Looky, looky who came out on the top of the October pile: the third installment of “Your Magic Touched Me Nights.” Deservedly so. A great Halloweeny episode, complete with a nod to Ghostbusters. The casual references to serial rape will make you giggle out loud. Shame about the final line of the episode.

The fifth episode of “Phone Sexxers” captures the beautiful silliness of “versus” horror crossovers. The Pinhead makeup looked glorious. The saliva-tinged hair styling was classy. The fight scenes were just campy enough to be enjoyable. Although I could have used a delightful double entendre involving the Hellraiser box and a vagina.

“Quest,” now in its second month, is chugging along with the same “stream of consciousness narration” + “ordinary = extraordinary” + “pop culture asides” + “quest story” structure. The traversing the sofa sequence, the DOOR = ID4 riddle, and the backwards fruit eating were enjoyable. “Quest” already feels like an old friend.

The use of the theme song from “Reading Rainbow” in “Classroom” number nine made me smile. The Thanksgiving theme, given the October premiere, made me a bit confused. The principal’s family relationship made me feel depressed. The Sean Connery-referencing shirt made me pleased. The estranged brother plot made me bored. And the episode overall left me flat.

The only newcomer in the group, “Exposure,” brought up the rear this month. And I’m not quite sure what to make of it. When I saw that it was actually created by and starring Dan Harmon, I expected a well-written, well-acted submission. And I was not disappointed. But, well, Dan seems to have created something a little too meta and insider here. Sort of like “Channel 101: The Musical,” but without the music. I found “Exposure” strangely touching, though. It is pretty much the only thing I’ve seen on Channel 101 in a while that isn’t extremely silly. Not that I don’t appreciate silly. But if “Exposure” can manage to follow the path of something more like “Something to be Desired,” I wish it luck.

A Maryland appellate court decided Maryland’s rape law does not allow the withdraw of consent amid consensual sex. That means if you get your dick in with a yes, you can keep it there as long as you want without thereby committing a crime. Judge Davis’s opinion makes for a pretty good Halloween scare. Well, maybe not so good. After all, this actually affects people.

Would-be-rapists: Maryland is now Vacationland. Everyone else: avoid the Old Line State until the Maryland legislature gets its act together.

[From Broadsheet.]

Netflix has been throttling us lately. Before, the throttling seemed to take the form of delayed shipments. The DVD would arrive on Tuesday and its replacement wouldn’t get shipped out until Thursday. The uproar over the practice seemed to stop it. But now, I’m seeing a new pattern emerge. Netflix ships the DVD as quickly as before, but it ships it from a far away location. Like Santa Ana, California. Or some town in North Carolina. This means, for example, that although the third disc of Battlestar 2.5 shipped last Thursday, it isn’t supposed to come until today (Monday). Genius way of cutting costs, given that postage is the same throughout the U.S. But not exactly happy customer-making.

Upshot? Deb and I got a membership in a local video store. An odd little place called the Maltese Falcon. Located in a strip mall on Aurora, the video store promises to contain the 5000 greatest movies ever made. [The number actually varies, depending upon when the promotional material was created. A sticker on one of the rentals advertised the 2000 greatest, but the owner suggested the number closer to 6000. The 5000 number comes from the sign above the shop.] How does the store define greatness? Well the idea behind the shop is something that would have been ingenious in the late 80s. The owners apparently pour over the latest installments of six fairly comprehensive movie guides (e.g. Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide 2006) and purchase for the store only those movies that average three out of four stars or better over all six guides. The owner we met, a 50-something short bearded man with a voice that resembles an alternate universe non-smoker Harvey Fierstein, also assured us he had seen most of the films in his collection, and would be capable of making recommendations on the basis of a handful of favorites.

There were problems, though. Most of the collection was on VHS only. The store was rather empty. The payment plan required a membership fee of $5 that was waived if a member prepaid for 10 or 20 rentals. The “new releases” contained a number of films released in 2003 and 2004 (and a few that were released in the 80s, although in his defense likely were recently rereleased). The owner also got excited when he informed us he would start carrying TV-on-DVD in a couple of weeks, including such shows as “Lost,” “Babylon 5,” and “that ‘Firefly’ show that is supposed to be pretty good.” When I suggested he also carry “Battlestar Galactica,” he got a nostalgic glint in his eye when he opined, “It was a travesty when that show was canceled.”

It was, in short, the perfect video store circa 1994. Its charms were present, if dated. The guy running the place clearly loved the cinema. There is something helpful, especially to the casually renter, about a shop that doesn’t carry very many bad movies. But its helpfulness and appropriateness in the post-Internet era, with Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb and Amazon and Netflix available, is suspect. While I’m certainly more comfortable renting from the Maltese Falcon than the local Blockbuster, and I’m certainly not going to throw away the balance of our prepaid ten rentals, it may not be too long before I look around for another place to rent from. If only because I really prefer DVD.

Pierce County (the county to the south of the one in which I currently reside) residents get to decide in a little over a week whether it will use instant runoff voting to elect county officials. I sincerely hope all Pierce County residents get behind Proposition 3.

Why? Instant runoff voting has a number of advantages, such as removing the need for expensive and underused primary elections (and secondary runoff elections), destroying any validity that exists to the “wasted” vote problem (or its flip side, the “spoiler” problem), and undermining the efficacy of negative campaigning.

I thought of another advantage this morning, when I was reading about the litigation regarding the Republican’s replacement for Mark Foley. Under the current system, when a candidate leaves a race after the filing deadline (e.g. by dying, or by resigning in the face of a developing sex scandal), all hell breaks loose. The party to whom the departing candidate belonged is understandably upset because it will not have a viable candidate’s name on the ballot. The other candidates are generally upset because another, new candidate will typically end up entering the race after the filing deadline (which means they have less time than expected to dig up dirt on the new guy, and the new guy gets a whole bunch of free press just by virtue of being the new guy). The new candidate is generally upset because he’s not been able to conduct a full length campaign. The other contenders to be the new candidate are upset because they’re generally railroaded out of the running by a decidedly undemocratic process. The voters are upset because they have to learn another name before election day. The government body that conducts the vote may be upset because it either has to print new ballots or it has to count votes for the departed candidate as votes for the new candidate. The courts are upset because they’re forced to decide political issues in a rapid timeframe.

Solution? Instant runoff voting. Why? Take Florida’s 16th Congressional District. Let’s say that in addition to Foley being on the ballot, three other Republicans threw their hats in the ring way back when. No one has to figure out whether a vote for Foley counts as a vote for another guy, because all votes for Foley would be dropped to the second choice immediately. No one has to figure out whether the courts have the authority under Florida election law to allow new candidate to campaign, because he’s actually already on the ballot. Tim Mahoney (the Democratic candidate) isn’t upset because he already knew about the three Republicans other than Foley who he’d have to consider in conducting his campaign. Everyone wins. Right?

Well, perhaps it isn’t quite as clear cut as all that. Perhaps no serious Republicans threw their hats into the ring, thinking Foley had a lock on the election. So now the Republicans are stuck with the three nutters who actually did sign up to be on the ballot on time.

But I’m not sure I’m that sympathetic. If instant runoff voting existed everywhere as a matter of course, no legitimate party would bet on one horse in any serious election. Why? Something might go wrong. Even if a political party trusts all its members to be above-the-board, ethical people and perfect candidates to the core, accidents happen. What happens if Mr. Perfect Candidate gets hit by a bus?

So now you have yet another reason to support IRV in every election. Happy?

I always wondered what happened to people who had the gay spanked out of them. Now I know.

[From Grow-a-Brain.]

In early September, in order to attempt to keep myself occupied with something other than DVDs and alcohol when not busy searching for employment, I applied to become a volunteer tutor with the Youth Tutoring Program. I did not hear back from them for a while, so I thought (1) I applied too late, given that public school had already started, and (2) the YTP personnel are just as cold and heartless as most employers in failing to inform about the status of an application.

Two weeks ago, I received an email, informing me that I had to attend an orientation session before starting as a tutor. The orientation I attended last Tuesday was mostly filled with disclaimers and warnings. Stuff like “don’t show up late” and “don’t let the kids sit in your lap; it may be misconstrued.” And things like “people learn in different ways, so change up your technique”; “the kids, coming from low income families, tend to be stressed about money and taking care of younger siblings”; and “every culture is different, so take that into account when interacting.”

Two things from the handout (which I’m reading today in anticipation of my week-from-Monday start date) that I want to quibble with (because why else would this appear in a post on this blog):

1. “In the American culture eye contact suggests attention, honesty and respect. Your student, however, may be from a culture where eye contact is a sign of disrepsect.”
2. “Students with learning disabilities are generally of average or above average intelligence. Their learning disability creates a gap between ability and performance.”

The first item bothers me because the American culture from which I emerged treats eye contact between people of unequal position (e.g. boss/employee, father/son) as confrontational, not respectful. An arrestee who averts his eyes from the the gaze of the police interrogator is, at least where I come from, informing the interrogator he will cooperate as best he can. The arrestee is not communicating that he is being dishonest or disrespectful. I’ve heard this old chestnut about “American” culture before, and while I can appreciate the message (body language communicates different things in different cultures, so when encountering a person of a different culture, be careful about interpreting body language as you normally would), its presentation leaves something to be desired.

The second item bothers me because it is an abuse of language. Here’s what I think is going on behind this sentence:

• Traditionally, “intelligent” was roughly equivalent to “capable of doing well in school.”
• Psychologists do not like the word “intelligence” as it has been traditionally used, and have been working for years to narrow its applicability.
• Referring to certain people who have difficulty reading (e.g. dyslexics) as unintelligent has thereby become politically incorrect.
• Dyslexics and others with learning disabilities, notwithstanding their generally poor academic performances (at least when compared to the general population), are therefore, as a group, not necessarily more or less intelligent than the general population.
• Nevertheless, a substantial number of people continue to think of people with learning disabilities as unintelligent.
• To combat this, the learning disability awareness folks want to give the impression that those with learning disabilities are as intelligent as those without. In fact, if possible the impression ought to be that those with learning disabilities are more intelligent than those without.
• Evidence of superior intelligence, even with the modified definition of intelligence, failed to materialize. Evidence of approximately equal intelligence did materialize.
• The sentence “Students with learning disabilities are generally of average or above average intelligence.” was written to (1) accurately reflect the factual state of the comparison, but (2) give the false impression that “dyslexics are more intelligent” evidence had been found.

How does it accurately reflect parity? Assume for the moment that we break up the intelligence numbers as follows: 20% of the general population is categorized as having “below average intelligence,” 60% have “average intelligence,” and 20% have “above average intelligence.” The bright line between average and above average is arbitrary, to be sure. But it may be helpful. Compare with an “age of majority” of 18 years, with all its accompanying rights and responsibilities (e.g. voting, non-voidable contract signing, military service).

It would be accurate, then, to write “People are generally of average or above average intelligence.” At least if you assume “generally” here to mean “mostly” or “with 50% probability or greater.” But the sentence is pretty silly. If you assume intelligence to follow something akin to a normal distribution (or, indeed, any symmetric distribution), and you define “average” in such a way as to include at least one individual, the sentence is a tautology.

The mischief comes not with the generic “people” sentence, however. The mischief comes when you replace “people” with some subgroup. Like “Asian Americans” or “people who live in states abutting oceans” or “people from countries where fewer than 1 in 10 residences lives in poverty.” Because all it means then is that the subpopulation does not deviate so greatly from the population at large as to be truly unintelligent. But it gives you the impression that the subgroup in question is actually more intelligent. And so with the “students with learning disabilities” form of the sentence. It doesn’t mean anything except that students with learning disabilities are not profoundly unintelligent (i.e. that instead of mirroring the general population by having only 20% of below average intelligence, more than 50% have below average intelligence). That’s pretty non-controversial and uninteresting. But when you read things like “Students with learning disabilities are generally of average or above average intelligence,” you’re left with the distinct impression that dyslexics are more intelligent than everyone else. And I find abusing language like that to be truly repellent. Which is why I’m going to write a stern letter to the Learning Disabilities Association of Washington.

The European Court of Justice apparently decided yesterday that Spain and Italy’s practice of exempting its public libraries from the responsibility to compensate authors for lending/renting books violates Council Directive 92/100/ECC. Wow.

Oh, that there would be more time to get another Seattle Referendum Measure on the ballot for the upcoming elections. Seattle Referendum Measure No. 1 got me thinking that what we really need in Seattle is a four foot rule that applies to the sport of football. To be more specific, I think Seattle needs an ordinance that prohibits football players from, while the ball is in play, being within four feet of other players. Why? Well, because I really don’t like football, and think people that do are deviants. And I know a four foot rule would more-or-less end legitimate exhibitions of the sport in Seattle.

Want something else in support? I could probably come up with some numbers that suggest football leads to vandalism, public urination, assault, drunken fighting, broken bottles thrown in backyards, and more unpleasant and illegal activities. Also, we taxpayers end up spending thousands of dollars a year supporting football indirectly, through increased wear-and-tear on the public roadways leading to Seattle’s football stadiums, and through increased police presence at football games to ensure that the peace is maintained and to direct traffic. That’s not even including the thousands of dollars spent on football directly.

On second thought, I’m glad I’m too late. Because Seattle Referendum Measure No. 2 (the football four foot rule) is stupid in precisely the same way that Ordinance Number 121952 is stupid. This is the Seattle ordinance that imposes a four foot rule on adult entertainment establishments. That is, its purpose is to essentially ban lap dances.

The justifications for the ordinance boil down to two types: (1) strip clubs make bad neighbors, and (2) strip clubs cause crime. The former sorts of objections are identical to the above justifications for the four foot rule. Silly. The latter sorts of objections are equally silly, and apply in equal force to every sort of industry organized crime has ever been involved in, such as construction, waste management, and trucking.

November 7th, on Seattle Referendum Measure No. 1, REJECT Ordinance 121952.

A couple of months ago, I was averaging ten or so spam comments a day. Not outrageously high by any stretch, but irritating. So I installed Akismet. On the first day, dozens of spam comments were caught, and two got through. I tagged them. On the second day, one got through. And one was caught by Akismet improperly. On the third day, it worked perfectly. Soon thereafter, I stopped even looking at the filtered comments.

Lately, when I’ve seen a comment “awaiting moderation,” I’ve gotten excited, thinking I had a new reader. How did I get lulled into such an absurd position? Akismet seems to work that well. So today’s single comment awaiting moderation, when it turned out to be spam, sort of hurt. It’s amazing how easy it is to get used to things.

After unsuccessfully searching for work for a few months, one gets the distinct impression that something about one’s search process is flawed. Whether it be that one is looking in the wrong places, failing to understand the nature of potential employers’ needs, a Gypsy curse, or an ineffective resume, the impression that something is adversely affecting the job search process is hard to shake when months have gone by with little but rejection letters.

It is the ineffective resume that I’m concerned with today. I received form letter advice from a high level headhunter–which does not, by the way, concern itself with recent law school graduates–who suggested I take a gander at Legal Authority’s services. I’m only a few minutes into doing so, but I’m already a little worried that these people have no idea what they’re talking about. On their “this is how a resume is supposed to be” page, the following sentences appear:

You should always use a private email address to give the appearance of discretion during a job search. Think about the message your email address conveys, as well. If, say, your friends know you as buffstud@yahoo.com or unicorncollector@aol.com, you should invest in a professional-sounding email address from one of the free services. Even something like expertatty@earthlink.net could be misconstrued. It may not be too exciting, but you can’t go wrong with a simple firstnamelastname@ispprovider.com construction.

The first few sentences are good advice, if a bit obvious. Although I have to wonder about anyone who would send out a resume with the word “unicorn” appearing anywhere thereon. But the last sentence gave me pause. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I have long been under the impression that an ISP-based email address (e.g. AOL, Comcast, Qwest) is barely a cut above a free web-based email address (e.g. Hotmail, Yahoo!, Gmail) in terms of respectability. Sure, when emailing friends and family, johndoe@att.net is just fine. But is it really appropriate as a business address? And if not, is it really appropriate for a job applicant to use it to attempt to enter the business world?

keep looking »

Recently Written

• Entitlements.
• Explosive cheesy butt.
• How to fix financial industry without resorting to bullshit.
• Clear eyes, full hearts.
• Formula news.
• Citizens United.
• Spineless.
• Voir dire comedy.
• What’s my age again?
• Snapple = crap?

Search

Categories

• Administrative
• Broadcast Media
• Channel 101
• Film
• Food & Drink
• Gaming
• GLBT
• Humor
• Job Search
• Language
• Law
• Music
• Olympia
• Personal
• Politics
• Print Media
• Religion
• Science & Technology
• Theater
• Transportation
• Uncategorized
• Visual Media
• Wedding

Archives

• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004

Blogroll

• Achewood
• Adam Felber
• Anders Loves Maria
• Andrea
• Brad Neely
• Channel 101: LA
• Channel 101: NY
• Chip
• Dale
• Danny Westneat
• David Marchese
• David Rees
• Diesel Sweeties
• Dyna Moe
• Felix
• Ironic Sans
• Jay Smooth
• Jeff
• Jim Emerson
• Julie Klausner
• Kimya Dawson
• Kyle
• Lore Sjoberg
• Marginal Revolution
• Mike Doughty
• Minus
• Mitch Magee
• Molino
• Neil Gaiman
• Priya
• R-Squared
• Ritchie
• Roger
• Sadie
• Salon
• Scrivener’s Error
• Seattle Traffic
• Skelly Wright
• Stonewall Youth
• Stuff White People Like
• The A.V. Club
• The Long Tail
• University of Chicago Law School Faculty
• Your Band Sucks

Admin

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Currently Reading