Nabbed from jacylrin

NAME: In real life people call me Scott or Scott...though one ex-girlfriend has nastier names for me. Online I'm known as smwance.

AGE: 38

LOCATION: Reston, VA...a.k.a., Yuppietown.

OCCUPATION: Proposal Coordinator/Writer

PARTNER: I walk alone these days...dating has pretty much sucked this year.

KIDS: None yet, but I'd love to try with someone (though no one specifically in mind).

SIBLINGS: Kelly, who is all of eight minutes older than I am (i.e., we're twins).

PARENTS: Dennis ("Denny") and Pat (as in "Patricia").

PETS: 2 fur-covered demonds everyone else calls cats (Remy and Diamond)...ironically, I prefer dogs.

LIST THE 3-5 BIGGEST THINGS GOING ON IN YOUR LIFE:

1. Going to Mike's (mphtower) wedding next week.
2. The Washington, DC area is expecting several inches of snow Saturday.
3. And perfectly timed with the weather, some friends and myself are supposed to go to a boat parade on the Potomac Saturday afternoon/evening.
4. After knowing eight (8) couples marrying this year (attended three (3) of those weddings), another friend just got engaged and is marrying next year (I'll be an usher).
5. I was hoping I would've met someone to date by now, but like I said, this has been a crappy year for dating. Here's hoping 2010 is MUCH better.

ABC cancels another Adam Lambert performance

Adam Lambert makes a valid point – there still is a stigma about openly-demonstrated homosexual behavior in mainstream entertainment. Even though lesbian or bi-sexual women interaction is making strides in more mainstream forums,* homosexual men are still primarily depicted in sexless/”safe” characters and roles (e.g., NBC’s Will & Grace, several supporting gay characters on HBO’s Sex and the City, or any number of romantic comedy movies marketed toward young, professional, urban women).

I’m a straight man, so homosexuality – whether practicing or watching it – has never appealed to me.** However, lately I’ve been thinking a lot about equality, and like gay marriage, this is yet another facet of life that I feel deserves a leveling of the playing field. American culture is relatively puritanical compared to the rest of the world, even among America’s liberal population. If it’s acceptable to see a man and woman getting it on in primetime, why not alternative lifestyle couples, too? Fortunately, some cable shows are now testing the waters (e.g., Showtime’s Queer As Folk and HBO’s True Blood). These shows are helping to “cushion the blow” of gay sexual content presented on mainstream entertainment.

Where Adam Lambert has it wrong is trying to crash through stigma barriers without the clout or proper venues for it. Do I think what he did was “wrong” on the AMAs? Not at all. Do I think it was too mainstream a forum to do it at this time? Absolutely.

Lambert firmly established himself as the theatrical, over-the-top dramatic singer on American Idol, and that’s fine because he’s damn good at it. Being new to the big leagues though, he doesn’t have the established presence to make a bold statement on a mainstream awards show. On the other hand, had he done his AMA act on the MTV Music Video Awards, he might be openly hailed as a hero since MTV’s programming is geared at being “shock and awe” (by the same token, MTV producing the Super Bowl halftime show with Justin Timberlake causing a “wardrobe malfunction” for Janet Jackson wasn’t their best idea either). His act would’ve been a highlight on the entertainment/gossip shows for one night, but it would’ve been a great “small step” toward more mainstream events. If society can get used to that kind of thing on programming that’s meant to be “on the edge,” then more popular and mainstream occurrences will follow. A few years ago it was a huge sensation that Madonna and Britney Spears kissed on the MTV awards, but now half the sitcoms and dramas on network TV have at least one episode promoted by titillating ads hinting about woman-on-woman sexuality.***

The entertainment industry is full of double standards – women are still considered to “hit a wall” at 40, full female nudity radically surpasses male nudity and while many drool to see women-on-women, men-on-men is still mostly considered taboo in popular entertainment. Sometimes, taking a huge risk can pay off with a big change in society’s perceptions, but someone has to have the moxie to pull it off. Gay, lesbian and bi-sexual rights and roles are a superheated topic and under heavy scrutiny, and someone like Adam Lambert may want to borrow a page from Cicero and be a little more strategic about their message.****

I appreciate his attempt and I agree with his motivations, but he picked a bad place and a supremely bad time for it.




* Granted, this is heavily influenced by writers, producers and directors exploiting men enjoying a little woman-on-woman action to get ratings or boost ticket sales.

** For the record, I’ve had a few offers over the years, but I REALLY prefer women...sorry guys.

*** Which is usually not nearly as interesting as they make it out to be and is accompanied by the highly annoying Katy Perry’s annoyingly mass marketed “I Kissed a Girl.”

**** “Rashness is the characteristic of youth, prudence that of mellowed age and discretion the better part of valor.”

A thought occurred to me while watching Heroes last night – why is Sylar considered such a “bad ass?”

If you think about it, he really hasn’t done anything super bad in a long time, and even then, he kind of “shot his wad” at the first season’s climax* by almost wiping out New York City. Granted, going around killing people is really bad, but how is Sylar different from any other mass murderer (and more importantly, what does it say when someone like me finds the existence of serial killers a relatively normal aspect of life)?

The writing in Heroes has been disturbingly uneven with a really engrossing and dynamic first season, a muddled (but excellent character-developing) second season and I thought a stronger, but still not as well-thought out third season. Part of the problem is the main characters were developed to mesh together at the climax of Season 1, but since then, having fulfilled their purposes, the writers have really struggled to keep them relevant to new plot ideas.

I once read or heard that one of the original concepts behind Star Trek TNG was to have a frequently rotating crew to keep things interesting, but the TNG crew we know became uber-popular overnight so they were kept on – with the semi-happy exception of Tasha Yar being knocked off in the first season.** Heroes is the kind of show that could’ve benefited from the same treatment. With an open-ended concept that offers so many possibilities, the writers could had a lot of fun with different storylines and characters. Plus the storylines could be tied together by common themes (i.e., grand conspiracies behind the origins of and/or controlling people with powers) and supporting characters (e.g., a now toothless Mean Mom Petrelli and a “how the Hell does he pay his bills without a real job?” Noah Bennet). Previous characters can be brought back for some story arcs, but it’s clear that trying to pound their square pegs into the round plot holes has been haphazard at best.

Getting back to Sylar, they spend so much time and energy building him up as such a terrible “bad guy” but after what is essentially his biggest almost crime (blowing up New York City), he’s really nothing more than a super-powered boogey man who chops off people’s heads and gets their powers. Now he wanders around with a menacing glare and three-day-old beard making the main characters pee in their pants when he shows up, but never really does anything to them - with the happy exception of Matt Parkman.***

Basically, Sylar has become symbolic of Heroes as a story – a great idea that’s lost steam due to bad planning and story limitations.

On a more positive note, the writers and producers have thankfully avoided the typical comic book trapping of going “bigger and better” with every plot (i.e., no one has attempted to blow up the Earth or become a godlike being – though one might also argue this is more the result of a limited TV show budget). In fact, Heroes might be a much more engaging story over each season had it started small and then moved up to a mega climax like blowing up New York City. The fact that Sylar now just skulks about and terrorizes people in his “under the radar” way could’ve been much more menacing had he not been so soundly defeated early on and hasn’t done anything remarkable since.

By comparison, The Silence of the Lambs subtly and completely makes a seemingly polite and calm Hannibal Lecter intimidating and scary as shit, yet he doesn’t do anything until the beginning of the third act of the movie. I still get a chill up my spine when he slaps the handcuffs on the one guard, announcing that all of the fear the audience has been manipulated into having about him is about to be justified (even more menacing is how most of his horrible attack is off-screen, letting the audience's imaginations and on-screen results generate the horror of what he did).

The lesson that should be learned from Heroes is that if you base a show on such a dynamic and rich idea, the follow through has to be just as dynamic. That means new characters that fit better into new plot ideas and treating secondary/support characters just as they were meant to be. The writers and producers have partially touched on this with the new character Samuel and his carnival crowd. Traveling carnivals are creepy enough to make the mind wonder what he’s up to with a powerbase as seemingly innocuous as a gang of societal outcasts. However, the past few episodes finally implied that Samuel has some big powers and even bigger plans (all while reminding me a bit of Magneto – a villain who actually has noble motivations), but I’ll be very disappointed if the story turns out to be less than "super."

The little kid in me who still worships Batman, Superman and the X-Men loves the ideas behind Heroes, but I’d like to see some more imagination let loose on it. Given how bad of shape NBC is in,**** and assuming they keep Heroes going, a big shake up might be fun and revitalize it as a potentially great show again.




* Now there’s a mixed metaphor!

** Due to low popularity and Denise Crosby’s Playboy shoot.

*** Which is no fault of Greg Grunberg, an engaging “everyman” actor stuck with a lame character.

**** Despite having the best network news, NBC has no real “anchor”/flagship shows, a few so-so funny sitcoms, is still trying to ride the ER coattails with way too many medical dramas, and a painfully unfunny new Jay Leno show (though I argue Leno was never funny to begin with). That and you know you’re in trouble when Comcast is “kicking the tires” with not-so-subtle indications about wanting to buy you up.

Total Number of Entries: 161

Total Number of Successories: 1,446

Largest number of successories in one entry: 32

Smallest number of successories in one entry: 1


Yeah...I think I've gotten this creative urge out of my system by now (not that I wouldn't make more if the urge strikes again...y'know...never say never)!

"A fundamentalist is someone who has stopped listening."

Rick Warren
Meet The Press (this morning)

Secret Service agents visit winery to chat with state dinner couple

As someone who's a fan of Virginia wines and wineries, I'm going to remember not asking for asylum at one should I ever try to evade the Secret Service.


New group tries to convince Cheney to run in 2012

"...the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP..."

So, naturally, they want to elect a man who has neither?

I know a man who’s about two weeks older than I am. He’s a non-denominational pastor. He’s a good guy – honest, spiritual, welcoming (especially to those different than he is – in fact, he operated a church group that openly invited any and all to join in their discussions). He’s possibly one of the most open-minded Christians I’ve ever met. Unfortunately, being a small church pastor like he is in the Washington, DC area means it’s hard to make ends meet, especially since he and his wife also have four daughters (and yes, his wife works, too). At one point, he had a part-time pastor job at a church that invited him to become a full-time pastor (i.e., more pay and solid benefits). He accepted but before he was hired, they asked him to sign a document giving a rundown of the church’s fundamental beliefs. It was an “all or nothing” deal – you couldn’t disavow any of them and still be accepted for the position. Problem is, he read one item he didn’t agree with, and try as he might through thought and prayer, he couldn’t justify accepting that one item. When he told the church elders this, they said they couldn’t accept him as a pastor.

EDIT: This really is a true story, I just hope I'm remembering it correctly.

I often wonder what it says about a church or religion that’s unwilling to accept someone into its fold without some “proof” of their faith or trust in it.

A GOP purity test?

RNC members draft new 'socialist' resolution

It is NEVER a good sign when any political body begins throwing around terms like “purity” and “agenda” (more importantly, it seems far more “tasteful” to assume political parties have agendas since using the word is often with a negative connotation). To be fair, the GOP’s one outstanding quality has always been their reliance on a solid platform, whereas the Democrats’ is more transient, usually dominated by circumstances being whatever they are. There are clearly pros and cons to both mindsets, but like any ideological spectrum, once a consensus moves to one extreme end of it, things start to get more than a little wonky.

Ever since Obama was elected and sworn in, most of the GOP’s responses have been simply “if it isn’t our idea or in line with our beliefs, then it’s bad” and confront every Democrat-backed speech, resolution and bill with nothing but the repeated complaint “it can’t work.” It’s always good to inject a healthy amount of skepticism into any major political decision – there’s nothing wrong with questioning something before accepting or denying it. However, if all you do is yell at the top of your lungs about how nothing is good or won’t help, as well as not offer any constructive answers or alternatives of your own, then you’re nothing more then a naysayer. Inevitably, everyone gets tired of hearing nothing but negative dismissals, so it’s no wonder the GOP has struggled to maintain even a superficial level of legitimacy these days.

I’ve pointed out a few times on here that if the GOP really wants to get back on track and gain public support again, it needs to focus and pull itself together. There’s a certain wisdom, even in as volatile a social, economic and political atmosphere as today, in laying low to focus on getting yourself back in shape before stepping into the spotlight again. But the Republicans didn’t do that. Instead, after soundly losing the election and a Hell of a lot of public integrity, they’d rather kick and scream in the hope of simply being a challenging voice against the Democrats. To be fair, they haven’t been entirely unsuccessful – especially considering how they’ve stonewalled a lot of Democrat-backed legislation while having a minority in Congress. Still, with mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh offering almost daily “kneejerk,” ill-thought out (if thought out at all) and usually inflammatory responses whose only result is riling people, the GOP remains a frustratingly effective impediment to progress.

Formulating an agreed-upon set of ideals to work from is a good start, but a stand against socialism and a “purity test,” both invoking the name of Ronald Reagan?*

First, the Republican Party needs to realize that the Cold War is over and socialism isn’t communism. Further, no one is trying to turn the U.S. into a communist stronghold (well, no one mainstream or powerful enough to anyway). For that matter, there are some basic advantages to socializing some programs, as well as some equally fundamental downsides (on the flip side, we've seen first-hand that a private-sector based solution left without enough accountability can be equally problematic). But if sticking to “traditional values” isn’t solving problems, then maybe it’s time to consider other options.

Second, the GOP offering a “litmus test of sorts” to its members is sending out a tremendously bad message. Besides the sickening insult to individualism, and freedom of speech and belief, demanding or requiring proof that someone belongs to a group with a cause…well, do I need to discuss the parallel to pre-World War II Germany? I’m not suggesting that we’re seeing the rise of American fascism, but the GOP attempting a comeback in such a dreadfully negative manner is no better than its members continuing their counterproductive naysaying.

Yes, having a central platform of ideals as a foundation to work from is a good thing, but demanding your group’s members prove they’re truly one of you undermines trust and faith in all of the members. What if the “purity test” became mandatory? What if someone does, says or votes for something or someone counter to those beliefs? Even at a cursory level like this, a thuggish mentality can still take hold that could aggressively – even dangerously – ostracize anyone who publicly veers from the party’s platform (whether voluntarily or “outted”).

The GOP getting it’s house in order is a great first step, but exercising what might become some kind of neo-McCarthyism is no way to prove their ways are the best ways. Our problems require constructive, forward-thinking solutions, not repeating some of the less-than-idealistic parts of history. If the Republican Party wants to show people that its way of thinking is what’s best for society, a far better step would be to find ways to demonstrate how its values will generate the best solutions. They need to think, create and build those solutions rather than secure some kind of ideological stronghold that generates an unwelcome atmosphere for anyone who doesn’t stick with the entire party line.

What kind of message do you send when your opening line is “you’re either with us, or against us?”





* “And the Lord Reagan said ‘thou shall smite all socialists and it will be good!’”

12 Comics Who Aren't Funny

I agree with most of these picks, though I still think there's several more who could've been added (e.g., Sarah Silverman and Will Ferrell immediately come to mind). My thoughts on these comedians:

Larry the Cable Guy
Strangely enough, I liked him way back when he was small-time and a regular caller on Baltimore's 98 Rock morning show (his act was more raw and genuinely funny back then). After he became big is when I realized that a little bit of him (and I do mean "little") goes a very long way.

Howie Mandel
He was never, ever funny. End of story.

Dane Cook
I have an odd fascination with him because he's painfully not funny (except to frat boys - whether they're drunk or not), yet I'm told is a very likeable person in "real life." I really kind of want to like him, but I can't sit through more than 30 seconds of his crappy stand up before I have to switch to something else.

Gallagher
I remember first seeing his act on HBO when I was in my teens and thought "Okay, smashing food and other things is funny for about five minutes." But a whole career of it?

Emo Phillips
Whoever it was that thought "Hey, this guy has potential, I'll give him a shot" should be shot...right after the moron who kept getting Phillips gigs afterward (if he or she wasn't the same person).

Jay Leno
Despite the fact that I don't like him as a comedian or a person, he tends to have a few good jokes (even if he didn't write them). I kind of have a bone to pick with him because he was such a shit about replacing Johnny Carson (which I always felt should've been David Letterman, even though Dave has his bad behavior, too).

Jeff Dunham
I'm going to disagree here. Yes, a little of his act goes a long way, but he's so damn good as a ventriloquist that he garners my respect because I think it's slowly becoming a lost art form. I also think he makes this list because he suffers from the same reason why most women I know HATE Monty Python and the Holy Grail (I hear Dunham fans quote him A LOT, kind of like when I see some women roll their eyes when guys start quoting MPATHG from start to finish...sometimes without taking a breath).

Pauly Shore
If there was ever someone who had a career from riding on his parents' coattails, it's him. He was annoying on MTV and never funny in any of his movies (though he managed to prove that he was actually funnier than Stephen Baldwin...actually, a rock is funnier than Stephen Baldwin).

Carrot Top
When did I know I would never like his act? It was very early in his career and he bounced onto the stage holding his hair in mock ponytails yelling "Look everybody! I'm Pippi Longstocking or that Wendy's girl!" Once he got freaky...uhm...freakier looking, there was just no hope of ever being funny (he hasn't helped his career appearing on Gene Simmons' show either). Actually, I think I've had a nightmare about him because of the way the looks now.

A few friends have posted this, so naturally I had to share it, too. It makes me smile in a very suggestive way...

The Snuggie Sutra

(my personal favorite is the "Hi Yo Silver")

Okay, enough politics for a while...

Declassified UFO files reveal Canada feared alien arrival

Canada - Better healthcare, cheaper movie production costs and now a better outlook on UFOs! I can see the first contact now..."Soooo...welcome to Earth, I guess you hosers are from oot and aboot, eh?"

Alien life is possible: Vatican

A few weeks ago I got to rewatch the John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, which (long story short) is about about Satan and Jesus having extraterrestrial origins (it's not that convincing a plot or idea, but it does have some creepy moments). Having read this article, I almost wanted to see a quote from a Cardinal saying "Yup, Jesus's body was gone after the third day because he beamed back up to his ship" (it's just a joke God, please don't smite me for this one).




Huge $10 billion collider resumes hunt for 'God particle'

The science lover in me is super excited about the LHC coming back to life, on the other hand, not everyone shares my zeal:

Another fringe theory holds that the LHC will never function properly because it is under "influence from the future," according to physicists Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya. They suggest in recent papers that no supercolliders that could produce the Higgs boson, an as-yet-unseen particle that would help answer fundamental questions about matter in the universe, will work because something in the future stops them.

All right! Forget Star Trek: Enterprise we already have a Temporal Cold War started here and now! My inner geek is so excited I can hardly stand it!

But, all those freaks can relax, because...

World not ending in 2012, says NASA

Of course, if NASA is wrong well...actually, I guess no one will be around to say "I told you so," huh?

Britons among ‘ugliest people,’ dating site says

I don't know whether to be amused or apalled by the results or this BeautifulPeople website.


RecycleMySexToy

Was there ever a better reason to go green?

I'm stealing this from good LJ friend chris_walsh

Devil's Tower Photo on PDN

Sadly, I saw this coming after the first episode...

Say goodbye to 'Dollhouse'

Michele Bachmann's 'high stakes' political game grows


To quote Bill Mahere about her, "A cave called and it wants its batshit back."

Armey says health care reform will kill innovation

I was really tempted to argue Armey's points in this article, but it's enough to sum it all up as "You need to do better fact checking, you dumbshit asshole."


McDonnell weighs in on health care reform debate, taxes

Admittedly, Bob makes an interesting point, but can you tell he's already looking ahead to 2012? And God help us if he does make a run for the White House, old Bob went to Pat Robertson's Regency University...


Palin returns to 'death panels'

"We had been told there were no 'death panels' in the bill either," Palin wrote in the post. "But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care."

AND SOULLESS CORPORATE SUITS WHO ARE NEITHER EDUCATED IN ANY MEDICAL FIELD OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE ARE BETTER?

I went out tonight to a wine tasting - the flight  flite  selection was all Portuguese wines and ALL of them were amazing but freakin' expensive, so I didn't buy any (NOTE TO SELF: Small, mom-and-pop wine shops DO NOT SELL cheap wines).

Anyhow, on the way home I decided to grab a few things at the grocery store. I'm there, I'm getting my stuff and I suddenly get the craving for ice cream.* Walking down the frozen goods aisle, I see a woman staring at frozen veggies. The killer thing for me here is physically speaking, she's totally my type, and even gives off a bit of that "cool geek girl" vibe (a particularly and increasingly rare type of woman in the DC area).

She sees me too and makes eye contact.

She smiles, I smile and continued my way down the aisle.

She glances up at me once or twice more...still getting good vibes.

As I pass by her she looks up again with a bit of a smile still on her face and I simply say "Hi."

Immediately her face changes to complete disinterest, possibly mild hostility, and replies "Fuck off."**

Given how shitty dating has been lately, this event confirms a resolve that's been formulating in my mind A LOT this year - I really fucking need to leave this godforesaken area and never, ever come back to it.




*  The ironic thing is I took the motorcycle out for a short ride today and it was just cool enough outside to leave me with a chill afterward.

**  In case you're wondering if I did or said something wrong, an older woman who witnessed the whole event passed by me later, shook her head and the expression on my face must've been pretty obvious because she smiled and said "It's okay dear, you didn't do anything wrong, she's just a bitch."

So here's my problem - I have a final, prepared set of successories that are possibly "questionable" as far as good taste goes. Seriously, it's the kind of thing that makes me wonder if there's a special condo in Hell being set up for me due to this set, so I'm going ask for some feedback...


Poll #1482068 Making fun of Nazis
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

Is it okay to make fun of Hitler and Nazis?

If I had a partner and if she said something like that, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it since I have a list of celebrities and other famous people I'd like to sleep with but also realize it's a snowball's chance in Hell of actually happening.

But if she mentioned someone who I REALLY can't stand, then I'd tell her that I'm building a time machine and want to go back in time to hump Hitler because I think he had a great ass (not that there's anything wrong with that as one friend pointed out).

Two can play at that game!*




*  Sadly, this plan probably wouldn't work since 1. everyone who knows me knows that I'm definitely straight, and 2. I don't think Hitler had a great ass.

I've been digging this song since I heard the hook for it on all those commercials for the new V.

I really wish people would learn the proper meaning and use of the word "literally." I overheard a coworker say to another "I literally lost my mind last night!"

I had to bite my tongue (not literally) to stop myself from replying "then how are you even talking today?"