Book Review: High Fidelity

I finished reading High Fidelity about a week ago, but I haven't managed to get a review up for it yet. Well, I haven't suddenly gained more time, so even though I'm posting a review, it's going to be short.

High Fidelity, the first novel by Nick Hornby, is probably more familiar to most people as "that movie with John Cusack and Jack Black where they work in a record store." The book centers around Rob, a mid-30's record store owner who still hasn't figured out what he's doing with his life. Rob's girlfriend Laura leaves him and sends him searching for the answers to what he wants out of life and what happened to all his relationships. Rob revisits his top five all-time break-ups from his first kiss who two days later was kissing another boy on the playground to Charlie the girl who was out of his league, yet dated him anyway. As he looks back on these relationships we learn more and more about who Rob is and why he acts the way he does. We see the developments in his relationships with his parents, Barry and Dick (his coworkers at Championship Vinyl), and with women. Along the way, Hornby amuses us with the awkwardness and pain that is dealing with the opposite sex. In the end, Hornby has created sort of a romantic comedy for men, that is lighthearted and touching at the same time.

The verdict: Like Hornby's other works it is well written and amusing. The best description of the book comes from one of the blurbs on the back cover which stated that High Fidelity captured the reality of relationships in a way that will "make you laugh (and wince) out loud."

Until later...

...And A Very Large Side Order of Hushpuppies

My question is where one would buy the appropriate equipment to fry this fish?

Let Me In

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person left without a g-mail account. Am I just not cool enough?

Because I'm A Nerd...A Happy Nerd, But A Nerd Nonetheless

I already posted Trivial Tuesday, but I had more to talk about today. I just downloaded a new iTunes upgrade to version 4.9

iTunes 4.9 now has the ability to read RSS feeds and play podcasts. You can search, subscribe and listen to podcasts directly on iTunes or download them to your iPod. I am thrilled with this, because this is a great example of a company realizing that there is a use for their product that people would love, and the company went out and added functionality to their software for which they charge nothing.

Right now, I am listening to a podcast of last week's Science Friday. It's fun, it's educational (well, depending on what podcasts you subscribe to...sometimes it's just pointless) and it's free.

No, I did not receive any money for this post. I'm just very pleased with this upgrade.


Until later...

Trivial Tuesday

If it's Tuesday, things must be even more trivial than normal here at The Fount. The catagory for today is...Ryori no tetsujin.

The original Iron Chef series featured a total of four judges during each episode; 2 of which also acted as guest commentators for the battle. If memory serves me, only one person who was ever a guest judge on Iron Chef also appeared in a film by Quentin Tarantino. Who is she? (That's hint #1. Hint # 2: She appeared in battles oyster and lotus root.)

Typical rules, yada, yada.

Answer first and earn the right to mock other posters who don't know nearly as much as you.

Allez Cuisine...

Update: Congratulations go to Aurora who was aware that Julie Dreyfus (who is not be confused with Julia Louis-Dreyfus of SNL and Seinfeld fame) was not only a judge on two episodes of Iron Chef, but also played Sofie Fatale in Kill Bill Volume 1. Bragging rights are hers for the week.

Islandfest

It's summer, season of downtown festivals. This weekend was Islandfest, a celebration of all things pertaining to land surrounded on all sides by water, I guess. The fest was set up in a park downtown and consisted of live reggae music and booths where local artists sold their crafts or where local restaurants offered a sampling of their menus.

There are several festivals like this downtown during the summer, and it seems that regardless of the theme of a given festival, the exact same businesses are there, though sometimes with some minor adjustments to the menu. While Islandfest was supposed to be a Jamaican festival, there were booths set up for a burrito restaurant, an Indonesian/Malaysian restaurant, a regular old burger joint and others that we see at all of these festivals. We wandered around for a bit-the live music ended about 2 minutes after we arrived and the next set did not begin until after we were gone-deciding what to eat from the various restaurants. We ended up trying a rum-passionfruit glazed brisket (a little tough, but good), a Cuban sandwich (very good) and finishing off with a coconut sorbet that was served in a half coconut shell (So good!!!).

I would have liked to have stayed a little longer, but unfortunately there it was hot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not simply whining about how it was too hot for me and so I had to go hide in an air-conditioned building. The problem was not just that it was hot, but that there were a large number of hippie wannabes whose hygiene left a great deal to be desired. Smelly people are never pleasant. Smelly people in 95 degree weather are even worse. It isn't even as having to smell them was the only problem; it plays on one of my fears/obsessions, so about every five minutes MK and I carried out the following conversation:

Me (getting a whiff of yet another persons B.O.): Is that me? Do I stink?

MK: No, it's not you. It's that guy.

Me: Are you sure?

MK: Yes, for crying out loud. I'm sure.

Everything is fine for thirty seconds until Hippie #2 walks by.

Me: There it is again. Are you sure it isn't me? I'm afraid I smell bad.

MK: No, it isn't you. You smell fine. Just let it go.

Me: I put on deodorant this morning, but maybe it isn't working. Everyone probably thinks I'm disgusting.

MK: Sigh. (Storms off)

After revisiting this conversation a few times, we decided that really our appetite wasn't quite what we thought it was and that maybe we should just go.

To try and help the situation for the future, I'd like to take a moment to talk to all of the people wandering around smelling like month-old gym socks. There are three products that I would really like for all of you to try: soap, water and deodorant. Together they will have a remarkable effect and will greatly improve your chances that another human being can be within ten feet of you without the benefit of a debilitating head cold. If you use them, I promise I will not think that you are pro-establishment or that you are bowing down to the man. I'll make sure to tell everyone how eccentric, offbeat and counter-culture you are, if you just don't befoul the air we all have to share.

Until later...

Peter Parker Picked A Peck of Pickled Peppers

I just watched Spiderman 2. Yeah, I know. I'm a bit behind the times.

I really enjoyed it and felt that it was even better than the first. There were massive improvements to the villain, by making him someone whose face is actually seen. As well cast as Willem Dafoe was, all impact was lost in SM1 when he put on the Green Goblin mask and looked like a minion of Lord Zed (Please, somebody get that.). The casting was great again with Alfred Molina as Doc Ock. He manages to get the entire range of the character from nerdy scientist to menace to pain all down almost perfectly. The terror caused by a character such as Doc Ock was also played up in this film, which allowed Sam Raimi to let a little more his horror sensibilities come through (to good effect). I was also very pleased at how the internal conflict between doing what it right and doing what you want was brought to the forefront for this movie. It's something that applies not only with web-slinging superheroes but to people in all walks of life who must sacrifice their hopes, dreams and desires for the benefit of others. That's right, I just watched a comic book movie, and I'm talking about life lessons that can be gleaned from it. Sure it's a popcorn flick, but if you are willing to look, profundity can be found in the most surprising of places.

There were some things I didn't love about the movie. It was very highly dependent on computer animation, but I am pretty forgiving of it. After all, it's hard to have a man with 4 mechanical arms and a guy that shoots webs from his hands fight on the side of a skyscraper or on top of a moving train without it. I really have to admit to disliking the opening scene of Peter/Spidey trying to deliver pizzas on time. It just didn't seem to fit right with the tone of the movie. Just as with the first, I still have problems with Tobey Maguire as Spiderman. Spidey is a boy trying to become a man, but I have a hard time taking male heroes seriously when I'm still waiting for their voices to change. To date, the only time Tobey has appeared onscreen with a costar whose voice wasn't deeper than his was when he shared scenes with Don Knotts in Pleasantville.

The biggest problem with the movie, like the last had to do with the costume given to the villain. Last time it was the aforementioned expressionless mask. This time the problem can be summed up in one word: Manboobs. I have already said that I like the casting of Alfred Molina. However, when the person cast as your menacing villain has saggy man breasts, it will help if you do not keep making him appear sans shirt. I kept waiting for Frank Costanza to offer him a manzier.

The verdict: Highly enjoyable. The best comic book film I can remember (though I'm sure someone will correct me).

Life on the Pharm: Snoozefest

Time once again for more tales from the office.

On three separate occasions recently I have been in a meeting where I have witnessed a coworker sleeping. Not falling asleep. Not dozing off. We're talking full-blown, it's-a-good-thing-you-don't-snore sleep here. Two of these occasions have been the same colleague. In my own defense, I would like to state that at none of these meetings was I in charge in charge or in anyway responsible for the content of the meetings. If people found them boring, it had nothing to do with me.

The most recent incident was definitely the most amusing, as it involved a group of twenty people packed into a very small conference room in which the table only seats about 6. This means that most of us were seated in chairs along the walls with our attention directed toward the table in the center of the room and the few people seated at it.

I'll give you one guess as to where the sleeping colleague was sitting. Take your time...That's right. Right at the table in the middle of the room where everyone was almost forced to look at him.

At one point during the meeting there was a discussion of some data that was needed to help understand a problem. One of the people along the wall was trying to explain the situation and said^*, "I think what we have found before was that the widget percentage is supposed to be less than 5%, and we got results like 1 or maybe 2%. Is that right JimJoeBob?" Pause...Silence..."JimJoeBob?" At this point, JimJoeBob looked up with a completely lost look on his face and looked around the room, bewildered, for a moment. Fortunately, the person originally asking the question repeated it. "Oh," JimJoeBob replied, "well the widget percentage is supposed to be less than 5%, and so far we get around 3%." Relieved and completely oblivious that a large portion of his answer was actually word for word what had just been said, JimJoeBob settled back in and waited a few moments before drifting back off to sleep.

I know the work I do is not the most exciting in the world. The meetings tend to drag, and the discussions can be rather dry. Come on people. If you are going to do something for a living, shouldn't you at least be able to stay awake during a rather intense and important discussion of it? I guess not everyone feels that way.

Until later...

^*Names, data and subject matter have been changed to protect the narcoleptic.

Chocolate Fundamentalism

Originally I was going to call this post "Chocolate vs. Candy" but (1) that isn't the entire scope of the post and (2) this title amuses me more.

Before I go any further, let me apologize. This is not short.

I read Chocolate: A Bittersweet Struggle Between Dark And Light a while back, but due to time constraints and a lack of motivation on my part I never posted a review (same for The Stand, Alchemist and a couple other books, but that's off task). Perhaps this post can serve as a quasi-review of the book. My final verdict: Enjoyable and worth reading if you love chocolate and find the science, business, history and culture of food interesting. I liked it, others may not. It was not so well written that people who have no interest should read it, nor was it so poorly written that people who do have interest should skip it. Now, let's talk chocolate.

People go on and on about caffeine, but my alkaloid of choice is theobromine, which differs from caffeine only by the methylation of one nitrogen (not that you probably care, but...). Theobromine is found in chocolate, made from cacao beans, the seeds of the tree Theobroma cacao. Obviously, the botanist who assigned this scientific name to the cacao tree had good taste and possibly a sense of humor, as theobroma means "food of the gods."

So, this whole thing started because of my last post and some the comments about it. I'll see what I can do to clarify them and not be too incredibly boring about the whole thing. No guarantees, though.

First, white chocolate as opposed to chocolate. When the cacao beans are processed they are fermented, roasted and ground/milled to produce cocoa liquor. The liquor is pressed to create two separate things: cocoa solids, and the fat layer: cocoa butter. To actually be chocolate, something must contain cocoa solids. The cocoa powder you can typically find in the stores is made up of cocoa solids. Chocolate in the sense we typically think of it (bars, chips, chunks, etc.) is an emulsion of cocoa solids in cocoa butter along with a few other ingredients based on how sweet it is going to be, whether or not it is milk chocolate and any other flavors to be added. White chocolate is made of cocoa butter combined with other ingredients like sugar, milk, vanilla, etc. Since it has no cocoa solids, white chocolate is a cocoa butter confection, but cannot truly be called chocolate.

Second, chocolate versus chocolate flavored candy. This is not really as much of a true distinction as a preference (the white chocolate issue is actually a legal distinction). I'll explain it with a parable: Your friend Milton invites you over for dinner and tells you that you are going to have tuna, you may have visions of sushi or perhaps a nice yellowfin steak seasoned and seared/grilled to perfection. You arrive at the Milton's house, already salivating thinking about dinner. He sits you down at the table and serves you a heaping plate of macaroni with peas and canned tuna mixed in...Tuna casserole. You feel let down, obviously. After all, it isn't at all what you wanted or expected. Why is that? He's still serving tuna, exactly like he said. Or is he? Just like the tuna in that story, much of the readily available chocolate does not live up to its full potential. There are several problems along the way with the tuna you were served by Milton and the chocolate you grabbed at the checkout aisle at the grocery store. First is the starting material. One quote I remember vividly from the book (though I cannot remember whether they are the author's words or those of someone he interviewed) explains that "you can make inferior chocolate from excellent beans, but it's impossible to make excellent chocolate from inferior beans." Good chocolate must come from good beans. The second issue is the process. After the tuna was caught, it was processed and canned. Then your friend added it into a mess of other ingredients and suddenly it was something else altogether. The same thing happens with chocolate. Different companies have different processes, and some are just better than others. Once they have the chocolate made, they will often decide to combine it with a bunch of other things giving us things like Snickers, Mars, Milky Way and Three Musketeers bars...the chocolate equivalents of the tuna casserole. There's nothing wrong the tuna casserole, nor is there anything wrong with any of those candies. I eat them all, but as chocolate it is underacheiving.

Then there is the difference between styles of chocolate (milk, dark, bittersweet). The differences here are fairly simple (all percentages are by weight and are very rough estimates, because I'm doing this off the top of my head, not to mention the fact that the specific rules will likely vary from country to country). Milk chocolate contains milk (surprise!) and not less than ~30% cocoa. Dark and bittersweet are used almost interchangeably for chocolate containing greater than ~50% cocoa solids. Bittersweet is often used for higher percentages, but there is no actual distinction. A Hershey's Special Dark is around 56% cacao, but others brands can be found with percentages in the 70's, 80's and in some cases 90's. I personally prefer right around 70%. At that point, you have an amazing chocolate flavor without too much bitterness. It's not a candy bar that you will sit down and eat all at once, but a special flavor to enjoy over a longer period of time.

Other things like company and how many/which variety of cacao tree the beans come from make a large difference. I had recently decided that I just didn't like milk chocolate because there wasn't enough flavor and it was always waxy. A switch from the typical milk chocolate to trying milk chocolate made by Valrhona quickly changed my mind and convinced me that I didn't like bad milk chocolate. With the higher percentage chocolates, you are still getting some chocolate flavor even with the not-as-good brands, but when you switch to milk chocolate the differences are striking. Even when you have quality brands with similar percentage chocolates, there are still differences based on the type of bean and the formula used to make the chocolate. I recently tried a chocolate made from only Venezuelan cirollo beans. This is the chocolate used to decorate the top of the cake in this post. The cirollo is a variety of cacao that makes up a relatively small portion of the world's crop and is typically less bitter but with other flavors coming to the forefront. The chocolate I tried was a 71% cacao and had a taste that could only be described as both spicy and fruity. It was not awful, but it was different enough that it was certainly not what I wanted. (Did you really think I'd use it to decorate a cake if I loved it?) My current favorite is Amer Noir, a 71% bittersweet made by Valrhona, but of course I still enjoy looking for a new favorite.

Ok, looking back that's a lot of writing about chocolate. A lot of nerdy writing about chocolate...and it's no wonder I'm fat.

Until later...

Hate It or Love It

We grabbed a bag of special edition Hershey's Kisses at the store the other day. They were on sale, and the name (Chocolate & Vanilla Crème) sounded appealing. When the bag was opened and the individual foil-wrapped candies spilled out, the packaging on each was attractive.



Unfortunately, what lay inside each of those checkerboard foil wrappers was not so appealing.



As it turns out the Kisses are actually "vanilla-flavored white chocolate" on top with a rather small layer of what is described as "extra-creamy milk chocolate." Aside from the fact that absolutely no vanilla can be detected in the taste of the candy, there are a few problems with the candy. First is that Hershey's chocolate is quite bad. Ok...bad is a very relative term for chocolate. Regardless, the Hershey's milk chocolate is more of a sugary wax than anything else. Second is that white chocolate is not chocolate. The name means nothing. It is absolutely, positively not chocolate.

Now ask me if this has kept me from eating them.

Until later...

Newsflash: Area Man Proves Stupidity on Live Radio

Surprisingly, the one proving his stupidity was not me.

I was driving to work this morning listening to the local top 40 station rather than NPR or my iPod, and the two morning show hosts were discussing the importance of looks in a relationship. Specifically, they were asking listeners to talk about whether they would ever consider dating someone considerably less attractive than themselves. If everything else about the person was wonderful, but you were a 10 and they were a 2 or a 5 or a 7 how much of a difference would be too much? (Insert self-deprecating joke about how this will never be a worry for some people here)

As they fielded calls from all sorts of people, one man stood out from the rest. Apparently, he truly did believe that too much of a looks difference could be a problem. He stated that his relationship with his new girlfriend worked so much better than his relationship with his ex-girlfriend because New Girl wasn't as hot as Ex Girl. It seems that Ex Girl knew she could do better and left. The current relationship, however, works, because New Girl can't do much better than him anyway. While the hosts of the show tried to convince him that he should never, ever under any circumstances tell New Girl this, he continued to insist that there wasn't anything bad about it. "It's all in how you put it," he explained.

Apparently saying "You'll never do better than me you troll" might be offensive to some, but "I'm glad I'm too hot for you because it means you'll never leave me" is downright complimentary.

Why is it I get the feeling that the relationship with New Girl is not going to be doing as splendidly as he would like to think for much longer?

Until later...

Trivial Tuesday

Today's catagory is Classic Television Shows...well sort of.

I watched a few episodes of the The Prisoner recently. It has an intriguing mystery, but knowing that there is never really an answer decreases my desire to watch. That's the disadvantage of watching a TV show like that long after it originally aired, but I digress. In The Prisoner, Number 6 is brought to The Village because of information he has. Unfortunately for all of the viewers the specifics are never revealed. At least, not during the regular run of the series. On an episode of the Simpsons (The Computer Wore Menace Shoes) Homer is abducted and taken to The Village because of his Mr. X website. While Homer is there, he meets Number 6 who reveals why he is there. What did Number 6 do to deserve this?

The usual rules apply: Everyone is elegible, unless they live with me (sorry). The first person to post the answer in the comments sections will gain the people's ovation and fame forever.

Be Seeing You...


Update: Invisible Lizard is on a roll. If this keeps going, we'll have to ban him from answering any more questions. Number 6 invented the bottomless peanut bag, which eventually got him transported to the Village, which really isn't so bad once you get used to the gassings.

Mmm...Books: A Meme for The Bibliophage in All of Us

I got tagged by Laziest Girl with this, and I'm afraid I'm going to do a horrid job at actually answering these questions. Let's press on anyway.

How many books have you owned?

I have no idea whatsoever. More than I should. I have spent far too much over the years buying books. I've finally broken the habit and simply adopted an online list at the library of what I want to read next. Currently my "to read" list stands at 40 books.

What was the last book you bought?

Also a tough one since I stopped buying books a few months ago. If I had to guess, I would say that the last book was one for my book club, which means probably My Antonia by Willa Cather.

What was the last book you read?

Let's see. My reading time has been severely hampered recently (I suppose that makes me a malnourished bibliophage, and I'm not too happy about that), so the last book I read would have to be one of the following (sorry, I don't keep a book calendar so I'm not sure what I finished when):

Blankets, an Illustrated Novel by Craig Thompson

The first two volumes (Preludes & Nocturnes, The Doll's House) in the Sandman graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman (You can tell when my time for reading is limited, because I read a lot more graphic novels)

The Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo

Almost done with High Fidelity now, but I suppose that doesn't count yet, does it?

What are five books that have meant a lot to you?

This is the most difficult for me, because we all know how I feel about putting anything very personal on my blog. So that I can actually finish writing this in a reasonable period of time, I'm just going with three. Here we go, in no particular order, but with at least some explanation for each book.

1. 2,201 Fascinating Facts: I received this book when I was quite young. As the title implies it is a book filled with all sorts of amazing bits of trivia. (Only as I grew older did I realize that like all sources of information, it is not always correct.) This book set me on the path to become The Fount of Useless Information you all know and love. I read it over and over and over, until the binding broke and the pages began falling out in clumps like the hair of an underweight contestant on Survivor.

2. Devil in The Details: I've already reviewed this book on the blog. Not only did this book make me laugh hysterically, it also made me feel like I was not so alone in having to deal with the obsessive thoughts and behaviors that threaten to take over my life. See, this is the type of thing I was trying to avoid talking about.

3. Life of Pi: This was the first modern fiction book in quite sometime to really please me. I loved that it could be read and enjoyed on many levels. On the surface, it is a story of a teenage Indian boy in a life boat. Deeper down, it is the story of internal struggle and the potential duality of one's self. Deeper still, it is a story of truth and fiction and the if/when there is a difference.

Tagging....

Invisible Lizard because with a degree in Lit, the lizard has to be able to a better job than I did.

Malibu Librarian because he's, you know, a librarian.

Until later...

The Fount of Useless Information Overanalyzes Lyrics: A Special Father's Day Edition

Under the lyrical microscope today: "Daughters" by John Mayer.

To celebrate Father's Day, let's take a look at John Mayer's slightly creepy advice on child-rearing.

So fathers be good to your daughters,
daughters will love like you do,
girls become lovers who turn into mothers
so mothers be good to your daughters too.

Yes, just what every father wants to hear. An annoying guy telling him to treat his daughter well because eventually she'll become someone's lover.

Oh you see that skin
its the same shes been standing in
since the day you two met
i bet i was on your mind
never ever any time

It's quite astute of Mr. Mayer to realize that his girlfriend's father wasn't exactly spending all of his quality time with his daughter trying to make sure she is the perfect girlfriend in a couple of decades. Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that this wasn't a simple oversight.

On behalf of every man
who's looking out for every girl
you are the god and you are the weight of her world

So fathers be good to your daughters,
daughters will love like you do,
girls become lovers who turn into mothers
so mothers be good to your daughters too

There you have it. For all you father's out there, on this Father's Day, remember the important part of your job...making sure that your daughter grows up to be an appropriate companion for John Mayer...Oh, that's just wrong.


Until later...

It Rubs The Lotion on Its Skin

I've been watching a new show on Fox this summer called The Inside. The show focuses on the Violent Crimes Unit of the FBI and specifically on the newest member of the team, Rebecca Locke. Rebecca, as we find out, was kidnapped as a ten year old girl and held for 18 months before escaping. This experience gives her the edge to help her understand and catch the criminals they seek; it is her "gift, forged in pain" to use the words of her superior officer, Web. Web is the man in charge of VCU and seems to enjoy manipulating his people as they solve the crimes. He is not against putting them in harm's way without their knowledge or consent. Constantly butting heads with Web over his use of his people and specifically his use of Rebecca and her past is Paul Ryan.

The show tends to try to pull visuals, feelings and themes from both Seven and Silence of The Lambs. Unfortunately for the show and its ratings, it does not live up to either of those films. The SOTL comparisons are obvious, with Web playing Lector to Locke's Starling. Just in case we are all too slow to catch this comparison, one of the characters in the pilot episode disparagingly refers to Locke as Clarice. Always nice when a show decides to put some extra dialogue in just in case those of us in the audience are actually idiots.

Throughout each episode, they chase the bad guys who are, of course, more evil than anything we can imagine, and Web plays God with his staff. Paul becomes angry about the manipulation and resents the abuse of Locke's past. I'm still trying to decide whether sometime down the line we are going to find out that Web is actually a criminal, guilty of the same types of crimes they are supposed to solve or if we are going to realize that he is just a man whose past causes him to be obsessed with stopping the horrors no matter the cost to himself or others.

The Verdict: Just two episodes so far, so I'll reserve final judgment. I'll keep watching to give it a chance to impress me more; after all, it's still better than most of what's on TV. The best way to describe it is to steal a phrase a friend used while giving me an opinion on a movie: It's good enough that I'm disappointed it wasn't better.

Until later...

To Help Clear Up Any Confusion

There were some questions recently about what exactly tater tots are. So, as a service to any of our readers not brought up in the American Public School system, The Fount of Useless Information would like to provide this picture of tater tots. So good, and so good for you.

Trivial Tuesday

After the far too rapid answer and the whining about the simplicity of last week's question, we're coming back again this week with another Goonies related question that will hopefully be a little more challenging.

In the Goonies, the Walshes hire a cleaning woman named Rosalita. The actress playing Rosalita has been in many movies since then including a role as the murderer of a celebrity and a role as the mother in a surprise 2002 indie hit, which won her a special jury prize for acting at the Sundance Film Festival. Name both of these movies and prove that you don't just act like you know it all...you really do.

Update: Weekly bragging rights belong to Invisible Lizard who knew that in fact the lovely Rosalita also was a murderer in Selena and a mother in Real Women Have Curves, for which she won a Special Jury award at the Sundance Film Festival. To add to our completely intangible prize package, we are also posting a link for everyone to check out this week's trivia champ.



Until later...

I'm Lazy, So I'll Just Post A Link Instead

Here is an article from Slate about comedy album sales, specifically the success of Jeff Foxworthy.

The article begins with the following statement:

Jeff Foxworthy's Web site highlights two noteworthy bits of trivia about the Atlanta-based comedian: His wit has been compared to that of Mark Twain, and he is the best-selling comedy recording artist of all time.

To be honest, I'm not sure which one of those claims disturbs me more.


Until later...

Tina, Come Get Some Ham!

I was eating some tater tots earlier this evening, and realized a couple of things.

1. I can't eat tater tots without thinking of the scene in Napoleon Dynamite where he hides tater tots in pockets.

2. Tater tots are one of those foods that seem strange to eat except in certain circumstances. There are a few fast food restaurants that serve tots, but otherwise when was the last you ate tater tots outside of a school cafeteria. French fries? Hashbrowns? These are normal fried potato products, but for some reason the tot is trapped behind the seafoam green walls of educational institutions.

Until later...

Fair And Balanced

In the interest of allowing both sides of a non-issue to have their say, here is an email we received this morning:

FREE TOM CRUISE!

Summary:
New website FreeTom.net asserts that Tom Cruise is the real victim, countering claims made by Katie Holmes fans.

For Immediate Release:

There comes a time in each of our lives when we must make a choice. Sit back, do nothing, and watch the forces of evil take holdÂ… Or stand up, speak out, and TAKE A STAND!

THAT TIME IS NOW.

That is... according to FreeTom.net, a new website claiming that Tom Cruise is the real victim, falling under the spell of a "calculating young actress looking to catapult her career off of Tom's stardom." Countering claims made by Katie Holmes fans, FreeTom.net asks Tom Cruise fans to save him from the "clutches of the evil Katie Holmes."

For the undecided, FreeTom.net asks us to consider:

TOM CRUISE:
Risky Business, Top Gun, Rain Man, A Few Good Men

KATIE HOLMES:
Muppets From Space, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Phone Booth, The Singing Detective

Good points.

If you are a Tom Cruise fan and wish to show your support before it's too late, or if you're just looking for a general good laugh, visit FreeTom.net.

For more details:

celebrityrocket@sbcglobal.net

I just couldn't sit idly by and watch the Tom-bashing any longer.

If anyone is under a spell, it's Tom. Look who has something

to gain. Tom is already a major superstar. Katie is the one

getting much needed exposure out of this. I didn't even know

she was in Batman Begins before all this.

In any case, if you're a Tom fan, now you have someplace to go.

At least it isn't so one-sided anymore.

-Charles

So there you have it. We've given you info on both sides, and devoted far more time than originally intended to this subject. Now we will leave you with the promise that this subject will not get its own post ever again. From here on out you're on your own to make important decisions like is Tom or Katie to blame or is Paris really planning to marry a guy named Paris and then name a child Paris?

Until later...

There's No Limit

There's a commercial for Mentos that seems to be playing about every third commercial break regardless of what channel I'm watching recently.

In the commercial, there are a bunch of birds in various situations all squawking to a the rhythm of a song. As we go from scene to scene, the birds continue their singing and people in homes and pet stores look very confused. During one scene in a pet store, a parrot sings, "There's no limit," in its creepy parrot voice. We see a few more clips of birds, followed by a cuckoo retreating into its clock with a package of Mentos.

I'm not the only one completely creeped out by this commercial, am I?

The Fount of Useless Information Recommends T-Shirts

I need a new t-shirt, and I'm thinking that this might be the place to find the one. Over at Free Katie, they are campaigning to free Katie Holmes from the nefarious grips of Tom Cruise. Is it any of our business? No, of course not. Does it really make a difference in my life? Not really. No. Is it the site amusing? Without a doubt. Is it wrong to try to free poor Katie? Possibly, but certainly no more wrong than having to witness Tom Cruise go completely psychotic on Oprah. Only Rob and Amber of Survivor/Amazing Race/Rob and Amber Get Married quasi-fame are a more annoying couple, but even they were not truly ubiquitous like the TomKat. If buying a t-shirt can prevent us from having to endure Tom proclaim his love each time a camera goes by, then don't forget to don your Free Katie shirt before going to see War of the Worlds.

If the campaign fails to free Ms. Holmes, I can only hope that the vows at the eventual wedding go something like this:

Minister: "The couple has decided to write their own vows, which they will now read to each other."

Tom: "Katie, I can't imagine living my life without you. I've been trying for days to find the words to express the way I feel, and I think I've finally got it. 'Katie, You can be my wingman any time.'"

Katie: "No, man. You can be mine."

Now, go forth and purchase.

Until later...

Life on The Pharm: Boundaries

Back to the office once again for more stories. I often wonder how it is that people can have such different boundaries. Just because I believe that something is acceptable doesn't mean that you will and vice-versa. This is how we end up having problems with close talkers or people who feel that it's acceptable to hug anyone and everyone. Unfortunately, sometimes these boundary-crossings happen in the workplace, to make things even worse, sometimes they happen in the bathroom.

I was just finishing up washing my hands and preparing to leave the restroom one day recently when a coworker walked in. As he passed me, we exchanged the obligatory "Hey. Howyadoin'?" I went to the paper towel dispenser, and began drying my hands. Then, as he entered a stall, he decided to address me again. Now this is not a, simple "seeya later, have a nice day" type of thing on his way into the stall, but instead he entered a stall while asking me a question, shut the door, dropped trou, sat down and waited for an answer (I'm guessing that's not all he was doing while sitting there, but contemplating the reality of the situation is far too disturbing for me). This was not some sort of question pertaining to work that had to be answered at that very moment. It was a question about the upcoming NBA draft. Typically, I don't mind discussing the professional prospects of various college basketball players, but when the other party is sitting on a toilet, I don't feel that it is the appropriate time for that (or any) conversation. Feeling rather awkward (i.e. wishing to be anywhere other than where I was at that moment) I answered the question and tried to leave. No such luck. From the stall came the disembodied voice again with a follow-up question. At this point I was left with two options, be incredibly rude and follow my instincts which were telling me to run screaming out of the bathroom or stand there carrying on a conversation with the toilet-bound colleague. I eventually opted for the middle ground, replying as briefly as succinctly as possible and exiting immediately upon ending my sentence, preventing any opportunity for continued conversation. To put it mathematically: Defecation+Conversation=Abomination. Boundaries, people, boundaries.

So for all of my readers out there, file this away for future reference: If your naked posterior is currently in contact with porcelain, I do not wish to converse with you. When you are done, fully clothed and have washed your hands, come see me and I'll be more than willing to talk. Chances are, I might be able to concentrate on the subject a little bit better, as I won't have to dedicate 75% of my brain power to figure out how to escape.

Until later...

Trivial Tuesday

Today's Category: Movie Nostalgia

Anyone who knows me well, knows I love The Goonies and I love my Goonies DVD (once you can quote the entire movie on your own, the viewing experience is greatly enhanced by adding the commentary). So, we're going back to Astoria for this question. Jeff Cohen is probably best known for playing Chunk in the Goonies and while it's tempting to ask you where Jeff Cohen went to college, eventually becoming the Student Association president, I won't. Instead, I want you to tell me Chunk's actual name. (First is sufficient.)

Post the answer to this week's (very easy) question in the comments section, and claim what is rightfully yours, the right to brag to everyone you know about how smart you are.

Until later...

Update: Wow! That was quick. Congratulations to Laziest Girl who rapidly gave us the answer of Lawrence. Apparently I was overcompensating for the past two weeks and making the questions too easy.

Maria Full of Grace

We watched Maria Full of Grace this weekend. It was quite good and painted a not-so-wonderful picture of being a drug mule. I felt that the balance between how horrors of the job and the reasoning behind someone becoming a mule was very well done. While I could never imagine taking such a risk myself, I could never imagine having to deal with some of the situations they dealt with either. This helped make the film much more believable.

The thing I found the most odd about the movie is that the actress playing Maria (Catalina Sandino Moreno) looked remarkably like my friend, Fashion Maven. I don't mean she looked exactly like her; there were some features that were very different and there was the thing about how one of them is Colombian and the other...decidedly not. Regardless, it was strange to see someone who looked that much like someone you know on screen swallowing pellets of heroin to smuggle across borders.

Until later...

Book Club

At our most recent book club meeting, we discussed She's Come Undone, by Wally Lamb, which I have already discussed here. I doubt that any of you care too much about the discussion, but I was a little saddened by how wonderful some of the people thought the book was and that some of the women in the group were shocked to realize that it was written by a man.

Really, posting about this just gives me an opportunity to post some pictures of what I brought to our lunch meeting. By not responding quickly to the email asking for people to sign up for various portions of the lunch, I ended up being responsible for bringing plates, bowls, silverware, etc. That was not nearly exciting enough, so I thought maybe I'd make a dessert (somehow no one had been assigned to make one). After checking with Filter-free Coworker (the organizer of this month's meeting) to make sure she had no problem with it (someone offering to make dessert...of course she didn't), I decided to make a chocolate cake with a white chocolate ganache between the layers and on top. The ganache didn't turn out with the exact texture I wanted (partly due to differences between white chocolate and actual chocolate, and partly due to slightly too much enthusiasm on my part during the mixing), but it still worked. I added sliced strawberries on the top and around the sides. I was very pleased with the way it tasted if not how it looked. Here are a couple of pictures. Note the triangle of dark chocolate on top; single varietal Venezuelan criollo chocolate 71% cacao...mmm.







Until later...

Favorite Songs

After I posted about current songs that I really can't stand, I got to thinking about reversing the list and going with a list of songs that I am completely enamoured with. I eventually discarded that idea and came up with a slightly different one.

If you had to look back and pick a single song, any time period, any genre and say that that is the song for you, what would it be? If you are like me you might find this to be rather difficult, because I usually have a current favorite song, but songs fall out of favor as I listen to them too many times and as others replace them. This song may not even be one you listen to all the time, but one that when you hear it causes you to sigh contendedly and just let the music wash over you for a while. Or it might be a song that the instant it begins, you have to turn the radio up and sing along or start dancing around the living room. What would your song be?

For me, I listen to a lot of new music and I tend to really love hip hop, but to pick out one song I have to go back to what is really before my time. I have to choose Prelude to a Kiss by Duke Ellington. Since there are many different recordings out there, I would say specifically the one on Duke Ellington's Greatest Hits (copy this shortcut and paste in a new browser window for a sample from Amazon.com). The first time I heard this song (sitting in a class on popular music in culture, actually), I sat there listening to the piano intro leading into the slow, gentle tones of the saxophone feeling completely enveloped in the music. It's not my typical drive-time music, but each and every time I hear it I still have that first impression of awe and total immersion in its melody.

Now what about you? What is your song? Post it in the comments section, post it on your own blog, shout it from the rooftops, turn the volume on your radio up to 11 and sing along as you drive down the road. (Eyes open and both hands on the wheel though. I don't have so many readers that I can afford to spare any.)

Until later...

Time to Find a New Line of Work

It seems that my line of work has become more dangerous recently, and I wasn't even aware of it. Over the past few years, several microbiologists (or people who are closer enough to microbiologists to fit into a conspiracy nut's theory...more on that later) have died. Some were natural deaths, while others were from outside causes (car accidents, plane crashes, murder, suicide, industrial accidents). While people die all the time, these people have jobs that could possibly link them to secret government projects. If these now deceased scientists might have been working on something secret and dangerous, then none of this can be a coincidence. The question then becomes, as one article put it, "Who's killing the world's microbiologists?" (Not to be confused with the 1978 film, Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?) More articles here and here.

I have to point out a few issues I have with several of the articles (and I'm using that term as loosely as possible here) I have found on the subject. Despite what one might think from reading these articles microbiologists, geneticists, molecular biologists and protein chemists are not all the same thing. While they don't tend to feud on an East Coast-West Coast level, they might chafe at being lumped in with the other groups. Some of the techniques may overlap, but they are all fairly distinct groups.

All of the articles seem to take any involvement with DNA sequencing or molecular biology as evidence that a researcher is involved in covert bioweapon research. If this is true and would make one a target, I am very glad that I have now moved into pharmaceutical manufacturing. I can only imagine how much danger I would have been in if the terrorists, government agency, or aliens (Take your pick. No one can decide who is responsible) had developed an interest in genetic analysis of hydrogenases before I finished school.

Before you begin asking "isn't it possible that these things could all be just coincidence?", one of the authors has done the work for us. According to his calculations the odds of this happening are 14,000,000,000 to 1. That's awfully nice of him to help us out like that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he might want the help of an actuary or statistician to try and figure this one out.

Several of the things in the articles end up being remarkably perplexing. For example, when it is brought up that in the case of a specific scientist, there was no evidence in his research to make him a potential target, the theorist's answer is that it's not proof that he wasn't doing anything that would make him a target. This is true, but the same logic can be applied to show that he could have potentially been researching the best way to market Barbie dolls to males age 13-18; after all, there's no proof he wasn't. This is how these theories typically work. Facts that may or may not belong together are joined with a theory that could possibly explain everything, even though many simpler explanations are available. Once the theory is formed, the burden of proof is no longer on the theorist to prove the theory but on the more rational or more naive depending on one's point of view. You see, absence of evidence is only further evidence of a cover up.

To sum up, let's follow the logic of one of these theories, and see if you can understand how the various leaps of faith are made. Several scientists have died in circumstances ranging from the suspicious (murder) to the ultra-suspicious (things like heart attacks and complications from lung transplant surgery). These scientists worked in similar fields, and some of them had experience in molecular biology. Still with me? Good, because this is where it starts getting a little sketchy. The theory now explains that all of these people were in fact working on weapons that could specifically target ethnic groups while leaving others unimpacted. (Proof? Remember, you have to prove that they weren't doing it. All evidence has been covered up.) Then, the people who were working on the weapons program were targeted and killed by a terrorist group that is making a weapon that will destroy most of the population of the planet. They had to eliminate these people because the scientists were the ones who could have developed a cure. Note that for absolutely no reason whatsoever, we have made a complete 180 and gone from theorizing that the scientists were developing ethnically targeted weapons to theorizing that they were killed for being able to cure the terrorist's super weapon. Look back at this theory and remember one thing: The only actual facts here are that people who worked in some related fields of study died. How did we get from point A to point B Z?

Whenever things come up that we don't understand or that we don't want to accept, we often try to find ways to explain them to ourselves and each other. While we may not like to think about the fact that people die, they die of natural causes well before what we believe is their time. They die in tragic accidents. They even die horrifically at the hands of other people. It's much easier to think that there is some sort of nefarious plan to eliminate specific people and that if we can find and thwart this enemy, we can all be safe again than to realize that sometimes things don't happen for a real reason; they just happen.

Of course, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to update my resume seek a new career. Maybe I'll become a pastry chef, or blog full-time. Maybe I'll join the IFOCE.

Until later...