Abba Zabba

As if the phrase "War on Terror" wasn't ridiculous enough, Rudy Giuliani has come up with a variant that's even worse. He likes to talk about "The Terrorists' War on Us". That's quite possibly the worst phrase in the history of the English language.

I know this isn't a new thing, but he's started using the phrase more often lately, and it really bugs me. War on Us? That implies a one-way conflict, in which they're attacking us and we're sitting here and taking it. That's hardly the image that Giuliani wants to present, since he's the big tough guy who knows how to fight back against terrorists. Even if you accept that there's a unified group called "the terrorists" and that it's possible to be in a war against that group (despite a lack of victory conditions, or any way of knowing whether we're winning or losing that war), that phrase is idiotic.

One time, I drove from Boston to New Jersey in 2 hours and 56 minutes. Usually it takes a little more than 3 hours; I plan for 3.5.

I was in the car for 3.5 hours today, but I didn't drive to New Jersey. I drove home. A lot of people have long commutes. I work with people who live more than 50 miles away. On a bad day, I guess it could take one of them over 3 hours to get home. You know how far away I live?

6 miles. 210 minutes for 6 miles. Admittedly, I didn't take a direct route. In an utterly ineffective attempt to avoid bad traffic and steep hills, my route was closer to 8 miles. But if you do the math, you'll find that 8 miles in 3.5 hours is absolutely fucking awful. That was literally the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone ever.

Last year around this time, I made a post called "Radio Free Santa". In it, I complained about a local radio station which plays nothing but Christmas music for 6 weeks.

Today is 6 weeks before Christmas. In the car on the way home from work, I clicked through the radio stations. There are now 2 stations playing nothing but Christmas music. For 6 weeks.

I do not enjoy the Christmas season.

I hate Ticketmaster.

Their website just doesn't work. At least, not when I really want it to. Friday night I bought tickets for a show that wasn't close to sold out, and I had no problems. The site is fine for situations like that. But just now, I tried to buy tickets for a show that I knew would sell out, and the site completely failed me.

First, the tickets were supposed to go on sale on Saturday morning. At some point that was moved to Monday morning. So instead of buying from home, I was forced to do it from work. At least our web-blocking software doesn't block Ticketmaster.com. But it's still possible that the firewall caused some of my problems. Or it could just be Ticketmaster's incompetence.

The way the site works, you choose what type of tickets you want, then enter a queue. When your wait is over, you're presented with tickets, and you can buy them or search again. In theory. The way it actually works, the first few times your wait is over, you get an "Invalid request. Sorry for the inconvenience." error, and have to start waiting again. Do that a few times, and you can instead get the "No tickets found" error. They never tell you the show is sold out; they tell you they can't find tickets that you requested, and suggest you broaden the request. At least if they said "Sold Out" I'd stop trying.

After 15 minutes of reloading with multiple browsers, I finally got the search to complete. I was offered the worst seats in the house, for the second night of the show, which I don't even want to go to. As far as I can tell, both shows sold out in under 20 minutes. And even though I started the ticket search process within a minute of tickets going on sale, I was only offered the worst seats possible. And that's why Ticketmaster sucks. Now, off to Ebay!

So last night I was in the liquor store, buying stuff to take on a camping trip this weekend. One of our group is a girl who doesn't drink beer, only girly drinks. So I was forced to look in the dreaded "malternative" cooler. And that's where I found the worst product ever.

Smirnoff Source. It's pure spring water, plus alcohol, and a small amount of flavoring. Yes, it's just watered-down vodka. And they expect people to pay for that. I can't imagine any environment in which this drink is necessary. Presumably it's aimed at people in clubs, but clubs have bars, and bars can give you a shot of vodka in a glass of water if you want. Of course, nobody has ever in the history of the universe ordered a shot of vodka in a glass of non-sparkling water, but that didn't stop the geniuses at Smirnoff from putting that in a bottle.

A couple years ago, I had a similar reaction to "Nice and Easy" vodka, which was only 60 proof. It was just regular vodka, watered down slightly. But in retrospect, that makes at least a little sense, if you want weak drinks but don't want to mess with the proportions. Flavored alcoholic spring water, on the other hand, is just moronic.

Now that everyone's got high-speed Internet, there's a trend towards putting more multimedia content on web sites. (Note: I can't say the word "multimedia" without feeling like it's 1995 and I'm reading a Time article about the Information Superhighway. But I still feel like more of a tool when I say "podcast", one of the dumbest words ever invented.) And I don't like it.

I like text. It's easy. It's convenient. Podcasts and videos are neither. With text, you can start reading, then switch away to something else, and come back to read more later. I guess you can pause a video or audio file, but it's harder to scroll back and remind yourself of what just happened. I read very quickly; I can definitely read faster than people can comprehensibly talk. I can skim text briefly to look for interesting parts, which is impossible with video files. Some streaming audio/video sites are blocked at work, so I can't access that content at all. And when I'm on the Internet at home, I have the TV or music on. I can listen to the TV and read something, but I can't watch two videos at once.

I know that some people prefer multimedia. They want to see or hear what happened. And that's fine. But that's no reason to take away my text! Big sites like the New Yorker (which inspired this rant) can certainly afford to pay an intern to transcribe their audio and video pieces. That way the cool kids can podcast and vlog and do whatever they want, while I sit here and read.

A few months ago, I complained about the band Stuck Mojo. Or, more specifically, about their new fans. They released an anti-Muslim song, and all the anti-Muslim bloggers declared them the greatest band in the history of the universe. At the time, I called it just a conservative phenomenon.

Turns out I was wrong. Rosie O'Donnell is getting fired from The View. Naturally, I don't care. And I'd assume that other intelligent Americans (ie, not fans of The View), also don't care. But I overlooked the fact that there are as many wackos on the left as on the right. See, Rosie likes to talk about politics on her show. She's said repeatedly that she thinks Bush should be impeached. And on at least one occasion, she said that the official 9/11 explanation is a conspiracy, because fire can't melt steel. As a result, she's widely praised among certain leftists. (Such as the ones on the site that inspired me to write this article.)

The people are making the same mistake as the Jihadwatch crowd did for Stuck Mojo. It's possible to admire what someone says without admiring the person for saying it. Rosie O'Donnell is annoying. She's always been annoying. She was a loud, mediocre stand-up comic, then one of the most obnoxious TV personalities of the 90s. And now she's on a crappy morning show for housewives and the chronically unemployed, yammering about celebrities and fashion. The fact that she occasionally throws in a standard Noam Chomsky point along with the discussion of Britney's new hairdo (or lack thereof) doesn't make her a hero. If anything, it makes her into even more of a caricature, and makes it easier for the mainstream media to ignore the left.

I just saw the worst news ad ever!

Paraphrased: "Kids love to use instant messages. They might send hundreds per day. And when they do that, they use shorthand. Shorthand with...IMPROPER GRAMMAR!"

That's the top story on the local news tonight. Sometimes people don't use proper grammar on the Internet and on text-messages. Apparently, this is considered news. And it's considered a major tragedy judging by the announcer's voice, which used the same tones as "Are sex offenders working in your child's school?"

I know it's sweeps month, so local news stations need to scare people into watching. But is that really the best they can do?

There's a weird trend in advertising right now. Companies are starting to show ads about people being upset with their ads. And I hate it.

Geico has been doing this for a while. At first, they had the "So easy a caveman could do it" ads. Then they started having ads where the cavemen were upset at the insult. Now I see the caveman ads all the time, which have nothing to do with Geico's product. They're just a bunch of cavemen (on a TV talk show, at a party, etc.) complaining about how Geico insulted them.

Now Rolling Rock has started the same kind of ads. The CEO of Rolling Rock sits behind a desk and describes a recent offensive Rolling Rock ad. (I've never seen any of the "offensive" ads, just the apologies.) Then he apologizes for the offensive content, and says he hopes people won't stop drinking Rolling Rock because of it.

As far as I can tell, there's only one reason for these ads: To make consumers feel stupid complaining about ads. Let's say that Geico's next ad campaign shows a bunch of bad Asian drivers crashing into each other. Then Asian-American groups protest the ad, as interest groups often protest offensive ads. Everyone will laugh at them for being just like those wacky Geico cavemen!

These ads aren't about selling the product. The Geico ads barely even mention what Geico does, and the Rolling Rock ads aren't much better. The ads are about protecting the ad industry. And that's just bizarre.

I hate sports. I don't want to play them, so I don't. That's easy. I don't want to watch them, so I don't. That's not too hard. Sometimes sports are on in a bar, and sometimes shows I like are pre-empted, but I can deal with that.

I don't want to hear about sports either. And that's a problem. There's an assumption that everyone likes sports, and wants to talk about them constantly. For some reason, during the football playoffs, the media acts like every man, woman, and child is obsessed with football. (Admittedly, a lot of them are.) So the radio DJs can't go 5 minutes without talking about the Patriots. Signs in the grocery stores say "Great snacks to eat while you're watching the game!" Newspapers ignore actual issues to expand their football coverage and talk about the teams, the coaches, the stadiums.

These aren't great impositions on my daily life. I just don't like the assumption that everyone cares about football. It's just like Christmas. I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't celebrate the Super Bowl. And I'm tired of being made to feel like an outcast because of that.

Recently, a rap/metal band called Stuck Mojo released a song called "Open Season", about shooting terrorists. The band has said in a statement that they're taking a stand against global jihad. The reaction from conservative bloggers has been absolutely ridiculous. (Yes, the reaction from conservative bloggers is always ridiculous. But this seems more remarkable than usual.)

First, the band is being hailed as heroes for saying that they want to kill terrorists. It's not like that's some kind of controversial or rare statement. I've seen hundreds of cars with bumper stickers along those lines. Of course, some people interpret the song as a call to kill all American Muslims. And anyone who cheers that statement has some problems. But, nonetheless, people cheer. I've seen people say that this will help their cause. Apparently they live in a parallel universe in which Stuck Mojo is an entertainment juggernaut with legions of adoring fans, who will blindly follow the band's politics.

But the bigger problem is that these people are now claiming to be fans of the band. I keep seeing comments like "I don't normally like rap, but I bought two copies of this album", or "I have a new favorite band!" That's idiotic. Who picks their favorite band based on politics? I like some of Bono's charity work, but I'd rather slam my head into a brick wall than listen to the latest U2 album. And I care about global warming, but if Nickelback released a song about the melting ice caps I'd still avoid it like the plague. For some reason, it's different for conservatives. They confuse agreement with quality. Remember, these are the same people who burned Dixie Chicks CDs after the singer mildly insulted Bush.

Maybe I'm approaching this the wrong way. I should just look on the bright side: Large numbers of middle-aged white men attempting to enjoy rap-metal because they know that they're supposed to like this band. And it teaches bands everywhere that they can attract a large audience and tons of praise on the Internet by releasing music that appeals to right-wing nutcases. I want to see more shitty bands get in on this, so conservative bloggers have to buy dozens of CDs that they hate.