CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

Don’t Stop the Music

I am a listen-to-music-at-work kinda person. Ever since I’ve had a job with enough autonomy and desktime to allow it, I listen to music via headphones while I work. And since I don’t like to have any extraneous apps running on my workstation (much less keep music on a corporate machine), I like to have my music on a device that is disconnected from my actual PC, so I always have something to play my music with. Also, as a former runner, I used to take stuff with me on the hoof. So, I’ve had a few MP3-playing devices in my day.

My most recent device was an iRiver — most specifically, an iRiver 400-series CD player that will play MP3s burned onto CD. (I also have some familiarity with the iRiver solid state MP3 players, having bought the G-I-R-L one for running). The iRiver has a somewhat daunting and extremely tiny interface, but it’s highly customizable once you figure it out. The CD player has limitations, though — a CD can only fit about 200 or so MP3s on it, and after having that same CD at work for a few weeks you get pretty tired of that same mix. Plus, if you buy a new CD and rip those songs into MP3s, you have to re-burn a new MP3 mix CD just to add the 1 or 2 new songs you want to add into the mix. It can be a drag.

Before that I had (and actually, prior to the iPod, still used for exercising) an ancient RCA Lyra device and it’s really unusable — MP3s have to be custom-encoded with specific software in order to get transferred onto the Flash memory through a parallel-port flash reader that’s REALLY SLOW. It’s literally a 30-minute process. You can imagine how often the songs get changed on THAT device… not much incentive to do a 30 minute session on the elliptical when you’ve got the same 15 songs you had 6 months ago waiting for you and your workout.

Under My Thumb

At Christmas, the G-I-R-L (whose Indiana parents use a Mac) came down to visit with an Apple iPod in tow. Although we often had to pry the earbuds out of her ears to get her to actually join family events, I eventually asked her for some details on the little machine and (despite myself) got intrigued. I mean… 20 GB of music right there in such a tiny package is pretty enticing. Plus, we have an auxiliary jack in our Honda Element and the iPod hooks right up to it to put tunes into the car. (The iRiver CD player can do the same thing but it’s much more cumbersome to try and stuff the CD player into the glove box and hook up a power cord, etc).

And I gotta give it to Apple, the clickwheel is a really innovative interface. It feels a bit like an Etch-a-Sketch at first, but it’s a GREAT way to turn the volume up and down, to just be able to run your thumb in a little circle. Plus, when you’ve got 20GB of songs (or even 1/4 of that), you need a FAST way to scroll up and down — something where you’d be clicking or even paging down would get very old very quickly. The fast scrolling action that you can get with the wheel is very nice.

People Are Strange

But, c’mon… it’s an Apple. I wasn’t really going to seriously consider buying consumer electronics from… uh… Apple, right? Apple people are generally a different breed and, well, buying any device with the intention of using it on its non-native platform is generally a risky move. And there are several choices for large-drive MP3 players out there. However, iPod was clearly the market leader. It’s fine to be quirky and iconoclastic in fashion or other things, but in matters of things automotive or electronic, I believe in buying where the market goes and looks to be reasonably supported. That way you’re not stuck with something really random with no accessories later. Remember DIVX? (If you don’t that just proves my point).

Plus, the Apple Bastards won me over with the truly powerful weapon, the one that was actually guaranteed to get me as a consumer — the iTunes Music Store. If I can legally buy one song for $1 and put it on my iPod or burn it to CD, and they have the industry support to have a decently broad range of music I might want to buy, then I’m sold. Because I love instant gratification, and Engineerboy and I have a million songs that we love that are onsie-twosies from this artist or that. I still buy CDs and rip the whole thing, but there are just tons of songs that we want to have. And if we can buy them as one-offs then that’s exactly what we want.

It’s Your Thing

The iPods can even come engraved, which I thought was tremendously cool. The Apple store online was offering engraving for free along with free shipping. How could I resist? I was in love!

Simply Irresistible

So, I hemmed, hawed, waffled on price, hemmed some more, decided I had to have one, and bought one. I bought an orange iPod sock on eBay (I was too cheap to buy the whole pack of socks from Apple). I even talked my dad into an iPod Shuffle before I’d even bought my own iPod! I eagerly awaited the arrival of my blessed purchase! I envisioned the ability to listen at work all day without having to plug it into the charger, the ability to have our entire family music library with us wherever we drove, and the ability to [angels singing] buy a song legally here or there from the iTunes Music Store. All of this and it would run on the PC as well as the Mac!

Tainted Love

So, all the Mac-heads I’ve ever talked to have always waxed poetic about how easy it is to set up anything Mac-related. It all just works! You just turn it on! You just don’t have to worry about a thing! Well, I wasn’t expecting anything quite that wondrous — as I said, this was using the iPod on its non-native platform, so I was prepared for a little more work during the install or even a few hiccups.

Try headaches. First off, the iPod has to be formatted for either the Mac or the PC. It ships (of course) formatted for the Mac, so if you install on a PC, you have to re-format it. There’s no indication in the documentation or on the install screen itself of how long this process should take, so I didn’t really think anything of it when it took a few minutes. I got a bit curious when that stretched into 30 minutes. I was really concerned when it stretched into two hours. The Apple support site had no information on how long the PC install process or reformatting process should take (at least none that I could find with my search terms) and so Engineerboy ended up finding use-at-your-own-risk advice from someone on a newsgroup about how to shut down the hung re-format process and continue with the re-install and then go back and reformat the device. Seriously irritating — I wasted hours waiting on that stupid install.

Finally the install completed and I went about the process of loading iTunes and synching my iPod for the first time. It still didn’t go smoothly after that — at first it wouldn’t let me undock the iPod if iTunes had any songs that were on a network drive (a reboot solved that problem, as it isn’t a system issue with the iPod, so that must’ve been first install hiccups). I had to shut down my PC entirely before the iPod would even let itself be detached from the PC. The next day my iPod quit responding to any click input at all and had to be reset (that’s where you have to plug it into the wall charger and hold down two buttons at once for six seconds and all your customized settings are then lost).

After working out the network drive issue and loading up the iPod with the entire library of our music collection (and adding quite a few new ones from the iTunes Store), I proceeded to use the heck out of the iPod… in the car every morning on the way to and from work (via the auxiliary jack) and at my desk for headset motivation while working. I loved it! I had so much music at my desk — all of the songs I could possibly want! And in the car we could have any song that Scott or I could possibly want to hear — it was great! One pesky problem kept cropping up, though — the iPod would repeatedly pause in the middle of a song when we were in the car. Over. And over. And over.

We were actually in the car with the entire shipping box packed up to take back to the Apple store when we realized that the pause behavior was actually standard behavior for the when the headphones (or auxiliary cable) is removed from the device — or when it thinks it has been. Apparently the new, longer aux cable we’d bought wasn’t as snug a fit as the shorter one we already had. So the new cable’s imperceptible (to us) jiggling was triggering the iPod’s auto-pause feature when the output line is removed. The auto-pause is a nice feature in some contexts (I guess) but man I wish I could turn that off in a configuration setting. Speaking of…

Cry Me a River

The list of usability and configurability gripes on the iPod device itself is tremendously long, especially for someone coming from the ultra-customizable iRiver.

• Picture this scenario: You’re listening to your entire library of songs on random play and a song comes up by a group you like but it’s not your favorite song by that group. It reminds you of your favorite song by that band, though. You navigate out to the menu and pick the song you want to hear. You play it. And now your iPod picks the next song to play… by the same artist you just heard. The following song is ALSO by the same artist. It’s shuffling, but no longer across all songs, it’s stuck just on that one artist. That’s because you chose to navigate to the song of your choosing via the Artist name (like, duh, that’s the easiest way for me to find the song I wanted). By choosing the song I wanted that way, I inadvertantly (to me), switched to only shuffling across songs by that artist. If I had wanted to stay in shuffle mode across ALL songs on the iPod, I would need to have navigated to Ad Hoc Song of My Choosing by the list of SONGS — a much more cumbersome way to go to the song I want, in my opinion.
• Also in the above process, when I’m reminded of that other song by the band currently playing and I hit the Menu button, it doesn’t bring up the list of that artist’s songs (i.e., the Menu button isn’t context-sensitive to the song that’s playing). The Menu button simply brings up whatever place in the Menu I last was. I’d rather it take me to the list of Artist’s songs that’s currently playing so I can pick another song by that artist, or the list of songs as it was currently sorted. This was so easy to do on the iRiver (once you learned the interface) and I MISS IT on the iPod. If I’m listening to a Prince song and I hit the Menu button, I want to be taken to the list of Prince songs. Or at least let me configure the thing to have that be my choice. Now that I’ve used the iPod for a while, I sometimes like that the Menu button can take me back where it was, but often that behavior is mostly pointless. Overall, I’d prefer that it be context sensitive.
• Songs are sorted by Album underneath Artist, and you cannot change this in a configuration setting. This means when you navigate through the list of songs via Artist and drill down through the list of Artists on the device to pick a song, you are then presented with a list of “All” and then the various album titles that your MP3 files may or may not be correctly tagged under (or, if you’ve bought the songs off iTunes, whatever random album the long was listed under when you bought it). This is incredibly irritating to me. I don’t generally know or give a sh*t what album a song came off of, and it drives me crazy that the device puts one extra click menu between me and selecting the song I want.
• You can’t configure it to have crossfade between songs. If you’re going to connect your iPod to an external set of speakers and have it act as a DJ for a party, this sure would be groovy, especially given how much control they give you with Playlists. Jeez, you can do crossfade on iTunes, why can’t you do it on the iPod? I realize this is a large feat of engineering, but THIS IS A BIG ONE. I mean, this is the PERFECT device for aerobics instructors and the like. As a matter of fact, last week at my Nia class the instructor had a whole wonderful song list for us to dance to, and it was GREAT except for the 10 seconds of downtime where we were all standing there with no music to dance to, staring at ourselves in the mirror.
• There’s a neat ability to add a song to the “On The Go” playlist just by holding down the select button for a few seconds. Only you’re supposed to do this when the song is selected in the list of songs, rather than when the song is playing. Gee, when do you think you’re more likely to be reminded that the song is great and you’d want it on your On The Go playlist? I mean, adding it from the list of songs is good, but I should be able to add it when I’m listening to it, too.
• Hitting “shuffle songs” when I’m already listening to a song immediately switches me off the song I’m listening to. I hate that… some car CD players do that, too. As far as I’m concerned, “shuffle” should be a ‘mode’, not an ‘action’.
• There’s no quick key for backlighting. You can configure a setting that says at all times a button press initiates backlighting for 2 seconds, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc, but you can’t click and hold down some hot key to randomly bring up backlighting on demand should you need it. This sure would be nice… having the backlighting setting on all the time wastes battery during your brightly lit office time, but if you turn it off all the time then you don’t have the backlighting when you need it in the darkened car.

Give Me One Reason

Okay, enough bitching. It does have some pretty cool features:

• Once you go through the work of tagging all your files (and learn how it needs them to be tagged), the Playlists are pretty groovy. They’re primitive — you can’t use any OR’s in your selection logic, so my files have tortured grouping names like “BothMarie” or “BothScottMarie” to make sure that it will appear on the both a playlist that’s acceptable to both Engineerboy and me, and a playlist that’s just for me to listen to at work. But when you’ve got them grouped and star’ed appropriately (including the new stuff that you buy) you then have an auto-updating list that you barely have to manage at all (I check the limit length every couple days to make sure that it only includes files of a high rating, expanding the limit whenever we’ve added more songs to the library).
• It truly is cool to have iTunes to buy their songs whenever you feel like it. It’s an expensive habit, even at $.99 a song, but boy is it awesome! Random songs from your college days, stuff you hear on the radio that you like, classic Funk that you love but never bothered to buy the CD, all of that you can add to your iPod if you feel like it and it’s available on iTunes. Engineerboy even got a wild hair to download the entire new Joe Cocker album and *bam* we had it within 10 minutes for our next car ride. Too cool!
• It is really fast to update. One of the things I hated most about my iRiver was being stuck listening to the same 200 MP3s for weeks on end because I was too lazy to burn a new CD of songs. And even if I got one new MP3 from a CD I bought or something, I had to rip the MP3 and then burn a new mix CD of MP3s. Total pain. Updating the iPod is relatively pain-free and very fast (not as fast for me since I keep my files on a network drive and use Super G wireless, but still pretty snappy).
• It’s very easy to rate a song while you’re listening to it, which is convenient if you haven’t rated all your songs through the iTunes UI. (I wish it would show you the rating on the iPod UI without you having to push another button first, but oh well).

Well Well Well

Overall, I like it. I’m glad I bought it and I listen to it every day at work and every time we’re in the car. It’s not a perfect experience. The install was painful and it still needs to be reset every so often, which is kind of a drag because my prefs get lost (the annoying click is turned back on, my backlighting preference is lost, etc). I do wish it were more configurable. Maybe it’s my UNIX bias, but I find the Apple “our-design-team-will-decide-how-your-interface-should-work” design paradigm frustrating. But overall it’s great and I love having it and it helps me work, having all the music I love right at my fingertips.

And it’s even let Engineerboy (not near the music-head I am) enjoy music more, since all of his music is now with us in the car — he drives the iPod when we’re in the car, playing Funk DJ. We even hear Weird Al not too infrequently. I still like the iPod.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I absolutely disagree with any offensive actions that purposely target innocent civilians. In America, the loss of an innocent life is perhaps the most tragic occurence imaginable. When a child is abducted, when an enraged husband murders his wife and children, when a drunk driver kills a family, or when a serial killer is on the prowl, we are all filled with great sadness for the victims, pity for their loved ones, anger at the perpetrators, and consumed by the need for swift justice.

One of the reasons that Americans cherish life so much is that life in America is a wonderful thing, for most of the people, most of the time. In general we have good health, long life spans, living wages, personal and religious freedom, humane working conditions, rich culture, freedom to travel, benign government, low crime rates, and are generally free from peril. In America, life is good. In fact, life may be the single most important possession for an American. Staying alive means more happiness, wisdom, joy, love, and fun. And about the only thing that all Americans can agree is worth dying for is preserving our freedom and the American way of life.

So when we experience the callous murder of innocents by terrorists, we can only see them as evil madmen, because only a crazy, evil person would purposely destroy innocent life. Not only destroy innocent life, but then hope to gain something from its destruction. Only a maniac would expect to be rewarded for doing the most unthinkable thing imaginable. Right?

The Worth of a Life

Well, maybe. But stop for a moment and consider that the most recent statistics show that the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 40. And it’s not much different in the rest of the Middle East. And the lucky(?) 50% who live to be 40 endure 40 hard, cruel years of struggle, strife, poverty, disease, and then an untimely death. For people in this position it is reasonable to assume that their most precious possession is their knowledge that Allah will take them to paradise when they die, if they live and die by the teachings of Islam. And one of the most sure ways to achieve paradise is to die serving Allah while defending Islam and fighting infidels.

Now, that viewpoint may not make sense to the Judeo-Christian masses in the US, who tend to look down their noses at the callous, cowardly, and misguided actions of “terrorists”. However, before we (Americans) go casting stones, let’s take a look back at our own history…at the birth of this very (great) nation…and ponder the view the civilized world had of our forefathers, shall we?

History of the World, Part I

At the time of the Revolutionary War, England strode the Earth as the one and only superpower. Their intentions, while imperialistic, were mostly benign, and they seemed to struggle through the march of history with the intention of doing good, making right, and enforcing justice. Sound familiar?

But then one day a bunch of uppity colonists decided that they had had enough of the yoke of the Crown, and decided to throw it off. Notwithstanding the fact that England had single-handedly taken the risks and made the investments necessary to build “The Americas” into a prosperous little colony, the locals figured that it was time for a change. To hell with loyalty, law, property, and gratitude. Let’s just take this entire continent, and the only reason we don’t view it today as thievery is because we won the Revolutionary War, and history is written by the winners.

But how did we win? How did a raggedy bunch of out-gunned, out-trained, out-numbered, and out-strategized colonists defeat the greatest army in the world? By playing dirty, that’s how. So dirty, in fact, that our actions were labelled as cowardly, evil, misguided, and cruel by the entire civilized world. Again, sound familiar?

And what did we do that was so awful? Well, for one we did not fight the war as we were expected to fight, which was lined up in ranks on the field of battle and slowly killing each other face to face like gentlemen until attrition and superior body count determined the victor. I mean, that was how war was fought at that time. But we didn’t do that, because there is absolutely no way we could have won a conventional war against the greatest conventional war machine of its day.

No, what we (or our forefathers) did was to fight dirty. Hide behind trees. Crouch behind rocks. Snipe from the trees. Attack the flanks. Attack from behind (unheard of)!! Attack at night. Sneak around like cowardly criminals committing murder (in the eyes of the civilized world of the time). To face each other as gentlemen on the field of battle was war, but to sneak around and kill someone was cowardly murder.

Again, sound familiar?

The Slippery Slope

Now, I’m not claiming that the use of un-gentlemanly tactics against soldiers is the same thing as terrorists exploding bombs in (or crashing planes into) areas populated by innocent civilians who are simply going about their daily lives. A soldier knows that he is putting his life in harms way. So do government agency employees and peace officers. Not that this makes it right to target soldiers and peace officers with terrorist acts, but at least we (Americans) could have a glimmer of understanding of the aims and goals of a group that targeted armed and prepared targets rather than unarmed, unprepared innocents.

However, the point at which I’m driving is that tactics employed by our forefathers against the British were about as far outside of the accepted practices of war as are the actions of the terrorists of today. The terrorists of today could never hope to defeat the US armed forces in any sort of conventional warfare, so they are using the tools available to them regardless of how cowardly we perceive them to be.

However, the terrorists have crossed one very clear boundary because of the fact that they target civilians and innocents. For that they are to be condemned, but they should not be dismissed simply as maniacs and/or fanatics. Whatever we think of their actions, we should also be sure to actually take a look at their side of the story, as they certainly have a story to tell.

A Tale of Two Regime Changes

After the events of 9/11, the United States zeroed in on the Taliban of Afghanistan as the harborers of terrorists and the dismantlers of freedom and progress. The Taliban ruled by their strict interpretations of Islamic law, pushed Afghani women into subservience, did away with secular education, and even went so far as to demolish ancient stone carvings that represented gods in whom they did not believe.

And the United States invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban, and have worked to institute freedom and democracy in the country, with what appears to be some success. The Taliban were clearly unfit to join the ranks of world leaders, and there has been no hue and cry surrounding their overthrow, and no resistance of any note from the Afghani people. Also noteworthy is the fact that Afghanistan is a very poor country (no oil) whose major export is heroin. Also noteworthy is the fact that no Western companies can make any legitimate dollars off of heroin.

Contrast that with Iraq. Now, Saddam Hussein was definitely NOT a good guy. However, he did have women and Christians in his government, regardless of how puppet-like it was. He embraced secular Western values and education. However, he was also despotic and evil, but no more so than the leaders of many, many other countries around the world. And he certainly was not among the worst. And, oh, just in case you forgot, the CIA orchestrated his rise to power in Iraq in the first place.

However, the United States determined that he was developing weapons of mass destruction and that he had links to Al Qaeda. And so, for the greater good, we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. The deposing seemed easy, but in reality our forces were the victims of a massive judo throw, where our enemy simply stepped aside and then used our own momentum against us. After our “victory” we Americans were jubilant, but it did not last. Over time we realized that the scattered resistance was actually more cohesive than we first thought. And better organized. And smarter. And more persistent. And now, many many months after our “victory”, Iraq is a hostile zone where American troops are in constant peril from the endless stream of well-coordinated attacks by “insurgents”.

Oh, and while this is going on, Halliburton (et al) are making billions and billions of dollars in Iraq. And the country’s oil reserves will certainly be…er…liberated? Protected? Preserved? Plundered, maybe? Also, Saddam Hussein is the guy who tried to take on George Bush Sr. He hated Bush Sr., in fact, so much so that he had a tile mosaic set into the floor at the entrance to Baghdad’s largest hotel. Now, given that fact that showing the bottom of your shoe or touching someone with it are one of the gravest insults in Iraq, you can see what his goal was with the mosaic…and endless stream of people stepping on Bush Sr’s face.

Family Feud

But Bush Jr. took care of all that. In fact, if one were looking for a story that fit the facts it would be hard to find one more fitting than the one that says that we invaded Iraq to both settle a Bush family score and to enrich Cheney’s former(?) company. I am a red-blooded American and it’s hard for me to dismiss this particular story. In fact, given the boondoggle that Iraq has become, coupled with the revelation that all of our “proof” of Iraq’s development of WMDs and involvement with Al Qaeda seems to have been forged, falsified, and/or non-existent, this story seems to me to be the most plausible.

And I am a freedom-loving American. I love this country. I worship the Constitution. I’m a moderate and not a card carrying member of any political party. I think this is the greatest nation in the history of the world. I think that, as a whole, we have gotten it right. Our founding fathers were a bunch of geniuses and put in place a system that works. Almost all the time. Almost.

But not now. Our current administration seems to be going about this all wrong. And if I (as well as nearly 50% of Americans) think that, can you imagine what your average Middle Easterner thinks? We Americans are predisposed to love our country, and half of us think our Middle East policy is wrong, bordering on criminal. Your average Middle Eastern person has no reason at all to even like America, so imagine how our current administrations blundering about in Iraq appear to them?

I think it looks to them about what the actions of England looked like to our founding fathers. A benign but clueless superpower whose main interest appears to be keeping control and keeping the profits flowing.

Oversimplification

And I think we in the US make the mistake of painting all Islamics with the same brush. Can you imagine if the world did that to us? If you think the US government is corrupt, would you like for everyone to judge you based on the actions of the Oklahoma City bombers? If you are Catholic, would you like for everyone to judge you based on the actions of some pedophilic priests? If you are pro-life, would you like to be judged based on the actions of those who set off bombs in clinics? If you’re a Pistons fan would you like to be judged based on the actions of a couple of drunken fans? I know that I, as a Texan, hate being stereotyped as an ignorant, inbred racist every time some ignorant, inbred racist from Texas decides to perpretrate a hate crime.

And guess what? All Islamics are not civilian-killing fanatics, either. Most do not like the US, it’s true, but what have we done that they should? But most also do not engage in cowardly terrorist attacks, either.

The Solution

Do I have the solution for terrorism? Of course not. However, one thing that America is doing right is not negotiating with nor compromising with terrorists. I agree with that strategy 100%. However, what America is doing wrong is completely ignoring the causes of terrorism, and using the criminal acts of terrorists to invalidate the legitimacy of their issues. And that, my friends, is not a workable strategy. We (America) need to take a cold, hard, unemotional look at the very real injustices and exploitations that are creating such a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. We should not take this look in order to appease the terrorists, but to do the right thing. The most noble and productive thing that the United States could do in this terror-ridden world is to face up to the fact that our own greed and corruption have contributed to the problem. Our complicity does not excuse the terrorists in any way, but by the same token their criminal acts do not mean that there are not actual problems that need to be addressed.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Originally published 9/26/2004, updated 11/11/2004.

Anheuser Busch is back again this football season with its corporate advertising philosophy that Animal Cruelty = Beer Sales. Last year we had the distasteful Bud Light ad where Cedric the Entertainer was wooing a girl in a limo and the girl puts her tiny dog on the lid of the pop-up cooler. The cooler lid pops up, the poor dog sails up through the open moon roof and then hurtles back down, missing the moon roof and landing cruelly on the roof of the limo with a whimper. I emailed Anheuser Busch about the inappropriateness of that ad at the time and received a very tepid email in response about how they felt the ad was humorous to their audience.

Well, perhaps I only encouraged them. I can hear the advertising brainstorm session now: “Gee, if a woman doesn’t like it, maybe we’re doing something right!” Maybe they didn’t believe me when I said Engineerboy hated it, too. Because this year they’re back with more Cruel Animal Ads! Two cases in point, plus an added bonus I just recently discovered:

• A man, without telling his girlfriend*, takes her tiny Pomeranian* to a Frisbee-catching competition. The dog, too tiny to really hold onto the Frisbee, tries anyway and ends up being hurtled spinning through the air by the Frisbee instead of being able to really catch it. Then a large Doberman comes along and catches the poor Pomeranian in its jaws. The poor pitiful Pomeranian whimpers as it’s caught in the Doberman’s mouth. Let me emphasize something here… a Doberman’s jaws could easily kill a dog as small as a Pomeranian. An ad such as this isn’t engaging in funny hyperbole or make-believe, it’s disgusting cruelty… and for what… to sell beer? (*Editor’s notes: I recently re-saw this ad and realized that his girlfriend does know that he entered her dog in the contest, but she doesn’t approve. And for those of you who may have read the earlier version of this article, the dog was originally mis-identified by me as a Pekinese, but I got a write-in that it’s a Pomeranian).
• A football referee has made a bad call during a football game and he’s being mercilessly yelled at by one of the coaches. The commentator describes the event by saying that the referee is being “beaten like a rented mule”. What a horrible, horrible turn of phrase! Who would possibly okay that in the script for this commercial? Aren’t there a million other things they could’ve picked for that there, other than referring to someone horribly beating an animal?! Isn’t that a fabulous phrase for the company that does all those majestic ads with those beautiful Clydesdales? Why not make fun of retarded people, maybe, or the homeless? Maybe we could make jokes about a particular racial group… that could be real fun. I’m thinking that would be a real step forward for Budweiser. And, to top it off, at the end of the commercial, it shows the referee at home being yelled at mercilessly by his wife and she mentions how the cat litter box hasn’t been cleaned out for three weeks. So it’s good to know we’re not only cruel to large animals, we’re callous and uncaring toward our housepets at Anheuser Busch, as well.
• Recent addition!A new Bud Light ad also has a window cleaner making windows so clean that a bird flies into it and knocks himself out. I swear they really can’t come up with anything they consider funny unless it involves hurting an animal.

Well, whether or not Anheuser Busch and the advertising morons at Budweiser believe women are football fans, or whether or not they think they buy beer (I do occasionally, mostly at baseball games but occasionally at dinner or out at a bar), this particular set of consumers is no longer going to buy anything from the Busch companies. If I need to buy a nice cold beer from the vendor at Minute Maid Park, it’ll be a Miller Lite. If I get a beer at a bar, it’ll be a Shiner Bock or a Harp. And since Anheuser Busch owns Sea World, I’ll probably give that place a pass in the future. I sure hope those animals are treated better than the poor animals in the Budweiser ads.

The thing that amazes me is that in this world filled with creative people, Anheuser Busch can’t come up with any better way to sell beer. Miller Lite has some hilarious new commercials out now that don’t involve any casual cruelty to animals — the referees that come into the everyday situations and throw penalties are pretty funny (“Uh oh, definite unibrow. That’s a no second date penalty.”) Those are clever and aren’t hurting anyone besides a little male ego, and that’s fair game during a football commercial, as far as I’m concerned. I think Budweiser could stand to learn a few lessons.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The current Kobe Bryant case has highlighted the rape shield laws of Colorado, which protect the identity and sexual history of the accuser in rape trials. Rape shield laws are enacted to protect women from the embarrassment and degradation they might feel if their identity and sexual history, as well as the specifics of their rape charges, were made public. The goal is to make it easier and thus more likely for women to come forward when they have been victimized in this way. In the past, the public nature of our criminal justice system sometimes drove women to decide not to report incidents of sexual assault.

I think these laws have had their intended effect, for the most part, but I feel that they are unfair to the accused, in many instances. For example, in the Kobe Bryant case, my understanding of the facts is that Kobe checked into a hotel, and then invited one of the staff members, a 19 year old young women, to give him a private tour of the facilities. She agreed, and provided the tour. According to the accuser’s own testimony, during the tour Kobe flirted openly with her, and she was flattered by the attention. He then invited her up to her room, and she also agreed, and went willingly alone with him to his room. Up to this point, the facts are clear, undisputed, and publicly known.

Behind Closed Doors

After this point, however, the two were behind closed doors and nobody but them really knows what happened. She says that he raped her, and he says that they had consensual sex. One of them is lying, and either way it is a tragedy. The evidence does show that they had sex, but does not clearly show anything else. She had some minor injuries, but nothing that couldn’t also have resulted simply from an energetic tryst (or from her having other encounters before or after the one with Kobe).

In this particular instance, where it is simply he-said/she-said, I do not agree with the rape shield laws. There is no evidence of a crime other than the young woman’s accusations. Kobe has no history of any behaviors of this kind. Also, there is evidence that the young woman had sexual relations very soon before and very soon after her encounter with Kobe. The evidence was strong enough that the judge permitted it into evidence, even though in most cases a victim’s sexual history is inadmissible.

And now, as the criminal charges seem to be slipping away (editors note: actually have been dropped due to the young woman’s refusal to testify), the young woman has filed a civil suit for monetary damages. In civil cases the burden of proof is lower, as evidenced in the O.J. Simpson saga (where he was acquitted on criminal charges, but lost the civil case). In the O.J. case there were mountains of evidence against him, he had a history of physically abusing the victim, and many (including myself) are convinced that he did it. However, his lawyers managed to win the case, so officially he is innocent of criminal charges. The family of Nicole Brown Simpson then took O.J. to civil court and won a large monetary judgment, and also a small measure of vindication. In the O.J. case, I understand and applaud the use of the civil courts after the failure of the criminal justice system.

But the Kobe Bryant case is completely different. There is no mountain of evidence that he’s wiggling out of via lawyerly tricks. There’s not even convincing evidence that a crime has been committed. There is nothing but the statements of the accuser and some “evidence” that may or may not be relevant. And the accuser is not even waiting for the criminal case to conclude before starting her civil case (for money).

Remember the Constitution?

Obviously, there is no way that I (nor anyone other than Kobe and his accuser) can know what happened in that hotel room. In my opinion, rape shield laws should not be used in cases such as these, as all it takes is the word of an anonymous accuser to forever taint the standing and reputation of the accused. Rape is the only crime of which I am aware where the accuser can remain anonymous. I understand that rape is different from other crimes, and even though the Constitution-lover in me is appalled, intellectually, by the thought of secretive court proceedings, I see that these laws can serve the greater good, if used properly.

Reality Check

In my opinion, rape shield laws should require some sufficiency of evidence at a preliminary hearing in order to be invoked. During the hearing both parties should remain anonymous and the prosecution should have to show:

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.
• Sufficient evidence that the accused was the perpetrator.

If the prosecution can show the above, then I am tolerant of rape shield laws, as they help to address the horrifying aftermath of a despicable crime. However, in the Kobe Bryant case, it’s clear that while Kobe was certainly involved in the incident, there appears to be little or no evidence that an actual crime has taken place. And in this case, I feel that the accuser should have to abandon her claim to anonymity and publicly stand behind her accusations, particularly if the action is in civil courts in pursuit of monetary damages.

Harsh Punishments

All that being said, I am also very much in favor of the harshest possible penalties for sexual assault and rape convictions. I am not a criminal, but I can visualize dire circumstances where I might rob, steal, hurt, or even kill. These are highly unlikely scenarios and would depend on extreme situations, such as the collapse of civilization, but I can see myself stealing or killing to keep my family alive.

However, there are no situations – extreme, hypothetical, or otherwise – where sexual assault can be justified, or the character of the perpetrator defended. There can be no extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Sexual assault is heinous and evil, and demonstrates something irretrievably wrong with the perpetrator. Most rapists assault multiple victims, and continue their evil ways even after incarceration. There is no treatment or rehabilitation that can “cure” someone that is twisted and evil enough to commit a crime like this. I would support and applaud the treatment of rape as a capital crime, with life imprisonment or even the death penalty as the appropriate responses.

Fair Trials

However, the trials must be fair. Yes, rape shield laws create a situation where more rapists will be taken off the streets. However, it also creates a situation where more falsely accused innocent people will lose their reputations, or be wrongfully incarcerated, due to false charges. The American justice system is built on the foundation that we err on the side of releasing the guilty and strive to never punish the innocent. There are many documented cases where women have lied about the identify of their rapists, or the nature of the events.

For example, Linda Fairstein, head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, says “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.” Also, the FBI’s official statistics say that 9% of all rape accusations are “unfounded”. This only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence directly contradicts her story, and does not include cases dismissed for lack of evidence. The most common reasons given for the false accusations are spite or revenge, or to provide an alibi for questionable behavior or a surprise or unwanted pregnancy.

These are not trivial numbers. The zeal to protect victims and convict rapists should be balanced against the fact that people will always attempt to pervert the justice system for their own reasons. Given these facts, I think that rape shield laws should be tempered with the reality checks suggested above. This will provide equal protection under the law to all of us.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Cafe Le Jadeite

1952 West Gray

Houston Texas 77019

713 528 4288

After work the other Friday night, Engineerboy and I each craved Chinese food. There are, of course, several Chinese and Vietnamese food destinations within striking distance of our office and home. However, I have many non-food requirements for a chill-out-after-work dinner destination, especially after the end of a grueling work week. I especially like cushy seating (you’ll notice that as a theme in many of my restaurant reviews), and I like a little “see and be seen” atmosphere somewhat on a Friday, especially if I like my outfit :-). So some of the corner Chinese food joints, even if they have good food, just don’t quite cut it for the “indulge yourself” attitude at the end of the work week.

But we didn’t know where to go that fit both our culinary jones and my ambiance requirements. We drove aimlessly through River Oaks and I spotted Cafe Le Jadeite. “Wait! Isn’t that Chinese?” I exclaimed. “Um, I don’t think so,” said Engineerboy. “I think it’s French.” “No, no. Jadeite. That’s Chinese. Plus, look at those horses,” I said, referring to the Asian sculptures outside the glass doors. We decided to give it a try. The management had even helped us out by posting their menu outside the restaurant in glass (which is actually a quite French thing to do) and it was decidedly Chinese in flavor, but not exclusively so.

As soon as we were inside, I knew we’d made the right choice, at least from the non-food aspect of what I was looking for. The interior was unbelievable, truly River Oaks fabulous: custom etched glass panels, more giant horse sculptures, other unreal decor I don’t have a language to properly describe. Absolutely beautiful. The staff was formal but not stuffy, and led us to the perfect booth with wonderfully cushy seats, crisp linens, and hand polished flatware. We ordered a pair of drinks from their custom drink menu; they were shortly delivered by two folks who shook them up and poured them from individual shakers into chilled glasses right there at the table. I knew I was at the right restaurant, alright.

Well, if you’re wondering about the food quality after the promise made by the décor and service, it actually surpassed them. It was amazing. Our meal consisted of:

Appetizer:

Duck crèpes with hoisin sauce and fresh scallion (shared). We snarfed these down. They were so fresh tasting and light. The duck was so tender, Engineerboy said he was wishing he’d ordered the duck as a main course.

Soup course:

Asparagus lobster soup. Engineerboy says he loved it.

Pumpkin seafood soup. Unbelievably light, with just a little cream. So tasty!!

Main course:

Shrimp with garlic and mushrooms. Very tasty and delicate.

Lightly fried shrimp on apple ginger sauce (house specialty). Unreal, so good I could not believe it. The sauce was sweet but not overpowering at all, and it was the perfect complement to the shrimp.

We skipped dessert (we were stuffed), and the whole bill, drinks included, only set us back $80 before tip. I’ve had meals that weren’t 1/4 that good for that much money (Ragazza comes to mind). The service was so amazing (one Diet Coke was delivered so quickly I thought maybe they were using ESP): the word that I keep thinking about is effortless. They knew how often to come by, when we needed everything, and they were friendly but not overbearing. The whole experience was fabulous and exactly what we needed. Cafe Le Jadeite is definitely the recipe for what ails at the end of a long work week!

• Leave a comment... (0)

Zydeco Diner

1119 Pease Street

Houston, Texas 77002

713 759 2001

http://www.zydecodiner.com

I can’t say enough wonderful things about this place. I’d driven by it for years as I worked at various buildings downtown, but it wasn’t until I starting working at my current building about five blocks away that I finally gave this place a try. Its unassuming brick structure belies the wondrous culinary treasures that await within.

Offerings include ettoufée, red beans and rice, smothered pork chops, and (my personal favorite) a heavenly basket of fried shrimp on french fries with the most divine mayonaise tartar sauce ever created. Side dishes are wonderful — fluffy cornbread (you have to pester the guy at the window for some butter, however, I’ve learned), great broccoli with cheese sauce — everything you might love at a traditional cafeteria “meat and three” but with true New Orleans flavor. You can see back into where they freshly hand-prepare each order with the proper type of breading (cornmeal, flour, etc) for the fried items. It definitely shows in how tasty and fresh the food is.

Not to be missed is dessert stacked up at the checkout stand, however. Although there’s a chocolate cake that looks quite tempting, I’ve never tried it because the bread pudding with cream sauce is absolutely irresistable. (I get it every single time I go and I’m not in general a huge dessert eater). It’s one of the most amazing cinnamon-infused tasty treats I’ve ever had, and it’s worth a trip there all by itself.

Also worth the trip is how friendly the place is. The proprietess, Gail, is always so cheery and happy to see you when you’re in there to eat, and she’s done wonders for me when I needed to reserve a big table for an office lunch or baby shower. (Plus, the pay-as-you-get-your-food cafeteria checkout is perfect for an office get-together, so there’s no awkward math when the check gets delivered at the end of the meal). Often during lunchtime there’s a guy playing some live zydeco music, which provides some nice background noise; he’s really quite excellent, actually. An added bonus is that both dining rooms are non-smoking, which I really like, especially since it’s a fairly smallish restaurant.

All in all, it’s one of my favorite spots. The place tends to get packed by 11:30, however, so if you head there, I recommend you go early. And definitely get the bread pudding.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Chatter’s Cafe and Bistro

South Heights

Houston, Tx

Located in the old Star Pizza building on South Heights, the new owners have completely revamped the interior, aiming for an inviting “olde worlde” feel. A bar area fills out the area by the hostess stand at the entrance, and the beige-walled dining rooms are separated by a look-through area with antique bicycles and sideboards.

So far our two visits have been a bit uneven; I’m not sure whether to chalk it up to a new restaurant or a restaurant that isn’t destined to be long for this world. The menu is mediterrean-ish, with hummus served with pita points, chicken kebabs and basmati rice, and a variety of sandwiches. The hummus (we’ve had it both times and, truth be told, it was the hummus that brought us back for a second trip) was top-notch: freshly prepared with a wonderful, creamy texture, layered with olive oil and fresh strips of basil, served with warm pita bread. The other dishes there have ranged from bad (a watery tomato basil soup) to okay (the chicken kebabs, but kinda underdone, which is scary for chicken) to pretty good (a walnut chicken salad sandwich and a philly cheesesteak sandwich).

The other factor that puts Chatter’s into the “maybe” pile for me is that it has the hallmarks of a family-owned establishment trying to save here and there on cost. Both times we’ve been there have been too many wait staff for how few patrons there were at the time (although we’ve driven by other times and seen a packed parking lot, so go figure). The waiters and waitresses all seem very inexperienced, not like “career” waitstaff; you can tell when someone is still learning how to balance a tray of food. When I ordered a sandwich and it arrived on a different type of bread than I had expected and I asked, “doesn’t this come on pita bread?”, I got a pretty snippy, “No it doesn’t,” in reply. I’d expect a little smoother of a response from someone who’d been a waiter for a longer period of time, or maybe it’s just that the guy was related to the owner and didn’t really fear for losing his job.

My final “maybe” factor with Chatter’s (and this is really a deciding factor for me on picking out where I’m going to eat), is that the chairs there are NOT PADDED. I guess I have a bony rear, but whenever we think about going back there I cringe because I don’t want to spend 40 minutes or more in discomfort on those murderously hard chairs. Dining out for me is about the entire experience — good food, decent wait staff, not too noisy / clattery, and a comfy, cozy, sit. There are very few restaurants where I’ll put up with uncomfortable chairs just because the food’s good. And if the food’s only mediocre and the chairs are bad? Forget it, location isn’t good enough to draw me in — there are too many good restaurants in Houston (and even near our house) for that.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Shade

250 W. 19th Street

Houston, Tx 77008

713 863 7500

You can tell when you enter a new restaurant if it’s helmed by a true restaurateur or a wannabe. This place is the real deal. We went to Shade for brunch this morning, and the entire experience was perfectly crafted, start to finish. It’s definitely going to be on the repeat list.

For starters, the restaurant is located in the old location of the Kaldi Cafe, next door to Edin and October Galleries on 19th in the heart of the heavy foot traffic antique-ing district. The space has been unrecognizeably transformed from Kaldi’s dilapidated corner-of-an-antiques-shop crumbliness to an airy, soft, Asian-inspired eatery that is easily prepared to compete with Houston’s nicest bistros. (Since I believe Shade is owned by the same person who runs the Daily Review on Lamar, this doesn’t surprise me — the Daily Review is one of Houston’s nicest bistros).

Brunch menu includes Gingerbread pancakes, a Fried Green Tomato and Bacon Sandwich, or Grilled Salmon with Basmati rice and a Roasted Red Pepper Sauce. Dinner menu offers appetizers such as grilled qual with steamed stir fry rice and orange infused hoisin sauce and entrees like Wasabi and Cucumber crusted red snapper in a vegetable stir fry with a ginger and red curry coconut sauce, and grilled marinated medallions of pork served with homemade ciabiatta bread and caprese salad.

• Leave a comment... (0)

When I was a younger man I regularly watched Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Then, one day, a new show came on after Carson…Late Night with David Letterman. I watched it a few times…it was sort of weird, and the host was a gap-toothed former weatherman from Indiana with a very skewed, strange sense of humor, an acerbic manner, and a very low tolerance for self-important celebrities and BS, which was a very new (and seemingly counter-intuitive) concept for a talk show host.

He did strange things, like drop stuff off of buildings, run over stuff with steamrollers, and he put on a Velcro suit (and used a trampoline to launch himself up and stick to a wall), a suit of suet (and went into an enclosure and let birds feed off of him), and a suit of Alka Seltzer (and was lowered into a tank of water). He did segments from the perspective of his dog Bob, and he strapped cameras to monkeys and let them run loose in the studio. He had the show’s writers and crew members, who were obviously not polished performers, participate in skits and segments with varying (but almost always funny) results. He had weird recurring segments that only became funny after several repetitions, like “Camping with Barry White”, where the R&B legend would be onstage in a mocked-up campsite, and Dave would join him and get sage outdoor advice. It was weird, it was funny, and it was un-Carson-like.

And I found that I began watching Letterman more regularly than Carson. It eventually became obvious that Johnny was winding down, only hosting a few times a week, and although he was one of the greatest talk show hosts of all time, you could tell he had hit the wall and was just going through the motions. Meanwhile Dave was getting funnier, smoother (for Dave), and more creative. It looked like a shoe-in for Dave to take over the Tonight Show, as he was the natural heir to the late-night throne.

Changing of the Guard

At this point Jay Leno had been installed as Johnny’s permanent guest host, and his ratings were good. Jay was (and is) one of the great stand-up comedians, and he seems like one of the few genuinely nice people in show business. When Johnny finally announced his retirement, NBC was faced with a decision — Jay or Dave. As we all know, they picked Jay, so then Dave moved to CBS to go head-to-head with Jay. I followed Dave over to CBS, but I also would check out Jay from time to time, since I was a fan of his stand-up comedy.

And what I found was that Jay usually had a strong opening monologue, and it was usually longer than Dave’s, and often funnier, in a “stand-up comedy” sense. However, Dave’s monologues were usually wittier and more sublime/absurd, as opposed to punchline/rimshot funny. And for me, ultimately, Dave’s sensibilities stood the test of time and also held my attention and my interest. Jay’s monologues feel like they would be more accessible to sporadic viewers or (and I don’t mean this as an insult) those who just want to have a couple of laughs before bedtime, but don’t really want to have to think too much, or track details over time, or feel they aren’t “in” on the humor because they aren’t regular viewers.

And that’s a real concern with Dave’s show. His humor is a combination of things that are immediately funny, things that are funny only if you know the whole back-story, things that are funny only if you think about them for a while, things that are only funny if you watch the show regularly (and pay attention), and things that are funny only if you have a sense of the absurd. For example, at least once or twice a week Letterman is sure to make a Clinton/Lewinsky joke or reference. Now, if you are an occasional viewer seeing one of these jokes, you may think that you’ve tuned into a *very* old rerun, but what you’re really seeing is a bit that has been played out over years and years and now has a subtle wit to it, even though the actual jokes themselves are usually low-hanging fruit.

And “On Cape” Tonight…

Another recurring bit is that the band will play a song (I Love You More Than You’ll Ever Know by Blood, Sweat, and Tears), and Paul Shaffer will perform the vocals as they go to commercial. Then after a couple of commercials we come back to the show, and Paul will step out from behind the keyboards, go to the middle of the stage, grab a handheld mic, and do a *very* melodramatic couple of bars of the song, ending up on his knees on stage in faux exhaustion (a la James Brown). At this point someone (famous) will come onstage with a cape, wrap it around Paul, and console him as they lead him offstage, since it is obvious that there’s no way he can continue, given his state. However, Paul refuses to leave the stage, and throws off the cape and returns to his keyboards, causing the cape-bearer to stare after him, sadly shaking their head in mock pity at how hard Paul is working, and how heroic his effort is to continue the song, even though he is (pretending to be) exhausted. Here is a partial list of people who have appeared “on cape”:

Greg KinnearThe show then returns to commercials, and when we come back the band finishes the song, and Dave thanks whomever was on cape. They come out and take a bow, and that’s it. They don’t get to talk. They don’t come sit by Dave. They don’t get to plug their latest project. In fact, in many cases the person “on cape” doesn’t really have anything to plug, and seems to be doing it just to do it. The occasional viewer might end up asking themselves what the hell was that??? when they see an unlisted, uncredited, unannounced celebrity of the stature of a Bill Murray or a Jane Pauley just come out to do some weird little shtick with no PR upside. The occasional viewer might get excited that the person “on cape” will be interviewed, but then be disappointed when they take a bow and leave. The occasional viewer (as well as the regular viewer) might see somebody who is not instantly recognizable (like George Stephanopoulos) come out “on cape” and ask themselves who the hell is that??? and have to wait to find out until the show comes back from commercial.

Tim Robbins

Don Rickles

Donald Trump

Whoopi Goldberg

Al Franken

Jack Black

John Malkovich

Jane Pauley

Marv Albert

Bill Murray

Kareem Abdul Jabbar

James Earl Jones

 

It’s one of those bits that, again, may be confusing and even irritating at first, that may even seem stupid after a couple of times, but over the years it develops into something sublime and enjoyable. When Marie and I hear the opening notes of the song we cannot wait to see who might be on cape. It’s one of those things that makes us smile (because of how absurd it is), and sometimes laugh (at the varying effectiveness of the emoting of those “on cape”), but it only works because we’ve seen it so many times that we “get it”. There’s no punchline, no setup, no dialogue, no “joke” of any kind, but it sure is funny and entertaining. This bit is a microcosm of what makes Dave’s show funny.

The list of these strange little humorous bits goes on and on, and I will not belabor this article by describing them all in detail, but they include Will It Float?, Is This Anything?, Potatoes or Gavin MacLeod?, Know Your Current Events, visits with Rupert Jee (owner of the “Hello Deli” next door to the Ed Sullivan Theater), sending pizza to the strippers at the joint across the street, dressing staffers in costumes and seeing if they can hail a cab on Broadway, etc, etc, etc. It’s all very weird and strange, but also funny and absurd.

Absurdity And Wit Are The Keys

And that really sums up the differences between Jay and Dave, for me. Dave is absurd and witty, while Jay is humorous and funny. I have met many people in my life who are missing the absurdity gene, and will classify anything that isn’t ha-ha funny as “stupid”. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is stupid, The Simpsons is stupid, the stand-up comedy of Steve Martin is stupid, anything that isn’t clearly a “joke” with a “punchline” is stupid. And I find that these same people almost always dislike the Letterman show. Dave is “rude” and “stupid”, where Jay is “nice” and “funny”. But to me, Dave is a witty and incisive interviewer, while Jay is content to lob scripted, softball questions and straight lines to his guests. Dave is absurd, witty, and sarcastic, where Jay is funny and sometimes a bit mean-spirited. And the Letterman show, while always building on tried-and-true bits, also seems unafraid to push the envelope and experiment with things that they’re not always sure will work. This feels especially true since Dave’s bypass operation, and it seems that he returned with renewed vigor and fearlessness, and the show feels more like his old NBC show (brasher, funnier, more creative).

And, finally, the birth of Dave’s son has given him a more grounded, earthy feel. It’s been pretty amazing to hear him talk about his son, and to watch him be simultaneously humbled, awed, and inspired by parenthood. Dave had always been just a touch too arrogant for my tastes (said the pot to the kettle), but parenthood seems to have dialed that down a notch or two to a more accessible level (but without making him an Arsenio-like star-butt-kisser). I’d be willing to bet that Dave is on his way back to the top of the late-night ratings, but I’d never do that because I know it is only an exhibition, it is not a competition, so please, no wagering.

• Leave a comment... (3)

So, Mynagirl and Engineerboy head out on the town for New Year’s Eve for a little food and dancing at The Mercury Room. I always fancy a chance to dress up sparkly, and Scott very gamely plays along… plus, Soul Circus was the band at Mercury Room, and they are our absolute favorite live band that we’ve heard in Houston.

The Fashion Report for the evening included a Carmen Marc Valvo dress with two layers of silk chiffon covered by a layer of beaded lace paired with a trusty set of Stuart Weitzmans and some new Christmas earrings, plus a sequined flower in the hair. The dress was actually very comfortable, and molto bene for dancing… quite twirly! Scott wore a Tallia Uomo suit with a DKNY dress shirt and a tone-on-tone Ermenegildo Zegna tie. (Ok, maybe none of you care, but I put this article in the Mynagirl category and I’m pretending I write for W magazine, so there. Author’s prerogative).

After dinner, we navigated to the Mercury Room with what I would consider perfect timing: about 10:15 pm. Not old-person early, but shouldn’t be too packed, right? We take the southern path through downtown, cleverly skipping the carcrawl through clubville and whisking our car straight up to the… uh oh… nonexistent valet stand at the Mercury Room. I guess Merc Room gave it up on NYE because of the crowds, so our clever strategy was completely hosed. Twenty minutes and a complete circuit of the clubgoer-packed streets later (well, it was fascinating people watching) we circle back around to the parking lot with a … cough … $40 parking fee.

Scooching across the misting streets, we (thankfully) got to get right in the door because we’d bought tickets in advance (we weren’t gonna risk missing Soul Circus). The band was already in full swing, playing some great funk tunes already! We went straight for the dance floor: Superstitious, Brick House, very rockin’ stuff. The band confused us a bit by telling us they were called Soundtrack, then announcing themselves as Soul Circus and then Soundtrack again… but we recognized most of the people on the stage and the quality of the music was definitely up to par, so we had no complaints.

The band took their first break pretty quickly after we arrived, and the club became pretty smoke filled and packed after that. One of my favorite things about the Mercury Room (not that we’ve gone to many different nightclubs in Houston — we pretty much found that place and we’ve stayed with a good thing since then) is the mixed crowd: couples in their 40’s and 50’s in from the suburbs, young hipsters, gaggles of gorgeous girls on the prowl, and at least one May/December where the December was in her laaaate 40’s and the May was in his 20’s with a satin shirt open to his navel, no lie (“It’s not sexy to scrub for the customer!”). The DJ music was pretty okay, some 50 Cent and other rap I wasn’t cool enough to recognize, but the band’s break seemed to go on way too long. We spent a while drinking and people watching, stamping our feet waiting for the band to get going again and trying to avoid the smokers.

Soundtrack/Soul Circus did eventually get jamming again, playing some other good tunes: Kiss (the Prince tune) as well as the Gloria Gaynor estrogen-friendly sing-along I Will Survive. The dance floor got packed with gropers, drinkers, and smokers, and as the midnight hour approached the band made some uneven tempo choices; the reggae Stir It Up was something less than a crowd-whipping frenzy just before midnight. I must be getting old, because the amount of smoke in the club was really getting to me, too… not just the physical amounts I was inhaling (I was “hung over” and raspy the next morning, despite having only had one alchoholic drink all evening) but the overwhelming fact is that it strikes me as so rude to just stink up the air around you like that. If the club had segregated the cigarette smokers the way they did the cigar smokers or if there had been fewer smokers, we probably would’ve stayed much longer (and spent much more money at the bar there). As is was, however, all those camels pretty much broke my back and Scott and I were both more than ready to dash out of there after the midnight smooch.

We wrapped up the evening with a pleasant 1 am breakfast at Biba’s with some friends, bs’ing about movies and snacking on French toast. It was a great way to wind down. I would’ve loved to stay dancing longer but just couldn’t last at the club. All in all it was a great way to ring in the new year, however, even if we are getting a little too old (and cranky) to stay out with all the young ones at the smoky nightclubs.

• Leave a comment... (0)