Weekend Update

CNN has a series of quotes regarding the energy situation in America, from ... regular Americans. And a bunch of lunkheads [what should I expect?] Increase taxes! That's the answer! Europe is so far ahead of us!

And who would get the taxes and what would they be spent on? And isn't a fuel tax punitively regressive?

Whenever I hear someone asking for increased taxes, I say to them, "Why don't you get your checkbook out, and write a check to the government? They'll take your money without a new tax being passed."

That is not to say that I believe that the markets will solve every problem. The markets are only as good as the individuals participating. And, as we've seen with Microsoft, the fact that the market has selected MS as the dominant leader, might does not equal right.

But that does not mean that the government can or will do any better. Sure, the government gave us the Hoover dam, but it also bailed out Chrysler.

And secondly, Europe is a TINY LITTLE landmass.

What people generally fail to realize is that changes to the infrastructure are expensive. If you want mass transit, or if you want to drill for more oil, or if you want to get people to live in urban areas, thus decreasing their consumption, those changes are expensive.

Do you know what else is expensive? Transitioning from fuel platform A [fossil fuels] to platform B [anything else]. In terms of dislocation in the economy. Transitioning those giant empty fuel processing stations into ... giant jungle gyms.

I was on a conference call on Thursday, and a senior executive said that China was a "socialist" country [her actual quote was much funnier and pathetic]. The disease of ignorance does not discriminate by title.

I broke my own rule about writing about work. Sorry.

Speaking of apologies, if my earlier post upset Owen Wilson, I apologize. No need to do anything drastic, my highly talented friend. It's always Owen Wilson and never Carrot Top. It's always Mitch Hedberg and never Pauly Shore. It's always Richard Jeni and never Tom Arnold.

Or am I wrong?

Letter from the Boys

Apparently, they make a habit of doing these things.

But I guess one [or two] has time to do this sort of thing, when one takes 300 years between albums. And one never tours [true until recently. They're in Japan right now.]

I like their letterhead. It's so bright, sunny, so "dot.com 1999" ... so un-Steely Dan-like.

I wonder what I can do to get a letter from them?

Well, let's look at who they have taken to task.

Luke and Owen Wilson. Laura Ingram. Wes Anderson.

Oh, they composed a couple of songs for Wes ... one for his upcoming movie "Darjeeling Limited." You'll like this couplet:

"Cause baby every single time I'm with you,
I'd like to have as many arms as Vishnu"

So, it takes some level of notoriety, some offense - real or contrived - to get W & D off their worn Herman Miller loungers. I'm guessing it's mainly W and not so much D.

Question: Does Pretzel Logic write spurious open letters to Kevin Smith?

Strange Days Indeed

True incident Told Without Embellishment: I was in Plummer's, the store for people too lazy to drive to Ikea, and I was shopping for a new chest of drawers for my guestroom. The somewhat attractive 40-ish saleslady was helping someone, but she turned to me and asked if I needed help. I said "Yes, I want to purchase a chest of drawers." She looked across the rather cavernous store and yelled to a co-worker standing about 40 feet away in a loud voice: "Mitch, this gentleman needs help in the bedroom department!"

It's all too true, but still I laughed.

My two new roommates have moved in, and they are surprisingly unscrewed up [so far, knock on Norwegian wood]. We'll see how they work out. Coincidentally, I'm going to see the vintage rock group Crowded House next week. And I live in one. Scratching my chin thoughtfully.

My car blew up on Wednesday in just the worst way. Spitting up green stuff, high fever, bedridden. I'm thinking it's bird flu. It threw a serpentine belt, which took out ... etc etc.

The Angels are playing good ball. The Mariners are playing great ball. F the F-ing Mariners.

"Ratatouille" and "Superbad" are two excellent movies. I fault "Superbad" for having too much cop stuff in the movie, although the cop stuff was funny.

Help in the bedroom department, indeed.

The New Bossa Nova

Apparently, there is a "new" bossa nova. Which makes it a new new thing.

I'm tired of new new things. I don't want any more new new things. New new things make me tired and annoy me, and make me even more nostalgic for dumb bad old things like space food sticks, cars that overheat even on short trips on cool days [see photo], and bad hairstyles.

We have cell phones, PDAs, multifunctional devices and high-speed connectivity now. We have functionality. We have telephony.

I miss just having a telephone. I don't like telephony.

Even cable TV annoys me. It's just so bad! Do we really need "House" and "Psych" and 97 "Law & Order" franchises? TV shows shouldn't have franchises! Didn't we learn anything from the All In The Family-The Jeffersons-Maude-Archie Bunker's Place-Gloria debacle of the 70s and early 80s?

I think I've become a worse person having a cell phone. The thought of being accessible most if not all of the time makes me irritable, cranky and fatigued. Don't call us, we'll call you - that's a phrase I miss.

Until my grandmother passed away about 4 years ago, my Dad would call his mom [or parents, when grandpa was alive] once a week - each Sunday night. And when I went off to grad school, he would call me once a week. I preferred [as I still do] writing to people rather than talking to them. Now, people call all the time, call call call. Talk talk talk.

I think there are many things that are lost by this new pace of life. Reading. Decompressing. Coming up with one's own ideas. Taking a walk.

I hate to sound like Jonathan Richman, Henry Thoreau or any other hippies out there. It's just maddening.

I never wanted to be this productive, I can tell you that with great certainty.

Comments on the Passing of a Successful Confirmed Bachelor

Merv Griffin died recently. And apparently, he was a gay man.

Actually, some of us knew that already. No, not from first-hand experience with the crooning real-estate and game show mogul. We had a friend whose ex-girlfriend's father worked for Merv. And this was back in the early 1980s.

And as I always say, if I know something, I assume - and usually correctly - that everyone not comatose knows it.

The article Reuters release, written by Doug Danger [actually by Ray Richmond] chastises the late, great Merv for not coming out of the closet.

I disagree with it on a few levels.

First, if a single man is seen around town squiring say Loni Anderson, Eva Gabor, Parker Posey or Liza Minelli to a social event, there is a good chance that that man may be gay. So, I don't know how deep in the closet Merv was.

Secondly, so what. If he was closeted, let's have some respect, and - dare I say it? - some admiration for Merv. Merv was a celebrity who kept his private life private. Instead of condemning him, I applaud him. God bless Merv Griffin for not assuming that the public's interest in a celebrity extended beyond being entertained by him or her. I don't recall one time seeing Merv when he wasn't attempting to be entertaining. That was his job, and unlike so many other celebrities, he insisted on doing it. It's called "professionalism" and I commend him for it. Can you imagine the degree to which the white noise that is created by celebrity culture would be decreased if other celebs acted like this? I'm sorry, I don't care that you are in rehab, that you bought a new painfully miniature dog, that you are getting divorced from Lisa Marie Presley ... I try to save getting emotionally involved in people's lives to the people who I am personally involved with -- my actual family and friends. And not the people I may assume I know because I have seen them act, or heard them sing.

Spoiler alert: This is where I am certainly going to offend some people.

I don't believe that the premise of the author's article is true. Does having more openly gay celebrities equal more acceptance for gays? Not necessarily. This is a highly suspect theory [more = better] for a few reasons. Imagine a world where all homosexuals made their gender preference known. Does disclosure equal acceptance? I don't think so - this new evidence [certain unknown homosexuals are now known] could be used by interested parties to support the acceptance or condemnation of homosexuals. "See, I told you [insert boorish celebrity name here] is gay, and he acts like a complete ass!" So, unless Mr. Richmond could have only the upstanding, mature and non-threatening homosexuals come out, he might regret having homosexuals - as a policy - come out.

While I do agree it is harder to condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle choice when one personally knows homosexuals who are great people, I don't think that we are lacking for known gay celebrities. So, the addition of Merv to the cluttered miasma would have been, as they say in sports, piling on.

Also, I somewhat reject the notion that there is necessarily a tipping point in the culture. I think people either accept or reject the concept of homosexuality not on the basis of the known sample size of homosexuals, but on a moral basis ["I'm against homosexuality based on my moral beliefs, unless I can just find one more successful homosexual."] It does not logically follow that increasing the known sample size increases acceptance of behavior that some people deem immoral.

For example, many married people cheat on their spouses. Now, some people say that the behavior is immoral. Some say it is acceptable. It appears to be a popular behavior. If you knew that 95% of all married people cheated on their spouses, would it change the morality of the behavior? Not if your morals had any underlying basis, it wouldn't.

That being said, the landscape does improve as it becomes normalized. I do agree that if one does not know any out gays, it makes it easier for one to be both a homophobe and an idiot. And conversely, if one does know gays, it is harder to be a homophobe and an idiot ["My uncle is gay, and he was always the coolest relative" for example]. But again, I differentiate the policy that Mr. Richmond espouses [celebrities should come out], from the logical extension of that argument - that all homosexuals if out would equal greater public acceptance. The logical extension, I agree with. The half-measure is not strong enough medicine to cure the patient.

But let's address reality here: given the state of American law, being openly gay can get you fired in some states. And some people still discriminate against, hate and beat gays. This reality is deplorable. But to implicate Merv, by inference, and hold him responsible for the state of gays in America, is misguided. And the timing is weak, coming just after the death of this extremely successful and laudable man.

So, that - to me - is the sad reality of the state of dialogue. One more gay celebrity does not mean one step closer to tolerance towards gays. One more gay schoolteacher, co-worker or relative might.

I'm Not There, Either

The brilliant [cough] Todd Hayne's magic-realism biography talking picture of Bob Dylan comes out in November. It stars six different actors, including Cate Blanchett and a young black child, as Zimmie. Did no one think of casting Adam Sandler as the Great One?

That being said, a double slammy-whammy on Todd for (a) appropriating the great lost song "I'm Not There, I'm Gone (1956)" as the title for his movie-art-thing, and (b) remaking "The Jerk" without telling anyone. Bob Dylan: "I was born a poor black child."

I wouldn't let Haynes film my dog taking a dump. I saw "Far From Heaven" and I was truly offended by its disregard for the audience. The minimum I require from a movie is this: tell me an interesting story.

Speaking of my dog, I woke up to the strains of her throwing up. That'll kick your morning off right.

I've been painting all day. I hate painting. Painting is the worst thing I can imagine doing around the house, even worse than cleaning up dog barf. It is painstaking, attention-to-detail, make one mistake and you're covered with paint work. I'd rather build a fence, dig, mow or fix appliances.

The Angels have been on a hot streak, but one that makes me nervous. The no-stars [Figgins, Willits, Mathis] have been unreasonably hot. Like white hot. That can't last, can it? I would like a list of the trades that Bill Stoneman didn't make in the last five years, just to see how things have worked out. I think looking at his track record over that time would be interesting.

The really great weird non-comedy from the early 70's [1972], "The Heartbreak Kid" has been remade, starring Ben Stiller. I will tell you this much: it will not be the bizarre work of genius that the Elaine May-Charles Grodin original was. You want to see some acting? Check out the scenes with Eddie Albert and Grodin. Albert tries to bribe Grodin into not marrying his daughter. I would have taken the money and run off with Cybill Shepherd. Instead, Grodin sticks around in order to prove that his intentions are ... um ... honorable.

So if one has dishonorable intentions and one is tenacious, the intentions acquire some sort of nobility? That's the classic American trait -- a good quality brought to bear in a bad effort will redeem the whole messy affair?

Op Ed

Let's go on the record regarding steroids in baseball.

There is some talk that records set during this so-called steroids era are tainted records. And therefore these records should be viewed as suspect, and perhaps even discarded [or at the very least, visited with additional punctuation.]

Maybe we should take these guys out and shoot them? Um, shoot them full of more steroids, I mean!

First response: under the current rules, the statistics that are achieved RIGHT NOW if you are caught using steroids are ... untouched! Still valid! Unimpeachable! So let's dismiss any and all talk of discarding statistics.

And as for the asterisk? I think not. Baseball, soon enough, will have to do two things. One, make peace [or at least declare détente] with its past, and the fact that steroids existed and were used by not only home-run hitting behemoths, but also pitchers, catchers, big guys, little guys who became big guys and harmless enough hackers like 54 career home run guy Marvin Benard and 48 career home run guy Bobby Estalella. The juice was just part of the landscape, and yes it impacted stats, and players' health, and there is something unseemly about using "performance enhancing" drugs [unless it is you or I whose performance is being enhanced]. But the landscape is the landscape. You can't change yesterday's lunch. You're stuck with it. The adult thing to do is to come up with some real workable adult position today, admit that Baseball has been slow coming to the party and move on.

So that brings me to the second point. What to do about it now? Can anything be done? Should anything be done? There are likely many Libertarians out there who say "Let the players use the juice!" As the stuff hurts only the player [victimless crime?] and is undetectable [thus making it close to impossible to prove], I'm warming to this approach. Look at the utter mess bicycling is in. Everyone is clean this year! Um, by clean, we mean they have brand new blood! The problem with this approach is that it would encourage, and perhaps require, all players to use steroids reactively [just as Bonds juiced up, apparently, as a reaction to McGwire and Sosa.] I would say, that on the balance, that approach is not pragmatic, even though I like that it shifts the responsibility to the player. And the fans could show their displeasure or support at the ballpark, and on call-in shows, as they do [for Bonds, at least ... but not for Clemens! I'm not saying Clemens used or anything, cough cough.] right now.

Then, you should have some sort of policy? Self-policing? How about team policing? If a player on a team is found to have taken steroids, or some performance enhancing drug, the team suffers a serious penalty. More games on the road. No DH. Wearing pink uniforms. In my opinion, as long as the penalty is player-specific, and the likelihood of getting caught is slender [and the Players' Union will back you no matter how untenable your defense], then players will use. Especially players on the bubble who perceive that their existence as a Major League player is in jeopardy.

So I have two conclusions. The Libertarian approach will produce more bad than good. A penalty that is leveled only against an individual will not achieve an acceptable result. The only meaningful compliance result will occur when an individual's behavior threatens the whole team.

Some might say that this option would create a powerful incentive for a team to conspire and cover up any use, thus making them even more likely to become complicit. That's possible, but it is even more possible that teams, in this era of Sarbanes-Oxley, will take their responsibility seriously. And more importantly, that players will take their responsibility and allegiance to the team and teammates more seriously than they take their responsibilities to themselves.

Unfaithfulness

Let's get this in under the midnight wire ...

My sister got sacked by the malpractice magnet boss of hers. Don't worry, I'll post links to back up my allegations, dear readers.

The almost unbelievably cool VP of my department at work is resigning, due to a stupid shit storm that I refuse to discuss here.

And the Angels lost tonight.

But I still have my rock star good looks.

Out.