That ranked pretty damn near the top.

Update

I won't say what happened. I'll tell you face-to-face, but I can't do it here.

Hiro Nakamura is a man with a lot on his shoulders. Although he has the ability to manipulate space and time, he was powerless to intervene when Sylar killed Charlie Ismaels, the love of HIro's life. Although Hiro went back in time to before Sylar killed her, he couldn't save her--it was as though the universe intervened and prevented Hiro from changing the past in such a way that would negate his reason for traveling into the past. If Hiro went back to save Charlie, he couldn't stop her from dying--if he did, he wouldn't have gone back, so she'd die, and so forth.

As painful as that experience undoubtedly was for Hiro, what was in store for him was even worse. We know a little about what happens in the future: Peter Petrelli explodes, taking half of New York City with him. In the latest graphic novel, we see a new version of Hiro: five years in the future, the meek office worker has become a fearsome warrior, his once optimistic outlook dimmed by the world after the explosion. We also see that he has a deep obsession: for five years, Future Hiro's been working on his web of time, trying to pinpoint a moment in time. He hopes to find the one second in time where a subtle change would make all the difference.

After years of study, he went back in time to deliver the most important message of his life: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." But upon his return to the future, Hiro saw that nothing had really changed. Although it was now Peter--not Sylar, as in the previous timeline--that caused the explosion, the net effect was the same: the future still sucked.

It appears that time is immutable, even to someone with the ability to travel back and forth through it at will. In Hiro's universe, there is fate, and it sucks sometimes.

I don't know if I believe in fate in the real world. But I'm starting to see that, like Hiro's universe, mine has some immutable laws, as well. Yeah, there's gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But there's this other thing, too. I don't know what to call it, but this principle's effect on my life is undeniable and now, at the age of twenty-five, I'm starting to feel as though I'm drowning in this law and its consequences.

Tonight's episode of Heroes takes place five years in the future. Present-day Hiro will attempt to find out what went wrong so that, upon his return to now, he can stop it, thereby saving the world. The odds are stacked against him but, dear god, I hope he succeeds.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Goddamnit , Heroes , Potentially Entirely Unhelpful Analogies

Prosecutors in McHenry County, Illinois have charged Allen Lee, an eighteen-year-old high-school senior, with two counts of disorderly conduct after Mr. Lee wrote an essay which contained some violent images. You can read the full text of the essay, along with an explanation from Mr. Lee about its content, here. Two passages in particular lead to Mr. Lee's arrest. In the first, Mr. Lee says the following:

"So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone…, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."

The quotes are in the original--Mr. Lee explains that he was writing this as if it was from the perspective of a character, not from his own perspective. The second passage is as follows:

No quarrel on you qualifications as a writer, but as a teacher, don't be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting.

Of course, it should be noted that these two sentences are small parts of a much larger--and almost completely stream-of-consciousness--piece. Also, the teacher specifically told the students "write whatever comes to your mind. Do not judge or censor what you are writing." Mr. Allen, reportedly a straight-A student, followed directions and wrote something that, aside from representing the sorry state of our straight-A students' writing abilities, is not altogether scary.

It is outrageous that the teacher, the principal, the police, and the prosecutors would all agree that the proper course of action here is to arrest Mr. Allen and charge him with two misdemeanor counts. Mr. Allen was in a creative writing class. His teacher instructed the class not to censor themselves. But what she really meant, apparently, was that the students shouldn't censor themselves as long as they wrote about happy-happy fun-time things.

As far as I know, none of the greatest authors wrote their masterpieces while they were still in high school, and Mr. Lee's work is no modern classic. Still, he should be allowed to be creative in a fucking creative writing class! Stephen King and Dan Brown both have extremely violent and disturbing scenes in their work, but it would be absurd to say that they should be arrested for writing Carrie or The Da Vinci Code. I don't see why this should be any different.

Yes, the massacre at Virginia Tech was bad, and we're all hypersensitive to warning signs, but we have to be careful--in this case, it seems very likely to me that, rather than saving other students' lives, the administrators actions have done nothing more than ruin (or at least greatly disturb) Mr. Lee's life. It seems extremely likely to me that Mr. Lee was just writing something for an assignment, rather than foreshadowing an impending killing spree. Erring on the side of caution is fine when children's lives are at stake, but why involve the police? Why not merely call Mr. Lee in to the counselor's office and talk to him?

Like racial profiling, this kind of attitude is likely to be both under- and over-inclusive. Administrators will "catch" many people who do not pose a threat. Meanwhile, many kids who are dangerous or, at the very least, need help, will fall through the cracks. Ultimately, no one wins and a few kids lose.

This is not how to keep children safe.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)| Filed under Philosophical Rants , Rants on the News

I started playing poker towards the end of my college career. I never took it very seriously, really, and my friends and I played very low stakes--we considered losing $10 in a night a very big deal. When I came to Wisconsin, one of the main things I wanted to do was get a good group of people together to play poker every week.

Mr. Utah was the first person I met in this state. I was in line at Union South, waiting to get my ID picture taken when he came up to me and asked me if I, too, was a law student. Having been shut up in my own little world and not expecting to have to talk to anyone, I was taken by surprise, and gave some awkward respond. Later, I sat next to him at orientation, his being the only face I recognized.

Later that day, at the end-of-orientation picnic, I met X-tina, a girl who shares my affinity for sci-fi and all things dork. She, of course, would introduce us all to the L-Dawg, he of the unparalleled eating and drinking abilities. These guys, together with a few other characters, were the first people who came over for poker in the first few weeks of school. Eventually, Mr. Utah brought Mr. Vice and, after auditioning a few other people, RPM joined our ranks.

With few exceptions, we met every Friday night to play a little bit of Texas Hold'em. Patterns began to emerge: L-Dawg gathered a massive chip stack; I played like an idiot; X-tina would go all-in, assuming that L-Dawg was bluffing (which he was about 98 percent of the time--although he drew out about 99 percent of the time); Mr. Utah would molest my cats; we'd eat lots of Wendy's; we'd make fun of the New Guys. Simply put, poker night has been one of the most constant and awesome parts of law school for me.

We've always suspended our poker activities during finals so that we might maintain the illusion of being studious. So it was with a heavy heart that we played our last hands of poker last night, for last night marked the last night that we would ever gather around my poker table and throw our chips in the pot as law students. We'll play again, certainly, but we'll have graduated by then.

This, for me, is the most tangible evidence that my law school years are quickly coming to a close, and it makes me very sad, even though I'm happy and excited at the same time. It's been great playing with you guys, even though I usually lost all my money.

But it's ok. I'm tightening up. And, besides--I've got outs.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Hanging Out With My Friends , Law School , Life Sucks Sometimes

Although I would never contend that the administration at the University of Wisconsin Law School is excellent, good, or even competent, I have generally refrained from ranting against their often ridiculous actions. However, since the death of Legal Badger, I kind of feel like someone's gotta fill the void, even if it's just for a second or two.

I have a negotiations class that meets Tuesdays and Thursdays between 3:30 and 5 in one of the big lecture halls on the fifth floor. Last Tuesday, we had to have class in one of the rooms on the second floor and, should our professor have had the audacity to have our class go for the full hour and a half, we would have had to move from that room to another in the middle of class because another class has the room starting at around 4:30. We had to engage in these musical rooms shenannigans because Erlanger's TnE class was evicted from it's usual room--2260--and moved to our normally scheduled room on the fifth floor.

Now, sometimes, a room becomes unusable. Sometimes, an entire class (aren't there something like 100 people in that TnE class?) must be asked to meet in a different room. There are any number of reasons why an administration might disrupt the students' lives in such a fashion. Perhaps something's fucked up with the wiring so that the lights don't work. Or the pipes broke, flooding the room with shit water. Maybe some space commandos from the future have decided that 2260 is their base camp. Any of these reasons would more than justify kicking a class out of its assigned room.

But I assure you that there were no space commandos from the future at the law school on Tuesday. No. Rather, Erlanger's TnE class got booted from its room so that the administration could host some sort of Hmong cultural nonsense. The whole thing involved something about art, dancing, and lectures or something. And there was food in the atrium. I took some of the food in the atrium, and then various people kept attempting to guilt me into going and watching some dancing thing. It was lame.

Although I don't have any confirmation on this, I can only assume that the whole event stemmed as a result of the Kaplan incident of a few month ago. The school, of course, can do whatever it wants with its facilities. But, putting aside the fact that it chose to indulge one particular cultural group's need for recognition, the administration showed a complete lack of respect for Mr. Erlanger, my professor, and all of the students involved. A Hmong cultural event is fine, but it's unacceptable for the administration to displace an actual class in order to hold the Hmong cultural event. Let's not forget--this is the UW Law School, not the UW Place Where Everyone Can Come Together and Hold Hands and Sing Songs and Feel Great About Everything.

The fact that the administration took this course of action suggests not only that they have no back bone, but that they value pretty much everything above actually teaching the law. This is a sad day, and I hope that the administration pulls its head out of its ass soon.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Law School , Rants

Ok, it's been a while but, at the request of TheExpat, I've posted a new poll. But first, the results from the previous poll. It turns out that the thing the that you're most looking forward to about the summer is . . . warmth, which got 36 percent of the votes. That's not really surprising--even I, an admitted winter lover, was getting tired of the sub-thirty-degree weather. Second place, with 32 percent, was the new Harry Potter book.

Neither of those is surprising, but what's mildly surprising is how heavily you guys favored those two: the next closest vote getter, grilling, only got 10 percent. Free time was next with 8 percent, Spider-man 3 and, surprisingly, the new Smashing Pumpkins album each came in at 6 percent (go SP fans!). Bringing up the rear was the new Harry Potter film, with a mere 2 percent. Very interesting.

The new poll asks you to identify the politician you'd most like to see beaten to death with a sea bass. I've left certain people off the list, just to keep things fair.

And now, the promised rant . . .
I was at the pet store the other day buying some food for Smash and Lily. I go to this pet store kinda by my house. It's decent and the prices are fine. The only problem is that they seem to have a hiring policy that prohibits them from employing anyone over the age of sixteen. Maybe that wouldn't have been an issue when I was sixteen, but it's problematic nowadays. Why, you ask? Because everyone in that age group is a moron.

I came up to the counter with my little bag of cat food and, to my great frustration, some old lady was standing in frot of me in line with a bunch of small, individual items. Then she asked some question, and the little kid behind the counter (seriously, he looked like he was 13) took her over and helped her with whatever she needed. He was nice, I've gotta give him that. But there was this other guy behind the counter. And there was another register. So, I'm thinking "maybe you should go to the register and ring me up while your compatriot is doing whatever it is he's doing." So I make eye contact with this hooligan. He sees me, but then immediately returns to what he was doing before: standing with his hands in his pockets, stairing at his shoes. "What the fuck are they paying you for?" I think.

Because I've never worked retail, I have no idea how these things work. So, as I'm standing there, I think about the various things I've heard about how retail stores work, trying to remember something that might explain why this kid won't just step up to the register and take my money. Maybe he's not authorized to handle money? Maybe that's not his "drawer," so helping me would fuck up the whole system? Maybe only the one cash register is set up right now and the other one doesn't have any change in it or something?

The first kid and the woman eventually return, and the kid starts ringing her up. She's buying crickets and a bunch of small plastic cages. As I'm trying to think of what kind of pet she's got, I'm getting increasingly frustrated because she's got all these worthless individual items and the kid that's ringing her up clearly doesn't have any idea how to do things quickly or efficiently. Just as I'm getting more and more frustrated (I just want to buy my $10 bag of cat food, goddamnit!), the other kid--the kid that looked me right in the eye while I telepathically implored him to attend to me at the other register, walked up to the other register and said "I can help you over here." Just then, the first kid finished his transaction with the old woman and I had two lines to choose from.

That's when it all came together for me: teenagers are lazy, obnoxious, stupid people.

I know I wasn't like that when I was their age.

And that reminds me of another thing--what are the kids even listening to these days? I was reading something in the Isthmus the other day about top-forty radio. It was this article about some guy forcing himself to listen to all forty of the top forty songs. He named some of them, and I was shocked to realize that I had never heard of these artists or songs. So what the hell kind of music is popular right now? Let's say that you're a sixteen-year-old kid and you want to rebel against your parents, the principal, and life in general. What are you listening to? This question was easy when I was that age--you put on some grunge and you look pissed. And if you really wanted to piss off your parents, you put up some Marilyn Manson posters. But what are they doing nowadays? All the music is lame, and there's absolutely no good guitar-based music on modern radio.

It's a dark day for America's youth.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 1:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Funny Shit , Movie Reviews , Polls , Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry

Goddamn, it's been a long wait for the new episode of Heroes, and it was completely worth it. I'm going to watch the show again and try to commet on some of the more awesome or interesting aspects.

The Linderman narration at the beginning
I really liked this--it really emphasized Linderman's complete and overriding involvement in the lives of every single character.

They changed the Candace morph sequence effect
Before, when Candace "morphed," the whole scene, including the background, was obscured. Now, it's a more conventional morph. This is a strange choice, I think, since Candace doesn't actually morph, she alters people's perception of reality.

Linderman
We learned a shitload about the man that's apparently behind everything, but the new information also raised a hell of a lot of new questions. First off, we saw him demonstrate his healing ability, previously revealed in the graphic novels.

More interesting, though, were his revelations about his past and his plans for the future. What was the previous organization that Linderman was involved in? I don't think he's talking about The Company, because he seems extremely disillusioned by his past organization. What did that organization do, and who was a part of it? How long has Linderman been involved with The Company? Did he start it? What are his purposes in starting it or being involved in it? How does Hiro's father fit in? We know that, however Linderman first came to be involved, he has a monumental amount of pull--he was able to summon Candace and have her pretend to be Nikki/Jessica on a whim.

And then, of course, there's Linderman's plan: save the world by killing half of New York City. The obvious question is what he wants to save the world from. It seems like he's trying to save it from itself. And, of course, we have to wonder how long he's been planning this. Did he get the idea from Isaac's paintings? Wouldn't that be a causal mindfuck!

Linderman's plan makes Linderman an even better villain, in my opinion. Where Sylar is just a power-hungry lunatic, Linderman is a methodical man who thinks that he's serving the greater good. We saw in the graphic novel that, when he was younger, Linderman was a much more caring, good person. He's come a long way, he's been disillusioned and jaded, but he still wants to make things better. It's just that the things he's seen have convinced him that he has to take drastic measures.

Parkman, Sprague, Bennet
I really enjoyed these characters' story. I wonder, though: where the fuck are Mrs. Bennet and Lyle? Also, I can't help but think that it's not a coincidence that they ended up at the Burnt Toast Cafe--the place where Hiro met Charlie. It'll be interesting to see where their adventure takes them. And it's rather unfortunate that they're taking Sprague to NYC.

Nathan
Alright, Nathan's an asshole. He might mean well at times, but he was kind of off the deep end this time around. First off, he seems to have signed on to Linderman's plan, even though it requires that over 4 million people die. Second, his reaction to Peter's "death" was "you weren't supposed to die like this"--he was disappointed that Linderman's plan, whereby Nathan becomes the world's savior, wouldn't come to fruition. And, finally, Nathan's reaction to Claire was nothing short of cruel. Right now, I'm hating the guy.

Peter v. Sylar
This was a little shorter than I would have liked, but still awesome. I really liked the look on Sylar's face when Peter healed his head and the following dialogue. I also thought that Sylar came up with a great way to find invisible Peter, although Peter could have done any number of things to have that come out a different way. Hopefully this just foreshadows an even better battle down the road.

Mrs. Petrelli
Seriously, what the fuck? There are a lot of things we need to find out about her. Does she have a power? What is it? And what is her involvement with either The Company or Linderman or both? Given that Mr. Petrelli knew Linderman, it stands to reason that Mrs. Petrelli had some involvement either with the early Company or a younger Linderman--maybe even Linderman's earlier group of heroes. She does say she left and then came back--could she be referring to having left that first group? Or having returned to join it in the first place?

Update
I just realized something. If Mrs. Petrelli has a power, Peter's got it, too. Given that we haven't seen Peter do anything out of the ordinary around his mom, maybe she doesn't have a power? Or maybe it's just a power that you have to turn on (like flight or invisibility) or that responds to outside stimuli (like regeneration). Whatever it is, it's not a power like telepathy or super hearing, since Peter would have noticed those instantly.

Update again
Holy shit, I just realized something else! Peter's displayed at least one ability that we can't associate with any other character's known power: precognition. He's had numerous visions about the future, and none of the characters we know he's come in contact with can see the future like Peter has--Isaac can only paint it. So, it stands to reason that Mrs. Petrelli could be the source of this ability.

Mohinder and The Company
Goddamnit, Mohinder! I'm really disappointed to see Mohinder team up with Thompson.

Isaac
I won't miss Isaac very much, but I like the way he went out a lot. It sounds like he made a real contribution, what with sending off the information about how to kill Sylar and stop the bomb. Was he referring to the new episode of 9th Wonders or something else? If it's something else, I wonder who he sent it to--Peter seems like the most likely candidate to me.

Incidentally, I also really liked the style of Sylar's painting.

Hiro in the future
I can't wait to see what Future Hiro has to say. Although, isn't it problematic that Hiro's going to try to save the past, but the one time he's tried to do that--when he tried to save Charlie--he couldn't?

Also, thanks to the magic of Tivo and HDTV, I was able to read a few of the words from some of the newspaper clippings in Future Hiro's timeline. The one with the headline "NYC Devastated" has parts that talk about someone's mother getting an e-mail from a religious cult saying her son had been kidnapped and was being tortured. There's also something about an ex-girlfriend and Atlantic City. I couldn't make out too much on the "Our Strength in Dark Times" clipping, other than that it was written by the same guy as the other one, Ross Anderson.

All in all, although this wasn't the most exciting episode, there was a lot of backstory, a lot of setting up the last four episodes, and a lot to like. It's not my favorite, but it's damn good.

The previews for next week's show
It was Peter that exploded, and he's kicking ass. He's got the scar on his face (how is this possible now that he's absorbed Claire's ability?). Parkman seems to be leading a buch of armed guys. Peter's got a new ability--maybe walking through walls? Nathan's a creepy motherfucker (there's some speculation on one of the Heroes forums that it's Sylar masquerading as Nathan after having taken Candace's ability). Clarie's hot as a brunette (and she'll be legal five years from now). Peter and Nikki/Jessica are getting it on (damnit--does this mean that she'll still be alive?). Sylar with the caption "America Remembers." Mohinder and Nathan are working together. Goddamn--we're in for a great ride! I can't wait.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 1:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , General Awesomeness , Heroes , Television Reviews

One of my favorite things to do is read the opinion section in student newspapers. This has never been more enjoyable than in college, where the Lumberjack provided some of the worst-written, most incoherent student opinions ever. Good times, good times.

Here at the UW, I usually read the Badger Herald opinions because, well, the Daily Cardinal sucks. Yesterday, I picked up the Friday issue of the Badger Herald and flipped to the opinion section. What I saw was shocking only because of its predictability: a student wrote a piece arguing that the Second Amendment is out of date.

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, it's not surprising that people are advocating that we reexamine or gun policies. It's also not surprising that some people are taking this opportunity to argue that we should ban guns all together. So, although it's a rather cliche topic, and others have done a better job, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the whole debate.

I don't think the Second Amendment is out of date. In fact, I'd probably be in favor of expanding gun rights, although I wouldn't oppose more thorough background checks.

You hear a lot about how we need the Second Amendment to protect ourselves from our government or, as Homer Simpson put it, the King of England. This position has always struck me as a bit paranoid and, frankly, stupid. While our forefathers actually rose of in rebellion against England and thought it was appropriate and necessary to periodically raze the government, I can't imagine myself ever taking up arms against another country or my own government. So this particular justification, while feasable in a historic sense, is not compelling to me.

There's also a lot of talk about how we need guns to protect ourselves. I don't have any statistics on this, but I bet guns are rarely used in this way. I can remember one news story about a normal guy with a gun bringing down a guy on a shooting spree, but I don't remember it well enough to do a search to offer a link. In any event, I don't know how often this would come into play, so I don't know how compelling it is as a justification.

Another common argument is that the only people who would give up their guns if they were illegal are law-abiding citizens; the criminals would keep their weapons. As long as the police are allowed to use guns, though, I don't see what the problem here would be, partly because I don't know how often gun-wielding citizens stop crime. Still, this sort of argument doesn't hold much weight with me.

What I start to find compelling is the relative rarity of gun-related deaths. Although I don't have a source to link to, one of the commenters on the Badger Herald site mentions that there were just over 11,000 gun-related murders in America in 2001. I'm fairly certain that the number of car-related deaths far outstrips that number, yet we don't hear too much about outlawing automobiles.

Of course, the car and the gun are instantly distinguishable: the car is the backbone of modern life. It probably saves more lives than it costs. In other words, the car's usefulness justifies its costs. Not so for the gun, some would argue. But I don't think this is a fair argument.

Our right to own a gun isn't about how useful gun owership is. There are always going to be people who use guns for bad purposes, just as there will always be people who use screwdrivers, shovels, nailguns, lead pipes, concrete blocks, arsenic, rope, and icepicks for bad purposes. Almost anything can be a murder weapon. It is important that our government allows us to own something that has almost no purpose other than to kill. It is a mark of trust and understanding. It is the ultimate symbol of our recognition that we value freedom above all other things.

Legal speech can be indirectly deadly. Requiring a warrant for a search means that, sometimes, guilty people escape. Giving people the right not to incriminate themselves means that, sometimes, guilty people are acquitted. All of these provisions represent the policy that, in this country, you are free to do what you want unless there's damned good reason to curtail your freedom.

Reasonable people may, of course, disagree, but I don't see a good enough reason, even in the face of recent tragic events, to curtail the individual's right to protect himself, his home, his family, his peace of mind, his freedom, or his guns with a gun.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)| Filed under Legal Rants , Philosophical Rants , Political Rants , Rants on the News

Last night was the Barrister's Ball, also known as Law School Prom (not to be confused with the Malpractice Bash, also know as Law School Homecoming). Mr. Utah, Mr. Vice, Ms. Purple Hays, and I all attended. This being a formal event, I rocked the top hat. I also wore my newest, coolest accessory: a pocket watch engraved with my initials given to me by my illustrious co-Senior Managing Editor.

The party itself was pretty decent. The beer (surprisingly) did not run out. Not that I cared--given Thursday night's goings ons, I wasn't really in the mood to drink. It wouldn't have mattered, anyway, because I was just too full from dinner, which sucked because some of the appetizers looked pretty good.

In any event, I had a pretty good time. We spent a lot of time at our table people watching (read: making mean comments). I did walk around a little, and I even danced for one song, an experience which served only to remind me (and those around me) why it is I don't usually dance. Also, two very lovely ladies independently told me what an awesome job I had done for the Law Review, so I felt very happy about that. There were a few moments when I was afraid that someone had lost my top hat, but I eventually recovered it and everything turned out fine.

Throughout the night, I couldn't help but fixate on the fact that this was the last formal law school event I would ever attend. Together with the recent Law Review elections and MBE appointments--not to mention the impending finals--it's hard to escape the fact that this is all coming to an end. Still, I was able to chill out and enjoy myself, and I'm glad.

After the prom, we headed over to the Angelic with Mr. Utah, L-Dawg, and X-tina. There was this sort of hippie jam band thing playing. I listened to them do a cover of "Message in a Bottle" (complete with ten-minute wanking interlude). I couldn't help but feel like I was back in Flagstaff, standing in the Mogollon or on the patio at Flag Brew. It made me miss my college days. Then some stupid older hippie jackass walked up to me and--for no apparent reason--clinked my glass with his. I looked at him. He was clearly high and clearly a loser. I stared him down, and he quickly danced his way the fuck away from me. God, I hate hippied--and I stopped missing Flagstaff right then.

I didn't accomplish much today, unfortunately, but we did go see an awesome movie: Hot Fuzz. It's the latest movies by the guys that made Shaun of the Dead, which is one of my favorite comedies of all time (in terms of comedies, I think everyone should have at least Office Space, Super Troopers, Shaun of the Dead, and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle in their personal collections). Because I hold Shaun of the Dead in such high regards, I was afraid that Hot Fuzz would be disappointing. As it turns out, it kicks major fucking ass and might even be funnier than Shaun of the Dead.

The basic plot is that Simon Pegg (the same guy that played Shaun) is a London super cop named Nicholas Angel. His superiors transfer him to a rural police district because he's making them all look bad. What follows is a both hilarious and genuinely action-packed movie. The stunts, chase sequences, and explosions in this movie are top notch. The thing manages to be an real action movie while also being uproarious and somehow still taking itself seriously. Although it's a parody of a specific kind of movie, it works on its own terms, and, therefore, is awesome. I highly recommend it.

Now I've gotta go to bed so that I can get up in the morning and have a spectacularly shitty day.

Oh--one last thing. Thanks to all of you that told me how much you like the blog. I really appreciate it. I'll keep writing as long as you guys keep reading.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 2:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Fun Shit I've Done , General Awesomeness , Hanging Out With My Friends , Law School , Movie Reviews , Wisconsin Law Review

As those of you who frequent this blog (read: my friends) may know, I have a degree in philosophy. My favorite philosopher, by far, is Socrates. I can't really tell you why this is the case, but I know that this is true. As is the case with Jesus Christ, I can't tell you whether Socrates was real or merely a figmet of someone's imagination. But, as with Jesus, I can tell you that we can learn invaluable lessons from Socrates.

The most important of these involves Soctates' death. Let me briefly relay that story for those of you who don't know what happened. Several Athenians, including two men named Anytus and Meletus, accused Socrates of various crimes, including blasphemy and corruption of the youth. Although Socrates was innocent, Anytus and Meletus convinced the people that he was guilty. Socrates was sentenced to death. Although he had the chance to escape, Socrates faced his sentence and died.

Plato, a disciple of Socrates', tells us that "to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." Socrates knew that he was going to die but stayed true to his beliefs nonetheless. He proudly told the jury that Anytus and Meletus, although they had the power to kill him, could not harm him.

It may be strange to us to think about what it means to say that, even though we can be killed, we cannot be harmed. It was perfectly clear, however, to Socrates: we will all die, but death is not the end, if we are to take Socrates' cosmology seriously. To Socrates, the particulars of our life were unimportant. What mattered were the Forms, the real things. Anytus and Meletus could harm Socrates physically, they could cause him pain, they could even kill him. But this was all unimportant. What mattered is that the Form of what Socrates believed in--the Form of the Good--remained.

In the past several days, someone has come here and attempted to harm me. What this person said is unimportant; what matters is that this person has been exposed as a fraud.

\Anytus and Meletus cannot harm me.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 1:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Philosophical Rants

As you may or may not know, I am a proud member of the Wisconsin Law Review. I say, without any hesitation or doubt, that I am more proud of my membership in that organization than any other. I say here, publicly, that I have learned more in my two years as a member of the WLR than I have in almost all of my other years on this planet. Simply put, if you have the opportunity to join this organization, do so. It will make you a better law student, a better lawyer, and a better person. Seriously.

Tonight was one of the WLR's most important events. We held our annual elections some weeks ago. At that time, the membership elected thier senior board. All of the winning candidates--each and every last one of them--deserves their place in the annuls of the organization's history. They will all serve us well. Tonight, however, marks what is perhaps the Review's most important evening--MBE appointment night.

You can read about the MBE position on the Law Review's Wikipedia entry. The important thing to take not of, however, is that we have four new Malt & Barley Editors. So, without further ado, congatulations are in order for Mitch Kumstain, Cybot 4040, Crackers, and Precious Curls. You are each responsible for the future intoxication of the Membership and I, an outgoing senior board member, wish you all well.

Godspeed.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Wisconsin Law Review

I was driving into school this morning listening, as I usually do, to The Lake, a classic rock station that recently switched over to a "shuffle" format. I don't really understand why they did that, but whatever. In any event, Me and Bobby McGee came on, and I realized how much Ms. Joplin sucks. She's really fucking bad.

I know some of you out there (I'm looking at you, Dee) are Janis Joplin fans, but I just don't get it. Anyone can scream! It's not "distinctive" or "unique" or "revolutionary"--she's just a bad singer, so she screams. She's the Sanjaya Malakar of the 60s.

Part of it, of course, is my disdain for singers that just sing. Ninety-nine percent of singers that just sing suck. Look at Bono, Liam Gallagher, Robert Plant (I don't care what you say--the man was terrible), and a bunch of others I can't even think of right now. If you're going to be in a band, then, goddamnit, contribute more than singing. Anyone can sing.

Even the fact that I associate Little Piece of My Heart with an overwhelmingly positive memory (that time that we were in that car going up Mt. Elden and PJ was drunk in the backseat and he was wearing that ridiculous military helmet he used to wear, and he was passed out and his head kept knocking against the windows--good times, good times) cannot serve to mitigate my hatred for Ms. Joplin and her music.

Although her music's not as bad as, say Fergie (which, as Mr. Vice points out, is extremely shitty), it's still pretty bad, and not deserving of the notoriety or attention it gets. So let's resolve right now: no more listening to Janis Joplin.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Music Reviews , Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry

This may seem like a strange sentiment coming from me; I'm not exactly regarded as someone who waits until all the information is in before making a carefuly, deliberate judgment. Still, the tragic events at Virginia Tech have forced me to conclude that we have to wait before we make the various judgments we're going to make.

First, I think it's important that we remember that not every lonely, depressed, isolated, or shy person is going to become a murderer. From what I've read, Cho Seung-Hui's behavior was bizarre, dramatic, and perhaps calculated. Unfortunately, in his case, this behavior indicated the potential for almost unbelievable cruelty. But we should remember, as we interact with our coworkers and classmates, that behavior like Mr. Cho's, in the vast majority of instances, suggests only social awkwardness, not homicidal rage. We shouldn't start assuming that people who are withdrawn or quiet are just biding their time. To do so would be to give into unfounded paranoia.

Second, we shouldn't cast judgment on Mr. Cho's teachers or family. The plays he wrote, which are now posted online (I won't link to them--I think it's strange that they ended up being available in the first place--but you can find them through Google, probably), aside from being terribly written, involve molestation and murder. Having never been a university professor, I have no idea what the appropriate response to those kinds of writings would be. On the one hand, writing is a method of expressing what someone might not otherwise be able to express. So worrying that Mr. Cho's plays demonstrated a very real danger, either to himself or others, seems reasonable. On the other hand, however, many people, from William Shakespear to the writers of the movie Saw, have written about death, tragedy, and murder without being killers themselves. It appears, then, that Mr. Cho's teachers were in a pretty terrible situation. I don't know if I would have reacted the same way they did, but, based on what we know now, it looks as though they did their best to ensure everyone's safety while trying to help Mr. Cho.

Mr. Cho's parents, immigrants from South Korea, may also be subject to premature judgment. Both of Mr. Cho's plays focus on a character that has been molested. It's easy to assume that Mr. Cho was molested himself. Once that leap has been made, the subsequent assumption that his parents were responsible seems justified. But Mr. Cho's parents have remained silent, to my knowledge, and understandably so: not only do they have to deal with the death of their only son, they have to deal with the fact that the entire world now considers him a monster. Surely, they're second guessing every decision they ever made--I can't imagine what that would be like. I can say, however, that we shouldn't blame them for what happened based on what little information we have. Perhaps the Chos were horrible parents that abused and mistreated their son, but we shouldn't assume that to be the case.

Finally, we should probably keep an open mind about the Virginia Tech administrators. I know that if my child was a student there, I'd want answers about why the school was not put on lock down after a fatal on-campus shooting. I'd want to know why classes were still held that morning. I'd want to know why school officials believed that the shooting was an isolated incident. And I'd want to know why more of an effort wasn't made to inform the student body. I think the adminstrators have a lot of hard questions to answer, and I don't personally think they'll be able to address them in a satisfactory manner. But I could very easily be proven wrong, so we shouldn't blame them just yet.

As countless others have remarked, it is part of human nature to attempt to bring some order to a seemingly chaotic situation. That instinct is amplified when the chaotic situation is, like the Virginia Tech shooting has been, traumatic and seemingly preventable. A consequence of our order-imposing nature is to assign blame. In the case of this incident, though, there's only one person we can definitively blame: Cho Seung-Hui. Whatever problems Mr. Cho had, whatever abuse he endured (if he endured any at all), whatever lead him to make the choices he made Monday morning, he is responsible for those choices. Other people and institutions may have inadvertently facilitated Mr. Cho's actions, but he's the only person we know was directly responsible. In the coming days and weeks, our attention will rightly turn to how we can prevent this from happening again. We should be sure, however, that in our rush to ensure safety for ourselves and our campuses, we don't condemn those that don't deserve condemnation.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Life Sucks Sometimes , Philosophical Rants , Rants on the News

So, I was kind of excited to read about Alberto Gonzalez's testimony before Congress. But I haven't found any news about it. Did it not happen?

Does anyone know?

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)| Filed under Existential Nonsense

I wanna write about something or other tonight, but I don't really know what I should write about. There's a bunch of stuff on my mind, but I don't know how important any of it is. I don't know. I guess I'll write one of those random posts where I try to touch on a bunch of different topics.

The Virginia Tech Shooting
I don't really have much to say. It's kind of hard for me to believe that it happened, honestly. I'm sorry for the loss the friends and families of the victims suffered.

Impending Graduation
As the counter to the right reminds me every single day, graduation draws closer with every passing millisecond. For about a million different reasons, graduation is the most emotionally confusing thing I've ever had to deal with. I'm excited and scared out of my mind. I'm nervous and giddy with anticipation. I'm confident that I'll be ok five years from now, but I'm fully prepared to fail within the next three months. I'm ready to move on, but I'm not ready to have this part of my life wrap up.

I didn't really expect to feel this way at graduation. When I decided to come to law school, I swore that I wouldn't get caught up in the big money-big firm mentality. Then, after I got caught up in the big money-big firm mentality, I found out that I really didn't want to have anything to do with that stuff. And while everyone around me who had grown up knowing that they wanted to be a lawyer gradually got disillusioned by the whole thing and started saying "I'm doing this for two years and then getting out," I, having come to law school as the result of losing a job I really loved, grew to love the law and yearned to be a lawyer. I still do. Which only sets me up for a ridiculous amount of disappointment every time I miss out on a job.

But, on the other hand, I know I'm going to be ok. I know that, one way or another, things are going to work out. I'm not worried about the long term, I'm worried about what I'm going to do on May 19th.

The Thing Where I'm an Idiot
Seriously. Sometimes, the degree to which I am an idiot about things surprises even me.

Heroes
I don't know how many of you have seen this, but the last five episodes of the season are going to be ri-goddamn-diculous. Just check this out:

Anyway, thanks for reading.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Goddamnit , Heroes , Law School , Life Sucks Sometimes

I was on my high school's chess team. I started playing chess in middle school, really enjoyed it, and kept playing in high school. Why? I don't know, it was fun. And that's why I wasn't very good at it.

Chess requires that you anticipate your opponent's moves, sometimes several moves into the future. I've heard that Grand Masters like Kasparov can see something like forty moves into the future of a game. That's ridiculous. And it's something I was never able to do. I enjoyed a lot of things about chess, and I enjoyed a lot of things about being on the team. In fact, I may have enjoyed those things too much--I never really took chess seriously.

It's strange, then, that I now find that I have the almost complete opposite character flaw, at least in some contexts. I've recently discovered that I have the ability to get so worried about future actions and their consequences that I negate all possible enjoyment from what I'm currently doing.

This sucks, and I wish I could undo it somehow.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Potentially Entirely Unhelpful Analogies

The Don Imus controversy is ridiculous in almost every way.

I must admit that I had never heard or heard of Don Imus before this whole thing started, but a friend has described him as a conservative Howard Stern. Fine, so he's a shock jock. No big deal. Given that that's his job--he gets paid to be shocking and outlandish--I wouldn't have thought that his stupid comment about the Rutgers basketball team would be a big deal, either. But I'd've been wrong. The fact that the comment started such a huge controversy proves not that Don Imus is a racist (I doubt he is); or that people don't like racists (we knew that, anyway); but that people are incredibly oversensitive and that they presume themselves to have a right not to be offended.

First of all, were Imus's comments offensive? I have no idea. I, personally, am not offended by the term "nappy-headed hos," but, then, I'm not personally offended by a lot of things. It's clear to me, however, that the term is offensive to the Rutgers basketball team and members of the black community, regardless of the fact that it was used in the context of a joke by someone who's getting paid to be shocking. And, frankly, I wouldn't have used that term (or anything like it) if I were Don Imus--and, in fact, I don't use terms like that in general. So, there's a fairly good argument that Imus did know or should have known better. It was, therefore, stupid of Imus to say what he said. That's all very well and good, I suppose, although I don't understand why people didn't just dismiss the comments as the rantings of a mad man and move on. Of course, people have the right not to move on, and people have certainly exercised that right here.

Protests calling for Imus's firing, however, are just as dumb as Imus's original comments. Because Imus isn't a constitutional actor, there's no legal issue here--Imus's employers can fire him for saying what he said without too many legal issues. The question, then, is moral rather than legal: should he get fired for saying something that a bunch of people find offensive? Here's what I would say if I were Imus's boss:

Look, I understand you're all pissed, and you have every right to be. I've thought about firing Imus because of the fact that you're pissed, but I'm not going to do it. My decision isn't motivated by support for Imus's remarks or the implied sentiment. Rather, I just don't think that I, as someone who has a fair amount of power in the media, can justifiably fire someone for saying something offensive and pissing a bunch of people off. Although your grievances are arguably legitimate, I will not set the precedent that the media will cave any time that enough angry people gather on our doorstep. Of course, you're all free not to listen to Imus.

And that's the other thing that makes the protests stupid: Listening to Imus's program is completely voluntary. If you find what he says offensive or otherwise objectionable, turn it off. Why take the extra step of forcing your views on everyone else, Imus's fans included? I can see no legitimacy in making it your goal to extinguish someone's ability to express themselves just because you don't happen to agree with their viewpoint. And if enough people find Imus's comments objectionable, get a boycott together, tune out his show, write letters to his sponsers. The show will stop existing if no one's listening. So stop listening. And if not enough people go along with your boycott, then that's fine--you don't get to dictate what other people can choose to listen to.

It all goes back to the fact that people take themselves to have a right not to be offended. No such right exists, however, and, as I've written before, the right to offend should be absolute. It is absurd, in our society, to say that anyone who says something you don't like should be fired or punished. Although there is no legal concern where private actors are involved, there is a moral concern: Although Imus's comments offended a great number of people, he had every right, objectively speaking, to make those comments.

Others, of course, have the absolute objective right to criticize Imus; to point out the stupidity, ignorance, and unfunniness of his comments; to organize protests against him; and, yes, to call for his dismissal. It is disheartening to me that so many should decide that the final option--silencing someone--is the only acceptable solution, even when Imus has repeatedly expressed his regret. To me, pursuing that remedy seems vindictive and unnecessary.

Update: Don Imus Fired
Well, CBS fired Don Imus. This isn't surprising, but I have to say that it's disappointing.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)| Filed under Philosophical Rants , Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry , Rants on the News

As the little header to this post indicates, today is April 11. About a month ago, we had a gorgeous spring day--it was about 80 degrees, there wasn't a cloud in the sky, there was a slight breeze. In short, it was an awesome day, and we all declared the arrival of spring. And, although I guess I was ready for spring, I was sad to see winter, my favorite season, go.

Then, of course, I spent last week in Florida, where it was 84 and sunny every single day. Which, again, was awesome, but I don't know if I was ready to be completely done with the cold weather for the year.

Lucky for me, then, that Wisconsin really pulled through. It is currently 33 degrees outside, and it's snowing like a motherfucker. This is a wacky-ass state.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Funny Shit , Things I'm Irrationally Attached To

It's been far too long since there's been a new episode of Heroes, and I have to say that I'm jonesing for a fix. So I've been keeping up with some of the stuff that's been going on in what could be called the Heroes extended universe.

First of all, there's Hana's text messages. I got one today, which read as follows:

The time 2 act is now. if ur on our side, go to samantha48616e61.com. I have all the info there. b strong, b diligent, and b prepared for anything.

The site is Hana Gitelman's blog, where she's trying to get people to work together against The Company. The latest entry appears to be a puzzle of some sort, which I haven't even begun to think of. Which is probably for the best, given the difficulty of the puzzles over at Hiro's Blog.

You can find the solutions to Hiro's puzzles here. Puzzles have never been my thing; how the fuck did people figure that shit out? In any event, the real questions are these: How the fuck are Hiro and Hana working together? How does Hiro know about DL? And why is Hiro at Isaac's apartment again? Hiro's posting these things from the future, right?

Update
So, I was trolling around the Heroes wiki a little, and I realized that I hadn't read the graphic novels in a while. So, I went over to the NBC webpage and read the latest ones, which you can check out here. Specifically, I read the War Buddies series, which I thought was pretty much fucking awesome. Here's a rundown (spoiler warning):

The story concerns Hana's continuing attempts to bring down The Company. Acting on a tip from Mr. Bennet, Hana was able to track down a paper file within the Pentagon. The file, which Mr. Bennet told her would help her bring down The Company, tells the story of several soldiers on a covert mission during the Vietnam War. Specifically, the soldiers are sent behind enemy lines to try to rescue some other Americans. They know only each others' code names. In any event, the mission goes wrong and all of the soldiers except for one, codenamed Austin, gets shot. Austin has the ability to heal people, and uses his abilities on the group's leader, Dallas.

Austin and Dallas go on to complete their mission. Upon their return, Dallas tells his superiors what happened, including the fact that Austin can heal other people. Dallas' superiors ridicule him, and his career takes a huge hit. Years later, Dallas is sitting in his house with his family when Austin knocks on his door. Austin tells him that they can have a positive impact on the world. They shake hands, and realize that they still don't know each others' real names. Austin reveals his real name to be Linderman. Dallas reveals his real name to be Petrelli.

That's right: Nathan's father and Linderman were in Vietnam together and apparently started The Company (or some related entity) together, although it doesn't look like it was all Linderman's idea. And, perhaps most shockingly (or not at all, depending on what your theories have been), Linderman has an ability: he can heal people by touching them!

And, also, what's up with the fact that all of the codenames are cities in Texas or are somehow related to Texas? It seems strange to me that that should be the case when Primatach paper and Mr. Bennet are based in Texas. Something's up here--the question, of course, is what.

Wacky. I love this show.

God, I can't wait until April 23rd.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 2:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Heroes

I've still got a few spring break-related posts I've gotta put up, but I want to take a break from that and put up something about a few things I've been wanting to comment on.

The death of Legal_badger.
I knew this was coming, but I was still greatly saddened to see the l_b shut down. Although the blog started as a way to anonymously poke fun at the school, students, administration, and pretty much everything about this place, it grew into something a little more. It was still funny and irreverent, but it also served to point out ridiculous things our school does, which was welcome. It also created its fair share of controversies, but we needed those to happen--even if some people overreacted and some had their comments misinterpreted. And let's not forget legal_badger's most important contribution: it gave Donnie a place to promote his ridiculous electronic bulletin board idea.

And, just for the record, neither I nor any of the people that went on spring break with me were legal_badger contributors.

The Wisconson Supreme Court election.
I've had the privilege of meeting Linda Clifford several times, and I know her to be an intelligent, hard-working, thoughtful woman. She would have made an excellent Supreme Court Justice. I was very saddened to see that Wisconsin chose to elect someone else.

A new Lovers of Sight and Sound project.
I've recently recorded a cover of a song called (I'd Go the) Whole Wide World by Wreckless Eric. I first heard the song in the movie Stranger than Fiction; it's the song Will Ferrell plays for the girl. Anyway, you can listen to my version here. Let me know what you think!

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , General Awesomeness , Law School , Political Rants

Today was our last day in beautiful Marco Island, Florida. We weren't sad, I don't think. We're ready to go back--even if we don't want to. The entire trip to this point went very smoothly without any incident. It makes sense, then, that today was marked by not one but two debacles, although I may be alone in thinking that the second thing counts as a "debacle."

The day started quietly enough; we woke up, cooked some burgers, and hung around the pool. Yvette and Lindsay wanted to go to the beach, but none of the rest of us did; we were all of the opinion that one day's worth of sunburn was sufficient. So we just kicked it here at the house. Purple Hays, Vice, and I went on a mission to get both tickets to a movie for later and a gift store with kitschy shit. We succeeded on both counts: I bought my mom an incredibly cheesy picture frame that she'll probably hate, and I got a few other things, too.

In any event, we had reservations at this restaurant called Blu Fusion for 5 o'clock. By the time the three of us got back to the house, it was pretty much time to go. So we loaded into the T&C and went to the restaurant. We chose the restaurant based on a few different criteria: First, it was within our price range. Because the whole trip has been pretty cheap for all of us, we were able to still go to a pretty pricey place, but we couldn't afford the ridiculously expensive places around here. Second, it was easy to find. We discovered that it was right next to the grocery store we'd been going to the whole week. Finally, they serve surf and turf dinners, and were willing to accomodate Vice's request for a surf and surf dinner.

We got to the restaurant. We were the only people there at first, although a few more people came in while we were eating. We noticed that the people didn't split checks, but we asked if we could get it done, anyway, and the lady said that she'd be able to charge a set amount to each card. We ordered our food, and it showed up not too long afterwards. And it was pretty damn good. My steak and lobster were excellent, and I think most people liked their food. Then we all payed, each of us putting our order on a different credit card. Now, I know that's a huge pain in the ass for the waitress, but she said she could do it and we took her at her word. And then the plane crashed into the mountain.

Because there were nine people in our party, the restaurant added a 20 percent gratuity to our total. Now, that's outrageous enough--where the fuck do they get off automatically adding 20 percent? I'd never seen anything higher than 18 percent as an automatic tip, and even that's borderline unacceptable. In any event, the waitress told us to write down how much we each wanted to put on our card, and we did, basing our figure on the total price of our food plus tax plus the 20 percent tip. When we were done, we made sure that we were covering the whole bill, and we definitely were.

Then the woman took all our cards and ran them all, and came back some ten minutes later. We got our individual credit slips and realized that they had taken the number we had written down and added another 20 percent on top of the 20 percent we had already accounted for! We were kinda pissed, and asked that they please remedy the situation by refunding that charge and recharging us the amounts we had indicated. The waitress responded by telling us that the charges wouldn't go through until the transaction was "closed," and that they wouldn't close the transaction. This, the waitress assured us, would result in the erroneous charges disappearing. Forty-five minutes later, the situation was barely taken care of, and, while we had paid the restaurant, none of us were convinced that our accounts wouldn't be in a state of flux. So we came back to the house so PH, who uses Bank of America and, therefore, has instantaneous online access to her account activity, could check to see what Blu Fusion had done to our bank balances. To our shock and horror, we found that they had charged us not once, not twice, but three fucking times.

We were pissed, but we didn't have time to deal with it just then because we had to get on the road so that we'd make our movie on time. All week, every member of Team Spring Break 2007--except for me--has been pissed/pumped about seeing Grindhouse. Rotten Tomatoes is giving it a 91 percent freshness rating as of this writing. I cannot explain how unexcited I was for the movie. Still, everyone else wanted to see it, and I wasn't about to make a big deal out of it.

This post has gotten extremely long, so I'll just say this about Grindhouse: it was about what I was expecting, and I was expecting it to suck. The Robert Rodriguez portion of the film, entitled Planet Terror, was kind of decent. It was funny, action-packed, and entertaining. The Quentin Tarantino portion of the film, Death Proof, was craptastic. It was long, bloated, and boring. It was essentially an opportunity for Mr. Tarantino to masturbate himself. The best part of the whole movie, by far, was the opening mock movie trailer, which promoted a film called Machete. It was hilarious.

Everyone else seemed to like the film, but I thought it was pretty bad, and I don't think I'd see it again, and I wouldn't recommend it.

But it doesn't matter--it was worth every second of Grindhouse to hang out with my best friends for the last week. Thanks, guys, for making this the best spring break ever.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)| Filed under Existential Nonsense , Movie Reviews , Restaurant and Bar Reviews , Spring Break

We finally made it down to the beach together. We hung out in the water for a long time. It was probably a little bit cooler than I would haved liked, but it was still very nice. We got out of the water after a while and sat on the beach. And that's when my sunburn started.

See, I'm opposed to wearing sunscreen. I'm Mexican, goddamnit, and my people have spent hundreds of years developing dark skin with the sole purpose of protecting us from the sun. I don't need the extra protection of stupid coconut-smelling, oily lotion. So, yes, I started getting a sunburn.

After sitting on the beach for a while, some of us decided to take a walk down the shore. Because the beach we were at was on a small penninsula, we decided that we could reach the end of the penninsula and it would be cool. So we walked. And walked. And walked. In the end, we estimated that we walked about one and a half miles before reaching the tip of the penninsula. It was pretty cool down there, though, and we saw a pelican relatively up close. Then we turned around, got back to our basecamp, and I got back in the water. The water was pretty nice, and it was hard to get out of it and leave.

And my sunburn just got worse and worse.

We came back to the house, hung out in the pool (which was really nice and warm) for a while, and then got ready to cook our most ridiculous meal yet: eight pounds of chicken in kabob form together with cherry tomato and mushroom skewers and baked potatoes. There were initially some fears that we wouldn't be able to eat all the food, but, in the end, we ate all the food and then some--we also had cake. It was the best meal we've made so far, in my opinion.

Eventually, Yvette and her friend Lindsay showed up from West Palm Beach, and we all hung out in the beach, did a little drinking, talked about stuff, and just hung out. It was really nice. L-Dawg got ridiculously drunk.

PH, Vice, Yvette, and Lindsay eventually wanted to go to bed, so the rest of us headed back down to "the dock." We were only down there for about an hour or so before coming back to the house and trying to be quiet. I say "trying" because we failed miserably. And by "we," I mean "L-Dawg," who apparently objects to warm water, so he tried to get ice out of our ice dispenser, a failing and noisy proposition. Then he stumbled around and knocked some dishes around. Eventually, we quieted him down, somewhat.

Yvette and Lindsay slept on our giant sectional couch, which meant that I had to sleep on the floor in the boys' room. That was fine with me. At one point, L-Dawg came into our room while waiting for X-tina to finish whatever she was doing in the bathroom. The funniest five minutes

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)| Filed under Funny Shit , Spring Break

We woke up remarkably early, seeing as how some of us were incredibly, ridiculously drunk (X-tina, I'm looking at you here). As soon as we got up, PH, Vice, and I began our search for bocce balls. I called up the nearest Wal-Mart to make sure that they had them. The guy said he'd transfer me to the sporting goods department, but then no one answered. We should have taken that as an harbinger of the general incompetence that's required to work at Wal-Mart.

We decided to just drive the fifteen miles to the Wal-Mart because we also needed to refill our propane tank for the grill. We got to the sotre and didn't see one of those Blue Rhino cases out front, so we failed on that score. Then we went inside and found that the bocce balls were sold out. Great. I went up to the customer service counter and asked if they could give me the number for the next nearest Wal-Mart, which the guy did, and also whether they might have more bocce balls in stock somewhere. The guy looked at us like we were from a different planet, and went and got his manager, who seemed incredulous that we would even ask. She checked anyway, and told us that they didn't have any, but that we should check back in a week or so. No use to us at all.

So we went down to the next Wal-Mart. This Wal-Mart had the Blue Rhino and the bocce balls, so we were all set. We came back here and played a few rounds of four-way bocce, which was a hell of a lot of fun. After that, we came back to the house and, surprisingly, played in the pool. And it was awesome.

Later on in the evening, we decided to head down to the Coldstone for some ice cream. After waiting in a line that stretched out the door and onto the sidewalk, we got our ridiculously good ice-cream dinner. We walked around near the water for a while, checking out the big boats and stuff.

Then we came back here and had a pretty quiet evening. And it was great.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)| Filed under Spring Break

I've been thinking a lot lately about what the hell's been going on with me. And I think I finally came up with an explanation.

I've been in Florida for several days now. Usually, when I leave Madison, I leave Smash and Lily in the apartment and someone agrees to come feed them every day. As a result, I usually worry: what if something happened during the night, like with Buttercup; what if there's not enough water; what if the cats are just really, really bored? This time, however, they're in someone else's apartment and, while that means I've got a few other things to worry about, I know that my apartment is completely cool.

There's also nothing particularly valuable in my apartment. The most valuable things are my guitars, but even they are worth only about $600-$700. They're not worth breaking into my apartment for. And even if someone does break in, there's not much they can steal, there's not much they can disturb, and it's not like my cats'll get out of the apartment and run away, never to be seen again.

As a consequence of all these things, I haven't thought about whether things are ok with my apartment all break. But things would be different if, for example, L-Dawg and I had just robbed $4 million from a bank and we were stashing it all in my apartment. On the one hand, I'd be worried that someone would steal our money and that I had done all that hard work and would have nothing to show for it. Of course, I'd also be worried that the authorities would catch on to us and that I'd return to Madison, open my door, and have the FBI pointing a gun at my face and telling me to get down on my hands and knees.

My point is that, when there's nothing to lose, I don't worry as much because there's not as much to worry about. When there's a lot at stake--such as an apartment full of cash (or something equally valuable)--I worry way too much, apparently.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 9:14 AM | <