Collected Thoughts

Metallica Jams Backstage on Disposable Heroes

Erik — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:30:00 GMT

Metallica posts a video on their website from each live show. The video usually includes footage of the band meeting fan club members, warming up in the "tuning and attitude" room, and a song from that night's show.

I found this gem recently. It's one of the best live versions of Disposable Heroes I've ever heard. And it's from the tuning room!

This song has a special meaning for me. I associate it with the maturing of my musical tastes. I distinctly remember being in my high school gym at 6:00 in the morning, taking batting practice with the varsity baseball team before class started. I was a sophomore and had recently been called up to pitch for the varsity team. The coach let us play the radio while we practiced. The Deep Purple song Smoke on the Water came on and one of my teammates- a senior- started playing air guitar. He walked past me, jamming along with the simplistic intro chords, and said a bit too conspicuously, "This is the best!"

The day before a friend had lent me Metallica's Master of Puppets CD. I listened to the album that night in rapt attention from start to finish and was just blown away. It was the most amazing music I'd ever heard. So next morning when my teammate expressed his enthusiasm for Smoke on the Water I remember feeling disdainful and thought to myself, "What the hell am I doing with these people?"

Yes, a bit harsh. But it was the thought of a 16 year old kid who could not identify with the simple-minded testosterone of the jocks. Anyhow, there's so much to like about this video. I love how Kirk asks the band to play the song because he needs to practice the solo. Then knocks it out of the park. Just masterful. Also...

Love Lars' drums at the beginning. Punctuates the angry emotion of the song.
Love the camaraderie of the band. They look like they're having fun.
Love the thought that this is a "day at the office" for them. Like all professionals they have to work hard to be good at what they do.
Kirk is amazing, no doubt. But man, can James play rhythm guitar! The riff he plays at 2:15 just screams "Metal!" The gallop riff he plays at 2:32 just fucking rocks. It puts to shame all of the Emo shit infecting our music today.
Love the tone of the guitars. Heavy, threatening, ominous.

As a bonus, here's a video of Kirk and Lars jamming on Whitesnake's Here I Go Again. Metallica has the ability to take a song you'd scoff at and make it sound badass. What's the riff that Kirk plays at the end? Sounds like it could be from a Tool song.

Jimmy Stewart's Letter To My Great Grandmother

Erik — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Jimmy Stewart grew up in the same county in Pennsylvania as my great grandmother.

I don't remember much about G.G. I do know she was a smart woman who followed current events, held strong political opinions, and wrote poetry. She labeled her efforts "poem-try" because she didn't think it was of the same caliber as poetry proper.

Years after Jimmy Stewart had become a hero in WWII and a movie star in Hollywood, my great grandmother wrote him a letter and enclosed some of her poetry.

Maybe because he noticed the return address was from Butler, PA, or maybe because he was such a nice man, he wrote her back. I can't read the date on the cancellation stamp. The value of the postage stamp is 20¢, so he must have written her sometime between 1981 and 1985.

The letter reads:

Dear Grace D. Vensel,

You were very kind to send me the birthday card- and I enjoyed your very nice letter and I think your poems are very good. All my thanks and best wishes.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Stewart

Or maybe he wrote her back out of sympathy for a fellow poem-try writer.

Company Policy

Erik — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:15:00 GMT

My grandmother passed away a few months ago. When cleaning out the house with her siblings, my mother found this poem written by my grandfather, who died in 1988.

I have fond memories of listening to my grandfather tell funny stories. I don't remember the details of his stories but I do remember how he took great care to describe the setting, the characters, and all the backstory that happened before he arrived at the scene. The majority of his stories, it seemed, was setup. This made an impression on me and I recognize it now as absolutely essential to storytelling. The audience doesn't live inside your head. It's up to you, the storyteller, to determine what the audience needs to know in order to find the tale amusing. My grandfather seemed to relive the stories as he told them, so the emotion on display in his face communicated as much as his words did.

Many of my grandfather's stories revolved around the incompetence or ill manners of shopkeepers, bureaucrats, and other petty clerks. People in positions of false authority, not really able to help but with immense power to aggravate and annoy. My grandfather had little ability to conceal his irritation with the idiocy of others. I'm sure it often took all his might to remain civil in the moment. But this repression only enhanced his narrative when he finally had an opportunity to relive the encounter in sympathetic company. For he could express himself fully, without regard for the feelings of the stupid clerk. This made for some really funny tales.

I'm sure my grandfather told stories about his sales job and office politics and all the frustrations of the workaday world. And I'm sure I didn't understand them, considering I was only thirteen years old when he died. Or perhaps he told them in the company of adults only. Nonetheless, having heard his tales of the incompetence and uncaring attitudes of petty clerks, and having worked myself in the corporate world for eleven years now, I'm sure I can guess his attitude towards corporate employment.

Reading my grandfather's poem confirmed his attitude was as wry and sarcastic as I suspected it might be. I give you Company Policy, by Roy Koeppel:

Company Policy

When things go wrong
As they usually will,
And your daily road
Seems all uphill;
When funds are low
And debts are high;
When you try to smile
And can only cry;
When you really feel
You'd like to quit:

Don't run to me-
I don't give a shit.

As I write this I'm drinking some 1970 Seagram's V.O. whisky found unopened in Grandpa's liquor cabinet. Probably a gift from a client. Or from an asshole boss.

Poker Is A Simple Game

Erik — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

[I posted this comment on a poker blog and thought I'd reprint it here. The author made a tortured analogy between tennis and poker and I called it a stretch.]

Hard Boiled Poker

It's a limited analogy. Really, poker is a very simple game. It doesn't take long to become a competent player. One of the most important aspects of being a successful professional card player is to overcome one's boredom and remain calm and analytical. Comparing this skill (personality?) to the skills required to master tennis or soccer or chess... I don't know. It seems an empty comparison to me. Those professional athletes and chess players are competing at a level so much higher than pro poker players- who are just marginally better than than rest of us.

Sorry, I don't mean to direct this criticism of poker at you. I really enjoy your blog mainly because you make it about more than just poker. My criticism is directed at the young poker players who tie so much of their manhood to the game. But that's just me- 34 years old and amused by 20 year olds beating their chest over their skill in a game that doesn't really allow much distinction between great and good.

Conservatives Are Big On Catch-Phrases. Short On Explanation.

Erik — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:10:00 GMT

"It's unconstitutional!" is among their favorites.

[Occassionally I'll read the Poker Grump. I find his misanthropic take on the poker world amusing. And it's always interesting to read about people who live very different lives from mine. Recently the Grump discussed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and betrayed his conservative, almost paranoid anti-government politics. Anti-government diatribes really make my blood boil so I had to say something. (I improved some grammar in my comments.)]

The Poker Grump's Other Side Of The Coin

I say:

"Online poker is not a legitimate concern of the federal government, which has neither constitutional authority nor any reason to be involved in the field at all."

That's patently absurd. We can argue the wisdom of government regulation of this particular industry, but you can't just pretend the Constitution doesn't exist or wish away relevant clauses. Have you read article 1, section 8?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clearly constitutional.

The Grump responds:

Glad constitutional law comes so effortlessly to you. You should get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Did you click the link to read my earlier post where I addressed this? I'm guessing not.

Have you done any reading into the history of what the words "regulate" and "commerce" meant to the writers of the Constitution? I'm guessing not.

I respond:

"First is the general principle. We should be free to play poker (or blackjack or anything else) with our own money from the privacy of our own homes. Period."

I don't know where this "should be" comes from. The whole thing seems reminiscent of the Napster argument a few years back. I don't see much of an justification beyond a) it's cool and b) it benefits me personally. I guess that pretending financial transactions between players and online casinos is not commerce is a necessary prerequisite to buy into your unconstitutional argument. Are you really banking your argument on the notion that the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the Internet? If the document cannot be applied to new technology and new social dilemmas then the whole thing is of no use.

Though I not convinced you're really interested in discussing the issue. Starting by quoting the Bible and declaring "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness" suggests that readers just back the hell off and let you suffer under your burden of wisdom.

Conan776 says:

Erik, so by your logic, what's to stop the Feds from tacking on an extra X% tax on software engineers, or roofers, or plumbers. Maybe every time I need to fix my roof, Uncle Sam has the right to tax off 10% right away based on the estimate? That's the current understanding vis a vis poker per the current bills floating around Congress -- poker players are sinful, immoral people, so Congress must skim off the top to discourage such horrid immoral behavior. And the so-called "Poker Player's Alliance", et al., are happy to go along with such a farce. Meh!

I respond:

@Conan

Democracy. If we don't like our government's priorities we should look in the mirror. Because we're responsible.

I agree with you that we need to take a good look at how the proposed legislation would affect the industry should it become law. My point is that this examination must begin with a recognition of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.

I mean we still could be answering to the British Monarchy. All of us could've had the misfortune of being born in a land ruled by a military junta. We weren't. We were born in the oldest democracy on the planet where we have the good fortune and responsibility of self-governance.

So denying the laws of the land as a starting point for your argument- I don't get it. What you're facing here is the fact that other people don't share your priorities. Their livelihoods are taxed and they're wondering why this industry- online poker, your livelihood- is exempt. It's a question of priorities that the people, through their representation in Congress, need to answer. It's not a Constitutional question.

I give the Grump credit for allowing my comments to stand. In the past they've been deleted by bloggers who dislike publishing dissenting opinion.

Chick Can Wail!

Erik — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:30:00 GMT

A while ago I posted a video clip of The Decemberists performing on the Colbert Show. Amazing performance by the vocalist, Shara Worden. Here's an even better performance. A fan shot this video of Shara and the band performing at the Hollywood Palladium back in May.

I believe Shara was hired by the band to perform vocals on their latest album, The Hazards of Love. She is touring with them now as they promote the album. In other words, she is not a permanent member of the band. Watching this video one has to imagine the lead singer thinking, "Shit! She's stealing the show. Maybe this wasn't such a great idea."

I would love to see Shara and the band perform this song live in concert. I'm not so sure I'd be interested in the rest of the show. But I'd gladly pay full price to hear this one song, considering it's so earth-shatteringly good. Shara just dominates the performance with her stage presence. You can tell she's living the music. And is there any disputing her voice? Chick can wail!

How I made you,
I wrought you, I pulled you.
From war I labored you.
From cancer I cradled you.
And now...
This is how I am repaid?!
This is how I am repaid?!
Remember when I found you?
The miseries that hounded you.
And I gave you motion,
Anointed with lotions.
And now...

This is how I am repaid?!
This is how I am repaid?!

There Will Be Blood

Erik — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:15:00 GMT

I think There Will Be Blood is a well made film. The cinematography is beautiful. The score is a bold choice. I thought it was brilliant to use spooky music. The score suggests a horror film- which, along with the title, serves to ratchet up the suspense and build a sense of foreboding. Something bad- very bad- is going to happen.

And that's where the film disappointed me. I have no problem with slow, plodding development. Though I did say out loud "Get on with it!" during the silent opening sequence, I did think it was well done. It established how terribly hard life was back then. In fact, I remember being chilled at one point- it might have been a little later in the film, when Daniel finally arrives at the Sunday ranch and asks if he can camp on their land. Anyhow, I remember being chilled and getting up to crank up the heat in my townhouse. The endless shots of desolate gray skies and a chill wind must have had a psychological effect on me. I said "well done" as a nod to the director as I realized the stark difference between my easy comfort and the pioneers hard work and misery.

But this slow, meandering plot, with all the requisite slow, lingering shots has got to lead somewhere. I alternated between frustration and anticipation as I watched. The peak of my attention in the film was the scene where Daniel is sitting on his porch with his brother- or the man who has presented himself as his brother- and confesses he is terribly competitive and wants every other man to fail. Then he adds, "I look at people and I see nothing worth liking." He asks his brother if he feels the same way and his brother says no, with all his trying and failing he doesn't see it like that- he just doesn't care any more. Daniel remarks, "Well, if it's in me then it's in you." Whoa! That line stood out. That's foreshadowing if I've ever seen it. That really piqued my interest and I thought OK, we may find out this brother is not the quiet, broken man we think he is. We are going to find out that neither man can escape their father's blood and an intense rivalry will develop.

Only it doesn't. A few scenes later Daniel's brother is unmasked as an impostor and impassively excised from the script. And for what? To make a point that traditional conflict-climax-resolution story arcs are passé? Daniel's son is handled in an even more careless manner. The director inserts a shot of the son, now an adult, marrying the Sunday girl only so he can set up the very next scene. With no exposition of a juvenile son's deteriorating relationship with his father, no backstory that carries beyond an eight year old kid, the director expects the audience suddenly to become emotionally invested in the confrontation between adult son and miserable, contemptuous father. When Daniel reveals to his son that he's an orphan ("lower than a bastard") adopted for the sole purpose of having a cute face present when swindling homesteaders out of their oil-rich land, I cried foul. Yes, the director inserted a few cues along the way- the most telling of which was Daniel refusing to answer his brother's question about the whereabouts of the boy's mother. Still, I thought it was cheap and hypocritical. How is the audience supposed to feel indignant when it's revealed that Daniel Plainview does not love his son, he merely feigned love in order to enrich himself financially? The director didn't tend to the boy's character either. He merely inserted him into the story in order to set up a nasty verbal denouement, hastily arranged and devoid of any lasting impact.

I had lost interest by the time we get to Eli Sunday's triumphant return as a well-dressed, successful holy man, visiting "such an old friend" Daniel, at Daniel's beautiful California mansion. A tradition story arc suggests Daniel will take vengeance for Eli having forced him to confess his sins in public. But the film has shown an interest in bucking trends. So will a drunk, declining Daniel summon up the will and strength to confront the ascendant Eli? Will blood be spilled as the film's title suggests? Oh wait, Eli is not successful. He's lost a fortune in the market. Will Daniel suddenly show some compassion? Do I care about these sudden revelations? Oh wait, it is traditional after all. A beat-down and the credits role.

A good attempt but ultimately disappointing in my opinion. If a film insists on departing from the traditional path, it must do so for a reason. I can't see what was accomplished by this film's journey.

My sister responds:

Thanks, as always, for sharing your thoughts on the film. I cannot be as sharp in my analysis, as it has been a while since I’ve seen it, but I will make one comment. I think the slow, plodding, anticipatory pace of the film is apt, at least in one sense. The flatness and pace of the movie echo the long wait/search for oil. (“There Will Be Blood” is the filmmaker’s title; Upton Sinclair’s book from which the film is adapted is called, simply, “Oil!”) For Daniel Plainview, it is the process of finding and extracting the oil that defines his character, more so than the payoff that oil-ownership brings. The opening scene encapsulates the meticulousness of the process, chipping away rock slowly slowly, alone, quietly, in the dry western dust.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. And I do agree with some of your readings of the plot development. I’ve never read the book, but it would probably make an interesting comparison. I remember hearing that the screenwriter made significant changes.

I conclude:

Good point about the pacing. And you’re right, it is interesting to compare novels and screenplays. The only one I can think of at the moment that I have some expertise in is Lord of the Rings.

I know I can be argumentative about films, but that’s actually a good sign. It means the film provoked me in some way- which is what I want out of a film. It’s strange. Sometimes I let things slide. Like with Gran Torino. I guess I liked it because of Clint Eastwood’s brooding presence. At Thanksgiving when we discussed the film briefly, Mom and Uncle B. made some good points against the film, and I thought, they’re right, those really are weaknesses.

Maybe I’m more critical of the very good films because my expectations are higher? Or maybe I get aggravated when I feel like I’m watching filmmaking technique and not storytelling.

Winning The Endgame

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:00:00 GMT

I managed to win an endgame recently. This is a rare occurrence for two reasons:

As a beginner playing other beginners, often I or my opponent make a fatal mistake in the middlegame, leading to checkmate or significant loss of material.
I lose many endgames due to the time pressure of a blitz game.

Guest versus Erik

After 44 Kd5. Black to move and win.

Replay Game

Getting Better Positionally

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:00:00 GMT

I am managing the clock better and blundering less. Here I played a nice positional game against a ChessMaster 10 personality- Miguel, rated 1240.

CM10 / Miguel versus Erik

After 16... Nd7 Black Is Solid

Replay Game

Unnecessary

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:20:00 GMT

I saw this tonight at my local grocery store.

It's fucking oatmeal! It's healthy to begin with. We don't need a weight control variety.

Jesus Christ- not only do I have to look through twelve feet of shelf space to find maple brown sugar oatmeal, now I have to inspect the package closely to ensure it's not weight control formula.

The world has gone mad. Are you overweight? Yeah? Well eating weight control oatmeal is not going to shave off the pounds. Go for a fucking run!

It's unbelievable the bullshit people will talk themselves into. Think it over for a second. Eating puts mass into your body. Exercising requires converting mass into kinetic energy- motion in plain terms. Which is a more immediately effective way to lose mass? It's not complicated at all. There's a reason basketball coaches push their players to the point of exhaustion on the first day of practice. They don't hand out weight control oatmeal. For fuck's sake people!

The Comforts of Religion

Erik — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:30:00 GMT

A few months ago I received an e-mail from one of my best friends' mother, Helen. She has discovered the Internet in the past year and is at that early stage of online literacy where one forwards lots of e-mail. I'm on her mailing list.

Long before Helen got online, I decided that when I found anything offensive or intellectually lazy in forwared e-mail, I would respond to everyone on the mailing list. An e-mail blast accomplishes two things:

It lets people know that if they wish to engage me in a discussion they should expect a response. I will not remain silent when people talk nonsense.
If the sender is embarrassed by my response- that is, embarrassed by the contrast between their hitting the forward button versus me composing original thoughts- they will remove me from their e-mail list. Eventually an equilibrium is reached where only people interested in serious discussion will ever bother me with these kinds of messages.

When I received the following message from Helen, I found myself in a real dilemma. I wanted to respond with a scathing criticism of the we are the chosen ones religious message found in the e-mail, but I did not want to upset my friend by hurting his mother's feelings. I thought it over for a long time and decided that I would respond. I found courage when I recalled a passage from a Richard Feynman lecture. In the lecture Feynman advocates engaging the "faith healer" mind as a way of combating the unscientific culture of the modern world.

First, the e-mail forwarded by Helen:

It's very long so I'll summarize it as apple pie Americana, followed by a claim that the Americana somehow fostered innovative thinking, then a jarring segue into a religious message. Read the full message.

Next, the passage from Richard Feynman's lecture. This convinced me- excuse the delusion of grandeur- that it was my duty to respond.

The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right so long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue that I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from modern society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe incorrectly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite. Full Quote

My response to Helen's e-mail:

Regarding the sentiment in Jay Leno’s statement: You do realize that if you believe God protected those who survived all these hazards, then you have to believe that God wanted others to be harmed and to suffer? And this implies of course that they somehow deserved to suffer- a vicious thought. Doesn’t it make more sense to support the science that attempts to understand the causes of these natural phenomenon so we may protect people before they are harmed? Rather than explaining one’s safe passage as due to one’s favorable standing in the eyes of God. I mean such a belief may help our self esteem, but how is it going to protect children in a poorly constructed school when an earthquake hits? Did the Chinese worship the wrong God, or did they fail to develop and enforce adequate engineering standards?

And finally, a response to my message. This was written by a lady on the e-mail list I do not know personally. She provides the believer's point of view:

You know, there is just no knowing the mind of God. We are all given free will. Bad things happen, and good things often grow out of those bad things. Whether it is the heart of another human who feels empathy for the injured and does something to help, or someone experiences the depth of their own humanity through the tragedy of their fellow human. Many of us have discovered that a deep faith in God has brought us comfort in troubling times that science and nature just cannot match. My heart goes out to all those who have never experienced the comfort of Faith.

As for science giving us the tools to understand nature so we can prevent natural disasters and protect people from harm; I just don't believe that is possible.

A very tender thought. I just don't understand what it has to do with belief in a Genesis theory, a divine will, or an afterlife. It is possible to empathize with your fellow man simply by being a good, kind, person. The believer may ask where this kindness comes from if not from God. And here's where we see the difference between the scientifically-minded and the religiously-minded: I don't need an answer to that question. I have learned to live with uncertainty and doubt. The believer, driven by the anxiety associated with ethical uncertainties, demands answers.

I saw my friend and his mother a few months later at my friend's wedding. Helen was very happy to see me and did not mention the e-mail exchange. Perhaps I underestimated her ability to separate intellectual criticism from personal criticism. Perhaps she figured "that's just Erik being Erik." All the same, it was a relief to find no hard feelings between us.

Selling Out America

Erik — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:10:00 GMT

[My boss forwarded an e-mail to me today. It's titled "Selling Out America" and has a link to an editorial in a suburban newspaper. In the past we've discussed Islam with regards to 9/11. And we've discussed the financial crisis. So this is not our first foray into these topics.]

GE Has Big Interests In Islam

Archived here in case link is broken.

[My Response]

The problem with this essay is that the author paints with too broad of a brush. For example, his claim that Exxon “helped the German war effort to kill American soldiers.” I don’t think it’s that simple. My understanding is that Standard Oil (as Exxon was known then) had made investments in Germany between the wars. I think there was a big scandal in 1941 when an investigation revealed that Standard Oil still maintained contacts with Germany. The U.S. did not enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Assuming that Standard Oil’s ties with Germany were severed in 1941 (I don’t know- I’m not an expert on the subject) it’s not like Standard Oil was fueling Hitler’s tanks in the Battle of the Bulge. My point is that none of this is made clear by the author.

Another example is the author’s claim that G.E. actively promotes Shariah law. I agree in general that we need to think about where our money goes and what it supports. We’ve talked about how Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because its hostility to free speech and scientific inquiry prevents its people from making progress economically. Without science a country can’t advance industrially or technologically and the gap between it and those countries that have embraced science widens- catching a country in a vicious spiral where stricter religious beliefs makes it more difficult to compete economically, which creates poverty, which makes fundamentalist beliefs more attractive to a desperate population, which hurts science, etc...

But this is a problem common to organized religion in general. Yes, today our primary concern is with Islamic fundamentalism. But the author is not making a point about fundamentalism. He’s indicting the entire Islamic world and G.E. along with it. I have a problem with that. For example, consider all those brave young people in the streets of Iran after Ahmadinejad stole the election a few months ago. They are Muslim. They were not demonstrating for Shariah law. They were arguing for free and open political discussion and a fair democratic vote. These are values supported by the West. More than just because we see them as “unalienable rights”, “endowed by [our] Creator.” We believe they have a tempering effect on the hatreds spawned by ignorance and fundamentalism.

The problem with maligning an entire religion or culture is that our own religion and culture is also vulnerable to such a charge. For example, should we all think carefully about our investments in Fortune 500 companies? Most of the directors of these companies are Christian. And the Christian holy book justifies some oppressive behavior.

I guess my point is that I don’t think the author knows who the enemy is. He’s satisfied to cast a wide net knowing it won’t catch any of his family or friends.

Give Me One Of Those Vanilla Bullshit Drinks

Erik — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:00:00 GMT

[This story is from a few years ago. My sister J and I were in an airport, waiting at our gate to catch a flight back home after visiting our sister in California. I was tired and needed some caffeine. I asked J if she wanted anything to drink. She said no so I took off down the terminal in search of coffee.]

I found a Starbucks and queued up in line. After a few minutes I get to the front of the line. The customer in front of me steps aside and I step forward ready to place my order and get on with my life. No one behind the counter greets me. Two employees are busy squabbling over some personal issue, work grievance, God knows what. Their conversation is not discreet. They seem unconcerned that I can hear them argue.

Finally one of them steps up to the cash register. Makes no eye contact with me. Just stands there. I realize I'm expected to walk the employee through the order, rather than the other way around. I order my usual cup of coffee.

"What size?"

"Small."

The kid behind the counter mumbles something incoherent. He has refused to make eye contact with me and has not bothered to enunciate any of his words. Do you know how difficult it is to understand an unmotivated cashier who's mumbling at the ground?! I feel no obligation to ask him to pick the marbles out of his mouth and help the customer. Seriously, is it my job to ask him to look at me and speak clearly? No- that's a given. If the kid feels no need to make himself understood than I'm content not to understand.

"Your name?" I manage to hear.

"Erik," I respond. I see the total due on the cash register and voluntarily hand this to the kid behind the counter. I step to the side and join a group of discontented travelers staring blankly at the Starbucks counter, hoping for their beverages to appear.

I watch a Starbucks employee- not the cashier, a different employee, equally miserable and apathetic- place one, then two beverages on the counter without making eye contact with anyone in the crowd. She says not a word. I remember I was asked for my name when I ordered my beverage. The discontented, caffeine-deprived travelers exchange puzzled looks but make no inquiries. No one claims the beverages.

At this moment I decide I will take the next beverage placed on the counter. I don't care what it is; I don't care how long the other customers have been standing there, mute and timid; I'm taking the next drink. If this is Starbucks' system- to mumble incoherently, then ask a customer to say his name aloud only to place drinks anonymously on a counter- then this is what they get. I'm taking the next drink and walking away with a clear conscience.

A large beverage is placed silently on the counter. I step up, take the drink, and walk back to my gate.

My sister asks me what I ordered. I'm still steaming about the whole incident, mad at these Starbucks employees who fail to understand a very simple transaction: The customer hands over more money than a cup of coffee is worth for one reason: He expects service.

"What? Oh, I got a venti."

"A venti what?"

"What do you mean?"

"Venti is the size of the drink. What kind of drink did you order?"

"I don't remember. I just took the first drink they put on the counter."

I inspect the paper cup in my hands. I see a checkmark next to the word "Latte." I see the name "Andrew" written in red ink below the rim of the cup. "I guess I'm drinking Andrew's latte. Mmm, mmm, good."

[This story reminds me of a scene from Curb Your Enthusiasm.]

The Connection Between Thought, Speech, And Problem-Solving Ability

Erik — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:00:00 GMT

[An e-mail exchange between my sister J and I shortly after Barack Obama was elected President. We discuss the connection between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability. It began with an article by political satirist Andy Borowitz.]

J writes: Thought you might get a kick out of this...seems like an Onion article, but not sure it is... whatever, it's funny!

Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
Stunning Break with Last Eight Years

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."

The President-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.

I respond: So funny! And yet so sad. Neither Bush nor Palin can articulate their thoughts worth a damn. One is our current President and the other aspires to the office. The public is supposed to find this charming or cute, rather than frightening and disqualifying.

Though I deal with computer languages and not spoken languages, my job is to put thoughts into written words. That’s what programming is. All day, every day I hear from users of our software, “I thought it would work this way.” “I want it to do this for me.” “Yeah, it’s supposed to that, but in my case here it should really do this.” “Last week I did A and B and got C. This week I got D. What gives? (Completely ignoring X, Y, and Z.) Etc… Lots of isolated descriptions of how they thought the system would behave, or how they’d like the system to behave, with little regard for the conflicting demands of other users.

It is my job to extract the common patterns, reconcile the discrepancies, and codify a written set of instructions that solve the problem for all users and all business cases with satisfactory performance. The ability to think analytically is very important. But so is the ability to communicate verbally and in writing. Verbal and written communication is absolutely essential to understanding the business problem you’re asked to solve. Solving the wrong problem is no good, right? Neither is it any use to the business if I understand the problem perfectly but fail to write a coherent set of instructions to achieve a solution.

I’ve done this long enough that I can have a short conversation with a programmer and know within a few minutes how capable they are. Their skill with verbal communication is highly predictive of their ability to synthesize complex business and computer problems into functioning code. If you can’t think straight you won’t speak straight. If you can’t speak straight, you won’t code straight. As simple as that.

Is the President somehow exempt from this correlation between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability?

When George W. Bush was running for president back in 1999 there were very many talking heads telling the general population not to be concerned with the man’s stammering rhetoric. “Don’t worry, he’ll surround himself with good people. He’ll be the MBA president. He knows how to assemble a team of advisors.” I remember telling Dad

"Is the President somehow exempt from this correlation between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability?"

how utterly unconvinced I was when one experienced hand after another was quoted in the paper saying “He’s much different in private. He asks good questions. He communicates well.” Bullshit, I thought. Seems awfully suspicious that the man is coherent only when no one is watching. Muddled speech is indicative of a muddled mind. If you are smart, and have thought deeply about a topic, and organized your thoughts, you will find a way to express them. Through written words, speaking extemporaneously, through music or visual imagery- one way or another you will find a way to express your thoughts clearly. This has little to do with formal education. I’ve listened to many old school blues musicians who grew up in the Jim Crow South, were denied an education, and yet can paint a vibrant picture with words that indicates their eyes were open the whole time. They didn’t miss a thing and are able to convey their impression to the audience. Synthesizing experience into words and melody takes brains.

If a person isn’t able to express himself clearly in any forum, that indicates he hasn’t been paying attention or isn’t able or interested in understanding what is happening around him. And yet very many supposedly smart people told the nation eight years ago that George W. Bush was exempt from this rule. Fucking morons! These are the same people who now, having seen the destruction wrought by our President, express their disappointment in the man. Well call me an elitist, but I am very disappointed in them for their terrible judgment when evaluating the candidate.

OK, I feel better now.

J responds: When I replied to my boss I said the same thing: so funny. although, kinda sad it's so funny...

I couldn't agree with you more. You have no problem communicating your thoughts through words, written or spoken. In fact, you do it at such an exemplary level that I had to look up a word. Pffff! Can you guess which word?

But seriously, W has been a disaster of a president and an embarrassment to the nation. I don't think we could have elected a bigger idiot to represent us, let along "lead" us. I still think about that ridiculous "deal breaker" type question during the election 4 years ago: Who would you rather have a beer with? Bush or Kerry? Ummmm, I'm sorry what! This is the question you're basing your vote on? Can I vote you off the island or something? We're not electing our 5th grade student council president! This is for real. Like a real job, and an extremely important one for that matter! Talk about fucking morons!

The Wall Street Bailout

Erik — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:30:00 GMT

[From March 2009: An e-mail to a colleague with strong but borrowed political opinions. Years ago he sniffed out my politics. Now he sends me links to articles he finds on leftist and conspiracy-theory websites. Often I can't figure out what these articles say other than "Bad Things Are Happening!" and "The Mainstream Press Isn't Reporting It." What these bad things are and how they came to be are never explained. Anyhow, I took my colleague's mention of AIG as an excuse to say something about the Wall Street bailout.]

Colleague writes: And you thought that AIG was something. http://www.truthout.org/033109J

I respond: The real problem is not the bonuses. Though I’m as pissed as the next guy about them. Have you seen Matt Taibbi’s rant? He writes for Rolling Stone and a few websites. Completely agree with him here and love the tone.

But it’s easy to call for blood at such shameless greed and lack of responsibility. It’s much more difficult to push the ideologues aside, cut through the hysteria, and have an informed conversation about the policy mistakes that led to the collapse and the bailout and set the stage for the undeserved bonuses funded by the American taxpayer. Where are the adults in the room? Where is the American public when it comes time to discuss policy? We’re so easily cowed by the word “socialism” that we’re apt to believe any government oversight interferes with the smooth operation of the capitalist machinery. It’s the lack of oversight that allowed the AIG financial services division to invent black boxes full of liabilities and make them appear to be golden, AAA-rated investments.

The bonuses are a distraction. Classic political sleight of hand. Invent an enemy- the AIG employees receiving bonuses. Get in front of a camera and pantomime your best false indignation. Hold hearings and publicly condemn these people as scumbags who ruined the economy. Portray them as the cause of the whole problem. Publicly humiliate them, trump up some charges for a show trial, garnish their wages or modify the tax laws to retroactively collect the bonus money (like that will ever pass), and deliver some ready-made-for-TV justice.

"Get in front of a camera and pantomime your best false indignation."

And keep your seat in Congress. I’m not indicting every congressman and senator. And I do feel the Republicans deserve more of the blame for their ideological belief that any government scrutiny of business is unwarranted. I’m just saying the public better wise up to how it’s being duped into believing that punishing those who paid or took bonus money is somehow going to solve the problems affecting the economy.

Phil Gramm and the Republican Congress passed legislation explicitly deregulating credit default swaps in the year 2000- and President Clinton signed it. That’s the outrage! Not the bonuses. A $70 trillion market in credit default swaps sprang up overnight with no regulatory agency to force financial companies to prove they had the assets to cover their liabilities. Risk and profit were calculated to the nth degree by ambitious Wall Street traders looking to get ahead of their peers. The new financial instruments were reliable- the computer models proved it- and would make everyone in on the deal immensely rich. Where was the American public then when this bill of goods was being sold?

The Democrats need to stop acting like they are totally innocent and share no liability for this mess. They take plenty of money from the financial sector too- especially the ones on the East Coast. And the Republicans need to stop using the word “socialism” pejoratively, as if conjuring up a bogie man is going to solve this problem. And the American voter better wise up to the fact that poor policy decisions can backfire in his face, no matter if it appeals to his sense of American superiority or party loyalty.

That’s my two cents.

Pearl Jam At Soldier Field, 1995 Part 1

Erik — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:00:00 GMT

[An innocuous comment at my Super Bowl party spawned a trip down memory lane. Through a series of posts I'll tell the story of seeing Pearl Jam live in 1995 at Soldier Field, Chicago.]

The Return of Good Music

I was in high school when Pearl Jam released their first album, Ten. I remember seeing them perform Alive, from the album, on Saturday Night Live. I was blown away by the energy and the attitude- and most importantly, the music. It was so much better than what was on the radio at the time.

It was 1992 and I thought to myself, "Good music has returned." I'd developed some sense of music history over the last few years. I had become a huge Led Zeppelin fan. I was into the Stones. I liked the boogie blues albums ZZ Top did in the Seventies. I loved the Sixties music of my parents' generation. I could not find much to like in the Eighties.

I was beginning to delve into the music of Metallica- all of it from the Eighties. Among pop groups, I think INXS managed to make some good music. Beyond that? ... a real void. I felt that musicians in the Eighties had become mesmerized by new computer technology and fell victim to the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" vice of too much overdubbing, synthesizer keyboards, and electronic drumbeats.

Then Pearl Jam came along with their long hair, grunge clothes, "pissed at the world" teenage rage, layered and loud guitars, and supurb front-man Eddie Vedder, who wrote intelligent lyrics and could actually sing them. The whole band had a presence about them that made you stop what you were doing and listen or watch.

The radio stations insisted on calling their music "Alternative" - an alternative, I suppose, to the candy pop and androgynous disco music of the Eighties. But really, it was just fucking good rock 'n roll!

A Unique Olympic Event: Crying

Erik — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT

[A recent e-mail exchange with my brother in law, J.]

Me: Great headline: After Skating, a Unique Olympic Event: Crying

Yeah, I’m not watching that.

J: The key line:

Some national skating federations put their skaters through training for the kiss-and-cry. Mark Ladwig, who skates with Amanda Evora in pairs, said he had attended a U.S. Figure Skating training program in which skaters participated in a mock kiss-and-cry.

Ironic, figure skating/ice dancing is the only winter sport in the games that doesn't involve protective gear (no hats, helmets, goggles, gloves), unless you want to count the protective sheathes they put on their skate blades after they leave the rink...

...even in curling they wear protective work gloves, but ok, even if I gave you that one, you still don't see them crying. That would be like crying in a bar after you lose a game of darts.

Me: "Like crying in a bar after you lose a game of darts." Ha ha! Exactly right.

The only good thing about ice skating are the hot skaters. I haven’t watched this year to know if there are any. Over the weekend NBC cut away from the games to go to Extra, or whatever their Hollywood gossip show is. I was about to turn it off but they were interviewing Lindsey Vonn, so I left it on. Then they do a "Where is she now?" segment on Katarina Witt, the German ice skater from way back when. Whenever I hear her name I think of my Uncle B.

"She can fall flat on her ass and she still gets a 10 from me."

They show some old film, show some censored Playboy photos, then cut to Katarina and the interviewer walking on the street. They stop in a bakery. The interviewer asks Katarina what she’d like. She asks for a cup of coffee and a muffin. They freeze the tape and draw a circle around the muffin. "Pay attention," the interviewer says in voice-over, "This will come into play later."

Yada, yada, yada, the interviewer asks her where her gold medals are. She says she’s not sure. Probably in a box with the rest of her trophies. Then she adds, "But I used to know where they were."

"Used to?"

"Sometimes, if I was out with a guy and I really liked him," she says in that sexy accent of hers, "I’d ask if he wanted to come back to my place to see my gold medals."

The interviewer starts laughing. "Did it work?"

"He never saw my medals."

At this the interviewer loses it. Laughs loudly, turns a shade red. Customers stare. Finally he composes himself, looks at the plate in front of Katarina, and asks "Can I have some of your muffin?"

She slaps his arm. "Shame! I understand the language well enough..."

Rahm Emanuel's "Apology"

Erik — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:30:00 GMT

The Democrats are a bunch of pussies. They cower at the mere threat of a filibuster. If you believe in a public option, I say, then put it to a fucking vote. Let the Republicans make asses of themselves reading from the telephone book or whatever the hell they'd do to block health care reform. "Oh no, they're going to filibuster." Horror of horrors! "Let's drop the subject."

The most liberal Democrats, ugh... When they realized they weren't going to get everything they wanted in the health care bill, they went crying to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Jesus Christ! Mommy has abandoned me. Who will protect me?

I bet Rahm Emanuel loves this Saturday Night Live sketch. He probably has it playing in a loop in his office. Brilliant.

What I should have called you are fucking babies. Stupid, fucking babies who can't keep their mouths shut. You went to the Wall Street Journal with this, you fucking turncoats?! The Wall Street Journal?

I'm trying to get shit done here. And I know we're not moving as fast as you want on health care, but maybe you've noticed the Republicans are trying to paint us as Soviet crack dealers. I've already got them crawling up my ass and now you want in too? I've got so many legislators in my colon I need sixty votes just to take a shit. So fuck you!

...

[To Sarah Palin]

So now I'm waiting for your apology you fucking harpy. Or do you forget saying my brother Zeke supports death panels and his philosophy was downright evil? Well, he's a fucking doctor who's dedicated his life to helping people, not a quitter who couldn't finish dinner. So why don't you stick to collecting checks for your stupid Tea Party speeches, you half a fuck politician.

Also, you come after me on Facebook? What are you, fourteen? Here's a status update: Grow the fuck up! Poke me again and I will write shit on your wall so obscene your computer will cry. Go back to the tundra you fucking gimmick!

In conclusion, boo-fucking-hoo. Get over it.

"Not a quitter who couldn't finish dinner." Ha ha, my favorite line. The Democrats need more politicians like Rahm Emanuel. With cojones.

How You Like Me Now?

Erik — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:00:00 GMT

Apparently there are modern bands making good music. Great '70s funk groove here*. Crank up the volume!

Letterman liked it so much he asked for an encore. I’ve never seen him do that.

* There's no contradiction in saying "modern band" and "70's funk." All good music is rooted in the past.

So Much Talent Out There : Amateur Blues Guitarist

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:00:00 GMT

A German amateur plays Crossroad Blues on dobro. I love his slide guitar technique and how he keeps time by tapping his boots on the wooden floor. This is low-down blues at its best. I can imagine Robert Johnson singing this in a Mississippi juke joint back in the '30s- pleading for forgiveness from God in front of a drunk and lecherous crowd.

It makes me think of Dostoevsky's assertion that true believers exist only among the wicked.

Isn't it interesting how fascinated we humans are with the Faustian Pact? From the uneducated blues guitarist to the most erudite writer of high fiction, we love to tell the tale of the man who sold his soul to the Devil.

Went down to the crossroad.
Fell down on my knees.
I went down to the crossroad.
Fell down on my knees.
Well I asked the Lord to have mercy.
Save me if you please.

You can run, you can run babe.
Tell my friend poor Willie Brown.
You can run, you can run babe.
Tell my friend poor Willie Brown.
That I'm standing at the crossroad.
I believe I'm sinking down.

Original video found on YouTube.

So Much Talent Out There : Amateur Metal Guitarist

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:30:00 GMT

A seventeen year old Dutch girl plays Metallica's Blackened.

Oh my God. This girl can play.

Original video found on YouTube. Predictably, the comment section is overrun with marriage proposals from adolescent boys. As awkward and funny as these comments are, there's something in the back of my mind (any man's mind who's a fan of metal) that says after watching this video, "That's hot."

I mean how many women have you seen that can play guitar this well?

So Much Talent Out There : The Professional Blues Guitarist

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:00:00 GMT

This is the best video I've ever seen on YouTube. I have it on DVD. But the fact that it's available for all the world to see on YouTube somehow makes the whole Internet- warts and all- worthwhile.

Stevie Ray Vaughan may have been the most naturally gifted blues guitarist the world has ever seen. He may not have been as inventive as Jimi Hendrix but there's no denying the raw emotion with which he plays. In his hands the guitar seems an extension of the human heart.

I will never forget the day he died. I was in Drafting class in high school. It was late August so I had only been in class a few days. I was just getting to know the teacher and fellow students. Most of us were freshman or sophomores but there was one senior in the class. He always wore a black gaucho hat and kept mostly to himself.

The day after Stevie Ray Vaughan died the senior walks into the Drafting classroom. It was obvious to anyone remotely observant that he was upset about something. He heads to his desk and starts working on his assignment in silence.

The kid across from me, as was his wont, starts singing while working on his drawing. Some stupid pop tune- important in the moment to those who follow the fads but utterly disposable in the long run. A Vanilla Ice rap or similar hip-hop nonsense.

"Will you shut the hell up?!" the senior bellows to the wannabe rapper. Normally the teacher would intervene to keep order in the classroom but I think he had an inkling of what was to come. He let the scene play out. The senior proceeded to lecture all of us underclassmen about how we had no taste in music- that we were all slaves to the trends and ignorant of anything beyond the Top 40 garbage played on pop radio. That we would do better to educate ourselves about the man we lost yesterday.

It was because of his lecture that I made an effort to learn about Stevie Ray Vaughan's music. I went to the local record store that week and bought one of his albums. Remember when every neighborhood had a cool record store filled with vinyl albums, import CDs, and bootleg Zeppelin concert tapes? Ah, good memories!

Anyhow, I've been a fan of Stevie Ray Vaughan's music to this day.

Read this video's comments. Have you ever seen so many positive comments on YouTube?

Babies In Bars

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:25:00 GMT

[I saw this article on CNN and had to vent to my sister and brother in law.]

Brooklyn Brewhaha: Babies In Bars

You have got to be kidding me! No smoking in bars. Now it’s no swearing in bars? Pretty soon it will be no flirting. How about no drinking?

"...where the cost of baby sitters can be prohibitive." That’s your f'n problem. Mental.

Why Is The Illness Always Diagnosed As Social Pressure?

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:45:00 GMT

[My brother in law forwarded this article to me. We had discussed it over lunch with some friends from work. I replied with my comments after I had a chance to read the article.]

Helpful Dads Can Hurt Mom's Self-Esteem

As for why a mother's self-competence took a hit from perfect dads, Sasaki suggests pressure to keep up with societal norms plays a role.

"In American society, women are expected to take a main role in parenting despite increasingly egalitarian sex roles," Sasaki said. "Thus, we believe that employed mothers suffer from self-competence losses when their husbands are involved and skillful because those mothers may consider that it is a failure to fulfill cultural expectations."

Sasaki added, "Husbands do not suffer from self-competence losses even when their wives are involved and skillful because that is consistent with cultural expectations."

Why is the illness always diagnosed as social pressure? What about biological impulse? Maybe the mother feels the father is robbing her of time to bond emotionally with her baby- time she feels is rightfully hers. I don’t know. I’m just saying there’s more than one possibility here.

Believing Many Things A Priori

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:55:00 GMT

[My brother in law forwarded a humorous article to me. In it, the screenwriter of Battlefield Earth apologizes for writing "the suckiest movie ever." I took this as an opportunity to say a few words about one of my favorite subjects, Scientology.]

I Penned The Suckiest Movie Ever - Sorry!

Funny stuff. Though The Greatest Story Ever Told is not exactly thrilling cinema either.

I am fascinated by the subject of Scientology. Absolutely fascinated by the questions it provokes when juxtaposed with the world's major religions.

My interpretation is that Scientology was invented by a bitter and misanthropic man as a big joke on humanity- a joke intended to expose middle-class sensibilities as nothing more than hollow received wisdom. Middle class society believes implicitly in its order. A person's station in life is an indication of their work ethic. There's nothing more to it than that. If a person is rewarded or punished, or an idea is promoted or suppressed, well it must be because he or she or it deserves it. L. Ron Hubbard played by the middle class rules and was not rewarded, was not so much as even noticed. "Well, fuck 'em", he must have said. "Let's invent a new world order with me at the top."

It's a fun game guessing who's in on the joke and secretly laughing at the masses as they condemn Scientology's "misguided, crazy, fictional, cultish, and heretical" beliefs. And guessing who's been duped into thinking Scientology is actually serious.

I mean isn't there some perverse pleasure in watching the same people who scoff at a genesis theory based on aliens, volcanoes, and vaporized souls dutifully nod their head in agreement on Sunday when the priest discusses the holy ghost, Noah's ark, and the pearly white gates? And what state of mind allows a person to characterize Scientology's recruitment efforts as "brain washing" and its congregation "a cult" and yet entices the pagan with promises of eternal life (John 3:16) and cosmic justice? Seriously, the Beatitudes preached by Jesus were used by the privileged class to justify the feudal system in the Middle Ages. And Scientology is a cult?

It all seems crazy to me. Pick your crazy- a long established one or hip new one. Scientology, Christianity- they're both based on believing many things a priori, without any need to test or verify the knowledge. I can't relate to that. I mean, I understand why religious belief persists to this today- it alleviates anxiety. But I can't understand the criticisms different congregations hurl at each other. There's no sense of self-awareness in any of it.

[See my previous essay on Scientology.]

Tea Party Nonsense

Erik — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:10:00 GMT

[An e-mail to my sister A.]

This reminded me of your story about your townhouse association meeting, where people complained their monthly fee was funding "more things than I use." (The bold text is my emphasis.)

"The System Is Broken" : More From a Poll of Tea Party Backers

Richard Harris, 61, a truck driver and an independent, of St. Petersburg, Fla.

"I just feel that taxation without representation is not a good idea, and that's what's happening. I'm an extreme conservative. Government should do the military and the roads and just about nothing else. They foul everything up if they do."

Kind of like your neighbors' argument that they should only pay for snow removal from their part of the sidewalk.

[My sister A responds.]

I don’t understand why these people say "taxation without representation" like it applies to them. It doesn’t. They are citizens and voters. They have representation. Taxation without representation referred to English colonists living in America who did not have a voice in their government, because it was a monarchy. But this is not a reasonable conversation to have with a tea-party member.

You're exactly right, Erik, by the way. I don't want to pay to repair the retention pond because I don't live anywhere near it. I don’t get any benefits from it. Ahem...yes you do. Your streets or your basement aren't flooded because there is a communal place for the water to collect and drain. People!