(with apologies to the three or four of you who might read this post, as you're probably the three or four to whom i've already talked about it, and you've probably heard most of this from me already…)

Sara and i finally got out to see The Dark Knight thurs. night, and while it exceeded my expectations, i felt it didn't live up to the hype.

let me say first that this was a fantastic movie. all the major characters felt fully realized and deep, and either had strong arcs or a consistency of character that was gradually exposed during the course of the movie… that is, all the characters but one—the Batman. there was a recurring thought in my head as the movie unfolded: "this is a great movie, except for those pesky bits with the batman." after the movie, i reasoned that this movie would have been perfect as a GCPD movie—with all the batman stuff happening off-screen.

the performances delivered by the entire (non-batsuited) cast were absolutely spot-on. Gordon, Harvey, the Joker, and heck, even Lucius and Rachel were phenomenal at every turn. Such fantastic acting, scripting, and directing that there could be an oscar here (or several).

as bruce wayne, christian bale's performance was on par with his co-stars, an unimpeachable rendition of the nuanced billionaire playboy—dashing, vain, pretentious, and ostentatious, while also calculating, serious, and very aware of himself. a perfect bruce wayne. however, once he's in the suit, we're not so lucky.

i do understand that batman is not the suit, but the man inside and the raging, conflicting emotional and philosophical debates that play inside him. however, i feel that bale's portrayal of batman is weak and contrived.

the main thing I hated about the val kilmer batman (aside from the dreadful story and the rest of that horrible movie), was that stupid, insipid, forced gravelly voice thing he did. well, now, of course we've got christian bale doing the exact same thing. it's well established in the comics that batman does speak with an altered, lower voice than bruce, so it's not like the gravelly thing is completely off-base… it's just that it's so bad, and unnatural, and just simply not right. batman just doesn't talk this way, except maybe in one of those weird surreal one-shot trades by some artist with a fixation on the grotesque.

also, this batman just doesn't feel right to me somehow. in the (hand-to-hand) fight sequences, batman seems slow, plodding, and shortsighted. despite the fact that he's just a man with no superpowers, a man who is supposed to be the single greatest fighter in the world should move with more grace, fluidity, economy, and speed. batman's abilities border on the super-human, but with this batman, i don't feel that at all. it just feels like a guy in a suit. as the bat acolyte says, "what's the difference between you and me?" in this movie, the answer is "nothing."

(let me digress for just a sec by reiterating that in the previous paragraph i'm talking almost exclusively about the physicality of batman—we'll deal with psychological and philosophical concepts in a moment)

also, the suit. the keaton suit always bugged me a little, because, like the current suit, it's a little too bulky, a little too stiff, a little too rubbery. however, i felt like in the keaton movies, tim burton worked fairly well around the limitations of the suit, leaving that batman feeling more like a superhero than a guy in a suit. i almost feel that chris nolan just doesn't care to work around his suit's limitations, like he wants it to be more realistic, and thus it ends up being just a guy in a suit. and what's up with the cowl? keaton's was a bit funky, with that stiff rubber, but seems like it was shaped better. bale's cowl feels too ovular, and like he's just got this tiny pointy little face on this great big egg shaped head. i dunno, but i don't like it.

veering away from the negativity a bit, but continuing with physicality, i have to say that the driving and flying sequences were great. all very well done, and enjoyable to watch. batman on a glider is one of my favorite things, and this movie didn't disappoint in this area. some of his toys were pretty nifty too. however, i do have a beef with the whole "skyhook" thing. it's a fantastic idea, don't get me wrong, it looked pretty awesome, and i know bruce wayne is rich as fuck, but seriously, the way that went down was not batman's style. a charter plane, or involving the U.S. military, either way, it's not his style. i mean, you can pursue realism all you want, but there is a line.

i mentioned earlier that all the characters were deep and well-realized. this is also true of batman (even though i don't care for the portrayal). the concepts dealt with in this movie—duality, sanity, purpose versus principles, and escalation—are indeed quintessentially batman concepts which have been dealt with extensively in the comics and other movies. so, yes, the batman's arc in this movie is also fantastically conceived… if only it was executed as well.

finally, we saw the movie in the IMAX theater, with seats near the middle on the second row about 100 feet or so away from the screen. perhaps i was too close, or perhaps i was too engrossed in the movie, but i can't say that i ever noticed a single bit that was IMAX. i will also say that it was very disappointing that there was at least some component of the projection system—the screen, the booth window, the project, or even the film—that was very dirty. there were black spots all over the screen.

given all the above, and my love of batman (in general), i figure that i will like it much better after a second viewing. now that i have traded expectation for experience, and having already said my peace about bale's bat, perhaps i'll be able to sit back and really watch it, enjoy it, and not let the bad bits color my perception of everything else too much.

anyone willing to give it a second look?

Popularity: 2% [?]

so yeah, work has been a might annoying the last week or so. i really enjoy being a web developer, aside from the occasional annoyances, mainly having to do with browser compatibility issues and occasionally poor support of web standards. i enjoy the problem solving, and making pretty, functional things. i've realized that i really don't enjoy doing diagrams, documentation, proposals and estimates. i suppose it won't be quite as bad once i have a clue as to what i'm doing, but it's just terribly annoying to have to do things, and finish them on some kind of deadline, when you don't really understand what it is you're supposed to be delivering.

probably the most annoying part of the job is the way there tend to be dry spells in work, followed by a few weeks where every day is full and the deadline for every project practically overlaps. and then there's the equipment malfunctioning and behaving improperly. gah.

well, anyway, i'm just frustrated after a long, trying couple of weeks. good thing is, we're closed for Good Friday, and i could really use the long weekend.

Technorati Tags: work, deadline, developer, browser, problem, compatibility

Popularity: 21% [?]

so, you may or may not have noticed that i'm trying to get back on the horse here, and i think i've had a realization that part of my stumbling block to getting something out, is the feeling that every post should be a big, epic barn-burner. of course, some of the best posts are, but if every post has to be, then, well, i'd have to lead a more interesting life.

as it is, tonight's post, which was going to be about my upcoming trip to the PHP/tek conference in Chi-town in May, is actually going to be about how much i already despise Vista.

I've had the new laptop just over a day now, and already it has bogged down or crashed out at least 6 times. the first being mere moments after first boot-up and running through the initial new-installation setup routines. i swear, for an OS that is supposed to be the most stable windows version yet, this is one touchy little bitch. I have finally managed to divest it of all the crapware that came pre-installed (including MS works, office trial, and other sundries), but i can't for the life of me figure out where to go to uninstall windows mail or windows messenger. on the bonus side, messenger doesn't seem to be starting up on boot, so maybe i don't have to worrry about that anyway.

oh, and you know that Mac ad with the windows security guy standing behind PC asking him to "cancel or allow?" well, i figured it was an exaggeration, but y'know, it really isn't. every damn time i try to load some piece of software (i am trying to setup a new machine, afterall) i have to confirm that yes, i do want this program to run. and heaven forbid if i try to actually administer the computer.

i may not even make it to the point where i have a working system before I strip it and install Linux. i'm already severely annoyed with Vista, and a little sad that MS can get away with putting out such crap, still.

none of this is to say that Mac OSX isn't without its flaws, but hell, at least they can fall back on the whole "we had to migrate from an entirely different architecture" thing.

oh yeah, and one last thing. the entire time i've been typing this, Vista has been trying to restart, after a software installer failed to even launch. and now, i think it's knocked out my router. but then, my router's been a little wishy washy lately anyway, so i can't blame that entirely on Vista. but i'm still suspicious.

Technorati Tags: windows, vista, mac, osx, trouble, crap

Popularity: 17% [?]

needless to say, i've been more depressed today than any day in the last ten years. i'm flabbergasted, completely dumbfounded. everything i thought i knew leading up to this, has been thrown to the ground and stomped on.

ok, hold on. yes, i expected it to be close. yes, i expected the unwashed masses to vote against equal rights. i even expected, on some level, for Mongiardo to lose, though i was hopeful 'til the end (not that i agree with his social conservatism, but he'd've been better than that old coot who won). i expected these things, but i also expected the throngs of liberal voters we were promised, and i expected the reports of skewed poll numbers leading up to the election to have been more accurate. i expected more people to have woken the fuck up during the last four years and to have seen the horror this administration has wrought. i expected quite a bit, and i was sorely disappointed.

as andrew sullivan pointed out, it wasn't the war on terror that was the pivotal issue of the campaign, it was the fear of homosexuals. it was "moral values" that drove the conservative voters to the polls, and it was precisely those "moral values" that Kerry and the other Democratic candidates hadn't campaigned to win.

and the thing that gets me is, how can you claim superior "moral values" when you're preaching discrimination, hatred, misunderstanding, ignorance, denying families the right to exist, stealing money from our children and grand-children (and now, most likely, our great-grandchildren), sending our youth to die for a war based on lies and faulty information, and the economic subjugation of the "lower" classes by the already wealthy? how are those "moral values?"

as you might've read in my last post, that email discussion with my dad, those aren't anything like the "moral values" i was raised to believe in. i was raised to believe that if you treat others with love and respect, that you'll build a better world. unfortunately the policies of those in power operate on a completely different tack. and even worse, the party in power has managed to befuddle the masses to the point where they actually believe they are supporting their values and ideals.

what we need now is to not give up. don't give ground. i dont' know if we need to go as far as Rich Malley suggests, but we certainly need to keep the screws tightening.

more importantly than that, we need to truly educate ourselves and become the shining font of education and information in order to re-establish our reality-based community (sic)
and spread truth.

as i said to my co-worker earlier today, we certainly can't be expected to be imminently knowledgeable about every issue, but we can certainly pick a topic or two to be "experts" on. find something that interests you, study it, learn it inside & out, and anytime you get an opportunity to talk to someone who's uneducated or misinformed about that subject, don't hesitate to shower them with the facts. don't hedge, don't qualify, don't apologize or state your "opinion"—assault them with facts. know both sides of the issue, know what the results of different policies would be, and make sure they understand when they're supporting the wrong ones.

form a network of knowledgeable friends. find out what your buddies know, where their areas of "expertise" lie. when you get in a conversation with someone who's talking wrongly about something your buddy knows inside & out, give him or her a call, or suggest that the person you're talking to seek that person out. or get their email address, and have your buddy contact them. somehow close the gap of knowledge and education.

it is imminently possible to eradicate the republican standard operating procedures of misinformation and miseducation, it's imminently possible to take back the "high ground" on morality and family values, but we can only do it if we can educate ourselves first, and present our personal knowledge in ways that can't be misconstrued. don't leave room for doubt, don't leave room for interpretation. cite fact.

we can take this country back, but we will have to work for it.

Popularity: 5% [?]

i am no stranger to obsession, thought sometimes they run stronger than others. for the last… er… what, like 8 months? a year? almost a year… i've been singularly obsessed with politics. and not just politics, but with current events as well (though not with a broad scope). i have collected links to sites that i read on a regular basis, and in the past couple of weeks it has seemed that pretty much all i do anymore is read news sites/blogs and either store the information loosely in my buggy brain, or slip it softly into a "staging" folder in my bookmarks.

for quite some time i've used a "daily" bookmarks folder to house links to all those sites i visit (oh, this is good, you'll never guess) daily, with subfolders for sites i visit "frequently" and for the sites of "friends." before that it was just a huge dailies folder and a blogs folder.

about a week ago i finally decided to take some time and figure out what bloglines was all about. now, i've attempted to use RSS aggregators before, but never really found them to integrate well into the way i surf the web. plus there never seemed a good way to fold the results of all those RSS feeds in with each other. bloglines still doesn't integrate the feeds, but it does an adequate job of tracking entries that have been read, so that i just have to check periodically for new ones. since it's a browser-based aggregator, it's integrated into my regular browsing habits just like my daily bookmarks, but quicker (plus, i no longer have to remember–for the most part–which posts i've read and which i've not, not that it was that hard to begin with).

anyway, it seems to have streamlined my daily reading, but now i seem to have so many damned sites that i read, most of which are fairly prolific posters (or teams of posters) that all i seem to do is read.

The Daily Reads:

43 Folders
AmigaWorld
Bloglines | News
Boing Boing
Cool Tools
The Courier-Journal
Daily Kos
David Allen
Daypop Top 40
Engadget
Gizmodo
On Lisa Rein's Radar: Daily Show Clips
InfoWorld
Jabber News
Josh Rubin: Cool Hunting
LostInLouisville
Louisville, KY - Topix.net
MobileWhack
MoCoLoco
MT-Blacklist/Comment Spam Clearinghouse
Quotes of the Day
Screenhead
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire
Talking Points Memo
Techbargains.com

i've actually managed to do a little work tonight (answered a few emails, updated old-man.net, and written this post) but i still feel like i'm racing the clock.

part of this continual feeling of overwhelmed ineffectualness has driven me towards things like Danny O'Brien's LifeHacks, 43 folders, and especially David Allen's Getting Things Done. i am now making a concerted effort to learn the GTD concepts, and research and figure out how to apply the principles in my life, and with the tools that i like to use. i want to figure out how to make that Handspring Visor i've been neglecting a vital part of the process for me. right now, my room's a mess of discarded envelopes (and, of course, their content) and i have a bad tendency to let things sit for too long or forget them altogether until it's too late. i've gotten my finances under control because i have A SYSTEM, now it's time to get the rest of my life in some semblance of that same control. i know i have the capacity, now i hope i'm finding the methods and the tools that will let me figure the rest of it out. we'll see, but i do have a good feeling about the whole thing.

oh yeah, bush sucks, kerry rules.

Popularity: 3% [?]

well, previously, i thought horseshit only came out of horse's asses. apparently, i was mistaken, as i've just seen one man spew more horseshit in two minutes than i've seen in all the years i've been alive. the capacity of the man's stomach must be mind-boggling, to be able to store all that crap, and regurgitate it upon command.

i already thought Zell Miller was an idiot, now i'm wondering if he's even still considered sentient. if this is they guy the Republicans choose to deliver the keynote speech, then man, this country (being temporarily in their hands) is even worse off than i'd originally estimated. i really tried, i steeled myself against the crap that i expected, and thought i was prepared to sit the whole speech out, but i just couldn't do it. sitting in a room with my moderate fiance and her ambiguously conservative father, i didn't want to start going on a rant that would alienate me before the wedding plans are even finalized.

needless to say, i'm supremely interesting in seeing what those who are better at this sort of commentary have to say about his speech tomorrow.

i'll set this in motion though, with two points that stuck in my craw:

1) Partisan activity / no bi-partisan cooperation:
The republicans can hardly blame the democrats for a lack of bipartisan cooperation, as i seem to recall that, at least for the entirety of Clinton's second term, especially once the Republicans gained control of the legislature, there was limited to no bi-partisan cooperation from their side. in fact, there was such a witch-hunt against Clinton, that it seriously damaged even the possibility of bi-partisan cooperation, even among reasonable people.

Sept. 11 did a lot to overcome that animosity, but King George's actions and decisions since then have only served to bring them back. Those opposing Bush are fighting for freedom against tyranny, and this country was *founded* by a massive revolt against the established leadership.

in fact, i was thinking the other day about a series of questions to ask people who say that disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic. i now don't remember specifically the questions i was thinking of, but it boils down to asking if they considered the American Revolution to be a patriotic endeavor, then pointing out to them that the American Revolution was all about dissenting with those in charge.

so, i would argue that the people who disagree with the president are at least as patriotic, if not more patriotic than those who blindly follow him.

*** at this point, i've completed this entry once, crashed mozilla & lost everything after this point, so i'm going to try to re-create it ***

2) the second offensive thing he went off on was the whole "liberators/occupiers" thing. we may have been liberators, but after King George declared "mission accomplished" at the "end of major combat operations" we became occupiers. but that's beside the main point of why this pisses me off.

if we had gone into Iraq for the purpose of liberating the people from the evil Saddam, then i'd be all about calling us liberators. unfortunately, the reality is that the reasons we went to war had nothing to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. we went to war because Saddam's (non-existent) WMD made him an "imminent threat" to the safety of the nation. and the war piggy-backed on 9/11 because supposedly Saddam (militant secularist) had some indefinable connections to al Qaeda (extreme fundamental religious). of course, all of these real reasons we were given turned out to be false, and so the administration and their lackeys fell back on the convenient "liberators of the Iraqi people" excuse. it's kind of like, when you're a kid, and mom finds you digging in the cookie jar, and you say "but mom, i was getting a cookie for sissie." if mom actually buys it, she's a moron with no business parenting.

now, i walked out on the illustrious idiot's speech, as i said, about two minutes after we'd tuned in (if that long), and ended up getting so pissed it had to leave right about the line "… nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

as i've gone back later tonight and read the text of his speech, i can see more what the imbecile meant by "liberators"–that our soldiers protect the freedoms of american citizens, thus they are our liberators. this is all well and good, unfortunately, as mentioned above, the reasons given for needing to protect American liberty turned out to be bogus. there was no imminent threat to national security presented by Saddam. of course, ask me if i think Iraq poses a significant threat to American now, and i would say, most certainly, yes. the occupation of Iraq has stirred up ill will toward this country not only in Iraq, but in most other countries around the world as well, and it has made Iraq what is was not before–a breeding ground for new terrorist groups and recruits. so much for the war on terror, eh Mr. Bush?

…

i think i'll try to update this post a few times today if i run across any good commentaries on the garbage that prompted this post.

David Adesnik on OxBlog
Steve on his NewsBlog (i almost didn't link this one because of the Nazi/Fascist hate-baiting, but he did make a few salient points).
Daily Dish on andrewsullivan.com
Jesse Taylor on Pandagon
Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo
NewDonkey.com (be sure to check out the link about Kerry's weapons systems votes)
Kevin Drum on Washington Monthly (actually, i don't think i need to look for any more after this one, his post is a roundup of other's posts, so he's done my job for me.)

Popularity: 4% [?]

one of my biggest and most consistent complaints about modern society has to do with the rampaging corporate behemoths who are destroying the fabric of America. i constantly rail against those monsters of society (Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.) who have grown so large that they've lost whatever "soul" they might once have had, and who, no matter how much good they do (Wal-Mart = zero, McDonalds = zero, Starbucks = some fair trade, some shade grown, most neither), the good will never outweigh the bad.

so i was heartened, while making my usual 'net rounds this morning, to find this article by Ted Turner about media conglomerates and how the relaxation of the media ownership regulations (over the past 25+ years) has all but destroyed innovation and competition in the industry.

the problems with modern media is but another microcosm that exemplifies the greater ills in our society today. put it up there alongside the epidemics of: multinational corporations, greedily sucking up more market share to destroy the little guy; right-wing moral crusaders, wishing to force their ways of thinking on all of humanity; and the bureaucracy of health and medical-malpractice insurance, where only a select few can afford to receive coverage or care from the dwindling number of doctors who will be left because their premiums are still skyrocketing. these examples being but a few.

the things that're infecting us (as a national—if not global—culture) are legion. i keep trying to enumerate them, to define them, but i keep finding more things or having to revise my original conception. i think the biggest thing, socially, right now, is that we're infected by the need to be right. we all pick things that we put a stake in, and claim them for ourselves. when confronted by others who have staked their claim with something that opposes or deviates from ours, we have to stand up, call attention to ourselves, and let the world know that we know we're right. it's becoming increasingly less likely for people to admit they're wrong, and attempt to understand others, than it is for them to immediately shut off and ignore whatever arguments the other side may be making, for the sake of not polluting their own steadfastness, but in the name of righteousness.

until we can all put aside this particular greed of ours, this greed of intellectual/spiritual/political/physical/etc. superiority, and learn to really listen to and learn from each other, and to attempt to understand each other. the fabric of our society will continue to wear, until the seams can't hold any longer. i'm not predicting the downfall of society just yet, but if we don't take steps, things *will* only get worse.

still, i think this greedy righteousness may simply be a smaller symptom of a greater affliction. at the moment, the words to describe that affliction elude me. but we'll find it eventually. we have to.

Popularity: 4% [?]

so, no luck on cancelling the insurance. i'm locked in until at least next June… unless i find a better job.

but, i've figured out a way to equalize the situation a bit—i'll just tell them to pay me more money to make up for the crappy health insurance.

also, here's a classic 2000 style weblog link to pad out this post a bit. i'm sure you've seen it making the rounds, but i wanted to point out what a great list of 10 reasons for despising Bush (though not necessarily 10 reasons for loving Kerry) this guy came up with.

personally—and, strangely enough i don't think i've really commented on this before—i'm not a huge fan of Kerry. but honestly, i think my cat could run this country better than Bush. and i mean Harriet—the crazy one. so, i'm firmly in the ABB camp, and so will vote with conviction for Kerry, because however good Kerry might not be, Bush is much much less good. (how's that for an f'ed up sentence?) in fact, if Kerry is good (which he is good, just not great), then Bush is most decidedly anti-good.

well anyway, enjoy the list of discretions.

Popularity: 4% [?]

holy shit. i feel like a circus dog who's been performing three shows a day…

i went 10 rounds with my employer and the various intermediate companies between me and my health insurance today, and damn, am i pissed off.

first off, the policy that my company offers (and on which my acceptance of the job hinged) is complete and total shit. well, let me qualify that—everything about the policy seemed pretty good except for the fact that the bastards won't pay out more than $5,000 per year (which point they did not elucidate during the enrollment process at all). so, if all i need is preventive care, i'm golden, but the moment i have an accident or fall deathly ill and require any kind of hospital stay or any involved procedure, i'm bankrupt. it's completely ridiculous, and the single worst medical insurance plan i've ever seen.

and now that i've signed up to have it taken out pre-tax, they say i can't cancel it. and the private insurer i've talked to in the last couple days says she's not sure if i can have two insurance policies at the same time, so not only can i not drop the worthless policy, i also can't sign up for one that will make sure i'm actually covered.

so, i'm going to have to get back in the ring tomorrow, and see if i can convince them to let me cancel. i'm debating restarting the job search right now, and just get the hell out any way i can. if anyone has any ideas, i'm all ears right now.

wish me luck.

Popularity: 3% [?]

m@'s coworker says: i may need to eat in until pay day
m@ says: right on.
m@'s coworker says: budget
m@'s coworker says: not bush budget
m@ says: hehehehehehe
m@ says: "we are going to spend 10 dollars on lunch."
m@ says: "no, wait, i meant 20."
m@ says: "er… 25?"
m@'s coworker says: we could feed the world on what we are wasting in iraq
m@ says: true dat.
m@ says: and then some.
m@ says: we could feed, clothe, and house the world.
m@'s coworker says: naa they would hate us if we did that
m@ says: i've been reading that book "The Price of Loyalty" about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who's spoken out against Pres. Bush.
m@ says: the bit i read last night was talking about how he figured we could go in and, for only $25 million, we could get clean water to every person in Ghana
m@ says: while the contractors said it would take $2 billion
m@'s coworker says: kick backs are hell
m@ says: no shit.
m@ says: y'know, there's nothing wrong with making a little profit, even if you're doing "charity" work. but, it's gotta be within reason.
m@ says: everyone has to survive, so profit has to be made, but some of these people are just crazy.
m@'s coworker says: mr. vice president
m@ says: hehe. no shit.
m@ says: that's the other thing that book lays out… pretty much just over 1 week after the Pres. took office, Cheney, Rove, Lindsey, and other Pres. advisors were trying to figure out how to take out Saddam.
m@ says: 1 week!
m@ says: and we wonder why they lied about the intelligence!
m@ says: what i wonder is why there's even any discussion about it, why aren't we just watching an impeachment trial and war tribunal right now?
m@'s coworker says: the republican are good at this
m@'s coworker says: or americans are too stupid to see it
m@ says: i think it's a little of both.
m@ says: there has been a rise in the social moral conservativism of the general public, and i think the Pres. appeals to those people. more & more i find people who call out a single issue and use that for their entire basis of support for the Pres.
m@ says: without regard to the other things he's doing.
m@ says: so, is *he* pulling the wool over the public's eyes? no, i don't think so. i think the liberals, the people who already question him can see plainly enough what he's doing… i think the conservatives are pulling the wool over their own eyes.
m@ says: they're pulling the pro-life blanket, or the anti-gay-marriage blanket, or the general christian-morality blanket over their heads.
m@ says: and they've got clothes-pins on their noses so they can't smell their own farts.
m@'s coworker says: yep these pro-life commerical are abound
m@ says: yup. and y'know, really the majority of the country is pro-life, or at least pro-cautious-choice.
m@'s coworker says:
and anti-welfare
m@ says: but the thing is, the government and laws supposedly exist to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.
m@ says: i don't know that they're so much anti-welfare as anti-"handouts".
m@ says: conservatives typically say welfare's ok, but that people take advantage of it, and that's what gets their goat.
m@ says: they don't want someone else living off their hard work, if that someone else is making no attempt to do hard work of their own.
m@'s coworker says: well we can only hope the democrats will win this one
m@ says: yeah. hopefully.
m@ says: i think it's likely.

also, the subjects of this article seriously disturb me.

Popularity: 3% [?]