Most Important Bands

In no particular order:

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis
3. Madonna
4. The Rolling Stones
5. New Kids On The Block
6. Buddy Holly
7. Run DMC
8. Bob Dylan
9. Nirvana
10. Dr. Dre
11. The Grateful Dead
12. Black Sabbath
13. Lynnrd Skynnrd

Darthmatic Chipmunk!!

Comic Book Movies

According to the NY Times, Marvel comic books is self-producing two movies to be released in summer 2008: Iron Man staring Robert Downey, Jr. & Gwenyth Paltrow and The Incredible Hulk staring Ed Norton & Liv Tyler.

What does all this mean? I have GOT to buy Guitar Hero II.

Triumph at the Tony's

Sopranos Theory

Greg the intern tells me that his "friend" works at HBO and was told that the ending Tony's death and - get this - that Tony died the same way as his father. Janice, in season 2, described her father's death at a restaurant. The family was all sitting the same way as when Johnny Boy Soprano was killed, and Janice walked in to see him killed.

As a faithful Sopranos watcher, I'm not sure I buy this. First of all, wikipidea, the world's most trusted new source, says that Tony's father died of emphasyma, not that he was killed. Also, I have no recollection of Janice describing her father's death, and wouldn't it be odd that Tony would not talk about his father's murder that happened right in front of him, especially since Tony followed in his chosen field?

It doesn't make sense. Still, its a great theory. Thanks, Greg. Thanks.

Sue Your Pants Off

There's a story in today's NYTimes about a judge in DC who is suing his dry cleaners for $67.3 million dollars after they lost a pair of his pants that he gave them, to make the waist bigger. Apparently, he claims that based on their signs saying "same day service" and "satisfation guaranteed," he's entitled to $18,000 per day for each day he's been withheld use of the pants. At trial, he cried as he described when the owners of the laundromat, Asian immigrants who work 70 hours per week, tried to pass off cheaper pants as the missing pair.

Is this country great, or what?

A Good Maxwell House Wife

What Nilda Should Be:



Why does she keep hitting me?

From A Reliable Source

Why was I not informed about Bruce Lee?

Julie's Question

My sister sent me a question asking if it was ok for a company she knows to require its female employees to wear a heel of at least 1-2 inches at trade shows. She says the women are all young and "take care of themselves." She said that the company has on line of clothing and when they display that line, the presenters have to wear spiked high black boots that the company bought them for them at $450 a pop. She asks, "is it against the law to force them to wear specific shoes?"

I responded:

The short answer is, no. An employer is allowed to have a dress code. If the dress code is revealing in nature, then it depends on whether it goes to the core of the employment. For example, Hooters can make its employees wear revealing clothing becuase its part of the job, but Goldman Sacks would not be permitted to require the same uniform.

So, can this guy make his female employees wear high heel shoes? Probably. But it sounds to me like this is just one piece of evidence in a claim against the company for age discrimination. If an employer makes employment decisions based not on qualifications but, rather on youth, then that's age discrimination and is against the law. Sure he can have good looking presenters at his show, but he can't make decisions about how a person will perform based on factors that have nothing to do with performance. He certainly would not be allowed to say he wants only white employees, or that an employee could be fired if she becomes pregnant. First, you need to establish that there's been some kind of injury to a particular employee, such as a termination, and then establish that the adverse employment action was taken as a result of discrimination.

***

This was more information then she needed to know. Thanks, Jul!

Good music

Every now and then, there's one album that I can't get enough of, and that I can't get out of my head. I then become engrossed with the band and can't stop listening to them. Until, of course, I get bored of them. Its a cyclical thing. Here's a few bands that are worth checking out:

Mates of State: I first saw this husband/wife duo when they opened for Cake years ago. The wife, who was pregnant with their first child at the time, plays keyboards while he plays drums. They sing nonsensical but insightful lyrics in sweeping melodies that make you forget there's no bass or guitar. They're spectacular and I highly recommend them. Check out their albums in this order: Team Boo, Our Constant Concern, My Solo Project, Bring It Back.

Matt Pond PA: This is a full on band from Long Island that has great, strong chord structures and a well-utilized violin. I had heard of them because they're on the same label as Mates of State, but I didn't get into them until Matt gave me Several Arrows Later, a remarkable album.

Phish: Of course, but they are remarkably good. The release of Colorado '88, a tape of a show made long before they were well known or successful, shows how gifted and unique the band really is. They're actual musicians, rather than rock stars, and you have to respect how they made it on their own terms, and ended it on their own terms, as well. When I'm into Phish, I can't listen to anything else, even if I want to. But when I'm sick of them, every song is boring. I'm sick of them right now, but that will change in a few months, I'm sure.

The Reason to Blog

Last night, I told Nilda about my posting on the uncertainty principle. She said to me, "Are all of your posts going to be boring?" Thanks, sweetheart. You're so wonderful.

This got me thinking about the purpose of blog. Some are like online diaries (Jon Berger), some are strictly informative (Andrew), while others go for more of an audience participation angle (Bill). To me, a blog, at best, is a diary of whats interesting to the writer at the moment, and nothing more. But I still can't figure out the reason why anybody would want to keep a blog.

The Uncertainty Principle

Knowledge is finite. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says, among other things, that by learning about one object, we cloud our knowledge of another. For example, if we want to know the position and momentum of an object, figuring one out will make our ability to determine the other less accurate. (Once I learn how to insert a hyperlink, like Bill and Andrew, I'll do that. Until then, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle).

The principle also states that by looking an object, we change it. If you want to see where an atom is located, you shine a flashlight on it. But the light will excite the atom and make it move around, so you can't get an accurate reading. (This would also with with a coffee mug, but you'd need a lot of light to make a discernable difference in the coffee mug). Instead of merely saying that all we need are better instruments, the principle stands for the idea that we can never know everything. There is a limit to knowledge.

This idea was controversial when it came out. Einstein, while agreeing to its basic assumptions, did not accept it, famously stating, "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." Bohr, a scientist who favored the idea, responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." The principle is now greatly accepted.

How does this scientific principle impact your daily life? It doesn't. How often are you going to need to know exactly where an atom is? But as a theory, as an idea in the evolution of human thought, its groundbreaking. Only by accepting what we cannot know can we truly understand what we can know.

Memorial Day

A great war-related organization is the Wounded Warrior Project (www.woundedwarriorproject.org), which focuses on helping disabled veterans in their return to civilian life. More than anything, the influx of these soldiers back into America is going to nbe the most-lasting impact the Iraq War will have.

Alberto Gonzalez

Looking to find a way to explain away the Democratic victory in 2006, Karl Rove wanted to claim that "voter fraud" was an issue. To fabricate such a claim, Rove wanted the Justice Department to prosecute various Democrats. When certain prosecutors refused to bring bogus prosecutions, the White House fired them. This broke the cardinal rule against politicizing thje justice department and, thankfully, Congress and the press haven't let it go. Gonzalez is now taking the fall for it, but like every decision with this administration, this issue stems from Rove.

I couldn't sleep and I'm watching Bill Mahr. Who let Ben Affleck speak?

Stealing from Andrew

And yes, I know this is the same format Andrew uses for his blog, but its the best one and he's got the same cufflinks I got so he can suck it.

First entry

I don't understand why anybody would want to write a blog. Doesn't make any sense and reminds me too much of Doogie Howser. (Pause as I sit back and think, followed by a slight chuckle). I have to get back to work, these motions are killing me.