Ryan has put forth a very even-handed analysis of the remaining presidential candidates. I agree with almost everything he says. From Huckabee to McCain to Obama, he's dead on. However, I think he has not done justice to the shit that the Clinton Campaign is pulling right now. Let me caveat this post by saying I am extremely angry right now, so if the grammar and/or logic is lacking, I apologize.
First, this bullshit with Florida's and Michigan's delegate is completely disingenuous. The states' delegates were barred from voting at the convention because they broke party rules. The party determined this, and none of the candidates complained about it at the time. But now that Clinton is behind, and it looks like she might lose the election, she is suddenly pushing that those delegates, who overwhelmingly voted for her because OBAMA DID NOT CAMPAIGN THERE, AND WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN, be counted. This is exactly the reason that people dislike her so much. She is a blatant opportunist, and will do whatever it takes to win, even if it is borderline cheating.
Second, this superdelegate nonsense is getting out of hand. Clinton stated recently that superdelegates should vote for whomever they want, regardless of whether that person won the popular vote. If Obama were to win the most pledged delegates and Clinton won the election with more superdelegates, we can never complain again about Gore losing in 2000. The people, not "party leaders," should elect our candidate. If more people vote for Obama, he should be our candidate. End of story.
Third, Clinton wants to debate every fricking week. I am going to paraphrase Obama here, who says "we've had 18 debates! 18!" She wants to do this because Obama has more money and debates are essentially free advertising. All of this maneuvering is exactly why Obama is gaining so much support. We are all tired of this political bullshit. That's not to say he won't be sucked into it if he becomes president, but at least he's not making an ass of himself now.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thoughts on the Candidates
My 2 cents is free...
Mitt Romney. Thank god this guy won't be president. If the presidency were automatically awarded to the smarmiest, phoniest candidate, he'd be president for life. I mean, they'd have to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Is there an issue he hasn't reversed himself on to pander to the right wing? The most telling moment of the campaign, for me, was when Mike Huckabee said that President Bush had a "go-it-alone" foreign policy, and Romney went nuts. Now, saying that Bush has a "go-it-alone" foreign policy is a simple, plainly obvious, noncontroversial descriptive statement akin to "the sky is blue," that people in both parties agree with. Romney, in a transparent attempt to appeal to the GOP base, pretended that it was treason and actually demanded that Huckabee apologize to the president. It was phony and cloying and sycophantic, all rolled into one, and that about sums up Mitt Romney. And don't get me started on candidates who promise to run government "like a business": it's either stupidity or disingenuousness, and the fact that, with Romney, it's clearly the latter doesn't help him.
Mike Huckabee. How could you not like him? Maybe because he's an evangelical nutjob who doesn't believe in evolution, and whose success is based on the support of other nutjobs? Hmmm ... No, I still like him. He's just likable! Of course, if he actually became president, we'd all be in huge trouble (until the rapture comes, anyway). But, what is it about Hope, Arkansas that produces politicians that can screw you over and leave you smiling afterwards?
John McCain. He's, by far, the Republicans' best candidate this year, but that's sort of like saying that the construction worker was, by far, the most heterosexual of the Village People. For those of you who are worried that McCain is going to win the general election, let me point out a few things about him:
1. He's old.
2. Really old.
3. The two biggest issues of the election are likely to be the economy and Iraq, and he's hugely vulnerable on both.
4. Republicans' feelings about him range between dislike and loathing.
5. To unite the party, he's going to have to pick some lunatic as his running mate, a choice that I suspect just may be abnormally solvent as an issue this year (see: points 1 and 2).
HRC. Man, if you just watched TV, you'd think that nobody likes this woman. Certainly the news media are almost unanimously against her. After she lost Iowa, the major networks hit her in the head with a shovel and had her buried under three feet of dirt before she won New Hampshire, climbing out of the grave, either Lazarus-like or zombie-like, depending on your point of view, and has walked among us ever since. Now that she's teetering on the edge again, they're poised to bury her for good. Except that she's still up by 20 in Ohio. Oops.
Barack Obama. I've got to admit, I'm on this bandwagon. What a phenomenon this guy as been. He captured lightning in a bottle at the 2004 Democratic convention, and has managed to keep the lid on. People love him. It's actually trendy to volunteer for his campaign (and, talk about a generational divide, nearly everyone I know is backing him). My sister canvassed for him, and I went with her to the campaign election night party in Hollywood. Normally, political activists appear -- how can I put this gently -- sort of nerdy and weird-looking, and they're old. This group looked like the cast of, I don't know, The OC, except more diverse and less out-of-date. But he seems to really bring a lot of traditionally excluded people, young people and others, into the process. It bothers me some that he's so inexperienced, and that his church is on friendly terms with noted bigot Louis Farrakhan. But, in his brief time in office, he's been right about just about everything, and the idea that he's an anti-semite doesn't ring true. This almost feels like a campaign of destiny, but there's also an Icarus-type feel about it: What will happen if and when the news media fall out of love with him and start shining bright light on him?
Mitt Romney. Thank god this guy won't be president. If the presidency were automatically awarded to the smarmiest, phoniest candidate, he'd be president for life. I mean, they'd have to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Is there an issue he hasn't reversed himself on to pander to the right wing? The most telling moment of the campaign, for me, was when Mike Huckabee said that President Bush had a "go-it-alone" foreign policy, and Romney went nuts. Now, saying that Bush has a "go-it-alone" foreign policy is a simple, plainly obvious, noncontroversial descriptive statement akin to "the sky is blue," that people in both parties agree with. Romney, in a transparent attempt to appeal to the GOP base, pretended that it was treason and actually demanded that Huckabee apologize to the president. It was phony and cloying and sycophantic, all rolled into one, and that about sums up Mitt Romney. And don't get me started on candidates who promise to run government "like a business": it's either stupidity or disingenuousness, and the fact that, with Romney, it's clearly the latter doesn't help him.
Mike Huckabee. How could you not like him? Maybe because he's an evangelical nutjob who doesn't believe in evolution, and whose success is based on the support of other nutjobs? Hmmm ... No, I still like him. He's just likable! Of course, if he actually became president, we'd all be in huge trouble (until the rapture comes, anyway). But, what is it about Hope, Arkansas that produces politicians that can screw you over and leave you smiling afterwards?
John McCain. He's, by far, the Republicans' best candidate this year, but that's sort of like saying that the construction worker was, by far, the most heterosexual of the Village People. For those of you who are worried that McCain is going to win the general election, let me point out a few things about him:
1. He's old.
2. Really old.
3. The two biggest issues of the election are likely to be the economy and Iraq, and he's hugely vulnerable on both.
4. Republicans' feelings about him range between dislike and loathing.
5. To unite the party, he's going to have to pick some lunatic as his running mate, a choice that I suspect just may be abnormally solvent as an issue this year (see: points 1 and 2).
HRC. Man, if you just watched TV, you'd think that nobody likes this woman. Certainly the news media are almost unanimously against her. After she lost Iowa, the major networks hit her in the head with a shovel and had her buried under three feet of dirt before she won New Hampshire, climbing out of the grave, either Lazarus-like or zombie-like, depending on your point of view, and has walked among us ever since. Now that she's teetering on the edge again, they're poised to bury her for good. Except that she's still up by 20 in Ohio. Oops.
Barack Obama. I've got to admit, I'm on this bandwagon. What a phenomenon this guy as been. He captured lightning in a bottle at the 2004 Democratic convention, and has managed to keep the lid on. People love him. It's actually trendy to volunteer for his campaign (and, talk about a generational divide, nearly everyone I know is backing him). My sister canvassed for him, and I went with her to the campaign election night party in Hollywood. Normally, political activists appear -- how can I put this gently -- sort of nerdy and weird-looking, and they're old. This group looked like the cast of, I don't know, The OC, except more diverse and less out-of-date. But he seems to really bring a lot of traditionally excluded people, young people and others, into the process. It bothers me some that he's so inexperienced, and that his church is on friendly terms with noted bigot Louis Farrakhan. But, in his brief time in office, he's been right about just about everything, and the idea that he's an anti-semite doesn't ring true. This almost feels like a campaign of destiny, but there's also an Icarus-type feel about it: What will happen if and when the news media fall out of love with him and start shining bright light on him?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Summary of Recent Sports-related Issues- or a treatise on not getting what you want
Several months ago, at the end of baseball season, I remarked on the incredible strides the Washington Nationals had made over the course of their season, ending with a record certainly not "historically bad", if not reaching "good".
Well this weekend DC's other storied sports franchise, the Washington Redskins, hired an unknown coach to take over the head coaching duties from the immortal Joe Gibbs. Gibbs resigned a month ago, leaving the owner, Mr. Daniel Synder (henceforth referred to as "The Danny," "Snyderman," or "Napoleon") without a coach. Now, Napoleon tends to get all sorts of weird personnel ideas in his head, and usually throws money at whoever he wants until the player or coach succumbs to the power of his own greed. By such processes have arrived numerous over-the-hill players (particularly quaterbacks), a horrendously awful college coach whose main motivational technique was throwing his visor, and Deion Sanders, in a category all his own.
So all expected that The Danny, when searching for a new coach, would hire as big a name as was available, regardless of whether any of the players or existing coaches wanted to play or work for him. Fortunately for all of us, the big names wanted nothing to do with the Redskins. Bill Cowher, despite certainly being offered a pile of money as huge as Snyderman's ego, claimed that he was happy working in TV and wasn't ready to return to coaching. Pete "Southern California is my Xanadu" Carroll didn't want to leave the fawning legions of USC. And Jim Mora just had too much sense. So Napoleon finally had to check his ego at the door and hire as his head coach a guy he had hired to be an assistant two weeks before.
Now to bring this post full circle, despite the fact that this wasn't what he wanted, Snyder has almost perfectly replicated the circumstances that allowed the Nationals to exceed all expectations last year. The Nats decided that instead of going out and getting someone flashy, they would find a young, smart baseball man that the team could build an identity around. Coincidentally, that man, Manny Acta, also happened to be a great teacher with an ability to connect with his players. Jim Zorn, the new Skins coach, fits that same model.
The Nats did it intentionally, and the Skins as a last resort, but maybe The Danny has learned something from not getting what he wanted. Of course, nobody knows how Coach Zorn will eventually perform, but if the example of the Nationals is any indication, good times for the Skins may still be ahead.
Well this weekend DC's other storied sports franchise, the Washington Redskins, hired an unknown coach to take over the head coaching duties from the immortal Joe Gibbs. Gibbs resigned a month ago, leaving the owner, Mr. Daniel Synder (henceforth referred to as "The Danny," "Snyderman," or "Napoleon") without a coach. Now, Napoleon tends to get all sorts of weird personnel ideas in his head, and usually throws money at whoever he wants until the player or coach succumbs to the power of his own greed. By such processes have arrived numerous over-the-hill players (particularly quaterbacks), a horrendously awful college coach whose main motivational technique was throwing his visor, and Deion Sanders, in a category all his own.
So all expected that The Danny, when searching for a new coach, would hire as big a name as was available, regardless of whether any of the players or existing coaches wanted to play or work for him. Fortunately for all of us, the big names wanted nothing to do with the Redskins. Bill Cowher, despite certainly being offered a pile of money as huge as Snyderman's ego, claimed that he was happy working in TV and wasn't ready to return to coaching. Pete "Southern California is my Xanadu" Carroll didn't want to leave the fawning legions of USC. And Jim Mora just had too much sense. So Napoleon finally had to check his ego at the door and hire as his head coach a guy he had hired to be an assistant two weeks before.
Now to bring this post full circle, despite the fact that this wasn't what he wanted, Snyder has almost perfectly replicated the circumstances that allowed the Nationals to exceed all expectations last year. The Nats decided that instead of going out and getting someone flashy, they would find a young, smart baseball man that the team could build an identity around. Coincidentally, that man, Manny Acta, also happened to be a great teacher with an ability to connect with his players. Jim Zorn, the new Skins coach, fits that same model.
The Nats did it intentionally, and the Skins as a last resort, but maybe The Danny has learned something from not getting what he wanted. Of course, nobody knows how Coach Zorn will eventually perform, but if the example of the Nationals is any indication, good times for the Skins may still be ahead.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The paralells between forced prison sex and mass transit
It's not that there aren't things to complain about, there's a lot that pisses me off. For example, the writer's strike transforming all TV into a soup of crap and reality TV that is slowly, inexorably, making our nation that much stupider. And me, because I watch some of this crap. And am disgusted at myself. Or the fact that my office keeps me just busy enough that I drop off of the face of the earth, and don't communicate with people, or have time to go out and get a haircut, although I desperately need one. My hair is approaching 70's-Beatle-esque levels of damn-dirty-hippiedness. But that's not what this particular entry is about.
The reason that many complaints do not make this blog is that many complaints are not the continual irritant, the small grain of sandy discontent that over time gets transformed into a beautiful pearl of bitterness and rancor. I feel I have a pearl, to express to all of you. Gaze into it's splendor, as I outline the parallels between (mostly financial) aspects of my daily commute and forced prison sex. This was inspired by yesterday, the second time this month that I have had to add money on to my smarttrip card in order to just get home. This is coupled with eth realization that even though I get the maximum allowable amount of Smart-trip money deducted from my paycheck every month, I will still need to do several recharges ever month. Forever.
1. My commute, like prison sex, is mostly involuntary
Well, everyone has to get to work. I have two options: I can drive, which is both incredibly irritating, environmentally unfriendly, and more expensive, or I can drive to the Metro, and take the train into work. I can't walk to the metro, it takes far too long. And, up until these recent increases in fares, it was significantly cheaper to take metro than to drive in. But that is changing. In any case, I have to get to work, like tens of thousands of other commuters. And taking gas and/or parking into account, either way, I am paying more than I ever have.
2. Like Prison Sex, the Metro Fee increase is given hardest to those people who are least able to defend themselves.
Metro has decided to put their increase on the backs of the people who have the least choice about it (suburban commuters), as well as those who make an environmentally and traffic friendly choice to use public transit rather than drive all the way in to town.
In their infinite wisdom, Metro decided to raise fees across the board, but to raise fees still higher on those commuters who use the system as it was originally intended, to commute from the outer parts of the city and suburbs into work. Let's face it. Metro was never designed to go all over the city, to be as useful and omnipresent as, say, the New York Subway. Metro is a spoke and hub System, designed for commuters. The metro rate increases hit those who ride longer distances extra hard, because the further that a person has to travel, the higher the fare hike goes. And, those who have to drive to metro and park their cars (like me) get hit with an extra .75 a day, which doesn't seem like much until you multiply that by 20-odd days a month. Then you realize It is costing upwards of an extra $15 a month, or about $180 a year. that is on top of the extra dollar or so that longer distance commuters like myself pay, each day, each way. Works out to another $2 a day, or $40 a month, or $480 a year. So, in total, Metro raised my personal transit bill by approximately $65 a month, or $660 a year. And, like a person facing prison rape, I have no good options. I can go ahead and take it, or I can choose the slightly more inconvenient, expensive, and irritating option of driving. Basically, I'm getting fucked either way.
3. Like Prison Sex, you get nothing in return for being violated
You would think that a fare increase would lead to some corresponding increase in service, or correlate to any sort of improvement. But it doesn't. Metro needs more money because they have managed their aging systems and overlarge payroll badly. Because the governments of the various jurisdictions that metro serves won't cough up enough dough, Metro has to cover its administrative and maintenance shortfalls on the backs of its riders. And what does that mean? For your increased, and entirely involuntary spending, you get nothing. Zilch, Nada. The trains still run late, all the time. The track is still poorly and sporadically maintained. Elevators and escalators don't work half the time. No one is going to build a line out to Dulles and Tyson's Corner (probably a rant for another time).
4. The perpetrators of prison sex are not usually the victims of prison sex
This one is short and straightforward. Of all the members of the Metro board, only one or two of them uses their own system to get to work every morning. The rest of them drive to work. None of them actually have to feel the pain that they are inflicting on others. It's like having Burger King run by an all-vegan Board of Directors. What do they care if the price of a Whopper goes up by 20%?
In closing, stop sodomizing me (and others) through our wallets. I don't care how Metro makes up revenue shortfalls, as long as they don't keep raising rates. Especially by raising rates on long-distance commuters. They can plaster very available surface on the trains and stations with ads. I read on the trains, it won't bother me. Cut salaries, starting with, say, the Metro Board (Cause if you have to raise rates to cover a budget shortfall, you aren't good administrators). Allow Red Bull to pass out samples in train stations. Sell cigarettes and porn in stations. However they have to cover the shortfall. Eventually, if Metro doesn't cover their budgets, it'll be their ass, too.
The reason that many complaints do not make this blog is that many complaints are not the continual irritant, the small grain of sandy discontent that over time gets transformed into a beautiful pearl of bitterness and rancor. I feel I have a pearl, to express to all of you. Gaze into it's splendor, as I outline the parallels between (mostly financial) aspects of my daily commute and forced prison sex. This was inspired by yesterday, the second time this month that I have had to add money on to my smarttrip card in order to just get home. This is coupled with eth realization that even though I get the maximum allowable amount of Smart-trip money deducted from my paycheck every month, I will still need to do several recharges ever month. Forever.
1. My commute, like prison sex, is mostly involuntary
Well, everyone has to get to work. I have two options: I can drive, which is both incredibly irritating, environmentally unfriendly, and more expensive, or I can drive to the Metro, and take the train into work. I can't walk to the metro, it takes far too long. And, up until these recent increases in fares, it was significantly cheaper to take metro than to drive in. But that is changing. In any case, I have to get to work, like tens of thousands of other commuters. And taking gas and/or parking into account, either way, I am paying more than I ever have.
2. Like Prison Sex, the Metro Fee increase is given hardest to those people who are least able to defend themselves.
Metro has decided to put their increase on the backs of the people who have the least choice about it (suburban commuters), as well as those who make an environmentally and traffic friendly choice to use public transit rather than drive all the way in to town.
In their infinite wisdom, Metro decided to raise fees across the board, but to raise fees still higher on those commuters who use the system as it was originally intended, to commute from the outer parts of the city and suburbs into work. Let's face it. Metro was never designed to go all over the city, to be as useful and omnipresent as, say, the New York Subway. Metro is a spoke and hub System, designed for commuters. The metro rate increases hit those who ride longer distances extra hard, because the further that a person has to travel, the higher the fare hike goes. And, those who have to drive to metro and park their cars (like me) get hit with an extra .75 a day, which doesn't seem like much until you multiply that by 20-odd days a month. Then you realize It is costing upwards of an extra $15 a month, or about $180 a year. that is on top of the extra dollar or so that longer distance commuters like myself pay, each day, each way. Works out to another $2 a day, or $40 a month, or $480 a year. So, in total, Metro raised my personal transit bill by approximately $65 a month, or $660 a year. And, like a person facing prison rape, I have no good options. I can go ahead and take it, or I can choose the slightly more inconvenient, expensive, and irritating option of driving. Basically, I'm getting fucked either way.
3. Like Prison Sex, you get nothing in return for being violated
You would think that a fare increase would lead to some corresponding increase in service, or correlate to any sort of improvement. But it doesn't. Metro needs more money because they have managed their aging systems and overlarge payroll badly. Because the governments of the various jurisdictions that metro serves won't cough up enough dough, Metro has to cover its administrative and maintenance shortfalls on the backs of its riders. And what does that mean? For your increased, and entirely involuntary spending, you get nothing. Zilch, Nada. The trains still run late, all the time. The track is still poorly and sporadically maintained. Elevators and escalators don't work half the time. No one is going to build a line out to Dulles and Tyson's Corner (probably a rant for another time).
4. The perpetrators of prison sex are not usually the victims of prison sex
This one is short and straightforward. Of all the members of the Metro board, only one or two of them uses their own system to get to work every morning. The rest of them drive to work. None of them actually have to feel the pain that they are inflicting on others. It's like having Burger King run by an all-vegan Board of Directors. What do they care if the price of a Whopper goes up by 20%?
In closing, stop sodomizing me (and others) through our wallets. I don't care how Metro makes up revenue shortfalls, as long as they don't keep raising rates. Especially by raising rates on long-distance commuters. They can plaster very available surface on the trains and stations with ads. I read on the trains, it won't bother me. Cut salaries, starting with, say, the Metro Board (Cause if you have to raise rates to cover a budget shortfall, you aren't good administrators). Allow Red Bull to pass out samples in train stations. Sell cigarettes and porn in stations. However they have to cover the shortfall. Eventually, if Metro doesn't cover their budgets, it'll be their ass, too.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
There is a Turd in this Bank
It's been pretty quiet around Kvetch lately. Apparently all of us are totally content with our daily lives, and nothing kvetch-worthy has happened since a family-oriented Thanksgiving and a Turd on a Sidewalk.
Well, a Turd has recently surfaced in my life. It comes in the form of a bank. Well, two banks, actually. See, my wife recently switched jobs, and she needs to roll her 401(k) from that job into an IRA. For some unbelievable reason, as if she isn't capable of making decisions about her own money, there is a "spousal consent" section. Don't get me started on the lunacy of this- I'm pretty sure that how my wife and I deal with money is our own business, and her company shouldn't have to consult me to move around money that she has rightfully earned. But either way, I have to have my consent notarized- I guess they want to make sure nobody is forging his or her spouse's signature.
So I went to a local BB&T office, which was next to the grocery store where I was filling a prescription. Apparently, however, the new thing in banking is to be as big a bastard as you can be to anyone who doesn't have an account with you. This BB&T refused to provide me notary service because I am not a customer of theirs. Never mind that I own BB&T stock (which, by the way, has tanked since they took over the small savings and loan my grandparents originally bought stock in), because that apparently isn't good enough. But then the teller had the gall to suggest that I open an account with them ("we have free checking!"). Now why in hell would I open a checking account just to get something notarized? And more importantly, why would I do any business with a bank that refuses to help me with something as simple as a notarization? Look at my license, stamp the paper, and BAM we're done. But no. I tried the same request in the Chevy Chase bank in the grocery store, with the same result. So I now declare that all Banks are now Turds.
To resolve this, I decided to drive another five miles out of my way to go to a credit union service center, as I my credit union is a member of a credit union consortium. But at 2:30 on a Wednesday, they were CLOSED. Apparently, this service center is not open AT ALL on Wednesdays. So now Credit Unions are Turds, as well, in my book.
Now, there will be Turds on sidewalks all over the land. Normal people just call them banks.
Well, a Turd has recently surfaced in my life. It comes in the form of a bank. Well, two banks, actually. See, my wife recently switched jobs, and she needs to roll her 401(k) from that job into an IRA. For some unbelievable reason, as if she isn't capable of making decisions about her own money, there is a "spousal consent" section. Don't get me started on the lunacy of this- I'm pretty sure that how my wife and I deal with money is our own business, and her company shouldn't have to consult me to move around money that she has rightfully earned. But either way, I have to have my consent notarized- I guess they want to make sure nobody is forging his or her spouse's signature.
So I went to a local BB&T office, which was next to the grocery store where I was filling a prescription. Apparently, however, the new thing in banking is to be as big a bastard as you can be to anyone who doesn't have an account with you. This BB&T refused to provide me notary service because I am not a customer of theirs. Never mind that I own BB&T stock (which, by the way, has tanked since they took over the small savings and loan my grandparents originally bought stock in), because that apparently isn't good enough. But then the teller had the gall to suggest that I open an account with them ("we have free checking!"). Now why in hell would I open a checking account just to get something notarized? And more importantly, why would I do any business with a bank that refuses to help me with something as simple as a notarization? Look at my license, stamp the paper, and BAM we're done. But no. I tried the same request in the Chevy Chase bank in the grocery store, with the same result. So I now declare that all Banks are now Turds.
To resolve this, I decided to drive another five miles out of my way to go to a credit union service center, as I my credit union is a member of a credit union consortium. But at 2:30 on a Wednesday, they were CLOSED. Apparently, this service center is not open AT ALL on Wednesdays. So now Credit Unions are Turds, as well, in my book.
Now, there will be Turds on sidewalks all over the land. Normal people just call them banks.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A heartwarming thanksgiving tale, involving video games.
I was reading this post from Penny Arcade, a website that I read for funny cartoons and news on video games, and such. But it brought to mind my own thanksgiving day experience with video games.
My sister came down for my birthday dinner and for thanksgiving, which happened to be in the same week this year. When she heard that the wife and I had a wii, she asked me to bring it over for thanksgiving, so people could play. Being a good big brother, I naturally obliged.
Before I actually discuss the experience, i want to note two things that I discovered that day. First, the Wii is small enough that I can fit the entire system, including two controller sets and five games (not including wii sports) into a bag that I got as a freebie at a Nationals game. A small insulated bag that is intended to keep a six pack of beer cold. So, the wii is really small.
Second, (a lesson learned while actually hooking up the wii to my father's TV), my father has the most complicated audio-visual setup known to man. I don't know who installed it, but they should get a medal. The back of the stereo/video receiver system at my dad's house must have approximately 80,000 plugs, all of which have just enough room to plug in properly, all of which can (and do) become unplugged as soon as you attempt to move the receiver even 6 inches. But this massively complicated system shows no wiring at all from the front. And, (when his son is not messing with it), the system works perfectly, switching between components so easily that anyone can figure out how to operate the entire system using just one remote. I realize that someday, this will likely be my destiny, to own a system that freaking complex. It's unavoidable. It's in the Perle-Levy genes, like liberalism, or cheating at cards (I get that from my great grandmother, and I don't really cheat).
Anyway, back to the substance of my original thought. Once I hooked up the wii and had it working properly, all of the "children", with the youngest being approximately 24 or 25, descended on the system, eager to play pretty much every game I brought. (Resident Evil 4 wasn't popular. I suppose that Zombie Games aren't good after dinner). That was predictable. But, when the adults heard what was going on, they all filtered downstairs, usually individually, to check the system out. And some of them even played a bit. My aunt was playing tennis against my sister, and my family's friend Mike Mike played with both his son and daughter. His son hadn't played a video game in about three years, and still managed to beat his dad. People played, or watched, fascinated.
It makes me believe that anyone can still play these games, and that the generation gap is not as wide as it would first seem. Anyone can play games, it just has to be the right game for their interests, and the right level of challenge. I've played the 8 second wario ware games, I find them confusing and kind of off-putting. I think a lot of people do also. Conversely, some RPG that requires you to watch unskippable videos for a half hour before you can play; or a FPS game in which a novice player gets continually blown away (and subsequently teabagged by jackasses) has too high of an entry point for a lot of people. The Whole Idea of Casual games (as exemplified, for better or worse, by the wii) versus Hardcore Games (games on the PS3, or the XBOX 360) is kind of a myth. It's not a zero-sum game between games that can be played and won in an hour versus games that you have to invest 40-60 hours in. The real thing is that in some games, the initial learning curve/entry barrier has to be low enough that someone who has never/hardly ever played games.
At least some games should be designed so that people like my parents, and their friends, can play with their grown children, and have something cool to bond over. If the video game market is ever going to expand beyond twenty-somethings and us 20-ish-30-ish people that grew up on the games, and be recognized as a legitimate form of media, not just something for kids, that's the direction that things will have to go. Because sometimes, kids want to play with their parents. And sometimes, a good game can bond everyone. Plus, it's fun. I certainly thought so.
My sister came down for my birthday dinner and for thanksgiving, which happened to be in the same week this year. When she heard that the wife and I had a wii, she asked me to bring it over for thanksgiving, so people could play. Being a good big brother, I naturally obliged.
Before I actually discuss the experience, i want to note two things that I discovered that day. First, the Wii is small enough that I can fit the entire system, including two controller sets and five games (not including wii sports) into a bag that I got as a freebie at a Nationals game. A small insulated bag that is intended to keep a six pack of beer cold. So, the wii is really small.
Second, (a lesson learned while actually hooking up the wii to my father's TV), my father has the most complicated audio-visual setup known to man. I don't know who installed it, but they should get a medal. The back of the stereo/video receiver system at my dad's house must have approximately 80,000 plugs, all of which have just enough room to plug in properly, all of which can (and do) become unplugged as soon as you attempt to move the receiver even 6 inches. But this massively complicated system shows no wiring at all from the front. And, (when his son is not messing with it), the system works perfectly, switching between components so easily that anyone can figure out how to operate the entire system using just one remote. I realize that someday, this will likely be my destiny, to own a system that freaking complex. It's unavoidable. It's in the Perle-Levy genes, like liberalism, or cheating at cards (I get that from my great grandmother, and I don't really cheat).
Anyway, back to the substance of my original thought. Once I hooked up the wii and had it working properly, all of the "children", with the youngest being approximately 24 or 25, descended on the system, eager to play pretty much every game I brought. (Resident Evil 4 wasn't popular. I suppose that Zombie Games aren't good after dinner). That was predictable. But, when the adults heard what was going on, they all filtered downstairs, usually individually, to check the system out. And some of them even played a bit. My aunt was playing tennis against my sister, and my family's friend Mike Mike played with both his son and daughter. His son hadn't played a video game in about three years, and still managed to beat his dad. People played, or watched, fascinated.
It makes me believe that anyone can still play these games, and that the generation gap is not as wide as it would first seem. Anyone can play games, it just has to be the right game for their interests, and the right level of challenge. I've played the 8 second wario ware games, I find them confusing and kind of off-putting. I think a lot of people do also. Conversely, some RPG that requires you to watch unskippable videos for a half hour before you can play; or a FPS game in which a novice player gets continually blown away (and subsequently teabagged by jackasses) has too high of an entry point for a lot of people. The Whole Idea of Casual games (as exemplified, for better or worse, by the wii) versus Hardcore Games (games on the PS3, or the XBOX 360) is kind of a myth. It's not a zero-sum game between games that can be played and won in an hour versus games that you have to invest 40-60 hours in. The real thing is that in some games, the initial learning curve/entry barrier has to be low enough that someone who has never/hardly ever played games.
At least some games should be designed so that people like my parents, and their friends, can play with their grown children, and have something cool to bond over. If the video game market is ever going to expand beyond twenty-somethings and us 20-ish-30-ish people that grew up on the games, and be recognized as a legitimate form of media, not just something for kids, that's the direction that things will have to go. Because sometimes, kids want to play with their parents. And sometimes, a good game can bond everyone. Plus, it's fun. I certainly thought so.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Angry Like Hulk & Passive-Agressive Sighing
Due to a prescription snafu, the drug industry's desire to control everything and sheer laziness, my birth control pill has not arrived yet. And I am out. There is a point to this, rather than just too much information. It means that due to the HORMONAL IMBALANCE of incredible magnitude, the PMS has come. And it's not pretty.
Yesterday there was the crying. I got a lump in my throat during a journey diamond necklace commercial. Those are for mocking, not crying; journey diamonds are the most ridiculously overhyped piece of crap jewelery that lame people buy because they have no taste (if you have one or are going to buy one, then . . . you suck, sorry). But today, oh today, the anger has come. The oh-my-god-will-you-just-DIE anger. Work required deep breaths and feeling massively superior to the less-competent.
Anyway, I went to the art store to get something framed. The store closes at 6:30. I arrived at 5:15. The framer had left for the day. Now, in my sensitive (irrational) state, this upset me. I wanted some compassion for my situation. I had walked all the way over there in the freezing cold. But the guy (flunkie) didn't have the right attitude (grovelling, apologizing and giving me free stuff) for my situation. And 'lo, I was angry like Hulk. But I held it in. Maybe I acted a bit of a martyr. I might possibly have sighed heavily. And maybe made a big deal about how busy I am a la a person with a life: "will they be here on Tuesday. . .no, wait, can't do it Tuesday. . .Wednesday? Will she be here until close? Are you sure?" - like I am very important* whose schedule is just SO FULL that this is a MAJOR inconvenience. But that's it - I recognized that I was irrational. But I was thinking death-thoughts about the flunkie.
*Just to let you know how ridiculous this is, my life consists of the following: sleep (8 hours), work (9-12 hours), watch television vaguely and waste time (2 hours), eat (2-4 hours). That's my life. Sometimes I do the time wasting with my guy (though he makes me do activities, such as moving or sitting at the table to eat, which I do while sighing heavily).
And I get home and my drain is still clogged (because it didn't get unclogged magically while I was at work by little Oompa-Loompa fairies?), my Christmas dress hasn't arrived from Nordstrom.com, and my prescription still has not arrived. My suffering is great, but I am strong. There will be phone calls, oh there will be phone calls. And I will sigh heavily. They should be afraid.
Aaanyway, as a special "treat" (what I do every night), I am going to watch Friends, eat Puffins out of the box and watch the scarf I am knitting not knit itself. Don't be jealous.
PS: On a tangent, however, I am also angry at Hollywood. Why do they suck? Why do they think we are dumb? There is a movie coming out with Matthew Perry and Zac Efron and it is apparently a remake of Big, Like Father Like Son (the gem with Dudley Moore and Kirk Cameron), 13 Going on 30, Dream a Little Dream (the Coreys are masterful), and others, I'm sure. I think there was one with Milton Berle. WTF. I was in Blockbuster the other day and wondering (loudly) why all the movies sucked (though my guy was slightly affronted when I said this as had his arms full of 30 straight-to-DVD horror movies that he thought looked awesome). Why are they passing off unoriginal drivel? I don't have really high movie standards (Bring It On is far superior to Stick It - oh, but I'll still watch Stick It), but if I'm offended, you know Hollywood is fresh out of ideas.
Yesterday there was the crying. I got a lump in my throat during a journey diamond necklace commercial. Those are for mocking, not crying; journey diamonds are the most ridiculously overhyped piece of crap jewelery that lame people buy because they have no taste (if you have one or are going to buy one, then . . . you suck, sorry). But today, oh today, the anger has come. The oh-my-god-will-you-just-DIE anger. Work required deep breaths and feeling massively superior to the less-competent.
Anyway, I went to the art store to get something framed. The store closes at 6:30. I arrived at 5:15. The framer had left for the day. Now, in my sensitive (irrational) state, this upset me. I wanted some compassion for my situation. I had walked all the way over there in the freezing cold. But the guy (flunkie) didn't have the right attitude (grovelling, apologizing and giving me free stuff) for my situation. And 'lo, I was angry like Hulk. But I held it in. Maybe I acted a bit of a martyr. I might possibly have sighed heavily. And maybe made a big deal about how busy I am a la a person with a life: "will they be here on Tuesday. . .no, wait, can't do it Tuesday. . .Wednesday? Will she be here until close? Are you sure?" - like I am very important* whose schedule is just SO FULL that this is a MAJOR inconvenience. But that's it - I recognized that I was irrational. But I was thinking death-thoughts about the flunkie.
*Just to let you know how ridiculous this is, my life consists of the following: sleep (8 hours), work (9-12 hours), watch television vaguely and waste time (2 hours), eat (2-4 hours). That's my life. Sometimes I do the time wasting with my guy (though he makes me do activities, such as moving or sitting at the table to eat, which I do while sighing heavily).
And I get home and my drain is still clogged (because it didn't get unclogged magically while I was at work by little Oompa-Loompa fairies?), my Christmas dress hasn't arrived from Nordstrom.com, and my prescription still has not arrived. My suffering is great, but I am strong. There will be phone calls, oh there will be phone calls. And I will sigh heavily. They should be afraid.
Aaanyway, as a special "treat" (what I do every night), I am going to watch Friends, eat Puffins out of the box and watch the scarf I am knitting not knit itself. Don't be jealous.
PS: On a tangent, however, I am also angry at Hollywood. Why do they suck? Why do they think we are dumb? There is a movie coming out with Matthew Perry and Zac Efron and it is apparently a remake of Big, Like Father Like Son (the gem with Dudley Moore and Kirk Cameron), 13 Going on 30, Dream a Little Dream (the Coreys are masterful), and others, I'm sure. I think there was one with Milton Berle. WTF. I was in Blockbuster the other day and wondering (loudly) why all the movies sucked (though my guy was slightly affronted when I said this as had his arms full of 30 straight-to-DVD horror movies that he thought looked awesome). Why are they passing off unoriginal drivel? I don't have really high movie standards (Bring It On is far superior to Stick It - oh, but I'll still watch Stick It), but if I'm offended, you know Hollywood is fresh out of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)