pockets, and only by collecting the change in the even-smaller pockets within pockets can you ensure that each attempt to reach for your wallet doesn't explode into a dangerous buckshot of small coins that then impales passersby.
I honestly don't know why they stop there. They need pockets within pockets within pockets, so that the few spare molecules that naturally shear off of coins as part of the immutable process of entropy can be neatly inserted into pockets-2 and then lost and laundered.
You know, maybe this is all a conspiracy by foreign governments, to keep our loose change lost and unspent, thereby pulling cash from the money supply and dragging down the American economy. I think that this insane theory I just made up is absolutely, uncontrovertibly true, and it is now clear that pockets within pockets are a socialist conspiracy enacted by President Obama to make Glenn Beck cry. Where's my blackboard?
White things: Why do we have things that are white? What are we trying to prove? That we have so much money that we can waste it on things that can easily get dirty and ruined? That we enjoy spending half our lives cleaning? Anything white attracts dirt and stains within a few seconds and then immediately looks awful. Everything white should be banned, from clothing, to walls, to people.
Food noise: This one's not so rational, I admit. My sister can attest to the terror of living with someone with this particular affliction. I can't stand the sound of people eating. Even the smallest smack will drive me into a rage. It's not a good trait.
As for why I am this way, it's probably because of a deep and torturous resentment of my father, who ate like a pig on speed. Or maybe it's sexual. Both, maybe. Whatever. Regardless, there's no very good explanation of the unholy sickness I feel upon hearing people eat. But there is no doubt in my mind that my irrational and out-of-proportion emotional reactions are entirely someone else's fault, and that I am in no way responsible. That's just how it works.
It's at the point where I'm wondering why exactly human beings need to eat amongst each other. I should probably add that one to this list.
Eating with other people: I know, eating with people is supposed to be awesome. We get to listen to each other chew, and uh ... I suppose we can talk, when we get the chance. But think about it: When else in life is your mouth less conducive to conversation than when you're eating? In our day-to-day lives, it's the only time our mouths are fully occupied, and yet we expect to be able to launch a chatting bonanza during dinner. It makes as much sense as having a party at the dentist's office.
I'm all for spending time with people and talking. But I would prefer each dinner party to consist of people coming over and having drinks (which do require occupation of the mouth, but for shorter durations, with just a few inoffensive swallows instead of a chew-chew-chew-smack-gulp ... ooh, I feel sick), and then each person can move into a different room and silently consume food with the lights off and Leonard Cohen playing mournfully in the background. Then everyone can reconvene in a bright and cheerful living room, compare notes on the dinner, drink some more, and play Wii Rock Band (that's how all my dinner parties end nowadays).
Gum chewing: Gum chewing was specifically designed to make me kill myself. It's a socialist conspiracy to make me cry. It's chewing that never, ever stops, just keeps chomping and smacking and chomping and smacking like a brain-dead cow until I grab the person's face, reach in to his smelly, gaping maw, take the gum out, shove it in his eyes, and then rip out his tongue for good measure and eat it. Noisily, with lots of smacking.
Snorts, but not farts, sneezes or burps: Again, I recognize that this is completely irrational, but I can't stand it when people snort in public. It just makes me thing of festering yellow-green mucous yearning to be released from the body and be thrown away and burned and stomped on, but instead being cordially and noisily invited to return to the body and fester, converting the viscera into an inchoate swamp of bubbling, putrid sickness.
But farts don't bother me. Farts are funny. Seriously! This one time? I was at this party? And this dude farted, like, real loud? It was awesome!
It's true, you know, farts are actually very funny. I actually took a course in American Indian literature that confirmed that farts are universally and verifiably funny, and that was in college, where knowledge is true, so there. The first story we read in the class, in fact, was a story meant to be passed down through the oral tradition, so writing it down was stupid, but whatever: It involved the trickster coyote, and he was farting a lot, and it was supposed to cause the kids in the crowd to giggle, so there.
Burps are the same thing. The louder the funnier. And they release the sickness into the atmosphere instead of allowing them to collect inside and poison the bodily humors into an imbalance of phlegmatic disposition. And the same for sneezes, which is why I hate ...
Sneeze stiflers: These are the people who try to do a cute little "pfft!" and hold their sneezes in. They think it's cute and dainty, but to me it says "I don't want to let these poisonous allergens go! I love them lots and lots! I actually want them to grow inside me and sprout little boughs of diseased, dripping coagulations of germs, which will then turn my viscera into an inchoate swamp of putrid sickness! Word!"
Instead, you must let your sneezes out with a powerful and manly KACHOOOO! That proves that the toxins have been forcibly expelled! You have thus rid them from your chest, discharging them with the force of Thor's mighty hammer cleaving the skulls of the unworthy! Now you must go on to drive trucks full of large heavy things in slow motion whil Bob Seger screams about America! RARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR(etc.)!!!!!!
People who laugh loudly at their own jokes: Granted, you can laugh a wee bit at your own jokes. I don't, but many do, and that's fine. It's the people that explode into uproarious laughter immediately after telling their own jokes that bother me. It's pushy and forceful; it's like saying "premise premise premise punchline and now LAUGH DAMMIT!!!!!!" You pretty much have to laugh when people do that because it's too awkward to leave that person going into hysterics by themselves. So you give a polite ho ho ho and get on with life, but you leave feeling a bit manipulated.
Words on walls: Because I'm a married man and I'm whipped like a dead donkey, I end up watching more than a few interior design shows on TV. In a lot of them, they write things on the walls in ostensibly pleasing light purple fonts, things like "peace" and "live life out loud" and "fuck y'all bitches" and stuff like that.
It's extremely tacky, in my book. If you want to create a mood with a room's decor, it might be a wee bit obvious to plaster the sentiment you're going for on the wall in big block letters. If that were how it worked, you could just create an art installation that was a piece of paper tacked on a wall that said "HOLY COW THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF ART RIGHT HERE. MAN OH MAN, IT'S DEEP IN A WAY THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN'T COMPREHEND. BUT YOU, AS PART OF THE SOPHISTICATED URBAN ELITE, CAN FULLY APPRECIATE IT AS BEING A NEW STEP FORWARD IN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND SHIT LIKE THAT. NOW THAT YOU'VE SPENT A RESPECTABLE AMOUNT OF TIME STARING AT THIS WITH A SERIOUS LOOK ON YOUR FACE, YOU CAN GO TALK TO THAT ARTSY CHICK AND TRY TO GET LAID."
Musical guests on "Saturday Night Live": I just finished watching "Saturday Night Live," something I haven't done for years, and you know what? It was pretty funny. Except for the part where it all fell flat for 15 minutes because of the stupid musical guest. Wow, a guy yelling into a mic and playing a guitar. Never seen that before.
It wasn't fun when I was young and actually sort of kind of hip (not really). I would watch "Saturday Night Live" every Saturday night (alone, always, but that's a different and much more boring and sad story), and it those days it would even be musicians I had heard of. And even then, the musical guest's appearance was the time to flip over to "Star Search" and hope that it was time for the spokesmodel competition.
You know what? It's not that much fun to watch people play music. In person, it can be fun, because it's loud and there are girls there. At home, on TV, it's really not that great.
Listening to music while doing something else: Whoo, that's fun. Playing music, especially in Wii Rock Band: oodles upon shitloads upon metric tons of fun. But watching other people play music on TV? There's a reason MTV doesn't actually play videos, and hasn't for about 15 years now. They quickly realized that watching people play music isn't that great. If you get a Lady Gaga, who lards her mediocre synth-pop with buckets of weirdo conteporary-art bullshit, that can be OK. Or a rap video in which the music serves as a forgettable backdrop for watching asses shake -- that again can serve some purpose. But a bunch of white guys, on a stage in New York, screaming songs that sound much better on studio versions that I can get on demand from iTunes for $.99 ... yeah, you know what, I have 200 channels. I'm betting that somewhere in there there's something more engaging than that.
That now completes the list of all of the things that I hate. All my future posts will be glowing explorations of things that are great, like cute kitties and pie and the love of a good woman. The end.
Jeans pockets: Man, I hate jeans pockets. See, I'm an adult. That means I have to put more in my pockets than, say, a single paper clip. Ergo, I need more room in my pockets than the amount required for a single paper clip. And a need to access those paper-clip-plus materials through an opening large enough to accommodate a human-sized hand.
I understand that jeans pockets are supposed to be tiny, with a miniscule opening, because your typical jeans-wearer undergoes innumerable rough-and-tumble activities daily, such as riding buckin' broncos, fightin' gators, revisin' spreadsheets, and so forth. Facing such a square-jawed, two-fisted, penis-pumpin' existence, you need your goods tightly ensconsed in hard, unpliable fabric with no access except via extremely long and nimble fingernails, which of course all self-respectin' cowboys own. I know that whenever I wear jeans, I'm in my preposterously gigantic American truck hauling large blocks of something in slow motion as Bob Seger yells in the background. Then later I sit around a campfire with my closest entirely male compadres drinkin' some flavorless American beer and laughing deep, throaty guffaws. Then the gay sex. AmericCUHH!!! Eatin' from a SINgle BOWL!
But between you and me and that disgusting thing on the wall, there are times (shudder) when I wear jeans (shudder, shudder) and am not doing anything remotely physical (Shame! Dishonor! Hari-kari right now! I'm dead!). I would survive, believe it or don't, if my jeans pockets could hold objects large enough to conform to the principles of Newtonian mechanics. And I would prefer to be able to access them without taking the jaws of life to my crotch.
Pockets inside pockets: A related issue, obviously. Especially in right-side front pockets in jeans, you often get a pocket within a pocket, pressed against the skin, which is designed to help you lose spare change and then launder it. The idea, I suppose, is that without these, you would have a chaotic, sloshing soup of objects flying around your capacious jeans pockets, and only by collecting the change in the even-smaller pockets within pockets can you ensure that each attempt to reach for your wallet doesn't explode into a dangerous buckshot of small coins that then impales passersby.
I honestly don't know why they stop there. They need pockets within pockets within pockets, so that the few spare molecules that naturally shear off of coins as part of the immutable process of entropy can be neatly inserted into pockets-2 and then lost and laundered.
You know, maybe this is all a conspiracy by foreign governments, to keep our loose change lost and unspent, thereby pulling cash from the money supply and dragging down the American economy. I think that this insane theory I just made up is absolutely, uncontrovertibly true, and it is now clear that pockets within pockets are a socialist conspiracy enacted by President Obama to make Glenn Beck cry. Where's my blackboard?
White things: Why do we have things that are white? What are we trying to prove? That we have so much money that we can waste it on things that can easily get dirty and ruined? That we enjoy spending half our lives cleaning? Anything white attracts dirt and stains within a few seconds and then immediately looks awful. Everything white should be banned, from clothing, to walls, to people.
Food noise: This one's not so rational, I admit. My sister can attest to the terror of living with someone with this particular affliction. I can't stand the sound of people eating. Even the smallest smack will drive me into a rage. It's not a good trait.
As for why I am this way, it's probably because of a deep and torturous resentment of my father, who ate like a pig on speed. Or maybe it's sexual. Both, maybe. Whatever. Regardless, there's no very good explanation of the unholy sickness I feel upon hearing people eat. But there is no doubt in my mind that my irrational and out-of-proportion emotional reactions are entirely someone else's fault, and that I am in no way responsible. That's just how it works.
It's at the point where I'm wondering why exactly human beings need to eat amongst each other. I should probably add that one to this list.
Eating with other people: I know, eating with people is supposed to be awesome. We get to listen to each other chew, and uh ... I suppose we can talk, when we get the chance. But think about it: When else in life is your mouth less conducive to conversation than when you're eating? In our day-to-day lives, it's the only time our mouths are fully occupied, and yet we expect to be able to launch a chatting bonanza during dinner. It makes as much sense as having a party at the dentist's office.
I'm all for spending time with people and talking. But I would prefer each dinner party to consist of people coming over and having drinks (which do require occupation of the mouth, but for shorter durations, with just a few inoffensive swallows instead of a chew-chew-chew-smack-gulp ... ooh, I feel sick), and then each person can move into a different room and silently consume food with the lights off and Leonard Cohen playing mournfully in the background. Then everyone can reconvene in a bright and cheerful living room, compare notes on the dinner, drink some more, and play Wii Rock Band (that's how all my dinner parties end nowadays).
Gum chewing: Gum chewing was specifically designed to make me kill myself. It's a socialist conspiracy to make me cry. It's chewing that never, ever stops, just keeps chomping and smacking and chomping and smacking like a brain-dead cow until I grab the person's face, reach in to his smelly, gaping maw, take the gum out, shove it in his eyes, and then rip out his tongue for good measure and eat it. Noisily, with lots of smacking.
Snorts, but not farts, sneezes or burps: Again, I recognize that this is completely irrational, but I can't stand it when people snort in public. It just makes me thing of festering yellow-green mucous yearning to be released from the body and be thrown away and burned and stomped on, but instead being cordially and noisily invited to return to the body and fester, converting the viscera into an inchoate swamp of bubbling, putrid sickness.
But farts don't bother me. Farts are funny. Seriously! This one time? I was at this party? And this dude farted, like, real loud? It was awesome!
It's true, you know, farts are actually very funny. I actually took a course in American Indian literature that confirmed that farts are universally and verifiably funny, and that was in college, where knowledge is true, so there. The first story we read in the class, in fact, was a story meant to be passed down through the oral tradition, so writing it down was stupid, but whatever: It involved the trickster coyote, and he was farting a lot, and it was supposed to cause the kids in the crowd to giggle, so there.
Burps are the same thing. The louder the funnier. And they release the sickness into the atmosphere instead of allowing them to collect inside and poison the bodily humors into an imbalance of phlegmatic disposition. And the same for sneezes, which is why I hate ...
Sneeze stiflers: These are the people who try to do a cute little "pfft!" and hold their sneezes in. They think it's cute and dainty, but to me it says "I don't want to let these poisonous allergens go! I love them lots and lots! I actually want them to grow inside me and sprout little boughs of diseased, dripping coagulations of germs, which will then turn my viscera into an inchoate swamp of putrid sickness! Word!"
Instead, you must let your sneezes out with a powerful and manly KACHOOOO! That proves that the toxins have been forcibly expelled! You have thus rid them from your chest, discharging them with the force of Thor's mighty hammer cleaving the skulls of the unworthy! Now you must go on to drive trucks full of large heavy things in slow motion whil Bob Seger screams about America! RARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR(etc.)!!!!!!
People who laugh loudly at their own jokes: Granted, you can laugh a wee bit at your own jokes. I don't, but many do, and that's fine. It's the people that explode into uproarious laughter immediately after telling their own jokes that bother me. It's pushy and forceful; it's like saying "premise premise premise punchline and now LAUGH DAMMIT!!!!!!" You pretty much have to laugh when people do that because it's too awkward to leave that person going into hysterics by themselves. So you give a polite ho ho ho and get on with life, but you leave feeling a bit manipulated.
Words on walls: Because I'm a married man and I'm whipped like a dead donkey, I end up watching more than a few interior design shows on TV. In a lot of them, they write things on the walls in ostensibly pleasing light purple fonts, things like "peace" and "live life out loud" and "fuck y'all bitches" and stuff like that.
It's extremely tacky, in my book. If you want to create a mood with a room's decor, it might be a wee bit obvious to plaster the sentiment you're going for on the wall in big block letters. If that were how it worked, you could just create an art installation that was a piece of paper tacked on a wall that said "HOLY COW THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF ART RIGHT HERE. MAN OH MAN, IT'S DEEP IN A WAY THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN'T COMPREHEND. BUT YOU, AS PART OF THE SOPHISTICATED URBAN ELITE, CAN FULLY APPRECIATE IT AS BEING A NEW STEP FORWARD IN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND SHIT LIKE THAT. NOW THAT YOU'VE SPENT A RESPECTABLE AMOUNT OF TIME STARING AT THIS WITH A SERIOUS LOOK ON YOUR FACE, YOU CAN GO TALK TO THAT ARTSY CHICK AND TRY TO GET LAID."
Musical guests on "Saturday Night Live": I just finished watching "Saturday Night Live," something I haven't done for years, and you know what? It was pretty funny. Except for the part where it all fell flat for 15 minutes because of the stupid musical guest. Wow, a guy yelling into a mic and playing a guitar. Never seen that before.
It wasn't fun when I was young and actually sort of kind of hip (not really). I would watch "Saturday Night Live" every Saturday night (alone, always, but that's a different and much more boring and sad story), and it those days it would even be musicians I had heard of. And even then, the musical guest's appearance was the time to flip over to "Star Search" and hope that it was time for the spokesmodel competition.
You know what? It's not that much fun to watch people play music. In person, it can be fun, because it's loud and there are girls there. At home, on TV, it's really not that great.
Listening to music while doing something else: Whoo, that's fun. Playing music, especially in Wii Rock Band: oodles upon shitloads upon metric tons of fun. But watching other people play music on TV? There's a reason MTV doesn't actually play videos, and hasn't for about 15 years now. They quickly realized that watching people play music isn't that great. If you get a Lady Gaga, who lards her mediocre synth-pop with buckets of weirdo conteporary-art bullshit, that can be OK. Or a rap video in which the music serves as a forgettable backdrop for watching asses shake -- that again can serve some purpose. But a bunch of white guys, on a stage in New York, screaming songs that sound much better on studio versions that I can get on demand from iTunes for $.99 ... yeah, you know what, I have 200 channels. I'm betting that somewhere in there there's something more engaging than that.
That now completes the list of all of the things that I hate. All my future posts will be glowing explorations of things that are great, like cute kitties and pie and the love of a good woman. The end.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Things I Hate: Lawns
Lawns are awful, awful things. Think about how much destruction lawns cause. No, wait, don't think of it, because I'm going to tell you:
1. Pollution: Supposedly, lawn mowers are some of the worst polluters around. I heard once that mowing one acre puts as many greenhouse gases in the air as taking a cross-country trip in a hybrid. Now while that's probably not true, it does make you think about exactly how much global warming has been caused by this completely unnecessary activity. No one has ever been fed by a mown lawn. No one has ever died because their lawn wasn't mown. It's pointless.
Why exactly do we need lawns? Because our neighbors will complain if we don't maintain them. Why will they complain? Because it supposedly doesn't look nice to have an unmown lawn. By that logic, if everyone decided that chopping off your pinkie fingers looks great, I would have to do that too. Fuck y'all. I don't depend on your opinion of me to maintain my self-worth.
And personally, I think well-mown lawns look revolting. I look at a sea of uniform grass and think about how many toxic chemicals went into the groundwater to create the same look you could achieve by painting a blacktop green.
Lawns look like what happens when anal retentive serial plant beheaders go wild. Why do people think they look nice? It's the same plant, over and over, at exactly the same length. What could be more dull to look at? Why not just install Astroturf while you're at it?
You know what's nice to look at? Nature. People even go hiking in it just to look at it. Imagine that, walking in circle for hours just to look at stuff. And here's the thing about the nature they tend to look at: It doesn't tend to be large swathes of monoculture, like lawns are. It instead tends to be intricate tapestries of colors and textures, comprising the wide range of plants that live in harmony. It's a thing called ecological diversity, and it's kind of vital for the survival of life as we know it on this planet. If nature just produced rows and rows of identical, artifically stunted grasses, we never would have come about in the first place.
I honestly think there's some control-freakiness going on in the minds of those lunatics who care about their lawns. It's like, "This is the land I OWN! I must CONTROL every INCH OF IT, or the COMMUNISTS WIN!" Of course, what could be more communist than a world in which one species fills every inch at exactly the same size and length ...
2. Pain in the ass: Mowing lawns sucks. It's dirty, sweaty work that results in shards of severed plants sticking to every inch of your skin. Guys who enjoy mowing lawns really should channel that energy into something constructive, something that helps people instead of hurting the planet. If they have to be alone with a machine as they do it, they could maybe build something. They could maybe do anything a little less mindless than pushing a pollution-spewing cart back and forth across a scrap of land.
The worst, though, are the people with riding lawn mowers. So wait, you're so lazy and/or feeble that you can't even push a cart back and forth for a few hours. So your solution is to strap some blades to an especially toxic engine and drive around? It puts me in mind of a person who is too fat too walk driving through a buffet in a Rascal. It's gluttony at an epic, Caligula-type level, where you're so spoiled that you're killing yourself through self-indulgence.
OK, maybe that was a bit of a reach. And maybe you have a large property, and need a riding lawn mower to mow it all. That then begs the question: Do you really need to mow it all? If you get a big boner from looking at long rows of identical short green stalks, fine, do that in part of the area. But why not the let the rest of it go to nature? Then maybe a wide range of plants could live there. And maybe animals! And maybe that patch of earth could support life instead of destroying it! Just a thought.
1. Pollution: Supposedly, lawn mowers are some of the worst polluters around. I heard once that mowing one acre puts as many greenhouse gases in the air as taking a cross-country trip in a hybrid. Now while that's probably not true, it does make you think about exactly how much global warming has been caused by this completely unnecessary activity. No one has ever been fed by a mown lawn. No one has ever died because their lawn wasn't mown. It's pointless.
Why exactly do we need lawns? Because our neighbors will complain if we don't maintain them. Why will they complain? Because it supposedly doesn't look nice to have an unmown lawn. By that logic, if everyone decided that chopping off your pinkie fingers looks great, I would have to do that too. Fuck y'all. I don't depend on your opinion of me to maintain my self-worth.
And personally, I think well-mown lawns look revolting. I look at a sea of uniform grass and think about how many toxic chemicals went into the groundwater to create the same look you could achieve by painting a blacktop green.
Lawns look like what happens when anal retentive serial plant beheaders go wild. Why do people think they look nice? It's the same plant, over and over, at exactly the same length. What could be more dull to look at? Why not just install Astroturf while you're at it?
You know what's nice to look at? Nature. People even go hiking in it just to look at it. Imagine that, walking in circle for hours just to look at stuff. And here's the thing about the nature they tend to look at: It doesn't tend to be large swathes of monoculture, like lawns are. It instead tends to be intricate tapestries of colors and textures, comprising the wide range of plants that live in harmony. It's a thing called ecological diversity, and it's kind of vital for the survival of life as we know it on this planet. If nature just produced rows and rows of identical, artifically stunted grasses, we never would have come about in the first place.
I honestly think there's some control-freakiness going on in the minds of those lunatics who care about their lawns. It's like, "This is the land I OWN! I must CONTROL every INCH OF IT, or the COMMUNISTS WIN!" Of course, what could be more communist than a world in which one species fills every inch at exactly the same size and length ...
2. Pain in the ass: Mowing lawns sucks. It's dirty, sweaty work that results in shards of severed plants sticking to every inch of your skin. Guys who enjoy mowing lawns really should channel that energy into something constructive, something that helps people instead of hurting the planet. If they have to be alone with a machine as they do it, they could maybe build something. They could maybe do anything a little less mindless than pushing a pollution-spewing cart back and forth across a scrap of land.
The worst, though, are the people with riding lawn mowers. So wait, you're so lazy and/or feeble that you can't even push a cart back and forth for a few hours. So your solution is to strap some blades to an especially toxic engine and drive around? It puts me in mind of a person who is too fat too walk driving through a buffet in a Rascal. It's gluttony at an epic, Caligula-type level, where you're so spoiled that you're killing yourself through self-indulgence.
OK, maybe that was a bit of a reach. And maybe you have a large property, and need a riding lawn mower to mow it all. That then begs the question: Do you really need to mow it all? If you get a big boner from looking at long rows of identical short green stalks, fine, do that in part of the area. But why not the let the rest of it go to nature? Then maybe a wide range of plants could live there. And maybe animals! And maybe that patch of earth could support life instead of destroying it! Just a thought.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Natural Childbirth: How Morally Superior Does It Make You?
I is done had some young ‘uns and now that Ed is havin’ a young ‘un, I now feel as though I’ve been invited, albeit indirectly, to share my feelings about natural childbirth. And just so you know, I stole the title from The Onion.
Childbirth...a natural process, as old as our species itself! Can anyone imagine anything more wholesome and earth-friendly than birthing at home, in one’s bed (or on a bed of straw in, say, a stable), perhaps with the assistance of a wizened matron or two? Maybe the straining mother-to-be is practicing hypno-birthing, reaching deep within her consciousness to find the inner peace that will sweep her away from the pain and into a euphoric mental meadow of birthing bliss. Maybe, after a reasonable period of howls and pants, a tired smile spreads across the happy mother’s face as the healthy baby cries for the first time and is placed upon her welcoming breast to suckle its first drink of life. Or maybe everyone dies. Oh, wait...that can’t happen, right? I mean, not if it’s natural...
I live in a place where you’re considered a total failure of a mother if you did not manage to birth your baby without any painkilling drugs or medical intervention. Well, OK, maybe “total failure” is a bit strong, but without a doubt, there is an unspoken sentiment of “you must not really care about your child if you poisoned your body with all those drugs” that radiates from what I think is actually a minority of loud, womb-thumping women. These are the women who start “ban the bags” campaigns to try to pass laws prohibiting formula companies from giving out free samples. They’re mothers who will spend $24.95 for 4 ounces of all-natural, food-grade sun block for their children and who use slings, for heaven’s sake, and not bjorns for their 24-hour-a-day baby-wearing. And, as long as I’ve pushed the stereotype this far, I might as well throw in that they probably assume their baby is gifted. Anyway, these are the women who make the uncertain, expecting, first-time mothers feel guilty for wanting an epidural and dammit, that’s just not right.
Part of it is the term, “natural,” that gets me, as though “natural” is inherently superior. Let’s think of a few natural things...carrots (not bad) and bees (they’re cool) and ticks (well, hm, ticks must be valuable as food for something), and malaria and rabbits eating their babies when they feel threatened and mother cats inbreeding with their son cats (happened in my own house!) and hot lava that’s no longer in our molten core and leprosy...certainly, they’re all facets of nature, but are they all preferable to a human-made alternative? Of course not. Why should childbirth be any different?
And let’s think of other things that can be done “naturally.” Like amputation – haven’t we all seen some movie where a Civil War soldier takes a messy swig of whiskey and pops a branch in his mouth before the doc saws off the leg? Our how about a double mastectomy? John Adams’s poor daughter had a “natural” double mastectomy to slice away the cancer that would eventually kill her. I’d like to see a womb-thumper choose that option.
The point is that there’s no shame in pain relief. There is no badge of merit handed out to those of us who endured the most pain while pushing out a baby. Millions of healthy babies have been born to happily numb mothers and have gone on to do great things in life. And, frankly, the birth is about the tiniest, least significant part of having a kid, so go ahead and have that young ‘un, Ed, even “naturally,” if the pain really floats your boat. But for chrissakes, if you want the epidural, just say so, and with relish. Because you, yes, you! have the power to stop the pain! And then take your Vicodin for your recovery pain. And drink your stout beer to enhance your milk supply. And then drink some wine to make the baby sleep all night. Happy parenting!
Childbirth...a natural process, as old as our species itself! Can anyone imagine anything more wholesome and earth-friendly than birthing at home, in one’s bed (or on a bed of straw in, say, a stable), perhaps with the assistance of a wizened matron or two? Maybe the straining mother-to-be is practicing hypno-birthing, reaching deep within her consciousness to find the inner peace that will sweep her away from the pain and into a euphoric mental meadow of birthing bliss. Maybe, after a reasonable period of howls and pants, a tired smile spreads across the happy mother’s face as the healthy baby cries for the first time and is placed upon her welcoming breast to suckle its first drink of life. Or maybe everyone dies. Oh, wait...that can’t happen, right? I mean, not if it’s natural...
I live in a place where you’re considered a total failure of a mother if you did not manage to birth your baby without any painkilling drugs or medical intervention. Well, OK, maybe “total failure” is a bit strong, but without a doubt, there is an unspoken sentiment of “you must not really care about your child if you poisoned your body with all those drugs” that radiates from what I think is actually a minority of loud, womb-thumping women. These are the women who start “ban the bags” campaigns to try to pass laws prohibiting formula companies from giving out free samples. They’re mothers who will spend $24.95 for 4 ounces of all-natural, food-grade sun block for their children and who use slings, for heaven’s sake, and not bjorns for their 24-hour-a-day baby-wearing. And, as long as I’ve pushed the stereotype this far, I might as well throw in that they probably assume their baby is gifted. Anyway, these are the women who make the uncertain, expecting, first-time mothers feel guilty for wanting an epidural and dammit, that’s just not right.
Part of it is the term, “natural,” that gets me, as though “natural” is inherently superior. Let’s think of a few natural things...carrots (not bad) and bees (they’re cool) and ticks (well, hm, ticks must be valuable as food for something), and malaria and rabbits eating their babies when they feel threatened and mother cats inbreeding with their son cats (happened in my own house!) and hot lava that’s no longer in our molten core and leprosy...certainly, they’re all facets of nature, but are they all preferable to a human-made alternative? Of course not. Why should childbirth be any different?
And let’s think of other things that can be done “naturally.” Like amputation – haven’t we all seen some movie where a Civil War soldier takes a messy swig of whiskey and pops a branch in his mouth before the doc saws off the leg? Our how about a double mastectomy? John Adams’s poor daughter had a “natural” double mastectomy to slice away the cancer that would eventually kill her. I’d like to see a womb-thumper choose that option.
The point is that there’s no shame in pain relief. There is no badge of merit handed out to those of us who endured the most pain while pushing out a baby. Millions of healthy babies have been born to happily numb mothers and have gone on to do great things in life. And, frankly, the birth is about the tiniest, least significant part of having a kid, so go ahead and have that young ‘un, Ed, even “naturally,” if the pain really floats your boat. But for chrissakes, if you want the epidural, just say so, and with relish. Because you, yes, you! have the power to stop the pain! And then take your Vicodin for your recovery pain. And drink your stout beer to enhance your milk supply. And then drink some wine to make the baby sleep all night. Happy parenting!
Thursday, July 1, 2010
I Am Royalty
We are having a child. And the child's name will of course reflect its status as a member of the English royal family. We have decided she shall be christened "Eleanor I, by the Grace of God, Queen of England and France, Defender of the Faith, Lady of Ireland and the Church of England in Earth Supreme Head, Dykhuizen." Amongst playmates she may affectionately be referred to as "E.I.G.G.Q.E.F.D.F.L.I.C.E.E.S.H." She may not be referred to with the vulgar appellation "Ellie." Such calumny shall be considered an affront against God's representative upon Earth, and justice shall swiftly be brought upon the guilty party.
The nature of said punishment will depend upon the progress of my newly engaged effort to restore Eleanor to the throne as the rightful heir to Henry III. As you all are of course aware, I am the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King Henry III. I am one of only ten million or so people to be able to make such a claim.
My task is then simple: Gather an army, hie myself to England, and kill everyone with a better claim to the throne. While such a task may have appeared Herculean in the days of my vaunted forefather, advances in modern weaponry make this a relatively easy task. For too long, the House of Minnesota has been ignored in affairs of state! Once more unto the breach, my good men (and women, because my marauding horde is an Equal Opportunity Employer)!
However, in my extensive studies of my illustrious ancestors (I read two books), I must say I've gained new appreciation for democracy. We may occasionally elect an idiot, but hell, at least we don't have wars to decide it. And even George W. Bush looks like a Rhodes scholar compared to some of England's past rulers. To wit:
Henry VI, who ruled England for about half of the 1400s, was pretty clearly what we would call nowadays "developmentally disabled." He was the immediate successor to Henry V, who was the one played by Kenneth Branagh and says "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers ... come upon this field of glory to kick ass and drink beer, and we're all out of beer ... we must protect this hoooouuuse!" Then he went on to win the Battle of Agincourt, defeating Mothra in ten rounds. I think that was how it went, anyway. I was reading all this as I was watching late-night TV, so I'm not sure I got it all right.
Point is, his son Henry VI had quite a legacy to live up to. And boy, did he ever not. He was not only born into the Hundred Years' War against France; he was also heir to the Wars of the Roses, in which different branches of the royal family, those of York and Lancaster, killed each other regularly and traded the throne back and forth. Meanwhile, Henry VI was terrified by war, which is a problem when you're the commander-in-chief of two of them. He was reportedly very meek and gentle, in a way that would be cute if he were a greeter at Wal-Mart, but extremely dangerous for someone trying to lead England. He would blush whenever anyone mentioned sex and sincerely believed his son was created by the Holy Spirit. His solution to the Wars of the Roses was to stage what he called a "loveday," in which members of the York and Lacanster clans would all have a public ceremony together. Mind you, these were people who killed each other's children, a lot. Their beefs are not likely to be smoothed over by a public smooch-fest. Henry thought they would.
The end result of Henry VI's incompetence was that England lost all the gains in France made by Henry V, with Joan of Arc being the symbol of the reconquest. Meanwhile, for the most part, the Wars of the Roses only killed of the members of the nobility, leaving peasants and middle-class folks out of it -- that is, until King Henry's forces looted and pillaged a bunch of towns of Southern England. Imagine that for a second -- imagine if the Republicans and Democrats were killing each other over who would be in power. I think our first reaction would be "Yeah! Cool! Is it on TV?" But then imagine if the Republicans, under their retarded leader George W. Bush, decided to just raze and burn Iowa for no good reason. I think even Fox News would have to turn against them then.
King Henry VI came along for all this countryside brutality, but was likely oblivious, allegedly laughing and singing in his private camp during the carnage. The people of London reacted to the spree by literally shutting the door on Henry and the Lancastrians (they had real doors to cities then, with real keys -- hence the term "the key to the city") and declaring a new king, Edward IV.
Normally things weren't as bad as all this -- normally it would just take one civil war to figure out who the next leader would be. Just a few hundred lives lost over a year or two, something like that. In general, though, we see the danger of letting someone be king just because his father was. Well, we see it, but the English didn't. They kept on with the tradition, because they didn't know anything else.
So imagine what a huge step forward it was to try democracy instead. These days, it's old hat, but then democracy was revolutionary in a way that is hard for us to fathom. It was radical. It was a intellectual, long-shot idea based on cutting-edge theory that turned out to be extremely right.
So that's what I hope we all celebrated over Independence Day: radical solutions to longstanding problems, solutions based on the latest in intellectual thought. That's our true legacy, that willingness to try something that's very new and is based on the creativity of the most probing minds. Innovation, in business-speak. Let's try to keep that in mind before we hate on Obama and the Democrats for trying an innovative solution on health care, or before we reflexively crap on other new ideas in immigration, energy policy, etc. The country is seeming a little afraid of change lately, and fear of change is not what we were founded on.
The nature of said punishment will depend upon the progress of my newly engaged effort to restore Eleanor to the throne as the rightful heir to Henry III. As you all are of course aware, I am the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King Henry III. I am one of only ten million or so people to be able to make such a claim.
My task is then simple: Gather an army, hie myself to England, and kill everyone with a better claim to the throne. While such a task may have appeared Herculean in the days of my vaunted forefather, advances in modern weaponry make this a relatively easy task. For too long, the House of Minnesota has been ignored in affairs of state! Once more unto the breach, my good men (and women, because my marauding horde is an Equal Opportunity Employer)!
However, in my extensive studies of my illustrious ancestors (I read two books), I must say I've gained new appreciation for democracy. We may occasionally elect an idiot, but hell, at least we don't have wars to decide it. And even George W. Bush looks like a Rhodes scholar compared to some of England's past rulers. To wit:
Henry VI, who ruled England for about half of the 1400s, was pretty clearly what we would call nowadays "developmentally disabled." He was the immediate successor to Henry V, who was the one played by Kenneth Branagh and says "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers ... come upon this field of glory to kick ass and drink beer, and we're all out of beer ... we must protect this hoooouuuse!" Then he went on to win the Battle of Agincourt, defeating Mothra in ten rounds. I think that was how it went, anyway. I was reading all this as I was watching late-night TV, so I'm not sure I got it all right.
Point is, his son Henry VI had quite a legacy to live up to. And boy, did he ever not. He was not only born into the Hundred Years' War against France; he was also heir to the Wars of the Roses, in which different branches of the royal family, those of York and Lancaster, killed each other regularly and traded the throne back and forth. Meanwhile, Henry VI was terrified by war, which is a problem when you're the commander-in-chief of two of them. He was reportedly very meek and gentle, in a way that would be cute if he were a greeter at Wal-Mart, but extremely dangerous for someone trying to lead England. He would blush whenever anyone mentioned sex and sincerely believed his son was created by the Holy Spirit. His solution to the Wars of the Roses was to stage what he called a "loveday," in which members of the York and Lacanster clans would all have a public ceremony together. Mind you, these were people who killed each other's children, a lot. Their beefs are not likely to be smoothed over by a public smooch-fest. Henry thought they would.
The end result of Henry VI's incompetence was that England lost all the gains in France made by Henry V, with Joan of Arc being the symbol of the reconquest. Meanwhile, for the most part, the Wars of the Roses only killed of the members of the nobility, leaving peasants and middle-class folks out of it -- that is, until King Henry's forces looted and pillaged a bunch of towns of Southern England. Imagine that for a second -- imagine if the Republicans and Democrats were killing each other over who would be in power. I think our first reaction would be "Yeah! Cool! Is it on TV?" But then imagine if the Republicans, under their retarded leader George W. Bush, decided to just raze and burn Iowa for no good reason. I think even Fox News would have to turn against them then.
King Henry VI came along for all this countryside brutality, but was likely oblivious, allegedly laughing and singing in his private camp during the carnage. The people of London reacted to the spree by literally shutting the door on Henry and the Lancastrians (they had real doors to cities then, with real keys -- hence the term "the key to the city") and declaring a new king, Edward IV.
Normally things weren't as bad as all this -- normally it would just take one civil war to figure out who the next leader would be. Just a few hundred lives lost over a year or two, something like that. In general, though, we see the danger of letting someone be king just because his father was. Well, we see it, but the English didn't. They kept on with the tradition, because they didn't know anything else.
So imagine what a huge step forward it was to try democracy instead. These days, it's old hat, but then democracy was revolutionary in a way that is hard for us to fathom. It was radical. It was a intellectual, long-shot idea based on cutting-edge theory that turned out to be extremely right.
So that's what I hope we all celebrated over Independence Day: radical solutions to longstanding problems, solutions based on the latest in intellectual thought. That's our true legacy, that willingness to try something that's very new and is based on the creativity of the most probing minds. Innovation, in business-speak. Let's try to keep that in mind before we hate on Obama and the Democrats for trying an innovative solution on health care, or before we reflexively crap on other new ideas in immigration, energy policy, etc. The country is seeming a little afraid of change lately, and fear of change is not what we were founded on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)