He was previously discussed here. For some reason, his best moments happen when we're talking about analogies. Tonight's involved a nice, clean-shaven fellow - we'll call him Mr. Clean.)
Teacher: So, here we have FUSELAGE:AIRPLANE. What's a good bridge there?
Mr. Clean: That the fuselage is a part of the airplane?
Teacher: Ok, let's try it.
[They run down the answers and find that every answer is something that's a part of something else.]
Teacher: So we need a more specific bridge, right?
Mr. Clean: Yeah, but...I don't know what a fuselage is.
Zambrano Guy: Oh, I've got it. The fuselage is the outer shell of an airplane.
Teacher: Excellent!
Zambrano Guy: Well, I watch Lost, so that was easy.
Teacher: And which answer fits?
Zambrano Guy: HULL:SHIP.
Mr. Clean: Wait...so a fuselage has, like, something to do with the fuel?
Teacher: Not quite...
Mr. Clean:...see, I don't know, because, uh, I don't watch Lost.
16 September 2008
Advice columnist's nirvana
Enter sidetaker. Read about a couple's argument, get both sides of it, and then pick whose side you're on.
If something virtual can take the place of crack cocaine, this site would have to be in the running.
If something virtual can take the place of crack cocaine, this site would have to be in the running.
13 September 2008
The two best statements of the weekend, thus far:
"See, that's what I hate about our country. Isn't it awful? Michael Phelps had, like, this great accomplishment, but now I just hate him!"
-The Arygirl
and...
"I put my pants on both legs at a time. Because I'm different from everyone else. Wait, not different - better."
-Ms. Abstract Citizen
-The Arygirl
and...
"I put my pants on both legs at a time. Because I'm different from everyone else. Wait, not different - better."
-Ms. Abstract Citizen
12 September 2008
Friday is link-day at AC
James Fallows makes the point that politicians ought to be conversant in areas of government not because they need to show off, but because it shows that they are interested in the dynamics of the debate surrounding those topics and it suggests that they may be actively participating in said debate, which means that they are in some way engaged by the topic. Even if all they're doing is defending a static position, they are aware that there exists a debate on the topic, and they would need to see how the other side's arguments are evolving over time.
10 September 2008
and as long as I'm writing mawkishly about bikes and music
here's the aforementioned huffy, in all of its circa 1982 glory.
Only the river stared back...
I just am not getting sick of Okkervil River. Usually I gorge on a band and it ends up being a consumable, quickly digested and discarded. But listening to "The Stand Ins" for the first time today, I really did think that this Will Sheff fellow has done something pretty impressive, which is going from relative obscurity to a bona fide super-songwriter, in my estimation, on the strength of three albums. (Out of a number of memorable lines, I'm going with "you've got taste / yeah you've got taste / man, what a waste that it's all you've got..." or something close to that.)
And I know I've touched on this before, but while his style of songwriting is perhaps a bit affected, it's also surprisingly formal and erudite. It's dripping with references, and anyoneon who enjoys the careful development of literary themes should be able to sit down with their albums and the lyric sheet and just have a field day following the narratives, which are richly layered, full of details and knowing winks.
And Sheff manages to avoid fatuousness or obviousness. For all his apparent sincerity, the songs tend to be shrouded in ambiguity. For a good read, check out this pitchforkmedia (I know, I know) interview with him, which is sprawling and insightful. For a good listen, look below.
And I know I've touched on this before, but while his style of songwriting is perhaps a bit affected, it's also surprisingly formal and erudite. It's dripping with references, and anyoneon who enjoys the careful development of literary themes should be able to sit down with their albums and the lyric sheet and just have a field day following the narratives, which are richly layered, full of details and knowing winks.
And Sheff manages to avoid fatuousness or obviousness. For all his apparent sincerity, the songs tend to be shrouded in ambiguity. For a good read, check out this pitchforkmedia (I know, I know) interview with him, which is sprawling and insightful. For a good listen, look below.
Goodbye, Raleigh M50
You were a good bike. Though I only came to truly appreciate you in the past few years, we hung in there together for quite a while – since 2000, if my memory is correct. I only took you out on true dirt trails a couple of times – remember that trail around Sugar Loaf that was like a grade 5 and was totally murderous? It totally kicked our asses. But we had fun on some neighborhood trails along Sligo Creek and near the parental household. You were definitely a good bike, and only the second one I’ve ever owned.
The first was a BMX Huffy, black and gold. As a kid, I thought I could pedal fast enough to travel across dimensions. We built ramps, and we popped wheelies. We thought we were like the BMX Bandits of Berkeley or something. We skidded everywhere, and generally rode like hellbent children (no helmets!) determined to tackle the winding streets of our little Albany neighborhood streets like…well, like impatient children. No metaphor really works here.
So, I have owned two bikes in 30 years. I’m sure there are men out there who have had 10 bikes in that same span of time, but I guess I’m old fashioned. A serial monogamist in the bicycle world.
And now some dickless piece of shit stole you, and I am not sure what I ought to be feeling - anger, sadness, disappointment, all of the above...In any case, goodbye, Raleigh M50. You were a good bike.
The first was a BMX Huffy, black and gold. As a kid, I thought I could pedal fast enough to travel across dimensions. We built ramps, and we popped wheelies. We thought we were like the BMX Bandits of Berkeley or something. We skidded everywhere, and generally rode like hellbent children (no helmets!) determined to tackle the winding streets of our little Albany neighborhood streets like…well, like impatient children. No metaphor really works here.
So, I have owned two bikes in 30 years. I’m sure there are men out there who have had 10 bikes in that same span of time, but I guess I’m old fashioned. A serial monogamist in the bicycle world.
And now some dickless piece of shit stole you, and I am not sure what I ought to be feeling - anger, sadness, disappointment, all of the above...In any case, goodbye, Raleigh M50. You were a good bike.
08 September 2008
Food, morals, questions
I often think about what I’m going to eat, or what I’ve just eaten, or what I may eat several days from now if there’s a restaurant I’m particularly looking forward to visiting, and over the past few years, we’ve tried to adopt a more locally-based diet, for all the usual reasons. John’s post really gets me to thinking about the broad spectrum of different concerns that I rarely contemplate. Namely, eating meat – something which I don’t do often, but when I do eat meat, I certainly don’t exercise any particular zeal to ascertain the origin of that meat and, in fact, I am thrilled when I find a whole chicken at Harris Teeter for under $6, though I’m sure this is a “chicken” churned out by some vast sprawling industrial chickenarium somewhere.
And yes, this is partly because I was freaked the eff out by Jerome Groopman’s article about MRSA, aka, drug-resistant bacteria.
Read if you’re into paranoia, and kiss that bottle of Purell’s hand sanitizer goodbye (except for truly dire circumstances, I believe.)
PS. John, I meant to ask for permission to link, but since you're an assiduous readers, there's a good chance you'll be the first to see this anyway - let me know if you want it taken down!
And yes, this is partly because I was freaked the eff out by Jerome Groopman’s article about MRSA, aka, drug-resistant bacteria.
Read if you’re into paranoia, and kiss that bottle of Purell’s hand sanitizer goodbye (except for truly dire circumstances, I believe.)
PS. John, I meant to ask for permission to link, but since you're an assiduous readers, there's a good chance you'll be the first to see this anyway - let me know if you want it taken down!
04 September 2008
This month in, “Remind why I don’t subcribe to the Atlantic again?”
This post-mortem on the Clinton campaign is fascinating.
The impressions I took away: the first, and obvious one, is that running a campaign is hard work. More and more, it seems to me that it’s fair to draw analogies between how campaigns are run and how that candidate would govern. I used to think this was media reductionism, but the more I think about it, the more fair it seems to draw these extrapolations. For example, Bush-Cheney were a ruthlessly effective team, but they also arguably relied on a cynical view of voters: the old 49.5+1 equation that sought a simple majority but not necessarily a wider base from which to govern.
The other thought I have is that these long, protracted campaigns can also explain the negative aspects of recent administrations. The Clintons were notoriously paranoid – and it’s hard not to see this as an unfortunate downside of the lovable “War Room” mentality that was so well-captured in the documentary of the same name. Ditto the Bush-Cheney team, who have governed as if they are on a permanent campaign. So, campaigns can showcase effective managerial styles – but they can create intellectual ruts that extend into the actual administration once the campaign is over. Sen. Clinton’s campaign seems to have suffered from a number of organizational problems, but the net result of the article humanizes her in a flattering way (to me, at least.) I think it’s a must-read for anyone curious about the election/campaign process (and yes, I know it’s old news by now, but I don’t do topical, ok?)
Next, this brilliant and surprising argument that an Obama presidency would actually not move us past the age of partisanship, since it would likely also mean that the Dems would have more than 60 votes in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House – and that we would see fewer moderate Republicans in both Houses of Congress – likely the Republicans that Obama would be most likely to work with. The resulting one-party rule would do very little to encourage moderate bi-partisanship, the author argues.
The flipside is that a McCain presidency would still involve a Democratic majority in both Houses – a slim majority, but an undeniable one. McCain would need to reach out to the Democrats and would, arguably, represent a more post-partisan style of governing (out of pragmatic need) than Obama’s would.
As a reminder, the Abstract Citizen is not expressing any political leanings, nor does the AC make it a habit of speak on sensitive issues concerning American politics. Rather, these are presented in an agnostic manner as interesting (to me, at least) insights into the political process.
The impressions I took away: the first, and obvious one, is that running a campaign is hard work. More and more, it seems to me that it’s fair to draw analogies between how campaigns are run and how that candidate would govern. I used to think this was media reductionism, but the more I think about it, the more fair it seems to draw these extrapolations. For example, Bush-Cheney were a ruthlessly effective team, but they also arguably relied on a cynical view of voters: the old 49.5+1 equation that sought a simple majority but not necessarily a wider base from which to govern.
The other thought I have is that these long, protracted campaigns can also explain the negative aspects of recent administrations. The Clintons were notoriously paranoid – and it’s hard not to see this as an unfortunate downside of the lovable “War Room” mentality that was so well-captured in the documentary of the same name. Ditto the Bush-Cheney team, who have governed as if they are on a permanent campaign. So, campaigns can showcase effective managerial styles – but they can create intellectual ruts that extend into the actual administration once the campaign is over. Sen. Clinton’s campaign seems to have suffered from a number of organizational problems, but the net result of the article humanizes her in a flattering way (to me, at least.) I think it’s a must-read for anyone curious about the election/campaign process (and yes, I know it’s old news by now, but I don’t do topical, ok?)
Next, this brilliant and surprising argument that an Obama presidency would actually not move us past the age of partisanship, since it would likely also mean that the Dems would have more than 60 votes in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House – and that we would see fewer moderate Republicans in both Houses of Congress – likely the Republicans that Obama would be most likely to work with. The resulting one-party rule would do very little to encourage moderate bi-partisanship, the author argues.
The flipside is that a McCain presidency would still involve a Democratic majority in both Houses – a slim majority, but an undeniable one. McCain would need to reach out to the Democrats and would, arguably, represent a more post-partisan style of governing (out of pragmatic need) than Obama’s would.
As a reminder, the Abstract Citizen is not expressing any political leanings, nor does the AC make it a habit of speak on sensitive issues concerning American politics. Rather, these are presented in an agnostic manner as interesting (to me, at least) insights into the political process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)