Fat Tuesday

Hope everybody has a great Mardi Gras, the most corpulent Fat Tuesday you can possibly have! In Chicago, with so many Poles here, they call it Pączki Day, in honor of their yummy Medieval uberdoughnuts. I don't think I'll go through the effort and wait in line for any Pączkis at the good bakeries today, but it is tempting, because they really are good. My favorite bakery for getting them is Dinkel's, but it's like me and half of Chicago. At least on the North Side -- it's like waiting in line for tickets to see a band. And I hate waiting in lines, and with work and all, I'd only be able to get there at the end of the day, so I'll pass on that today, but only with some reluctance.

BJ Blows

I love this takedown of Billy Joel...

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/01/the_worst_pop_singer_ever.html?wpisrc=obinsite

A performer who I have described for most of my life as making "music for non music lovers." Much the way there are writers out there for non-readers (Stephenie Meyer, etc.), comedians for people without senses of humor (Dane Cook, Colin Quinn, etc.), intellectuals for non-thinkers (Newt Gingrich, etc.), artists for non-art lovers (Jeff Koons, etc.), directors for non-movie lovers (Michael Bay, etc.), restaurants for non-food lovers (Olive Garden, etc.), and so on.

Billy Joel, they can't stand you because of your music; because of your stupid, smug attitude; because of the way you ripped off your betters to produce music that rarely reaches the level even of mediocrity. You could dress completely au courant and people would still loathe your lame lyrics.

It's not that they dislike anything exterior about you. They dislike you because of who you really are inside. They dislike you for being you. At a certain point, consistent, aggressive badness justifies profound hostility. They hate you just the way you are.

Well said! For me, it goes back to my childhood, when a certain tone-deaf sibling would caterwaul to his songs. She had all of his LPs and probably an eight-track or two. I remember actually looking at his albums and playing them on my folks's hi-fi and thinking, even as a kid, "Wow, why does my sibling like this?" I didn't even have a musical aesthetic, yet, and I STILL disliked it, found him just dreadful on the ears. It's hard to pinpoint it, too -- I know I wasn't analyzing lyrics back then; it was the actual sound. The songs themselves, and how he sang them. I hated it. And then, when I could actually decipher what he was singing about, I disliked him all over again, in newer and deeper ways.

Aesthetically, artistically, and musically bankrupt, he is.  His success speaks volumes about our country. And to friends, semi-friends, non-friends, and acquaintances who might say "Aw, come on, Daibh, don't be so judgmental; he's not THAT bad." I'd say "Oh, he's WORSE."

Summits

I saw that Chicago's hosting both the G8 and NATO summits in late May. That is going to be wild. The city's going to be insane that weekend. There'll be protesters and everything else. And it being an election year, what with a president from Chicago, too. It's going to be over the top. I guess it's the first time there's been a NATO summit in the US outside of DC; and the first time in 30 years that a city his hosting both summits at the same time. It's going to be nuts. I'll be sure to have my camera handy, taking pix.

Winter Mixology and Days of Future Passed

Weird weather today. Snow at one point, rain at another. The fabled "winter mix" that meteorologists sometimes like to talk about. Good flu-havin' weather.

I'm amazed that next month'll be March, that we're midway through February already. Winter's hardly really happened, and we're nearly facing Spring.

Lordy, I turn 42 this Spring. I don't know how my folks felt when they turned 42, but it's just weird for me. My stepdad would've been my age now back in 1980, so, yeah, that was a long time ago. It'll be that way for B1, as there's the same span of years between him and me as between me and my stepdad (and, bizarrely, between him and HIS dad). So, B1 will be my age right now in 2044. That's just crazy. My 21st Century boys!

Weird to think that we're already 12 years into the 21st Century. I remember, as a kid, thinking about the Year 2000, how exotic and alien that seemed. I'd be 30 in the Year 2000. I remember distinctly thinking that as a 10-year-old. My nearly 42-year-old self laughs at that, honestly. Lurched right through 2000, and sailed by 2010.

Watched "2001" the other day -- B1 loved seeing the spaceships in it, hearing the music. But it amused me to watch a 44-year-old vision of 2001, and how futuristic is still was, how hell-and-gone far from that we are. No HAL. No moon base. No deep space missions.

"The Road Warrior" is, sadly enough, the most prescient of cinematic SF portrayals. I think we're likelier to go down that road than anything in "2001." At least here in the States.

Heartless

Valentine's Day, oohh! Guess I should do a love-themed post, right? Okay, here, goes...

I think people get into trouble where love is concerned when they either fail to understand what they really want, and/or fail to see the other person for who they really are.

1. Loves you for you: True love
2. Loves you for what/who they think you are: Deluded love
3. Loves you for what you can give them: Selfish love

I think those are the three options, really. And, in some cases, they aren't mutually exclusive. Now, you could semantically argue that Option 3 isn't love at all, and you'd likely be right. But I'm calling it that because people in that situation likely think they love Person X, and if you think you love, it's nearly the same thing -- objectively, it likely fails the "sniff test" as love, but people are so subjective about love that they may not think about it clearly enough (and few would honestly cop to being selfish in love; it's like how few people cop to being hipsters, or to being assholes, etc.) Selfish love seems like an oxymoron, and it is, honestly -- love can't truly be selfish, or it's not love -- but I see people caught up in selfish love all the time. It's out there.

Everybody thinks their love is true, but just like everybody thinks they're a good person, it's simply not so. As an empiricist and a skeptic, I would call bullshit on this. Know them by their actions, by what they do, how they treat you, how they see themselves. People would be better off if they actually had the stones to be honest about their intentions with love. But most people are afraid to do that, to actually face who they really are, and come to terms with it. 

The only one that really matters is Option 1, obviously. That's the strongest love, and if it's reciprocal, then you're in the best possible position. If you have a mismatch between loves, though, then you're in trouble. If you're not seeing the other person for who they really are, and/or if they're not seeing you for who you really are, and/or if you're not seeing yourself for who you really are, and/or if they're not seeing themselves for who they really are, then there's trouble right out of the gates. I've experienced this twice in my life, and it sucks. It is a roadmap for emotional pain!

People who are attracted to a "type" can also get into that kind of trouble, because, again, you're not seeing the person themselves, but some blend of 2 and 3, I suppose. I know many people who flounder through relationships because they are only attracted to that type, so it's like they're not even really seeing the person in front of them, but are drawn to a type, and can't figure out where it went wrong.

I know I have a type, and I wrestle with that. I'm old enough and experienced enough to understand that a type can be perilous, especially when stacked up against 1-3. It's easy to find attraction riding the coattails of love and fooling you. It's easy to be charmed by a type, only to understand, fundamentally, that she's not actually right for you. But the key is that self-understanding.

It's an identity tightrope. For it to work, you have to see yourself clearly, and you have to see the other person clearly. In so doing, in both cases, you have at least the possibility of true love. Any other situation, and somebody's going to get hurt.

Person A loves Person B as 1, but Person B loves Person A from 2 and 3. Net result: Person B feels some measure of contempt for Person A, and woe to Person A when they're not able to deliver whatever it is that Person B loves from 3. Person A then can either roll with it and suffer, or cut themselves loose.

Person X loves Person Y as 2, but Person Y loves Person X as 3. Net result: Person X gets used by Person Y, and either can't see it, or won't see it (depends on the degree of delusion they're carrying, and their capacity for self-abuse). Person Y just wants whatever it is that X gives, and woe to X when they can't deliver.

And so on. I would say two people "loving" each other as 3 would be a one-night stand, or a mutual hookup kind of arrangement, without anything deeper than that. Two people "loving" each other as 2 would be confusing and contradictory -- a case of two people probably not understanding themselves, and likely not understanding each other, either -- probably one of those dramatic unions where people argue a lot, just because they're a lot of misunderstanding. That's a union that would depend on mutual physical attraction more than actual love, is my guess.

Probably people inclined to love as 2 stagger from relationship to relationship, never understanding why it never works out for them. They're probably the ones who're embittered on Valentine's Day, wondering why it never works out for them, whereas I'd look at them and say that they need to get their heads out of their asses and understand who they really are, and what they actually want. Some introspection would serve them well.

Anyway, be honest about who you are and what you actually want, see the other person for who they really are, not who you think you are (or want them to be, or wish they would be), and certainly don't value someone for what they can give you (be it money, identity, security, etc.), and you'll at least have the chance of finding and experiencing true love. Beware of the "type" trap confounding your otherwise good sense, assuming you even have good sense.

"Happy Valentine's Day" | OutKast

Onion

Oh, man, this week's ONION is packed with good stuff...

Intelligent, Condescending Life Discovered in Distant Galaxy

Bahah!

Report: Watching Episode of 'Downton Abbey' Counts as Reading Book

*snicker*

48-Year-Old Man Actually Very Open To Dating 25-Year-Olds

Bahahah!

And others. Oh, man! Great stuff this week!

Snow!

Wow, we're getting hammered by snow; I hadn't even realized we were due for it, but it's really coming down. Not sure how many inches of snow we're due, but it's big, fat, fluffy flakes aplenty. Looks like we've gotten at least three inches, with no sign of stopping at the moment. Fortunately, I'm doing a grocery run tomorrow morning, so we'll be fully stocked.

Plagued

So far, so good. B2's recovering from his sickness, and neither B1 nor I have caught it (yet). There's always that existential dread when gastroenteritis season comes about, where you wonder when you're number's up, when you've managed that one lapse of vigilance that lets that nasty pestilence assail you. I told my boys "Make sure to keep your fingers off your face, and don't share cups food." Which helps, but, barring scrubbing down every possible surface, you can't ever quite know for sure if you're safe. It's like being on a plague ship...

Svartkraft, "The Plague Ship"

; )

Exene claimed B2 was puking all day, so I asked her when, and it turned out it had been only around 1:00 yesterday afternoon, so that was good. He had one lil' bout when I had him home last night, but later was able to keep down some crackers, so that's good. He rebounds pretty quickly. That's the marvelous thing about little ones -- they usually spring back from bugs like this fairly handily. He slept the night through, so I'm hopeful that he'll be good to go today.

I had bought B2 some new sneakers, got him some cool ones from Zappos -- a pair of black Chuckies and a pair of black argyle Vans. He loves both of'em, is stoked to wear them. I'm not part of the Cult of Converse, never was; in fact, it bugs me that there's this arbitrary indie hipster significance to Chuckies, as if wearing said shoes actually meant something. I view them much the way I view tattoos -- if you wore Chuckies in the 50s (and got a tattoo then, for that matter), more power to you. If you became a Converse cult member from 1990 onward (and/or got tats in that time), you're a cultural coattail-rider and a victim of adroit lifestyle marketing. FAIL.

At any rate, I waive that rule with kids' shoes, however, just because B2's lil' feet look so damned cute in Chuckies, and he needs to learn how to tie his shoes properly, anyway, so they're useful in that regard. He's more partial to the Vans, anyway, but he likes'em both. He'll be psyched to try his new sneakers out, I know. And they do look sharp. I just wanted B2 to have two pairs of sneakers handy, so he doesn't burn through one pair too quickly.

Yowzers

B2's got "stomach flu." He was sick last night. Not horribly, honestly -- two major hurlfests in the early evening, then some dry heaves around midnight. He tends to sleep things off when he gets sick, but I've kept an eye on him. I asked Exene to mind the boys, since I was out sick a couple of days last week, didn't want to take any other sick days from work anytime soon. B1's okay so far, so hopefully that'll continue to be the case. I just hope I don't get it, since this one seems particularly contagious. One advantage of being a medical editor is you know enough about pathogens and protocols to have a better chance of avoiding getting sick. But gastroenteritis is pretty tricky, sneaks up on you. I'm really not up for that, so I hope I luck out and don't get this one.

Long Live the King

I'm glad somebody's calling out Marvel's bullshit vis-a-vis Jack Kirby. Marvel would not have existed without Jack Kirby's work. It sucks that they screwed him over so badly. I loved Marvel in my comic collecting youth (hell, I still have some of my comics stored away), but how Marvel has built its entertainment empire has Kirby's ghost left twisting in the wind. Truly vile policy, and the writer is right on the money (so to speak) when they say:

What makes this situation especially hard to stomach is that Marvel’s media empire was built on the backs of characters whose defining trait as superheroes is the willingness to fight for what is right. It takes a lot of corporate moxie to put Thor and Captain America on the big screen and have them battle for honor and justice when behind the scenes the parent company acts like a cold-blooded supervillain. As Stan Lee famously wrote, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

If Mitt Romney is right, and corporations are people, perhaps Marvel/Disney has the capacity to feel shame. In any event, a public flogging has already begun. Cartoonist and educator Stephen Bissette’s blog post calling for a boycott of The Avengers kicked up a lot of dust in the blogosphere. Tom Spurgeon, writing for his well-respected industry website Comic Reporter also framed the issue in moral terms, as did the cartoonist Seth: “The corporate lie about Kirby's role in the creation of all those characters is abhorrent. It's a bold faced lie. Everyone knows it's a lie. No one is fooled. Everyone lying for the company should be ashamed. Stan Lee should be ashamed. What the Marvel corporation is doing might be legal but it certainly isn't right.”

'Nuff said.

Helicopters

Oh, lordy, people. C'mon!

Unconstitutional

Interesting piece in the NYT, about how the Constitution is in freefall as a model for governments around the world. While the NYT tries to blow a little smoke up America's ass near the end, it's clear that this is just another example of how our country is falling behind. It talks about us being a "legal backwater" in the eyes of the world's jurisprudence, and how other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand are increasingly serving as better models of governance. I get it, sadly, although the majority of Americans won't/don't, which doesn't bode well for our future. We are a declining superpower, whether we acknowledge it or not, and as much as we gulp down propaganda of assimilation that tells us we're the envy of the world, it prevents us from honest introspection as to where we are as a country, where we are going, and where we want to be. As much as I'd hate to quote the Bible, Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." -- just don't tell that to the fundamentalist Christians, naturally, with their heretical views of Christianity that seem to hold pride as the most sacred of virtues, and that haughty spirit might as well be the Holy Spirit to them. Speaking of that, this is a good piece, too.

But point is that our country is politically and ideologically unable to navigate this century; we've been on cruise control, not even realizing we've gone off the road decades ago.

Go-Go's a-go-go

How is it even possible that I've loped along in this blog and NOT written of my crush on Jane Wiedlin from the Go-Go's? Or, more particularly, my crush on Jane Wiedlin when she was part of the Go-Go's, back in the day?

Jane was YUMMY! And look at her workin' the 80s hair!

For sure! She was my favorite Go-Go by far. Any time one of their videos would come on, I'd watch, just hoping for glimpses of Jane. It's funny, in retrospect, how the pre-Net world worked -- you had to work for your pop culture! If you didn't see her on MTV or on Friday Night Videos, or in Rolling Stone, it was hard to even get glimpses of the lil' Pop Tart!

I remember hearing about the debauchery of the Go-Go's, thinking "Not Jane! She's just too angel-sweet!" Although she was definitely as much of a party animal as the rest of them, but just had that vibe about her that was like catnip for my early teen self!

Ah, Jane. I'm a sucker for cute, what can I say? And "cute" is definitely a word one associates with Jane Wiedlin. Even her name is kind of cute. I mean, Belinda Carlisle -- her name made her sound like a Heather, and even her sneer kind of conveyed that, like the alpha girl busy giving her frenemies eating disorders with the curl of her lip (although I liked Belinda, too, just not as much as I liked Jane).

I was so enraptured by Jane Wiedlin that it took me time to actually notice what a rotten dancer Belinda Carlisle was (which was, really, part of her sneery charm, honestly). I remember, as a teen, thinking "What is Belinda doing?" but crushing on her and Jane to the extent that I didn't have a proper context for what the hell she was doing. Since then, watching clips of the Go-Go's playing in their prime, I crack up, watching Belinda do her Belinda Dancing thing...

Belinda Dancing, Exhibit A

Belinda Dancing, Exhibit B

Belinda Dancing, Exhibit C

And please note how adorable Jane Wiedlin is in all of these clips. *crush blush*

How to dance like the Go-Go's

(really, this dancing is more sophisticated than Belinda's signature moves, but it's still amusing)