da_craw

So I've been an AT&T/Cingular customer ever since I got a cell phone, lo these 9 years ago or so.  I patiently waited for my upgrades, and until the last couple of years, wasn't even interested in a phone with bells and whistles (or more specifically, Internet and email).  The past 2 1/2 years, though, I've had a PDA for work, first provided for me by work, and then, when my boss got his iPhone (right when it came out), on my own account (the joy of being "contract" labor).

Even though I definitely could use the higher web functionality of an iPhone (or G1), I waited until my eligibility date, so I didn't have to pay an extra $200.  Which was April 8, 2009.  Or so I thought.  My wife switched her phone from our family plan to a work plan to get a new PDA herself, and the AT&T phone associate helping her, when setting up my interim plan, assured me that I could get an iPhone at that $199 level on April 8.  Until I checked on April 1, and it said that I wasn't eligible until September 8, 2009, though I could pay $18 for the right to pay full price for an iPhone.

So now, after 2 weeks and about 3 hours on the phone with AT&T, and their utter inability to fix the problem, I got a G1 and am now a T-Mobile customer.  About 30 minutes after I made the switch, I got a call back from AT&T (a call that was promised 2 hours earlier), saying they still hadn't fixed the problem, and asking me to be patient.  The big problem here is, while everyone at AT&T I spoke to was friendly and tried to be helpful, I was never able to directly speak to someone who could fix my problem.  So after two weeks of other people trying to convince the people in "critical care" to stop screwing me, I screwed back.

So far -love the new phone, love the new company.  My new phone wasn't working this morning, but one 15 minute phone call got it all fixed, plus other helpful, friendly tips.  So, my new phone is cheaper, my new plan is cheaper, and I get good customer service.  AT&T, you're fired.

Anybody remember DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths, or the story of Krona and the multiverse from Green Lantern?  About how Krona saw the hand at the dawn of time?

Yeah - so let the multiversal splitting begin -

HAND. IN. SPACE.

http://www.viruscomix.com/page382.html

Businesses closing during Texas Relays

My favorite part - that there's no difference in crime during this weekend than any other big Austin weekend.  I love my adopted hometown, but anyone who thinks Austin is color blind or cosmopolitan is misled by it being the blue heart of a red Texas.  Austin is very segregated, and while it's as much economic as it is racial, the fact remains that most minorities in Austin live in the east and south parts of town, while whiteness and income increase as you move westward and, to a lesser extent, northward.  And, much as Avenue Q says, we're obviously all a little bit racist.

So, there are a variety of news reports about the Iowa Supreme Court striking down the gay marriage ban in that state.  I use Mother Jones's, mostly because of the extensive quote from the opinion.

Mother Jones article on Iowa and gay marriage

Without going into the merits of whether any particular faith should recognize gay marriage (which should be up to each individual institution to determine for itself), I have always thought that legally, under the concept and Constitutional right of equal protection under the law, there was no justification to prevent gay marriage. 

Strangely, this is one area where my father and I have agreed, while coming at it from two different rationales.  To him, the answer is to get government out of marriage altogether, and leave it entirely to religious (or analogous institutions, for those who aren't theists of any stripe) to work out marriage.  I even managed to convince him that there would have to be some sort of civil situation that would be the same as civil marriage now, but open to any two consenting adults (he thought that powers of attorneys and other things would be able to take care of it, but my experience in the legal profession has shown me that it's not really a workable solution).  Either solution works for me - both result in fully equal standings, regardless of sexual orientation.

To be honest, I might even prefer my father's solution, as I've often had trouble with the conflict between the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the civil marriage rules that have conflicted, most notably, with the polygamy allowed within both the Islamic faith and the first few years of the Mormon faith.  Again, I understand the many arguments from a sociological standpoint about the potential of abuse in plural marriages, but I still remain troubled by First Amendment conflicts regarding free exercise and other laws. (By the by, I have the same problem with the conflict between drug laws and some faiths, as well - yes, I'm a libertarian in a liberal's body.)

WE ARE . . .

PENN STATE

The snub of not being chosen for the NCAA Tournament is diminished by our winning the NIT and winning only our second basketball tournament ever.  Sure, it might be the also ran tourney.  Sure, it might not mean anything, and it's been years since the NIT was the big deal.  But for PSU basketball, it's a big deal.  And, it lets me taunt the many more numerous local Baylor fans, so it's all good.

Here's a commentary on drug legalization from CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I tend to agree, even though legalizing drugs isn't actually in my own pecuniary interest.  While I think his take may be a little too much through rose colored lenses, at the heart of it, I think he suggests the proper response to this situation.  The law isn't going to make drug use go away - and if it's not illegal, many of the illegal acts that currently stem from drug use will wither away as well.

Back to Stubb's again for Day 2.  I actually ran into a classmate of mine from law school, who was opining about how he wanted to try some of the smaller venues but yet was compelled to keep coming back to Stubb's to see the bigger acts.  I tend to agree - during the 2 previous occasions I spent much more time at the smaller venues and did some more musical exploration.  On the other hand, the acts I actually wanted to see those years (like Kevn Kinney or 1001 Nights Orchestra) were actually playing in the smaller places.

( Last night's review )

This article was on ESPN.com today.  No duh - Bobby Bowden thinks it's too harsh that FSU is being asked to forfeit victories.  Really?  Why did the AP waste its time on that?  Now if Bowden supported it, that would've been news.  Hey AP - here's a story idea for you - all coaches polled really want to win all their games every season.  That's News!!!!



The snark is full on today because I'm running on about 4 hours of sleep after SXSW.  It was much easier when a. I was younger, and b. I was in school in Austin so that 6:30 wake-up call wasn't a necessity.  Anyway, this is what I've seen so far  (all of which was at Stubb's, which appears to be my destination for 3 out of the 4 nights of SXSW) -

5 minutes of Janelle Monae - it was pretty cool, but having heard only the tail end of a song, I can't tell you how avant or experimental the set was.

30 minutes of stage hands, and then - Ladyhawke - during which I learned that New Zealand is in a time warp 25 years behind the US.  Actually, I get the same message from Flight of the Conchords, so maybe it's true.  I'm not the hugest fan of synth pop, but I actually liked Ladyhawke, so there you go.

Following them was Heartless Bastards - aside from the first song in their set (which seemed pretty cool, and sadly, different from everything else they played), they really came across as just generic rock to me.  Unoffensive, but I wouldn't go out of my way to hear it again.

Then, the Avett Brothers.  The best description I have for them - a more yelly version of the Decemberists with far less clever lyrics.  My wife pointed out how similar they were, and questioned why the schedulers would do that.

Finally, the Decemberists themselves, playing the entirety of their new album live.  I haven't heard anything from the album, but if the live show is any indication, it's their Thick as a Brick.  45 minutes of basically one song with different themes and musical styles (combining the Decemberists usual more quirky acoustic sound with Black Sabbath-esque 70's metal), and returning to themes throughout.  It was pretty darn good, though I think some fans will be turned off by the change in style.  I liked it, and as did my wife (who has gotten Decemberist-ed out before) and she also pointed out that this album seems to be attracting the attention and good reviews of those who previously thought they were just a little too clever and quirky.  Me, I think it's just an excuse for Colin Meloy to rock out all Tommy Iommi style, and I'm cool with that.

Tonight - back to Stubb's for the triple bill of Meat Puppets, Gomez, and Andrew Bird . . .

I've been fighting the urge all afternoon long to go one of the numerous Irish-ish pubs here today while wearing a big orange T-shirt and carrying a British flag.

Here are my thoughts are "The Watchmen," after a couple of days of thinking about it.

( Avast! There be spoilers below . . . )

College Football News has this article (spawned no doubt by all the noise that Bowden and FSU may lose up to 14 victories for playing ineligible players) about the difference between Paterno's 383 wins and Bowden's 382 wins.

I found this new user pic at Cracked.com, seen here.

Here's the photo, in it's full glory -

The wife and I are getting wristbands for the SXSW music festival this year.  I haven't been in years; my better half has never been.

Here's the link to the list of bands:
http://sxsw.com/music/shows/schedule


Anybody has any suggestions of who we really ought to get out and see?

Thanks.

Umm, that's pretty much it.

So, a while back, I'd posted about my efforts to get healthier, i.e. lose some weight primarily (but eat better and exercise more, too).

I'd kind of done nothing about it for a while, until my weight finally crept back above my magic number of disappointment (which, to be clever, has 3 digits, all of which added together equal 3.  Yes, there are multiple answers to that one, but the magic number isn't 111 or 210).

That, combined with the example of my father-in-law who has spent the last 6 months successfully losing some weight of his own, I decided to get a bit more serious about it, start counting those calories, and eating smarter (more raw fruits and vegetables, more chicken instead of beef, less eating out, avoiding french fries, etc.).  So I've been doing that since the beginning of this year, and as of this morning I've lost about 10 pounds.

Now there's just about 60 more to go before I get to what I consider my ideal weight. (Screw you, BMI charts, I'm big boned!!!!)  And 40 to go before I get to buy myself a brand new computer with all the bells and whistles.

But I may actually have to use the industrial sized ice scraper given to me by my Minnesotan friends to clear off my car.  Icy rain all during the wee hours probably will equal the whole town shutting down, but if not, a-scraping I will go.

Or in this case, not so much.

I just got done looking at something that illustrates the inaccuracy of eyewitness identification.  Without going into too much detail, someone is accused of running from the police, based on getting a license plate number, pulling up a driver's license picture, and the officer making a positive id from the photo.

Except - said accused was actually in custody at the time of the incident.  The case resulted in a dismissal once it was shown to the prosecutor, but the person has sat in jail for quite a while because of this error.

So even a relatively reliable eyewitness (i.e. a police officer, who supposedly has some training in observation and what not) can't be trusted, due to human fallibility, to make a good eyewitness id.  You decide how much you want to trust an eyewitness, if you're ever a juror.

That, or the cop was fudging it all along.  You decide . . .

Though my choice is Christmas, so Merry Christmas to all.

So I've had two near accidents/incidents with my car within the past 24 hours:

a. Yesterday, at lunch, I was driving near the campus to go get a haircut.  I stopped at a stop sign, then started going and almost ran right into some chick on a bicycle who also had a stop sign and just didn't bother to stop.  She hadn't even been at the intersection when I started through, and then looked at me and smirked after the near miss.

b. I almost ran over a squirrel on the way to work, as it ran into the street, and then instead running back to the near curb, decided to take the longer route as I slowed down.  Couldn't stop, but there was no indication of flat squirrel on the road or on my tires, so I guess it made it.

Guess which one of these I would have actually been more upset about? (Hint: it's not which one where there would have been more legal/monetary ramifications)