29 and counting

29 years. It doesn't really seem like an accomplishment to be proud of to say I managed to survive without accidentally offing myself, but an accomplishment none the less. It's been an interesting ride, no doubt about that. I've found myself in many places with many people over the years, some less savory than others. I only wish I could say I remember them all, although I get the feeling that if did remember them all I would wish I didn't. I'm not going to list all the things I've done, or failed to do, I'm not even going to write a formal "bucket list". From this point, I'm just going to take what comes, try to be happy, and if at all possible try to make things better. Feels like I've taken a very long winding road to arrive where I am today, it's been a scenic drive to say the least. Not sure where this road will lead me tomorrow, but I look forward to finding out. For those that read this, you are most likely someone I'd count as a friend, or family, (or maybe someone that is just very confused and wondering when I will mention a random celebrity that photographed their naughty bits some years ago) I thank you for the parts you have all played in helping me on my way to becoming who I am (the good and the bad).
Now I would like to offer my official review of the past 29 years: Not Bad, borderline on good most of the time.

I have nothing more to say

The sun is setting
The mountains are burning up
I keep on driving

Shadows are creeping
Up the hillside through the trees
Silence fills the void

Driving to the night
It starts getting cold out here
In the dark alone

In and out of sleep
Surrender to the shadow
Drifting in the night

This is how the nightmare begins.

The Tale of a Dog, Duck, and a House Plant

Once upon a time (queue music) there was a dog, named Marvin, and a duck named Günter, and a ficus named Emerson. They all lived quite happily in a little house, just down the street from a very nice market. While it took them all some time to get used to each other, eventually Günter learned to not swim in Marvin's water bowl, and Emerson learned to not sneak up on Günter and Marvin. But really this story isn't about the three of them, it's about me, and the day I interviewed for the worst job ever.
It was a Thursday afternoon, I remember it was Thursday because it was raining and Miss. Sanches downstairs always hangs her nylons out the window to dry on Thrusday, but she couldn't so she had them hanging in the hall, it was a ghastly sight. I had just lost my job as a convenience store clerk 3 days ago, and was actually quite pleased about that, but the prospect of living off my last paycheck was not pleasing at all. Yesterday I had applied for every job listed in the newspaper, and I had been called in for my first interview. I have no idea what the company did, or what the job actually was, I only know the office was in the middle of downtown and that had to be good. Wanting to make a good impression I deiced to get a head start on my day and show up early. This operation would require a substantial amount of caffeine, of which I had none. Immediately I ran across the hall, knowing that Günter and Marvin never minded early visitors, in fact Marvin was always over joyed to have company. Naturally they invited me in, saying they had just made a fresh pot and didn't want it to go to waste. We sat in the kitchen, and I told them about my job interview. They were very interested, and so was Emerson. I had never met Emerson before, I had always mistaken him for a houseplant that Günter enjoyed relocating. Emerson was sitting on the table when he suddenly spoke up and startled the living bejesus out of me.
"You will need to make one hell of an impression on these guys to get that job, if you listen to everything I tell you, I can guarantee you walk away not only with that job, but with twice the salary that they would offer to anyone else."
I don't make a habit out of talking to potted plants. In my life I believe I have only spoken to one or two, but this was the first time one has spoken to me. I don't know if you have ever been in a position where a plant was suddenly talking to you over coffee but I can tell you one thing, you listen.
Anyway, long story short, I wound up in the CEO's office, with Emerson on my head, performing a number from Caberet wearing only a sequined Bow-Tie and vest, and what I'm pretty sure are called pantaloons. And well wouldn't you know, I got the job, and three times the salary, and my own corner office. But I still have no clue what my job is.

can you lose what you didn't know you have?

The cruelest stroke is the one that makes you realize all that you didn't care you have, and all you didn't know you could lose. Sure you are left essentially whole, you haven't actually lost anything, or anyone. But now you can see that it could happen, and now you know what that would do to you. You know now that the loss of those that you didn't hold close enough would destroy you, and you now fear you let them get too close to the edge and you won't reach them before they fall.

a song in my head

And I try to keep up
but the pace you have set
is just far too hard.
So I keep on reminding
myself why I'm trying
to touch the sun.

But my fingers are blistered
and my body is shaking
I can't keep up this pace
without something more.

Wont you try with me,
stay with me,
keep me from
giving up.
If you want
me to stay
here with you.

As the world keeps revolving,
my mind keeps evolving
the things I have
yet to do.
But I stay
here with you
on the ground.

The Rise and Fall of Monday

The air was saturated with dust, smoke and ash, choking the city and smothering the sun. The menacing win was threatening to clear the air between us, but gave up before it ever tried. It was a miserable day to be outside. It was even worse to be inside. And worse still to be here. By now any rational person would be asking why on earth would anyone stay. I am not a rational person, perhaps you are, and perhaps you are one of those that feels compelled to show me how irrational I am. It would be a waste of time to attempt to show me how irrational I am, I'm too far gone to realize I am anything but the cream filling of a crazy cake.
So there I am, walking into another meeting of the most mediocre minds the west has to offer. When the soul sucking florescent lights began to flicker, making the board room look like the back room of the bordello next door, without any of the benefits of being a bordello. This was shaping up to be one hell of a staff meeting, I don't get paid enough for this.

YO JOE!

Okay, I did see G.I. Joe. I admit it. And I don't feel very bad about it. Okay I feel a little guilty about it. I think I feel guilty because I enjoyed it. When all is said and done, it was an enjoyable flick... But it was kind of like junk food. It's great, enjoyable, but you feel slightly guilty about what you just ate, or sick if you ate too much.
There are a few key things about this movie that I will pick on (I could nit-pick it to death, but I won't, because it's a movie and not to be taken too seriously)
First, as soon as they entered into any action sequence, they picked up the hand-held camera shots. You know the shaky, fast moving, close shots that are used to make the action seem much more exciting. Now this is a very effective technique, but can leave audience members feeling queasy (I actually felt slightly nauseous by the end of the film). In this movie, the technique was over used and frustrating, when Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow are fighting I want to see the damned fight, not feel like I am IN the fight.
Second, there was no P.S.A. after the movie. This is a big problem and must be corrected for the DVD release.
Third ... ok I don't really have a third, I just can't pick this movie apart too much. It was fun; it left me with a satisfying stomach ache.

tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow

coming soon...

Tonight, you will dream...

I reach through my mind into the night, searching, endlessly searching. Reaching, grasping, pawing, clawing, biting, straining to reach the unreachable. Loosely bound prose floating through the air, vanishing into dust with the slightest glace. With realization reality vanishes into the night. This is not how it is supposed to happen, there in the mirror of my mind I see myself. Seemingly safe in bed, a tempest raging beneath the surface. I am suddenly not myself, and something new flows through my mind.

This night he will not dream, there will be no reprieve no will nightmares wake him. For he slept a sleep that not even death could wake him from. When the dawn breaks when will wake to find the world he left the world he fears to find. Nothing will be what it seems, and what things seem to be will not be what they appear. Up will be left and left will be down and down will be up and you will be forever changed yet altogether unchanged. I hold his life in the palm of my hand and bend his will to my own, he will by dancer on the world's stage, through him I will splinter time and mold it to my liking.

And thus, I begin to dream, not falling, or drifting, but thrust deep into a dream you would never wish to dream. And I wake, cold, alone, and unsure. This is no way to spend a night.

Ideologues and public pools...

There are two things I want to talk about... well there are many things I want to talk about but these two are burning a hole in my pants.

Public Pools... I hate them. And I hate them for very few good reasons. First, I'm a fairly introverted person, so the idea of going swimming at a large communal pool is not my idea of fun. The water should not contain enough chlorine to burn your eyes the moment you walk into the room. Granted I know why there is so much chlorine in the water, and I thank god for it, but it very nearly kills me. The teenage lifeguards don't seem to realize that blowing a whistle in what is essentially an already defining echo chamber does in fact not get anyone's attention. It is especially not useful in getting the attention of young children breaking the rules. So, what comes next, the bull horn! yes they didn't respond to a whistle, so yelling into a bull horn inside an echo chamber will surely get the message across. Needless to say, it takes them at least 10 minutes before they walk the 5 feet to say, "stop that." Then i could go on about my dislike for teenagers, public locker rooms, but I won't. the fact of the matter is as long as I have kids, I shall suffer with going to the pool.

and secondly, Ideologues, they can seriously piss me off.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

who put the bomp in the bomp bomp bomp

I now bring to you the misadventures of Captain Useless and the Invisible Man!!!

Posing as mild mannered project managers, no one suspects their dangerous alter ego's. THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.

Captain Useless is able to twist any thing into an asinine labor intensive project that will just need to be reversed the next morning!

The Invisible Man... is well Invisible... one second he is there, the next... he is still there but you just can't see him...

Together this duo can alter the workload and schedules of entire departments with ease. last minute configuration changes, and failure to respond are just two tools in their arsenal. They also poses the ability to turn any complication into a catastrophic affair.

These two are a force to be reckoned with, and all who try to cross them, have walked away wanting to set fire to small animals. Such is the power of THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.

coming soon... the adventures of Plausible Deniability man! It's Plausible Deniability man here to tell us he never told us to do the stuff he told us to do and he doesn't even know who we are

What you say?

My finger nails a green... well, two of my fingernails are green. But that's not what I want to talk about... I forget what I wanted to talk about.
I could drone on about my delusions, and my dreams...when I dream...but I won't. so how about a musical interlude:



Son look at all the people in this restaurant
What d'you think they weigh?
And out the window to the parking lot
At their SUVs taking all of the space

They give no fuck
They talk as loud as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them

Gotta get on the microphone down at wallmart
Talk about some shit that's been on my mind
Talk about the state of this great of this nation of ours
People look to your left, yeah look to your right

They give no fuck
They buy as much as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them

[Piano Solo]

Son look at the people lining up for plastic
Wouldn't you like to see them in the national geographic?
Squatting bare-assed in the dirt eating rice from a bowl
With a towel on their head and maybe a bone in their nose
See that asshole with a peace-sign on his licence plate
Giving me the finger and running me out of his lane

God made us number one because he loves us the best
Well maybe He should go bless someone else for a while, give us a rest
They give no...
Yeah and everyone can see
They give no...
We've eaten all that we can eat

There is no title

I can't sleep. I should say I can't stay asleep. So I suppose it would be more accurate to say I can't sleep well.
It's not something new, I've had fights with this as long as I can remember. But that doesn't really make it easier to deal with. If you ever have gone long enough without good sleep, specifically REM sleep, you start to lose it. I mean really lose it. You can start to hallucinate and have psychotic breaks. Not that I think I'm having any of those problems, but I definitely feel like I have a loser grip on reality... or a more firm grip... perhaps I really AM Freddie Mercury...

Ok Internets let me try to illistrate this for you. Imagine a song you heard in passing, not a bad song, not teribly catchy, and it get's stuck in your head. Annoying... now imagine you can't get that song out of your head... but only like 2 lines of that song... and you can HEAR it...over and over and over... that's kinda what it's like when I try to sleep...

That wasn't a very good example..

"Did you know..."

Presenting, a brief taste of the stupid topics of conversation I have had to listen to today:

"... the Japanese had endearment camps for the Jews"

"... the Russian czar only hated Jews because of his dad, and when they took his family into the basement they had pockets full of jewels so the bullets bounced off and they thought they were magic and that's how they got away"

"... the Japanese killed the Jews too"

"... they couldn't prove Hitler is dead because the German soldiers wouldn't let them do a DNA test"

"... suicide is the only thing that separates humans from animals."

"... the government hasn't given us the technology to study animal brains, so we don't even know if they have brainwaves."

Is this heaven? no it's Iowa!

The following is what I view as a judicial smack down to the common arguments against gay marriage; (1)tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting
procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5)
preservation of state resources.

I almost want to take this and recite these counter arguments in some public forum, then drop the mic and stand there in a "what now bitches" pose. I'd seriously love to see someone try to find a good counter argument to any of these points. But I digress, read on.

Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.

Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation— did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.

Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage.

Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.

Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.

Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition. Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”

Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.

::SQUEEEE::

to sleep, perchance to dream.

I dreamed a dream and saw the flames of disaster consuming my friends and my family, and I wept for I knew not that I was in a dream. As I ran to them the flames parted, and I was able to see the destruction and terror unobstructed before my eyes. But I could not reach them. The flames had parted, the way was clear but ever they were out of my reach. Should I ever reach them the flames would engulf us and burn us to ruin. Then they were taken. To where I know not, I was not allowed to follow. "Don't you understand!" I would cry. But then I would not remember who was being taken away. Suddenly everything was slipping away. It was another time, later is all I knew, and I was in pursuit of those that had been taken from me. And hunting those responsible, but for what I no longer knew. And once again I wept, for I knew now the dream I dreamed was not just a dream.

Walking Shadows

Day to day I come to work, I gradually repair what is broken, I fix what never worked in the first place. I do this because I enjoy what I do on some level. It is a thankless, mind numbing job. But occasionally I have a problem that challenges me so much that I begin to lose sleep until I realize I have been overlooking a simple solution.

For anyone that does not fully understand what I do, I am an IT Desktop Engeneer/I.T. department of one. I work in a call center, I maintain all the systems in this building. And I work alone. There are nearly 650 PC's. And everything in this building has suffered from lackluster matinance before my arrival. Before my company bought this building it was operated by another company, and the IT department that had in house was not happy to be bought out. They sabatoged systems, they destroyed documentation, and they took equipment. At that point, an incompitant technician was placed in charge of all things IT here. He didn't care, he didn't know what he was doing, and he let everythign continue to degrade and slip, untill he was replaced. He was replaced with someone that was reliable, and could mantain all the systems, but had no mind for coming up with creative solutions to the mounting problems. He was eventually replaced with a good techincian that was too nice to people that would not work with us. This is where I came in.

Now, I hope you understand that when I tell you to SHUT UP it is because you annoy me more than anything in the history of mankind, now get the hell away from my office.

I used to drive drunk, but a bunch of Mom's got MADD

Something has been pissing me off for a while now. Most of what has been pissing me off centers around the problem of drunk driving. The most vocal person I can throw a stone at is Ms. Art Brown of the Utah chapter of MADD. These guys have swung way off course. They seem to think that the only way to solve the problem of drunk driving is to stop the drinking. Sure, to give them credit, if no one drunk no one could drive drunk. But that is where I stop giving them any kind of credit for making valid arguments. You can't stop people from drinking. And as long as people have cars they will drive drunk.
For anyone who does not know, Utah has undergone some "radical" liberalization of our liquor laws (they had to call it "normalizing" to avoid the knee jerk hatred of all things "liberal" in our local governments). I won't get into the changes, but needless to say, MADD was at the forefront proclaiming doom and gloom. Any loostening the flow of alcahol will surely increase drunk driving and underage drinking. So I just want to make a few points clear for any members or supporters of MADD

• Most underage drinking takes place in private homes, not in bars or clubs.
• Most problem drunk drivers are coming from private homes, not bars or clubs.
• You can not stop all drunk driving and underage drinking from happening, focus on what you can/should do.
  
• You should ask that bars and clubs be allowed to stay open 3 hours past last call
• You should ask for more public transportation to run after last call
• You should promote local cab companies and work with them to promote awareness of alternate transportation.
• You should focus on more severe consiquences for first offense drunk drivers. (many countries you get one offence and you lose your driving privlages for life)
• Underage drinking would decrease if the social taboos against drinking were relaxed, when you remove the mystery, the interest usually drops too.
  
• Underage drinking woudl decrease if the drinking age was lowered back to 18, as recomended and supported by many univirsity studies and university presidents.

There are a lot of things that piss me off about the A.B.C. and groups like this, I think I'll save it for another rant, another day.

Something wicker this way comes

Went to the opera last night. Awesome! It was funny, that I didn't really expect. Well I expected it to be funny, but not to the point it would make me laugh. I knew it was a comedy, the classical definition really just means it has a happy ending. I guess I just never thought of Mozart as funny.
I also didn't quite expect the 3 and a half hour performance. granted that was due to the multiple intermissions while they changed an immaculate set, but never the less. long night.
The people at these kind of shows amuse me. There are the people who are there because they love the art, and appreciate it. The people who go to be seen. The guys trying to impress a date. And the old people who show up for some reason.
There are swarms of old folks that show up, don't enjoy the show, complain the whole time, smell bad, talk through the performance, and leave early. Where do these people come from? I think they go to "support" the arts, but you can do that by sending a check and not annoying everyone there...Yes I am talking to you old ladies in front of us sitting on extra padded boosters with big hair. And old guy next to me that smelled like you haven't seen a bath in a decade. But those are just the annoying theater crowd that you groan about and live with.
There were these two guys that sat behind us, that talked from the second they came in till the curtain went up. And started right back up the second the curtain went down to when it came back up. And they were not talking quietly. First, these two guys were clearly gay. But it would have been news to them to hear this. They were spoiled, and were learning to make violins and cellos because it "sounds like fun". (it kinda does but god knows I can't afford to go to violin making school) At first we tried to ignore these guys, but eventually just began to listen and laugh.
Phrases like "...like ONE of the boarding schools I like went to..." "...and like I was on this DATE like right with like this GIRL RoSAleeee and she like kept trying to like touch me and I like was like yeah don't like touch me. and then like I said something about like my family and she was like JUST beaming! and like all I could think is WOW you are like SO Mormon..."

They served as a second source of entertainment for us. All in all, it was a fantastic night. We look forward do doing this again and as frequently as possible.

The Dark Knight

I have watched The Dark Knight for the third time (I have young kids and don't get to watch grown up movies much), with a fair amount of time between each viewing, and I am ready to publish a few thoughts.
First..OMIGODOMIGODOMIGOD....*deep breathing* Gaaaawwwwwwdddddd!!!

So let me first say this, I don't much care for Christian Bale. He is a fine actor, and by no means does a bad job. But I just have a hard time with him as Batman, he just doesn't pass it off. He is just Christian Bale playing Batman, with a silly voice. Kind like everyone else that has ever played Batman. I almost want to say you need two actors to really pass it off. Now I will say he is the first to actually make a serious effort to play two characters. But I just want to give him a glass of water most of the time he is Batman. Just one of those things, I sigh, and then sink back into the movie and try to not think about it. (I still chuckle when I can see he obviously cant move his upper lip because of the costume...hehehe)

What I really want to talk about, is Heath Ledger. I have watched him his entire career. I love that you can see his grow as an actor. I love seeing how he started to dig into each part and person. As he progressed he was becoming a cameleon, Heath Ledger would vanish before your eyes, and an entirely different person with a very familar face was in front of you. What amazes me, is how fast he progressed. He made, what 19 or 20 movies, over the last 10 - 15 years. Needless to say, he is an amazing talent, one of the highest quality, and genius. But Everyone can see this now, and it's almost like salt an an open wound to point it out.
I really should get to my point of what he did in this movie. He gave life to a fictional charecter. A charecter that many believed could never really be brought to life with any kind of demension. His Joker was a complete person, complete and unnerving, even frightening. There is a story from the set of this movie that says when Michael Cain was first confronted with this charecter, he was so startled that he forgot his lines. Now i'm not even sure why I feel the need to write about this, anyone can watch his movies and see all this for themselves.


I just want to say one more thing. Before the movie came out, there was a lot of comparison to The Crow and Brandon Lee. What happend here, is so far beyond The Crow that any comparison just doesn't work. It would be like comparing Star Fruit to a Carrot or some other fruit, or a leg of lamb or something. The Crow was great, but, it's a B level film noir comic book movie (this is why I love it). And in some respects so was The Dark Knight (except it was no where near a B-level movie) I'd put it more on the same level as Paul Newman's Road to Perdition, except just a little less boreing.

Gin! it's not just for breakfast anymore.

That's really all I have to say. It's one of those days.

Ah a new land. Our pomised land!...excuse me...who are these people?

"...Archaeologists were able to find evidence of a 3,000-year-old Indian village on state-owned land along the Jordan River near 13500 South (Draper, UT.), and want state lawmakers to preserve the tract. And that's why UTA covets the site for a FrontRunner commuter rail station, a park-and-ride lot and a private transit-oriented residential and commercial development to be built sometime in the next 5-15 years.
State lawmakers can give UTA and developers the keys to the village by approving House Bill 179, which would authorize the Utah Department of Natural Resources to swap the land for a similar-size private tract near 12800 South, which is also under consideration for the Draper area station. Developers are reportedly content with either location. "
-S.L. Trib http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11880552

Dear god! would this even be an issue if it was a Mormon Pioneer settlement? I don't think so, it'd probably already be another museum full of handcart wheels.
"look how our 'ancestors' suffered to deliver us to the promised land...well of course we were the first ones here!"
The pre-Mormon history of Utah is already in need of help (and the post-Mormon history could use some objective editing).
The real frustration here is how history is treated here in this state. If you were to pick up a "Utah History" text book (at least the one I had in my 7th grade "Utah History" class) you'd find mention of previous settlers and natives. But they are all marginalized, or very nearly dismissed. Things like: (It's likely that this just reflects my memory of something that happened 16 years ago, I have probably killed those brain cells a few times since then, but the "common knowledge" round here needs help, so my point stands.)

• 1776 - Two Spanish priests, Father Silvestre Velez de Escalante and his superior Francisco Atanasio Domínguez start from Santa Fe to explore Utah

• 1822-1829 - William H Ashley exploration and the discovery of a central route to thePacific sends trappers to northern Utah who answered an advertisement in the St. Louis Gazette and Public Advertiser in the winter of 1822: "Enterprising Young Men...to ascend the Missouri to its source, there to be employed for one, two, or three years." Amongst those to respond were Jim Beckwourth, Tom Fitzpatrick, David Jackson, Hugh Glass, Jim Bridger and Jedediah Smith
  

• 1824 - Jim Bridger ( Old Gabe 1804-1881) discovers the Great Salt Lake

• 1832 - Antoine Robidoux ( 1794 - 1860 )builds a trading post in the Utah Basin

• 1841 - Capt. John Bartleson leads first wagon train of settlers, including Nancy Kelsey -

the first white woman ever to see Utah, across Utah to California

• 1843 - John C. Fremont (1813-1890) and Kit Carson ( Christopher Houston "Kit" Carson ( 1809 - 1868) explore the Great Basin

• 1844-45 - Miles Goodyear ( 1817 - 1849) builds Fort Buenaventura

And before all that, there were natives living and farming here quite happily. It really pains me to see history treated like this.

*UPDATE*

Updated:03/12/2009 07:08:30 AM MDT

Salt Lake Tribune

State lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill that allows the Utah Transit Authority and a developer to build a rail-oriented neighborhood in Draper on the site of a 3,000-year-old Indian village that archaeologists would rather preserve. The Senate's passage of HB179 clears the way so the Department of Natural Resources can negotiate a land swap with Whitewater VII Holdings. If they work out a deal, Whitewater then would give UTA 10 acres for a station on its planned FrontRunner line between Provo and Salt Lake City. Wednesday's 21-8 vote came after UTA assurances of protection for the archaic village, which shows signs of farming from 500 years earlier than was previously documented in the region. "The 10 acres that UTA would develop as a station would be predominantly, if not entirely, off of the known archaeological resource," agency spokeswoman Carrie Bohnsack-Ware said. Any encroachment on artifacts would trigger mitigation, she said, which "likely would involve having a qualified archaeologist documenting and moving them." Much more of the property, about 100 acres in all, would undergo private development. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. supports the bill, spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said. She noted that it permits a swap but doesn't require it. UTA still may consider other sites in Draper and Bluffdale for the station. Moving the artifacts was what the Utah Professional Archaeological Council feared when it wrote to DNR Executive Director Mike Styler opposing the swap last month, and during testimony against the bill last week. The council prefers in-ground preservation so future generations with better technology may learn more about the ancient inhabitants. A spokesman for the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute also opposed construction on the site. "It contains evidence of some of my American-Indian ancestors and is considered a very scared place," tribal Chairman Rupert Steele wrote. Senate Democrats objected to the plan, asserting that it is a taxpayer-backed benefit to a politically connected developer who would build a commercial and residential village around UTA's commuter-rail stop. Developer Terry Diehl, who also is a UTA board member, represents the landowner, Whitewater VII Holdings. "They are the ones that will receive significant economic benefit," said Sen. Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights. "Because they'll gain that at a loss to the taxpayers, I vote no." Because other sites are available, said Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, the reason for the swap appears to be to help the developer. "The swap is actually not necessary," he said, "and in some respects might be a sweetheart deal for a particular landowner or developer." Bristling at the suggestion that HB179 is special-interest legislation, Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said the taxpayers are the special interest. Completing the swap puts the station closer to Bangerter Highway, which UTA says will increase FrontRunner ridership.

But I didn't order the dysentery

I love conference calls. A large group of people. All on the phone. All doing something but listening. No one really knowing why they are on the phone. And the leader, the Douchebagary amplified through dozens of speakerphones, attempting to steer a runaway truck.
My favorite part is that no one really knows when it's their turn to speak, this usually results in everyone speaking at once, thus confusing everyone.
You never really know who you are talking to, and someone always forgets to push mute before having a side conversation.

*in background* "Hey, you on a call?"
"Yeah, but it's stupid. You should hear these guys, no clue what they are talking about. I've seen a more organized troup of Monkeies smashing their own testicles with rocks."
"HA! are you on mute?"
"oh yeah, don't worry about it, not like anyone pays attention on these calls anyway."
"That's true! hey, the reason I came over, Frank asked me to come check on you, apparently no one can hear you on that call, he wanted you to check your mute..."
"....SHIT"

I LOVE when that happens. Always check for the red light on your phone.

I should be in pictures.

I want to make movies. Or rather I AM making movies. But here's the thing. It's HARD! I knew there was a lot of work involved, but DAAAAAMN. Now I know it's easy to grab a camera, and a bunch of friends and even come up with a script, and just shoot the thing. And to some degree that works. But my goal (and the goals of the friends of mine involved in this venture) is to create a real film, that not only looks as good as we can make it (with a working budget of spare change), but be watchable. Needless to say, we did research, a lot of research. In fact, a few of us have been reading books, and listening to lecutres, and talking to people for years now. So we felt it was about time we got off our asses and just startedt o do what we wanted.
We took the books, and guides, we had and trusted, used them to come up with a basic plan of attack. First we get an idea, write a first version script, come up with a cast and crew, and start planning. How are we going to do this? where are we going to do this? How are we going to get away with doing things without getting arrested or sued? How are we going to make Eric remember his lines? How are we going to make Jeff keep his pants on?
Little by little we solved (so we thought/think) our problems. We get locations, we find crew, we get costumes made, we reherse, we build camera and sound rigs, we run tests and things are looking good.
So we set a date, we go out, and start to film, and it is fun. By the end of the day, we have run around, caried heavy equipment up and down big hills. Worked for a goof 5 hours, and shot a good 15 minites of footage of which we think we will use 2 minutes. All in all we are feeling good. We feel damn good. let's do this again tomorow, and every chance we get. I'll get new shoes because my feet are sore, and some of those gell things that are all squishy.
And then, the big fish of reality slaps us in the face. We forgot a few things in our haste. We didn't account for lighting... i mean we shot outside, at noon! So what I mean to say is we forgot to control the light, and shadow. So half of our picture is washed out, half is black. We didn't practice with our camera rigs enough, so some of the footage didn't work out right. And we had some costume issues...All problems that are fairly easy to solve. What is killing me, is that we overlooked these basic things.
Instead of feeling like we just took a dozen giant steps back, we all feel like we took one step to the left. We now realize what we missed. We can see how far we've come, and what we can do. and we know how to make this work. Change the formula, shake, serve over ice.
I'm feeling good, making movies is hard work.

First things first, but not necessarily in that order

I don't feel like I've much to say today. Nor can I think of any witty stories. Such is life when nearly all your brainpower is devoted to keeping just over 600 PC's working.

Always start with a good Title.

How about a little about me today, or more importantly, about my kids. For those of you who don't know me, - at the time of posting I'm fairly sure only those that know me are reading this- and for those that do but have forgotten, I have kids, two in fact. I have a girl, and boy. Odelia, my little girl, is 3. Holden my little boy is 9 months. Holden isn't terribly interesting right now, he's just learned to crawl, has teeth, makes lots of noise and smells, and he will bite you. so we keep him in his cage, he has one of those big watter bottles that use a ball barring and the power of gravity to keep the water slowly leaking out, he loves it.
I really want to talk about my little girl, Odelia. She is a precocious little Imp. she likes to wake up at 6 am, and say "goood moorrnniingg dAAAAAddd, it's a BEAutIFUL sunny day!" yesterday she walked out with sunglasses on, it kills me.
She said things that are so cute you want to squeal (and I often do) like a little girl. for example, I took her to the drug store last night. Carleigh (my wife) has a bad cold and needed some things. I took Odelia along for the ride, well the store, any store, is always an adventure. She had to open EVERY greeting card that made noise, or played a song. She would dance when there is music, laugh when she thought it was supposed to be funny, and toss the ones she didn't get behind her. Frequently declaring "THIS IS MY FAVORITE LETTER!!!" Once I manage to pry her away from the greeting cards, she sees toys. From this point, the only thing you can do is let her find something and then let her play with it while dragging her around to get what you came out to get. This time, it was a ball. a big, inflated, latex rubber ball, with millions of tentacles on the outside, and a flashing multicolored light inside. When she found this, she picked it up, clutched it to her chest, and declared "I LOVE THIS!! IT'S MY FAVORITE!! I LOVES IT!!" and she would repeat that anytime I'd say, no I'm sorry you can't have it, you have plenty of toys at home. We now own an orange rubber ball with tentacles that smells a bit like old cheese.
Now here is my favorite story. We decided that it would be a good thing, if our daughter knew her parents names. Helpful if she should ever get lost in a store, so they aren't paging "mom and dad". Well this had been going well, and she had learned our names, it was amusing. she calls me Tile. We took her to her grandmother's one night for dinner, and we were all too eager to show off her new trick.
"what's mommies name?"....."TARLY!"
"what's daddies name?"....."TILE!"
GOOD... now time for proof of concept... "What is YOUR name?"..........-puzzled look-.........."DAMN IT!"

In all Fairness, seriously.

I’m going to make an argument here. I was prompted to start this little rant; yes it will be a bit of a rant, by recent “news” surrounding one Rush Limbaugh. Let me first say, I hate this man. I think he is a stain on the media and on any political group he affiliates himself with. I’m not going to present an argument for banning him (as much as I’d love something like that), nor am I going to present any arguments for limiting his brand of “speech.” My argument will be for the establishment of balance, more specifically, the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (in some form).

First a little background fully available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation

So here’s my argument, with all the problems, most I don’t have answers for.

A Fairness Standard should be applied by the FCC for any broadcast not classified as “entertainment” or “bona fide news” broadcasts, OR more specifically it should apply to only “political commentary” programming.

I believe this standard should have three parts. The first being that any “political commentary” be preceded by a disclaimer stating the information presented may or may not be factual and any and all opinions belong to the speaker who may or may not have any expertise or education in the subject under discussion. The second being that all commentary should have an appropriate opposing response as would be provided in a standard debate. The third being that any viewpoint, regardless of its extreme nature, may not be suppressed or censored in any way except in the case of profanity or hate-speech.

That being said let me lay out a few things. First, I am not a fan of censorship, in any form. I believe passionately in the 1st amendment, and the free press. Second, I believe this would be in the best interests of the public in general. Third, I believe the rights of the general public trumps the rights of the broadcaster/holder of the FCC license, due to the potential damage abuse of that license can produce.

I believe this should happen for the following reasons. Current “political commentary” programming is becoming more akin to propaganda. The commentary is frequently unsupported by factual information, but it is presented as such, without disclaimer. If I have to see a disclaimer that the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the speaker before watching a DVD why should I not see or hear these before this type of programming? This slant, presented as “news”, sometimes even under the mask of editorial opinion, is dangerous when it is unbalanced. There are people that ONLY watch fox news, or MSNBC, and those people get two very different viewpoints. If you have never seen these two broadcasters present the same story, it’s ridiculous how slanted the “facts” can be presented. Now if you want to “slant” a news broadcast, the free press allows for that, it may be unethical, but that’s the risk that comes with freedom of the press.

Anyone can become a political commentator. It takes no education, no background in politics, and no expertise in anything. It’s like becoming a gym teacher in the broadcast world. While I think one should be qualified for a position like this, it’s not something that can be regulated or required. Again this is an ethical decision by the broadcaster. Since this hiring a qualified political commentator requires making a good ethical decision, qualified individuals rarely become political commentators. Therefore, with commentators who have no political background, or education, they will almost always be default speak to one side of any given issue, and that will be the side they are most comfortable with. If they were to have an opposing commentator, viewers/listeners, would be more likely to form opinions of their own rather than adopt the opinions of the personality they are listening to.

I also believe that this type of measure would not be necessary if all broadcasters made responsible ethical choices in the content provided to the general public. It is very easy these days to find all viewpoints from multiple media sources, but it takes work. The effort required to find and watch or listen to three or four broadcasts to get two sides to any story is beyond the capability of the average American. This is why I believe it’s important for EVERY broadcast to provide fair and factual information. I think this would be in the best interests of the public, and could very well help us on our way to becoming a utopian society.

The problems with this are:

Would this constitute an infringement of 1st amendments rights and therefore be unconstitutional? Short answer is no.

Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared: A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

What would prevent a broadcaster from reclassifying political commentators as news broadcasters? As far as I know, nothing. It is however pretty easy to tell the difference, and hard to disguise.

Is it possible this would just cause some broadcasts to de-evolve into a two person shouting match? It’s possible, if idiots are running the broadcast.

Would this actually be enforceable? I don’t know.

Who would be the judge of what is an appropriate response to any given viewpoint? Don’t know, but I think it would probably work in a similar way to how the FCC polices profanity. It’s usually reported back to them by a private citizen.

Wouldn’t this be a bit too “big brother”? I don’t think so, I think it’s less about controlling content, and more setting standard’s of content. If they can say you can’t use profanity or display nudity, they should be able to say, you have to let people hear more than one opinion.

Why should anyone care, can’t you just change the channel? Yes, you can opt not to listen or watch, but finding something else to watch is becoming hard. CNN had to start a program called “no bias, no bull” to try to fill this gap in the market.

I think the bottom line in my argument is that broadcasters are not being responsible, and the public has suffered. They have abused the naive trust their audience places in them to provide factual information. When people that should be responsible are not, regulation of some form is usually needed. It’s the same reason we have ethics laws and rules for our elected officials. Or why private businesses have dress code, and policies for computer use. It’s why doors have locks, and we have security guards.

Don't Kiss the Bears

Why do people get upset when they get caught doing something they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place? Rather than saying

“It’s ok, I shouldn’t have been here doing what I was doing, so I won’t lash out at you” they tend to get surprised and say things like “What the fuck man? Why did you pick on me?” It seriously confuses me. What’s better is the people who assume that I am just trying to be a dick rather than to do my job.

Why do some people assume that if they don’t do what they are supposed to that someone (me) will pick up the pieces and do it all for them? Am I such a nice guy that I will try to save your job by doing it for you? NOOOO. Well maybe once or twice if I like you. Or if it’s easier for me to just do it for you than to fight you. But I also have this evil streak. I just might lead you along doing things for you until you expect it, then I will suddenly lead you up to a deadline, and push you off and let you take the fall for the project’s failure. Or maybe not because I’d have to try to fix it.

Why do I ask myself questions and then answer them?

Why am I listening to Down Under by Men At Work and trying to understand all the lyrics?

Why do people call tech support from the deep south and yell “thank god you speak English” when they get someone they think is in the US? I heard this so frequently it just became a joke, I would frequently answer with, “well one of us has to”… or “I’m sorry I don’t speak Welsh” and then we all get a good laugh when they ask “what’s Welch? Like the jelly?”

Why does the History channel repeat itself?

Here is a real story Utah is no 1 for internet porn. 5.47 subscriptions per 1000. Now I had a few thoughts on why that number is so high. First being, have you ever tried to buy porn in Utah? Seriously! You HAVE to go online or out of state. And second, why are so many people PAYING for porn online? Do they not realize how much you can get for FREE? Now in all seriousness this study found that the more “conservative” a state the higher the subscription rate. So we can easily point our fingers to the oppressive religious and political groups trying to white wash the world, and say SEE you are only making it worse! But we won’t, and why won’t we? Because they would only react and take away more of our porn, and we can’t let that happen.

It's all about Ego

So I have finally decided to set up a blog. It's not that I feel any particular need to make my every opinion on every subject known to the world. It's simply that I happen to think my opinions warrant being shared with the world. Anyone these days can flood the interwebs with their favorite brand of drivel, so why not me. That is the very question that led to this. My drivel has gone unpublished long enough.
Maybe I should have called this Kyle's Inane Drivel rather than my relentless fantastic consciousness...
Since this is my first (yaaay) I will keep it short, and provide a brief overview of this blog.

This is all about Ego. My Ego. Or often my lack of Ego. Or the false perception of Ego. Or maybe Eggo's... For clarification when I say Ego I mean the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. And my unequivocal awesomeness.
I will from time to time hand the reigns of my rants off to the Id and Super Ego, so that should provide some lively debate.

I will almost definitely spend time talking about my family (sorry in advance), and my job. I promise to try to keep politics out of this, but it does tend to come up so it will from time to time inevitably make it into this.
If anyone actually reads this cool, if not, at least I know I sent my words off into space where they will encounter new life and new civilizations and possibly provoke interplanetary wars.

~Kyle J.