Author: grenideer

Marriage

The United States is firmly rooted in the separation of church and state but often the moralities and rules of each get intertwined. If marriage is an expression of love, why is it governed by law? If it is a legal contract, why burden it with religion or values?

I understand that when a couple gets married and starts a family, laws need to be in place to protect this union for various reasons- shared assets and children chief among them. But these laws should be separate from marriage and the concept of love. What if two married people get divorced? Are there not still rules between them for custody arrangements and the like? What about a couple that has children without ever getting married? Child support is still owed. Even common law marriage exists. All these rulesets exist outside the bounds of normal marriage yet we still feel the need to tie them together.

Conversely, marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism, and certainly important in other religions. People should be able to walk into a church and get married and have the law stay outside of that. A religious union with a partner should be possible without needing to owe them money afterward if things don’t work out.

Where is the separation of church and state?

A couple, heterosexual or otherwise, should be able to enter into a contract to share responsibilities commonly associated with marriage, like tax status. This can be a legal document and the law can govern this as it likes but all the moralities associated with marriage shouldn’t be tied into this legal status. All the noise about same-sex marriage is fascinating to me. In many cases there is already a same-sex union available that enjoys all the legal benefits of marriage except it isn’t officially considered ‘marriage’- yet isn’t that all the law should care about anyway? What is the point of governing that extra level of meaning?

These days marriage is a legal contract- this can’t be denied. There are even several separate contracts that come with it now, like prenuptial agreements. But why is this contract burdened with sex, religion, and morality? And why is a religious sacrament burdened with law? Both these institutions fill two completely separate needs- we should keep them as far apart from each other as possible.

The Afghan Whigs

I’m watching a replay of The Afghan Whigs right now on the Austin City Limits YouTube page. It’s not hard to see why they are one of my absolute favorite bands of all time. Especially when they play tracks from Gentlemen, it is insane that I’m able to see this in my lifetime after thinking it could never happen. These guys are talented and I’m happy to be seeing them in person later this year. Check them on this tour if you can.

And yes, they do play Miles iz Ded.

Pet "Rescues"

Sometimes I hate living in LA. I’m all for forward thinking but the better-and-smarter-than-you attitude is pervasive. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t just get a dog anymore- you need to "rescue" it or you’re some kind of horrible monster.

I understand that pet stores don’t have the most humane practices and that declawing cats is getting frowned upon these days. Times can change for the better. And if you want to rescue animals that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. But if you’re just a normal person who wants to get a dog or cat, you are allowed to do it the old fashioned way and buy it from a family who just had puppies and kittens.

I had a friend find a puppy on craigslist, buy it from a household, and tell me that it was a rescue. She didn’t say this in a made-up-cover-story kind of way. No, instead there was some very sketchy self serving logic reasoning that things would be bad for the puppy if it wasn’t adopted by her. To avoid being judged my friend felt like she had to appear philanthropic, when really all she wanted was a dog.

This kind of societal pressure probably just comes with the territory when living in LA, but honestly, we shouldn’t care about appearances so much. Enlightenment is great but sometimes it gets a bit preachy for my tastes.

‘Doing Good’

At Why I Hate Everything, I mostly try my best to talk smack about contemporary media and people. But today is a bit different. It is not a person or a group of people or a product that I am complaining about, rather it is a specific argument I hear too much of. So as I do my best to tear down an argument, think of this as a sort of one-sided debate.

‘Doing good’ so that you can go to Heaven is not a selfless act – it is working the system. It’s simple Game Theory. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not evil to do good to serve your self interests. It can be totally benign. You may see doing good as working out for others and working out for yourself – everybody wins! But make no mistake, if you are worried about the rapture and all that then you are worried about your own soul. Nothing wrong with that- I would just like to make the motivation clear without making a judgment call.

Likewise, people who are now good because they have hit rock bottom are suspect. While it’s impossible to make a blanket statement that can cover what is in someone’s heart now, the simple fact is that the person changed because being bad wasn’t working for them anymore. They felt repercussions, saw the light, and figured out a way for their life to be better. They figured out how to survive.

There’s nothing outright wrong with any of this. The point where I start to get rubbed the wrong way is when people try to convince me to be a good person so my soul can be saved. I am not in the business of determining what happens to anyone’s soul. Me? I’d rather be good because it is the right thing to do. I would rather be good in my natural state, without thinking of myself or the repercussions. I don’t avoid murdering people to not get thrown in jail, rather I don’t do it because it is a horrendous act against humanity. Likewise, not being an evil son of a bitch, or ‘doing good’, shouldn’t need ‘avoiding Hell’ as a motivator. Being good at gunpoint just doesn’t seem very noble.

Santa Monica Civic Auditorium

A few friends and I just caught the Silversun Pickups at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Since I see a good deal of shows in the LA area, I figured I should start sorting them out.

Venue:

1855 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401-3209

Just off the 10 and easy to get to, the SMCA is in the heart of the city close to the beach. There’s ample parking in a next door pay garage and there’s no hassle getting inside. The interior structure looks like a 50s era bomb shelter- it is laid out like a theater but has little imagination or noticeable decoration. The plain cement walls and cement seating/steps are so bland that it would even be embarrassing for a high school pep rally. As with most shows, the AC didn’t do a very good job keeping the crowd cool on the General Admission floor but it was nice to be able to go outside in the front grounds for some fresh air. All in all the venue is pretty convenient.

Show:

The light show was top notch. I’m not sure how much of this had to do with Silversun’s set up but there were great visuals with modern lights. It was a simple layout too so I’m sure the limits could be pushed on this end. That said, it’s hard to judge the speaker system because the whole place is encased in cement and echoes like crazy. I have to say, especially considering the fairly large open space the crowd was standing in, the music was completely destroyed by the horrible acoustics. I love the band and am familiar with all their songs and it was sometimes hard to discern what was going on. I don’t know if everything could be blamed on just the echoes, either. At times the back up singer would chime in or a guitar solo would start and it took several seconds of silence before the volume was adjusted to the proper mix. Just awful for a great album that I wanted to enjoy live.

Drinking:

Now to the important part. Drinks were served outside and they had good bottles like Sailor Jerry’s available. Prices weren’t too bad and lines were plentiful and decently sized. We did generally wait about 5-7 minutes to order but it was pleasant standing and socializing in the front yard anyway. Pours were pretty good too. There was a food counter inside but it didn’t look appealing and no one was bothering.

Mixology

The modern cocktail is a funny thing. Just over 10 years ago a mixed drink was either a highball or one of a select few classics. Nothing additional was provisioned for by bars or requested by drinkers. This state of drinking had remained relatively unchanged over the previous 50 years when vodka was popularized and beer was lightened. And things had gotten pretty bleak. It was time for a change.

The mixology movement didn’t happen all at once and, despite its predisposition towards pretentiousness, was the natural momentum of passion for the drink. Along with the craft beer industry, mixology ushered the 21st century into an alcohol renaissance. Society agrees that everybody wins when you can equate drinking with enlightenment (as long as it’s not the kind of enlightenment that happens when you drink three bottles of wine, pass out, and hit your head on the coffee table). So how have things changed?

The old bar

It’s easy to pick on dives but that’s not where I’m going here. You tried the new Irish pub with the fancy woodwork and all you got were the same old beers. You went to the fancy steakhouse with the ‘sophisticated’ lounge and the same overdone cocktails were on the menu. Of course more rare and complex drinks existed but, as far as the vast majority of these bars were concerned, if you weren’t getting a martini or Bloody Mary then your vodka was either coming with soda or tonic. There’s nothing wrong with these options individually but as a whole they were limiting.

 

The modern bar

Nowadays, it’s hard to find a nice place without at least a few ‘house drinks’. Sexy cocktails in cool glasses with nice presentation appeal to women, and women appeal to men. It’s a simple recipe to broaden the appeal of the bar. But if it’s so obvious, why has it taken so long? Well, cocktails are a business and stocking and training is the expense. Limes, lemons, olives, and corn syrup cherries are not going to cut it anymore. Actually keeping fresh ingredients and making sure your employees know what to do with them isn’t automatic. It’s something that needs to be planned, managed, and presented properly. But it’s worth it, as the payout is a higher profit margin.

The old new

Before when I said drinking hadn’t changed a whole lot in 50 years, I kind of lied. You see, there has been an interesting twist to drinking all along that we’ve always known about- doing shots. In a way, modern cocktails are a natural progression of the more complicated shooters of yesterday. And they existed for the same reasons: making drinking more interesting and varied, blunting the bite of the alcohol, fun and creativity. But what was generally lacking was sophistication. The modern mixology movement is about these mixed shots growing up and looking elegant in a stately glass. Add a stalk of lemongrass and it’s just downright fancy!

The movement

So that brings us to mixology. Bartenders coming up with creative ways to mix new ingredients. I think this all started with rediscovering the roots of the cocktail. The speakeasy movement that started in New York brought back the old timey charm of fresh ingredients and classic liquors. I like the speakeasy scene, I really do. The style and focus on vintage and quality is great but there is an over reliance on bitters, disrespect of vodka, and not enough interest in the modern. The danger here is that drinks are made more for novelty purposes than for enjoyable consumption. While I’m trying not to make a negative blanket statement about ALL speakeasy bars, it is easy to see why newer cocktails outgrew this style.

Now many mixologists are not just looking at old ingredients but trying to find new ones. New liqueurs are increasingly added to the mix (a move some old-school bartenders refer to as "cheating"). High tech mixes are interesting as are the fresh ingredients but the 12 ingredient cocktails are simply too complex for most drinks besides shared punchbowls. Not that all bars are guilty of this and there are definitely some exceptions but, in general, simpler is better. We are already starting to see cocktails pop up that are the bartending equivalent of molecular gastronomy. It’s kind of cool to make something that no one thought was possible but again, the real priority should be on the drinkability and long term sustainability of the cocktail.

As a side note, do you ever wonder where these terms like mixology come from? I mean, why not mixtronomy? Yes, I kind of like the sound of that. And instead of mixologist, can’t we call a bartender a mixican? Hmm, maybe that one doesn’t work so well.

Tech Sites

Obviously I don’t hate important or material analysis but anyone who barely casually kinda glances at any one of a number of popular tech sites on the web knows that they are going to be inundated with trivial coverage of Apple minutia. Speculation on the next iPhone with or without concrete facts? Check. Name-dropping Steve Jobs months after his death for desperate attempts at page views? Check. Can someone explain why the stock went up, down, or stayed exactly the same? Check.

You can identify a bad quality tech site when half of their articles are Apple focused. You can still somehow read a new piece about Steve Jobs every day if you subscribe to only a handful of feeds. Is the iPhone a big deal? Of course, and the fact that so many people own one make its mention excellent link bait, but there’s not really any interesting news to get out of most of these tidbits. While many of them are stock price analysis and new technology speculation, many others are inane bullshit.

If a new Apple commercial comes out you can be sure that a brave and responsible journalist will rise to the task of telling us about it. New actors pushing Siri? An old commercial getting taken down from the YouTube channel? There are some high profile respectable sites getting caught up in places they would be better to avoid.

I get the fact that Apple is moving a lot of merchandise and money these days and they will naturally be the topic of conversations, but that doesn’t mean that a dialog is always warranted. Instead of reporting legitimate news, websites are generating their own stories to cash in on Apple’s popularity. I had to straight up stop following some tech sites because they were spamming my Pulse reader harder than Twitter. This article, not counting the joke at the end, is a 3 sentence drive-by-gossiping about a possible new iPhone charger.

Bang up job there, bro.

What about rumor articles like this?

‘Maybe’ isn’t generally a word that screams journalistic integrity. The article goes on to say that there are other rumors pointing at 2 other companies, which is essentially just admitting that it’s a slow news day.

This is why I’ve really started respecting Ars Technica as a site with good info. They really seem to be above the pandering and go out and analyze interest topics. Of course, I’ve recently realized they’re not quite so perfect either. It’s not so much that there’s an article talking about hating a new line of Apple commercials– after all, hating is what I almost exclusively do here- but the signature of the article made me cringe.

Senior Apple Editor? Ugh. With narrow positions like that, who could really blame her for inventing stories to stay relevant?

Five Guys

Finally got a Five Guys Burgers and Fries opened up in Los Angeles close by. Solid burger but the real treat is the large selection of free toppings. Nothing like grilled green peppers to make a burger stand out. Fries are ok but could be crispier. I think it was a mistake not to order Cajun style.

Anyway, I just wanted an excuse to post this video.

Protomen

Just saw the Protomen tonight.

The Roxy has pretty shitty sound quality.

As for The Protomen… Except for their fascination with Queen, they are the perfect live band.

The Dark Knight Rises

I’ve been a big advocate of the previous Batman films and although I never posted about them I’ve held all other superhero movies up to their high standard (and most have failed miserably). That’s why it’s with a heavy heart that I confess that The Dark Knight Rises is only ‘so so’, or perhaps ‘pretty decent’ when I’m feeling charitable. Maybe I expected too much from this movie but it is clearly the worst of the trilogy. It tries to be weighty and meaningful but lacks the focus to deliver any real message. The film is more of a platform for introducing new characters and referencing old ones and there isn’t a whole lot of time for the Dark Knight to do anything cool. Let me repeat that: Batman isn’t a badass in the entire movie.

Bane is an interesting villain. His voice borders on comical and cartoony but he is the center of most of the scenes he’s in and feels like a truly heinous fellow. The first fight where he beats Batman up is expected but the Dark Knight could’ve tried harder. I get that the point of the scene is that Bruce doesn’t really want to go on living, or at least he is apathetic to the idea, or- well, I guess I don’t really get it all that well. You see, the film directly states themes like this out loud but does a really bad job of making me believe them. Remember- Show, don’t Tell.

“You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!”

The same holds true for the second Bane fight. All of a sudden Batman has the goods and handily defeats this villain who was established to be expertly adept at hand to hand combat? With all the tools at Batman’s disposal he wins the fight with his fists because, what, he regained his confidence?

Batman is simply not Batman in this movie. He attacks Bane with smoke pellets! In the end it is Catwoman who has to kill him. She even does all the cool motorcycle combat to destroy the tanks while Bruce is busy dodging missiles. On that note, I have to say, I understand Batman isn’t supposed to kill people but the grittier and more realistic you make a movie like this, the more it starts to get ridiculous that the dude doesn’t fire a gun. He’s flying an attack aircraft and fighting against tanks to try to recover a nuclear device and he can’t blow shit up? He escorts a crowd of police to an army of well equipped street thugs and instead of dispersing them with superior firepower he allows countless officers to get slaughtered? Mixing in modern military tech doesn’t mix very well with a refusal to kill. Hunting down Bane to get into a fist fight with him stands in stark contrast to having him walking out defiantly against the Batwing that could’ve easily mowed him down.

Scenarios where the plot gives me pause are numerous. What is up with Bane not killing Batman but putting him in a prison under the watch of guys who help him recover? How does he sneak back into an island city that is walled off? And speaking of which, what are Batman’s priorities when he first returns? Because the ‘lighting up a building with the bat symbol’ thing is just exposition. No point of it at all, and what did he do? Spend a few hours setting up an elaborate symbol and lighting mechanism when a ticking nuclear bomb threatened Gotham? It is a bit ridiculous.

But totally worth it.

So Batman is bedridden, Catwoman actually does cooler stuff, and Robin has a great first half but then is relegated to chauffeuring a busload of kids by the end of the movie. Too many characters without clear roles makes them all a bit muddy. Even the title ‘Rises’ feels forced and characters use the word in ways that are unnatural just to give legitimacy to the movie title.

So I can nitpick plot points and complain about specific scenes or character motivations all day but the crux of my dissatisfaction comes down to the plot being all over the place. The movie doesn’t really have a good reason to be so long. The story lacks the typical Nolan elegance. I don’t want to come off like I hate the film because it really is ‘pretty decent’ but, for me, the end of this revered trilogy is really a case of missed opportunities.

Bane’s defeat and death is unsatisfying. Robin’s character arc of getting disenfranchised with the police force is squandered and unclear. The whole ‘Batman against the police’ is a sideshow that really should be a much larger focus of the movie. Without his disgrace playing prominently, his redemption is anticlimactic.

Imagine if Batman isn’t so stupid as to just walk up and fight Bane hand to hand. Imagine if he tries something, some trick, but still fails because Bane is a badass. Then imagine Batman making an awesome escape somehow and Bane not believing he got out of the trap but taking chase. Batman gets to the city and would get away except the police complicate matters and Batman finds himself running from them both, and because of that Bane catches him. Batman isn’t a total idiot, the villain is still formidable, the police are an actual problem, and *then* we can start to show Robin get disenfranchised with the police.

What’s so utterly disappointing is that The Dark Knight Rises falls into the same trap that helped doom the old Batman movies. It gives us Catwoman, Robin, the Batwing, and really all we needed was the Dark Knight himself.