31 thoughts on “January 26, 2015: Argh”

  1. 2/3 of your Co'C titles are no more than utterances of annoyance or the partially comprehensible ramblings of the sleepless. Sean has the spreadsheet to verify it.

    That said, you ARE doing well with the year this time around 😉

    1. I was going to make the same comment. I'm thrilled it was in Philadelphia where they have no qualms for letting the boss know the end result was awful.

      While I have long wanted more prominence for Damien Sandow, his current shtick is incredible.

      1. That schtick is...done. If Sandow doesn't turn face soon, it's going to die on the vine.

        And yes, the show was unbearable (and is the true thing I was referring to with the title here). I've watched last year's a couple of times for the laughs provided by the insanely angry crowd, but this one...well, it's just too far.

        1. I just don't understand why Sandow and Ziggler can never get a shot at prominence, yet people like Ryback and Reigns walk on water.

          1. Eh, Ryback's been a jobber for most of the last five years. Sandow's an okay worker but I'm fine with him being a midcard comedy act. Ziggler is awesome. I know after his concussions they were afraid to move him to the top again, but I don't know what the holdup is now.

      2. The Philly crowd made that show watchable this year.

        I don't mind the end result as much, but the way DB and Dolph, among others, were buried with no storyline to speak of is frustrating.

        When the return of the Rock doesn't get the crowd on your side, even in Philadelphia, you are in trouble.

  3. In the last week or so a few of my colleagues have asked me about American Sniper, whether I've heard of it, whether I've gone to see it, what I think about it, and so on. I haven't seen the film, but knew about Chris Kyle before he met his premature end.

    On the one hand, I appreciate that they're interested enough to ask my opinion of the film. On the other, the conversations immediately get a little awkward when I tell them I generally try to avoid films about the wars. The two exceptions have been The Hurt Locker and Restrepo, both which I'm glad I saw, but am hesitant to ever watch again. We talk a bit about why that is, and how it's something not confined to movies. (I've never finished Dexter Filkins' The Forever War, and I'm not sure I ever will. Didn't stop me from thanking him for writing that book when I met him.)

    Generally I think these are helpful conversations. But the rest of the day I'm left dealing with the emotional fallout from that conversation (they've precipitated discussing things I haven't been truly prepared to discuss in detail yet) and feel a bit like I'm the token vet they can ask about this stuff. That last remark isn't a complaint - I'm glad they feel like they can ask me things about that experience – but more a reminder of the gap between our experiences in the world, and the rare intersections of our orbits that popular culture occasionally facilitates.

    1. Generally I think these are helpful conversations. But the rest of the day I'm left dealing with the emotional fallout from that conversation (they've precipitated discussing things I haven't been truly prepared to discuss in detail yet) and feel a bit like I'm the token vet they can ask about this stuff.

      This is a concept that I think people really struggle with. A lot of my closest friends are women, and they often get asked about really difficult issues that women face by men. For them it's an intellectual exercise, but it's a lived experience that's likely full of triggering thoughts and ideas. It makes me sad that more people aren't empathetic to others' experiences.

    2. A couple of my coworkers saw it over the weekend and we talked about it briefly this morning (I have not yet seen it). It was immediately apparent that being veterans and working with veterans & their issues every day caused them to have (I suspect) a very different take than the general public on what the movie was and what it's supposed to convey. They quibbled about the "Hollywood-ization" of certain aspects and brought up a few other items that I don't think most people would even notice, but any discussion on the politics and Kyle's perspective were generally avoided. Understandably so I suppose.

      I read an article in The Atlantic on the current state of the United States military. I won't comment further here except to say that I think it's a worthwhile read if you can find the time.

      1. I posted that article here a few weeks ago. I realized after I posted that I was most likely laying a forbidden zone trap, so it's probably better that it was either unseen or left alone.

        1. I'd meant to say something when you posted, but I was at work and had the magazine at home so I didn't. I finally found time to finish it and forgot that I'd intended to respond. I'm disappointed to say that I agree with your concern about a discussion on the contents/merits of the article leading to the forbidden zone.

          1. I also intended to reply, but was at work. If folks are interested, I'm happy to set up a Forbidden Zone-tagged post where those who would like to can discuss it.

            3. Much like Philo I'm not sure I'd have much to offer, but I would be very interested in others' thoughts.

    1. Judicially decided name: Ella
      It's unremarked upon, but her parents could give her the pet name "Nut".

    1. I guess the next study should be done to determine whether they were unethical before or after being rich. So, does being rich lead to being unethical or vice versa?

  7. Since I'm ahead of pace for my 2015 reading goals, I'm gonna take a crack at finishing the first book in Caro's series on LBJ by the end of February. Currently waiting on my library request to be fulfilled

Comments are closed.