Sunday, September 26, 2004


Rambling incoherently at 2:00 a.m.

Okay all...I have to ask what I'm doing in the house on a weekend night instead of trying to make some progress in my social life. Some of you may be aware that despite the fact that I sincerely doubt there is anyone out there who could make me feel the way that Emily did/does, I am trying to move on and have some sort of a...I believe the word they use is "life." It isn't going well. After last night and a rather problematic day I am feeling rather dejected and have decided not to go out tonight. So my readers get me to tell them a few stories and point to a few articles and also complain about the fact that I haven't been able to access network resources on my work laptop all day so I haven't been able to get hardly anything done for work.

To begin with...The economist has an obituary for Johnny Ramone. Check it out soon before it goes to the archives and you have to pay for it. (Although I will of course recommend getting a subscription to this magazine). Here is are two brief excerpts in case it goes into archives too terribly quickly:

"Their formula was simple: no synthesisers, chamber orchestras or tedious showing off, just simple three-chord progressions wrapped in two-minute slices of buzzing guitar. They belted out catchy, rapid-fire songs on the usual topics: teenage boredom, mental instability, drugs and disappointed love. Their message was a liberating one: you didn't have to be a virtuoso to make music. Anybody could do it, and technical skill was less important than having a good time and putting on a show for your fans."

"After their last concert in 1996, the Ramones' reputation grew. They had a heavy influence on the grunge groups of the early 1990s, and at last earned mainstream recognition in America. They are remembered as the band that saved rock from its own excesses and returned it to its roots as an outlet for the young and disaffected."

In other news...I went to see "What the Bleep do we know?" with Jason on Friday. I was ambilvalent about the movie at the time. It was a lot of new age feel good stuff put together with quantum physics. As I mentioned to Jason after the movie, there was a rather suspicious lack of any of the more mainstream scientists in the field. I am definitely not saying that just because you aren't in the mainstream you are wrong, but you sure better be able to defend your position more thoroughly than those in the mainstream simply because you will get attacked more. In any case, most of my books on quantum physics and time (believe it or not I did go through a faze in college where I was intensly fascinated with cosmology which meant much in the way of philosophy and physics) are still in California. What does seem clear is that the filmmakers were trying to present many things as being the concensus view (specifically by not including any scientists who would point out some of the problems with their ideas) when they are not. Also, while I wasn't as annoyed by it at the time, it has increasingly annoyed me that one of the main interview subjects was JZ Knight channeling Ramtha. (I found out today that she apparently sued in England to prevent others from channeling Ramtha...apparently free will doesn't apply to spirits). I'm sure I'm being close minded so here is the site of the movie (though they aren't helping themselves with this description of Knight.) I also talked to a couple of friends on the phone today who are familiar with Ramtha and compare it to Scientology (i.e. destructive cult). Still that is only one of the people used in the movie and that wouldn't discredit the entire movie, though it does say something to me about the judgement of the filmmakers. predicition is that the film will find larger audiences and that over time the scientific community will address the movie directly.

Also on Friday I was disturbed by a piece on NPR that attacked the validity of a 527 groups claims attacking John Kerry for not knowing about sports. I'm fine with attacking the group for claims that are misleading or false. What disturbed me was that in the introduction to the piece they included as an example of a presidential disconnect the story about Bush Sr. having never seen a grocery scanner before. This is an urban legend as has been pointed out by many times, and yet some people just won't let it die.

Here is a post over at MR about Canada's Health Care. I might also add that a professor that I had who taught Health Economics in college had lived close to the Canadian border for some time had observed first hand the number of Canadians fleeing Canada and attempting to take advantage of American medical services.

Okay, and now back to my Friday night. After I went to the movie with Jason we went to have a cup of coffee. I saw a woman there who peaked my interest and I proceeded to be extremely rude to Jason as I got up from our table and approached her. Astoundingly she came back with me to the table and the three of us engaged in conversation for a short period of time. She then had to leave. She would not give me her number, but did take mine. Now I may be naive, but I'm not stupid. I know that no woman has ever called a man. It doesn't happen. If she were really interested in going out then she would have given me her number. Having me give her mine was obviously a cop out. So I have a question...would it have been wrong to refuse to give her the phone number? I don't think there is anyway to ask a girl for her number and then refuse to give her yours that doesn't come off as strange, but in the real world we all know that the woman isn't going to call so why even bother? Maybe I'm sounding bitter tonight, but sadly that is what happens when every woman you approach rejects you. I'm sorry that Jason had to sit through my ordeal. He was a real champ about it though. He even tried to convince me that she was really "digging" me...I think that was the word he used. Sadly he is not aware of how the female mind works and how there is some type of genetic requirement that no female ever "dig" me. I'm pretty sure if you took a microscope and looked at a woman's cells you would discover that they have little Josh picket signs. Okay...I'm going a little overboard, but it is almost 2 in the morning now and I am a little tired so I think I will call it quits.

By the way...does anyone know if there is a Guiness record for the most rejections 'cause I could always just start documenting them and see if I could get something out of this whole fiasco.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?