Obligatory "I Haven't Posted in 2 Weeks" Post

So I don't have an awful lot to say but feel an obligation to add something after two weeks of silence. Maybe the curse of writing about Paris Hilton has given me writer's block. But probably it's just that I've had my hands full with school and work and haven't had much of interest to say. I have class all day tomorrow and then one more lecture on Wednesday and then final the following Wednesday and that will do it. Can't wait to get to June 6th so I can celebrate, but there's still a fair amount of work to be done till then.

This weekend is crammed full of sibling-tastic action! My older brother Mike is in town and Christy and I will be showing him, his wife, and my four nieces and nephews around the city after class on Saturday. Then they are all crashing at our place. Yep, there will be a total of 8 people sleeping in our one bedroom apartment (cue circus clown music). Then on Sunday we are off to my Dad's for my other brother Joe's (aka Mooney) college graduation party. Having a younger sibling graduate from college really makes me feel old. At least I'm staying a degree ahead of him though. Then on Monday we are heading out to Christy's P's place for her brother Mike's birthday. Things don't slow down after the weekend, though. Tuesday night I'm going to the Cubs game and then Wednesday night I have class. Of course, right after that I will need to start studying for my final. Well, I guess the good news is that the next couple weeks should fly by. In other words, don't be surprised if there's another conspicuous absence of posts for a while.

I ran in the Chase Corporate Challenge last night. 3 and a half miles through the streets around Grant Park. In the words of my dad, "it's a crap race." It's just not very well organized and it's such a cluster, since you have serious runners, non-serious runners, and walkers all mixed in and starting at the same time. For the first 2 miles there's no sense of pacing; you alternate between running as fast as you can whenever you can and being bunched up in a huge pack of people at a walking pace. Nevertheless, I was pretty happy with my time (37:32); especially considering that it took me at least a minute and a half to cross the starting line so my real time was probably closer to 36:00. This was the first (and by far the easiest) of my 3 "warm-up" races. The next one is a 10-miler in late July; then the half-marathon in mid-August. I'll get a much better sense for how realistic running the marathon is after those.

I did have some time to finish a couple quick reads that I can heartily recommend for anyone looking for something they can get through on a plane ride or a weekend at the beach. First I read Lewis Black's book "Nothing Sacred" and it's a lot different than you'd expect (if you are familiar with his stand-up). While he certainly mixes-in some of his material it's mainly a bio and he's a lot more of a softy than you'd ever expect from listening to his rants. He's pretty much the epitomy of the "all bark with no bite" type of personality, and I don't mean that as a negative at all. Overall, there's nothing phenomenal about the book, but he's lived a pretty interesting life in a pretty interesting time and he's presented it in a very cohesive, fluid, humorouos way.

The other book I read was Bob Harris' "Prisoner of Trebekistan." It's about his experiences on Jeopardy! but is much more interesting than that probably makes it sound. There's a lot of info about the behind-the-scenes stuff (some psyching out but mainly more of a Mensa-type fraternity of really smart people) and also gives some insight into what Alex Trebek is really like (a really nice guy who is unfailingly professional). Finally, he also gives some good tips on how to memorize long lists of things in an easy way and make it stick. After reading the book I used his ideas and memorized all the U.S. Presidents in order (you can quiz me next time you see me) and it only took me about an hour. I also have learned all the South American, African, and Asian countries, though I don't know exactly where they all are on the map yet. I might tackle the Vice Presidents or all the country capitals next. Useless knowledge is fun! Anyway, pretty much the same things that applied to the Lewis Black book apply here, though I have to say that this is a better book. Though it gets a little preachy about some things at times, to me it never went over the top, and there is humor throughout. In fact, a couple of the jokes he sets up and pays off so beautifully I literally had to put the book down because I was laughing so hard. But then again, I'm a huge dork.

Have a good Memorial Day everyone!

Delusional

de·lu·sion

1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

This week I’ll return to some lighthearted fare. I read two stories this past week that caught my eye, both of which I view with a certain amount of contempt and left me shaking my head after I read them. However, while I have no problem lampooning one, I am borderline ashamed to even discuss the other. First, a man is suing a husband & wife-owned dry-cleaning service for losing a pair of pants. He wants $65 million for his troubles. Second, Paris Hilton is (hopefully) going to jail. Use your intuition to figure out which one I’m ashamed to bring up. I wasn’t planning to make this definition intro a recurring theme (and still am not), but I was unable to read either of these stories without hearing the word “delusional” over and over again in my head. I didn’t mind, though. Frankly, it was a nice break from the voice that’s always telling me to start fires.

First things first. You can read all about the absurdity of the man suing over a $65 million dollar pair of pants here: http://tinyurl.com/2p97gy. Now I know that there are an enormous amount of frivolous lawsuits filed every day in this country, but there are a few things that make this situation unique. The main one is that the man who is suing is himself a judge. That means that someone whose main job requirement is to know the law and remain fair and impartial has determined that his is a reasonable action. The other astounding thing is that this case has been going on for two years; it wasn’t simply reviewed once and tossed out immediately, as most reasonable people would think would happen.

To summarize for those that don’t feel like reading it, in 2005 this judge brought in a pair of pants to have alterations done. When he came back two days later, they told him they had misplaced his pants. They eventually found them, two days later, but then the judge claimed that those weren’t his pants, even though they matched his measurements and the ticket numbers. So since then he has been pressing this suit, and perhaps the only thing more ridiculous than his actions is the creativity that has been involved in coming up with the figure of $65 million. Since he doesn’t want to go back to that dry cleaners anymore, he believes he is entitled to the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another dry cleaners. While that in itself seems pretty ridiculous, that only comes to a paltry $15,000. The bulk of the rest comes from his allegation that the cleaners have been in violation of 12 consumer protection laws (doesn’t specify which ones) since they opened (1200 days ago) and at $1500 per violation, per day, per defendant (3) that comes to a cool $64.8 million. I will repeat: This man is an active judge! There are people that come before him in court every day and he decides their punishment. Think you have any chance of talking your way out of a speeding ticket in this guy’s court? Hardly. You’d probably be lucky if he didn’t give you the death penalty along with all your blood relatives and anyone you’ve ever spoken more than 15 words to, just to make an example out of you.

Listen, I understand how the legal system works. Really, I do. I understand the concept of punitive damages that are designed to go above and beyond the actual harm caused to serve as a deterrent. But following the letter of the law shouldn’t mean that we abandon common sense. For those having trouble deciphering where the line is in this case, let me just offer this guideline: when you are making the woman who sued McDonald’s for $3 million after spilling hot coffee on herself look reasonable, you have gone too far.

Now we come to Paris, and I know that there is way too much said about her already. I know that giving this attention, even in a derogatory way, is still giving attention to something that doesn’t deserve it. I further know that there are approximately 9.7 billion topics (I counted) that are more worthy of discussion than this one. I know all of this. And yet I can’t help myself. Not after I read the petition. It’s just too damn funny, and I have to say something about it. For those of you that haven’t heard (and if you haven’t please let me know, as I wish to emulate your life in every possible way) Ms. Paris Hilton has recently been sentenced to 45 days in jail in connection with a probation violation stemming from her DUI arrest last year. As part of the original deal, her license was suspended through March of this year. Yet she was pulled over on January 15th; she was actually let go by the police after signing a document specifying that she had a suspended license and was not to drive. A month later, she was pulled over again and this time was charged with violating probation.

All that’s just the set-up. Here are the punchlines (and there are a lot of them). At her hearing, her first defense is that her publicist misinformed her by telling her that her license was only suspended for 30 days. I guess in the fantasy world of Hollywoodland, “My publicist didn’t tell me” is a valid, legally admissible defense. It may shock Ms. Hilton to know that there are actually people that exist in the world who manage to know the details of their life (or at least the important ones) even when their publicist doesn’t tell them what they are. And I would think that if you had an IQ that was just slightly higher than your shoe size, after getting out of court the first time a little voice would sound in your head that would say “You just got probation. First, go look that word up. Then, figure out what it means you have to do and not do.” I would further think that you might be better served having someone besides your publicist explain it to you. Like, say, maybe the gentleman with the law degree that you sit next to in the court room and pay all this money to. Her second defense is that when she was stopped in January, informed that she was driving on a suspended license, and forced to sign a sheet saying as much, she “thought the officer was mistaken” and “didn’t really read the document.” So, again, when there is a discrepancy between what the nice gentleman with the uniform and the gun tells you and what you remember your publicist saying, the infallibility of the publicist wins out. I believe, in legalese, this is known as the “It’s Really a Miracle I Can Even Dress Myself” defense. Astoundingly, the judge at the hearing decides this ironclad defense is somehow lacking, and sentences her to 45 days in jail.

Clearly, this is a travesty of justice. And whenever famous people feel slighted, thousands of people living a vicarious existence with far too much time on their hands are going to circulate a petition. And it was after reading this petition to Gov. Schwarzenegger (it still cracks me up to say or write that) that I felt compelled to write this, because it is a document that is so filled with non-reality that the word “delusional” just falls short. There frankly isn’t a word that I know of to describe it. To come close, just stare vacantly into space and start convulsing and drooling on yourself while making a series of increasingly louder clucking noises (extra points for you if you do this while at work).

You can read the whole petition here: http://tinyurl.com/27jshj. Here are just a few of my favorite lines. “She (Paris) provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.” Yes, where would we all be without Paris Hilton? I believe that most of the problems in Iraq stem from the fact that their cable provider doesn’t broadcast The Simple Life. “In addition to her work as an actress, she has achieved some recognition as a model, celebrity spokesperson, singer, and writer.” And I have received some recognition as a singer, writer, auditor, student, wandering minstrel, and shirtless drunk guy. Not a lot, mind you, but some. “We, the American public who support Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how Paris has been the person to be used as an example that Drunk Driving is wrong.” Yeah! It is absolutely appalling to dole out punishment for driving drunk. And anyway, clearly someone poor, ugly, and with a mustache and a wife-beater tee should be the one to be made an example of. Also, contrary to popular belief drunk driving is in fact not a proper noun and doesn't require capitalization. Might want to have someone in 4th grade give your petition a quick read through before you send it on to the governor. “Brandy's California Highway accident, although no proof of DUI was evidenced in her accident, resulting in the death of a young wife and mother in California, yet Brandy walks free as of today, never doing any time and A WOMAN HAS BEEN KILLED most likely due to her reckless driving!” And just a few weeks ago, a woman in Chicago filed a lawsuit against her partner for “negligent dancing.” I mean, as long as we’re bringing up legal precedents that have nothing to do with the current case, I just thought I’d share that. This last one’s my favorite, though. “If the late Former President Gerald Ford could find it in his heart to pardon the late Former President Richard Nixon after his mistake(s), we undeniably support Paris Hilton being pardoned for her honest mistake as well.” See, Gov. Schwarzenegger, play your cards right and you just might up the next Gerald Ford! And furthermore, I can think of no better way to solicit sympathy from the public and elected officials than to compare yourself to Richard Nixon.

Ambivalence

am·biv·a·lence – noun

1. uncertainty or fluctuation, esp. when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.
2. Psychology. the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.

Well, I’ll just say right off the bat that this will be the first serious piece I’ve written in a while, as it is about the Virginia Tech shooting. Those of you who feel like you’ve heard more than enough about this incident over the past 2 weeks are certainly forgiven for not wanting to read this. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

Whenever something like this happens, the question everyone wants answered is “why?” That’s certainly not an easy thing to answer; pretty much by definition anyone who decides to go on a killing spree is operating with a mind that, to say the least, is not functioning like a “normal” person’s. Thus, any attempt to dissect and follow his train of thought logically is bound to be frustrating and probably fruitless. Of course, that doesn’t stop us from trying. One of the things that separates this from a lot of the other school and workplace shootings in recent years is that this time you didn’t hear a lot of “he seemed so normal; we never expected this.” Instead, you hear a lot of “there was something really strange and mean about him. He didn’t talk to anyone and wouldn’t look you in the eye.” So it seems like, although we’ll never know exactly why he did this, people that knew him seemed to be able to identify that if there was someone that was going to do something like this, he’d be a good candidate.

I started off with the definition of ambivalence because that’s the word that keeps coming back to me the more I think about it. Here was a guy who obviously had a lot of anger towards the social order of this country, particularly the clicks and structure inherent in the education system. It seemed like he wanted to make a statement about how the world had rejected him, so he wanted to do something to reject the world right back. He seemed particularly upset about “rich kids” who he seemed to think got an easy path through life and used that to either hold him down (and/or ignore him) or pursue meaningless diversions and excess. From that description, you can put him in the same category as Ted Kaczynski, who basically sought to rid the world of people he basically thought of as parasites. But there’s something really interesting about the way this guy chose to carry out this act that says a lot about him. Ted Kaczynski wanted to get his message across, but he also wanted to be anonymous. He didn’t want to get caught. This guy, on the other hand, went out of his way to make sure everybody knew who he was; sending photos and videos of himself to NBC a few days before the rampage. That’s what I find so interesting. Someone that hated “the system” so much made damn sure that he used “the system” to let everyone know who he was. It’s almost as if, after seemingly rejecting society his whole life, he ultimately felt the need to be validated by it, and this incredibly dysfunctional and destructive way was the only way he knew how. He was someone who was constantly screaming out for attention and then pushing away anyone that gave it to him. That’s ambivalence.

That’s why it was so disappointing to me that the news media seemed to play right into his hand by broadcasting the video footage and plastering images of him brandishing guns on the front page of newspapers. I have to think that is exactly what he was envisioning as he played it out in his head in the preceding days and months. The defense of the news media has been that it was news, and they have a duty to report it. I find that to be a cop-out and a far overly-simplistic view of the world. The news media censors out “news” all the time. After all, they didn’t feel the need to show close-ups of the victim’s bodies; nor do we get to see graphic depictions of soldiers cut down in the line of duty on a daily basis. I certainly am not arguing that the omission of these images is wrong; I’m just trying to point out the inequities here. It is my belief that you actually don’t need images at all to report “the news”. News should be an unbiased and indisputable record of the events that occurred (or at least as near to indisputable as you can get). Humans are visual learners and thus images are very valuable and should be used when they are appropriate. So if we agree that although it is not right to censor the reporting of a news item, it IS appropriate to censor (by omission) images associated with that news item, that turns the argument from the news media on its head. You can’t get away with simply saying, “this was part of the news story, so we reported it.” Instead, the charge to be addressed is “this was actually tangential to the story, and you chose to show it; why did you make that choice?”

I will have to admit a certain amount of personal bias here, as I currently have 2 brothers in undergrad and I myself currently attend classes 2 days per week. I make a point of all this, of course, because I am greatly concerned about copycat attempts. This country has long held a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, because we recognize that as soon as you do you open the floodgates to more, not less, terrorist activity. Well, I think we negotiated here, and our response is going to lead to more, not less, of this kind of destructive behavior. One of the pundits I watched over the last few weeks (might have been Bill Maher, but I don’t remember) made the point that when we are watching a baseball game on TV and a fan runs onto the field, they don’t show him because they know it would just encourage more fans to do it. I think it’s obvious to everyone that this is the correct course of action. Someone seeking attention in an inappropriate way should not be placated. But it seems that when the stakes get raised, we lose that perspective. It may seem an odd place for it, but this reminds me of a joke by the great comedian Eddie Izzard:

“You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people, we're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down to the gym!”

Our current society is rife with examples of where just when one of our core principles should apply most, it seems to apply the least. You have a right to privacy . . . until the government worries you might be a security risk. You have a right to free speech . . .until you say something a lot of people don’t like. There is no draft . . . until we need one. I don’t want to belabor the point; and the preceding sentences could each be the subject of a 10 page essay themselves. I’m just saying that we seem to pretty much all agree on a lot of things on the micro level, but somehow it gets all cloudy when we get to the macro. That's also ambivalence.