I know other people noticed, but it probably doesn't get a whole lot of publicity.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
On Wednesday morning I drove into work, and as always I listened to NPR. There were a number of stories that sparked responses in my brain, but since I've been doing updates on Ukraine specifically, I thought I'd address this one separately.
Wednesday morning they were reporting on Vladimir Putin's claim that the soldiers in Crimea were just local ethnic Russians who were worried the new government and ethnic Ukrainians would punish or hurt them.
I'll say again that this speaks to a kind of ethnic tension we don't understand in this country, although perhaps it was foolish of me to say previously that our tension is racial and not ethnic; in some ways it must be both. And while I feel we haven't had any major incidents of tension recently, that's probably because I'm white and I wouldn't feel them or hear about them. (Note: I don't count the Treyvon Martin killing and the other case because - while I do believe they were isolated incidents of racism - they we not an example on the scale of what is happening in the Ukraine right now. In some ways our society has become mixed - in demographic terms - so there are no longer strict lines or boundaries between the races based on where one lives.)
In any case, I felt like the quickest and simplest response to Putin's assertion (which might be a mistake, because it would accept it at face value) would be to say "Well, you obviously have a strong influence on those "citizens," why not speak out and ask them not to be the aggressors; to move back and defend neighborhoods rather than surrounding a military base?"
Of course, Putin's ridiculous premise had a truck driven through it (for me) when Jon Stewart pointed out that these so-called "anybodies" had Russian tanks at their disposal. Uh, the militias in Idaho don't have tanks, I don't think (although they might!).
The other problem with my suggestion is that it assumes a group of soldiers surrounding/patrolling a neighborhood would be a better solution. In some ways, it would open the door to much more human interaction, and possibly aggression by individual actors (on the neighborhood side) which could spark something much worse.
I went through my accounting for the last six months and calculated how much money I spent on luxury items, which - in my definition - includes snacks and chips of any kind, all take out and fast food, and movie tickets. The results:
I could have been doing a lot more with that money: seeing movies, paying credit, paying student loans, maybe visiting the dentist or paying back people I owe money to.
This habit has gotten exponentially worse since I've started at this new job because I have a habit of stopping off at the 7-11 near the office and buying a sandwich or two and a croissant. This means I spend between eight and fifteen dollars on a daily basis. That's in addition to paying $10-$12 on Metro and bus every day. Even days when I drive - like Wednesday of this week - I end up paying for gas after a week or so, which means I pay out that money anyway.
I'm actually surprised at how much I spent, and maybe it's because I got other monies here and there, like the dog sitting money I've gotten in the past couple of weeks. I probably had some babysitting jobs mixed in there that paid anything from $40 to $80.
Speaking of which, my text messages are full right now, so if somebody's asked me a favor, I wouldn't know. So I should go work on that.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Thursday, March 06, 2014
I'm watching Rachel Maddow's documentary "Why We Did It" on MSNBC. Ii's basically making the case that many made at the beginning of the war: that the war in Iraq was about the quest for oil, rather than anything to do with national security.
I feel like Rachel knows better than is. I'm watching the graphics, Rachel. I'm seeing that the pulled out phrases about oil planning tend to be on the fifth or eighth page of whatever document you're showing.
I think the war was an act of hubris, yes. America thought they knew best, and they got their ass handed to them. But if you look at the operation from an idealistic point of view, you can see it differently.
In the clips they're showing now, they're talking about all the post-war focus on the oil industry. Well, if you want the country to have an economic engine, to have jobs, to have domestic governmental funds to improve conditions, you've got to have an industry. Iraq's strongest industry is oil; so in a way it makes sense to try to get it up and running as soon as possible so that the economy booms and people aren't disaffected and don't have reason to rise up or take up arms.
Now, the argument you can make is: as the conqueror, it's obvious that we can run the table when it comes to how the industry is set up and what the outside bidders will pay. Especially since we're still there and are going to approve whoever becomes the leader of the country. If we get to pick the leader, then we can structure the industry to our liking.
Still, the real failure in the whole war was our idea that the Iraqis were thinking like we think, that their priorities were like ours - comfort, modern living, updated amenities. Having been without those things for forever, their minds were occupied with other things. I don't know what the educational makeup of the country was; how many people were more than "ignorant," let's say. (Although now I feel like I read a stat saying Iraq used to be a very well-educated and somewhat pluralistic society under Saddam.) What do those ignorant citizens want? Dominance of their views, possibly their religion? We know that was a big deal in that part of the world, with the Sunni/Shia tension. America's religious/non-religious tension pales in comparison.
What I would be interested in is a documentary comprised of interviews with people that supported Saddam and how their lives were, what they experienced as daily life, how they felt about Iraq and life in general.
I'd like to see a documentary about what life was like for the average person. Were the ones who were on the inside, the Baathists: were they aware of the brutality that was going on in the country? Did it hang over them, as well? Could they have been victimized at any moment? And what about those on the outs with the government? Was life a constant dark cloud, or did they manage to have bright moments? Was it essentially a lottery, knowing your wife or daughter could be picked for rape or you could be framed or killed for something you didn't do?
That's what I'd like to see: "Life Under Saddam" but not as a propaganda film; more as a historical document.
I have a free moment and should work on doing chores that really need doing (cleaning the dining room table), but I'm not going to. Instead, I'm going to share this:
I had two cool ideas for The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, one growing out of the other; the first growing out of an idea I proposed here last week.
The first idea is to have "Covers Week," where each night a band comes and does a cover of a song by another band - but one that's really unexpected, like my example last time of Lady Gaga covering One Direction. It might be cool and electrifying if she covered something like Annie Lennox' "Why," but it would be more fun and exciting if she covered something more goofy and outside her image, like LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" (which she might really enjoy).
But the "Covers Week" idea has two facets: one is, each night a current band shows up and does a song by another contemporary artist, but one that's way different from them (you come make the whole week about rock bands doing rap tunes, if you wanted; that could be fun). But the second part of it, to make it a cohesive and interconnected experience, would be for the band playing each night to do a cover of a song by the band that was on the night before (!!).
How much fun would that be? Each night you're waiting to see what the music guest will be, and then when you know, you're racking your brain to figure out which song of the band the night before they might play.
Then, at the end of the week, the last band turns out to be the band the Monday band played a cover of. (Or the Monday band plays a cover from whoever happened to be the Friday guest the week before.)
If you wanted to amp up the hype even more, you could have members of the band from last night show up to play or sing with the next band (although that might dilute the whole idea, so maybe not).
The one flaw in this whole plan is how hard it is to keep a secret anymore - or how publicists think keeping a secret is bad (which I can see because why am I going to watch if I don't know my favorite band is going to be on?). I feel like part of the excitement and part of the draw is the not knowing, and I wouldn't want to let any of the information leak.
That made me think another great stunt would be to have a week of "Mystery Guests." In this campaign, the guest each night would be kept secret until they walked out from behind the curtain that night. But to counter the possible leak machine (i.e., Twitter), about 20 stars (each day) would tweet that they were the mystery guest on Fallon that night (and those campaigns could be staged different ways: one day they come out hour by hour; one day they all break at the same time; one day it's a daisy chain, where each star says he or she "has heard that" this other star is going to be the guest). Then, the real guest will be none of those people, but, they'll all show up in some way "thinking they are the guest." (And again: there are myriad ways this could happen: do they all burst through the curtain at once? Do they pop up from behind the couch (and from under Jimmy's desk??)? Are they suddenly in the band? Are they sitting in the audience? Do they come dancing down the aisles from the back in a musical number?)
I feel like both of these ideas are very much in keeping with Fallon's sensibilities and energy. There's a kind of gleeful excitement about changing up what is expected that, when he's on, he leads, and when he's not expecting it (or pretends to be), cracks him up to no end. I feel like these ideas would be a great way to share "the Jimmy sensibility" with the country in a different and new way.
Hear my cry, o @jimmyfallon (if that is your real (Twitter) name).
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
I was dog sitting for Best Friend's brother again tonight. He was supposed to be home at 10; he got home at 11:30. I was going to come home and watch the Daily Show, Colbert and maybe @midnight but now I'm tired and want to go to bed.
But first I have to write down all the notes I have on my hands.
Oh well, I just wrote them all down. But the truth is only a couple of them were for here, anyway.
1. Russia and the Ukraine
Putin gave a press conference today about the situation in the Crimea which has been deeply criticized by western journalists. I don't know how RT spun it or how it came off inside Russia.
During the press conference, Putin said he thought the US - specifically, the CIA - was behind the overthrow of the government in Kiev. As reported by Rachel Maddow, he apparently believes this is the case in most populist uprisings of late - Egypt, Syria, South Ossetia...
Rachel pointed out a fact that I found shocking: Russian troops that invaded South Ossetia a couple of years ago never left. It's still an occupied territory.
In any case, what I would love for someone to ask Putin is: do you think the CIA is behind these revolts because that's the kind of thing the FSB would do? You worked for a comparable agency; how do we know you're not using spy tricks to keep control of your country?
(Mostly the answer is that his tactics are right out in the open: outlawing protests, not allowing opposition candidates to run for office, arresting powerful financial individuals. Nothing repressive that Putin has done has been cloaked in secrecy; it's just been cloaked in "official" media, which means he can spin the story any way he wants.)
Another idea that I had (which would be dangerous, but courageous) would be for protesters to hold up Putin's contradictory statements from that press conference in Red Square. Things like "Yanukovych is still the president" and "Ukraine has no president;" or "Yanukovych is still the president" and "transparent and fair elections need to be held." Then there could be another sign saying "Which is it?"
If you have any friends in the Russian protest community, be sure to pass these along.
The other question I want put to Putin is this: why can't Russia win the country economically? So the government turns down your five billion dollar loan: that doesn't mean you can't still wield economic power over the country. Why not buy up all kinds of agricultural products from the Eastern zone, enriching those citizens (and making them grateful to you) while also denying those products to the Western region? Why not fund the building of settlements like in Jerusalem, creating jobs for ethnic Russians and then housing them, making them loyal to you while still inside the country? And you could fund all kinds of economic enterprises, startups and the like. Create wealth in the section of the country loyal to you, cementing that loyalty as well as creating a political bloc in terms of domestic leadership. Not that this situation doesn't already exist. Not that those populations aren't already loyal to you out of ethnic pride. But this could create power within the country in a way it may not exist now. Economics can play a huge part.
Of course, the most egregious part is the military actions. I'd love for someone to fool the soldiers into revealing where they're from; do a secret camera chat with them and find out they're all from Russia. And it'd be great if someone could intercept the communications from whomever is in charge of the unmarked factions in the Crimea to their superiors, to expose that it is in fact the Russians. That goes double for the talk of Russia threatening Ukrainian military vessels at sea; they deny that is the case; I think there needs to be a recording of an order issued to show that as a lie.
That would also be a great thing to put up in Red Square: a juxtaposition of Putin's quote about the U.S. interfering in Syria next to a picture of the Crimean peninsula.
The other story to mention is Delta airlines changing of its passenger loyalty programs. I think the statement they released says something about changing the policy so that it rewards their "most loyal customers," but based on what has been reported, it sounds like they're just rewarding the highest bidder, in a sense. As usual, those who have more money get the perks. Rewards trickle up.
This would be a good campaign for someone to take on. I see it as a series of short interview clips with people who have been loyal Delta customers but who don't pay out a lot for tickets and how they are losing out, even though they are the definition of loyalty.
There was a story tonight on Marketplace (the radio show) about toll roads and adjusted pricing as a way to change traffic congestion. What I took away from the story was the intro, where the reporter said: "Tolls. We all know tolls, right? The person in the booth, day after day; and you give them your twenty-five cents, or whatever."
It made me think about human toll booth operators: how many of them are left? Who are they? How did they get their jobs? Do they like their jobs? Do they appreciate the work they do or are they sick of it? Do they realize they are a dying and threatened breed? Do they use EZ Pass?
That would be a good feature piece.
Sunday, March 02, 2014
Quicken Loans has a couple of good new ads featuring actors playing some famous presidents and founding fathers. The ads are fun and funny ("Thanks, G").
But watching one of them yesterday, I suddenly realized that there's a great question to be asked: who exactly are the bad guys in the ads? Are they big banks? Are they predatory lenders? Are they home sellers? Who, exactly is cheating you out of your money?
I wish that America had mocked Vladimir Putin's military buildup on the Crimean border.
"Really, Putin? Does President Putin understand that he's saying he's threatened by a rag-tag group of citizens who have taken control of a destitute republic? Is the president saying that he's threatened by this country with no money and a people who are just learning how to run a government?"
Ratcheting up the aggressive talk seems counterproductive, when it would be easier to shame Putin by showing him as an idiot who's trying to fight a country that's in disarray and no actual threat to him.
In fact, that would be a good question for the President or Secreatry Kerry to pose: what exactly is threatening Russia's interests? Nothing fundamental has changed in Ukraine, and the Russia-philes are coming out in force to protect - as a citizenry, with no arms - anything that could be considered Russian interests.
Watching Jeopardy the other night, I wondered two things:
1. How far in advance are the Jeopardy questions written and planned?
2. Do they adjust the questions at all when they get a streaking star like Arthur Chu?
It seems not, since having watched recently the questions don't seem any different or harder. And I think they just count on the new contestants to take them out.
And the questions can be extremely stupid, or not difficult when they're under the highest dollar amounts of Double Jeopardy. Like a classic car question the other day, which was a video where the presenter introduced a car and said it was used by "this presidential candidate" on his way to a speaking engagement at a hotel where he was assassinated.
One: there's only one presidential candidate I know of that was assassinated in a hotel. Worse yet: they showed a photo of the guy. I mean, come on: these are supposed to be smart people playing the game; a frikkin' picture of one of the most famous American politicians in the past 50 years??
The other question that drove me nuts was in a "Hold The Fort" category and instead of making the question about the fort (like it's name), the question gave the name of the fort and the year and made the question about the war that was happening. Now, I got it wrong, but I'm not great at history. But to make that the top questions in the category and give away most of the information, that seemed cheap.
Here's some things I'd like to ask the ethnically Russian citizens of Ukraine:
How are things actually - actually, literally - different from when Yanukovych was President weeks ago?
When Ukraine went from being a Russian republic to being an independent nation, why didn't you leave and move to Russia? (If you love Russia so much, why didn't you make an effort to live there?
If Belarus were to invade and take over Ukraine, how would that be different from Russia invading and taking over? The Belarus people are one of the ethnic groups in Ukraine just as Russians are, so is it okay if they rule, rather than Russians or Ukrainians? How is what you want actually different from those who have taken over the government (except that this country is named for their ethnicity, as opposed to yours)? (What I mean to say is: you want your ethnic group to be in control; they want their ethnic group to be in control.)
I guess one of the foolish things that Western (or Northwestern) nations have thought we're past is ethnic tensions. The last time we saw this was in the former Yugoslavia, with the Serbs and Croats (and most people learned that as a Muslim/Christian divide, which it wasn't originally).
And maybe it's that the U.S. is a mix of ethnicities, and the other European nations are mostly ethnically homogenous. We don't understand what ethnic tension is about because for us it's defined as racism, or immigration. And the division is along color lines more than ethnicities. Since America had to integrate its racial minorities (and I don't mean that to sound as begrudging as it comes off), all the white ethnicities went away and just became "white." Who knows what the U.S. would be like if there were no racial minorities.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
I was just watching a video of Bruce Springsteen singing "Royals" that was posted on Buzzfeed.
The song seems perfect for him, because we accept him as a champion of the working man's struggle, although I don't know what kind of interaction he has with "the working man" anymore, now that he's a huge star all over the world.
Sure, his fame and success has dipped from time to time, but he's got a loyal fan base and is an icon of the 80s which, although it didn't seem it at the time, was still a relatively innocent decade. There wasn't the same political infection to everything and stars weren't made and cast off nearly as quickly.
And I assume he made a ton of money. If anything was every written about his disconnect from the working class, I never heard about it. I know there was talk about his love life then, and in recent years as he's stumped for liberal candidates on income issues he's been attacked for being wealthy himself, but I don't know what the man himself is like.
Like I say, we accept him as this champion of "the regular guy" - that is to say, the hard-working, blue-collar, grease-stained American man, and so a song like "Royals" seems perfect for him.
So watching the video, I wondered what kinds of assets he could mobilize in the fight to make America better. And I don't mean politics and voting, I mean volunteering and mentoring. I mean time. Time is the thing less people give, and it's the thing more people need. Your time. Your attention. Your personal, in-the-flesh help.
So I wonder what he could and what he would do to try to leverage people's time. Would people respond to his request for action with no reward? Would he have to promise them something? Or could they hear it as they would hear it from another kind of leader, a pastor or priest, a governor or president, a community leader? Would they take the call of action based solely on the idea, on the spirit of the thing?
Because I think he could be very valuable to community programs if he were to highlight the little places where people have needs and the little things that any and every person can do to help out. Me hour a week volunteering, mentoring. Reading with a child, or an adult. Giving someone a ride. Babysitting someone's kids. Helping someone fill out an application. Providing people with the guidance that you take for granted, that feels natural to you because you received it without question. When they make those "pass it on" ads, they should make them about more than just momentary interactions; they should make them - oh, wait; they already do. Those are about character qualities, not random acts of kindness.
Anyway. I think he could help change the world. From the bottom up.
1. Obama and the kids
This was a pretty great story. The fact that Obama has met with them three times now - the same kids - is the best part. Anyone can just have a group of kids shipped to the White House to stand behind the President while he speaks. The fact that Obama has met with them more than once and kept in touch is important.
And while the story seemed to focus on putting the responsibility on those kids, my focus is more on what the responsibility of everyone else is. I was talking to someone last night about this and as I told her: if the country seized on the idea of mentoring and the percentage of people doing it went up by a thousand, the improvement in the country would be amazing. For some reason, people don't seem to understand the power of just connecting and being in the presence of another person (and I'm included in that). The friend I was talking to last night opened my eyes to the reality of how my own issues block me from doing very real good and that my presence - in whatever form it takes - is better than an absence. I have a hard time accepting that, but I believe her and it makes me want to work harder on my efforts to work with disadvantaged kids, be they in the court system (CASA), homeless, or just in need of an adult presence. I always thought that it's better for me not to engage, because I'm a shitty example of an adult; but that's not what she says. So I have to work on that.
But the thought that came (back) to me at the time was my idea on how the President can expand on this movement in a very real way: his campaign machinery.
Months ago, when guns and the shooting deaths of children and the problem of gun violence in Chicago were big in the news, I started to wonder what kinds of things could be done. My thought was: what if you just put people there? What if you crowded out the violent people? It would be a kind of "flood the zone," only with citizen volunteers, rather than cops.
So this is what I came up with: leveraging the Obama for America network, the President and his former campaign staff could (should) create a volunteer program that brings scores of people to the South Side of Chicago every....well, I was going to say "Saturday night," but the truth is it should be every night of the week. I suppose they could start with Saturday nights in an effort to get a lot of people down there (although that works both ways: they're free, but it's the time they usually reserve for their own fun) to "fill up the space," in a way.
Maybe at the start it could be a games thing: some people are organized into board games, some people are organized into active games, everything from tag to baseball and football. Anything to keep the kids active and engaged.
Next it would move to creating tutoring sessions, partnering adults with kids who need some assistance in bringing up their grades and shoring up their skills.
In my mind, this program starts in a four-block area. Make it small so it doesn't take a lot of people to flood it; a thousand, maybe. It also makes it easier to measure the results; to quantify the effect it's having on the neighborhood and and on the kids who are getting the help.
But mostly for me it's the problem of the digital age: everyone talks about how these new technologies help people be "engaged," but the truth is that engagement is still the oldest form of human experience: person to person communication and interaction. You can electronically sign on to petitions and post messages to Facebook day and night, but if you don't go out into the streets and help someone, it's a waste of fucking time. It's the difference between taking a survey about voter sentiment and actually measuring the returns at the polls. I can agree with and like certain political sentiments non-stop, but I don't vote, so what good is it? The real work is getting someone like me out of the house and doing something; and that's what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see OFA show that they're not just the Buzzfeed of politics - but also that they actually believe in the things they say they stand for and so create actions that are non-political, but yet very patriotic. The truth is, there's a lot of things we could do for the country's health that have nothing to do with politics, but most people don't seem to recognize that these days.
Two examples, on each side:
A. Rachel Maddow has been talking a lot about how abortion clinics are being closed and forced to shut down. In many cases, that leaves women stranded far from a clinic they could go to. Has anyone considered starting a campaign to fund transportation for these women? Car rides, bus tickets, plane trips - it can all be done, but it would require people to pony up. And it might not even be that much; I don't know where the most abortions happen, so I can't say if there are 20 women a day seeking an abortion in ND that can't get there. But if a million people gave five dollars, that would be plenty of plane tickets.
B. Conservatives want the poor to work, but don't have a solution for the child care issue. So let's create one: start a campaign through a network of churches to recruit young people to babysit - either regularly or in emergencies, for working people whose household incomes are below $25,000. It speaks to community and helping someone get a leg up without giving them a dime.
This connection then might lead to other connections, as who knows what the young people will learn from their babysitters (especially if they are college students) and what natural networking opportunities could grow out of this just from people knowing each other. When someone says to you "My boss is looking for someone" or "My dad needs someone to help him with X" or any of those kinds of things, you scan your internal network to think of someone. Well this Rolodex would now include some people who could use a break, or an introduction, or a chance.
We can all be someone's chance. <i>That's</i> the most electrifying part of this. We can all be the key to someone else's future.
Wow. I really went off on that. And that was only number one.
There was a story on ABC News about carjacking and how authorities had broken up some giant carjacking ring. My takeaway? All of the faces put up for the perpetrators were black; all of the faces at the law enforcement briefing were white. (I could be wrong about the latter, but it seemed that way.) You think that re-enforced anyone's unconscious biases?
3. The Kennedy Story
Guess what???? The jury deliberated for TWENTY MINUTES!!!!! That was the only piece on news in that segment. Total waste of time.
4. Indianapolis mansion
ABC tried to say this was a story about helping anyone to see their house, but this was "link bait;" this was the television equivalent of those Yahoo! and Buzzfeed stories about "The Hugest House No One Will Buy!" It's a novelty item and a chance to see an amazing mansion. No real news.
5. Food labeling
The story about the proposed changes to nutrition labels was very satisfying to me. I think I've mentioned before how absurd it is for the soda companies to put a huge calorie label on the bottle that applies to serving size, when everyone knows that a consumer who buys a 16-, 20-, or 24-oz bottle of soda is most likely going to consume that entire bottle in one sitting.
I was talking to a friend recently about how I had walked on the office treadmill and put the readout on the calorie count and that I had gotten up to 160 or so. I mentioned that I remembered reading on a 20-oz soda bottle some years ago that it was 100 calories, so that felt good.
"That was probably a serving size," she said, dashing my good feeling. Oh, well.
6. Asperger's and animals
In ABC's "Instant Index," they had a snippet about a boy playing with a sea lion at an aquarium. He would run back and forth in front of the glass, and the sea lion would swim alongside, matching his pace.
It made me think of an Arthur Sack's book I never read, "Anthropologist On Mars." On the jacket flap, the synopsis mentions a brilliant animal behaviorist who can't relate to people (makes me wonder if it was Tyler Durden - no, wait; Edward Snowden - no, that's not it; Miles Standish? Ah, whatever: the chick Claire Danes played in that HBO movie), and I wondered if people on the autistic spectrum can have better or deeper or more natural connections to animals, and how many programs there are for animal encounters for autistic children.
As someone who's always wishing for their to be mysticism and magic in observable life, I wonder if the sea lion could see or sense something in the child that we as humans can't. That the creature saw a facet that enabled connection, intuition, in a way that we can't fathom because we are "correctly" wired; that is, more in tune or trainable to the societal mind.
If there aren't a lot of programs for autistic kids to interact with animals, I'd be all for creating more.
And that's the news, folks. Next: the ads.
Friday, February 28, 2014
All things considered, today was a pretty great day. I went to work with the day labor people and felt kind of powerful and senior because there was a new guy who didn't know the job and was kind of weak and the woman who was crew chief didn't have much strength, either. So I seemed like the strong guy and I had a certain amount of expertise, as well.
After work, I went over to Best Friend's where we talked and she made lunch and later cookies. Lunch was salad with radish, strawberries, cheese and salmon. The cookies were gluten-free chocolate chip, and we had some fresh out of the oven and they were delicious.
Afterwards we sat on the couch listening to music, and I fell asleep for twenty minutes or so. She was doing stuff on her phone, then getting ready to go out to dinner.
At 6 o'clock, I left there and went home to pick up New Mom's keys and went to her house and watched the news while sitting with the cat.
After Jeopardy, I came home and wrote the letters, then watch Hollywood Game Night (which I really enjoy), took the letters to the mail box, ordered takeout, watched Family Feud, got my takeout, and watched the Daily Show and Colbert.
A nice day.
On @midnight, they were talking about a new app that helps you arrange threesomes and one of the comedians said something about just wanting two guys to watch "House Hunters International" with. That made me think it would be fun to write a weird ad asking for a "TV Threesome:" two people to come watch a show we all like together and can jump up and down and get girlishly excited about it.
There's something delightfully subversive (to me) about taking something that's supposed to be depraved and sexual and making it silly or not anything. Like: a bench threesome - we'll just meet up and sit on a bench together.
I don't know; I can't make it sound right out loud, but there's something there, some wacky potential to be silly and opposite of what most people associate with the word.
I wrote the three letters I really wanted to write tonight - my sister, my cousin's daughter, and Successful Friend's wife. I wish I had written the second one earlier in the week, but it still came out okay; it was kind of funny and harmless and I was happy with it.
All three of the letters were good, so I was happy about them, even if I didn't send them at the time I wanted to and didn't come out exactly like I originally planned them. The people that get them will enjoy them, and that's all I wanted.