preposition

around: Keep it in the Closet

In what became an unwitting sequel to the events of around: Who Is It?, ops guy Jimmy came up to me today to ask:

"By the way, we were trying to figure out whether we saw you in a lesbian car today."

"Huh?"

"Do you drive a Forrester or an Outback or something?"

I proceeded to explain to him about the turbo Forrester i'd seen earlier that week. Manager Linde walked by as i arrived at the punch line and chuckled. Jimmy revealed that he was a fan of the WRX Wagon.

Ten minutes later, Jimmy sent me this email about getting access to a testing machine:

Subject: cruiser password?

hey tyler,

can you give the password for cruiser to andre?

Is it something like: LeSbOcAr ?

thanks!

around: awk and Shah

I don't really have anything to go with the title, though i really wish i did. Maybe i'll come up with something later.

I can tell you, however, that as long as we're talking about spoonerisms, there is a merchant that i see periodically in logs at work called TonerBoss.

There's also a merchant called TonerDude, which doesn't have a partiuclarly interesting reading, but which is mind-numbingly stupid.

Finally (since i should have been in bed hace horas), coworker Steve reported at lunch today that the suffix "-ness", while useful, should not be used to describe the obnoxious state of java server pages by referring to their "jspness".

What luck; there's a French Fry stuck in my beard.

on: Beliefs Are Odd

Rush is one of those bands that no one i know really seems to listen to. Even my prog friends never really talk about Rush. There was this guy Brian at my high school who had a couple Rush t-shirts, and i liked the art on them, but that was back before i was into modern music, so i didn't really know what the deal was. Brian was a drummer, so now i can see why he was excited about them: Neil Peart Is God.

My initial exposure to Rush came a couple years later when Rock 105.3, as KSJO has done more recently, started playing the living fuck out of "Tom Sawyer", "Spirit of Radio", and "Freewill", thus souring me on the whole Rush experience. It took a few years for that initial saturation to wear off, at which time i picked up Chronicles (unfortunately, a greatest hits double cd[0]) at Amoeba.

The music is great -- very innovative for its time. The lyrics, however, are incredibly strange. I first noticed this in"Trees", which ends thusly:

"And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw."

This grabbed my attention enough for me to listen again, paying attention to the words[1]. Is Rush anti-union? I didn't know people who weren't robber barons could be anti-union in this broad sense. What the fuck is going on here?

It was only later that i learned three important facts about Rush:

1. They're Canadian.

2. Geddy Lee may or may not be the ugliest motherfucker alive, but he's definitely the ugliest rock star ever[2].

3. Rush are a bunch of objectivists.

If you don't know what an objectivist is (and can't look it up for your damn self), you are no different from U3 Computing Center Supervisor Herman. This fact was revealed to me during an interview with would-be U3 Computing Assistant Scott, who mentioned during his interview that he was active on campus with a group somehow interested in Shakespearean litearture, and also with a group of objectivists. When Herman and i both declined to say anything particular in response, Scott paused: "Objectivism? Shakespeare? Either of you?"

"What's objectivism?" Herman asked.

I don't remember what i said next, and i probably should have let Scott answer the question himself, but by way of demonstrating that i knew what he (Scott) was talking about, i provided an answer to Herman's question. I gave a capsule summary that evidently revealed my bias, to which Scott responded, "Ok... guess i should have worn my Red tie to the interview." He capitalized Red when he said it, so i have capitalized it here.

It's interesting to live in Berkeley for a couple years and then be called a communist by an interviewee because i don't subscribe to the gospel according to Ayn Rand. It has never happened to me since. Even in San Diego, i think rebuking objectivism would only get me labelled a moderate.

My introduction to Ayn Rand took place in 10th grade, thanks to my English teacher, Mrs. Kincaid. Mrs. Kincaid thought Ayn and i might get along, so she suggested i read Anthem, a novella that presents a dystopian psuedo-communist future in which the use of the pronoun "I" has been abolished, only to be brought back by a brave protagonist and the hot chick sidekick he wants to bang. Although the novella is only about 120 pages, Ayn manages to fit in an entire 10+ page chapter during which she spouts flowery philosophical prose about the value of the word "I" and how it will never again be lost to humanity.

Though i have never read either of Ayn's more acknolwedged opi -- The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged -- i gather that the plots, philosophies, and unacceptably long detours into pure rhetorical drivel, are roughly the same for all of her work. Thus, it appears i took the path of least resistance for getting enough of a taste of Ayn in my mouth to know that objectivism is stupid and that women taste bad. The effects of this realization on my behavior can be seen to the present day.

Scott was eventually hired as a CA, and gave me a present for Earth Day: a pamphlet from the Ayn Rand Insitute about Earth Day. Evidently, environmentalism prioritizes humans below other things (like animals, plants, and the planet itself), and thus is immoral. Not even Scott took that claim very seriously.

So once i found out that Rush, like Scott, were in bed with Ayn Rand, "Trees" made a little more sense: it wasn't so much that Rush was anti-union as they were anti-equality.

Rush has a lot of tracks that do lyrically and conceptually bizarre things. "Trees" is an allegory. An allegory! In popular music! "Red Barchetta" is a song about the exhilaration of driving a car in a future where the combustion engine has been outlawed. (It is, of course, also a celebration of the freedom of the individual, and a warning against a society that does anything that contradicts or persecutes the pursuit of that freedom.) "By-Tor And The Snow Dog" is perhaps Rush's most embarrassing song, and is about, like, a snow dog, that kills some demon knight? I think i read once that it was based on mythology from some snowy, Northern, non-Canadian country.

But tonight, as i drove home from work, i was struck by "Bastille Day". When i first heard this song, i thought it was satirical, but after all that truck with objectivism, i don't think so any more. Instead, i think "Bastille Day" takes up the unorthodox position of praising Louis XVI and the rest of the French aristocracy for their role in the French Revolution. In particular, we have this in the chorus:

"The king has kneeled to let his kingdom rise."

I am, admittedly, not an expert in French history in general, nor in the French Revolution in particular I have, however, studied the French Revolution several times in my career as a student, and have watched more than one theatrical interpretation of A Tale of Two Cities. Never once was it mentioned, suggested, hinted at, or dreamed of that King Louis was a martyr for the cause of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Or that he "let" his kingdom do anything.

The bass work, however, is top-notch. You hammer that sonofabitch, Geddy.

at: Leggo

Today they moved the refrigerator -- which contains the bagels, bread, cream cheese, jam, and peanut butter -- to the 6th floor.

They left the goddamn toaster on the 2nd floor.

up: In The Round

I have all these pictures people have taken of me where i'm wearing these athletic shoes that have reflective parts, the kind so that cars can see you if you're jogging at night. Like i'm out runnin' around lookin' for Billy Jean or somethin'.

around: Who Is It?

Q: Who drives around in one of those fancy new Forresters with a turbo, except with an automatic transmisson?

A: Lesbians.

on: Northern Exposure

Although i ended up watching The Simpsons instead, i flipped by an episode of Nature about polar bears and human civilization. At first i thought it was set in Alaska, because that's where i know polar bears live near humans, but the people were all talking with Dakotan/Minnesotan accents.

This wouldn't have been a big deal except that they got William H. Macy to do the narration (albeit in his regular voice).

inside/outside/upside-down: Am i even supposed to be here today?

I don't really believe in early adoption, or even on-time adoption, so if you're thinking to yourself incredulously, "Starting a blog in 2004?", that's my excuse.

Even worse, i've already gone through the phase where all my friends were starting blogs, and getting into each other's blogs, and telling me, "*You* should start a blog. You could blog with us! It'll be great!"

Even worse still, when i declared that i was going to South America, my friends redoubled their efforts: "Keep a blog so we know what's going on! You can write about all your adventures! It'll be great!"

And now, here we are. My friends are over their own and other people's blogs, and i've failed miserably in my erstwhile mission to turn pieces of the South America trip into anything other than ephemeral, non-recorded anecdotes with which to bore co-workers and other casual acquaintances. And don't think i don't see that glassy look in your eyes when i start yet another sentence with, "I was in $CITY_PRONOUNCED_WITH_CONSPICUOUS_AND_POOR_LATIN_ACCENT". Cuz i do see it, mister.

I still haven't even really decided that this blog thing is a good idea. Let me tell you more about that.

I believe journaling -- recording thoughts, feelings, events for yourself -- is a really good idea. I believe writing -- recording thoughts, feelings, events for others -- is a really good idea. I believe mixing these two things is self-indulgent and dangerous. Self-indulgent because of all the "Today i woke up, took a shower, brushed my teeth, walked 46 paces to my car, drove at an average speed of 36 mph to work, ..." journal blogs. This paragraph sucks. Forget it.

I have a strong tendency to self-importance which, as i have aged, i have sought to temper. Having a journal which you expect other people to read smacks foully of self-importance. And even though i've been thinking about this for a while, and telling myself, "well, i won't publish it. I won't even mention it. People who really want to find it will find it, and i won't advertise it. There. That way, if you read it, it's *your* fault." Watch, i'm going to switch the metaphor again, and abandon yet another paragraph.

Journaling is masturbation. I'm highly in favor of masturbation. In fact, i masturbate *ALL THE TIME*. I am masturbating right now, as i write this[1].

Blogging is public masturbation. When you masturbate publicly, it becomes something different. If it's for a loving audience, then it's exhibitionism, or porn, or performance art. If it's for a captive audience, it's indecent exposure, a lewd and lascivious act, and possibly corruption of a minor. It may be hard for you to imagine how a website could possibly have a captive audience, but if you know me and i come up to you and say, "HEY I HAVE A BLOG", that's at least an implicit request to come look at it, which you, as someone who knows me, is at least a little obligated to oblige.

Let's move on from this subtopic.

In fact, maybe let's move on entirely. Except to say that before i wrote this sentence here, i had written 545 words in this initial entry. If that isn't self-indulgence, i'm not a man in need of a blowjob.

Some people say, or at least imply, that i make everything too complicated. I don't ever really bother to disagree.

Here are some more things that this entry made me think about that i'm not going to write about right now (and thus, not ever):

- The importance of editing in published work (where a blog's status as "published" is perhaps dubious, but certainly more published than a private journal).

- The attitude i feel i need to have towards my audience in a blog to maintain its purity as either a journal or a published work. Having an audience for my masturbation fundamentally changes a lot of things about it. Should i pretend to ignore the audience, or should i engage them? What role do reader's (publically-available, right-along-side-the-content) comments have in this? Would i be more of a journalistic purist if i turned them off? How conscious of an audience is too conscious, and how deliberately unconscious is just being an asshole?

- One of the strongest selling points of this blogging business is that, audience or no, self-aggrandizement or no, as long as i stick with it i'll be writing *something*, which i think is really the point.

- Of course, my deep-seated laziness essentially guarantees that this blog, like many projects before it, will lie fallow and useless in the ether.