I'm in D.C. now. It's not a great place. Don't let anyone fool you.
But there's humor. Today I was outside the Target at rush hour. A traffic cop directing busy traffic on a rainy morning, made one guy move up, into the intersection. Just before the driver's light turned red. So now, the traffic with the green couldn't go.
This happens a lot when there's no traffic cop, right?
So why is the city paying this dude to fuck up traffic on purpose?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Fucking Grammar
A few years ago, the word "tsunami" was all the rage in the media. You know, "a tsunami of bad news," "a tsunami of dissent," "a tsunami of spouse-cheating governors." That kind of thing.
These days, the overused word du jour is "fraught." The annoying thing about it, aside from the constant overuse, is that just about everyone uses it wrong.
For example, just today I heard a guy, a journalist talking on the KPCC show The Business. It's a show about the entertainment industry, and you can podcast it if you like. Anyway, the dude being interviewed writes about the video gaming industry for a living, and he said that the gaming industry has always had a "fraught" relationship with Hollywood.
A fraught relationship.
What the fuck?
Fraught means full. For example, telling your wife or girlfriend she's mad at you because she's riding the cotton pony is fraught with peril.
It is not simply fraught.
From the guy's tone, I think he meant to indicate that the video gaming industry has had a strained relationship, or a relationship filled with tension--fraught with tension, you might say.
But not fraught.
So, to journalists everywhere, I ask this: You are getting paid to use language. Please use it well. Dumbasses.
These days, the overused word du jour is "fraught." The annoying thing about it, aside from the constant overuse, is that just about everyone uses it wrong.
For example, just today I heard a guy, a journalist talking on the KPCC show The Business. It's a show about the entertainment industry, and you can podcast it if you like. Anyway, the dude being interviewed writes about the video gaming industry for a living, and he said that the gaming industry has always had a "fraught" relationship with Hollywood.
A fraught relationship.
What the fuck?
Fraught means full. For example, telling your wife or girlfriend she's mad at you because she's riding the cotton pony is fraught with peril.
It is not simply fraught.
From the guy's tone, I think he meant to indicate that the video gaming industry has had a strained relationship, or a relationship filled with tension--fraught with tension, you might say.
But not fraught.
So, to journalists everywhere, I ask this: You are getting paid to use language. Please use it well. Dumbasses.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Been there done that.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my ex-wife's boyfriend just bought her a house. This posting is dedicated to him.
In case you doubt me
Read about the GOP's plans:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/politics/politico/main3949349.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/politics/politico/main3949349.shtml
Geraldine was right
Obama has been mostly getting a pass as most people pretend that there's a new paradigm to race relations in this country.
He's lied about Tony Rezko, and he's lied about Jeremiah Wright:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1
All this means, basically, that he's just like the rest of the douchebags who run for office at the national level.
But here's the thing. When you show a black man shouting about race relations in this country, how blacks have gotten a bad deal, and saying "God damn America" from the pulpit, it tends to scare the shit out of white people.
Obama needs white people to vote for him. Leftwingers are generally wussy, and I suspect that a lot of them will run away thanks to the spectre of an angry black man in the White House. (Don't laugh--the right did an excellent job connecting Iraq to 9/11, and there has never been a demonstrable connection.)
He's lied about Tony Rezko, and he's lied about Jeremiah Wright:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1
All this means, basically, that he's just like the rest of the douchebags who run for office at the national level.
But here's the thing. When you show a black man shouting about race relations in this country, how blacks have gotten a bad deal, and saying "God damn America" from the pulpit, it tends to scare the shit out of white people.
Obama needs white people to vote for him. Leftwingers are generally wussy, and I suspect that a lot of them will run away thanks to the spectre of an angry black man in the White House. (Don't laugh--the right did an excellent job connecting Iraq to 9/11, and there has never been a demonstrable connection.)
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Prostitution's Victims
So I've been reading a lot about the Elliot Spitzer case lately. I mean, who hasn't? And a lot of the fallout is about whether prostitution is a victimless crime.
Lots of writers, especially women, say it is not. For example: http://blog.nj.com/njv_kathleen_obrien/2008/03/prostitution_perhaps_not_a_cri.html
But seriously, most of the people writing the equivalent of "ewwww" are women. And they always denominate the wife (aka the long-suffering wife) as a victim of the crime.
I don't think so. Prostitution doesn't involve the sale of finite resources. Pussy ain't a barrel of oil. On the flip side, Elliot's dick isn't going anywhere either.
So unless the wife was horned up and wanted to get laid when Elliot was banging the pro, she's not a victim.
I'm going to say that people writing about the poor wife are more appalled at the "betrayal" of wedding vows. Fine. It is what it is.
But they never talk about the hooker's poor boyfriend/husband beind a victim. (Granted, there isn't one in the Spitzer case.) In fact, the critics usually assume that the hooker's boyfriend/husband is complicit, that he's practically a pimp. That's how you know the critics don't really care about the sex qua sex. (For a discussion of what sex workers actually tell boyfriends, go here: http://happyendingz.blogspot.com/2008/01/boyfriends-or-how-can-you-date-someone.html.)
Honestly, I think a lot of women want to feel sorry for themselves (or, by extension, other women). But women are hard on each other. Any woman who has ever had a job or gone to school knows this. They don't see themselves as hookers, ever, but they often see themselves as the wife.
So now I'll say it. Even though Dr. Laura is nuts, she makes a good point when she says that if men are happy to come home, they will. I think that's true in more than 90% of cases. When men are done working but dread going home, they find other things to do.
Lots of writers, especially women, say it is not. For example: http://blog.nj.com/njv_kathleen_obrien/2008/03/prostitution_perhaps_not_a_cri.html
But seriously, most of the people writing the equivalent of "ewwww" are women. And they always denominate the wife (aka the long-suffering wife) as a victim of the crime.
I don't think so. Prostitution doesn't involve the sale of finite resources. Pussy ain't a barrel of oil. On the flip side, Elliot's dick isn't going anywhere either.
So unless the wife was horned up and wanted to get laid when Elliot was banging the pro, she's not a victim.
I'm going to say that people writing about the poor wife are more appalled at the "betrayal" of wedding vows. Fine. It is what it is.
But they never talk about the hooker's poor boyfriend/husband beind a victim. (Granted, there isn't one in the Spitzer case.) In fact, the critics usually assume that the hooker's boyfriend/husband is complicit, that he's practically a pimp. That's how you know the critics don't really care about the sex qua sex. (For a discussion of what sex workers actually tell boyfriends, go here: http://happyendingz.blogspot.com/2008/01/boyfriends-or-how-can-you-date-someone.html.)
Honestly, I think a lot of women want to feel sorry for themselves (or, by extension, other women). But women are hard on each other. Any woman who has ever had a job or gone to school knows this. They don't see themselves as hookers, ever, but they often see themselves as the wife.
So now I'll say it. Even though Dr. Laura is nuts, she makes a good point when she says that if men are happy to come home, they will. I think that's true in more than 90% of cases. When men are done working but dread going home, they find other things to do.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)