Rocket

Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand

That happens to be a very out there, psychedelic cd which is in frequent rotation for me, btw. One of the reasons why I love cdbaby.com, in fact, is because they have all these unique independent artists you won't find anywhere else...

So, Grover, a large, blue, furry Muppet, as Yoda, a small green wrinkled one with big ears? It's a mad, mad world. And so is this:

Mad World

This is actually Gary Jules cover of Mad World, from 2001. The original is a Tears For Fears song from 1982. It also had loud rhythms & synthesizers over the whole thing, and I think the cover did a better job of conveying the message of the song.

I like how the video gives a sense of isolation;observing everything apart from the rest of the world. It seems like a good fit with the songs lyrics. Next, something from 96, a one hit wonder, unfortunately:

Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth (with Money in My Hand)

This is by Primitive Radio Gods. This is one of these songs with an awesome sound overall to the whole thing, and with lyrics that hold your attention[1].

I suppose after the overall tone of the songs in this post, I should round it off by adding something more upbeat. Maybe something by REM. Or the Muppets. For that matter, why not both?

Furry Happy Monsters

[1] "About a god I've never seen, who never fails to favor me", for example.

Primitive Radio Gods - Standing Outside A Broken Phone Booth With Money In My Hand

Please hold your applause. I am not done and it is distracting.

I went into work yesterday, and my manager said, "Have I got a job for you!" To which I was all, "Super!" Because nothing good ever comes from that statement. In fact, it usually involves me climbing a ladder, or doing something equally capable of resulting in injury to my clumsy self.

But all she did was hand me a clipboard with a plan-o-gram (a diagram showing exactly which products go exactly where in a five foot section of shelves, for all of you minions who are not candy department specialists. Though I am told by Shelly that all retail stores use plan-o-grams. Silly Shelly. How does she not know that I, as the lone candy department specialist at my beloved balloon store, am the only one in the world capable of understanding and utilizing a plan-o-gram?), and told me to fix the candy section, as it was in complete disarray.

And, in fact, the six five-foot sections of candy were all disasters. There was candy there that did not belong there, candy that was supposed to be there wasn't, it was all just messy.

I got the impression that she thought that the job was going to be big and long and difficult by the way she kept looking at me nervously as she told me what I was supposed to be doing, as though I was going to yell at her for suggesting that I perform such a ridiculous and impossible task. But it wasn't that bad at all. I cleaned and organized the whole thing, found the missing candy, and found homes for the extra candy, while all the while I was making balloons and ringing up customers while our credit card satellites were down, making it so that it took twice as long to ring up customers paying with cards.

Basically, it wasn't a big deal. At least not for a candy department specialist like myself.

But my manager was all like, "Susan, this looks so neat. You did a really good job today." Then she told me that candy was going to be my department from now on, which means that, on top of the cashiering and balloon-making and stocking and general cleaning that I was already doing, it's my responsibility to make sure that the candy stays clean and organized.

I'm pretty sure that this means I make an extra 25 cents an hour, but, more importantly, it means that I get to attach a flag to my name tag that says "DEPARTMENT SPECIALIST."

AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

It made my day.

And my weekend.

And most likely all of next week.

In other recent news, Clark and Michael is my new favorite thing. I love Michael Cera. He's so subtly funny that he's ten times more hilarious than he would be if he was loud.

Song of the day:
"Am I alive or thoughts that drift away? Does summer come for everyone? Can humans do as prophets say?" - Primitive Radio Gods, "Standing Outside a Broken Phonebooth with Money in my Hand"

Research on the human brain indicates people respond emotionally (rather than rationally) to certain colors, much as they do to political candidates and specific political situations. Orange reminds us fire and explosions--such as those which follow suicide bombings--whereas blue and green are more soothing colors that remind us of floating peacefully in a lake somewhere in the lush, tranquil wilderness.

The terror alert level was elevated to ORANGE (or "High") in August of 2004, just in time to do some last minute "sweeping up" of fence-sitting voters in the swing states. Whereas people feel frightened by the color orange, they also feel "safer" when a Republican is in charge. Thus, elevating the terror level at this strategically crucial point was a brilliant move by the propagandists; voters who didn't hate women, poor people, or gays voted for Bush anyway, just to protect themselves from being nuked by Muslims.

I started thinking it would be useful to recycle this color coded system as a way to assess the 2008 presidential candidates according to how scary and dangerous they are.

Speaking of scary, last night's Republican debates reminded me of a trashy horror movie: predictable and redundant, and yet you're curiosity about what happens next is just strong enough to keep you from flipping channels. Such was my "battle of the wills" last night against the Republican presidential debates. I kept telling myself, "Alright, as soon as this imbecile finishes his bigoted monologue I'm going to turn this off and try to regenerate whatever brain cells I've lost as a direct result of watching it!" But then the next guy would launch into an even stupider diatribe and I'd remain too intrigued to turn away. If there is a silver lining, it is that I got to learn about the Republican candidates and discover that they're not as crazy as the media portrays them to be: they're crazy.

Here is my list of the Republican presidential hopefuls, in order according to how dangerous they are (with the least dangerous first).

(Note that Fred Thompson, who only very recently announced his intentions to run for president, did not appear in last night's debates. But he's pretty fucking scary too!).

1. Ron Paul. Landslide victory for one of the only "patriot" in the GOP. It was fun watching FoxNews contemplate whether or not to actually show their poll results when Paul once again got twice as many votes as the next candidate. Despite Paul's admirable stance on foreign policy, almost everything else he says is problematic. No political party exists for Paul's eclectic views.

2. John McCain. At times McCain gives the impression that what he says actually reflects what he feels. This is extremely rare for politicians(Democrats and Republicans alike), most of whom care more about their political prestige than about the wellbeing of their country. He speaks out against corporate monopolies, even though his political party has made its name by supporting them. Also, unlike his chickenhawk opponents McCain actually served in the military, thus his views on torture probably hold more water than those of someone who merely watches popular TV shows about it (see Tancredo, for instance). Despite his perks, McCain fails to challenge the GOP stance that the rest of the world (besides Mexicans seeking citizenship) should be treated as if they were the 51st state. Because he misses this boat, a McCain administration would be an elevated danger to this country.

3. Mike Huckabee. I think he had an orgasm during his Giuliani-like sparring match with Ron Paul. "Finally, I'm arguing against the anti-war guy. Maybe the cowboy meatheads will notice me now." I find Huckabee to be the least disastrous of the GOP's six disaster candidates. He at least pretends to have a heart when discussing illegal immigrants, which can't be said for many of his opponents.

4. Rudy Giuliani. I used to have a wind-up stuffed animal. He said like five different things when I pulled his string, but only one of them was cool. That's Giuliani--a one-hit-wonder wind-up doll. We get it, assbag. You stumbled upon some fortunate tragedies during your tenure as mayor that happened to do wonders for your approval ratings. Your post-9/11 oxygen mask marches even came across as less staged than President Bush's melodramatic bullhorn debacle. As for crime and unemployment, NYC set the bar as low as it could go, and you managed to raise it. Well done. Talk about something else for a change. Like: how's your family? Why aren't your kids voting for you?

5-6. Hunter/Brownback. Here's what you need to know about Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback: absolutely nothing. Honestly these two generic red candidates weren't important enough to distinguish from one another. I just recall them bugging me more the Giuliani but slightly less than Romney and Triggerhappy Tom Tancredo. With regard to immigration and other issues, they kept stressing different variations of the strict father mentality--"it's the law... period"--as if no regulation in the history of mankind was in need of tweaking. I wonder why people with less than 1% of the vote bother to run if all they're going to do is look, act, and think like factory-made gingerbread men. At least with Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel, you know they're trying to stir shit up and make a point!

7. Tom Tancredo. Some older versions of the PlayStation game"Grand Theft Auto" give you extra points if you pull over and shoot random pedestrians. That's the angle Tancredo's going for; he's trying to reach the faction of our population that thinks life is a video game. Something about this listening to this guy talk gave me nightmares last night. He could wipe an out an entire region of the world and feel no guilt whatsoever about doing so. Someone needs to tell him that "24" is a TV show--not live footage of actual events.

8. Mitt Romney. What makes Romney scarier than Tancredo is that many people actually take him seriously. Aside from his botched attempt to wipe the shit-eating smirk off his face when a soldier's dad called him out for comparing the sacrifices made by U.S. troops to those of Romney's campaign contributors, I have a very serious question about Romney: will this motherfucker ever gather up the balls to say something--anything--that goes against whatever the latest polls indicate people want to hear? How can one be the walking spokesman for white male majority and yet still receive such a (relatively) mediocre reception from the rich, privileged asses you're trying to kiss? Romney is a far, far cry from the man who somehow managed to get elected in Massachusetts (and who saw gay marriage legalized under his tenure). Who really knows the truth about Mitt Romney--what he really thinks... or if.

If we can't prove we're right, we may as well prove we're tough. Problem is, the soldiers America sends to prove our toughness weren't the ones who were wrong to begin with. Lest they figure this out, troops are told that its patriotic to die for a cause but unpatriotic to actually ask what that cause is. You know something's fishy when the government encourages that kind of thinking, but the Bush-bashers are wrong to hold Republicans solely accountable for this misguided message.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's pro-war rhetoric makes him a big hit among the FoxNews constituency. Bill O'Reilly has been riding first class on the Biden-bandwagon ever since the so-called liberal snubbed the YearlyKos convention. But to more levelheaded conservatives who recognize the Kos vs. O'Reilly pissing contest as tangential to the national interest, Biden's big boost came when he made clear his intentions to use military force, rather than diplomacy, in Darfur.

For all Biden's supposed knowledge about the realities of war, its surprising he isn't more concerned about the disconnect between military training and the job our government sends them to do. Military personnel are not trained for shit like Iraq or Darfur. Basic training prepares soldiers for traditional wars--where civilians are neither a threat nor a target, where both sides wear different color military uniforms and respect the rules of combat, where the fighting takes place in remote locations rather than in urban neighborhoods.

But all of this bears little resemblance to modern day military scenarios, leaving those who love our country enough to die for it virtually unprepared for most situations they'll encounter overseas. Is it really fair to place American troops in hostile situations for which they have not been properly trained? Why not send people with them who understand the context of the civil wars we're butting into. Instead knowledgeable diplomats who know the languages spoken in countries we're supposedly trying to help are being told to stay home and watch the war on TV.