fine whine

Once again I could not fall asleep easily last night. I cannot be sure if it was thinking that kept me awake or being awake that kept me thinking, but I think I had a neat idea for a book. It's a mystery novel, quite possibly in the first person/bankrupt financially and morally/rooftop confrontation/etc. mold. The crime is a string of murders over almost a decade that get stumbled upon and ultimately halted. I'm considering doing it in third person and opening it up to the killer's POV as well (a la John Sandford) but probably won't; I've always had reservations about that style of writing though Sandford pulls it off with a certain finesse I can't hope to achieve. Anyway, the quirk about the book is that everybody in it is named Edgar, to a man (or woman). Naturally I'd provide other details and mannerisms to differentiate the Edgars, but if I can pull it off I don't even want to give them last names. So the killer's Edgar, all of the victims are Edgars as well as any potential suspects. As a bit of absurdity, I'd have the detective wonder "But who is the killer? What is his name?" or something like that that can only be idiotic in light of everybody being named Edgar. I'd picked that name previously for a quick ditty slash character study when an idea occurred to me that had no obvious use—so I made a page for it. It was only after an extra sleepless half hour that I remembered that the award given for particularly good mystery fiction is the Edgar, and to use that name so many times in a given novel could be considered name dropping or fishing. But I don't care. Silly books don't often win serious awards, after all.

In other news, I've targeted my GeoURL information as closely as possible. I believe the coordinates now pinpoint my fridge.

Two observations from the drive home today:

• A van in front of me with a small B&W TV on the dashboard, playing what looked like the news, though I didn't get too close.; Drivers like that scare me and he was obviously the one watching it—the other six seats were empty.
• A personalized license plate TSTGOD: what could this be?
  • Trust God?
  • Taste God?
  • Test God?
  • Toast God?
  • ...Gourd?
  • ...Garamond?
• I'm still stumped. Why did the guy keep the Ohio clipart instead of getting an extra letter for clarity? We may never know.

Once recently I was at a loss to come up with any of Stanley Kubrick's films other than The shining and A.I.. 2001 had slipped my mind, as well as A clockwork orange, both of which I've watched. I own Spartacus (and A.I. for that matter) and at one time also owned Eyes wide shut but traded that up for a Criterion Robocop. I even forgot the ones I'd liked, Full metal jacket and Dr. Strangelove. Why should I list them when imdb does it so much better? I hadn't known the guy even had his hand in The spy who loved me, one of the better Bond movies I've endured. Anyway, the whole point of this is that I don't appreciate ol' Stan for the work he's done. Take the film I watched tonight: The killing which he directed in 1956. It's a heist movie but it's so well made and unconventional to be elevated over what even then was already becoming a tired genre. Joe and the gang keep everything at a quick pace and the nonlinearity and narrator lend an original edge or two to the proceedings. I know now that the next Kubrick for me to watch won't be Lolita or Barry Lyndon but 1955's Killer's kiss, at least if I can track it down easily. Gradually I'm changing my opinion of the guy, and enjoying the process.

Without hesitation I'd say The Killing is one of the best movies I've seen this year, and without laughing I'd probably back it up for quite a while. Diner too would be on that list, and the more I think about it the more little things make me grin: the whole idea of holding a vengeance against a baseball team but explaining it only when only one is left to hit, throwaway lines about words like "nuance" and the immature guy banter are just the beginning. The rest of the movies this year are going to have an uphill fight to match these two gems, but that won't stop me from watching a whole bunch of them. Eventually I'll make a short list of the best films I watched last year; expect to see it in February, I'd guess.

This is unrelated to anything, but how cool would it be to have a song with the bass and/or guitar lines played backwards? I think such a thing would sound cool, though it may well have been done. This is something worth looking into, methinks.

So I'm listening to NPR on the drive home today, just like any other day, except it's really dark out and they're talking about gay marriage. The darkness I could explain because I left later than usual, but the marriage issue took me a little longer to puzzle through. The Massachusetts legislature has apparently set the groundwork for a massive debate on gay marriage by basically legalizing it.

Whoa. That is so completely against the prevailing leadership stance it made my head reel. To think that some people in power out there might have their heads screwed on straight (ha ha ha) boggles the mind. Yet I am straight and married, to boot. Why would I want to extend this institution to those deviants? Hear me out: We here in America are all about freedoms. Freedom to this and that and we protect these rights so dearly we need to foist them on the rest of the world. Are you forcing women to dress from head to toe in unflattering clothes? Then we're after your ass! We want to make sure that woman has the right to a bare midriff (we'll sell her clothes to cover everything else, just barely, of course) but god forbid she want to marry a Tom, Dick or Harry but a Tammy, Delores or Harriet! God indeed, as this country is apparently still run by a god and not some principles of freedom and self-determination. Somewhere in the rush to power apparently the ability to separate religious mandates and the rule of law goes by the wayside, and anything that could be considered morally contentious by some becomes illegal to all.

This is nothing new: laws banned consumption of alcohol and the marriage of interracial couples. Times changed and those laws were superseded by rational thought, so why are we stuck in an ultraconservative backwater whatever? And don't even start blaming Bush, as it was everybody's dearest Mr. Bill Clinton himself who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The overt war reference is likely just a coincidence, though military language permeates governing just as much as white protestant morality does.

Now to me. I still am a white protestant, but somehow I have this idea that the government should let gays get married. Legally it has nothing to do with love at all, but has much more practical implications such as, oh, the inheritance of property and social security widow's benefits. Why not extend such benefits to any two people willing to commit for life to each other? Contracts being what they are, just fill in the names, have the justice of the peace take care of it, and shazam, two husbands. Or wives. I think Massachusetts has set a good precedent, though the rumblings of a constitutional amendment to protect this man and woman business troubles me greatly. KEEP MORALITY OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION!

You may notice that there is nothing in the constitution against gambling or close dancing, two things that major religious groups oppose vehemently. You may furthermore notice no law preventing the eating of meat on Lenten Fridays, or non-kosher foods. Again, these are major religious provisions but they aren't federal law. So let homosexuals get married as per the government and let the churches, which are not bound by equality shit, keep them out. So you can have Mr. and Mr. Bob Whatever, but not in this church, and so on. This is what Las Vegas and the justices of the peace are for. And once this starts, dominoes will fall and the more liberal churches will relent. With open arms.

A truly shrewd state would take advantage of the situation and offer gay marriage to any couple willing to pay a minimum of taxes, be they property, income or sales. Whatever, just to get some money in the government coffers. The dough would roll in, I'd think. ARE YOU LISTENING, ARNOLD?

I'm sorry, but I generally don't bandy potentially unpopular opinions or capital letters around much, but the more times I hear this argued it really steams me. It's a basic freedom, people, and if we're not letting gays marry THE TERRORISTS WIN. Okay, maybe that's crossing the line, but to even have thought this I'm a thought criminal anyway. Please forget you ever read this if you want to see your children grow up.

I am so back on track with the novel. I've got my target rate picked out and I've already exceeded it for today. So enough about that. I needed to open up a new bottle of lens cleaner tonight, and as usual had to struggle with the stupid plastic they put on the top. You know, the stuff that says "Tamper evident"? I think if I were the sort of person to tamper with a bottle of lens cleaner packed in a box, I'd also get rid of anything that claimed to be evidence of any tampering. And what would you do with something like that? Slip red pepper in there? Some virus? Admittedly the eyes are a great place to introduce germs and contagions, but seriously, who does that? It's just like the razorblades in candybars idea: didn't they do a study proving the whole thing to be a hoax? And why do they have to put the same crap on my Cool Whip containers? I think I'd be able to tell if it's been tampered with, thank you.

And while I dwell on the idea of stupid production ideas, I'd like to find out why DVDs that claim to include "deleted scenes" don't include them all. I realize all footage isn't necessary, but in the example of, say, Old school, which features Will Ferrell dangling a fish on its cover (and in scenes I remember from trailers), doesn't include said scene in either the film or its outtakes. Why not? It was likely pretty funny, so why leave it out? Bad bit budget? Come on. And take for example The family man with Nic Cage asking "What am I doing here?" and two large guys in matching uniforms reply, "You're the best damn tire salesman in New Jersey", which too was expurgated from the film but not its promotional campaign. Could we have a little consistency, folks? Please?

I've figured out what the perfect Halloween costume for a tall guy would be: two midgets dressed up as a tall guy. Of course there would be some difficulties with this (namely the large feet, head and arms) but I think that with the right details it could work. First and foremost would be a coat that opens in front revealing the bottom midget holding the top guy on his shoulders.

Here's a tagline I'd like to use someday: "So ergonomic it hurts!" Why? It just sounds cool.

Speaking of hurts, though, and not so cool, it has been brought to my attention that I have fallen lax in my protection of wildlife by not crushing my Yoplait yogurt cups. Only now have I noticed the warning "PROTECT WILDLIFE/CRUSH CUP BEORE DISPOSAL" and I have been haphazardly tossing uncrushed cups for years. I think I squashed one once, but otherwise I must be responsible for horrible pain and suffering for wildlife.

But wait? Why would my cup-crushing or lack thereof have to do with nature? I should hope no bambis or thumpers are rooting through the landfill for a quick lick of some fine French vanilla or lemon. Or does Yoplait expect me to carelessly toss my cup into the woods, right into the path of an unsuspecting wild animal?

I think I'll still be able to sleep at night over this, though.