This is my brand new blog. As a general rule it will always be hilarious, always be enlightening, and generally be short. life in the greater Los Angeles area will be the general grist for the mill here, although the occassional foray into politics, art/media criticism, and of course that special area of expertise for bloggers, pointless blathering and self-indulgent whining. Below are a few older things, that I've posted here to get you all started. If there's anything you'd like me to tackle just let me know.
ENJOY!
Friday, September 7, 2007
The New American Lexicon (Part 1)
I've been finding new words like a mad man, and so i thought i would start an installment plan to allow all of you, my valued and beloved readers the opprotunity to share in this verdant verbal feast. Each word will have a story about where it came from, a definition, and an example of usage. Each entry will have a few new words that have something in common, which I am going to call Assosciatives, even though I don't think that is really a word. Add it to the lexicon. For instance: In this, installment one of an ongoing series, are words that sound kinda gay, but really, they aren't i swear.
1. Fag Along- While spending some time with a friend, we were commenting on the fact that all his brother's friends were gay men. My friend said that it was like his brother was a fag hag. I pointed out that a fag hag is a straight woman who hangs out with gay men, which is clearly not what the brother was. After a few attempts at a new word for the straight man with a majority of gay friends, I hit upon the term "fag along", which has it's root in the phrase "tag along", or one who follows a group.
Fag Along- (n) A straight man who hangs out mostly with gay men, attending gay functions, parades, clubs etc, but with no interest in a sexual liasion.
"Hi my name is Andy, and this is my friend Eric. I know Eric is cute, but leave him alone guys, he's my fag along."
2. Broner-I can't take credit for creating this one. This one was used in an episode of Californication recently. Hank is talking to his agent about what it's called when a man makes physical contact with another man, and feels a little "tingle" down there. After a while he comes up with broner.
Broner- (n) An unintentional erection caused by another man. Not sexual in nature.
"So my girlfriend got me a massage this weekend, and it was great, but while the guy was working on the knots in my shoulder I got a little bit of a broner. Kinda awkward dude."
3. Bromantic- A couple of weeks ago a friend and I were hanging out at my place, watching movies, drinking wine, shooting pool, and swimming. At one point I turned to him and said, "ya know, if you were a beautiful woman, this would be a totally romantic night....But you're not a girl, so tonight is more.....bromantic."
Bromantic- (Adj) A descriptive term for a night spent with one or more male friends during which typical "date" activities (of a non sexual nature)are partaken. i.e. Dinner, movies, drinks, etc.
"Last night Dan and I went to this really cool little lounge bar and drank martinis. It was totally bromantic until we met these two girls."
I am giving you these words and I hope you use them. Just please, if anyone asks you where you got it, direct them to this blog. I'd like to increase my reader base in the hope that i can turn this into a money making endeavour and stop whoring myself.
Some Upcoming Assosciatives:
Sexual Terms (Things that make the donkey punch look like missionary)
New Drinks
New Drinking Lingo
Business Place double entendres
...
AND MANY MORE!!! STAY TUNED!
1. Fag Along- While spending some time with a friend, we were commenting on the fact that all his brother's friends were gay men. My friend said that it was like his brother was a fag hag. I pointed out that a fag hag is a straight woman who hangs out with gay men, which is clearly not what the brother was. After a few attempts at a new word for the straight man with a majority of gay friends, I hit upon the term "fag along", which has it's root in the phrase "tag along", or one who follows a group.
Fag Along- (n) A straight man who hangs out mostly with gay men, attending gay functions, parades, clubs etc, but with no interest in a sexual liasion.
"Hi my name is Andy, and this is my friend Eric. I know Eric is cute, but leave him alone guys, he's my fag along."
2. Broner-I can't take credit for creating this one. This one was used in an episode of Californication recently. Hank is talking to his agent about what it's called when a man makes physical contact with another man, and feels a little "tingle" down there. After a while he comes up with broner.
Broner- (n) An unintentional erection caused by another man. Not sexual in nature.
"So my girlfriend got me a massage this weekend, and it was great, but while the guy was working on the knots in my shoulder I got a little bit of a broner. Kinda awkward dude."
3. Bromantic- A couple of weeks ago a friend and I were hanging out at my place, watching movies, drinking wine, shooting pool, and swimming. At one point I turned to him and said, "ya know, if you were a beautiful woman, this would be a totally romantic night....But you're not a girl, so tonight is more.....bromantic."
Bromantic- (Adj) A descriptive term for a night spent with one or more male friends during which typical "date" activities (of a non sexual nature)are partaken. i.e. Dinner, movies, drinks, etc.
"Last night Dan and I went to this really cool little lounge bar and drank martinis. It was totally bromantic until we met these two girls."
I am giving you these words and I hope you use them. Just please, if anyone asks you where you got it, direct them to this blog. I'd like to increase my reader base in the hope that i can turn this into a money making endeavour and stop whoring myself.
Some Upcoming Assosciatives:
Sexual Terms (Things that make the donkey punch look like missionary)
New Drinks
New Drinking Lingo
Business Place double entendres
...
AND MANY MORE!!! STAY TUNED!
Teenage Commutin Ninja Turtles
Is it just me or does the President's decision to commute I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence seem retarded, even for a guy who thinks that the words "decider" and "strategery" make sense in common speech?
I understand that this is a power specifically granted the president in the Constitution, and I suppose we should be glad it is there, since he usually ignores that silly old piece of paper anyway...at least THIS TIME he didn't just make up a new power for himself, unlike when he ignored that silly ol' fourth amendment about unlawful search and seizure (warrentless wiretapping), or when he began to issue "signing statements" effectively nullifying parts of the law that may prove bothersome later, or when he decided that the only African groups that would get AIDS aid (see how i used the same word twice to mean different things? Clever, eh? And, unlike the President, it actually made sense when I did it.) were those that preached abstinence only, since any form of contraception is against the will of the Lord God (Who needs that dumb First Amendment? We weren't using it anyway.). Apparently God wants African babies to be born with AIDS. That'll teach them to be born to poor people. Maybe next time they'll find a nice family in Newport Beach, or Westlake Village to have them...sorry, that went on a little longer than I intended, but there are just so many great things to say about the way this administration has used the Constitution as fish wrapping...
Back to my main point, I understand that the President has the power to commute or pardon any sentence he feels like, and I even think that it's a good thing the President can do that. But really. Scooter Libby? Scooter Libby, who didn't even serve a single DAY in prison or jail? To quote Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, "...Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail." Paris Hilton went and served her time, and Libby doesn't have to do anything but pay a fine? Are you really telling me that driving on a suspended license is a worse offense than Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and what, when you get right down to it, amounts to TREASON (Outting a covert CIA operative.)? If that's the case, why don't you issue post-humous (that means they're already dead Mr. President) pardons or commutations to Benedict Arnold and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? They all committed treason too.
My point is not that the President shouldn't exercise this power. He should, it's a good thing. But he should start with people who ACTUALLY deserve it. Start with people who have actually served some time, and maybe learned a lesson or two. Instead, he uses it to let his buddy play a get out of jail free card.
In regard to the commutation, Barack Obama said, "The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and it's ideology above the law." Typically, this is the point of a Presidency when the administration starts to worry about the legacy they leave behind, and how they will be remembered. I believe that's at least part of the reason that President Bush pushed for the Immigration reform bill. He wanted people to have some positive things to look at from his time in office. But apparently, now that the bill has been defeated, he doesn't care about his legacy anymore, and is just doing whatever he pleases with the time left to him.
I suppose the real reason this bothers me, when you get right down to it, is that some sub-concious part of me wanted to believe that, (Even though I disagree with the man's politics, and he's shown me time and again that he doesn't.) he still had some sort of integrity, more out of hope that the office, if not the man, would have less of a stain.
But after freeing Scooter Libby, any last shred or vestage of faith I had in this president has been blown away.
Hopefully he can make it through these final months of his abortion of a presidency without fucking up too badly.
(P.S.: Teenage Commutin Ninja Turtles is a reference to the fact that Dick Cheney kinda looks like a turtle. An evil one. Don't believe me? Go to: http://www.iflipflop.com/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg He really does look like an evil turtle doesn't he?)
(P.P.S.: And just as a fun reminder, George W. Bush looks like a chimp. Don't believe me? Go to: http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/7/bush_chimp.jpg Now you can never doubt me again.)
I understand that this is a power specifically granted the president in the Constitution, and I suppose we should be glad it is there, since he usually ignores that silly old piece of paper anyway...at least THIS TIME he didn't just make up a new power for himself, unlike when he ignored that silly ol' fourth amendment about unlawful search and seizure (warrentless wiretapping), or when he began to issue "signing statements" effectively nullifying parts of the law that may prove bothersome later, or when he decided that the only African groups that would get AIDS aid (see how i used the same word twice to mean different things? Clever, eh? And, unlike the President, it actually made sense when I did it.) were those that preached abstinence only, since any form of contraception is against the will of the Lord God (Who needs that dumb First Amendment? We weren't using it anyway.). Apparently God wants African babies to be born with AIDS. That'll teach them to be born to poor people. Maybe next time they'll find a nice family in Newport Beach, or Westlake Village to have them...sorry, that went on a little longer than I intended, but there are just so many great things to say about the way this administration has used the Constitution as fish wrapping...
Back to my main point, I understand that the President has the power to commute or pardon any sentence he feels like, and I even think that it's a good thing the President can do that. But really. Scooter Libby? Scooter Libby, who didn't even serve a single DAY in prison or jail? To quote Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, "...Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail." Paris Hilton went and served her time, and Libby doesn't have to do anything but pay a fine? Are you really telling me that driving on a suspended license is a worse offense than Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and what, when you get right down to it, amounts to TREASON (Outting a covert CIA operative.)? If that's the case, why don't you issue post-humous (that means they're already dead Mr. President) pardons or commutations to Benedict Arnold and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? They all committed treason too.
My point is not that the President shouldn't exercise this power. He should, it's a good thing. But he should start with people who ACTUALLY deserve it. Start with people who have actually served some time, and maybe learned a lesson or two. Instead, he uses it to let his buddy play a get out of jail free card.
In regard to the commutation, Barack Obama said, "The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and it's ideology above the law." Typically, this is the point of a Presidency when the administration starts to worry about the legacy they leave behind, and how they will be remembered. I believe that's at least part of the reason that President Bush pushed for the Immigration reform bill. He wanted people to have some positive things to look at from his time in office. But apparently, now that the bill has been defeated, he doesn't care about his legacy anymore, and is just doing whatever he pleases with the time left to him.
I suppose the real reason this bothers me, when you get right down to it, is that some sub-concious part of me wanted to believe that, (Even though I disagree with the man's politics, and he's shown me time and again that he doesn't.) he still had some sort of integrity, more out of hope that the office, if not the man, would have less of a stain.
But after freeing Scooter Libby, any last shred or vestage of faith I had in this president has been blown away.
Hopefully he can make it through these final months of his abortion of a presidency without fucking up too badly.
(P.S.: Teenage Commutin Ninja Turtles is a reference to the fact that Dick Cheney kinda looks like a turtle. An evil one. Don't believe me? Go to: http://www.iflipflop.com/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg He really does look like an evil turtle doesn't he?)
(P.P.S.: And just as a fun reminder, George W. Bush looks like a chimp. Don't believe me? Go to: http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/7/bush_chimp.jpg Now you can never doubt me again.)
Iraq Z
So I'm a little confused about the whole iraq situation.
before i go any further let me, in the interest of full disclosure say:
I am a liberal. Not a crazy, tree hugging one, but i definitely lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum.
On the one hand, i think it is the job of the government to take care of ALL people, not just the wealthy, but i also don't think that people should just be given a hand out. if the government is giving you money to help you survive, you need to be making every effort to find a source of income for yourself.
I believe that there is such a thing as global warming, I think that a big cause of it is big gas guzzling cars, but I DO drive an SUV. I carpool everywhere I can, try to walk whenever possible, etc, but still, my car gets really bad gas mileage.
I believe in a woman's right to choose, but i don't think abortion should be some sort of last chance birth control. if you're gonna bone, get a condom, on the pill, patch or shot, whatever...to paraphrase President Clinton's view on abortion, it should be Safe, Legal, and Rare.
Just to make sure that no one accuses me of being some goddamn treehugging commie hippie liberal, I wanted to lay those facts out there. I am definitely middle of the road, politically.
Now that i've got that out of the way, I just really don't understand the foreign policy of this country. I know that the president is the only person who has the constitutional right/responsibility to set a foreign policy, but congress and the courts DO have checks and balances for a reason. mostly to keep a president from becoming a psycho autocratic ruler who can just do whatever he wants. but congress and the courts haven't been using those checks and things are just going frickin HAYWIRE.
in november the country issued a clear mandate to the government. we do not support the war in iraq. That mandate was certainly more clear cut than the one President Bush claimed after the 2004 election (that would be his "clear mandate" of a whopping .1% victory) The majority of democratic congress people who were elected ran on not much other than that. but they haven't done anything to put a check on the president's war. they have had a few chances now to try to change the course of events in iraq, and in each case they have backed down.
and just to put this out there, i am completely torn on the issue of the war. On the one hand, I never supported the war, I thought that "wmd" was complete bullshit, but now that we have completely FUCKED this country (a sovereign nation that never attacked us, by the way) I feel like we have a responsibility to help fix it. but clearly, what we have been doing to try to fix it isn't working. more people die every day, (not always americans, but contrary to what you hear on the TV, turns out Iraqis are human beings too.) and it has become increasingly clear that what we are doing IS NOT WORKING. So we need to try SOMETHING else. I can't say WHAT else we should. I don't have access to any of the information that is necessary to make an informed decision on how to fix things. but other people, Congress, the military, the cabinet, and the president himself, DO. It is all of their responsibility to try to fix this mess somehow.
Thats all...sorry if this was a bit long winded or less than clear and concise. it was brought up because i have a friend shipping out to Iraq in less than a week, and I thought by now we would be starting to bring people home, not sending more out.
Anyways, If you think i'm completely off base tell me. If you think i'm right tell me. Just please don't either a.) call me a terrorist, or french, or any of the other things you right wingers like to call anyone who disagrees with you, or b.) just say "fuck bush" or "pull the troops out yesterday" or anything you left wingers like to throw out when you don't have anything helpful to say. I'd love to have a logical, sensible dialogue with people about this issue, so let me know what you think.
before i go any further let me, in the interest of full disclosure say:
I am a liberal. Not a crazy, tree hugging one, but i definitely lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum.
On the one hand, i think it is the job of the government to take care of ALL people, not just the wealthy, but i also don't think that people should just be given a hand out. if the government is giving you money to help you survive, you need to be making every effort to find a source of income for yourself.
I believe that there is such a thing as global warming, I think that a big cause of it is big gas guzzling cars, but I DO drive an SUV. I carpool everywhere I can, try to walk whenever possible, etc, but still, my car gets really bad gas mileage.
I believe in a woman's right to choose, but i don't think abortion should be some sort of last chance birth control. if you're gonna bone, get a condom, on the pill, patch or shot, whatever...to paraphrase President Clinton's view on abortion, it should be Safe, Legal, and Rare.
Just to make sure that no one accuses me of being some goddamn treehugging commie hippie liberal, I wanted to lay those facts out there. I am definitely middle of the road, politically.
Now that i've got that out of the way, I just really don't understand the foreign policy of this country. I know that the president is the only person who has the constitutional right/responsibility to set a foreign policy, but congress and the courts DO have checks and balances for a reason. mostly to keep a president from becoming a psycho autocratic ruler who can just do whatever he wants. but congress and the courts haven't been using those checks and things are just going frickin HAYWIRE.
in november the country issued a clear mandate to the government. we do not support the war in iraq. That mandate was certainly more clear cut than the one President Bush claimed after the 2004 election (that would be his "clear mandate" of a whopping .1% victory) The majority of democratic congress people who were elected ran on not much other than that. but they haven't done anything to put a check on the president's war. they have had a few chances now to try to change the course of events in iraq, and in each case they have backed down.
and just to put this out there, i am completely torn on the issue of the war. On the one hand, I never supported the war, I thought that "wmd" was complete bullshit, but now that we have completely FUCKED this country (a sovereign nation that never attacked us, by the way) I feel like we have a responsibility to help fix it. but clearly, what we have been doing to try to fix it isn't working. more people die every day, (not always americans, but contrary to what you hear on the TV, turns out Iraqis are human beings too.) and it has become increasingly clear that what we are doing IS NOT WORKING. So we need to try SOMETHING else. I can't say WHAT else we should. I don't have access to any of the information that is necessary to make an informed decision on how to fix things. but other people, Congress, the military, the cabinet, and the president himself, DO. It is all of their responsibility to try to fix this mess somehow.
Thats all...sorry if this was a bit long winded or less than clear and concise. it was brought up because i have a friend shipping out to Iraq in less than a week, and I thought by now we would be starting to bring people home, not sending more out.
Anyways, If you think i'm completely off base tell me. If you think i'm right tell me. Just please don't either a.) call me a terrorist, or french, or any of the other things you right wingers like to call anyone who disagrees with you, or b.) just say "fuck bush" or "pull the troops out yesterday" or anything you left wingers like to throw out when you don't have anything helpful to say. I'd love to have a logical, sensible dialogue with people about this issue, so let me know what you think.
What a tool...
you know you're a total tool when you spend 3 hours...yes hours... engrossed in history channel shows about star wars.
The first two hours was a show about the legends that star wars was based on. Of course most everyone (at least everyone who took rolland's rhet crit class) knows about the hero's journey, and that it was the basis for the star wars movies. but i did learn a few other interesting things:
-When Vader cuts off luke's hand, it was meant to symbolize the "mark of cain" (the mark God put on Cain after he murdered Abel) because it was a mark of the sins of the father, that were passed to the son. (in the case of star wars, Anakin's arrogant belief that he could face a sith lord as a mere padawan.)
-The word "mentor" comes from the oddessy, and was the name of the loyal servant to oddyseus who watched over and taught oddyseus' son while oddyseus was away.
-leia and padme represent "the feminine," which is the same thing that the davinci code talks about mary magdelene representing.
The last hour was a show about the technology of star wars, and what is actually feasible today. Most of it I watched and said "well, no shit...it's a fucking MOVIE. Of course it's not real." However:
-The suit that keeps vader alive is not only plausible, but is only a few years away from being common place.
-the ion engines that power the spaceships in starwars when they AREN'T at lightspeed are real...NASA uses them for deep space, unmanned probes. (Faster than light travel is still alas, only a dream.)
-Lightsabers are possible. thats right...FUCKING LIGHTSABERS ARE FUCKING POSSIBLE....They would actually be made of plasma, which is the fourth state of matter...yes, there's a 4th state of matter, not just liquid solid and gas like they told us in school, i'll explain it later if you'd like...at this point to make something like a lightsaber would take a warehouse full of equipment to run, as opposed to something that fits in your hand, but then again, the blackberry in my pocket has more computing power than the computers that it took a warehouse to house 60 years ago.
anyways, just in case any of you were unclear on just how dorky I am, this should settle it for you.
The first two hours was a show about the legends that star wars was based on. Of course most everyone (at least everyone who took rolland's rhet crit class) knows about the hero's journey, and that it was the basis for the star wars movies. but i did learn a few other interesting things:
-When Vader cuts off luke's hand, it was meant to symbolize the "mark of cain" (the mark God put on Cain after he murdered Abel) because it was a mark of the sins of the father, that were passed to the son. (in the case of star wars, Anakin's arrogant belief that he could face a sith lord as a mere padawan.)
-The word "mentor" comes from the oddessy, and was the name of the loyal servant to oddyseus who watched over and taught oddyseus' son while oddyseus was away.
-leia and padme represent "the feminine," which is the same thing that the davinci code talks about mary magdelene representing.
The last hour was a show about the technology of star wars, and what is actually feasible today. Most of it I watched and said "well, no shit...it's a fucking MOVIE. Of course it's not real." However:
-The suit that keeps vader alive is not only plausible, but is only a few years away from being common place.
-the ion engines that power the spaceships in starwars when they AREN'T at lightspeed are real...NASA uses them for deep space, unmanned probes. (Faster than light travel is still alas, only a dream.)
-Lightsabers are possible. thats right...FUCKING LIGHTSABERS ARE FUCKING POSSIBLE....They would actually be made of plasma, which is the fourth state of matter...yes, there's a 4th state of matter, not just liquid solid and gas like they told us in school, i'll explain it later if you'd like...at this point to make something like a lightsaber would take a warehouse full of equipment to run, as opposed to something that fits in your hand, but then again, the blackberry in my pocket has more computing power than the computers that it took a warehouse to house 60 years ago.
anyways, just in case any of you were unclear on just how dorky I am, this should settle it for you.
Waxing Philosophic In The Hills
So i know I am breaking at least a few man laws by doing this, but...
I was watching the hills last night on MTV, and I was so stoked that Heidi finally decided to ditch spencer. the guy is one GIANT bag of douche and a half. He cheated on her all the time, and even tried to hook up with one of her close friends.
Heidi is crazy hot, and the closest spencer ever came to doing anything remotely boyfriendy for her was when he tried to stick up for her to one of her co-workers...but even that turned into him trying to start a fight with the guy, and making fun of his sunglasses. Such a total douche.
So at the end of last week/the beginning of this week, she sent him packing. Cool. She's hot, she works the line at area, which is like a block from my best friends place, so i can totally hook it up. except then, at the end of the episode, she decides to give the guy a second chance.
Why do you girls do that? what is it about total douche bag cheating guys that you find attractive?
I know I know, this is a lot of ridiculousness considering it was brought on by The Hills, but I just can never understand that shit, and seeing it on that show distilled the whole process down to it's essence in one quick half hour. start of show: you're a cheating douche. end of the show: i'm sorry, it was all my fault.
Huh?
Can anyone explain this? (Other than the pat: "girl's like bad boys" or "girls like guys who treat them like shit" I mean explain WHY they like people who treat them like shit.)
I was watching the hills last night on MTV, and I was so stoked that Heidi finally decided to ditch spencer. the guy is one GIANT bag of douche and a half. He cheated on her all the time, and even tried to hook up with one of her close friends.
Heidi is crazy hot, and the closest spencer ever came to doing anything remotely boyfriendy for her was when he tried to stick up for her to one of her co-workers...but even that turned into him trying to start a fight with the guy, and making fun of his sunglasses. Such a total douche.
So at the end of last week/the beginning of this week, she sent him packing. Cool. She's hot, she works the line at area, which is like a block from my best friends place, so i can totally hook it up. except then, at the end of the episode, she decides to give the guy a second chance.
Why do you girls do that? what is it about total douche bag cheating guys that you find attractive?
I know I know, this is a lot of ridiculousness considering it was brought on by The Hills, but I just can never understand that shit, and seeing it on that show distilled the whole process down to it's essence in one quick half hour. start of show: you're a cheating douche. end of the show: i'm sorry, it was all my fault.
Huh?
Can anyone explain this? (Other than the pat: "girl's like bad boys" or "girls like guys who treat them like shit" I mean explain WHY they like people who treat them like shit.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)