I didn't want to like Howard Dean. You understand, I have a responsibility to play the anti-establishment card as much as possible. That means Democrats have to be shitted on as much as Republicians. I wear my pseudo-liberalism on my sleeve (really, I'm an enlighented fascist, but that's for another blog entry) so my natural bent is towards the Democrats. But they comrpomise and lie as much as anybody else so I can't honestly see how one party is whole-heartedly better than another.

But way back in January (or february) when the leading Democrats had their New Hampshire debate, I watched them all. I thought Sharpton was a yutz. I liked Clark for being the only person that actually kept to the time-limit. Edwards impressed me, but I wanted to see him serve another term to develop a better reume. Kerry didn't do it for me. Dean, on the other hand, was the only one who fetl truly heartfelt, that wasn't polished to the point of blindingly light-reflection. He had tmaverick cred but wore a suit.

As for the whole "RAAAAARRRHHH!!" ridicule, I never saw the problem. Dean was rallying the troops after a devastating loss. Can you blame a guy for showing a little emotion? But it was not to be, and Kerry's star rose.

I know nothing about Kerry. from what I hear, and the extremely little I've read, he's a strictly bland politican. Nothing horribly radical or liberal. I felt he was wrong not to support gay marriages; seeing how his home state is lightening rod for the issue I would've like to see him risk alienating people by championing something that, by his own rhetoric, is something he should support purely on principle. I know he's had to do the Texas-Two-Step on his voting record with Iraq but t seems to me that's pretty much a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation for any senator.

I wasn't sure what the expect from his speech. Actually, not true. I expected it to be boring. I haven't liked any of the clips of kerry's speeches I've seen, he sounds far too stiff and a poor speaker. But, regardless of what he said, it seems to me he said it very well. I know Obama Barack brought the roof down a few nights before with his speech (and I'm sorry I missed it.) but I have to say I think Kerry's delivery was pretty good. He stumbled a bit out of the gate, and he sweated quite a lot, but once he got intro the rythmn of the thing, he was rather solid. I think he sold it pretty well. (Whether or not you buy it is another story.)

Dialing around once his speech completed (With U2's "A Beautiful Day" playing, followed by Van Halen's 'Dreams"; two choices I thought were much better than when Kerry walked in while Springsteen's 'No Retreat, No Surrdener" played) the pundits seem to feel Kerry did what he needed to do: establish a platform and let people get to know more about him personally. they certainly played up the personal history. I thought the whole "Let's get all your old 'Nam buddies on the stage" bit was a bit forced; some of them definitely looked like they didn't really care if they were there or not, and seeing how they just stood there anyway, I thought it rather stupid window-dressing. But you know the Dems want to project as much of a pro-military image as possible so whaddya gonna do?

Personally, I think he was still rather vauge in what Kerry plans to do as president. Still a host of generalities, and I laughed when he said he wouldnt raise taxes. (I also laughed when he said the children in Harlem suffer from "hair-pollution" and that he'd double U.S. Special Forces so they could conduct terrorist operations, but I'm nit-picky like that). There was a surpisingly strong stance of the use of stem-cell research, though I hear that's been a popular topic at the convention. On the flip side, there's only so much you can say in a 45-minute speech. Which probably contributed to why he told people to "go to John-Kerry-dot-com so people could read up on his campaign platforms. (Yeah, guess what I have open right now in another browser window.) But you can read the full speech here, and then click here to read what Kerry conveniently didn't talk about.

But, as Tom Brokaw pointed out: the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign has officially begun. When I spoke with my father on Saturday, we both figured the convention wouldn't do much to boost Kerry, but I think, on the strength of his delivery, that opinion is debatable. And the Republicans have four weeks to put their response together. Still, there's just over three months before election time. If you haven't been paying attention, now's the time to start.

Oh, and, for the record: after seeing her introduce her dad, I have come to the decision that Alexandra Kerry is hot.

So, let's see, I've spent the last hour or so playing on Photoshop and practicing more of those tutorials from that Down and Dirty Tricks book I bought a few months back. Trying out and modifying a few of the techniques is always fun, and helps keep the creative jucies oozing.

Alsoa plus on the business front: I've spoken with a couple people in regards to managing the business side of Bright-Matrix. There'll be a trip to the account (or two) in the near future to discuss how to optimize the financial side of things. Odds are we'll be incorporating before the end of the summer (right now we're a partnership) and when that's done it'll open up a lot of ways and means to managing everything, as well as being set-up for future endeavors.

It was rather amusing: Mike's been very glad that I've been pursuing this portion of the company, saying that he's been focused on the clients while I take care of the business. We joked that Mike is the Corporate Face of Bright-Matrix, the guy who meets the clients and get the business while I'm the Black Ops division, working behind the scenes and doing the dirty work. It's about as absurd as comparison as you can make, qulle surprise I rather like it. I now have visions of dressing up in black (gee, there's a strech) wearing night-vison goggles and move only at night (See, I'm a Goth Black Ops kinda guy.) I'll become the "silent" partner to Bright-Matrix. Mike will hit the parties in his dress suit, suavely chatting away potential clients while I repel the window of our their offices, hacking into their computers (now that's a strech) to learn enough information to make sure Bright-Matrix beats out its competitors for the job. Now that's how you make a living.

And I'm sitting here trying to come up with something else to say but there doesn't seem to be much else there in the brain. Which, of course, is rather ironic considering the kinda guy that I am. The truth is my mind is filled with way too many thoughts. I've got so many bullet-trains racing round my head it almost becomes static. But getting them down "on paper"...?

See, the problem I have with Blogs as self-confessional is that it isn't real. It seems real, but lets face facts--this is a computer screen. This is no more "me" than it is "you", and you're not the one typing. The internet fosters the illusion of intimacy. And I know, I understand that true intimacy can be found online. Witness the people at the V or the defunked SK8J and WEF forums where friendships formed through online interaction. But, there is the rub because this Blog is not interactive. It's me oozing my brain out on whatever I feel or don't feel like talking.

I think the amount of thoughts I don't want to share is overwhelmingly out-numbers the thoughts I am willing to share. And you think, with the veil of semi-anonimity, (or even more obvious, the number of you whom I do know that I talk to regularly) that this blog provides I'd be far more willing to talk about my inner most demons (to floss poeticly for a moment).

There's the whole "judgement" problem. Ever since high school when I kept my 1991-1992 journal, I'm keenly aware of the amount of repetiion involved in thought processes. the brain does not reach epiphanies eassily, and even when they do it often takes still more time to act on them. So if I kept an actual log of my daily thoughts, you'd really be reading the same half dozen or so tangets over and over, varied slightly for vocabulary's sake but contextually identical to each other. And where's the fun in that?

George Carlin once reminded his audience that we think in language. But not only do I think it language, I think with a studio audience--so much of my thought process is conducted in terms of presentation. I don't jsut think to myself, I think to other people. I blame television. I really do.

And thus the reason for this half-confessional, which I'm actually tempted to delete as if it never happened--the other beauty and fallacy of the internet: the way one can so easily alter what is presented, changing whatever needs to be changed and leaving no trace that what is seen existed in any other form. But let me nibble the bullet and leave this as is. There is an achieveable balance you know.

This picture would've worked better if I Christine, Matt, and Miller would've lined up to use the machines like I wanted, but they chickened out. As it was, after I took the one picture security told me to put the camera away, so I doubt I would've had the time to compose the shot. Still, there's something highly amusing about the idea of redeeming yourself through gambling...




The colors may not be right--this should be more blue than purple, but I still haven't figured out how to adjust for the different gamma levels between Photoshop and my monitor. Either way, it looks pretty good. I took three shots of Miller standing like this: this first one was spur of the moment and the other two were purposefuly composed. That this first one came out the best of the three means that either a) you can never recapture the original moment or b) I suck at composing shots. I report, you decide.

Continental Feature;s, a newspaper comic-strip syndicate, has droped "Doonesbury" from its package because it "created more controversy than other strips.

Continental's strip package services 38 papers, mostly located in the Southeast. "Doonsbury" is syndicated in more than 1,400 papers via Universal Press Syndicate.

The head of Continental claims the dropping of the strip was not politically motivated, however, he says the poll was taken due to the controversy the strip has made with it's anti-Bush, anti Iraq war storylines.

Blogger Craig Klein admits his title for this entry is rather weak, but it was the best he could come up with under short notice.

Thanks to BoingBoing I'm finally catching up on some of the Sept 11 Commission's Final Report. The full 7+meg report can be downloaded at the official website At 600 pages, it's a bit of a read, and thankfully there's a much shorter, but equally compelling synopsis of the report at this site.

Even the summary gives a comprehensively damning picture. It's a bit of a balancing act: on the one hand, it makes sense that the "blame" for the attacks succeeding (and I'd like to stress that "blame" is very much a subjective word in this situation) falls on so many groups--the CIA, FBI, FAA, NORAD, the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and it makes sense that the extent of the attacks were also due to the fact that nothing existed to properly respond to such an event.

And yet the simply fact is no one had forseen it; what the comission calls "a lack of imagination". It's strange to hear that word used in this context. Because when I think of imagination, I don't think of it in terms of killing some 2,900 people. I'm a sick bastard and I love the value of shock-statements, but when push comes to shove my brain doesn't process that way. And yet it does take imagination, the ability to concieve of new things. A new global relationship where Superpower does not equal supremacy.

The summary mentions that

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be lim-ited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or cap-turing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.

Which is stirring indictment of anyone who thinks our dog-and-pony show in Iraq will have any significant consequences to the larger issue, and point-blank undercuts any propaganda victory to be had in the killing of bin Laden.

But let's take this a step further. If the Sept 11th attacks succeeded because of a lack of imagination on our parts, as the report indicates, we're still not being imaginative enough to deal with the threat. Because we're still wrapping this new perspective under antiquated terminology--our little dog-and-pony show in Iraq is proof of that; the only way the Bush Adminstration was able to give the public reassurance that it's effective was to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept 11. It couldn't deliver bin Laden, and most people can't pronounce the names of the al Qaeda operatives it had gotten. But Iraq was a country, Saddam a recognizable threat; a known quantity. So it played well in theaters and there you are.

But it doesn't solve the problem. It, in fact, doesn't even address the problem that the comission states so plainly. How do you wage war against an ideology? I tell you, the older I get the more I realize how true Bohr was: "The opposite of a true statement is a false one. But the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth."

You can't counter ideology with more/mere rhetoric, like the Bush Adminstration has done. Sure, it plays well to the rubes, but sooner or later (and let's face it: it will be later) people will wise-up to this fact. Either that or in a hundred years historians will be able to point to September 11th and consider it day the United States of America began its decline as a superpower.

The Commission report stresses that beyond rooting out Islamic terroist cells, the US must offer an alternative to what Islamic Extremism offers. It says this must be done by defining message and stand as an example of moral leadership in the world. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage-- our vision can offer a better future.

I'm going to have to read the whole damn report, because while the summary says that this has to be done, it doesn't say how to do it. Theoretically, creating a democratic Iraq is a good way to start. But considering this was done by force, which only gives Islamic Extrmists more fodder for their rhetoric, that the whole mission is funded on the backs of corporations looking to make money and not end Islamic terroism, and considering that the region is unstable today as it was prior to our invasion, I'm not carrying much hope that Iraq will be anything useful anytime soon.

You know, the problem with imagination is that it tends to lead to radical ideas. The bad news is that this administration is anything but radical--and I've seen nothing from the Kerry Campaign that gives me hope that Kerry would be any different. But the good news is that, overall, this country tends to accept radical ideas. Hell, it was founded by radicals, and its history shows that our country changes its perspective over time and it evoles and grows. The problem is, it never does so without a long drawn out fight.

So. Anybody got any ideas? Don't be afraid; use your imagination.

I saw The Bourne Supremacy. (By the way: never see a 1:00 movie on a Sunday afternoon. Because the next thing you know it's 4:00 and you haven't done anything worth a damn with your day. Just wanted to get that out of the way.)

Now, if you haven't seen the first movie, The Bourne Identity, then don't bother with Supremacy. It's not that you can't watch the sequel without having seen the first movie, it's just that this second movie isn't worth seeing, regardless. (and if you haven't figure it out by now: spoilers are to follow.)

Supremacy starts off promising enough. Damon does a good job looking all serious and tormented with his inner-damons--er, demons--and it's always fun watching the kewl protagonist outsmart the people following him. The thing is, it all rather falls apart by the end because there's absolutely know emotional investment at all in the movie. The plot revolves around Bourne trying to clear himself of the murder of some CIA operatives he's been framed for. This is midly ironic because the reason these operatives are killed is because some Mysterious Unshaven Russian Man was trying to cover-up his involvement in some murders Bourne did commit back in his pre-amnesia black-ops days.

Now, why Mysterious Russian Man waited this long to tie up these loose ends is beyond me (the movie establishes it take place two years after the first movie, and the murders Bourne committed--killing some Russian activist and his wife--clearly happens at least several months prior to the events in the first movie) but I don't think you're supposed to really think about it. But if you aren't supposed to think too much about the basic plot of the movie, why should you care about it?

Now, this might have been tolerable enough except for the climactic scene of the movie where Bourne--who, mind you, is bleeding from a gunshot wound and, after being knocked about like a human pinata during the case chase, probably has (at least) a mild concussion--tracks down the daughter of the Russians he killed and, without offering any proof, tells her that he murdered her parents, and he's sorry, and he'll go now but he wanted her to know the truth. I presume this scene was meant as some emotional catharsis of some kind, but a) given that there was not one single fleshed-out character in the entire movie, I find this a bit hard to believe and b) I can only imagine what this confrontation would do to the daughter. I mean, can you imagine if your friend calls you up one day and says:

"Hey, you're not going to believe this. You know how my Mom killed my Dad, and then committed suicide? Well, I just found out that wasn't true. They were both murdered."

"Huh? How'd you find this out?"

"Well, I came home to my apartment and this guy was there with a gun and he told me he killed them."

"What?? Who was this guy? What's his name?"

"I don't know. He didn't say who he was."

"Well, how do you know he was telling the truth?"

"He had a gun."

"The one that killed your parents?"

"I don't know; he had it out when I came in, but then he put it away when I sat down and then he took it with him when he left."

"Oh my God. But--did he have any other proof that he was telling the truth?"

"Well, he did break into my apartment with a gun and not kill me."

"You mean your door was shot open?"

"No, no, it was fine. He must've picked the lock, came in, and locked it for me so no one could break into my apartment."

(pause)

"So let me get this straight: This guy comes into your apartment, waves a gun at you, tells you he murdered your parents even though you've said for years the police ruled it a murder-suicide by your mother, but he offers no evidence that he's telling the truth."

"And then he left."

"And then he left. You mean, that's the whole story? No explanation why he murdered your parents?"

"Well, he did say he only meant to kill my dad, that my mother was an accident and that's why he set it up to make it look like she did it. Oh, and that he was sorry for killing them."

(pause)

"You've gone off your medication again, haven't you?"

----------------

It truly is sad when I had more fun writing that dialogue than I did watching the whole damn movie.

On the plus side, it did have Julia Stiles, repising her role from the first film. However, she really had no purpose in the movie beyond the fact that she's Julia Stiles and the producers obviously wanted Julia Stiles to be in the sequel. I have no problem with Julia Stiles. I like Julia Stiles. She's hot, and she's a decent actress, and the fact that she was in the movie was an extra reason for me to go see it. But she had no point being there. But I want to hyper-text her name one last time so, let me repeat: Julia Stiles is in The Bourne Supremacy and she's hot.

That is all.

 
The one and only Bobby Duane came to town Saturday night for one of his too-infrequent late-evening visits. Some of the usual suspects were dully rounded up (Sean, Mia, Aline, Alan, and Judi) and we headed out to our semi-occassional haunt, The Verona Inn.
 
We discovered the Inn--whihc is really a bar, though I suppose perhaps long ago there were rooms available--some three or four years ago when Mia had a crowd there. As bars go, it's quite roomy with two pool tables in the front and a very good jukebox. For two years it hosted my annual Birthday Bash (this should now jog the memory of one or two of you) and though we only visit once every few months, it's always been a favored place to go.
 
The thing is, when we were there this past Saturday, we couldn't help notice just how young everyone looked. The crowd has always been roughly our age, but this time it seemed the median age of everyone there was roughly four or five years younger than ourselves. It was very disorienting. We're not old; none of us have even hit thirty. But the more we looked at the crowd the more we felt like a bunch of old-timers standing out uncomfortzbly amongst the youngin's. 9Not as badly as the four guys in their mid-thirties who were wearing business suits, but that really didn't make us feel any better.)
 
I don't know what was worse: the fact that we were older than most of the people there, or that we felt so noticeably older. I think all of us are hitting points in our lives where it's not even a question of "we're not getting any younger" and more like we're getting older but we still feel like we're just starting. I mean, it's was only two generations ago where being thirty meant you were married with kids and had your career on track. For the majority of my friends, we're just getting started on the "career" track. And though a good portion of my friends are married, the pitter-patter of little feet have yet to take the place of late night poker games and Video Game Hockey.
 
I don't feel old; not really. But I suppose this inevitable transition has to happen sooner than later; the point where feeling old isn't just when you revist the college campus and see how young the Freshmen are, or walking in a mall on a Saturday afternoon when the teeny boppers are out in force. Now even the adult places--bars, nightclubs, etc--are starting to wear younger faces, faces we fit in with perfectly just . . . yesterday.
 
Places have an odd way of aging. I've always known places to get older, but I've never, until now, seen a place get younger.
 
There's a chill that carries these thoughts. I'm feeling old in my current habitat, how much more jarring will it be down in Philly? Or will I luck out--forced to find new areas to socalize, I'll instinctively seek out the places where people are my age, rather than continue to visit the same places I've been to for years?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So I'm quite happy with myself, having officialy entering the job search this evening with two resumes sent. I have been looking on Monster since last week but I haven't applied to any positions. (Right now I'm only looking through Monster; I looked on Hot Jobs and for some reason I can't find any damn entries so I must be doing something wrong with my search criteria). I still have to start checking the Philly-based papers, but that will happen soon enough. 
 
I forgot how disheartening it is to look for a job online. Firstly, it's a pain in the arse to join up on these things. You can spend an hour just signing-up on Monster. Second, even in 2004, online job services still can't post decent resumes. Do staffing firms or companies posting on Monster actually go through this stuff? It's such a generic, no-frills type of layout I can't see how any HR person could view more than a dozen of these things without wanting to peck their eyes out. Thirdly, for the job-seekee it's annoying when you can't find anything in the field you're looking for. And even more disheartening when you find a job listing in the field you're looking for only to discover you don't have enough experience.
 
Then, of course, there's the whole cover-letter composition. Like I wrote a little while back, I did find it easier this time around as I felt I had more concrete experience from my current job than I did looking after leaving Webmedia. But the reality seems to be that even two years and a great promotion doesn' cover, on paper what a lot of companies are looking for. I knew having just two years experience was still on the short side, but it looks like having less than five years means, for the most part, starting in lower-level positions. Which, given how well I've succeeded at those positions in the past, isn't a terrible thing. But I've been out of college for six years and I'll be turning 30 soon enough; I'm not relishing the idea of starting out at the bottom again.
 
But these are the realities. I may be a hard worker, but I was at Webmedia for four years, and now Optical Connectivity for two. So I admit, on paper, it doesn't look tto encouraging that I can't seem to stay in one position for any serious length of time. (Of course, the reality is I'd be more than happy to stay where I am, but even if I weren't moving south I'd be out of a job within a year anyway, so it's not like my position would be too different if I wasn't in this situation.) (And I think that last sentence just got buried under lots of jumbled tensing.)
 
Anyway, I had said to myself that, for July, applying to two or three jobs a week would be fine to start, and tonight I hit two, so I'm happy about that. And I'll have some free time tomorrow evening so I might make the third. And with two weeks still left in the month, if I can keep up this pace I'll be ready to kick it up a notch come August.
 
Meanwhile, it's occured to me that I've been a bit sparse with the blog-up-keep lately. My apologies for that, as this seems to have been another one of those semi-monthly lulls where I don't see much reason to post.
 
And considering my internet connection has crapped out four times in the last five minutes, I'll be lucky if I can get this damn thing uploaded at all.
 
Ah well. Have a good night. Enjoy the Rogue Squirrel. I did it as a lark and yet I'm oddly intrigued by him. I sense possibilities. (Be afraid.)
 
Oh, and, for the record, I would just like to thank the nice people at Blogger who heard my bitching and decided to make it possible to adjust the time and date of each blog post. So now I have the option of time-stamping each entry at the moment of commencement or the moment of completion. Or I can make every entry be posted as 21:12. Moo hoo etc.  (Now if they can only find a way to stop my posts from being randomly intended like they always seem to be....)
 
Night. 

He strikes without warning.

Cunning is his ally. Stealth is his birthright. Agility is his Second-Cousin on his Mother's side.

Deep in the woodlands, there comes a creature of daring. A force for the furry ones, known only by his deeds and the name they whisper on the wind of a cool autumnal breeze.

Keep still. Look very closley. Listen very carefully. And pray you never face. . . .

 

THE ROGUE SQUIRREL!!!!

There's this infectious little station promo VH1 has in rotation right now, you may have seen it. It's another clipfest filled with retro-style animations and a slew of singers from the 80's, 90's, and the current decade. But the real hook is in the music. It starts off with a high-pitched six-note hook that sounds like somone put too much helium in their Moog, which is looped and then layered with some studio-work guitar and the refrain "come, come on, come on get up and dance with me." (Apparently it's a remixed version of The Sounds' "Dance With Me")

I find it utterly irrestiable; it's what a good pop song should be: light, catchy, and yet a level of sincereity that gives it slightly greater meaning than the simplicity of the music and lyrics would first suggest.

It's fitting, in some way I have yet to fathom, that I find myself enjoying this promo. I seem to have become a bit of a VH1-junkie in the last few weeks. The station seems to have found a way to tap into the people who've outgrown MTV. A large part of that seems to be by tapping into the nostalgia market and sucking it dry, though they throw in enough Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to stay trendy.

But I have to admit when it comes to channel surfing, VH1 is always a preferred stop. The past week I got suckered into watching the first two seasons of "The Surreal Life" which, like that damn promo spot, was just intriguing enough to keep me from chaning the channel despite being composed of elemnts I usually can't stand.

It's sad to realize you're part of a demographic. You can proclaim your individuality and your anti-establishment creed all you want but ultimately, in the fractionization of mass media, there's a corporation out there that has figured out to broadcast exactly what appeals to you. You are not a snowflake. You may not be the lowest common denominator but, in the end, you really are just another statistic in some corporations demographic landscape.

Another case in point: the gonzoiation of A&E and Bravo. Remember when these stations were the "arty" networks? Now Bravo has "Showbiz Mom's and Dads"; and how such shows as "Family Plots" and "Aline" qualify as Art 7 entertainment (well, it is entertaining) I have no idea. (Yes, that last parenthetical joke was specifically for Noah. Hi, buddy.) I suppose what gets me is that it's such a blatant admission of lower standards so they can grab a bigger piece of the viewing audience. (But isn't that the name of the game?)

There's a far more cohesive point to all this, but despite what the time-stamp says, it's well after midnight and my brain is losing coherency worse than normal. But it's been too long since I posted and there's something about that VH1 promo spot that keeps looking in my brain. I'd rather this didn't devolve into a post decrying the MTV-culture and the loss of attention-spans and oh, isn't reality TV such crap, blah blah blah; there's already plenty of those rants out there. So let's just say I appreciate the irony in a TV station using a song that asks you to get up in dance when all that station really wants to do is keep you glued to the couch.

Look, what does it take to get you people to Delphi? I mean, seriously, you log-in as a guest or take three second to become a member and you can enjoy untold goodness of self-depricating Britons and more inciteful news coverage than most American newspapers.

And if that won't convince you, maybe this will:

The V is holding their semi-annual Hotness poll. They start off with about a hundfred or so celebs from the US and Europe (this year the pool starts with 150 men and 150 women; apparently The V couldn't decide who to pick and just choose everyone) and they wittle the list down until one male and one emale remain. Voting in each round lasts a week and includes varying degress of commentary and posting of pictures to sway voters. The whole thing started last Monday, so you can still get in fairly early. Currently contenders include:

The casts of he Lord of the Rings and Kill Bill, Charlie's Angles, Sean Connery, Gabriel Byrne, Minnie Driver, Ewen McGreggor, Catherine Zeta Jones, Kevin Beacon, Rachel Leigh Cook, Vin Disel, Faruza Balk, Nic Cage, Hilary duff, Seth Green, Sharon Stone, Jack Black, Catherine Ann Moss, Tome Cruise, Thora Birch, Al Pacina, Rene Russo, John Malkovich, Susan Surandon, Harrison Ford, Jodie Foster, Dennis Quaid, Jamie Leigh Curtis, Martin Sheen, Kate Winslet, Ralph Finnes, Helna Bohnam Carter, Alan Rickman, Kate Beckinsdale, Rupert Evertt, Gary Oldman, Kiera Knightley, Michael Vartan, Neve Campbell, Patrick Stewart, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rob Lowe, Jeanene Garafalo, Timothy Olyphant, Katie Holmes, Will Smith, Christina Applegate, Eddie Izzard, Jennifer Love Hewitt, John Cusak, Rese Witherspoon, Luke and Owen Wilson, The Olsen Twins, Jamie Foxx, Gina Gershon, Omar Epps, Matt Damon, Jennifer Tilly, Josh Hartnett, Sandra Bullock, Ryan Phillppe and you get the idea.

The winners become Sacred Totems of The V and are forever beyond reproach. George Clooney, Allyson Hannigan, Johnny Depp, and Monica Belluci are past luminaries so I know their taste fits yours.

Voting is open to all, so get three to The V Forum and enjoy the voting.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Last Tuesday, Rush's first ever-Ep, Feedback was released. As you damn well should know--for Rush is the Greatest Band Ever and if you are not up on the minutae of All-Things-Rush then I'm obviously not doing my job--2004 marks the 30th anniversary for the band. They're currently on tour to celebrate to occasion, and to further commemorate things they've put out an EP.

The thing is, it's an EP of cover tunes.

Now, Rush fans have always played the "What If" game when it came to Rush playing someone else's material. And Rush has often been asked about recording another artists work, to which they've replied that they always preferred to record their own work over someone else's. Thusly, when word of this EP leaked, all of Rushdom did the classic head-cock-and-"Huh?"

As Rush drummer and lyricist Neil Peart notes in the inside cover, to mark their 30th year as Rush, the band decided not to look back at their own work, but at the work that inspired them to become the band they are. The result are eight late-60's songs, representing some of the best that era had to offer; originals by The Who, Cream, Neil Young, The Yardbirds, Stephen Stills, and Love, re-done by Rush.

It's a beautiful piece of work. It sounds nothing like Rush--even on their first album, when they were just riffing off Led Zepplin and the most bluesy Rush ever was, they didn't sound like this. What a treat it is to hear Alex Lifeson riff-off every 60's Guitar God--from Eric Clapton on "Crossroads" to Neil young on "Mr Soul"--even throwing in a tribute to Hendrix by including the opening riff of "Foxy Lady" as the beginning and end of "Summertime Blues"--Alex's guitar is the sonic equivalent of a kid in a candy store. Neil pounds away on the drums with no less passion than he's every done, but there's less of a technical, deliberate feel to it; the complex and inhuman rythymns he's made his reputation on are absent. Instead there's only the pure joy of drumming, rolling out with abandon on "Seven and Seven Is" and "Shapes of Things". How wonderfully mind-boggling to hear Geddy Lee sing songs differently. His voice may not have the same soothing tone of Stephen Stills on "For What it's Worth" (And can you believe Rush is singing a protest song!?!? How cool is that?), or the sexy gravel of Roger Daltrey on "The Seeker", but you hear echoes of them in Lee's voice and the range Geddy shows on this EP might be the most he's ever done. (And, oh yeah, he's pretty handy with that bass-guitar thing, too.)

And yet it is Rush. The band that never met a seven they didn't like, that went from Zepplin clones to Ayn Rand acolytes to masters of the (pseudo)intellectual pop-song is still there. They don't make the mistake of recording these songs in the classic "Rush style", yet as you listen to these songs you realize it is their style--their musicianship is undeniable. The versions of these classic songs aren't better than the originals and they're not supposed to be. They're simply what happens when musicians who've honed their craft for 30 years decide to pay honest, loving tribute to their inspirations.

Recommending Rush to people is always a dicey thing. Since the band found their voice in 1976, their work has always been an aquired taste. But this is a collection I heartily recommend to any rock fan who never liked Rush. Because while it doesn't "sound" like Rush, it showcases all the things that make Rush great.

This is Part 2. If you're reading this first, scroll down a ways and read part 1, otherwise you'll be slightly confused. And it's hard enough reading these entries as is.

So, at the last stop of my train of thought, I mentioned how there were two possible ways my boss found out about my blog: either my Moroccain co-worker, or someone else. If it was Meftah, then the muystery is solved, the case is closed and life goes on, no harm, no foul. But if it was someone else....

Because, see, here's the thing. I know these entries get Googled. I've gotten random e-mails twice now from people who read something from my blog that came up as they searcedh google. And while i know I've used company names once or twice, I usually stick to first name's to keep the odds of someone who's mentioned on this thing from finding out about it.

Blogs, as a rule, do not have a large viewership. The vast majority of blogs get circulted by a group of friends and that's about it. Blogs like Accordian Guy or The Druge Report are by far the exception to the rule. So then what are the odds that someone is going to find my blog, and not just read the one entry that came up via their web search, but keep reading; keep reading enough to realize where I live and the company I work for; and, on top of all of that, to realize the guy who is my boss just so happens to be a friend of theirs.

I mean, that's pretty fucking amazing, no matter how you look at it.

It also, of course, puts my previously entry in a new light. Because, I'd say its risky enough to continue to write about work knowing my boss could stop on by and check out what I'm writing, but riskier still when you consider that, even if Matt doesn't do that, whoever tipped him off to my blog is still reading it regularly and can easily alert him whenever anything juicy comes up.

Yeah, I'm talkin' 'bout you, pal.

Now, I fully understand: you pay your money, you take your chances. This blog may not be as uber-connected as some, but it's for public reading. By starting a blog and by choosing the subjects I'm posting about, whether I consider the possibility reasonable or unlikely, I automatically accept the responsibility of being held liable for whatever I post here. So that this blog made its way to Matt is not a problem. Embarassing, sure, but hardly the end of the word (just more fodder for maddengly verbose entries). The beauty of reading blogs is that you get to voyuer in on someone else's life without having to reciprocate.

All the same, if you--whoever you are, be you one person or ten or fifty or five thousand--who read this blog and know who I am, I'd like to know who you are. No one said life is fair--there is, I admit, an unreasonability in expecting my readers to come forward--but if life isn't fair then turnabout is perfectly legal.

Thusly: who reads this thing? If you are not my friend; if I do not know you, if you found this blog because you stumbled across it; were given the address by linkage far beyond the networking of Freindster; I'd like to know it. Who are you? How did you find my site? Do you like it? Hate it? Laugh with it or at it? Do you forward incriminating information to Johnny Ashcroft? Or is this merely your secret guilty pleasure?

Drop me an e-mail at craig@shadowgalaxy.net. Don't be shy. Hell, if I get enough e-mails I might be convinced to finally put a comment section on this thing. The anonimity of the internet is the anthesis of its very purpose. So drop me a note and say hello.

I recieved an e-mail from my boss on Friday. He was writing to say he enjoyed reading my blog.

I wish I had the e-mail handy, I'd post it so you can see the exact wording. He worte with mock indignation for not being given my Tori collection via my living will. He also said I could borrow is unread copy of Ulysess if I wanted it. It was quite funny and I would've laughed a lot more if the second post on the page wasn't about how I was getting my resume together to find another job.

I wrote back to him, saying I suppose we should have a conversation when he returns from Morocco (where he is currently, and from where he sent the e-mail). However, his reply was most interesting. He said (paraphrasing) "I don't see why not. A friend of mine gave me your link saying 'hey doesn't this guy work for you'. If you want to talk that's fine but I was just busting on you for having a blog because I never knew anyone who had one."

Now, this was intriguing for several reasons. You see, when I was in Morocco, I remember giving Meftah, one of the people who worked there, my website. I wasn't worried about the blog; this was before I had any idea that our plant might be closing and that I'd be moving and I didn't think he'd find it interesting anyway. So when everything went down and I began writing about things on my blog, I didn't think Meftah might still be reading. That Matt wrote from Morocco, specifically commenting on a Morocco-specific entry, automatically made me presume Meftah must have shown him the blog. But, as I've said before, Matt's always been straight for me. There'd be no reason for him to lie about how he found the Blog. So perhaps it wasn't Meftah and it was a friend of his. But if it wasn't, that opens up a whole 'nother realm to consider. But I'll get to that momentarily.

The big thing is that Matt said there's no need to talk about anything I've written here. Now, we all know there's been lots of work-related tid-bits on my blog. And, theoretically, it's always possible a co-worker could stumble onto this place. But it's my blog so I see n oreason why not to talk about the plant closing, and beyond that, what's the most incriminating thing here? My crush on Brenda? Big deal--if the office didn't know about that already then their obliviousness would be astonishing.

No, the real worry, for me, is that I'm leaving the job prior to the office closing. Because, really, all my good fortune has been due to him. He gave me the promotion, giving me more responsibilities, he went to the big-wigs and said "hey, if you need people in Reynosa, you should consider Craig", he's the one trying to find a way to keep me in the company even if I don't go to Reynosa (which I don't think I ever got around to writing about here; but I digress.) Bottom line: he's gone to bat for me and for him to read on a blog that I'm moving on . . . well, that's just not fair to him.

But he's giving me an out. He must have read the My Employed Life entry. It was the second one on the page and he's my boss, how the hell could he not have read it? (Unless he exercised amazing self-control, which is possible but unlikely and even if he did skip over it, there's about a half dozen other innocuously-titled entries that would have tipped him off.) I can't possibly see how he could find my blog and not read about it. And yet I also can't possibly see how his response can be taken in any way other than that he's OK with it.

I've talked it over with a few people and they both say "take the out" and leave things unsaid. Of course, I hate leaving things unsaid and the idea of this hanging in the air . . . I mean I still like my job, still want to do well with it, want to learn more about I and do more; can you honestly see Matt wanting to give more wrok and responsibility to the guy who's going to jump ship in a few months? At least, if we hashed it out face-to-face, it could be said and made definitive and we'd all know where we stand. And at the very least I can explain to him, in person, why I've chosen to leave.

So lay down the betting on whether or not I say anything to my boss. For the record, if I don't mention it after this psot, you can presume I didn't talk to him. If I did you'll have yet another rambling post waiting for you in the not-so-distant future.