a firmer introduction

I feel I am guilty of procrastination, which towards my own blog I realize sounds a bit silly, but hey, tough times call for self-gratifying measures. I had intended initially to open with a discussion on the general blogosphere/internet culturosphere, but then I got title anxiety, panicked, and ended up getting really fired up about punctuation. Anywho -- a shrewd friend of mine once pointed out to me, pardon the clumsy paraphrasing, "What makes your commentary on life so valid that I would take time to read it?" she said, her time being extremely important to her. Well shrewd friend, when you put it that way, it doesn't sound like much fun does it? Sounds a lot like people expressing their feelings publicly, thus selfishly, because they are sad and insecure and want people to like their thoughts -- you've made your point. I hope to one day live in a world where blogging will be remembered as a fad, and until that day comes I'm content to say I'm merely following a trend. Or maybe I could settle for blogging to one day acquire the association we have with jogging: fad when it came out, doesn't scream isolated cultural obsession as much as the cabbage patch, and today it's just kind of a thing. like any other thing. now i've lost the meaning of all this. to resume: blogs can be cool (eh?), and blogs can be the lamest of lame. they are little internet organisms, pets of the ponderous presupposing publisher. (oh yes, there will be alliteration. whenever i feel like it. you will accept this and you will like it.) because after all it's the internet. who really gives a hoot?

but now, onto more things, not about the internet, just kidding, always the internet. And google! I like playing games with google's feature where they fill in what they think you're searching for. For those of you who do not know what I'm talking about, even though I'm sure you all do, here is daniel tosh illustrating what i mean, along with the end of a funny bit about doves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doPdjY1P9rk

google is also a kind of global barometer, which is why it's interesting to run a search like this and see what it comes up with:
synonyms for love? good luck finding a definition that's not at least a few sentences if not an entire novel's worth of long. unless they mean the verb to love... in which case i concede.

this idea of teasing google first came to me when i read that the googs had eliminated all suggestions from the search: "Islam is ___" but had not for other maiores religiones. that's bizarre, thought i. the suggestions have since returned, and as you can see, there really isn't much difference in how google thinks we think about religions:
vs.For the record, I supplied that first search for christianity. saw it on a t-shirt, thought it was amusing. Also, don't expect me to talk often about religion or express my views on the hard-hitting issues. Don't want you to get that impression. In fact, in closing, another google search:
apparently a great many people are upset at being lied to by kim kardashian.

urbandic tetrameter

urbandictionary is like a jungle with many vines. or for argument's sake a haystack with many needles. my point is you have to look for the good definitions. and sometimes you come across a gem. i salute you, TakaTakaTacos11, and your seven other twisted yet entertainingly crafted definitions.

[ad urbem for a sec: the urbandictionary folks never really showcase the authors of definitions, more just the definitions themselves. i guess being a dictionary they can claim that right... but my gripe is that their biggest appeal is that anyone (i.e. the little man) can write a definition. that's nice of them, only it then seems so snarky to then choose not to celebrate those who were at one point reached out to and then who contributed, essentially anonymously, a great deal of time and energy towards something they were inclined to be passionate about. especially since everyone pretty much grows up having the same opinion about dictionaries. people say "oh i hate dictionaries, they're so big and heavy." -- yeah, they're made out of words. all words in fact. smaller ones have fewer words, they're less heavy. there's just not much wiggle room in a case against dictionaries. what's not to believe exists when you first arrive at comprehending it? the one with just words, called a dictionary, got it.]

here is this guy, Nick D -- he has been writing definitions since '03, and he's written 746 of them. they've gotten mostly positive feedback. and all i know is that his name is Nick D.

cheers, nick.

maybe the best line from the ugly truth

there weren't all that many. (team penny)

i have a neck tattoo

...for the evening. i don't know what "@+" is supposed to signify. i searched it on google, just "@+" and literally zero matches were found. it comes from a piece of malabar bubble gum, product of france, and i thought it was internet jargon for saying "à plus," meaning "til next time" or "peace." there is nothing on the internet to confirm or deny this. i am at an utter loss, but i will rock it nevertheless.

[note, for i have tacked an old sock (worn, clean, in a pouchy, pita-like arrangement) to my complimentary cheeseboard. it functions to hold my cell phone, whose alarm i always wake up ten minutes before, because i don't trust its brain.]

good for the shins

just came across this song on a sunny afternoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AizvdIO-evc

i think he's a good singer. listen to the note where he sings: "You love!" (a sinking stone), about a minute in. he digs into that note like it was a big ol' rice krispie treat, it almost doesn't sound like him for a second.

[side note -- i wonder what percentage of my youtube enjoyment is derived from the videos themselves, versus the comments underneath. the things people say... it's such a freakshow frontier. but once in awhile, you'll come across a video, you settle in, and it'll feel a little different. a little cozier. and a lot of times, the videos you see are the ones that are viewed the most times: your top 100 all-time subscribers brand of video, the subjects ranging from comedy, news, any kind of movie or tv show clip, and most (i say most) music videos... pretty much anything that either youtube recommends to you in some way, or you find on some well-established, often-frequented site. but to find a quality video with not that many views, that you like, and where you feel quite in accordance with the peanut gallery below, call me old-fashioned, but I think it's nice. It's kind of enchanting, like a charming mythical forest creature, and it beckons you. You've got a believable ratio of thumbs-up signs, generally intelligent, positive comments on the aesthetic qualities of the performance at hand, and you see that the video's been up since 2007. 2007?! that's like reading a newspaper article from 1978. i like to feel indie on the internet, sue me.]

...

but, back to the shins. the real reason for this post was to say that the shins can be nice. people get down on the shins, but let's not forget that most bands would aspire to inspire that much ire. they are still the shins. what they really inspire is spite. I feel like they became the image of the small acoustic indie band that got sold out not really to hollywood, to a pretty small filmmaker, but that hollywood in turn sold it out to us, and therein lies the beef. but they make nice sounds. granted, i might feel like beating the crap out of a pillow if you made me listen to "chutes too narrow" in its entirety, but in the correct dosage. they have wacky nonsensical lyrics and sort of sucker you into shit, I think that's also why people get kind of sexually frustrated with them. but some passages of their songs give really nicely. the first shins song i ever heard was "caring is creepy" and it was some transcendent shit at the time. i couldn't stop listening to it. time will wear away that pure of a thrill, but i still get a wee bit juiced whenever it comes on.

You wanna fight for this love,
but honey you cannot wrestle a dove,
so baby it's clear.

don't baby me, shins! i am not your baby. you're right though. it's true. touché.

intro (or, my thoughts on the blogosphere slash the universe, OR self-gratifying speech about writing + internet storytime.

I hereby propose a new piece of english punctuation, to be enacted by the board of people who decide grammar - i imagine their office would be held in some medieval-looking castle in the clouds - effective, hearby, starting now, immediately. it shall be known as:

(pause of eight seconds)

THE SINGLE PARENTHESIS.

.
..
...
let it sink in.
....
.....
....
...
..
.



i actually hope that the period roller coaster doesn't become a thing.

you might think it strange! (stranger even than my unprompted use of the phrase "period roller coaster") -- you might think it strange that i would lead into a discussion about the single parenthesis with clearly a standard use of the classic double parenthesis, or parentheses [no need to say the "double" then. i mean you could, but double parentheses, now you're looking at brackets and squiggly brackets {what are those things called?}, and that's just trouble.

but ah! i just did it without realizing it. forgot to close the bracket. it's the grammatical equivalent of forgetting to roll up the windows in the car when you know perfectly well it's going to rain. for years i have been frustrated by this particular typographical error. it'll happen once in awhile, and it'll just sneak up on you too. and you'll say how did i forget to close the parenthesis? poor sad parenthesis, alone, probably really upset. talk about don't leave me hanging bro.

but now i've had it with all that nonsense. and it is nonsense. a parenthesis should be able to stand alone. this is why:

1. what is the point of a parenthesis? it's like a step back, a gear shift, a sidebar of sorts (respect the sidebar). <--- this is one use. again, standard, very indentifiable: ratio of words in parentheses to words in a normal sentence? favorable. antecedent of the parentheses in close proximity to its parenthetical counterpart? affirmative. looks like some parentheses? you betcha.

2. if you continue an entirely new thought within parentheses, it can get complicated, punctuation wise. Do I put a period at the end of the parenthetical thought? Will it look weird if I finish the sentence right there? and now I've got this a period-close-parentheses-period thing going and I don't like how that looks, I'm going to rephrase my sentence........no! unnnecccesssary i say. what kind of a greedy little attention whore is that close parenthesis that he needs to show up right at the end, when he knows things are probably getting really crowded, AND, most importantly, when everyone's already moved on! you serve no purpose second parenthesis. everyone can see the thought is completed. they see the brackets and the periods and what not, they know the show's over. they're moving on to the next sentence. but you just had to show your face, had to try to get your money's worth. well no one wants to see you. maybe if you had gotten up out of bed ten minutes earlier you would have beaten the first guy, and you'd be back there, getting cozy with the antecedent. but no. you are a slut.

3. a parenthesis doesn't need another parenthesis to define them as a parenthesis. nor should it be a competition to see who can be the first parenthesis, since apparently some people get pretty worked up over it. but i feel that a parenthesis has done its job when it has seized the attention of the reader, directed it to a specific place, and either added to, clarified, or taken a previous thought further in a particular direction. after that, let the other punctuation have a go at it! they're perfectly capable of guiding us through the sentence. 98 times out of a 100, you're gonna want to close that puppy up. but if it feels natural to let the little guy kinda wave there in the wind, let him go, he can take care of himself. i guarantee he has a good time.