Bad luck or bad karma?

I almost never write about dating. There are many reasons for that, but they probably all boil down to the same central concept: I am no good at it, and I don't want to give my friends any more ammunition than they already have. Still, sometimes there is a really really good (read: horrible) story that just needs to be told. Today, the merit of the story outweighs my general rule.

A few months back, by happenstance, I met a guy. Right age, right religion, single, liked a lot of the same things, worked in a similar job, similar background, had interests outside of being a lawyer . . . in other words, he was perfect on paper. (Of course, the last time someone was perfect on paper, he wound up dumping me in the IHOP. I should really know better.)

Anyway, the guy and I hit it off almost instantaneously, but because of work, we didn't go out right away. Instead, we spent a few weeks getting to know each other through long email conversations. Eventually, we went on a first date, and a second. I even told my best friend about him, which is something I generally don't do unless I've been seeing someone for a while -- like a month or more.

Anyway, then we went on what was our third or maybe even fourth date. To a relatively early movie, on a random midweek evening.

For those of you who don't know, I like to watch movies. I pay attention. I think about plot twists and acting and cinematography.

I am also not a teenager. This is an important detail.

So, the movie started, and about five minutes in, the guy started pawing at me, like we were sixteen years old and sitting in the back of a theater in a suburban mall -- instead of mid-30s professionals sitting in a downtown art house theater. I politely pushed him away.

He did this on and off for the next two hours, to the same result.

Now, granted, I can occasionally be cute, but I am not that irresistible. And I expect to have my boundaries respected. So by the time the movie was over, I was really annoyed and felt more than a little violated.

He sent me an email that night telling me how nice I was. I ignored his email, and several other attempts at contact over the next several days. I thought about responding and telling him what I was thinking -- and if I were really a grown up, I would have explained and given him a second chance or something -- but ultimately, I am a child, and in that moment, I lacked the desire and motivation to communicate. So, instead, I continued to ignore him and instead concentrated on work -- which, in my defense, was really busy. Not being a total and complete dumbass, the guy eventually got the message and stopped pursuing me.

I thought this was the end, but still, had an inkling that it wasn't. I mean, we don't work with each other, but we run in some of the same circles. I understood that, eventually, my luck would run out, as it always does.

Which brings me to last week, when I was looking for concert tickets on Craigslist and ran across an interesting personal ad. I pretty much never respond to those things. Really. But the ad was interesting and funny and witty and my curiosity got the best of me. So I wrote a quick note in response to the ad.

Of course, it was him. And rather than ignore it (like I would have), he decided to write me back, making a joke about trying to figure out what etiquette dictates. And what would Emily Post or Miss Manners do? Well, they wouldn't have responded to a Craigslist ad in the first place. So now, here I am, completely mortified. FML.

The Umbrella Theorem

I'm leaving for vacation in a few hours. I'm on the verge of going computer-free for the entire week. I hope I don't go through withdrawal.

In preparing for the week off, I had to make sure my work was covered. So I had to go from office to office to talk to the coworkers that were covering for me, to explain the status of the various projects that they would be covering. It was during my last conversation, with one of my colleagues that I've known since my first day in the office, I realized that this is an extrapolation of the Umbrella Theorem.

I learned about the Umbrella Theorem almost ten years ago, when I first started working. My coworkers and I would, occasionally, head out to lunch. We'd meet at the elevator bank and head downstairs. On occasion, someone would note the presence or absence of an umbrella. Eventually, I realized what it meant: If you're heading outside and see clouds in the sky, you bring your umbrella -- not to avoid the rain, but to prevent it. And so, the Umbrella Theorem became a part of my life. I always bring my umbrella -- because, more often than not, it seems as if the Universe only enacts its revenge when I'm unprepared.

So, today, as I was making sure that my boss, my coworkers, and my assistant were fully informed about my vacation, the cases, and whatever issues might arise, it was not in real preparation for dealing with anything, but was really a prophylactic measure against anything happening. And at the exact moment I realized what I was doing, my colleague figured it out too. "This is like bringing the umbrella along to lunch," he said. I laughed, "Exactly."

It's the same thing for the BlackBerry -- I could leave it at home and attempt to totally unplug. But, in my mind the Umbrella Theorem prevents it: if I leave the BlackBerry at home, there will, undoubtedly, be an emergency. And so, I'm bringing it with me. As I said to my boss, there's only so much unplugging I'm capable of. Baby steps.

Circumstantial evidence

Dear Bob Novak,

I know most people want to give you the benefit of the doubt about running over that 86 year-old homeless pedestrian yesterday. I mean, the cops only gave you a ticket for failing to yield, even though you had driven off from the scene of the accident. Still, isn't it peculiar that you wound up doing the very thing you talked about years ago? As a journalist, wouldn't you find that suspicious?

Just sayin'.

The other side of the coin

When it rains, it pours. There are other volumes in my ex-files, and one just texted me to see if I was going to be in his city anytime soon.

I don't know what self-destructive demon momentarily possessed my brain, but for some unknown reason, I responded -- all too honestly -- that I was going to be in the vicinity this weekend, but that I was going to be busy.

He just texted me back: "Give me a call if you have time."

Small world, courtesy of Facebook

The world is shrinking, my friends.

I've had this blog for just about two and a half years now, and I've been reading other blogs for about that same amount of time. There are some bloggers that I started following pretty much since day one, my virtual friends, if you will. But since I haven't gone to any happy hours or met up with any of my fellow bloggers, they are just that -- virtual acquaintances. Even if I do have them on my blogroll, subscribe to their RSS feeds, accept their MySpace friend requests, follow them on Twitter, and correspond with them via comments just about as often as I talk to my "real" friends (sometimes even more).

I signed up for Facebook this spring. All of my "friends" are people that I actually do know in the meatspace: friends, former classmates, former coworkers and the like.

Today, on Facebook, I saw a notification about someone that I have known for pretty much forever, from someone else in the "Washington DC" Network. So, out of curiosity, I clicked on the profile and saw a wall post from a blogger that I have followed pretty much since Day 1. Apparently, all this time, I've been two degrees separated from this person in real life.

This, of course, is causing me to reconsider my stance on whether I should actually meet up with the other bloggers that I correspond with. I mean, at a minimum, I am quite sure that I would have had a grand old time hanging out with Paige Jennifer and Ryane last weekend.

Irony is hard; mocking is easy

If there's one thing I've learned over the past two-plus years, it's that irony requires a deft touch. Especially in written form.

When an author writes about something, and the article turns out to be the best example of the subject, it's not really irony. Well, maybe it's dramatic or situational irony, but it's not truly ironic. And it's not really funny, either.

Case in point: a discourse on the overuse of the word awkward is, for lack of a better word . . . awk-ward.

Drugs might not be the answer, but . . .

Does anyone else find it odd that the guy who invented LSD lived to be 102?

The Hipster Olympics

"Empanadas are the new cupcakes." 'Nuff said.

I hope Matt Damon's a good sport

In between visiting restaurants and being sick, I managed to see The Bourne Ultimatum last week. For the record, I liked the first two, and this one was pretty much the same. (Which is probably why they can make a game of Bourne Mad Libs.)

Then I got home and read this:

The multimillion-dollar marketing campaign for "The Bourne Ultimatum" is so extensive that Universal Studios has actually placed a towering billboard for the hit spy movie on the side of the small Manhattan coop where the film's star, Matt Damon, lives with his family.

But it's not just the ad placement. The language employed makes it even better:

As seen in the below photo, the advertisement-which is about 15 feet wide and 50 feet high--notes that on August 3 (the day the film opened), "Bourne Comes Home."

Now that's funny.

If it wasn't for strange luck, I'd have no luck at all

I have strange luck. This morning, I probably would have called it bad luck. But that's not really accurate.

You see, this morning, I lost $12. Or, to be more precise, it fell out of my pocket somewhere between my apartment and the escalator on the red line at Judiciary Square, mere steps in front of the Firehook where I get my morning tea.

Needless to say, I wasn't amused. I mean, $12 won't break me or cause me to go without food for a week or anything, but it's enough for my morning tea and either lunch or -- as is more typical -- my takeout from Noodles & Company. Or, to put it into a clearer perspective, it's the cost of a baseball ticket (at least until next year).

After that, the day progressed as usual. It didn't really get worse, but it wasn't a fantastic day either. Work is busy. More ups-and-downs with my grandfather. Yadda yadda yadda. And I had to leave early to pick up my dry cleaning.

When I got home, arms filled with dry cleaning, I found a peculiarly large box sitting in front of my door. It was clearly not the Snoopy Snow Cone Machine I bought for $4.74 on ebay for Justin's upcoming birthday. So, I pushed the box out of the way, opened the door, threw the dry cleaning on the couch, and kicked the box into my kitchen.

I looked at it closely -- it was properly addressed to me. So, I grabbed the scissors and opened it up.

Inside, it had one of those fancy gift baskets, wrapped in cellophane, decorated with glittery stuff, and -- most importantly -- filled to the brim with things from the Virginia Lottery.

I had forgotten that, while I was freezing my butt off at Virginia Gold Cup, I visited some of the sponsors' tents -- and one of them was for the lottery, where they were having a drawing for a prize package.

The prize included a t-shirt, umbrella, rain poncho (would have been useful at Gold Cup) pen, paper clip holder, drink coasters, and a tote bag -- all embossed with the Virginia Lottery logo. The basket also contained $50 worth of lottery scratch-offs.

This is particularly funny, as I am not much of a gambler. The occasional friendly poker game, and maybe some blackjack -- with a budget -- if I'm in the proper environment and mindset. My mom, however, enjoys gambling. She plays cards with her girlfriends all the time. She often invites me to go with her, but I decline. This is because when I was a kid, she used to play bingo at the synagogue while I attended Hebrew school across the parking lot. After classes were over, I'd come over and sit with her, and that was, inevitably, when her losing streak would start.

Strange luck, remember?

So, of course, after discovering my prize, the first thing I did was call my parents to tell them of my luck. I then started scratching the tickets.



The first card was a $20 card. I never in my life would have bought a $20 lottery scratch card, but fate put it in front of me. And I won $25.

The rest of the tickets were $1 tickets. I did them five at a time.

The first five -- Nada. Zip. Zilch.

The next five -- two were winners. On the first, I won twice, for $1.00 each. On the second, I won five times, for $1.00 each. Then I lost on the rest.

I then lost three more times in a row, and then won $1.00, then lost again.

So, then I took a break -- during which I talked to I on the phone to tell her the story (since she's the one who brought me to Gold Cup), ate some dinner, and started writing this blog entry.

As I type this, I'm up overall $21 on the day (taking into consideration my $12 loss) -- with fifteen more scratch cards to go.



Update: On $50 worth of tickets, I won a total of $58. Of the 31 tickets -- including the $20 game -- 9 were winners. Of the winning cards, 4 had multiple wins. But alas, only one of the winners had a "multiplier." And, of the $1 cards, only once was the stated prize amount more than the face value of the ticket.

There was no discernible pattern to the 30 $1 cards (which were sequential serial numbers): 5 losing cards, 2 winners, 6 losers, 1 winner, 2 losers, 1 winner, 3 losers, 1 winner, 1 loser, 1 winner, 2 losers, 1 winner, 2 losers, 1 winner, 1 loser.

I learned that lottery scratchers are boring and repetitive -- and ultimately, at the end of the process, I was glad that there were only 31 tickets, and not 50 $1 tickets. But most importantly, I learned that you're only likely to earn back your investment 26.67 percent of the time.


Update #2: I found the original $12 early this morning, and promptly proceeded to spend it on shoe repair and, as originally planned, my morning tea.

St. Patrick's Day napping

I've been really tired all weekend. I was so excited for yesterday, with all the St. Patrick's Day festivities and basketball, yet I could barely drag my ass out of bed. Even though I got up at noon and went to the gym, once I got home and got showered and dressed, I was tired and wound up taking a two-hour nap with basketball on the tv.

After that, I had a short-ish telephone conversation with my mom, and a long-ish telephone conversation with my sister, where I expressed my very peculiar tiredness that was not relieved by all the sleep. My mom, in her infinite wisdom, said I shouldn't go out, since clearly my body is telling me that I need sleep.

My sister, in her different kind of wisdom, said she's always tired and goes out anyway. Of course, I laughed and told her to take advantage of her twenties for the next 9 months!

Since it was (a) a Saturday and (b) a partying holiday, I did wind up going out -- wearing my "Kiss Me I'm Irish" t-shirt -- but it was only with friends to an overcrowded Irish pub. Once there, I didn't really do anything interesting. In the spirit of the holiday, I did, however, drink two Guinnesses and one shot of Jamieson.

I got home around midnight, and yes, I am aware that is pathetic.

Anyway, the point of this was not to regale you with tales of my (very boring) life, but to point out the synchronicity between this and yesterday's horoscope. You see, ever since the time change, My Yahoo! has been stuck in a time-warp, where it features the last day's horoscope instead of the current day's. So, imagine my surprise when I logged in today to find:

Feeling tired? It's no wonder -- the pace (and the hours) you've been keeping lately are not conducive to staying alert and awake throughout the day. If you can't seem to get revved up to start your day, then sleep in a little bit longer. If you can't sleep in a bit longer, then promise yourself that you'll make time for a nice nap this weekend. They say you can't really catch up on sleep, but you need to get some more sleep in order to get back to feeling normal.

That would have been eerily prescient, had I read it yesterday.

Conservapedia v. Wikipedia: A Test

For the record, I love the whole concept of Wikipedia, the idea that you can type just about anything into the search box and, at a minimum, get a concise explanation. Plus, the idea that it is a communal project and that anyone can add or edit -- subject, of course, to others' review -- appeals to me. (It's the whole idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all the competing analyses. Of course, if you want a more humorous view, read Gene Weingarten's article on the Wikipedia phenomenon.)

So, when I heard the recent news about Conservapedia, I just had to see it for myself.

For the record, Conservapedia describes itself as follows:

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, as well as more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 2,500,000 page views and over 20,000 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly.

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Of course, this is not entirely without controversy. Wikipedia describes Conservapedia this way:

Conservapedia is a wiki project to construct an encyclopedia with articles that are pro-American, socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity.

The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, in response to a perceived anti-Christian and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia. According to recent stories about the site, Conservapedia originated from a project by homeschooled children, with many of its entries created by teenagers as part of a school assignment. In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for various online courses, for example, on American History, is stored on the site. Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. Andrew Schlafly has stated that he hopes the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers.

Conservapedia and Wikipedia

Conservapedia disapproves of what it claims is an institutional aversion on Wikipedia to the use of Christian scripture and doctrine as objective and reliable sources for scientific matters, along with other religious texts, intuitions, and superstitions. Topics relating to natural phenomena, morality, religion, politics and American history have been singled out for particular criticism. Conservapedia provides asserted examples of anti-Christian bias, including the use of the secular CE/BCE notation in place of AD/BC (Anno Domini and Before Christ), and allowing evolution to be defined as based on evidence, in contradiction of the creationism favored by certain Christians. Allegations of an anti-American bias include the acceptance of non-US English spellings of English words, such as "labour" and "theatre", as the various editions of Wikipedia are broken up by language, not region.

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach." On March 8 Andy Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, the Today programme, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project. "Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants."

Criticism and vandalism

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies and allegations of a bias of its own (see Factual relativism). Critics such as libertarian conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, conservative blogger Jon Swift, science writer Carl Zimmer and others, have criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy, extremism, hypocrisy, bias, and ignoring the scientific consensus on subjects such as the Big Bang and evolution in favor of biblical exegesis. Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark, that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb" and that gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven. An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, with it being pointed as a nonsense entry that was able to slip under the radar. Andrew Schlafly has asserted that the page was meant as a parody of environmentalism and he intends to keep it up. However, as of 4 March, the entry has been deleted. Other offending articles have since been revised to include fewer statements of the kind that have brought derision from the blogosphere.

There is evidence that people who object to Conservapedia's stated conservative Christian mission have been creating deliberate parody entries in an attempt to ridicule the widespread use of Christian scripture as a source for Conservapedia articles.

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts." Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creation science perspective.

(citations omitted)

Sounds even-handed, right?

So, I decided to put the two to the test. First topic, "Hillary Clinton."

The first paragraph, from Wikipedia:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party. She is married to Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, and was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. She is a lawyer and a former First Lady of Arkansas.

Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, becoming the first First Lady elected to public office and the first female senator to represent New York. She was re-elected in 2006. As senator, she sits on the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Special Committee on Aging.

On January 20, 2007, Clinton announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee for the United States presidential election of 2008.

Conservapedia, however, tells a different story:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947) was First Lady of the United States of America during the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2001. Though she had virtually no connection to New York, she exploited the resignation of the Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as an opportunity for her to win a safe Senate seat and prepare for her own bid to become President. With the power of the White House she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily in the heavily Democratic state of New York in 2000.

After being reelected in 2006, Clinton began preparing for her presidential run as expected, and she formally announced her candidacy in early 2007.

Okay, fine. Admittedly I chose a topic of particular interest amongst conservatives. But does it change if I pick something more in their wheelhouse? Let's try "Rudy Giuliani."

Wikipedia:

Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani III (born May 28, 1944) is an American lawyer, prosecutor, businessman, and Republican politician from the state of New York.

He became a popular figure as a United States Attorney prosecuting high-profile cases, including cases against organized crime and the tax evader Marc Rich. He served two terms as Mayor of New York City (1994–2001), during which time he was credited by many with improvements in the city's quality of life and with a massive reduction in crime that eventually made New York City the country's safest major city after years of being the "Murder Capital of America." Others, however, criticized him as divisive and authoritarian. He then gained national attention for his leadership role during and after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center that led him to be named Time's 2001 Person of the Year and receive an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. His public visibility in the days following the attacks earned him the nickname "America's Mayor."

Since leaving office as mayor, Giuliani has found considerable success in the private sector. He founded Giuliani Partners, a security consulting business, acquired Giuliani Capital Advisors (later sold), an investment banking firm, and joined the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm. In February 2007 Giuliani filed a statement of candidacy for the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential campaign. Most polls show him as the leading candidate for the nomination.

It goes on from there, but overall, it seems fair.

And Conservapedia?

There is no page titled "rudy giuliani". You can create this page.

Of course, after I stopped laughing my ass off, I thought that, to really be fair, I would try again.

Mitt Romney, via Conservapedia:

Willard Mitt Romney (born 1947, goes by Mitt), served as the governor of Massachusetts from 2002 to 2006 and is a Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If elected, he will become the first Mormon president.

That's it -- two whole sentences. But from Wikipedia, we actually get information:

Willard Mitt Romney (standard IPA pronunciation: 'wɪlɜd mɪt 'ɹɑmnɪ), usually known as Mitt, (born March 12, 1947) was the 70th Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, elected in 2002. He served one term and did not seek re-election in 2006; his term ended January 4, 2007. Romney is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, formally announcing his candidacy on February 13, 2007. He made his announcement at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

Romney is a former CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and the co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. In 1994, Romney led an unsuccessful Senate campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. He also served as the CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Romney was born March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. He is a great great grandson of Latter-day Saint leader and apostle Parley P. Pratt and the son of former Michigan Governor, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, American Motors chairman, and Presidential candidate George W. Romney and unsuccessful 1970 US Senate candidate Lenore Romney. Romney has three siblings: Lynn, Jane, and G. Scott. He was named after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend, and Milton Romney, a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears.

Romney married his high school sweetheart, Ann Davies, in 1968. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig) and ten grandchildren. Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.

And that's just the first section.

So, in summary, Conservapedia mistakes Wikipedia's ability to actually provide useful information with "liberal bias."

Then again, I'm the stupid one for actually expecting something different.

Another reason I hate the snow

This is what it looks like when I'm trying to catch an earlier-than-necessary shuttle flight to New York City on a Sunday so that I can go to lunch with my 93-year-old grandmother before getting back to work prepping for a deposition -- and instead, wind up stuck on a plane in the snow for 5 hours before takeoff:



Of course, all that is irrelevant now that I'm back home and about to go to sleep in my own bed.

Right?

Musings on babies, quarterbacks, and supermodels

I don't know why, but I'm completely captivated by the whole Bridget Moynahan-Tom Brady story. The breakup, the pregnancy, the supermodel, the accusations, and the Catholicism -- but now, mostly, the war of the publicists.

This has all the makings of a great movie. Let's see: You have a Superbowl winning conservative Catholic (and Republican) star quarterback, his older, pregnant, C-list actress ex-girlfriend (whose most recent career move was a bad TV show that mysteriously disappeared off the fall schedule), and the 10-years-younger supermodel.

Then again, the story would be way better if one of them killed the others.* I should start writing the screenplay now.

In all seriousness, though, I officially agree with Salon:

What I do have an issue with is that the editorial judges Moynahan for being pregnant with a man she had a three-year relationship with, while not questioning or judging Brady for frolicking around Europe with a lingerie model on his arm while his pregnant ex announces their upcoming child to the press. There's nothing inherently wrong with heading to Paris with Gisele Bündchen -- I know plenty of people who would welcome that opportunity. I'm just tired of insinuations that if a couple conceives and then breaks up, the woman must have been using her uterus to try to keep her man.

*Disclaimer: I am not advocating murder. I'm just saying that vengeful pregnant ex-girlfriends killing supermodels makes a good story.

Punchline question

I'm trying to figure out the funnier twist to the story that a Florida absentee ballot was mailed with a rare stamp: Is it that 1) the law requires that it remain in a locked ballot box until it is destroyed; or 2) the idea that the stamp might be a fake?

Pop Culture Litmus Test

I saw Interview's Pop Culture test today (thanks Gawker!).


I am astounded that I can only identify ten of them without resorting to Google or Wikipedia. Therefore, I've concluded that Interview is way out of my league.

Accordingly, I've decided that I ought to come up with my own Pop Culture reference test. Possible candidates from recent blog posts include:

• George Allen
• Stephen Baldwin
• Charles Barkley
• Bono
• Tim Burton
• Kirk Cameron
• Naomi Campbell
• Neko Case
• Eric Dane
• Patrick Dempsey
• Devo
• Ted Haggard
• Logan Echolls
• Tina Fey
• Mark Foley
• Kinky Friedman
• Lorelai Gilmore
• Jeffrey, Michael, Uli & Laura
• Alex P. Keaton
• Jimmy Kimmel
• Michael Kors
• Rush Limbaugh
• Richard Linklater
• Dave Navarro
• Chris O'Donnell
• O.K. Go
• Matthew Perry
• Ryan Phillipe
• Trent Reznor
• Santino Rice
• Alex Rodriguez
• Al Sharpton
• Slash & Axl
• Wesley Snipes
• Jeff Suppan
• Bill Watterson
• Jim Webb
• Gene Weingarten
• E.B. White
• Bradley Whitford
• Wegmans
• Michelle Williams

Scoring: If you can't identify the majority of these names, then clearly, this blog is not for you.

Religious/Political Question of the Day

For all the evangelicals out there reading this -- help me get this right: Crystal meth and gay prostitutes are ok, but gay marriage is not?

And let's not get into the dispute about the difference between "sex" and "massage" in this circumstance -- it veers dangerously close to Bill Clinton territory.

A letter

Dear Curt Cloninger:

How are we supposed to take your theory that Guns N' Roses Sweet Child O' Mine represents "the voice of your generation" seriously when you can't even get the lyrics right?

You wrote:

Its lyrics tell of an escapist teen love. I imagine the song's subject, "Sweet Child," wearing ripped jeans and several Cyndi Lauper bracelets, our narrator picking her up in the back of the trailer park in his green Impala, and they cruise to Makeout Point.

As the lyrics go, Axl Rose sings, "I'm just sitting here staring at your hair, and it's reminding me of a warm, safe place where as a child I'd hide." I can see them embracing tenderly, and going to shoplift a six-pack of Schaefer. So far, so good.

No Mr. Cloninger, not good at all. See, the lyrics actually go "She's got eyes of the bluest skies/As if they thought of rain/I hate to look into those eyes/And see an ounce of pain/Her hair reminds me of a warm safe place/Where as a child I'd hide/And pray for the thunder/And the rain/To quietly pass me by."

And any girl seriously listening to that song would have been way over "Cyndi Lauper bracelets."

Write what you know, sir. And clearly, you don't know Guns N' Roses.

This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

Bad news for the anti-marijuana folks out there: Marijuana use may prevent Alzheimer's.