Don't Talk About Money, because You're Probably Getting Screwed

Anyone who has ever worked has likely run afoul of the "Don't talk about money" rule. Nearly every place that hires people has a rule like this. Ostensibly it's to not make people jealous that others make more than they do, and that is theoretically a sound idea. Unfortunately, when two people who do the same job, same title and everything, discuss pay, they may discover that one of them gets paid more for the same job.

It's possible that one may have got raises over time due to performance. The case I'm thinking of does not have that excuse. When the company someone works for outright does not give pay raises, and two people with the same position make different amounts, the question becomes: Why?

If nobody gets raises, there's no reason for multiple pay levels without differing titles. A pay scale usually has a ziggurat structure, with a store manager at the top. Below that you have the assistant manager, any subsequent managers such as department managers, then supervisors or key-holders, and regular employees at the bottom. But when supervisor one gets paid $10.75/hour and supervisor two gets $11.50/hour, one must wonder why that is. It makes even less sense when supervisor one became a supervisor before supervisor two.

This brings me back to the "don't talk about money" rule. The only way people can find out if they're being paid differently for the same job is to ask each other. If you ask each other and you find out you're being paid less than your co-worker, you aren't supposed to be able to bring this up because you shouldn't know how much other people get paid, and theoretically you can get in trouble. But why? Why do you get in trouble for asking, or being told, how much a co-worker gets paid? 

I would welcome any ideas, but the only option I can think of is it helps companies not have to pay people more. When I was hired at one of my previous workplaces (previous because it's not like everyone's current employer doesn't read all their online stuff, right?) I was hired at $8.50/hour, which I only got because I worked in the state of Illinois, where minimum wage is $8.25. A few months later I transferred to a store in Indiana because it was closer to home and I couldn't really afford all that fuel to get to and from the Illinois store, plus with only one car it would be in no way convenient for my wife and I to have to commute to two different places. When I got to the new store I was still paid my $8.50/hour while some of my co-workers were paid only $8/hour. If they had known about my wages being higher despite not outranking them and doing the same work, they would not have been happy. They might have asked for raises. And I would have supported them, because even my $8.50/hour didn't cover all my expenses.

I left that company for another employer, also not the one I am currently with. I took a pay cut to work there but it was even more close to home and less stressful, so I thought it balanced. My pay cut brought me to $8/hour, while many of my new co-workers were still only making $7.50/hour. Some of them had been with the company for two to three years, and were really beginning to feel the impossibility of coping with such low pay. One of them asked me my wages, and, feeling no need to keep secrets, I told them my wages and why it was higher than I thought others' might be (working in another state previously). What exactly happened after that, I do not know, but I do know the employee in question did receive a pay raise. Why was this such a hassle for the company? The company is a multi-million dollar corporation with locations around the country. Would an extra half dollar per hour for tens of thousands of employees put such a dent in their profits that they would have to close down stores, raise prices, or even fold altogether?

The obvious answer is of course no. No company currently operating in such ways cannot afford to pay its workers such a small amount more. This is part of why the President's push to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour is so simple. It is such a small amount that no company that is already succeeding cannot afford it. It is also not enough to life off of, but that is a separate discussion. The nature of capitalism causes most companies to fight against paying their workers more in nearly every circumstance, for no other reason than that it would lower profits from astronomically high to merely ludicrously high.

You'll forgive me if I don't weep for the shareholders.

To Boris, regarding the rich

Boris Johnson is not the least controversial mayor London has seen. Hell, he's not even close to the most controversial mayor currently sitting (Rob Ford, Rahm Emanuel and Michael Bloomberg spring hastily to mind) but something he said recently made me do a proper double take. Boris said that the wealthy are a put upon minority, "like the homeless or Irish Travellers".

What?!

Aside from the tactlessness of the statement, it's at its heart untrue. Last time I checked, rich people don't sit on the street asking people for a few coins. In fact, I do believe rich people live indoors, with heat, air conditioning, fridges, and big soft beds. And lasts I checked, rich people don't have to move about the country to find work, living in campsites all the while, with people refusing to do business with them because of superstition and racism. In fact, when rich people have children of a different complexion to them, nobody says a word. Travellers, of course, are assumed to have stolen the child from its bed. 

Now of course rich people have bad things said about them. That's undeniable. I've said some of them. It's only natural when the world's economy crashes into the sea and begins taking on water, affecting everyone except the people who were in the pilot's seat. The difference is, if rich people don't like something said about them, they can do something about it. 

If I am called a bad person in public, or things I've done which have harmed people are called to light, my only recourse is to say, "nope," and hope people listen. Rich people in the other hand can write columns in national newspapers, go on TV and radio, and even hire other people to do these things for them. So I have a proposal for Boris, as well as any billionaire who wants to take it on:

Send me £10,000, and I will write a glowing mini-bio of you. I'll publish it here, as well as shopping it around to any publication you want to have it. Regardless of how I may feel about you personally, professionally, or grammatically, I will write nothing but high praise. By the time I am finished, people might not think you're Jesus, but they might believe you're related. 

Hopefully this will help to mend the feelings of the put-upon minority that is the Wall Street and City mega-rich. 

Been awhile.

I need to write, and so here we are again. 

THOR review

This summer is going to be expensive.

I usually can count on that based on it being summer, or based on having to drive ... anywhere, but this is especially true of 2011. Why?

Marvel bloody comics.

Ever since I was a kid, I really liked Marvel stories, especially their superheroes. I don't know if it was because they were located in real places, better written than any given Superman story, hadn't been run into the ground by half a dozen bad TV shows and two good ones like DC, or because Wolverine was a badass and Spider-man was a smartass. The fact remains, I loved Marvel. While I always held a spot in my heart for Batman, being the least lame DC hero, Marvel's always been better to me.

Well this summer should be a Marvel Fangasm. We have THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, and X-MEN: FIRST CLASS. There are other nerd-originating movies coming out, but those are for another time, when I fully decide if I want to move into the groundbreaking and original realm of movie critiques. THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA are both lead-ins to the upcoming THE AVENGERS movie, which has been in the works since IRON MAN. I'm not familiar with either one of those comic books, really, having been more of an X-Men fan, followed by not-much-of-a-comic-book-reader. So I can't compare, but I'm more of a judge-movies-as-movies person.

THOR came out at the beginning of May, which means I waited two weeks to see it. I heard plenty of criticism of it early after its release, but I'm fairly sure I don't give a monkey's about that. Frankly, THOR does a good job of telling a Thor semi-origin story and linking it to the upcoming AVENGERS film.

How should I do this? Hmm, why not a list. I know I like to jump right to the part I care about when I read reviews, so why the heck not?

• Odin One-Eye: Sir Anthony Hopkins. I'd be an idiot to say Hopkins did a bad job with something. If he's not been good in a role, I haven't seen it. I wasn't really expecting the understated approach from a bloody Norse God, but given that he had to be conveniently in the Odinsleep for most of the movie, it worked. Nonetheless, I want to see BRIAN BLESSED play Odin Allfather at some point. The epic ... it burns.
• Loki Lie-Smith: Tom Hiddleston. I have never heard of this actor before, but he has worked with Director Kenneth Branagh a few times, and after his masterful approach to Loki, I can see why. Hiddleston made me feel like Loki believed the lies he told, which is sort of crucial when you're pretending to be someone lying to someone else. In the beginning, he also convinced me that he was Thor's younger brother, stuck in the shadows their whole lives. This was told to us, naturally, but Hiddleston's performance drove it home.
• Some Mortal Chick (Jane): Natalie Portman. I haven't had a complaint about Natalie Portman's acting since Star Wars, and I'm happy to see that trend continuing. Having heard her laugh at the Oscars, I'm sure she drew on her inner awkard girl for so many early scenes with Thor. Also, I was very glad to not see her as a damsel in distress, because it's 2011, people.
• Stan Lee's Cameo: Yeah, it's there. It's goofy. It doesn't distract too much from the film, and nobody mistakes him for Hefner. Really, Tony? 
• Effects: What can I say about effects anymore? They're CGI but really good? Come on, you have to be a really low budget flick to not have good CGI anymore. They give away good CGI work in boxes of cereal. I did think to myself that as they were preparing to use the Bifröst, they should've shot that practically, with a bunch of Tesla coils. Maybe that's just because I like Tesla coils.
• Direction: Kenneth Branagh, you are very good. I would say you're awesome, but you really annoyed me with all those 30 degree camera angles you used throughout the movie. I'm okay with using that now and then, but sparingly, please; preferably when something screwed up has just happened, or someone woke up from being hit on the head. In this movie, none of the slanted scenes were those situations, and it actually got noticeable.

But of course, the real test is the eponymous Thor. Played by Chris Hemsworth, which I keep wanting to type as Heimdall, Thor is completely believable as a character and as a spoiled brat of a stormgod. He has surprisingly good chemistry with Portman and you could almost believe they fall in love, despite knowing each other for two days in typical Hollywood fashion. By the way, can we do something about that? Maybe have people who haven't just run each other over with their cars fall in love? An actual basis for a love story? I know, it's a superhero movie, that isn't the point. I'm just throwing it out there.


I won't go into the problems that hardcore comic book geeks will have. This is in part because it's pointless to bother with addressing such things, and also because I don't know what they are. Again, I know almost nothing about the Marvel source material. So is THOR the best movie I've seen this year? Probably not. Is it a great precursor to what I hope will be a firestorm of kickassness that is THE AVENGERS? Oh yeah.

Guilt by association: Why I support the "ID Everyone for Liquor" law

Hah, as always, I lied when I said "I'll be updating more often."

As a cashier in an Indiana supermarket that sells alcohol, I am reasonably aware of the current state of Indiana liquor laws. The basics include: 

• No sales between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m.
• No sales on Sundays
• You can only buy 2 24-packs (or equivalent) of beer, three giant jugs (or equivalent) of wine, and no limit on hard liquor.
• Every person wishing to buy alcohol must show photo ID unless Amish (photo-exempt ID for the horse-and-buggy crowd).

Now obviously, these laws are all kind of stupid. The one that isn't completely stupid has a very large stupid loophole. However the only one anyone bitches about is the one that is always in effect, no matter the time and no matter how much alcohol you want: the ID law.

The law was passed to prevent underage people attempting to buy alcohol at places with lax store rules. A lot of places had rules where if you looked like you were under 40 you got carded, but apparently enough got through that they decided to make it so everyone gets carded. 

Naturally, the people who are most pissed off are the super-old. I've been complained to about that law more than I ever thought I would. Seriously, assholes, I get paid $7.80 per hour. If I could do that without the extra effort and time of carding everyone with a mini-bottle of wine, I would. I am not the person to complain to about this. Or anything.

Since the new year, old people have taken up saying, "I thought they changed that law!" It takes an experienced mind to analyse this particular bit of bullshit, and I've had more than enough time (six seconds) to do it. What they mean to say is, "I read in a newspaper once that someone proposed changing the law because they were rich or powerful and were mildly inconvenienced by it and couldn't get past it with, 'do you know who I am?!' so they proposed changing the law." This is a far fucking cry from "changed that law".


Now, someone did propose changing that law. One state rep from my area said he was carded when all he wanted was change for a dollar in a liquor store. In the interest of being absolutely clear, I will not mince words:


That's not true. This man is lying or an idiot. Which one? Doesn't matter, the result is the same.

If you need change for a dollar, you go into the first store you see. If it's a liquor store, you think, "Eh, what's the next store?" and go to that. Furthermore, since I've been a child, the law has been everyone gets IDed upon entering a liquor store, and if they're under 21 they can't enter at all.


But I digress. The last news story that turns up in a Google search for "indiana repeal liquor id" is from 19 Feb, and it's about liquor store owners largely opposing the repeal. Before that, it's 4 Feb, a story about the House passing the bill. The Senate hasn't done shit about it. 


But all this information is irrelevant, because at my store, we have to ID everyone regardless of state law. I am really desperate to just blurt out "nope, wrong" when they mention the law changing. I'm starting to enjoy carding people, just because they don't like getting out their IDs. And upon reading the "liquor store owners oppose repeal" story and learning that under-21s have mostly stopped trying to buy alcohol, I'm way more in favour of this law than nearly any other.

First category: generally useless

Hah, as always, I lied when I said "tomorrow."

Anyway, the first category of twats is ... GENERAL USELESSNESS

The rules for this category are simple: the nominees cannot be professional in their uselessness, and they should not affect people apart from as a data point. For example, a movie critic saying Toy Story 3 was a bad movie would be a professional, and I would be obliged to disqualify the lying sack of shit. However, random internet people saying Toy Story 3 was a bad movie would not be professional, and would therefore qualify for this award. So without further ado, the nominees!

1. People who watch the Jersey Shore. These people are responsible not for me acknowledging the existence of these kind of useless bastards with spray tans, bad hairdos, bad clothes, no brains, and more diseases than a research lab. I knew, if only in the back of my mind, that they existed. However, now I can pick them out of a lineup, and that is just unacceptable. These people should be buried in the shittiest area of their Shore hometown. And I don't mean "bury" like a euphemism for "out of sight, out of mind." I mean "buried," like in the fucking ground. However, I blame the enablers more, because ... well, I used to be able to ignore them.
2. The person who sold their Penny Arcade stuff in some sort of shit-ass protest of this comic. Yes, rape is horrible. Yes, you should be against rape. But if you're offended at any mention of it, this comic has never been for you. Mazel tov on donating the proceeds of the auction to charity, but the eBay page (which is down, as the auction ended sometime in October or something) reeked of self-importance and enjoyment of offence. Trust me, that's something I know about - I have a tendency to hang on to something that pisses me off, because it's very good as a motivational tool. Under no circumstances, however, do I claim it gives me the high moral ground. Usually, it just makes me act like a twat.
3. People protesting governments' displeasure with Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Now, many people may disagree with me on this, and I may even disagree with myself sometimes on this. But overall, leaking the horrible things governments discuss amongst themselves to the public is a good thing. I am in favour of transparency, except when ... well, except when I'm not. It's difficult. But for the most part, current governments seem to be made up of horrible people doing horrible things, ordering other less horrible people to carry out horrible things, and not-necessarily-horrible people experiencing horrible things. The only thing these governments have stopping them getting collectively castrated is the fact they're doing this all in secret. Naturally, governments are going to be incredibly incensed they got caught with their dick in the cookie jar, and since we already know from the cables they wanted to stay secret that they're evil and corrupt, they're going to use their power to punish those who caught them with their dicks in the cookie jar. Protesting that doesn't do shit. Taking down Visa and MasterCard, that did a little bit. But guess what, guys? Those assholes are still in charge, and they're still fucking those snickerdoodles.
4. Anyone who likes Justin Beiber who is older than eleven. I have a niece who likes Justin Beiber, because she is seven. I have not made much of an effort to correct this horrible behaviour, because again, she is seven. I liked some pretty shit-awful things, people and music when I was that age. However, once you get to the point where you can get into the average summer blockbuster (technically that would be 13 in the US, but nobody cares about two years and they'll see it on video anyway), you should be able to discern utter shit from cool. There is of course another level, which you reach when you achieve full sentience in your late teens, where you realise the stuff you thought was cool at 12 was really shit, and the stuff you thought was shit then, was even more shit. I'm not concerned with that third level of shitdom, because some adults haven't even reached the middle level. I wonder if they still brush their Barbie doll's hair at the office.

ADDENDUM: Just to make something clear, the Justin Beiber fan nomination also counts for any Twilight fan beyond puberty. In fact, you could use the whole thing as is, only removing the bit about my niece.

AND THE WINNER IS:

Justin Beiber fans of a certain age. Really, all the others were kind of weak contenders, but I still wanted to bitch them out. Jersey Shore fans are nonexistent in my actual life, I disagree with the ex-Penny Arcade fan but I understand, and people will always pointlessly protest things that governments do, to little effect. People will always also like shitty teen pop music, but the day I stop fighting that is the day I cultivate a comb-over.

Golden Cock - Twat of the Year

I've been watching a lot of Top Gear lately, and they have a tradition at the end of the calendar year to award the presenter who's given a spectacular example of stupidity throughout the year with the prestigious Golden Cock award. Naturally, I think this is a fantastic idea for the rest of the world, even if I probably shouldn't use the same name.

So in an effort to get myself writing again (did anyone notice I wasn't aside from me?) I'm going to spend the next few days, and possibly well into January, picking LESTAQ Magazine's Twat of the Year (on that note, Mark Zuckerberg is disqualified, although sometime soon he ought to get a lifetime achievement award).

Obvious nominees include people I don't like, but I'll make every effort to include people whom I otherwise like but made a complete twat of themselves in the interest of fairness. This way, I won't spend the next several years awarding the thing to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and The Collective Employee Base Of (Insert Telecom Company Here).

Tomorrow, the first nominees and why!

How to get a letter to the editor published

Seeing as today is the British general election, and we'll likely find out which arsehole is going to occupy 10 Downing St for the next five years, and it likely won't be the arsehole I support, I've decided to write about something else.

Out of a sense of habit or devotion, I'm not sure which, I continue reading my hometown newspaper, the Evansville Courier and Press, despite no longer living there. For a while it was because I was expected to keep abreast of Evansville news for a class, but in honesty I would've kept reading without that reason. My favourite section when I read the hard copy, and it continues to amuse me greatly, is the letters to the editor.

Now, in the United States, and especially in local papers, there is a formula for getting a letter to the editor published. First, you choose a recent topic. This seems obvious, so I'll not linger. The next step is to take an absurd position on it. If you cannot convincingly write on an absurd position, feel free to "express amazement" at the absurd position of another letter writer. If you are holding an absurd position, be sure to take that to its extreme. If you take it to its illogical extreme, so much the better.

Let's work with an example, shall we? Lately there have been a lot of letters about health care reform. First, we must establish the facts: Health care reform will require, in 2014, that all Americans purchase health insurance or be covered through their work plan. It also eliminates the preexisting condition's legality. This does not a good letter make.

If you want to write on the health care reform issue, you must use one or two of the following words: Socialism, government takeover, Obama, tyranny, unconstitutional, Obamacare, taxpayer, Big Brother. Don't use them all! Remember, you have a 250-word limit! If you use them all you'll go well over that. Next, be sure to use a slippery slope argument in addition to buzzwords. You can use other logical fallacies as well, but "slippery slope" is the easiest one.

DO NOT FACT CHECK YOUR WORK.

Once you feel you have sufficiently expressed your natural paranoia about whatever it is that Rush told you, add the information the newspaper requires of you and send in your letter. If you send it in early enough in the day, it may get included in next morning's edition. They love cranks.

Credit where it's due

It's finals week, and probably the last one I'll take part in for a few decades. Needless to say, I'm very happy about that. Or rather, I was, until I was walking out of my class last night and talking to one of my group members.

My group member, whom I shall call Em, and I were rejoicing in the fact that we got the damn thing done, did a pretty good job if we say it ourselves, and survived the whole thing without major medical trauma. This is something I've done every time I've had a group project, and I'm very sure others have as well. As we turned a corner on campus, Em said, "And thank God, I forgot to thank him!"

Now, personally, I'm annoyed by that one. I mean, I did a lot of work on this project. M did a massive amount of work on this project. Jay, our other group member, did some work. But dammit, God didn't do shit. God didn't show up for one meeting or contribute a single idea by email. God didn't get his blood drawn, didn't do camera work, photos, video editing, writing and editing, interviews, or legwork. God, as far as I can tell, sat around like a lazy bastard eating grapes and enjoying the weather.

Not only that, but I don't even remember the class where God was added as a member of our group. I was under the impression that our group had three people in it. I'm not bothered by a group of four, but I would've liked the fourth bugger to contribute something to the project, because it wasn't fucking easy.

Maybe I misunderstood, and God wasn't a group member. Maybe he's Em's copy editor. If that's the case, then okay. But I'll be really pissed off if that lazy sod gets full credit without doing any real work.

Author's Note: I realise this is a vast misinterpretation of Em's statement. Nevertheless, I maintain that God had nothing to do with getting this project done and done well. Nowhere did we require supernatural assistance, because all we got done was due to hard work, skill, and perseverance; in short, us.

Vote Liberal Democrat

Despite my strong feeling that nobody who reads this blog has voting rights in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and despite that the people who do read this blog are few and very far between, I spent my time at work thinking about why I support the Liberal Democrats in the upcoming British General Election.

Then I got home and saw the Guardian have beat me to it.

So read this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

A love letter to early adopters

Dear early adopters: I love you dumb bastards.

You know who you are.

• If you paid $600 for an iPhone, and gladly, back in 2007;
• if you have a five-year-old Blu-Ray player
• (if you also have an HDDVD player come to that);
• if you jizzed in your pants over the iPad despite having multiple computers and a Kindle already (Yes, Adam, I'm sort of picking on you here)
• if you ever stood in line for the release of a console, game, or new piece of tech;
• if you bought Avatar on Blu-Ray or DVD yesterday (although probably Blu-Ray).

If you did any of those things, you absolutely fit the definition of "early-adopter." You're the kind of person who can't be without New Stuff. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a very good position in society. But god dammit do you guys haemorrhage money.

I don't know where I'd be without all the early adopters in the world. Early adopters are the ones who tell their friends (or in the case of tech journalists, their readers) whether this hunk of plastic and silicon is worth the, um, plastic and silicon used to make it. They are the ones who tell us all the cool stuff that New Stuff can do. You lot are the ones who drive the tech sector of the economy of the First World, not just by buying these things but also by making others want these things more.

But my favourite purpose of the early adopters is this: you buy up the first several batches. You drive the makers to make better ones. And absolutely most importantly, you drive the fucking price down.

I remember when I got my first iPod (it was called an iPod Video if that helps). Two weeks later, Steve Jobs announced the iPhone. My reaction was along the lines of "God DAMMIT." Then I learnt it was to be $600 with a 2-year contract with AT&T. My reaction was along the lines of "Holy FUCK that's a bad deal." But, as always, the early adopters bought the iPhones up. About a year later, halfway through that contract, Apple dropped the price to about $200 - still not a great price, but infinitely better than it was - and refunded the early adopters $100. More than one tech writer likened it to an angry john throwing a $100 note at a whore after he finished.

Now, the iPhone is down to $100 for the cheapest 3G model, or $50 for a refurbished one. The top-of-the-line model (3GS) is still $200. Meanwhile, the iPad came out and the cheapest version ... is $600. And the early adopters have jumped all over that shit.

Keep buying, early adopters! Your money spent makes that product more affordable for me.

Textbook Buyback Lotto

It's that time of year again on USI's campus. It's damp and dreary, everyone keeps their head down when walking to class, and they're all secretly panicking about that one final where the professor hates them and the subject matter is incomprehensible but it's required for their major so they're pretty much screwed. But soft! There is a bright side to these dark days, and it is called "Textbook buyback."

I've always enjoyed textbook buyback. I feel like I've won the lottery. You know, the kind of lottery where the cost of the tickets is six times your actual winnings. Oh wait, that kind of is like the real lottery, isn't it? And it's even more like the lottery because half the time, your god damned books aren't buy-backable because they're changing the text for next term (which they do just to aggravate you. Personally).

Having had a rather poor and constantly-driving semester, I was very happy to see a surprise $97 enter my hands on Tuesday. Technically I'm not finished with these courses, but damn it, I was hungry. I felt rather happy about that amount of money, because I've got it in my head after two straight terms of humanities a few years ago that I won't get more than half a dollar back for any given book, and that's if I'm lucky. If I'm not, the trash bin will be receiving a special gift for Christmas this year - it's that psychology text you've always wanted! What, you have three already? Well, you can never have too many, you ungrateful inanimate object! What? You got me a half-drunk, melted chocolate shake? Great. It's vouchers to Rural King for you next year.

I think the end of fall term is better for textbook buyback than end of spring term, partly because it's very rare to have a department completely change texts in the middle of the year. I have a theory that I just made up right now that while we're all getting drunk and flashing our bodies at some creepy thirtysomething who's made a living off of filming coeds flashing their bodies at him on spring break, the department heads stick around and decide just how many of their current texts they're going to say, "Screw it!" to. They may do this out of jealousy, or they may do this as a chemical reaction to red horns sprouting from their temples every spring, but I haven't established a control group or done the appropriate level of testing to say for certain, mainly because I suck at that.

I didn't bother selling back one of my texts because I had it in my head that first week, right after my professor said, "We aren't going to be using it, since you all used it in the prerequisite class to this," I would immediately ask for a refund. Naturally, I had better things to do like sleeping and playing Halo. That leaves me in the situation of having a perfectly shrink-wrapped textbook with the software code unactivated, and now I won't get the full price I paid for it, despite it being a) in mint condition, b) never removed from box, and c) the kind with the firing rocket that blinded a kid so they discontinued it the first week.

I suppose the bright side is we get money back at all. It won't be enough to buy gifts for all our friends, but after they spawn camped you last week, do they really deserve anything other than a dog turd? I didn't think so.

Use a real instrument, you twit

Can we officially call the contest in favour of Rock Band please?

I found out about Guitar Hero in 2005 when I worked at Best Buy and we had a demo set up. Be honest, I found out about it when one of my under-18 co-workers spent the better part of a day he had off playing the stupid thing. I never quite understood why you would want to fake-play a guitar, unless you didn't have access to a guitar at the moment. I mean, the equipment plus game was about as much as a low-grade electric guitar.

Then they made sequels, and along with the sequels came competition in the form of Rock Band. This was clearly distinct as it wasn't just fake guitar playing, it was fake drumming (although with the advent of synth drums in the 1980s I'm not sure it's THAT fake) and singing. I for one thought this was a bad idea, because I'm an awful singer, my wife is an excellent singer, and I have absolutely no idea if any of my friends can sing worth an arse, but just in case I don't want to find out - primarily because I know just HOW bad my singing is. It is fit for nought but death metal in the car, alone.

But okay, you know? I had friends who did play the game, and they enjoyed it, so what harm would it really do? So what if it was a Playstation version of karaoke plus air guitar plus ... synth drums? They even (both, I think) did actual-guitar-based controllers - Les Pauls, Gibson SGs, stuff like that. That's when they started spinning off. They had band-centric versions of the games. Guitar Hero had Metallica version (which was sort of obvious when one thinks about it). Rock Band managed to get the Beatles, which I think is immensely good for them. Guitar Hero had Aerosmith, and will have Van Halen.

Then Guitar Hero took a massive shit on what little semi-credibility they might have had and did "Band Hero", what is clearly "similar but legally distinct" even though plenty of people could easily confuse them. Not only that, but they brought in Taylor Swift, famous for being 18 and blonde and interrupted by Kanye West. Really, I would have been happy to die without hearing that fucking song. Sadly, having had it on the muzak at work, that wasn't going to happen anyway.

So what's next, Guitar Hero? Avant-garde Hero? I'd like to see that - let me rock out on some video game controller sleigh bells to an indie pop-rock song. I want to play the shit out of a Wii tambourine to some Polyphonic Spree. Where is our harp-shaped controller, Guitar Hero?! Give me a xylophone, cello, or tuba, except, you know, for the 360. Or maybe instruments is thinking about it the wrong way. Give me Jazz Hero! You blow into your controller and improv, and whoever does the best gets the most Live points.

I suppose as someone who spent actual time and effort learning to play an actual instrument, I find it stupid to spend all that time playing a fake version of the instrument. I could be partly jealous because every time I've tried to play guitar hero, I've played the actual notes instead of "what the computer tells me to play," thus greatly fucking up the song. But I don't think that's it, because I've only tried to play twice, and I really don't see the point. I mean, I don't have to play Guitar Hero! I can play these songs for real!

Even the Taylor Swift song - it consists of smearing fæces all over the guitar, amp, and nearest power plug.

Milk (or: goddammit I need to write more)

I saw Milk in class the other week. My immediate reaction was, “So that's Milk.”

Unfortunately, that sort of thing makes for terrible, droll reading, so I got to thinking about it more. My next thought was about some of the things the Christian Conservatives® said for why they were anti-gay and why gays shouldn't be allowed to do, well, anything. One of the most wonderful reasons in my view was given by a man who I don't remember much about, apart from what he said. What he said was this.

“You can argue with me, but you can't argue with God.”

That's got to be one of my favourite reasons for a political position. I hope someone uses that in my favour someday. But the thing is, it absolutely is true for me. Seeing as I don't believe in any gods, I couldn't argue with such a thing. I mean, I can't argue with something that I don't believe exists, the very idea of doing so falls over as soon as I try. He was right on that point at the very least: I cannot by any means argue with his god.

There's another bit with a woman who is actually featured a bit more heavily (read: not very heavily but she talks a lot on telly in what I think is stock footage), saying many of the same things, “Christian heritage”, “upstanding morals”, “gays are bad”, and other stupid crap. It's always based on her religion, and the funny thing is, never anyone else's. It's not like Christianity is the only religion in the world that has a problem with homosexuality. One might think these people could all get together and hate on gays as one. Perhaps luckily, they're too busy hating each other as well as gays. But that's another topic.

Anyway, The problem with these religious arguments is, they're Constitutionally untenable, or as I prefer to think of them, “complete and utter crap.” There is the whole “establishment clause” in the First Amendment that sort of prevents such reasoning behind laws. Or so I thought, then I met the Christian Conservatives® (it really is like a brand name, isn't it?).

The reason I hit on those particular moments, or rather they stuck so soundly in my brain, is that I've been hearing this sort of thing since I can remember. It doesn't help of course that I spent thirteen years at Catholic schools, which only meant I heard even more of it. I heard these asinine arguments so much that I could refute them in my sleep – not that it helped, being, I say again, a Catholic school. But what I learnt from Milk is that the Christian Conservatives® have made absolutely no new arguments in the past 30-40 years.

I learnt if I'm going to be opposing them on this issue (and I shall), I'm going to have to settle in for a lot of repetition.

A terrible case of burying the lede

I visited the US House yesterday. It was ... okay. I think I would've been more interested if they had been in session and it hadn't been the last day before a three-day weekend. Regardless, it had interesting moments.

I learnt that the crypt underneath the rotunda is empty because the Washingtons did not want the bodies of George and Martha to be dug up and reburied in the District, especially not 25 years after they died. I also learnt that the Supreme Court used to meet for many many years in the US Capitol. And I learnt that Congressman Robert B Aderholt (R-AL) is one of those people who never attended or paid attention to university-level American History courses.

He was the only one still present at Friday, 11 a.m., and was talking to what looked like a first-grade class of some sort. One of the teachers asked about "In God We Trust" on the money (it is carved above the Speaker's podium as well in the House). The Congressman went on this long, rambling talk about how it's on the money, no plans to take it off, there was one of the dollar coins with it on the rim, they moved it to the front (missing the fact that the valuable versions of those coins are MISSING the "In God We Trust" due to a minting error on the day), and then said something about how about 95 per cent of the founding fathers were devout Christians.

Anyone who's even HEARD of Thomas Jefferson knows he was nothing of the sort. I direct anyone who needs evidence to any of his writings on the subject, the fact that he has a version of The Bible without all the Super-Jesus parts, i.e., with all the instances of superpowers removed. John Adams was raised in Christianity but later in life had more of a neutral view of religion. He even rejected his father's request for him to become a minister because he thought being an attorney was more noble. James Madison wrote in 1792 that there was no specific religious sanction for American Government. Thomas Paine wrote (biased source notwithstanding)

The case, my friend is, that the world has been over-run with fable and creeds of human invention, with sectaries of whole nations against all other nations, and sectaries of those sectaries in each of them against each other. Every sectary, except the Quakers, has been a persecutor. Those who fled from persecution persecuted in their turn, and it is this confusion of creeds that has filled the world with persecution and deluged it with blood.

The amount of ignorance involved when people speak of the US founding fathers is staggering, albeit not necessarily exclusive to them. I have heard many times the quote of Albert Einstein, "God does not play dice with the universe," which is a paraphrase anyway, used as "evidence" (for instances of evidence consisting entirely of quote-mining) of Einstein's belief in a god, or as he was fond of saying, "The old one." In fact, upon being asked directly by Rabbi Herbert S Goldstein of New York, he replied, "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He also said, "To take those fools in clerical garb seriously is to show them too much honor." So while he may have believed in some sort of god (which I dispute on the grounds that "pantheism" is a sort of middle ground so as not to say "I'm an atheist" whilst still expressing wonder at the natural world), he certainly had no love for organised religion.

Maybe I'm rare in this, but I'm not terribly fond of misquoting, misinformation, or selective quotations. I am a fan of context, and if someone says something ambiguous, asking another question or doing more research is warranted. I really abhor when people ignore things that don't agree with their already-held beliefs or pet theories. Not to say I'm innocent of it myself (to say nothing of rationalisation) but I am aware of it and try to find reality. I certainly don't stand up in front of small children and tell them known lies.

An open letter to ESPN's editorial department

Dear ESPN: All I ask is a little perspective.

On the front page of your MLB website, you have a photo of the Yankees jumping onto each other with the caption, "Their long, long title drought will soon be over. Why the New York Yankees are about to win their first World Series in almost a decade." Long, long title drought, eh? So long that it requires italics? Well, okay. Being from the Midwest originally I'm certainly familiar with long title droughts for my sport teams, but for the Yankees? Perhaps we can take a look at the record, yes?

Okay, the last time they won a World Series was 2000 according to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's quick and easy). Before that, they won in 1999, 1998, and 1996. Before that of course, the last time they won a World Championship was in 1978. Now THAT is a long, long title drought. Actually, no ... no it isn't. I take it back. That's an extended title drought, but not even a single un-italicised "long" one. If we take a look at other teams, I'm sure we'll find horribly longer ones, worthy of the italics and repetition.

To start with, let's visit Chicago's North Side. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1908 - that's 101 years. THAT, I daresay, is a long, long, long Series Drought. It's so long it's become infamous. The Cubs are still a very good baseball team, but they never seem to get past the playoffs. In fact, the last time they even PARTICIPATED in a World Series was 1945. Their losing streak is such a part of baseball that "Maybe Next Year" is the Cubs Fan's unofficial slogan.

Another team with a super-long Series Drought is the Boston Red Sox. Dubbed the "Curse of the Bambino," the Sox had not won a series since before the trad e of Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1919 (the actual win was in 1918, throwing a bit of confusion onto the nomenclature, but anyway). The first time in 86 years they won a Series was in 2004 after they came from an 0-3 record in their playoff series against the Yankees to win, and then sweep the St Louis Cardinals.

Speaking of the Cardinals, before their most recent win in 2006 over the Detroit Tigers, they had not won a Series since 1982, a 24-year streak. Other teams with even longer failures to attain World Series trophies include the Cleveland Indians, San Francisco(New York) Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates, Baltimore Orioles, and Detroit Tigers.

Some other teams in Major League Baseball have never won a World Series in their entire existences. These include the San Diego Padres, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Brewers, Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays, Texas Rangers, Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos, and Seattle Mariners. Of those, only the Rangers, Nationals/Expos and Mariners have never even participated in a World Series.

So, dearest ESPN, if you would kindly do those of us who hate or don't give a shit about the Yankees the courtesy of cutting back on the hyperbole, we would much appreciate it. We do, after all, make up most of your viewing audience outside of New York and New Jersey. I expect to see reports of the Red Sox breaking their one-year losing streak, or even the Florida Marlins breaking their five-year streak, any time now.

Well, except for the thing about the Marlins, since they're not playing post-season.

Signed,

One of the 250m people who doesn't live in the New York area and is therefore sick of hearing about New York sports teams.

Guns are for dickheads

In various places (read: the intertubes) I have seen rhetoric in favour of gun ownership or the 2nd amendment. I've thought about it quite a bit, honestly, and I really hate guns and the 2nd amendment.

Last fall in a political science class, a classmate of mine said then-Senator Obama was anti-2nd amendment, but that position doesn't make sense, because "How can you be against the constitution?" Well, I'm against that particular part of the constitution, because it is woefully outdated. Let's look at the text, first off.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sounds good of course, until you remember that the State's official Armed Forces have more powerful weaponry than any mere mortal can acquire legally or illegally. Short answer, if the government becomes tyrannical, and it becomes a citizen's duty to overthrow it, we're fucked. I'm not saying we should ALLOW that, but the fact is the military could make mincemeat of any uprising.

Another reason I'm against the 2nd amendment is that it lets people carry around a metal stick that makes it easier to kill people. Now there may be laws that prevent average Joe the Plumber (ba dum tiss!) actually walking around armed, but simply owning said metal stick that makes it easier to kill people is largely equivalent to carrying it around. Simply put, owning it means one can go home, get it, and return in much shorter time than buying a gun takes.

But Matt, I hear you say (silently), you own swords, which are quite literally metal sticks that make it easier to kill someone! And every kitchen has knives, which are the same! Indeed, I own swords, and that is an accurate way to describe them. Frankly though if I want to kill someone with one of my swords or a knife of any sort, I must get really close to them ... say within arm's reach. And if I'm within arm's reach they can defend themselves. If I were to use a gun I could do so from across a field and they have no way of self-defence against it let alone necessarily know about it before their head explodes, thus it's not "just as easy". But enough with that straw man.

I know some people prefer guns for home defence. Frankly, that's one of the few reasons that would qualify as good. But my parents don't own guns apart from two deactivated civil war firearms which are little more than heavy-ass heirlooms. I don't own guns, and don't really have any desire to. Frankly, I'm afraid of guns. That's not entirely accurate - I'm afraid of people. I'm afraid of people normally, but give them something that makes it easy to kill me makes me more afraid of them. I'm afraid of police for that reason too. I once had to help a police officer at work, and he was very much still armed. I have never felt more uncomfortable. This is how guns make me feel. They make me feel AFRAID.

Let me make something clear: I don't think guns make people act completely crazy. However the kind of people who have some desire to own a metal stick with a handle that launches metal projectiles through the air at sonic force to penetrate other people's skin in an effort to end their lives are at least a little crazy anyway. I own knives for food preparation and I own swords for aesthetic purposes - I think they look good mounted on walls (which means I won't likely have them unsheathed, much less easy to grab and slash with). I sincerely doubt anyone would break into my apartment - I live in a shitty apartment, shitty block, and have little of value to steal. People breaking into homes to cause violence to those who live there is extraordinarily rare unless it's done by an intimate - like most crimes, someone you know is far more likely to do it to you. I don't fear my neighbours any more than I fear the average person. ed: I have moved since I originally wrote this, and my neighbours are super old and frail. I am even less afraid of them now. If I knew they carried a gun around, I WOULD fear them a lot more.

I keep seeing people on facebook or on various places online talking about how "if the gummint takes away yer guns then who'll defend yer famlee?" One facebook friend cited New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as an example - apparently the "gummint" took away people's guns and they had nothing to defend themselves as they were killed and raped. Unfortunately I can't find any sources that aren't the NRA, gun owner sites, or "angry man" websites with pro-gun leanings - that is to say no legitimate sources. The fact is, though, if the "gummint" decides to turn fascist and kill or imprison people for no reason, there is nothing anyone, armed or not, can do to stop it. Granted that's a piss-poor reason to go along with it but that is the damn fact. Hell, it's happened before, look at Japanese Americans in World War II.

I've never understood the desire to own, let alone carry around a lethal weapon. People who advocate for concealed-carry laws scare me even more. Why do you need to conceal it if you're so vocal about carrying it around? Why not just carry it around attached to your FOREHEAD for fuck's sake? I mean if every place was a place people could carry concealed weapons, I can't imagine any of these pro-gun people not wearing a t-shirt that said “yes I'm carrying a gun” (which come to think of it says a lot about t-shirts that announce things about the wearer as well as gun owners, but that's another entry).

Several weeks ago I heard a clip of Glenn Beck talking about how he went to see a movie with his concealed gun. He fully admitted he didn't have reason to, but he was simply exercising his right to carry a gun around in places with children and other law-abiding citizens (not including the teenagers sneaking into the R-rated film of your choice but I mean REAL laws). The fact is there's no legitimate reason he would need a gun. I don't think he lives in such a shithole that his local cinema's parking lot has frequent robberies or homicides. Within the cinema, there's probably a cop (when I worked at two different cinemas, the local police or sheriff's dept, whoever had jurisdiction, sent a guy to stand around and stop people being total assholes). Was he afraid of the violent liberals who were going to chant at him "learn to spell! learn to spell!"?

Or is he just woefully insecure and completely insane? I know he's completely insane, I'm asking more about the first one.

Joint Session drinking game/liveblog

good points so far ...

Really liked "determined to be the last president to address this".

Gallstones he didnt' know about - just eliminate the phrase "preexisting condition" from the fucking dictionary, would you?

No-one should be treated that way in the USA - fucking well right!

numbers - I like numbers, but you're going to confuse the republicans. The only numbers they understand are dollar signs, and only when preceded by "pay to the order of" and their name.

SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM - light applause. End employer based systems and let people buy it on their own: fuckall applause.

"There are arguments to be made for both these approaches" - yes, and some of the arguments are made up of bullshit and WAAAAH I DON'T WANT TO PAY TAXES WAAAAAAH which when I think about it is quintessentially American, isn't it?

"Time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action." Good lines. Back it the FUCK UP.

Three basic goals - security and stability to those with insurance - provide insurance for those without - slow the growth of health care costs for families, businesses, and govt. Middle one is the super-important one I feel, with a close second being the first.

"Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. REPEATED." - Will make your insurance work better for you - against the law to deny coverage due to preexisting condition FUCK YEAH BABY! and I'll settle for THAT.

Illegal to drop your coverage or water it down when you become sick - I will also take that. No caps on amount of coverage - place a limit on how much you can be charged - (make that limit seven dollars and I'll be good thx)

required to cover routine checkups, colonoscopies, mammograms, preventative care - makes sense, saves money and lives - I like the one guy who keeps sitting on nails

if you DON'T have health care now - if you lose, change your job - coverage - if you start a small busines - coverage - insurance exchange to shop at competitive prices - see, that's bullshit because there are SEVEN companies, and they need to be prohibited getting together and agreeing on "well we'll go no lower than $fuckassexpensive.32

tax credits for small businesses - all companies who want access to these people have to abide by rules - in four years - can't get insurance today - immediate low-cost coverage if you become seriously ill - props to Sen. McCain and that it was his idea in the campaign.

May be those who want to take the risk and not have coverage - may be companies who refuse to cover their workers - costs the rest of us money - individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as states require you to carry basic auto insurance - businesses either offer health care or chip in to the cost - most small businesses exempt from requirements - can't have people gaming the system

only works if everyone plays - significant details to be ironed out (laugh)

broad consensus for all the above (really? You sure?)

Key controversies still out there: bogus claims of death panels. "It is a lie, plain and simple." OMG THE WORD LIE HOW DARE HE CALL DEFENSELESS SARAH PALIN A LIAR WHY DOES HE HATE TRIG

insure illegal immigrants - false (although it shouldn't be) - EDIT: that guy shouted "You lie!"

no federal dollars used to fund abortions (although they should not be excluded)

publicly sponsored insurance option - guiding principle is and always has been that choice and competition allow consumers to do better (and the republicans applaud that line) - in 34 states, 75% of the market is controlled by five or fewer companies.

"Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people" Are you SURE ABOUT THAT, BARACK OBAMA?

"No interest in putting insurance companies out of business" Why not? "I just want to hold them accountable" (oh wow, the re pube lick ans liked that too)

making a not-for-profit public option FUCK YEAH BABY!

only an option for those without insurance - less than 5% would sign up (really? hmm.)

taxpayers not subsidising this option - have to be self-sufficient and rely on premiums.

Relating private v. public universities - why do private universities succeed by costing 1000 per cent more?

should not be exaggerated - it is only one part of the plan -

co-op or another non-profit entity - there MUST. BE. A. CHOICE.

not sign a plan that adds to our deficit - fair enough, but pull us out of the middle east first to ease that option - spending cuts if the savings don't materialise - too many initiatives were unpaid for - tax breaks for rich and iraq war included - cut to stock shot of republicans sitting there with hats on that say "I'm a dickhole"

speaking directly to seniors - SPEAK UP!

not a dollar of Medicare will be used to pay for this plan - the only thing this plan eliminates is the $100bns to pad profits but don't improve care - doctors, medical experts identifying waste and cutting its throat over the fire

help pay for Rx drugs for olds - reducing inefficiency in medicare, medicaid will pay for MOST OF THIS PLAN

finally (finally!) - reps have long insisted on readjusting medical malpractice laws (because it helps the rich doctors stop being less rich doctors) - people booing and I'm not sure why? Awaiting "Grow up, fuckos" from POTUS

put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practising medicine - HHS Sibelius is moving forward on this today. Well not today because it's fucking 9 p.m. Tomorrow. Well, it's thursday ... next monday.

will cost less than both wars, less than the tax cuts on the rich. Suck it. Most of these costs will be paid for by money that is already in the existing health care system - greater security, not higher taxes - if we can slow the cost growth by 1/10 % per year - reduce the deficit by $4trn

serious set of proposals, I will listen - will not waste time with those who want to kill this shit for POLITICS. And you fucking should not, sir!

STatus quo is not the solution - if we keep it the same, everything will go into a pile of shit and Newt Gingrich will bathe in it

Reading of Ted Kennedy's letter - what we face is above all a moral issue - fundamental principles of social(IST) justice and the character of our country.

healthy scepticism of gov't - Kennedy's liberalism was a passion for big gov't - those who knew him (dems?) knew what drove him was something more - Orrin Hatch knows that! McCain knows that! McCain looks like an actual zombie btw. Chuck "I'm No Nail" Grassley knows that!

Hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by security and fair play - sometimes government has to help that shit along, yo

History lesson on Medicare now - John Kerry is twitchy and has RLS.

"Sceptical that Gov't is looking out for them" Why shouldn't they be, if you stay alive, you can pay more taxes to the gov't! Cyclical!

And it ... is ... over!

Nothign interesting in the rebuttal. I was editing because I'm DONE.

Back in time

For the past three days, Terre Haute's fairgrounds have been host to a "Diesel Extravaganza". As it turns out, this consists of assholes with giant trucks accelerating hard all over town, primarily on Hwy 41 of course, and blowing black smoke out of their oversized tailpipes. Now these are not ordinary diesel fuel vehicles, they are modified to have big stovepipe-style exhaust pipes. They are also apparently never maintained or cleaned, so that I am not even kidding a little when I say big fucking cloud of black smoke.

I honestly cannot remember seeing this much black smoke covering the roadways in front of me since I was a kid. That's not specific enough though, I can't remember any vehicles spewing this many toxins into my face since I was in grade school. This, for those who don't know, was in the early nineties. When you combine this with the fact that Terre Haute has very few wi-fi hotspots, people who dress like they're waiting for the new single from Third Eye Blind to come out, and people who actually chew tobacco, I cannot believe I'm still in 2009. I'm almost certain I'm stuck back in time.

News flash, Kurt Cobain just shot himself! Well, we think he did, but his wife might have done it! Pearl Jam have announced they aren't making any more music videos! What will MTV do to fill the airtime? Babylon 5 just started their 3rd season, and it's getting more intense by the second! Star Trek Voyager is slated to begin production later this month. Apparently the captain is going to be *gasp* a woman!

Ugh, I can barely even make fun of this stuff without it causing me pain. I can't believe, with gas (and diesel) prices being what they are (and what they were this time last year), there are still people with big giant smoke-billowing gas-guzzling do-it-yourself monster trucks driving up the road. These people either have far too much disposable income or don't know how to properly spend the income they do have, like on education and dental work for their kids. I'm not the only one who feels this way, too. I've seen many other drivers waving the smoke out of their faces and coughing as these dickless jokers speed off to the next filling station. Those are probably the only people really happy about this event: gas station owners who sell diesel. It's gotta be like Black Friday for them ... although that doesn't necessarily refer to the ink used to write their sales, more to the colour of everything near a road.

In which a geek is relocated

As usual, it's been a long time since I last updated this. Two weeks ago Liz was offered a store manager position for nearly double her assistant manager yearly wages. Only problem was, we would have to move to Terre Haute.

Now it isn't THAT bad, okay? We have a bigger, nicer apartment on the 2nd floor, keyless entry (yes, keyless entry - a keypad on the door locks and unlocks it), a short drive to our respective works, a shorter drive for me back to Evansville for school, and between one to one and a half hours to Indianapolis, where such things as Skyline Chili and Apple are located. Plus there's the whole "Extra money" thing. That's good.

After we found a place to live and determined that I would still have to go to school in Evansville, my dad decided since he wouldn't have access to the truck on weekends, to trade it in for the Cash for Clunkers programme. This is how I now drive a new Hyundai Accent. It doesn't have a radio, but I listened to my computer on the way up and throughout town I don't need it that badly. Apparently I can fuel the car with $20 and change. I put in a $20 yesterday from below a quarter of a tank and it showed "full" afterward.

Living on Eastern time is something that takes a little getting used to. I like it better because the sun rises and sets at comparable times to Britain. Despite this, my dad calls it "Indiana Pretend Time, where they pretend they're in Eastern Time." This joke wasn't as funny as he thought the first time, and the funny value has only depreciated with time.

The process of moving sucks. It's been two years since I last moved, and before that it was a couple months, then nine months, then something like a year except I helped two friends move in between that, then once from overseas, once to overseas, once the fortnight before moving overseas to move across town ... man, fuck moving. I'm not entirely sure why I can't just get all new shit. The only real problem in moving is the giant chest of drawers, which weighs approximately 2.07 John Goodmans. It also has edges that, when I pulled it up the stairs, pressed very hard into my forearm muscles, causing matching bruises that are still there two full days later. I'm going to try my hardest to just push the motherfucker out the window when next we move.

Something that I'm FAIRLY sure happens in Terre Haute but not Evansville: people with big-ass trailers, I mean trailers longer than their primary vehicle, towed behind their truck/car/motorbike starting through the intersection around the time the light changes from yellow to red. Something tells me, Mr JB Hunt lorry driver, that you are not going to make it all the way through, especially since traffic is backed up so much because of that stopped car and the three cop cars required to assist that stopped car.

We still haven't got internet yet, which means I'm doing a lot of driving from wifi hotspot to wifi hotspot. Once or twice I sat around at ISU's library, but they block chat clients, which is inconvenient. There's a Panera Bread just about a mile and a half from the apartment which works in a pinch. Just north of I-70, meaning a quarter mile from the mall, there is a Starbucks that sits just within range of the Drury Inn opposite it on Hwy 41. The problem with this location is the difficulty involved in getting out of the place through the 41/70 intersection traffic (which is only made worse by all the shopping within half a mile of the intersection).

With a quick bit of google mapping, I found a local coffee shop called Coffee Grounds, which somehow manages to sell its stuff cheaper than most coffee shops I've ever been to. It's a really nice place - semi-industrial brick walls with writing on them, a mural on one section of the wall, tables with messages and names carved in, and four drink sizes - regular, tall, grande, and enorme. Much like at Starfucks, I stick with saying "large."

Once again, I'm hoping to start using this space more. It's not like I haven't had the time, I'm just a lazy cunt.