February 3, 2009

Doubt

I broke up with my girlfriend tonight.

Forget, for a minute, that I never mentioned on the blog that I had a girlfriend; I clearly haven't been blogging lately. I had a girlfriend and she was very sweet. But in the past few weeks I'd become more that This Isn't What I Want Right Now. I hashed it out, thought it over, and decided that, well, She's Just Not The Girl For Me.

So, I broke up with my girlfriend tonight.

It went as well as these things ever go, I guess. I told her it was over, and gave her the best explanation it was possible to give. She didn't really understand it, because when This Is What You Want Right Now and you feel that This Is The One For You, well, why wouldn't they feel the same? I've been there. I know. Anyway, she teared up a bit, and then left before she lost it.

I know she lost it because, as fucking Facebook fucking insists on fucking telling me, she's drunk.

On some level, even though I meant it when I said I hope we can be friends, I suppose I resent the fact that she didn't un-friend me so that I wouldn't have to see that. Of course, I also wish that she wasn't upset about it. I mean, obviously, she has every right to be. But I can't help but wish that everything would change while, at the same time, nothing would change. That she wouldn't mind. I can't help but wish that I could still get all of the stuff I liked about our relationship, but not give any of the stuff I didn't like.

Of course that's impossible. Because what I didn't like, really, was just the feeling that, as good as everything was, it just wasn't the right thing for me.

Which is why, now it's done, I feel maybe only 80% sure I did the right thing.

The next 10%? I'm pretty sure that's loneliness.

That last 10% is doubt. Because there's always doubt.

And it's the doubt and the loneliness and, more than anything, the guilt at making this girl feel bad that has me feeling so insanely shitty right now. And that's the part I really wish would change.

December 2, 2008

Memories


In the future, when they clone me, I will keep my brain.

I may even share it with you...

November 5, 2008

Fair and Balanced


In the aftermath of November 4, 2008, most political pundits are talking about the historic results of the presidential election. I see interviews with prominent men and women on both sides of the political aisle; I see many moving on to process stories about the transition in power, about president-elect Obama choosing his cabinet, about Mr. Obama's priorities on taking office and what he has to do to fulfill his promises to his country. But while the blogosphere has made some comment about the pundits themselves, outside of the tech-buzz about CNN's hologram, I've yet to see an analysis of the way news outlets presented the election as it happened. I had my laptop with me last night, and many different websites open but I, like many Americans, gave most of my attention to what was happening on my TV. I flipped between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, and while I wasn't paying too much attention to the words of the talking heads, I was a hawk for the numbers flipping around the bottom of the screen, and the contrasts I saw in the visual display of information were nothing short of astounding.

Start with maps. CNN kept a map of the US (red, blue, not-called) on the bottom-right of the screen the entire night; it took up between 1/12 and 1/15 of the screen real-estate. MSNBC cut to a full-screen map of the then-current results every 10 or 15 minutes, and had one sitting in the background for every wide-angle shot of their group of pundits. Fox news didn't show a map of the country once the entire night.

Maps of the House and Senate results were similar. CNN had both, organized in an arc by party seated, crawling across the bottom of the screen - 1/6 to 2/15 of screen real-estate for a few seconds every minute. They also called those maps up full-screen every 10 to 15 minutes, which is what MSNBC did. Again, Fox never showed a map of the House or Senate the whole night.

Next, look at how each network showed the results for each race at the bottom left 2/3 of the screen. CNN showed one at a time, for 10 seconds each, 1/6 of the screen in size. State and race names were large, as were results percentages and the results, when called, were strongly color-coded by party. MSNBC had smaller text than CNN, and showed the results for the same 10 seconds, but stretched them across the entire bottom of the screen; overall, still 1/6 of the screen. They, also, showed one race at a time and the candidates in each race were heavily color-coded by party; the results were not, with a simple check marking who the station had called the winner.

Fox News was a real anomaly, here. While they kept the results on-screen for 10 seconds each, unlike their peers they didn't strongly color-code at all; just a small circle of color around the D or R for each candidate and a gold check mark to indicate a called victor. They also showed two races at the bottom of the screen at any one time - near the same 1/6 of screen real-estate overall, but split in half between each race. More strangely, the two races they showed were never of the same type or from the same region. For example, rather than showing presidential race results in MN and MI, or in the gubernatorial and house races in WY, Fox News showed, say, the senate results in IA alongside the presidential results in TX.

Third, the way each network called a presidential race result is worth a mention. CNN heralded each new state called with a bumper graphic full of stars, a resounding sound effect, a cut to a standing pundit in front of a US map and, finally, a full-screen presentation of that race's result, color-coded and with candidate pictures. MSNBC had a quieter sound effect, no bumper graphic and cut to the results, showing the stats but only a picture of the winning candidate, before a second cut to a map of the US. Fox did not use a sound effect, showed the candidates side-by-side, and then cut back to their seated pundit.

Finally, the networks differed in the way they showed what states they had previously called in the presidential election. CNN included the presidential results in with their other race results in the bottom-right corner of the screen, at 1/15 of the screen real-estate and with the candidates names color-coded. Next to those numbers they had the shifting results map of the US I mentioned above. MSNBC devoted almost 1/3 of their screen real-estate, the right side of the screen, exclusively to presidential results throughout the night. They showed the two candidates' faces and party colors prominently, state-by-state, and showed a colored map of each state when transitioning between state results. The bottom-most portion of this bit of the screen was color-coded and devoted to the race overall. Fox presented previous races as crawl-text sized across the screen, color-coded by victor. However, they grouped Obama's wins ("Obama wins NH, NJ, VT, CT"), but gave a title-card to each of McCain's wins ("McCain wins KY" - graphic change - "McCain wins TX"). Despite Obama winning a larger number of states, this had the effect of giving McCain's wins more overall screen-time. Fox did keep the overall electoral vote tally in the bottom-right corner of the screen throughout the night but, again, it was not color-coded and non-mobile, and in smaller font than every other text on the screen.

What does this four-point analysis mean, in the big-picture sense? It means that, intentionally or not, Fox News made it very, very difficult to see the big-picture in the election by watching their network; about as difficult as CNN made it easy. This is especially true, in both cases, if you were only tuning in for a few minutes at a time. With an uncluttered screen, strong color-coding and other visual and auditory signals, and a constant display of the races as a whole, CNN made it very easy to see what was happening in the election with just a few minutes glimpse. Fox News, by contrast, showed a jumble of information clamoring for attention, none of it immediately obvious what it was; and, again, at no point did Fox News show the senate race, the house race or the presidential race as a whole (leaving aside a three second "Obama elected president" banner center-screen in the moment that Obama won). MSNBC was between the two, tending more towards CNN's clarity.

I don't think that Fox News was trying to mislead anyone. No one watching their election coverage should have been fooled into thinking that McCain was going to win, even if they watched no other coverage. At the same time, if you watched only Fox News, you would not have thought Obama was going to win, unless you were keeping careful tally of the electoral results on your own.

From the perspective of informing the public, of providing available data in a clear and detailed way, and of aggregating that data to show overall trends, Fox News' election coverage was an utter failure. If I were a conservative, if I were a Republican and if I, as many conservatives and Republicans do, got my news from Fox alone, I very well might be floored at results of this election; I very well might feel that Obama somehow stole the election.

The lesson to learn? Presentation matters.


Note: I apologize for not having graphics to go along with this short essay. I didn't expect to write it while I was watching the results last night, and so I didn't take any screen-captures. At this point, of course, it's too late to get any. If anyone finds any shots from any of the networks I talk about below, please send them my way so I can add them in.

October 28, 2008

Agents of Destiny

The ATF, the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, added Explosives to their name and list of regulatory responsibilities somewhere along the way, making them, properly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I think they need to rearrange their priorities: Firearms, Alcohol, Tobacco and Explosives.

Oh yes. They need to become the Bureau of FATE.

I'd sign up in a heartbeat.

October 26, 2008

Valuable Wisdom For Us All

September 13, 2008

Tell Me Something...

Am I Normal Or Not?

June 4, 2008

Seattle's Cooking Underground

Sunday night, I entered Seattle's trendy underbelly. I was one of 12 carefully screened guests to visit Cache. An unlicensed restaurant, it's a small architect's office by day, and shows it with blueprints all over the front room. Open only one night a week, seating books out two months in advance; but it's so secretive you can't know where it is until you confirm your reservation. They take only cash, but $40 of your $60 "donation" goes to the ingredients.

And, God, does it show. We opened with "Cache's signature cocktail" - a delicious blend of grapefruit, gin, orange liqueur, an exclusive, specialty bitters and a dash of fresh pepper - and rolled into the appetizer from there. It was an orecchiette with lamb ragu. The lamb was rich - a bit of zing, a little tart - and the pasta was plump and meaty, hand-pressed and air-dried for 56 hours. The wine - a smooth, light red - was an excellent counter-balance.

The entree came next - leg of lamb, sweet squash & butter puree ala salsa verde; a great contrast with the early appetizer. This was creamy and sweet, and the lamb was so tender it fell apart just touching your tongue. Again, the wine was red and countered the dish with a fruity flavor and rich tannins.

Dessert was a double-header, home-made pineapple sorbet and coconut whipped cream, with fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies, and the two blended perfectly together. Wine this time was a slightly sparkling white - only a little dry, and not at all sweet; a good thing, given the sorbet's strong flavor. It was the first white wine that I've ever really liked, and I'll pick up a bottle or two when the weather turns sunny again.

So that was dinner, made by two people with no training, just a passion for good cuisine and an active hobby. Go, if you can. There's not much I can think of that's more... "Seattle."

June 1, 2008

Composition

Today I found out that Shel Silverstein wrote the Johnny Cash song A Boy Named Sue. Reading that felt like getting hit by a bolt of musical lightning - it made such perfect sense, fit together so well, I couldn't imagine how I'd never noticed the connection.

Makes an already cool song even cooler, to my mind.

May 1, 2008

Vegetarian Accidental

"Guys want to eat meat," my friend Aimi said last night. "They want to. Especially western guys. There's no way a western guy could be vegetarian for a month."

"Oh, really," said I. But rather than pointing out my several male friends who are both of European descent and vegetarian, I said that I was sure I could do it, for the month of May.

Aimi wanted me to shoot for straight-up vegan, but Hula pointed out that then I wouldn't really be able to drink beer out at the bar.

I should get along just fine... But I am running the hell to Red Robin as soon as June rolls around.

April 23, 2008

Very, Very Wrong. Also? Not Safe For Work.

I honestly don't even know how to respond to this. The paranoia? The betrayal? The UTTERLY INSANE response?


Riskay feat. Aviance and Real - Smell Yo D***
Free Music Videos at Blastro

Honestly? If you suspect/believe your fella is cheating on you, there are much, much better ways to confirm if it's true.