Why I Don't Like Football

In honor of the much ado about nothing taking place tomorrow, I've decided to finally post on why I don't care for football. In no particular order:

1. It rewards being an agressive jerk. No other sport, not even boxing, relies on unchecked testosterone and agression more than football does. Football is, on its basest level, about knocking people down and then raising your arms up in celebration. Any football game, even touch or flag, played by a group of males over the age of three, rapidly degenerates into Lord of the Flies.

2. It makes fat guys think they're athletic. Big fat guys who are good at knocking down skinny, high-center-of-gravity guys (like I was when I was in high school) love to suck in their stomachs and act like they're world class jocks (especially in P.E. class) when they're playing football. I always wanted to tell these guys that in any real sport being 100 pounds overweight and having over 60% body fat is not usually an advantage. But I kept my mouth shut because I didn't want to get knocked over again.

3. It's a cold, industrial, blue collar sport. Not to sound like a class snob, but I'm a dorky, educated kind of guy, not a guy who belongs to a union and carries a metal lunch box to work every day. Also, after I'm done drinking a beer I don't drop it on the floor and then beat my wife if she doesn't pick it up. My name isn't Gus, I don't belong to a bowling league, and I didn't grow up in a factory town in the Rust Belt or the Upper Midwest. I don't work with machines and don't like sports where men are treated and valued as machines.

4. I didn't grow up with it. What can I say? When I was little there were two pro teams in LA, but now there are none. Remember when the Raiders were going to move to Irwindale? What kind of a traffic nightmare on weekends would that have been?

5. I don't know what's going on half the time. Football's never really made any sense to me. Even rugby makes a lot more sense and the big joke about rugby is that one time I went to go see a riot and in the middle of it a rugby game broke out. Football is organized chaos as far as I'm concerned. Football has all sorts of weird plays, first, second, third downs, touchdowns, touchbacks, extra points, interceptions. Whatever. I can never figure out what's happening. For example, what the hell is a 'blitz'?

6. There are too many players. Guys on special teams, what makes them special? Do I want to know? Guys who come out for three seconds once a week just to knock over other guys who come out for three seconds once a week-- what am I supposed to like in all of this?

7. There aren't enough games. At least in football and baseball and, dare I say it, hockey, there are a decent enough number of games in a season where one individual game doesn't necessarily matter so much as the cummulative efforts put forth over the course of many months. Kind of like how life is. In football a bad day from a key player can mean not making the playoffs. As a result, luck becomes more of a factor than skill, so I may as well spend my time watching "Deal or No Deal".

8. Professional football players are the biggest jerks in the world. Keep in mind, this includes a world with professional basketball players in it. Pro football has produced so many thugs and murderers, and guys who shoot themselves in the leg at clubs. When was the last time you saw a football player make a touchdown and not dance around for five minutes, acting like he was the most awesome thing ever? When was the last time you saw a pro football player exude a shed of humility or quiet strength? Football players are supposed to be embodiments of the ultimate in manliness, yet none of them seem to possess any of the traditional qualities associated with manhood. If I want to watch a bunch of 12 year olds puffing their chests and knocking each other over I'll hang out at the gym at the local jr. high. Until then I'll pass on watching any football.

Movie Update

Milk: 2.5/4 stars. Gandhi for gay people. Takes a not particularly significant individual and inflates his importance to a level way beyond what it was in real life. Maybe 'Michael Collins' is a better analogy in this regard. Drags on and on. We know what's going to happen, and at the 1:20 mark I started hoping it would cut to the chase already. That said, Sean Penn's performance is very good, although there were a couple of scenes where he seemed to be channeling his "I Am Sam" character. In terms of craftsmanship, this is a better performance than Mickey Rourke's in "The Wrestler". The latter is more just a case where the actor and the role match up perfectly.

At the very least, the film doesn't shy away from the fact that the characters are gay, and shows the random hook ups and psychological anguish that fills the lives of real gay people (unlike, say, every other gay character in every movie or TV show ever, which is usually a variation of some sort on Jack from 'Will and Grace'). My take on the guy was that he was a local politician and gay activist who had limited influence beyond his district in San Francisco, but the movie almost treats him as though he was the first gay president. I also always got the impression that he really only became a gay hero after he died.

Famous People Who Look Like Me

James Joyce:



Though in all fairness, I'm usually not this well groomed.


Napoleon Dynamite:



Uncanny resemblance to me, circa 1990.


Vincent Van Gogh:



I think I look like a pretty good cross between what he really looked like and how he painted himself.





The Guy in the Fake 9/11 Rooftop Photo:



I had to tell my friends and family that I was alive and well after this photo started circulating around the internet.

My New Future Wife

My wife has decided that she's going to dump me and marry the kid with the goofy hair from the movie "Twilight", even though he's about 10 years younger than she is. So, to counter her plans, I've decided who I'm going to pursue:



Her name is Sara LaFountain. She's half Finnish and half French. She was born in Santa Barbara and raised in Finland. She's also a popular TV chef in Europe. We haven't set a date yet but you're all invited.

Movie Update

The Wrestler: 3/4 stars. The trailer made me think this would be a total cliche-fest and, sure enough, it is. It's also a good movie though. I found myself really drawn in and I thought Mickey Rourke did a good job with the character. The sub-plot with the daughter doesn't totally work, and I have to admit, I was expecting a little more overall from Aranofsky. Marissa Tomei is fine but not amazing or anything, and maybe seeing this on a snowy Sunday afternoon in the Northeast didn't help me to feel much affection for its setting. It's more a film you admire than a film you love and I can guarantee I'll probably never want to watch it again even though I'd recommend it to anyone interested in seeing it.

Academy Award Nominations

The Academy Awards are a strange thing. When I was little I used to assume that the movies nominated were the very best movies made that year, since they're selected by people in the movie industry, and people in the movie industry presumably know a lot more about movies than the average person. Now I realize that they're more or less a reflection of how Hollywood sees itself at the time, and what it feels it should be striving for. I haven't seen any of the nominated movies yet (in the big categories, anyway) but plan on seeing as many as I reasonably can (which will probably be one or two) before the ceremony.

Here's my thoroughly uninformed take on the nominees. For the purposes of this post I'm only going to bother with the Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Actress categories for now.

Best Picture:

Benjamin Button- I've heard mixed things about this one. It seems that the people who don't like it tend to have a fundamental problem with the premise. I've also heard criticisms that Brad Pitt is unable to convey much emotion as an actor. The counter-argument is that since he's playing a character who is so detached from his own experience, Pitt is actually perfectly cast. Also, part of the counter-argument is that the character the audience is supposed to relate to and empathize with is actually Cate Blanchett. Kind of like how "Julius Ceasar" is really about Brutus, not Ceasar.

Frost/Nixon- I'm sure it's good, but was this really a particularly significant event in our history? Isn't there something a little pretentious about this being made into a film?

Milk- I suspect this will end up winning. It sounds incredibly boring to me, for the same reasons Frost/Nixon does, but I'll still probably end up seeing it because the wife wants to so badly.

The Reader- I've heard this one actually isn't all that good. A lot of critics were surprised that it got nominated.

Slumdog Millionaire- I've heard this is very entertaining, a real crowd favorite, but that there isn't a whole lot beneath the surface, and it doesn't benefit from multiple viewings.

Best Actor:

Richard Jenkins- Nominated for "The Visitor" not "Stepbrothers" though his performance in the latter was perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The wife saw and liked "The Visitor" and said his performance was good but she thinks that people fell more for the character and the transformation he undergoes, rather than for the performance itself. She also said that there are no moments where his acting jumps out (no tantrums or crying jags) but also no moments where he has to convey any subtletly.

Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon)- From the clips I've seen I think his performance is ridiculous. He gives Nixon this crazy monster voice. I heard an interview with him on NPR and the guy seemed like such a blowhard. He was comparing playing Nixon to playing King Lear.

Sean Penn- (Milk)-From what I hear his performance is the best. He's always solid.

Brad Pitt- Hmm, I'm skeptical. Pitt's always a little boring as far as I'm concerned.

Mickey Rourke- (The Wrestler) Hollywood loves people who were once great, fell on hard times and then make a comeback, so Rourke will probably win. The movie looks completely unoriginal, cliched, and silly, as Bryan pointed out a few months ago when the trailer came out. Aranofsky (sp?) however, is a pretty incredible director, so, I don't know. I liked Rourke in "Diner" which is pretty high on my list of all-time faves. It's hard to reckon with the fact that the two roles are played by the same actor since Rourke looks so different now.

Best Actress:

Anne Hathaway- (Rachel Getting Married) Her performance is supposed to be the best. The wife saw this film and said Hathaway was very good, very effective. She mentions one particular scene where Hathaway is giving a speech at her sister's rehearsal dinner, and my wife had to look away from the screen because she was so embarassed for the character.

Angelina Jolie- (The Changeling) Puh-leez, why is she even on this list?

Melissa Leo- (Frozen River)- who? No, seriously, who? And they say there aren't any good roles for women. They have to find one we've never heard of, in a movie we've never heard of, to have five in the category. I guess "New in Town" didn't come out soon enough for Rene Zellweger to get a nod.

Meryl Strep- (Doubt)- I'm sure Meryl Streep is very good in this one and that she finds a difficult, somewhat unnecessary accent to perfect in her performance, but ads for this movie make me laugh out loud. It looks like a costume party. The word seems to be that the acting in this film is very good but the writing isn't at as high a level.

Kate Winslet- (The Reader) She will probably win because this is "her year" with this one and "Revolutionary Road". I don't dare say a bad word about her, knowing full well that I'll eventually have to answer about it to Bryan.

Worst Commercial Ever

Sorry Mike, this one's worse:



For a while they were showing this one all the time. It got to the point where I couldn't watch TV for a while, for fear that this commercial would come on.

Alton Brown Before He Started Cooking

Not really. I remember these commericals from when I was in high school. I so wanted to punch this kid in the face:

God's Angry Man

When nothing else was on TV, I could always find entertainment in watching Dr. Gene Scott. One of his more inspired, if surreal moments:

Not Meant to Be Bilingual

I'd love to be bilingual, but I just don't think it's in the cards for me at this point, unless I end up moving to a foreign country in the future. A few years ago I would have said, "unless I end up marrying someone who is from a different country or speaks a different language", but as it turns out my wife is just as blandly White American as I am, possibly even more so.

This is sad and ironic for someone like me who has essentially made their life's work studying and working with language. Although I deal more specifically with langauge handicap rather than individual languages, but even so.

My parents both spoke nothing but English. My paternal grandmother knew Finnish and Swedish as a child but didn't really use them much past the age of 18. She made a few half-hearted attempts to teach me a few Swedish words, counting to ten, that sort of thing, and she did the same with Finnish.

Swedish is a Germanic language and somewhat related to English, so a lot of basic words are easy to remember--katt, bok, hatt, kaffe, that sort of thing. This is not the case with Finnish however, where statments like "how are you?" translate into something along the lines of "Koskimaavariuu pu vaaritanianienen koski alla komovallahalla kokamensauri o?" Finnish is also a highly inflected language, which means that a word is spelled and pronounced differently depending on what part of speech it's being used as. Latin is similar, but as far as I know Latin has something like six or seven basic declensions: object, direct object, possessive, agent of an action, etc. Finnish, I'm not kidding, literally has something like 23 basic declensions. So the word for 'cat', depending on how it's used could be something like 'kissa', 'kisso', kissom', 'kissavo', 'kissari', etc. My grandmother always stressed how important it was to get the declension right, otherwise people will think you're an idiot and not be able to understand you correctly.

Even more frustrating about Finnish is that there are many, many different dialects of the language, depending on which part of the country, or even what town you're in. There is a standard dialect but--get this, no one actually speaks it at home, it's only used for official governmental purposes. Also, the population of Finland is about 5 million and save for a few small communities in the Midwest that I'm not likely to ever go to, no one else in the world speaks Finnish. "Yksi, kaksi, kolme"... "One, two, three"-- is more than half of the Finnish I still know.

When I took German in school, my familiarity with Swedish helped, but I had a bad tendency in class to start saying something in German and then unintentionally throw in a Swedish or Swedish-sounding word, thus confusing everyone, including my teacher. "Ich heiBe John, und mein storsyster heter.. I mean, meine alter Schwester heist..." and so on.

I took Spanish in school but that was a joke. I think I (not so) secretly resented having to take Spanish because bascially every kid I went to school with spoke Spanish at home except me, and I felt I had an unfair disadvantage as a result. I was also burdened with (and I don't think I'm being unfair here) two horrible Spanish teachers in junior high and high school. Just through exposure and hanging out at friends' houses I know a lot of words and basic phrases, but I can't put together a real sentence in Spanish to save my life.

My stepfather's mother knew some Gaelic because her father spoke it, but to me it was always more of an academic curiousity than something worth learning for any practical reasons. I still know a few words and phrases that she taught me, but I've never encountered anyone else in my entire life who knows how to say anything in Gaelic, including people I met when I was in Ireland.

I also took a semester of Japanese when I was in college. What a nightmare that was. I remember how to say "How are you, my name is John, pleased to meet you"--"Hajimemashite, wastashiwa John desu, dozo yoroshiku" and that's it. I remember we spent almost the entire semester learning how to write in katakana and hiragana, which are two of their writing systems. I imagine some of it might come back to me if I picked it up again, but off the top of my head I remember just about none of it.

So my best bet at this point would probably be to learn Spanish, but unfortunately the interest just isn't there. After that would be Swedish and German, and most likely German would be the sensible choice between those two. So maybe I'll work on being more proficient in German, but to what end? What's my goal? When I went to Germany I tried to practice my German but everyone's English there was better than my German so every conversation ended up being carrying out in English. Do I really care about being able to read Hesse in the original, or listen to Mozart's operas without having to read a translated libretto? Maybe I do care a little bit, but maybe I don't really care that much.

The Weight

When I graduated from high school I weighed 151 lbs. For some reason, right around the time I turned 21 I put on a quick 15 lbs. (junior 15?) and spent most of my early 20s hovering around the 165 lb. mark. I spent most of my late 20s hovering around the 175 lb. mark, thanks in part to In N Out, Baja Fresh, and Sam Adams.

When I moved to the East Coast in 2004 I initially lost a little bit of weight, but then quickly gained about 20 lbs. within what seemed like just a few months. I think a big part of this weight gain had to do with moving in with my wife who happens to be a very good cook. Though obviously it's not her fault that I gained so much weight; she didn't actually force the food down my throat.

During the summer of 2007 I got up to about 205 lbs., which is the most I've ever weighed, and I have to admit, I was definitely looking portly. I'm just north of six feet tall, so while I'm not gigantic, I'm definitely not short, and I can generally hold weight pretty well, but 205 was just too much for my frame.

I've lost a little weight since then, and now I'm down to 192 as of yesterday. Ideally I'd like to get down around 185 which I think is realistic for my age. I doubt it would even be a good idea for me to try and get down to what I weighed when I was 25. I don't claim to be very informed on the subject of weight loss, but, based on my own experiences here's what I hold to be true:

1. I'm sure exercise is really good for your body, but just exercising doesn't really help you lose weight. You could argue that it speeds up your metabolism, but you could then counter-argue that all that exercise will increase your appetite.

2. The single most effective way to lose weight is to simply eat less. I don't think it's all about smaller portions as far as everyone's concerned, but I think smaller portions will go a long way for most people trying to lose weight. This is the only thing that has ever, personally, caused me to lose any weight.

3. I think because people don't want to eat less they want to bypass the process by focusing on what they're eating instead of how much, as though this somehow provides a way around the total caloric intake issue.

4. A few words about Atkins and Taubes-- basically I'm skeptical. I'm sure there are some good points to be made, especially about how certain kinds of carbohydrates aren't good for you, but Taubes's book smacks too much of an "everything you know is wrong" manifesto. Though I personally know people who have lost a lot of weight on Atkins, it doesn't seem like a plausible long-term diet plan for either keeping weight off or staying healthy. Again, the focus of this approach is more on what you eat than how much you eat. And this leads to my next point:

5. There is (naturally) a big difference between eating to lose weight and eating to be healthy. It makes sense that eating no carbohydrates and lots of animal protein would cause you to lose weight initially, but is that really a healthy way to eat, day-to-day, every day? It seems logical that eating to be healthy is more important, since if you're eating to be healthy, whatever your weight is once you've reached your optimal level of health doesn't really matter, because by default it's a healthy weight for you.

6. I'll say it again, I think eating less is really what it all comes down to as far as weight loss is concerned. As far as eating healthy I don't really know, but I'm not convinced that anyone really does.

Book Update

I started reading Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd. It's a grand, sweeping, epic novel about the history of Salisbury and environs, and in the process also ends up being a history of Britain. Rutherfurd has been called a Michener disciple, but he seems more like a Michener clone, which is a very good thing as far as I'm concerned. The first chapter has my attention already. It opens up around 7500 BC and talks about Upper Paleolithic hunters meeting up with Mesolithic hunters, and what the differences between the two are. Fun fact: What was the population of the entire island of Britain 9,500 years ago? Answer: About 5,000.

20 Year Mystery Solved

In the REM performance video Tourfilm, right before they perform "These Days" Michael Stipe recties a poem that goes something like:

Hey Man, I'm making moves
And I am so much stronger than you.
I am so much stronger.
I am so much stronger than you.
Everybody thinks the way that we thought.
We thought ahead and look what we got...etc.

I always wondered where that was from. Now we know:



I vaguely remember Syd Straw and her solo album that came out around 1989. I think it was called "Surprise" or something like that. I guess she and Stipe had done some work together with Golden Palominos, and it's him singing back-up on this song.

Alert the presses, I know, but the lyrics ring a bell, don't they?

You Are What You Is

Does Frank Zappa's music suck? Probably. But then how come I haven't been able to get this song out of my head for the past 25 years?

My Top Three Favorite Films

I've decided what my three favorite films of all time, at the moment, are. These aren't necessarily what I think are the best movies of all time, but personally, I get an awful lot out of each of these every time I watch them.

In no particular order:


Jungfrukallan (The Virgin Spring): My favorite Bergman film. I love the authentic-looking and feeling medieval setting. I love the struggle between the two sisters. Max Von Sydow is awesome and imposing. I love the contrast between Christianity and Norse paganism. I love the redemptive power in the final minutes that still hits me like a ton of bricks.

Walkabout: Being drawn into this film is almost like experiencing an altered state of consciousness. I love the realtionships that develop between the three characters. The scenery is beautiful but not romanticized in any way. I love how the film asks us how well we can ever really know anyone. I also love the commentary the film makes at the very end about the loss of youth and how nostalgia can alter our perception of things.

Master and Commander: People may be surprised that I've added this one to my list, but I can't tell you how much I absolutely adore this movie. The two lead characters, especially Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany) represent everything that I wish I could be as a man. I love the fact that the characters are English. I love the fact that it, again, is an authentic-feeling period piece. I love the fact that it so immerses you into the world of these men that you feel you've spent time on the H.M.S. Surprise and feel a part of the crew by the end of it.

So that's it for right now. This list is highly subject to change throughout the years.

Book Update

I started reading Boy: Tales of Childhood by Roald Dahl. It's Dahl's autobiography from the time he was born until about the age of 20 when he joined the military. It's interesting to learn more about the man behind the stories I loved so much as a kid. So far I've learned that he grew up in Wales to Norwegian parents, and that his father was an ambitious self-made successful businessman with one arm who died when Roald was only three. Should make for an intresting read.

Clockwork Revisited

The wife and I got to talking about the movie "A Clockwork Orange" last night and she suggested we watch it again. I hadn't seen it in a few years, but watched it probably 20 or 30 times between 1992 and 1997. Women, as a rule, hate this movie, but she for some reason doesn't. She doesn't think it's a great movie or anything, but she likes the fact that it's thought-provoking and appreciates a lot of the black humor.

Rewatching it, I still think it's a pretty good movie, but it's hard to believe that it was once probably my favorite movie. I find the violent parts harder to watch than I did when I was younger. I was never excited by them before or anything, just kind of indifferent, but now they do affect me more negatively.

And there is a lot of gratuitous sex and violence in it. I think I always knew that but didn't care or really think about it. It stands out more, for some reason, and it makes the film seem a little cheaper in some respects, more manipulative, trying harder to get a reaction out the viewer than it should need to.

As I said, it's hard to deny that it's good movie. It's a good story and it explores a very interesting, very basic human theme. I attribute this part of its success to Anthony Burgess. The fact that it's compelling to look I attribute to Kubrick. I don't think any of the acting is that fantastic but Malcolm McDowell is certainly good for the role. It may have been a case of really good casting more than anything. Another quality that makes the film good and often gets overlooked is its soundtrack. There's almost always something interesting to listen to in the background.

Whatever personal connection I made to the film that made me not only think it was good, but also made it one of my favorties, has obviously dwindled over the years. I never felt a personal connection to the main character but perhaps the fact that he's a young guy who is both driven by and repulsed by the darker elements of his nature might have had something to do with why I was so drawn to it initially.

Donovan

I rarely subject others to my singing, but I when I do I can be kind of obnoxious about it. I tend to be one of those people who thinks he can sing, but truth is, I really can't. It's not that I have a bad voice or that I can't carry a tune-- I actually think I have slightly above average musical abilities overall. I could never make a living at it, but I have a better aptitude for it than, I'd say, 60-70% of the population.

The problem with my voice is that I have absolutely no range. When I sing I have a natural tendency to mimic the performer. For most male tenor singers I have to go higher than my normal range to match them, and the result is always strained. I can hit lower notes easier than high ones, but my voice doesn't resonate well in the lower range for some reason. So I can sing along to Johnny Cash but my voice kind of gets swallowed up somewhere between my larynx and lips.

So I'm better in the middle ranges. If I could sing and had any range at all I'd most likely be your basic baritone.

There is one singer, however, who I have no problem matching for some reason, and that's Donovan. I can sing most of his songs, match his voice and it feels totally natural, not strained at all. So this leads me to believe that whatever key he sings in is what I should sing in. Also, I'd venture to guess, our phonatory systems are a similar size and shape. Too bad he's a brilliant musical genius and I'm not. See if you can match these too:

Choosing My Religion

I've spent most of my life areligious. My mother grew up with a father who was a Unitarian minister, but she herself had (and still has) little use for organized religion. There was a Unitarian church somewhere in Pasadena that we used to go to when I was little. I think Unitarians are fine, but I tend to think of them as akin to agnostics. It's taking a position on religion without really taking a position on religion. Unitarianism is more of a hobby than a religion, I've always felt. My mother's mother was also a Unitarian, and her own father was a Unitarian minister as well. See a pattern?

My Unitarian minister grandfather was actually himself raised a Lutheran, as all old school Scandinavians were required by law to be. Lutherans are fine, I suppose. They remind me of Episcopalians in the sense that they're basically Catholics who just kind of took a different path a few hundred years ago. I actually admire Luther a lot for what he did, and how he attempted to bring what was then a very corrupt church (ahem, ahem) back to its basics, and made the emphasis the relationship between the individual and God, without all the horse and pony shows getting in the way.

My paternal grandmother was a Quaker and she took me to a meetinghouse in the San Gabriel area (Temple City?) a few times when I was little. I always liked the testimonies of simplicity and humility that Quakers adhere to, and the stripped-down stillness of unprogrammed worship has always been consistent with my personality. When forced to, I've often told people that I'm a Quaker, and they usually give me a perplexed look in return because they think I've just told them that I'm Amish. Anabaptist, sure. Amish, not quite.

My paternal grandfather and my stepfather's mother were both raised Catholic (as anyone born before 1950 who had a drop of Irish blood was required by law to be). My stepfather's mother (who I called Grammie) was a wonderful, strong woman who I have nothing but respect for and postive memories of. But she believed in fairies and thought that our pet cat was going to 'steal the breath' (a literal translation of a Gaelic phrase, apparently) from my younger brother when he was an infant (cue coo-coo clock noise). That has nothing to do with being Catholic, I realize, but furthers my argument that Irish Catholics tend to have one foot in Rome and one foot in pre-6th century Ireland when it comes to their belief systems.

I have great respect for Judaism but after living in New York for a few years I've come to the realization that culturally, I have nothing in common with American Jews and could never really feel a part of that community.

I have great respect for Islam in principle, but I don't have much use for the Islamic world. In order to get excited about a faith I have to look at its members and find something to admire. Most of the Islamic world seems hot, dusty, and angry. Also, extremists are in power in most Muslim-majority countries and I can't get around the fact that if you're a woman in an Islamic country your life just must be awful.

I have great respect for Buddhism and Hinduism on the surface, but once you dig a little deeper they both get very strange, especially Hinduism. In the same vein, I think Taosim has a lot of great principles but, at its core, seems better suited to a Chinese peasant living in the year 500, than it does for a Westerner living in the year 2009. Especially when that Westerner has already been exposed to concepts like "objective reality" and "goals".

I don't want to call myself an agnostic because I really hate the wishy-washy-ness that term implies. I don't want to call myself an atheist either, because I do believe in God, and I think there's something implicity antagonistic and anti-religious about the word.

I've called myself Protestant in the past, but, again, that has a stigma too. Put the word "non-denominational" in front of that and people assume you're a born-again.

So I guess I'll just keep calling myself Quaker and keep having people tell me that they didn't think there were any of us around anymore. So long as I don't run into any Quakers who actually attend services I should be fine.

Islam, Cat Stevens Style

Interesting but kind of odd interview with Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam) about being and becoming Muslim. Reminds me a lot of something you'd see on any Christian station broadcast, except with different clothes and Muhammad substituted for Jesus.

The man seems articulate though, and happy with the decisions he's made. This must be a British show that caters to the Muslim community. Part 1 of 3, I'm not bothering to post the other two segments. They're on Youtube if you really want to see the rest of the interview:

The High-Schooler is Father to the Man

I posted about high school memories earlier, and since I'm reading and just watched "Election" I've been thinking about my own high school experience a lot lately-- something I don't normally spend much time doing, believe it or not.

The Wife asked me what I was like in high school and I told her a few of my anecdotes and gave her a thumbnail sketch. She laughed and said, "I probably could have figured all that out."

It occured to me that the block of cement that is my personality probably finished drying sometime around 1992. Anything I've done with my life should come as no surprise to anyone astute enough who knew me back then. Some things never change:

1. I was definitely a smartass. Not in a class clown kind of way, but in more of a quiet, sardonic way.

2. I was not a hard-worker but would do well in classes where I either found the subject matter interesting or I liked the teacher.

3. Nothing came easy, except getting Bs.

4. I was horrible at math and science classes and didn't even bother to take any math after trig. I got a D in Chemistry.

5. I somehow ended up taking a "class" where I worked in the office for 1st period, junior year. It was an easy "A" and an easy 3 credits. My duties included getting coffee for a couple of the secretaries. This caused a minor controversy because I had to go into the teacher's lounge to get the coffee and one time Coach Porter saw me in there and got very upset that there was a student in the teacher's lounge. He complained to the principal and after that I was no longer allowed to get coffee for the secretaries. Completely true story.

6. In Journalism I made minor contributions here and there by writing humor pieces and music reviews for albums I never even listened to. If you added up all the time I spent working on them over the course of my whole senior year, it would probably come out to well over 15 minutes. The journalism teacher was also the head of the show choir and basically could have cared less about the school newspaper and devoted all his time and energy to the show choir. One day after class he asked me if I knew how to operate a video camera. I was worried that my life was suddenly going to turn into an episode of "Diff'rent Strokes", when he asked if I would be willing to videotape the show choir's performance that night. I said 'sure' and ended up taping all their shows that year. As a result, I got an "A" in journalism and the teacher offered to write me a letter of recommendation for college. Being nice and reliable enough to perform a not-very-demanding task proved to be what earned me the greatest amount of respect and appreciation from an adult during my entire high school career.

7. I was horrible at P.E. I was the kind of kid who never dressed and spent time hanging out on the bleachers when I should have been out there Greco-Roman wrestling out on the football field. Despite this I joined the track team and made varisty my sophomore year. Despite this I spent most of my time on the track team trying to impress the girl high jumpers by jumping up and hanging on to the football goal posts.

8. The only classes I excelled at were Typing and German. I have no idea why I was good at either one because I have poor hand-eye coordination (suck at video games) and I was horrible at Spanish.

9. I was also horrible at Accounting.

10. I felt school was just a chore, something I needed to do. If I was really interested in something it was automatically relegated to place that existed well outside of and apart from the world of school.

11. After he graduates from law school, Bryan's first case is going to be to bring suit against the makers of "Napoleon Dynamite", for likeness rights on my account.

Movie/Book Update

Election (film): 4/4 stars.
The wife got me a copy of this DVD for Christmas and I watched it again after not having seen it for a number of years. I watched the commentary with the director, Alexander Payne, also. An interesting thing about the commentary is how clearly it comes across that Payne detests movie cliches. A few he mentions are: a person being hung up on and there's an instant dial-tone, the fact that most people in movies live in houses that are much nicer and larger than they'd ever possibly live in in real life, and how cars in movies are always spotless, especially period cars, when in real life most cars are always a little bit dirty.

He doesn't make mention of this in his commentary, but I have a feeling he carried this idea too far in one regard, that makes the film less believable than it would have otherwise. The actresses who play Matthew Broderick's wife and her friend who he ends up having an affair with simply aren't attractive enough. I have a feeling he purposely didn't cast really good looking actresses for these parts because he probably feels people in movies are too good looking. Here's why it doesn't work fo me:

1) Matthew Broderick is a good looking guy. Even if someone wasn't famous and was just a suburban high school teacher, if he looked exactly like Matthew Broderick he'd still end up marrying someone who was more attractive than the woman who plays his wife in the film.

2) If we're to believe that he's willing to cheat on his wife with another woman, we have to find the woman attractive too. The woman who plays the role in the film isn't unattractive, but she's not nearly good looking enough to have us believe that he'd be willing to risk his marriage for the chance to sleep with her.

If this opinion sounds male-biased, I'll have you know that my wife agreed with me 100% on this one.

I'm also reading the novel that the movie was based on. It was published in 1998, I bought it in 2002, and I'm just reading it now. So far it's good. As is always the case, it differs from the movie somewhat. One unique thing about the book is that it's broken down into short 'chapters' each a couple of pages long, that are told from the point of view of one of the characters. So, for example, there are two pages written in the first person by Mr. McAllister, then two pages written from the perspective of Paul Metzler, etc. I'm about halfway done.

Subways and Public Transportation

A few I've been on:

Los Angeles:
Has a subway that's always been completely empty whenever I've been on it. The Metrolink is a convenient way to get into Downtown, I suppose, but it's still easier just to drive in. Biggest problem with the subway: it doesn't take you anywhere worth going. Every bus ride I've ever taken in Los Angeles has been a Kafkaesque nightmare. Still a car town, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

San Francisco:
BART is a good system but not real comprehensive. On the east side of the bay the stops are really far apart and when it crosses into San Fran it makes a weird diagonal of the city that makes it hard to access the northwest (around Golden Gate Park) and southeastern (whatever's down there) parts of the city. The buses are fine though. San Fran itself is small like New York but all those damn hills make it hard to walk around. There are about three taxis in the entire city of San Francisco and they're always occupied. I've never been on the cable cars but I've always assumed they're more for tourists and have limited practicality.

San Diego:
The light rail that takes you into Downtown is nice. It even has a stop at Petco. As of five years ago, however, wasn't comprehensive at all.

Seattle:
Has a tourist monorail that goes back and forth within locations downtown. The buses are fine.

Chicago:
The L or "el", however you spell it, is pretty good. The buses are fine too. I had no problem getting back and forth between my friend's place near Northwestern and Downtown, via subway, bus, or taxi.

Washington D.C.
Good subway. Clean, comprehensive, easy to use. One of the better urban subway systems in the U.S. Unusual feature: really far underground.

Boston:
The T is pretty good. Not a super-extensive system but covers the city and a few surrounding towns pretty well. The cars are old and noisy, that's about it.

New York:
Incredibly comprehensive system but the cars themselves can be kind of nasty. Not a nice way to get around but a very convenient way. Am currently using it five days a week. Buses are about the same.

London:
Cleaner and more pleasant subways than the one in New York, and just as comprehensive. The red double-decker buses are fun to ride in because they make you feel like you're in a Beatles documentary.

Paris:
Once I figured out how to use the Metro I found it very convenient. The cars (as of 10 years ago) were green and I remember that as a passenger you could manually open the doors. The buses were fine but I could never figure out how much I was supposed to pay.

Amsterdam:
Light rail system that I had no clue how to buy tickets for. I took a few free rides. I don't remember it going much further out than around the center of the city and I think the route I took from my hotel to the train station I could walk in about 10 minutes (as opposed to 5 minutes on the light rail).

Philadelphia:
Forgot about this one. Took some kind of a train from the airport to the city center, but not sure if it was really a subway. Also, the most terrifying, frightening bus ride of my life was out of Philadelphia and through Camden, New Jersey.

Movie Update

Man on Wire: 3.5/4 stars. Very good but not great documentary about an amazing undertaking. The feat itself is so impressive that any competently-made documentary on the subject should be entertaining and watchable. The film itself doesn't add much, which is sometimes a good thing-- Petit is portrayed as neither kook nor god-- though it might have been nice to get more information on his background and how on earth he was able to finance all his endeavors.