Some folks have asked me why I don't talk about my actual job more on this thing, since I do play video games all day long, and apparently that sounds like a romantic notion to some. Well, it's not that romantic, but I could certainly go on and on and on and on about it. In fact, were I to discuss all the aspects of my work in the detail I give to Beast Machine Cheetor, I would be posting to the blog faster than you, the reader, could actually parse said information. This would make my blog extremely user-unfriendly.

Also, since 98% of this blog is complaints about one thing or another, I'm pretty sure that's what it would be for my job, too. I like my job. I want to keep my job. It can be frustrating, but I'm good at it and I want to keep doing it for at least a while. If someone from work were to find my site and me complaining about my job or, worse yet, breaking my NDA, that would most likely be bad.

And lord knows you don't want to have to read Unemployblog again.


Ken's rules of art (partial list):

  • "Untitled" is not a name. A work of art can be untitled, but it shouldn't be named "Untitled", if something is named "Untitled #738", that's even worse. Nobody remembers the number of paintings. If Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" had been named "Untitled #47", it would only be worth $25, instead of $40 billion, it's true, I did the math.
  • Naming a work exactly what it is, is dumb. For instance, say you partially bury a woodshed, a dumb name for this would be "Partially Buried Woodshed", a good name for this would be, "Hey! What the Fuck Happened to My Woodshed!?"
  • If a piece of art is not interesting to look at outside of its message, you can't expect anybody to look at it long enough to figure out the message.
  • Public sculpture needs to be able to be climbed upon. If it can't stand up to 4-year olds kicking it, it should be left indoors.
  • Art that pisses off artists or art critics is great.
  • If your art is personal expression, and you present it to an audience, you can't expect people to "get it", or, for that matter, care. If people don't "get it" or care, it is not their fault.
  • Painting a canvas entirely one color is not in the least bit impressive, no matter how big it is. If somone paints a canvas all one color and then names it "Untitled #14", they deserve to be slapped.
  • Photographs of nude women not doing anything is artistically dull. Mind you, I didn't say "dull". I said "artistically dull".
  • Anyone who attempts to define what art is through a set of "rules" should be dismissed outright.

Drinking wine coolers is analogous to watching soft-core porn.


So, I and the roomies were watching a special on 20/20 or 60 minutes or some other numbered show about America's drug policy and Europe's drug policy, cracking up at the American drug czar's assertations that the war on drugs has had many great successes in the past 30-odd years.

So, the reporter was interviewing some heroin addicts in Denmark (I think) about this program that allows addicts to buy and use drugs at a special church function, but only during certain times and as long as they follow certain rules. The addict he was interviewing was talking about how she has been able to keep her addiction under control and keep a job with the help of this special program. Then it dawned on me:

In European countries, even the junkies speak English. I really wonder if the drug czar they were interviewing (I don't actually know his name, and I'm too lazy to look it up :P) speaks any other languages.

I don't want to sound like I'm not fond of America, but sometimes I really really have to wonder where the fuck our priorities lie when we throw billions of dollars at the drug problem instead of using it to... oh... I don't know, maybe... EDUCATE SOME CHILDREN?!?! Am I just crazy? Wait... don't answer that. Instead, answer this:

Wouldn't putting that money towards educating youth, specifically high-risk youth, maybe provide them with opportunities to seek careers beyond crack-ho or smack-head? I mean, I'm not like... the president or anything, so this could just be a totally stupid idea that maybe attacking the demand for drugs instead of the supply might just be slightly more effective. If people don't want to do drugs then they probably won't. It's not like people just trip and fall on a syringe and get hooked on smack. I can't speak from experience or anything, but I imagine it doesn't go down like that. Junkies, feel free to let me know how you got started.

Well, this argument has been posited before, by people far more eloquent and educated by myself. Let me just sum up by proposing a bumper sticker, established time and again as the most convincing political platform. I give you all free reign to print this up and stick it on your car. Just don't try to make any money off of it, or else I'll find you and jam heroin needles in your arms.

The U.S. Drug policy must be smoking crack.

That could probably be worded better, but you get the idea.


Does Jack Chick even realize the inherent irony in this latest tract? It tells the story of how three devout Jews defied King Nebuchadnezzer's order (gotta love saying that name. Nebuchadnezzar... Nebuchadnezzar...) to bow before his God under penalty of being burned in a furnace, and how heroic they were for doing so. Hmmm... worship my god or burn in fire... now where have I heard that line before?

Homosexuality + I am crazy, Part 2:

I'm not a big bar-goer usually. I've gone to more bars int he past two months than I had in my entire life previously, bringing the grand total up to a massive 3. Going to regular bars makes me nervous enough, so it is with some trepidation that I went to The Savoy, a lesbian bar, on Friday night. Ami's friend was going to go to her first lesbian club experience at the Savoy, and Ami was graciously accompanying her. I was also invited to go along, but had reservations about the whole idea because, as has been repeatedly established, I am crazy.

Now I've been invited out to gay clubs before, but plans ended up falling through, and I'd be pretty intimidated by the prospect anyhow because either

A) I would be hit upon, and then I'd have to tell that person that I wasn't gay.

B) I would not be hit upon, and then I'd have to wonder why not.

But at least I wouldn't feel as though I looked that out of place, seeing as how gay men, oddly enough, look just like straight men for the most part. However, if I'm at the Savoy, it's going to be obvious that I'm not a lesbian, and because of my huge, distended, gargantuan brain, I am of course worried that the lesbians will, naturally, take out their frustrations with constant oppression by tying me to a stake in the center of the dance floor and lighting me on fire. Of course I was being ridiculous, since they only do that on Wednesday nights.

However, I was still too paranoid about being looked at funny or whatever to actually go. Ami tried to convince another friend of hers to attend, but then she didn't want to because she was on a kick to get a new man or something, and a lesbian bar wasn't exactly the place to go and find straight men. I told Ami to tell her that she should go, because if there were a straight man there, they would obviously be totally hip and cool for going with their lesbian friends to a lesbian club, and you could eliminate all the riff raff straight men that attend "straight" bars. Then of course, I realized that I was not being the hip and cool kind of straight guy who accompanies his lesbian friend to the straight bar.

Finally what convinced me was that this friend of Ami's comes with us all the time to the Red Room in Santa Cruz, and I've gone to lots of places with my friends who are gay, and I'm sure that's how it must feel to be gay and go to a "straight" bar or club. So why exactly can't I do the same thing for them? Besides, if I go to a lesbian bar, it's obvious that I'm not going there to pick up on anyone. It's obvious I'm there with a friend, and I don't think lesbians are likely to be the kind of people to discriminate or hassle anyone.

On the other hand, the places we go aren't necessarily defined as being "straight" establishments. I simply consider them as being "neutral", considering that I do not go to these places to pick up on anyone. Is a bar or club "straight" by default? Are they only assigned a sexuality when people go there to pick up on others? Or are they defined by the clientele that happen to attend? Like, when a group a gay dudes bum-rushes a straight bar, does that make the bar into a gay bar? Or does it make a straight bar full of gay men? The Blue Lagoon in Santa Cruz was a gay bar, but it turned out that was the only good place to go dancing in the whole town, so it became integrated when the straight people started going there to find good music. Is it no longer a gay club?

Perhaps because I am not the kind of person to seek out potential mates at bars and clubs, this is why I do not know the answers to these questions. I go to bars and clubs to hang out with friends, drink, shoot pool, or dance. So for me, all bars are neutral. Thus, for my money, The Savoy is a good bet. The drinks aren't that hot, but they've got 75-cent pool, the staff is friendly, the music is okay, if not terribly dance-able, and even though they're not interested in me and I'm not interested in them, it is full of chicks!