The Truth Comes Out

Remember back when Karl Rove quit, and everybody was all like, "High five!" No? Sure you do. You just forgot a little bit because you were convinced at the time that his leaving the government would mean that things would get better, or at least not any worse. But that didn't happen, so your brain sort of scrubbed that notion and now when you hear "Karl Rove" you act like you never wanted to watch him drown in a bucket of malmsey.

Rove was often referred to as "Bush's Brain," to refresh your memory, but this could not be true for two reasons: Bush already has a brain that contains the answer to all of his troubles: his father's telephone number. And, Bush and Rove are not puppet and master, but rather two well-matched, malevolent morons, one with a face that would stop a clock at ninety yards and the other an affable drunk.

But anyhow, Rove resigned his post as Bush's massively overrated advisor (how much skill, really, does it take to yell "liberal!" or "bitch!" or "black liberal bitch!" at your political opponents?) and went home to, as the Onion put it, spend more time smearing his own family. In reality, however, Rove hasn't even left the office. He now appears at least as frequently as he ever did before on national television shows and in national newspapers, only now he's the free, unfettered voice of experience, issuing dire warnings to us all about what the Democrats are "really" going to be like if they're elected to the White House.

His most important message: Democrats are liars and have a pathological need to embellish, distort, parse, and torture the truth.

Given his own outrageous work for a president who was drilled to lie, lie about his lies, then lie about lying about lies, I will extend this bit of charity to the bag of shit that is Karl Rove: when he says he knows all about liars and lying, you can be sure he is the world's all-time expert. And, unfortunatley for him, therefore also the least qualified advocate for truth-telling in all of human history.


*Speaking of conservatives and the stupid things they say, I keep hearing rightwingers chittering that a President Obama or Clinton would be terribly, terribly expensive. They'd raise taxes, and pay for health care out of government funds, and fix levees and bridges and such, and lots of other things that Americans sort of need in order to live, but it would cost gobs of money!

Can conservatives not hear themselves? Have their minds grown weary of listening to the nonsense coming from their hero-God-President and just fried the pathways that conduct sound from their ears to their brains? Can they read?

"Expensive"? Really? Really?! Iraq-War-expensive, you fucking subhuman garbage??!

I thought not.

Bratz Dollz Lawzuit Iz Unzettled

Mattel toy company and some outfit called MGA Entertainment (which sounds like a front for three fat Sicilian guys and their franchise of storefront call girl operations) are suing each other, claiming it was the other one that inflicted the Bratz line of dolls on the Earth, thereby turning your children into preteen whores ("Slutz"?).

What's that? They're suing each other because they want credit for this monstrosity?!

No Honor Amongst Well Thieves

Punctuate that heading any way you like.

According to some story I read on the internet, there's a menace stalking the damned regions of the planet, the oil fields. It would seem that the rapid rise in the price of oil to levels known as fucking insanely high has produced a new type of criminal: the oil thief. Awesome. People are starting up their own oil companies, buying old, dried-up wells, and then pretending to produce oil when in fact they just drive to other peoples' wells at night and steal from their storage tanks. Again, awesome! Who could have guessed that men who would rape the earth for crude oil will also try to fuck each other for crude oil?

Lies Rupert Murdoch Told Me

This free Wall Street Journal keeps coming to my house. Fuck! I want to stop reading it, but I can't seem to bring myself to just toss it in the garbage and I don't have a bird or a house-training puppy.

But here's the thing: I tried reading the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times, and they are just awful. People say the Tribune is a conservative paper, at least on the editorial pages, but it's less conservative than simply hateful in the same low-key, passive-aggressive way I've found midwesterners in general to be. The Trib is like the big guy standing behind you in a checkout line: won't say anything directly to you about what an asshole he thinks you appear to be, but he'll keep bumping your cart with his, "accidentally," and if given half the chance he'd run you over with his car and keep going, smiling big. That's Chicago's flagship newspaper, an overstuffed, underwritten, contemptuous, brooding heap, that gets called "conservative" by those who mistake haughty poses for something else.

The Sun-Times is a paper that just wants to be liked as much as USA Today, but is not as well written.

In comparison to those two, the Wall Street Journal has everything on its side. Most of the content slants right, but just about all of it also starts off with facts and ends up as snapshots of actual, meaningful things. No wonder MBAs think they have a better read on society than smart people do--when all you read is reporting on business and politics, life looks pretty simple.

By the way (and since there's no ending for this post), did you know that the only currencies the dollar is gaining against are the UK pound (which is still worth almost $2), the Turkish lira (up 6.3%!), the South African rand (12.1%), the Thai baht, the Vietnamese dong (up, up, up! down...), South Korean wong, and the rupees of both India and Pakistan. Everything else, we're down. Guess which world currencies are the strongest against the dollar? The dinar of Bahrain = $2.65 and the dinar of Kuwait = $3.75. What do you think that means?

Recesshawazzat, II

What does a recession "sound" like? It's an important question, because all I hear is happy talk from public figures, financial experts, and journalists. But despite their rosiest takes, those people know that the hobgoblin of the US economy is that tangled mass called "consumer confidence," which is by any measure quite low these days. That being the case, talking about the economy in realistic--which is the same, just now, as gloomy--terms isn't going to erode confidence any further. So, when will we see somebody in a position of authority talk about the recession we're in and offer up some ideas instead of pie in the sky?

Recesshawazzat?

Since I'm too young to remember, what, exactly, does a recession sound like?

And Finally

The first 10 pages of the WSJ front section are relatively easy to take: just plain old articles, some silly, some serious, all slanted to the right and most of them only mildly irritating. But the so-called editorial pages, which are ironically named because the paper apparently has no editor, judging by the content or lack thereof, are to be avoided at all costs. I will only cite one article, because that's as much as I can take.

Something, certainly not human, called "Daniel Henninger" has a column named "Wonder Land," which I thought might be a tip off that it is satirical in nature, but that, sadly, is probably not the case. Thing Henninger has titled this piece (again, he must have done it because NO EDITOR) "Democracies Don't Let People Die." And...I just laughed and barfed at the same time. The sub-head is, "China and Burma Prove the Need for Accountability." Please, make your case (bearing in mind that I live in the United States and will be evaluating everything you say against what I know to be true in my own country. So, unless you are aiming at an audience on Mars or in a parallel dimension, you are swimming upstream, Henninger!).

It begins: China is refusing some earthquake relief efforts from other countries because it wants to prove "self-reliance." Whatever. In a country that big, says I, development is bound to be uneven and some areas will be devastated by things like earthquakes. If China's government--it of the booming economy--wants to go it alone, fuck it. Moreover, is Henninger actually calling into question the idea of local and even national sovereignty in favor of some sort of worldwide welfare state? So, let me get this straight (in other words, Henninger should think before he types, if he is capable of it): we're one sentence into your editorial and you have already chucked the notion of national governments in favor of mandatory international oversight? Or, can you just not get over the conservative jerkoff fantasy that communist countries should become the colonies of the United States until they "embrace" democracy?

Anyway, then we're off to Myanmar, which Henninger weirdly still refers to as "Burma," even though that's not the name of the country anymore. Is his name "Henninger"? I understand that his great-great-great-great grandfather was called "Assface Shitburger" by all the villagers, on account of being born with his ass on his face and a penchant for ingesting shit smeared on bread. But, back to the article itself, Assface Shitburger VII (whom I will henceforth just call "Shitface" or "Shitface VII," writes that, as there is a second cyclone heading towards Myanmar (note: there isn't a second cyclone, according to actual weather reports available the day before this article was published), it's inexcusable for the junta to keep refusing outside aid.

Then, Shitface VII writes, "When a China or Burma (again, WTF?) and its people are in the throes of such catastrophe, one is loath to make invidious comparisons."

See if you can guess what comes next. Literally, the next sentence:

"Let's get to it."

Sigh. OK, Shitface, lay it on us. The invidious comparisons, a term Henninger--I mean Shitface VII--clearly doesn't really understand based on the fact that just listing unrelated events is not "comparing" them, begin with a simple statement that liberals are stupid because they ridicule Bush's calls for "more democracy." Apparently, Shitface VII is aware of some substance or strategy or meaning in what appears to be merely a slogan and sometime-excuse for Bush to do whatever the fuck he pleases. Henninger/Shitface VII is either a liar or the recipient of significant brain damage.

"Tectonic plates in motion don't distinguish between democracies and autocracies..." finally, a true statement! Then, a list of notable natural disasters, most in third-world countries. Lots of death and destruction. No explanation of how, for instance, the Soviet Union could have saved some of the 25,000 people who died in Armenia in 1988. Or what the type of government in Mexico in 1985 has to do with the earthquake there. 31,000 people died in Iran in 2003; they lived in an "ancient city," Shitface says, and Iran was "mullahfied" at the time. Is there a connection? Is our children learning? Shitface VI's children is not learning. Do argument proof logic need connection me say? What word, Henninger, you think?

Shitface VII/Henninger says, again without any evidence, that most people die after disasters in autocratically-run countries, because unaccountable politicians "don't give a damn." That's very odd...where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah! Kanye West was talking about Mexico's RPI party in 1985! Or was it the Chinese government? Only in non-democratic countries will you find politicians who aren't accountable and "don't give a damn"!

After all, when people die in a democracy--and here Shitface VII is careful to argue that in that case, as in others, it's because "bad cement" exists in democracies, too--"public outrage calls for heads to roll." And then, like someone who has never actually had to answer for a stupid statement, Henninger actually smacks headlong into Hurricane Katrina. See, it was so much better than what happens in other countries, because the head of FEMA got fired! (but stayed on as a consultant and still got paid by the Bush administration.) AFTER the hurricane flooded an entire city with millions of residents! Score! ONE guy lost his job! That's democracy, baby! Suck it, Burma or whatever the fuck you think your country is called!

Shitface VII is honest enough to admit that Bush took some heat, too, and that he has never been as beloved as he was before Katrina. But enough about the man who let an entire US city be destroyed and thousands of people drown, and who still hasn't actually dealt with the Katrina disaster, or for that matter, any of the numerous disasters on his watch, let's get back to slamming other countries for doing exactly what George Bush did!

Paragraph 11: Shitface VII makes a completely out-of-left-field mention of former World Bank chairman Paul Wolfowitz, whom Shitface calls a "democracy-addicted neo-con," which I guess is a synonym for "warmongering Bush crony, appointed to a sinecure because he couldn't get approved for a job in the United States government because he lost all credibility on that giant clusterfuck in Iraq but don't bring that up because it reflects reality and I, Daniel Henninger, AKA Assface Shitburger VII, don't believe in facts or reason." This shout out to Wolfowitz has nothing to do with anything, but Shitface, I guess (guessing because he's such a terrible writer that it's hard to tell what he thinks he's doing, much less what he actually is doing), wants to name-drop one of his fallen heroes and to whine that it was bureaucracy, not Wolfowitz's venal abuse of his position to get a job for his girlfriend, that drove him out and resulted in the Bank loaning money (a completely unsubstantiated accusation, by the way) to shoddy builders whose structures have now collapsed and killed all those damn yellow and brown people who just won't become Americans already no matter how much we tell them to.

Luckily, though, right after he runs out of steam and just starts tossing random neo-con names out to fill space, Henninger Shitface VII actually does run out of space. And so, he must sum up his wreck of an article and does so by undermining the whole thing. Because, in case it isn't apparent, Daniel Henninger is a complete moron. The bottom line: Accountability is the key, and it only appears in democracies, because politicians feel the pressure to be reelected. The United States is no angel, because it makes deals with and even supports some of these autocratic regimes (though, we can be certain, not Henninger's beloved President Bush, who is the victim of "bottomless, neurotic antipathy" from the left that mystifies ol' Shitface, deep thinker though he is). But, democracy is the ticket for, uh, dealing with disasters, because, um, Katrina taught us that...which is to say, uh...the Iraq and South Africa, and such as...ummmmm...

You know what? Shut the fuck up, Daniel Henninger.

The only "wonders" in your Wonder Land concern how you dress and feed yourself (DO you?), how you got a job with a head full of mush and half-thoughts of the sub-moronic variety, and how many times I will feel compelled to slap you in your stupid face if I ever catch you in public.

Hotpoint Range-top Stole the Ball!!

Of course, not every article in the Wall Street Journal is thought-provoking and insightful. How's that for a useless opening sentence? Today's front-page headline is "GE May Shed Storied Appliance Unit."

"Storied"? Ah yes: as a child, I would sit on my pappy's knee and be regaled with tales of that one time, when the Fighting 53rd, a paratrooper unit made up entirely of air conditioners, saved the world by spraying Nazis with freon during the Battle of the Bulge. Or how about when the New York Yankees were down by 2, bottom of the 9th, and Yogi Berra had shin splints so they had to use their last position player, a young appliance fresh from the factory named "GE" Self-cleaning Electric Oven, and he never took the bat off his burners and got hit on the side and thus brought in the winning run? Of course, nobody mentions that he wound up in the scratch-and-dent leagues, for far less money, but that stove's legend lives on! Everybody knows about the 1985-86 Chicago Bears and their legendary defensive lineman, William "The Refrigerator" Perry, but not many remember that the 6-foot tall, 350-pound Perry was, in fact, and actual refrigerator.

Ah, storied GE appliances. We'll miss you.

Obama's Shell Game

Goddamn you, Wall Street Journal! Why don't you stop being delivered to my doorstep every morning? The guilty liberal in me demands that I read you before chucking your worthless newsprint ass into the recycling bag, but do you have to be so provocative?!

Today, I finally got an explanation of Obama's delegate count that is far clearer than any of the gibberish I've heard from television hacks who likely don't understand what they're saying, either. The WSJ has it that Obama has built his delegate lead in the small states with lowest voter turnout (do you hear alarm bells yet?). In the big states--which Clinton has just about swept--he has managed to pick up more delegates than she because his organization has concentrated not on the high-turnout general primaries, but on the clubby, exclusive, low-turnout caucuses. I don't claim to know the significance of this strategy, but the result is clear: Clinton has dominated the traditional Democratic states' primaries, Obama has won in a bunch of backwaters that traditionally go Republican in November, and yet Obama holds the commanding lead in the race for the nomination.

Some would question the fairness of this situation (though "fairness" is arguably unrelated to electoral politics). Not the Obama people, of course. The quote in the WSJ is from Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, who smirks, "These aren't our rules, they're the DNC rules, and rather than whining about them (Clinton) should have started organizing."

All well and good, except that the strategy in question doesn't have any relation to organizing voters in the traditional sense. It's a rearguard action, a backdoor ploy meant to exploit a weakness in the democratic process and keep Obama in the race in the early stages no matter what voters in the primaries decided. And though Obama has inarguably attracted a massive number of new, or re-energized, voters to his campaign, that isn't the part that has paid dividends for him. It's this other, unpublicized scheme that has him in the lead, not his hopeful masses of changeriffic acolytes. I've been saying for months, in response to the Obama love-in, that the general election isn't like the primaries; that Obama had better shore up his support if he wants to trounce McCain in November, rather than limp into what already looks to be a trying situation for Bush's shit-shoveling successor. But now, I'm doubly-concerned, because it doesn't appear that Obama really has the base of support we think he does. He has a bunch of delegates that were given to him by DNC lifers who manipulated less-democratic caucuses in order to insulate Obama from the effects of more-democratic primaries. That Obama has the edge in the popular vote is, then, incidental and merely fortuitous, unrelated to his strategy.

Clinton certainly should not have left herself open to being beaten by such a smarmy trick. But, for the Obama campaign to now thump its chest and chide her for not reading the rulebook carefully enough is, in no uncertain terms, the same as taunting anyone who loses on a technicality. When Chris Webber called a timeout he didn't have in the national championship game in 1993, incurring a technical foul and costing Michigan a chance to win the game, I didn't hear the UNC Tar Heels touting the rulebook after the game. I don't see the New England Patriots deriding the St. Louis Rams for not videotaping them, despite the fact that the rulebook apparently allows it. When people lose their appeals for Social Security or disability benefits, because technically they aren't eligible, I never hear the government's lawyers getting in cripples' faces and going, "you should have looked for some loopholes and gray areas, motherfucker! Boo yah!"

Obama has all but won. But if his strategy relied on manipulating caucuses and winning the smallest elections possible, then nobody can say he has earned it.

By the way, just because I have wanted such a thing, here's a list of who won what states (I tend to believe more in the primaries, which approximate general elections in my opinion. Caucuses are for egg heads and party diehards who hate democracy). You may notice that Obama has won the popular vote in exactly 1 sure-thing Democratic state: Illinois. Other than that, he has won Connecticut, DC, Wisconsin, and Hawaii in the "probably will vote Democratic" camp, and has a shot, based on his primary victories, at Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland. But everything else Obama has won is in Republican territory, and to quote a very bad movie Jack Nicholson was in, Obama supporters need to "think white and get serious" about his chances in, say, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, and the like, in November. It isn't going to happen. Then there's the much bigger question of, if he got his ass kicked by Clinton in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and California, what is Obama going to do to secure those states after she's out of the race? I doubt they voted for her in the primaries simply because she is a Democrat--they voted for Clinton instead of Obama, so he may not just inherit those voters when Clinton steps aside. Where will the caucus ace-in-the-hole be then, David Plouffe?

Seriously, inquiring minds want to know. Where's the substance to this campaign?

#700

Ah, post #700. It's been a long, stupid road to get here, and posting once every 1.808 days for some three-and-a-half years has been a real grind. Work smarter, not harder, Josh!

Anyway, the people upstairs moved out and somehow forgot to switch their subscription to the Wall Street Journal, so guess what I read today? Page 2 has a very lazy piece about whether Obama is more like Bobby Kennedy or Gary Hart. Um, are you fucking kidding me, Gerald F. Seib (if that is your real name)?

He must be kidding, gentle readers, because he writes the following: Gary Hart was a Democratic frontrunner until doubts about his personal choices, experience, and unconventional views scared voters back to the mainstream candidate.

Robert Kennedy was a Democratic frontrunner until he got shot in the back of the head.

No, seriously; Seib recounts how Kennedy tried, during that ill-fated summer in 1968, to recast himself as a less aggressive, less "ruthless" (Seib's term) political animal, leading up to his big win in a contested California primary.

And--excuse me, but does this sound familiar?--from these retold snippets, Seib concludes that Barack Obama reminds him more of...Bobby Kennedy! Have I gone crazy, or did Hillary win California? Is she or is she not the person most voters see as "ruthless" and calculating? The Obama-Gary Hart comparison is a slam dunk, Seib! Jesus Whom You Don't Believe In Christ, man!! Obama = Kennedy only in the sense that Barack should avoid narrow hotel pantries and insist on appearing only in open, well-lit, public places.

Does the article mean anything? Nope. One can see that plain, just by reminding oneself that this election is between a black man and a woman. This changes everything.

Maybe the people who moved out didn't forget to switch the subscription...

Web Of Horror III

Is this #3 of WOH? Sure. Let's say it is.

Skyler & Jessica: the Evil of Banality.

If Skyler and/or Jessica happen to see this, I'm sorry. But you totally suck. All three pillars of the Blogpocalypse are present and on the same page: wedding photos, cats, and your own artwork. I hear hoofbeats...

Fuck You, Jon Stewart

Does anyone still watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? Tell me, is it for the interviews where he sucks off this week's "Republican voice of reason," or do you read Playboy for the articles?

I'm out. TDS, as well as The Colbert Report, are off my must watch list (TDS has been in the shitter since the Bill O'Reilly interview years ago). Why? Let me explain:

Jon Stewart, two weeks ago, had a short piece about the Civil War In The Democratic Party, which was essentially cribbed from either Obama campaign releases or ABC News' tattered defense of the indefensible, to wit: media coverage of the primaries. Stewart regurgitated mass media talking points, including but not limited to, "Hillary Clinton cannot win," "Obama is forging a New Democratic Coalition," "Hillary should drop out," "Party leadership should stay out of it," "The voters have spoken," "Obama has won/can win/will win, despite any opinion to the contrary...which is coming from traitors, liars, fascist asshole old-guard Democrats and Republican saboteurs," and my favorite, "Hillary Clinton's campaign is Destroying The Democratic Party!"

Now, besides the fact that such declarations sound stupid, are stupid, make you look stupid, smack of conspiracy and anything but "Hope" (TM); Jon Stewart might have considered that in saying such things he is repeating precisely what ABC, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC have already said. Yes, Jon: you are now one of the "bright boys" of the mainstream media.

Stephen Colbert, immediately following the Stewart capitulation, devoted his "The Word" segment to, and see if this seems familiar, how Hillary Clinton's campaign was/is/continues to Destroy The Democratic Party. Accepting no logic or nuance, Colbert has been for some weeks now pumping Obama openly and without shame. He argued a few days ago that those who doubt Obama can win the general election are somehow undermining democracy because, in his own words, "Obama got more popular votes" and so, you see, he MUST be the winner!

Stephen, you disingenuous prick, why don't you tell that to Al Gore? Send a prayer-letter to Grover Cleveland and Samuel Tilden while you're at it, you fucking moron.

Stephen Colbert apparently recognizes no differences between primaries and general elections; does he believe in electoral votes? Can he read a map, and if so, has he noticed that, with the exception of Illinois, Obama has carried mostly states that will never, ever, ever go for a Democrat in a general election? Has he thought about this?

More importantly, what is his beef with the Clinton campaign? Would he be attacking John Edwards if Edwards had chosen (as he considered doing) to continue until the convention, in order to make a point and direct debate towards poverty issues? The notion that delaying the coronation--Obama supporters' fondest dreams--of the nominee somehow harms the Democrats' chances in November is unsupported by ANY evidence whatsoever, save for the hot air coming from the mouths of journalists who have nothing else to do, apparently, except make shit up.

And that's the whole point of this post, really. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report used to be essentially viewing for people like me, those who were incredibly angry and had no outlet, no media that spoke for us. But, both shows seem to have wholeheartedly embraced the Obama wave, and that's fine, as long as it's clear up front. But they have not come out and said, "this show is stumping for Obama, by the way," and so instead every episode is a Hillary-bashing by two comedians who have made themselves very important to people like me, while they pretend they're not carrying water for Obama. That is an insult to viewers' intelligence.

Moreover, it isn't right. The worst thing I can think to say about either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert is that they are no better than the major media outlets covering the campaign. In fact, both have used clips from CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX (FOX, for Christ's sake!) to support their attacks on Clinton. Excuse me, guys, but if you're reporting the same thing as the major media, then why on earth do I need you? You want to shovel shit on a Democrat (only one, in particular, too)? I already saw that movie: it was called Ken Starr. It was called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was called Maureen Dowd, AKA Chris Matthews, AKA Bob Novak, AKA George W. Bush. What's your fucking problem? Do you just not get how this works? I think you don't. So, you don't get to be on my TV anymore. Piss off.

And finally, for all the Obama people out there: yes, your guy is winning and almost certainly will win the nomination. But when he does, the pressure's on you. You assholes had better show up in November, in record numbers, everywhere. If he loses, it's your fault. All the bullshit you're talking right now will be your epitaph if you don't stop the crybaby act and do some hard work--so far, I have seen nothing to suggest that Obama supporters, in general, have the faintest clue how to lay the groundwork for a massive voter turnout. The candidate seems like he's got it down just fine; too many of his biggest fans come off as naive, flaky dumbasses. A little pragmatism, dare I say, wouldn't hurt: I'm for Clinton, but I always vote the right way--maybe because I live in a place called "reality"--and I'll pull the lever marked "D" come November, no matter who it is.

Thank You, Frank Rich

Frank Rich had an editorial in the NY Times last Sunday in which he pointed out that all the hysteria over the Great Rift In The Democratic Party is completely unnecessary because, and he is the only person to notice this, apparently, John McCain is sucking total balls. Using the PA primary as his evidence, Rich noted that not only a significant number of GOP voters stayed home, but of those that bothered to go to the polls for the primary, McCain basically won a plurality amidst a strong showing for Mike Huckabee and Ron Motherfucking Paul. So, despite the hand-wringing, McCain looks like hammered-down dogshit and Clinton/Obama are still drawing huge interest, generating excitement, creating fertile new debates, etc.

Thank you, Frank Rich.

Fuck You, Amtrak

In 1999, or so, a friend and I took Amtrak from Durham, NC, to Charlotte--a trip scheduled for 4 hours (it takes 3 by car). 7.5 hours later, we arrived safe, sound, and pissy. The return trip was canceled on account of the train breaking down in the station. We got vouchers for any trip in the next 12 months, but I guess neither of us had an extra 7.5 hours to donate to Amtrak that year, because the vouchers went unredeemed.

That story comes to mind because last weekend, some of us embarked upon a jaunt to St. Louis, a 5-hour car trip but--according to Amtrak, which I have not used since that fateful booking almost 10 years ago--only 5.5 hours by train.

You read the title of this post, so you know how this ends. But there we were, blissfully tooling along through Illinois, taking in the splendors of Joliet in our astonishingly uncomfortable seats. We looked online before scheduling this trip and not only were we deceived into thinking that our coach seats had footrests, but we also did not understand that the car would be full of assholes talking too loud and creating a general nuisance. Unlike airplanes, which are very loud and so drown out the mouthy assholes, trains are fairly quiet and apparently stimulate assholes to talk ever more inanely and at top volume.

But back to our story. After leaving Joliet and getting up to full speed, something happened. Nobody could quite say what it was, but everyone's head went up at the same time and all had a feeling that something wasn't right. Eventually (about 30 minutes later--Amtrak service, ladies and gentlemen!), we found out that the train had hit a car. This, naturally, isn't the train's fault. But it took almost 3 hours to get moving again, meaning that we arrived in St. Louis somewhat later than expected.

Returning to Chicago was only slightly less of an ordeal. We didn't hit anything, but somehow we still fell almost 1.5 hours behind schedule. Which begs the question: is any Amtrak train, anywhere, ever on time?!? Really, do you know? Tell me. I'm perplexed.

Oh, and they offered us vouchers, good for the next 12 months. Just as 10 years ago, however, I still don't have an extra 7-8 hours I want to donate to assholes on rails.

Fuck you, Amtrak.

Back to Work

Aha! Now I remember why I started this blog: to avoid doing my PhD research! And so, we resume!