Booob

Ty Templeton on Frank Miller

Jon — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:48:00 +0000

Propagating Stereotypes

Jon — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:10:00 +0000

The Consumerist's Worst Ad in America 2011 is accepting votes through the weekend, and their category "Trend That Needs To Stop Being A Trend" inspires this topic of discussion.

"Asian Accents Are 'Hilarious'" and "Men Barely Tolerating Their Wives & Girlfriends" are two of the nominees in this category, and I wish they could both win.

Stereotyping and prejudicial thinking may not be legal crimes, but they certainly can be moral crimes, social crimes, and legal crimes. And our economic system depends upon stereotyping and prejudicial thinking.

In Alan Cooper's well-received The Inmates are Running the Asylum, he discusses his strategy for developing personas to design products for, "Stereotypical personas are more effective if the stereotyping lends more credence to the persona. My goal here is not to be politically correct, but to get everyone to believe that my personas are real."

Cooper goes on to discuss some unnecessary stereotypes. In a critical reflection of this book's "Chapter 9: Designing for Pleasure," I insisted that "when [Cooper] asserts, 'Stereotypical personas are more effective if the stereotyping lends more credence to the persona,' he seems to be ignoring the equally true inverse: that the persona lends more credence to the stereotype. I don’t think that 'a statuesque, 5-foot-11 inch beauty who went to Beverly Hills High . . . [and] is a computer technician' or a male who is a nurse would 'confuse everyone,' but I do think that systematically rejecting these non-stereotypical personas will reinforce the stereotypes themselves."

Regardless of my documented stance against using stereotypes in marketing and development personas, stereotypes tend to be how these personas are designed. Even in the event that research is done to create an amalgamated entity, stereotypes tend to seep in; people naturally think in stereotypes. Since marketing research is costly in terms of both time and money, however, I suspect many personas are developed using stereotypes alone. These personas are then used by companies to create our wants and needs, our problems and solutions. This is in free-market capitalism.

Communists don't seem to have a better solution. I don't even have an inkling of how to start fixing this problem. The problem is so innate that we'll have a hard time of socially outgrowing the issue, but I'm optimistic that we will.

In the meantime, I'll keep supporting boys who paint their toenails pink and commercials for female-specific hygiene that are as raunchy as commercials for male-specific hygiene. What else can we do?

Poor ScarJo

Jon — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:54:00 +0000

Scarlett Johansson nude cell phone photo 1 (reenactment)

Scarlett Johansson nude cell phone photo 2 (reenactment)

Poor Scarlett Johansson. Yesterday someone released two nude photos of the actress. The photos were released by someone who had hacked her cell phone and stolen the pictures. I'm sure people upload stolen nude pictures to the internet all the time, but I feel particularly bad for attractive famous people that this happens to. For most people, a stolen-and-uploaded nude photo would be a temporary source of embarrassment, and perhaps eventually a funny story. For a well-known and good-looking person like Ms. Johansson, the unintended audience is spectacularly larger than for an unknown party.

Out of respect for Scarlett's privacy, I've reenacted the photos instead of including the originals. You don't need to see them. You know what she looks like, and the poses are like what you see me doing here. Obviously curiosity got the better of me, but, in all fairness, I also looked at Anthony Weiner's stolen nude cell phone photos. I have been a fan of both of these celebrities for a long time (check the back-issues), and I feel so bad for them.

Many of us are naked for some portion of every single day. And we live in a world where cameras are increasingly ubiquitous. I am not one for censorship, but I think we may need to impose some serious penalties on distributing stolen photographs. Perhaps the wider the distribution, the stricter the penalty?

Look Who I Found!

Jon — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:56:00 +0000

Awhile ago, you may remember if you've been with us for awhile, we started two film projects about a couple of townie characters named Lee Fries and Bentley "Bont" Bontsworth ((We're Not) Bricks & Brass and Community Collegian, if you're curious). We had an up-and-coming musician onboard as musical director for those projects. His name is Brennan Villines, and he looks like this:

Photo via ModelMayhem

I just happened to see this headline today on a link list: "Listen Up: Brennan Villines". It's the same guy - he's currently starring in a production of Bye Bye Birdy. Check out the story at Go Memphis and see that a friend of the Booboisie can become somebody: http://www.gomemphis.com/news/2011/sep/06/listen-brennan-villines/

Drag Me To Hell

Jon — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:25:00 +0000

Theatrical poster from Wikipedia

Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell is the best monster movie I have seen since Gore Verbinski's The Ring. The film is scary and gross without ever falling into mindlessness. I hadn't heard of the film until Sarah, knowing that I like both Sam Raimi & Justin Long, gave me a copy as a gift. I was extremely surprised and impressed by the quality of the film; I liked even more than The Evil Dead. Dileep Rao, whom I had only otherwise seen in Inception gives an extraordinarily impressive performance in Drag Me To Hell. I don't want to give much away, but the film is remarkably fun and definitely worth checking out.

Amazon.com Widgets

A House-Hunting Horror Story

Jon — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:52:00 +0000

for my good friend Lauren and her husband Neil. Good luck, guys!

At the beginning 2009, Sarah was done with the MSW coursework she intended on taking at IUPUI, and I was still trying to get into grad school. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included a first-time homebuyer credit of $8000 that need never be paid back so long as the first-time homebuyers stay in their homes for at least 3 years. Since we had nothing to hold us in Indianapolis but our jobs, we started applying for jobs near the graduate schools that I applied to, hoping that one of us would get a job near a school that I would get into. We had crunched the numbers and discovered that, for roughly the same monthly payment as our rent at the time, we could buy a house, build equity, and get a free $8000.

I didn't get into grad school that year, but Sarah landed a job near Bloomington, Indiana, and the house-hunting began.

A nice thing about house-hunting in Bloomington while living in Indy is that we didn't have to take off work to do it - the cities are close enough together that we could do it all during evenings and weekends. I worked in the state building, and I spent my lunchbreaks applying for pre-approvals at the financial institutions in Circle Center (the center of Indianapolis). For what it's worth, 5/3 and Chase were my first choices going in, since I already had accounts at both of these institutions. The representative that I spoke with at 5/3 made it clear that my lunchbreak was close to his lunchbreak, and he'd rather be taking an early lunch than working on a mortgage application for some punk kid. The rep at Chase was superprofessional, though, and Chase had a better rate to offer us anyway, and lower closing costs. The only downside to Chase was that they couldn't guarantee we'd be able to close by the time our lease was up at the end of May.

I talked to our (wonderful, fantastic) landlord, and he said it was fine if we paid month-to-month without a contract until he found new tenants, meaning we could stay past our lease and push the closing back a month. I went down to Chase and paid the application fee to get the ball rolling.

Sarah had already arranged to quit her job in Indy and start her job near Bloomington to coincide with our original closing time. Meanwhile, our Realtor suggested we apply for a mortgage with a company in Bloomington called Mortgage Masters. Sarah went in and talked to a representative there who said it would be "no problem" to get a mortgage closed by our original anticipated move date. I went back to Chase, got my fee back since they hadn't actually started processing the app yet, and went down to Mortgage Masters in Bloomington and paid the fee there instead.

On May 2, 2009 (Free Comic Book Day), we made an offer on a house, it was accepted, and we signed the paperwork to make our agreement binding for 30 days. We ordered a home inspection and put down our earnest money. We dropped off all of the paperwork asked of us at Mortgage Masters, and we went home to our apartment feeling pretty proud of ourselves.

The representative stopped answering her phone and responding to emails when Sarah would try to check on our application. The representative kept emailing us, asking for updated bank records and paystubs, and for older documents that we had already provided. The representative did this so much that we started keeping records of what we sent her, when, and how many times we had to send it again. By the time our scheduled closing date came around, our mortgage master had not even finished our application. We met up with our sellers, apologetically, and we all signed paperwork to extend the agreement another 30 days.

So we paid an extra month at the apartment in Indy. Sarah's parents live near Bloomington, so while she was working there but before we moved down there, she stayed with her parents so she wouldn't have to waste so much time/gas/money commuting so far.

The next 30 days went about the same as the previous 30 days. By the time our new closing date came around, our application was complete but had not yet been sent to the underwriters. We tried to extend our contract with the sellers again, but they were too pissed at already taking off 2 days of work each and getting nowhere. They refused to extend the agreement, raised the price of their house, and said that even if we agreed to pay more than they were asking they wouldn't sell it to us.

All along, our Mortgage Masters representative acted like I didn't exist. When we were there in person, she'd tell Sarah to tell me or ask me things. And when the application still wasn't ready a full month after she said it would be, she laughed with her apology, saying it was no big deal, and it's not like we'd be homeless because of it.

We really thought that an extra month beyond "no-problem"-time would have been enough time for our mortgage master to get it together and we'd be able to move in. We had rented a U-Haul for the second time in as many months, and since we'd had all of our stuff packed up since late May anyway, we went ahead and loaded it up. We'd already agreed to be out of the apartment by the end of June. In one day, we'd gone in our minds (and our lives) from homeowners to homeless.

Sarah's parents let us stash our boxes of everything-we-own in their garage and let us stay with them while we tried to find a new place to live. We made a point to chip in for groceries, but Sarah's parents wouldn't let us pay them any rent or utilities.

We did a lot of hand-wringing about our situation, particularly about whether to stick it out with Mortgage Masters where we'd already sunk thousands of non-refundable dollars and more than three months time. They'd screwed us over bad enough that everything we owned was packed in boxes in a garage, but if we changed lenders, we'd have to spend all that time and money again. We doubled down and hoped that it would not be another three months before we were done with Mortgage Masters.

Somehow, it was a lot easier to house-hunt when we were living in an apartment than when we were overextended houseguests. We saw a lot of interesting houses, many of which would have been fine if we would have had some time to fix them up a little before moving in. As it was, we wanted to find something we could move into right away, so that we could not be homeless anymore.

Applying for a job while not having an address is superdifficult, by the way, so my Bloomington-area job hunt was rather stagnant, and I was commuting to Indy during our homeless days.

My favorite inside-a-house-while-house-hunting memory came during this time. Our realtor had found a foreclosure that was quite a bit less than we'd been expecting to spend, but not so low that we suspected anything terribly wrong with it. When we stopped to look at it, we quickly realized that it has almost the same floor plan as my parents' house. We were pretty excited about it until we discovered one of the rooms was missing a wall to the outside. Well, the wall was laying in the yard instead of attached to the house. Besides that, the house looked great.

Eventually we found the house that we bought, and we closed on it on August 19, 81 days after we were told we'd be able to. 5/3 lent us the money. Our Mortgage Masters representative was late to the closing. My name is spelled "Jonhnanthan" on our documents.

Way back in May we'd gotten some coupons for free grilled KFC that Oprah Winfrey had been giving out, and the night we bought our house, we sat on the floor of the filthy, dirty, empty, wiener-dog-smelling house and ate our grilled chicken. It's been good since we finally moved in, but it was a mess going through the process.

Oh, when we asked our Realtor why she'd recommended Mortgage Masters, she told us that she'd heard good things but had never worked with them before. She said she's not going to recommend them anymore!

So, my advice, if you'd like it: finance your house with an institution you've worked with before and trust and/or plan on the process taking a lot longer than advertised.

Good luck guys!

Taxes & Services

Jon — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:38:00 +0000

I often hear people complain about how high taxes are.

I often hear people complain about how shitty government services are.

Sometimes I even hear people complain about how shitty government services are in relation to how high taxes are.

I am tired of how often I hear people complain about how the government is trying to take away their entitlements while complaining about taxes and the very existence of government services.

As I am wont to do, I am calling us to action. If you think you might be a person like one of the generic people I described above, or if you are otherwise dissatisfied with taxes or government services, do something. And by "do something," I do not mean "start to complain" or "keep complaining."

By "do something," I mean if you think that you are better suited for an office than the current officeholder or the favorite for the next election, run for that office. If not, find someone who you think is better and support their campaign.

We act like elected officials are some sort of aloof subsection of society, selected by divine right, when really, they are just people who thought they could do better respective jobs than the people that they replaced and ran against.

Sure, there are some dynastic political families in America, but the only advantage a politician's child has over anyone else in fair elective politics is more opportunity to impress people who have experience supporting winning campaigns.

You'll probably be the underdog, and you'll probably lose the first race you enter and every race thereafter, but you cannot win if you do not run. And you cannot expect the government to do anything differently than it does unless you make changes to the government.

Power to the people.

Federalism

Jon — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:12:00 +0000

Federalism is one of the keystones of the US system of government, but with today's unsurprising downgrade of the US credit rating, I've been thinking about how much we, in the states, rely on the government at the national level. According to 'kipedia, as of 2011 August 1, the division of national, state, and local resposibilities is roughly as follows:

National government domestic policies

Internal improvements
Subsidies (mainly to shipping)
Tariffs
Disposal of public lands
Immigration law
Centralized National Defense
Foreign policy
Copyrights
Patents
Currency

State government policies

Property law
Estate and inheritance law
Commerce laws of ownership and exchange
Banking and credit laws
Labor and union laws
Insurance laws
Family laws
Morals laws
Public health and quarantine laws
Public works laws, including eminent domain
Building codes
Corporations law
Land use laws
Water and mineral resource laws
Judiciary and criminal procedure laws
Electoral laws, including parties
Local government laws
Civil service laws
Occupations and professions laws

Local government policies

Variances (adaptation of state law to local conditions)
Public works
Contracts for public works
Licensing of public accommodations
Assessable improvements
Basic public services

I hadn't ever really thought about it before today, but I am kind of shocked that the local level has the fewest responsibilities. Of course this Wikipedia list is not comprehensive, and some responsibilities, like currency and intellectual property rights make much more sense to be as general and centralized as possible. But I think a compelling tactic to correct the United States budget deficit is to review the responsibilities of the federal government, determine what tasks would make more sense to be done locally and move those tasks from the federal level of government to the local level of government, with the states doing the same thing as the federal government.

People are often expressing concern with alleged "government takeovers"; the government should lose as many duties as it can, pushing them as far down the division of power as possible. Let's use the far-reaching government for things like civil rights protections. Let's use the local level of government for things like business regulation, trade restrictions, immigration policy. States can fill in the gaps on either end.

Why have levels of government if we're going to depend on the most abstracted level for everything? We might as well have a parliamentary monarchy at that point.

Blind Rage will kill us all.

Zachhh — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:19:00 +0000

Someone I went to high school with posted this status update last night after Casey Anthony, alleged child murderer, was acquitted:

"Everybody go to Caylee's Law and like the page and sign a petition to hopefully change the DOUBLE JEPORADY LAW... maybe it wont help but its worth a try!! JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

She wants to change the double jeopardy law--as if double jeopardy is some federal statute that exists by popular vote--because of the outcome of one trial. What the hell is going on?

I understand the frustration that accompanies the feeling a criminal has been allowed to walk free. It's horrible. But at the same time, in a publicized trial, most of what We see is what the Media thinks is the most interesting, which is not necessarily representative of what's really going on in the courtroom. Even if the person looks guilty as sin, that does not a conviction make. Our justice system is founded on a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt with people we think look shifty.

I am, however, rendered almost speechless by the quote above. First, the so-called "double jeopardy law" is not just some obscure technicality that benefits lucky criminals. It arises from a little thing called the United States Constitution--the Fifth Amendment to be exact. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment reads "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Further Constitutional support is found in the Fourteenth Amendment--"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"--which makes the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double jeopardy binding on the several states as well as the federal government (Benton v. Maryland). Thus, overturning the "double jeopardy" law would, in essence, be to violate (or repeal) the relevant clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. You would change our fucking Constitution just because some jurors in a strange case that has no bearing on your personal life whatsoever couldn't agree that the prosecutor, who seems to be lazy, had satisfied the state's "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof? You have to be kidding me.

Secondly, what happens if you are alleged to have committed a crime, are acquitted, and then prosecuted a second time for the same event? You would be infuriated, scared, harassed. Let's please not throw the baby out with the bathwater just because you personally find the outcome of a single case to be undesirable.

Thirdly, it is the responsibility of a jury--not the public at large--to decide guilt or innocence. That jury was unconvinced by whatever evidentiary showing the prosecution made. I would venture to say the jury, or at least most of the people on it, probably had the same bad feelings toward Casey Anthony as the 5th/14th-repealers do: the story doesn't make sense, she looks guilty, we don't like her, there's a dead toddler and someone must pay, etc. But the jury has a duty--a very, very serious duty--to put aside personal feelings and evaluate the entire picture. Then, the jury must put that information alongside the state's "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof, which in many jurisdictions is treated as somewhere between 90 and 99.9% certainty of guilt; anything less should end in acquittal. If the jurors just weren't convinced that burden was met--regardless of whether their gut feelings tell them she's guilty or that they hate her guts--they had a duty to acquit. That result falls squarely on the prosecution for not mounting enough evidence, presenting it poorly, etc.

Fourthly, even if that little "double jeopardy law" is repealed, there's no guarantee you'd get a conviction to satisfy your bloodlust. What if Anthony is tried again and a second jury acquits her? Then she looks even more innocent, you have egg on your face, and your bloodlust goes unsatisfied. This is sort of like the poor people that play the lottery and pray to win it, because it'll fix all their problems; then when they do win the millions, their lives go in the shitter because the money ruins them, and they end up in a worse situation they started in. Then what?

Lastly, everyone seems to be looking at this situation through the same rage-filled lenses as they did the OJ Simpson verdict. We all assume the bitch is guilty and want her to burn. Fine. But what if she isn't?

Let's look at another polarizing case: JonBenet Ramsey. Popular opinion was that her family was responsible for her death, and they were publicly vilified for it. Many people wanted the family prosecuted and put to death, because they were so certain of their guilt. But in 2008, the Ramsey family was cleared of wrongdoing and deemed innocent. What if, between the death in 1996 and the 2008 declaration of innocence, the family had been tried, falsely convicted, and wrongly executed?

In our rage and bloodlust and desire for justice--especially where an innocent child has been murdered--we still cannot lose sight of the foundations of our system. We can't lose sight of the big picture, and all that hangs in the balance. The reactionary changing of laws based on one data point--here, one case that ends without a satisfactory ending in the minds of many--can easily chip away at our fundamental protections and make the mere act of living in the USA a dangerous endeavor. What if you are falsely accused of a serious crime? Don't you want the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to protect you? That is what's at stake here: your own safety and protection.

I'm sorry for all the people that are sitting at home crying and worrying about the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial. Benjamin Franklin has echoed the famous "Blackstone formulation" that it's preferable to have ten guilty people walk free than one innocent person suffer. That's kind of the basis of our entire nation's criminal legal code. That's why it takes so long for criminals to be brought to justice: our courts are very, very careful about exercising the burden of judging another human being when lives hang in the balance. It's taken very seriously and it goes back hundreds of years. Ignoring that precedent for the sake of one bad mom that you don't like does not a good idea make.

Have some perspective, people. It's what the Founding Fathers would want.

Pornography? Why?

Jon — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:14:00 +0000

"Early Fish" by Per Johansson

In college, the fish and funnel video described in WTSP article "Hardcore porn, racist e-mail found on Tampa Bay Storm coach Tim Marcum's computer" made its way around campus. It was disturbing. Of course, more amusing pornographic films made their rounds as well, including Love Muffins and Women in Black 2. Watching these films, I wondered what path takes a person from adorable child to licking someone's butt on film.

I know that "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale" by Jenna Jameson and Neil Strauss is a memoir and is available. That book actually came out the year I started college. However, the reviews of the book have always steered me away from it, describing it as "pandering" and "about 1/3 full of nude pictures."

"Me With Porn Stars Ashlynn Brooke & Sadie West" by joanna8555

Recently, I came across a blog by a former pornstar (pictured above, on the right) who went by the name "Ashlynn Brooke" in her pornography days. She is now going by "Ashley" and is accessibly chronicling her memories of her journey from curious high schooler to on-camera butt-licking. So far it's interesting and easy to read. If, like me, you wonder how people end up getting paid for presenting their naughty-times, you might want to check Ashley's Blog out: http://all-things-ash.com/

Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

Jon — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:31:00 +0000

I haven't had a chance to watch this yet, so I'm just putting it up in full instead of writing something this week:

Rest in peace, Max Carpenter

Jon — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:40:00 +0000

Jack Kevorkian, like Ron Burgundy, played jazz flute. If you'd like some thematic music to listen to while you read this week's Fear Goggles, here you go:

Jack Kevorkian died on 2011 June 3, 4 years and 2 days after his release from prison. He had been in prison, as you probably know, for actively and persistently assisting willing humans to euthanize themselves. Kevorkian died not from a euthanasia device, but from a thrombosis.

6 days after Kevorkian's death, a friend of the Booboisie, and family member to Jerry, was euthanized. Rest in peace, Max.

The decision to euthanize a non-human animal is often made by a council composed of that animal's doctor and that animal's adoptive family. In the case of humans, I suspect the decision is made similarly, but in the human case, the person whose life is at stake can also have a say, except in cases where the person in question is too young or otherwise unable to understand or communicate his/her opinions on the subject.

Local legality and acceptance of euthanasia, as I understand it:

Non-human animals - legal and largely uncontroversial
Pre-natal humans - 1/3 legal and controversial
Terminally unconscious humans - legal and mildly controversial
Conscious, mentally unfit humans - sometimes punitively legal and controversial
Conscious, mentally sound humans - illegal and largely uncontroversial

I cannot understand how this set of legalities and controversialities developed or how it makes any sense. Wikipedia currently lists the following "Reasons for euthanasia" on its "Animal euthanasia" page (reasons are not currently listed on the general "Euthanasia" page):

Terminal illness – e.g. cancer
Rabies
Behavioral problems (that usually cannot be corrected) – e.g. aggression
Illness or broken limbs that would cause suffering for the animal to live with, or when the owner cannot afford (or has a moral objection to) treatment.
Old age – Deterioration to loss of major bodily functions. Severe impairment of the quality of life.
Lack of homes - many shelters receive considerably more surrendered animals than they are capable of re-housing.

I often hear people claim that humans are the only species capable of feelings, including pain and fright. I fully disagree with that idea, but I also don't understand how that idea is compatible with popular views on euthanasia. How is quality of life an issue for an unfeeling beast?

Regardless of the existence of animal emotions, why is a quick, peaceful, medically-induced death acceptable for almost every possible suffering animal except the willing, cognizant human?

At least the suffering animal incapable of communicating its medical desires is allowed a quick, peaceful, medically induced death.

Rest in peace, Max. You too, Jack.

The Fallacy of Memorial Day

Zachhh — Mon, 30 May 2011 13:51:00 +0000

There's more than one reason why I don't buy into celebrating Memorial Day. First of all, I think the vast majority of people that celebrate (not necessarily the "three-day-weekender" celebration or the "50%-off-all-furniture-in-the-store" celebration) do so with false sincerity. Most of them seem to want to appear to be sincere in there appreciation, but don't think about it the other 364 days of the year.

Secondly, and more obnoxiously for me, is we artificially inflate the status of servicepeople in our nation compared to other professions. Before you get mad, let me begin by saying none of what's about to follow is designed to belittle or degrade the sacrifice of our armed services. They make incredible sacrifices and I would never want to marginalize that. What follows is, simply, an attempt to give perspective.

Although members of the armed services are given food, housing, college funding, and health care in addition to a paycheck, we act as if they are categorically under-appreciated. Really? In what other profession--except maybe as a Senator--would you get such benefits?

If you're still not following me, think about it this way: what are police and firefighters paid? About $49,000 a year for police and $41,000 for firefighters. While servicemembers may not bring home that much, it's hard to imagine their pay plus their additional benefits don't amount to more than police and firefighters, who don't get those same perks.

Still not with me? Okay, fine. People are quick to deride police that have "desk jobs" because they aren't on the streets. Well, what do you people think the majority of military jobs are? Desk jobs. There are more cooks, painters, and office jockeys than infantrymen, but they're all entitled to wear the uniform and get the praise. How is this double standard fair?

Answer: it isn't. The fact is that the average police officer and firefighter is in real danger every day they go to work, whether in a standoff or directing traffic, or fighting a fire. Thousands of police officers and firefighters die in the line of duty every year. Why do we not celebrate their sacrifices?

There are probably two reasons. First of all, it's become acceptable in our society to villainize police as bad guys and scumbags. There are bad apples in every profession, but allowing those people to typecast the entire profession is ludicrous. We don't villainize all military members after a few of them rape and murder innocent civilians, or go crazy and shoot their comrades. Police and firefighters should be no different.

Secondly, we are afraid to criticize members of the armed services. If a Marine rapes and kills a woman and her children in a war zone, we say, "What a shame, the pressure must've gotten to him," and that's the end of it. But if a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, all cops are scumbags. Just the same, there's a culture that it's unacceptable to not treat the military as demi-gods. They are human beings just like you and me. We need to stop pretending they are angels doing God's work with assault rifles and missiles.

So until we start celebrating our police and firefighters and stop pretending like every person with a military uniform is an infallible Captain America, I won't be satisfied. I know it's not a popular position to take, but I don't care. It's the right position to take.

Happy Memorial Day.

Post Office Rant (possibly "Post Office Rant Redux")

Zachhh — Thu, 26 May 2011 23:36:00 +0000

I haven't written anything for good ol' Fear Goggles in months (thanks for nothing, law school, your steaming pile of time-wasting horseshit!), so in my non-triumphant return I'm going to discuss something I may have already railed against in the past. But given that no one reads this blog and even if they do, they probably aren't familiar with the full body of work herein, I'm going to cover the subject anyway. Also, if you didn't know that maybe (again, I'm still not sure) I've written about this previously and only found out about it because of the last sentence, here's a special instruction: ignore the previous sentence and start anew at the next paragraph.

I was in line in the post office a few days ago to mail a package. It was about noon, which is always a busy time at the post office. However, on this day only about 5 people were in line: 2 in front of me, and two in the back.

I'd been there about a minute perhaps when I hear the following statement from the person behind me in line:

"This is what's wrong with our government. They can't do anything. How hard is it to run the post office, really? They keep raising the cost to mail, they lose your mail, the service is slow in the office and in delivery, and they are all idiots. They like using what little power they have to give you the third degree when you mail a package. I'm so sick of this stupid government-owned crap, it's a joke."

I don't know where to begin, so I'm going to fire off my key points in list format. (It's a blog--there's no rule against that).

First of all, just because the USPS is a government organization doesn't mean that it's useless and defective. It just means it's a government organization. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Secondly, it's really hard to manage billions of pieces of mail for 350+ million people in one of the largest geographical areas on the planet. It's sort of a miracle that anyone ever gets their mail on time, if at all.
What does it cost to send a letter first class from NY to LA? Like fifty cents? Are you such a miserable cheap bastard that you feel gouged when someone carries a piece of paper for you cross country in 3 days or less for less than a dollar? If you'd never seen mail prices and someone said "How much do you think it would cost if you gave a letter to this company and had them produce it 3,000 miles away in less than three days?" your guess would probably be at least $50. So what if they raised stamps 1-cent! It's still a fucking steal and one of the few true bargains in the world! If the USPS had raised prices in accordance with inflation and gas prices, it would cost about $5 to mail a letter. But, luckily, those scumbags are owned by our shitty government (remember that point you made earlier?) and they subsidize it to keep the mail affordable for everyone. What jerks!
When was the last time you actually had the USPS lose your mail? Or even damage it? You probably can't remember, can you? And even if you do remember, I bet it was an isolated incident, and not a pattern of reckless abandon as you suggested.
Service in the post office isn't that slow. Even if you were in line at McDonald's when it's busy, you're going to be in line 5 or 10 minutes. Why is it acceptable to stand in line for a shitty manufactured sleazeburger but you can't wait more than 10 seconds to send a letter? Be consistent!
And the "third degree" business. You may not recall 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax scare, or the pipe bombs of the 1990s, but that's why postal workers ask what's in the package when you mail it. It's not Big Brother. It's not to be nosy or go on a power trip. It's to help make sure the mail is safe. Admittedly, if you're sending a dirty bomb in the mail and Betty Postworker asks "Is there anything liquid, chemical, or potentially hazardous in the package?" you aren't going to say, "Damn, you got me, I totally put a bomb in there; good one, Betty." But it might catch someone acting weird and it'll tip them off to scan the box before they mail it to Washington, D.C.
Lastly, if that's how you feel about the post office, why are you here in the first place? Why aren't you down at Fedex or UPS getting stellar customer service, speedy delivery, and rock-bottom prices? The answer is "because it costs less than a fucking dollar to send a fucking letter from fucking Kentucky to fucking Timbuktu."

You aren't entitled to first-class service just because you pay taxes. I pay taxes too, and I don't expect to get V.I.P. treatment when I mail a letter. The fact is the post office is a huge public service to us all, and we pay shockingly little to enjoy its benefits.

So if you're the asshole standing in line 30 seconds at the post office and throw a hissy fit, here's my advice: Stop being such a jerkoff, because we're all waiting patiently and you should do the same. Your time is no more important than mine, and I'm willing to wait 5 minutes to ship a package for $3 when it would cost $10 to sent it through another provider.

And if you really don't like the post office and won't back down, have Fedex or UPS deliver all your mail. See how long you want to foot that bill before you complain about waiting 3 minutes at the post office, you leech.

Faxes today

Jon — Sat, 14 May 2011 13:51:00 +0000

FAX by Robert Brook

The Bad Mutha Booboisie needed to file its annual property taxes for the first time, and we had the option to mail or fax it in. I typically use a free fax service online when I need to fax something like this, and I intended to do so this time. On Thrusday, I prepared my files into two 3-page PDFs and uploaded them to the service. I entered the required information, confirmed my request, and left them processing while I went to mow my front lawn.

When I got back from mowing, I found that the first 3 pages had gone through while the subsequent 3 pages had not gotten a response from the receiving fax machine. I tried to try again, but the limit of 2 faxes per 24-hours apparently includes failed faxes in the count. I tried 3 other free online services; none worked. On Friday, I took my file to my day job with me and tried 4 times to fax from there; no response each time. I ended up mailing my tax files, but I wonder: why do we still use the fax system?

Why don't we have automatic backup-to-email settings and fax-via-DSL or wifi? I don't understand how fax has survived without evolving. Please explain it to me.

"Anti-Social Stigma" from Whomp!

Jon — Fri, 06 May 2011 11:42:00 +0000

Ronnie Filyaw shares my views about gender roles:

Acting

Jon — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:02:00 +0000

"Caricature - Jim Carrey"
by woanling

Every workday I fein interest in a bunch of things that I'm really not interested in at all. I empathize and sympathize and smile and nod. Some of it is real, and sometimes my mind is somewhere else. I think that I'm a good enough

"From Hell"
by severedflesh

actor that not many people can tell the difference.
Pretending isn't new to any of my current jobs. In every job I have ever had I have had to pretend to be something I am not or to feel something that I do not. Dress codes are a strong example. At many jobs, "extreme hairstyles" are not allowed, and the dress code is split into a dress code for men and a dress code for

Scarlett Johansson
by *R-becca

women, with very specific implied gender roles. I am so strongly opposed to gender roles that I painted my fingernails for my wedding, but I have to comply with the dress code where I work.
I am actually pretty okay with pretending to be something I'm not at work. I suspect that just about everyone does some pretending to do each of our respective jobs. I especially like playing against character, in myself and in others, like Henry Rollins as AJ Weston on Sons of Anarchy. My problem is that changing roles is so difficult. Once we become a lovable character, employers have a hard time imagining us in a different role. The situation is extremely unfortunate because we need to be able to change to be able to grow.
I think

"TDK Wallpaper VIII"
by Luke M. Schierholz, on Flickr

we need to change jobs more often. If we don't, we run the risk of becoming what we were only pretending to be.

Procrastination « You Are Not So Smart

Jon — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:09:00 +0000

Clock King by better-pathos

Once again I've let a week go by without taking the time to write an article, so I'm going to defer you now to my favorite pop psychology websites, You Are Not So Smart: A Celebration of Self-Delusion, for a 2010 October article about, and titled, "Procrastination." Enjoy.

Abstinence is Contraception

Jon — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:02:00 +0000

Something that really gets my goat is how intolerant and unkind people from all walks of life are toward people who have unplanned pregnancies.

image by Marcelo Resende

Since I've been reading Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church's views are on my mind, but this article should be broadly applicable, even if I focus too narrowly.

The Catholic Church has some official doctrines regarding contraception and birth control, such as the Dignitas Personae and its predecessor Donum Vitae. To the Church's credit, they are unexpectedly consistent, condemning all forms of birth control. Even "the Catholic contraceptive," "Natural Family Planning," is frowned upon, though exceptions are made for NFP.

So far, I think we're in pretty reasonable territory. The church wants as many people to experience life as is possible. Our current social, political, and physical boundaries could not contain this kind of population growth, but I'm sure we could find solutions to those problems. I am behind the idea that everyone deserves rights from conception, and I can understand the idea, without necessarily supporting it, that everyone deserves the right to be conceived.

So far so good, right? Unfortunately, the Church also condemns "juridical tolerance of unmarried couples." You know, like Mary & Joseph when she were pregnant with Jesus.

image by Steve Snodgrass

I suppose Mary and Joseph had to suffer to test their faith. Even if holiness-inducing-suffering is the reason the Church advocates "juridicial" intolerance, the Church should advocate individual tolerance, acceptance, compassion, and support.

Clearly I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, but I am knowledgable. As I understand the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, he was intolerant only of intolerance. The Son of Man, as he called himself, was patient with prostitutes and extortionists and impatient with judgmental religious leaders. He famously mouthed off to a jury that was prepared to execute an adulterer. His mother was an unwed, pregnant teenager.

image by emerille

Abstinence, like condoms, hormone pills, and NFP, is contraceptive. By not having sexual intercourse each time the urge arises, we deny potential human beings the chance to be conceived. I say this sincerely.

The Catholic Church views conception as an inalienable right. Personally, I think conception, like most good things, is wonderful in moderation. Either way, a pregnant woman is sacrificing time, energy, and even space in her body for a new person. Regardless of how or why that child was conceived, pregnant women should be cared for and revered, not ostracized and marginalized.

Let's provide extra services for unplanned mothers. Let's give them everything they need for their children to be healthy. Let's honor them for the service they are providing to their children and the world. Let's be tolerant and kind to them.

RE: Fw: : A kid got an A+ for this paper

Jon — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:21:00 +0000

Once again, my inbox provides me with something I can't ignore. Email is on the left, my comments are on the right.

> > BY A 15 yr. OLD SCHOOL KID > who got an A+ for this entry > (TOTALLY AWESOME)! > >	Check out Snopes for the questionable factuality of the attribution. This entry is totally awesome, if by awesome the author mean terrifying (which (s)he might, but I doubt).
> Since the Pledge of Allegiance > And > The Lord's Prayer > Are not allowed in most > Public schools anymore >	What? They aren't not allowed anywhere in the USA. They are not allowed to be required, but they are allowed to be recited.
> Because the word 'God' is mentioned..... > A kid in Arizona wrote the attached >	The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and the word 'God' was added in 1952. And I'm pretty sure the word 'God' is not in the Lord's Prayer or the problem anyone has with public schools requiring students to recite it.
> NEW Public School prayer: > > > "New Pledge of Allegiance" >	Yikes. I'm pretty sure this prayer/pledge is going to be more disrespectful than this performance.
> Now I sit me down in school > Where praying is against the rule > For this great nation under God > Finds mention of Him very odd. >	Why is this in rhyming couplets? Why is this being derived from "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep"? Praying isn't against "the rule". Forcing others to pray is against the rules, especially forcing others to pray in a specified way. God can be mentioned; He cannot be asserted as undeniable.
> If scripture now the class recites, > It violates the Bill of Rights. > And anytime my head I bow > Becomes a Federal matter now. >	Scripture could possibly be recited as literature, but to be recited as fact does violate the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. Bowing your head is not a problem. Forcing someone else to bow his/her head is the "Federal matter", since 1791. It's also been a state-and-local matter since 1925.
> Our hair can be purple, orange or green, > That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.. > The law is specific, the law is precise. > Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice. >	I have never been in a school that allowed "unnatural" hair colors. Students were suspended from public schools that I attended for that very offense. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the author does not cite "the law" (s)he references here; I'm pretty sure the author made this law up.
> For praying in a public hall > Might offend someone with no faith at all.. > In silence alone we must meditate, > God's name is prohibited by the state. >	Please stop beating this poor, dead, misinformed horse. You can pray. You cannot force someone else to pray your way. You might be offended by someone telling you that you must pray to Allah or Ganesh or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Xenu.
> We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, > And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...	Again, I have never been in a public school where profanity is "allowed", and the phrase "dress like freaks" is extremely offensive and insensitive. I do not know specifically what the author means, but I cannot imagine that phrase meaning anything unoffensive.
> They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. > To quote the Good Book makes me liable. >	I do not know what this is talking about. Was there a time in American history that students were allowed to bring guns to school? I guess that could be true, but why are we talking about guns now? Back on the dead horse, the Bible isn't banned. The Bible is also not a textbook, especially a science text. Liable? For what? Libel?
> We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, > And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.	Like Mary and Joseph!
> It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, > We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.. >	What? I think the author is confused. I know I am. "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." - Jesus (Matthew 7:1-5). So now I'm really confused. Is the author arguing for or against biblically taught morality?
> We can get our condoms and birth controls, > Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles .. > But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, > No word of God must reach this crowd. >	I am so tired and offended by this prayer/pledge. Please excuse me while I give the dead horse (and myself) a rest.
> It's scary here I must confess, > When chaos reigns the school's a mess. > So, Lord, this silent plea I make: > Should I be shot; My soul please take! >	Woah! Surprise twist ending! I thought the author was mad that guns are allegedly outlawed? Can we find this student and tutor him/her in logical consistency?
> Amen > > >	No.
> If you aren't ashamed to do this, Please pass this on.. > Jesus said, 'If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you before my Father.' >	I really wish we could get some citations from this author. I am not aware of any biblical reference to Jesus saying any such thing. The closest reference that I am aware of is St. Paul's second letter to Timothy 1:7-8, "For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God." That's Paul talking, though, not Jesus.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~AWESOME~~~~~~~~~~	Terrifying.
> > Not ashamed. Pass this on. >
	I'm just glad it's finally over!

Scott Adams' "Two Heads": A Review

Jon — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:35:00 +0000

My uncle Buck was a big fan of Scott Adams' work. I think he had a Catbert toy for every room in his house, and as far as I know, he bought each Dilbert collection as soon as it was released. Because of my uncle's affection for S.A.'s work, I read Dilbert most days, and some of his other writing as well. Mr. Adams is fairly prolific, so I do not read anywhere near all of his writing.

Even if I had the time to read all of his various writings, I don't think I would. While he does write some excellent pieces, such as "How to Tax the Rich" (Wall Street Journal), he also writes items that make me cringe.

His blog article "Two Heads" is the piece that inspired this review. As a cognitive scientist, I take issue with his air of expertise that he uses to circulate misinformation.

Adams begins "Two Heads" with the rhetorical question, "Are conjoined twins one person or two?" He immediately answers, "That's easy. They have two minds, so they are two people. A person is defined by his or her brain." But it's not easy. I would go so far as to say the question is not framed specifically enough to give a proper answer, and I would assert that in general, conjoined twins are somewhere between one and two people, e.g. 1.8 people. A person is more than a brain.

Adams finishes his first paragraph, "You are your brain." I could not disagree much more strongly. You are your body in your environment. Changes in any part of your body or environment are changes in you. Try to completely disconnect any decision, idea, or thought from your body or environment; I bet you cannot. You need your body and environment to be you. The idea that "your limbs, hair, lungs, heart, and all the rest of your parts can be transplanted, conjoined, or in some cases deleted, yet you remain the same person" is simply a reiteration of the ship of Theseus problem. In fact, we are living exemplars of the ship of Theseus. We constantly change parts at the cellular level, to the extent that none of our physicality is the same as that of our infant selves.

In his second paragraph, Adams asks us to "consider regular identical twins. Their brains have the same DNA, yet they are considered two people because their brains operate independently. I think we'd all agree that having the same DNA doesn't make twins one person." I don't think we'd all agree about that. I have heard people claim that twins, identical or otherwise, share a single soul. Apart from the presumption here, though, I suggest that non-conjoined identical twins are closer to 2 people than 1, but farther from 2 people than 2 fraternal twins, who are themselves farther from 2 people than a pair of non-twin siblings, all of whom are farther from 2 people than a pair of unrelated strangers.

Skipping ahead a little, Adams asks us to consider It "that what we think of as one person is always two, even if the two halves of the brain are communicating." I'm with him here more than before, but his logical problem remains. When counting people he is insisting on using whole numbers, which can work for rough aggregate purposes, but in discussions of unique personhood, whole numbers are insufficient. The extent to which a pair of people share a body or an environment reduces the individuality between them. As identical twins grow up and spend more time apart, they become more like 2 people than they were before. Identical twins separated at birth who never meet again are almost 2 unique people, but they share much of their body make-up, so they are still partially the same person. Likewise, college roommates become partially the same person by sharing such a large portion of their environment, especially if they have a lot of classes together and hang out outside of their apartment or dorm. Whenever two people come into contact, they share some of their individuality with each other, and, with respect to one another, each becomes less of a unique individual person.

As you read this article, you get some of my ideas, and, as such, you and I become partially the same person. Scott Adams and I are partially the same person because I've read some of this writing. I read his "Two Heads" article, took in the ideas, and, although I reject most of the ideas in the article, they are an inseparable part of me. These ideas are now a part of you. You're free to reject or accept them, in whole or in part, but you can't un-read them. The longer you go without thinking about the ideas, and the more other ideas you think about, the less of a part of you these ideas will be. But, in at least one way, you and I are the same person.

Bieber

Jon — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:53:00 +0000

I often don't know what to think of Justin Bieber, or why I'm thinking of him in the first place. I have seen a lot of him the past few days. He was, unfortunately, in a commercial with Ozzy during the Yellow Pants Superbowl this evening. He made his second appearance on SNL yesterday. He traded bodies with Jon Stewart for Thursday's Daily Show.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Intro - Justin Bieber and Jon Switch Bodies

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

From these promotions for his documentary/concert/biographical 3-D film Never Say Never, I think he may have found his niche.

From the first time I heard of Justin Bieber, I felt sorry for him. He is a pretty excellent punchline, for a wide variety of jokes. Look at him. Especially the way he wears his shoes. Listen to him sing. His name is Bieber. All pretty hilarious.

His niche that I mentioned? Knowing he's hilarious and rolling with it.

For months I've been jokingly campaigning my wife to go see Never Say Never 3-D with me. I'm starting to think we should really see it. I bet it's hilarious.

NCAA Indiana Hoosiers

Jon — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:28:00 +0000

Last night Sarah and I watched the Michigan State Spartans defeat the Indiana Hoosiers by 14 points. The game had a closer spread than I had anticipated. I was expecting the Hoosiers to get crimson-and-creamed, but they almost held their own. The game wasn't particularly exciting, but for most of the game, there was still a glimmer of hope for a possible rally.

If you follow NCAA basketball, you're probably double-checking the timestamp on this article for the date. Yep, it says 2011 January 21. And on 2011 January 20 the Indiana Hoosiers lost by 9 points to the Wisconsin Badgers.

Not only do schools have the same name and mascot across sports, but for most, if not all sports, many schools make the men's and women's teams share names and mascots. Okay, whatever. Who cares? Not me.

But I do care that sports are segregated by gender. When I was investigating the parking situation at Indiana University's Assembly Hall, I came across this front-page article in the Indiana Daily Student: Attendance at women’s basketball games continues to lag. The headline only surprised me by being portrayed as front-page news. I have never seen a well-attended women's basketball game. Even the WNBA struggles to attract attendees.

Sexist prejudices, I'm sure, are largely to blame. A quick glance through the comments at the bottom of the aforementioned IDS article supports that assertion. In sports, women are allegedly less interesting to watch and less competitive than men.

This allegation is bullshit. I hereby propose a solution: integrate sports. Men and women should play professional sports on the same field at the same time. Not a men-vs-women situation; women and men should be on teams together.

If women's sports are less interesting and competitive than men's sports, the real catalyst is likely motivation. If you are a competitive interesting woman, why would you want to play to stadiums that are only filled to half-a-percent of capacity?

If you put a competitive, interesting woman on a men's basketball team, though, you will sell out your season.

Integrate sports. Please.

You Fix the Budget

Jon — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:37:00 +0000

The New York Times has an interactive budget solver. On my first try, I "solved the budget."

I only selected the options that I thought sounded like fantastic, great ideas to me. The thing is, every option is pretty reasonable and worthwhile. Surely Congress will be able to implement some of these kinds of changes if the NYTs is able to compile such a lengthy list of only reasonable solutions.
Follow the link to see my choices and to make your own: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=3mxlh5qv

Morning Glory

Jon — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:39:00 +0000

film by Aline Brosh McKenna and Roger Michell

Review:

Rachel McAdams is, not surprisingly, a very strong lead. Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Jeff Goldblum, Patrick Wilson, and John Pankow provide a strong supporting cast. The film is funny.
Unfortunately, the film is also pretty forgettable.

As I was watching the film, I kept thinking how much it reminded me of Sports Night, but with stronger actors and weaker writing. Sports Night is pretty classic; Morning Glory, not so much.

The film does have its strengths. As I mentioned, the acting is superb. Rachel McAdams has some screen time in her underwear, which is not something to complain about. The film is genuinely funny. I enjoyed the deadpan humor and a running gag, although I wish both had been played up more. I thought Ty Burrell's character was really funny, and I was sorry he was not in it more.

I guess I don't have much to say about the film just because there's not much there to talk about.

I did enjoy the film, and my wife enjoyed it more than I did. I don't care if I see it again, though.