Rules for Proper Queueing (or for the idiots out there, How to Stand in a Damn Line)

I've been standing in lines since I was, like, two. So I consider myself something of an expert on them. They're not complex concepts. There's a beginning of the line, often referred to as "the front." People then "line up" behind that "front" in the order in which they arrive. See? Not difficult at all.

Which is why I find it disheartening that recently, I keep running into instances where people don't seem to understand how lines work. And amazingly, it's always at the bus stop.

Allow me to use a little state-of-the-art animation to help explain.

Person A is waiting by the sign, where the bus will pull up when it arrives. Well done, Person A!

What's this? It looks like someone else wants to ride the bus!

Hooray! Person B has successfully joined Person A in line!

And now, Persons C and D, following the excellent example of Persons A and B, are also now in line. All is well in the world.

But what if things didn't go quite so swimmingly? What if something like this happened?

Uh-oh! What's up with Person B? He seems to be waiting for the bus also, but why is he standing back like that? What's going on???

Now Person C has shown up, and is understandably confused. Is Person B in line? Is he not in line? Is it okay to cut in front of him? AAARGH!!!! How can Person B be so goddamned stupid?

"You know what? Screw it," thinks Person C. "Just because B doesn't know how to stand in line, doesn't mean I should have to suffer." Person C then sidesteps Person B, and joins Person A in line. Person B is somewhat annoyed by this, and will likely mutter something under his breath about Person C cutting in front of him. (Though really, he only has himself to blame.)

I'd like to see these sorts of situations eliminated. Not only do they cause confusion and bad feelings, but who knows how they might escalate? Why, one of these days, something like this might happen:

As you've probably guessed, I'm usually Person C, so you can understand my concern.

Seriously, though, it's not brain surgery. You're either in line or you're not. No one's saying you have to get all in the personal space of the guy in front of you, but nor do you get to carve out a bubble for yourself where you don't have to stand close to anyone. At most, there should be about five feet between you and the person in front of you. Otherwise, you're not actually a line. You're a group. A rabble. A mob. And chaos reigns.

While I'm on the subject, here are some other line-related situations that I feel need to be addressed:

1) I'm old. That means I can cut in front of everyone when the bus pulls up, right?

Unfortunately, no. Look, we're all sorry you're old. It sucks. But you get enough perks as it is. Reduced Metro fare, free money from the government, an apartment full of cats, etc. Cutting in line isn't one of them, though. The good news is (speaking of perks), you have a whole section of seats that are set aside for you. So if the bus is full, just tell someone to move.

2) Suppose I'm in line, but step out so I can have a conversation on my cell phone. I can reclaim my spot in line, right?

It really comes down to how charitable the person behind you is. Pay attention to what he does. If he doesn't move up in line, leaving a you-sized gap in front of him, then yes, you probably can. But if he does move up, and everyone behind him does the same, take the hint, and go to the back of the line.

3) I was at the bus stop before anyone else, but I decided to sit down on the bench instead of starting a line. But since I was first, does that mean I can go to the front of the line when the bus arrives?

Not only don't you get to go to the head of the line, but you have to stand behind everyone who's shown up since you did, and did opt to wait in line. You made your choice, you live with it. Lazy fuck.

Hopefully, this brief tutorial on lines has been helpful. If you recognize yourself as a chronic rule-breaker, don't worry. It's never too late to start acting like a human being.

It might be time to start sterilizing Star Wars fans

I don't care how much you love Star Wars, putting your baby in a Slave Girl Leia costume is just wrong. Even at Comic-Con, where half the people attending are freaks in one form or another, that's crossing a line.

If the parents have any decency whatsoever, they'll start selling off their collection of vintage action figures in order to help their daughter with her therapy bills.

Who Wants to Be a Superhero?

This is maybe the dumbest show ever made, and most of the contestants seem to have severe emotional problems, but I'll be damned if I didn't really enjoy it.

Unfortunately, this season's heroes don't seem quite as entertaining as last year's. I don't see a Monkey Woman, The Iron, or Big Momma among them. Certainly, no Feedback.

But like I said, it's early. Maybe someone will emerge. Someone worthy of being called a superhero. Someone worthy of Stan Lee's respect. Someone worthy of immortality, via an action figure and SciFi original movie.

In the meantime, here are some first impressions:

Best name: Whip-Snap

Worst name: Hygena

Best backstory: Mr. Mitzvah; "Flight, night vision, super-strength, enhanced senses. Uses his Star of David paddle to deflect any attack. As a direct descendant of King David, Mr. Mitzvah received the paddle (along with his superpowers) from his father on the day of his Bar Mitzvah; it was first given by God to David after he slew Goliath. Now Mr. Mitzvah uses it in his sacred mission to save the lives of children everywhere."

Worst backstory: Hyper-Strike; "Hyper-Strike is a martial-arts virtuoso who can turn his own sweat into a weapon. He possesses super-strength and enhanced durability and agility. He is able to manipulate his own chi (life-force) and that of others."

Best catchphrase: Mindset; "For the Future!"

Worst catchphrase: Hyper-Strike; "Hyper…Hyper…BLAST!"

Best costume: Mindset



Worst costume: Parthenon



Granted, none of them are exactly Batman. But who is?

The sobering economic realities of being a comic book fan

It's no secret that comic books have gotten obscenely expensive over the past several years, to the point where there's a very real possibility that the industry will price itself out of existence before too long.

I try not to think about this, as it's depressing on two levels. First, the idea that the comic book industry as we know it will die out. It's come dangerously close a few times now, but has always managed to come back from the brink. Second, and more relevant to this post, the fact that the more expensive comics get, the more I have to spend in order to feed my habit.

Here's a look into my buying habits. This is what I'll be picking up this afternoon:

BATMAN #666 $2.99
COUNTDOWN #40 $2.99
GREEN ARROW YEAR ONE #2 $2.99
TEEN TITANS #49 $2.99

$12, not including tax. Not too bad. For a lot of people, $12 is a daily stop at Starbucks. But then we run into next week:

COUNTDOWN #39 $2.99
DETECTIVE COMICS #835 $2.99
JUSTICE SOCIETY OF AMERICA #8 $2.99
SHE-HULK #20 $2.99
THE BOYS #8 $2.99
SCALPED VOL 1 INDIAN COUNTRY TPB $9.99

$25. Ouch. Granted, $10 of that is due to the TPB, which is something of an anomaly, but still. At the risk of sounding like grumpy old dude, twenty years ago, just the comics would have cost $5. And even then, older fans often grumbled, "$1 for a comic book? Why in my day, they cost a dime!" I wonder what they'd think now.

Anyway, Newsarama was kind enough (and when I say "kind," I mean "extremely cruel") to point out just how much readers will be forced to spend on Countdown, the year-long epic from DC Comics, if they want to follow the entire story.

Countdown: 52 issues at $2.99 each = $155.48
Countdown Presents the Search for Ray Palmer: 6 issues at $2.99 each = $17.94
Countdown to Adventure: 8 issues at $3.99 each = $31.92
Countdown to Mystery: 8 issues at $3.99 each = $31.92
Death of the New Gods: 8 issues at $3.50 each = $28.00
Countdown Presents: Lord Havok and The Extremists: 6 issues at $2.99 each = $17.94
Gotham Underground: 8 issues at $2.99 each = $23.92
Captain Carrot and the Final Ark: 3 issues at $2.99 each = $8.97
Countdown Special: The Flash 80-page Giant: One-shot for $4.99

Total: $321.08

Wow. Now granted, I have no intention of buying all that. Aside from the fact that I'm not fucking Bill Gates, a lot of it just doesn't interest me.

So let's look at the overall cost of just the books I do plan on buying. I'm sure this total will be much more reasonable.

Countdown: 52 issues at $2.99 each = $155.48
Countdown to Mystery: 8 issues at $3.99 each = $31.92
Countdown Presents: Lord Havok and The Extremists: 6 issues at $2.99 each = $17.94
Gotham Underground: 8 issues at $2.99 each = $23.92
Countdown Special: The Flash 80-page Giant: One-shot for $4.99

And the grand total now is...$234.25?!? Great Caesar's ghost!

By comparison, Marvel is only hosing their fans to the tune of $150 or so, to follow their current epic, World War Hulk. Damn it, I knew I picked the wrong company to support. I should quit comics and start smoking crack. It'd be a cheaper habit at this point.

Anyway, if you're strolling by one of D.C.'s three comic book stores this afternoon, and see an unusually well-dressed beggar sitting on the sidewalk with his cup out, that's why.

I swear, I'm not a pervert. Here, check my card.

I was reading the City Paper on the Metro on the way to work this morning, and as I finished it, I noticed the back page. It was an ad for American Apparel, featuring a model in a swimsuit. I'm sure she's over 18 (however barely), but she's one of those women who, under the right circumstances, could still pass for younger. And in this ad, she looks much younger.

So I was looking at the ad, trying to figure out if it was really as inappropriate as I thought, or if I was just being a prude, when I noticed the woman in a seat across the aisle looking at me looking at the picture. For some reason, I just assumed that we were on the same page about the ad, so I gave her an, "I know, right?" glance. But instead of doing anything to indicate she agreed with me, she just quickly turned away.

Then I realized, she didn't see a guy staring at a picture of a young looking girl in a swimsuit, conducting an internal debate about whether or not it was appropriate, and indeed, whether or not advertising in general has gotten a bit out of hand, and what it says about consumers that this is the only way companies feel as though they can reach them.

She just saw a guy staring at a picture of a young looking girl in a swimsuit.

Whoops.

There's really no way to explain this sort of thing, and I figured I'd just get in more trouble by trying. So when the train pulled into the next station, even though I still had another station to go, I just got off and walked the rest of the way.

I wish there was a card that law-abiding citizens such as myself could obtain for these sorts of situations. One issued by the government to people after extensive background checks and lie detector tests.

Something like this:



That way, whenever these sorts of innocent (yet potentially embarrassing) misunderstandings occur, you can just flash the card and the other person can relax, knowing that they're safe in the presence of a non-deviant.

If anyone out there knows Alberto Gonzales, I'd really appreciate it if you'd forward this idea on to him. Frankly, I think he could use something like this right about now. Not only would it be a welcome distraction from all his problems, but men around the country would be grateful, knowing they could look at whatever they want in public, free from persecution and scorn.

Tourist watch

After a rather low-key June, the tourist brigade seems to be out in full force. I guess it's going to be like this through Labor Day, at the very least. Here are three encounters I've had, just in the past week:

1) A guy and his family boarded a Red Line train yesterday. In spite of the sign on the car clearly saying Red Line, and the operator announcing, "Red Line to Glenmont," the guy frantically turned to the closest passenger.

Tourist: "Hey, is this the Red Line?"

Passenger: "Yes."

Tourist: "To downtown?"

Passenger: "Yes."

Tourist: "Are you sure?"

Passenger: "Uh-huh."

The door closing chimes sound.

Tourist: "You're sure?"

Passenger: "Uh...yes."

I wish I'd gotten the passenger's name, so I could have submitted him for an award. D.C. Citizen of the Week or something. I wouldn't have been nearly so accomodating. I probably would have just suggested the tourist and his family make sure they visited SE D.C. after dark, as the views are lovely and not to be missed. And to bring lots of money.

2) I was walking along the Mall on Monday around noon, when a man and his son stopped me.

Tourist: "Excuse me, do you know where the National Mall is?"

Me: "Yep. You're standing on it."

Tourist: "This is the Mall?"

Me: "Yes." (Gestures at the surrounding area.)

Tourist: (Suddenly annoyed for some reason.): "Thanks."

I guess he was expecting a J.C. Penney or a food court or something. But I can understand his confusion. When I first moved here, I too was perplexed that they named this area the Mall, in spite of there not being any stores. But then again, I was 10. When you're 50, you should be able to handle these sorts of curve balls that life throws at you.

3) I saw a guy wearing a T-shirt stat said, "Welcome to the Gun Show," with arrows underneath pointing to his biceps.

Okay, I don't actually know for certain he was a tourist. I just really like to think he was.

Defending Late Night Shots

You know the whole Late Night Shots firestorm has gotten out of hand when, almost a week after the story came out in the City Paper, it's mentioned in both The Reliable Source and on Elliot in the Morning.

I really don't get why this whole thing is rubbing people the wrong way. I mean, don't get me wrong. I like self-righteous indignation as much as the next guy. But aren't there better things to use it on?

If you're one of the people who's posted a scathing blog entry, or left a comment on the City Paper's site, or even just sat seething at the people in LNS, consider the following:

You know there are rich kids in D.C., right?
You know there are people who enjoy drinking in D.C., right?
You know there are social organizations in D.C. you're not a part of, right?
You know there are obnoxious people in D.C., right?

So why the outrage that these groups might actually overlap?

While it's undoubtedly fun to get all worked up and imagine the LNSers as the Omegas from Animal House, the Alpha Betas from Revenge of the Nerds, the Balls and Shaft from PCU, or whatever your favorite elitist pop culture reference point might be, I have it on somewhat good authority that not all of them are rich, not all of them are obnoxious, and honestly, not all of them enjoy drinking all that much.

Granted, some of the LNS people haven't exactly helped their cause by posting some of the more vitriolic messages directed at Angela Valdez, and the one person who said that, "at least one person got in trouble from this article and had to have a talk with her parents" should probably be kicked out on general principle, since he/she just gave the people already mocking the group, even more fodder to use.

The truly confusing part is that except when websites and newspapers drag it out in public, all of this is happening behind closed doors. It's not like the LNSers are spreading like locust, posting all over the Internet. No, they just confine themselves to their one small corner of it, and keep the door locked behind them.

Frankly, whether they want to admit it or not, I think it's this part that really grates on people's nerves. Not that the LNS community exists, but the fact that unless you receive an invitation, you don't have access to it. And in terms of their drinking, they seem to mostly confine themselves to Smith Point, which, again, leaves the vast majority of the D.C. bar scene unmolested by popped collars and Tuesday Night Takedowns.

All things being equal, I think there are more annoying things in the world to get upset about.

Tales From the Netflix Crypt

This week's reviews: The Lonely Ones, Funny Man, and Satan's Cannibal Holocaust.



The Lonely Ones (2006)

Plot: Horror films have proven over and over that college students should never head out to cabins in the middle of nowhere for a weekend of partying. Especially when years ago, a group of coeds were murdered in said cabin. So the batch of college students in this film really shouldn't be surprised when they arrive, and soon discover that they've been lured there to be food for a bunch of flesh-eating ghouls.

Comments: Five minutes in, and I'd already written this off as just another generic slasher flick. The film looked a bit rough, the characters were the standard horror film stereotypes (the asshole, the asshole's conflicted girlfriend, the nice guy, the black couple, etc.), and the acting was a bit iffy.

But sticking with it proved to be the right move, because The Lonely Ones isn't just a good horror flick, it's a really good one. This is what all low-budget horror films should aspire to. It's original, it creates a real sense of danger (in contrast to Night of the Living Dead-type films where the characters manage to barricade themselves inside a house, here, the ghouls pretty much come and go as they please, which keeps things nice and tense), and the whole thing builds to an enjoyably bloody climax.

Writer/director David Michael Quiroz Jr. reportedly made this movie for $100,000. I'd love it to see what he could do with a few million.

Script: A
Acting: B-
Gore: B
Overall: A-




Funny Man (1994)

Plot: A man wins a British castle in a card game. That's good! But the castle happens to be haunted by a demonic jester who doesn't like intruders. That's bad.

Comments: I first read about this movie over ten years ago in Fangoria, thought it looked really interesting...and then promptly forgot all about it. Then a few weeks ago, something jogged my memory, and I immediately put it at the top of my Netflix queue. All things being equal, I wish my memory had stayed unjogged.

If for no other reason, the film is noteworthy because it features what has to be the most blatant Freddy Krueger ripoff I've ever seen. In fact, I'd put money that the pitch went something along the lines of, "It's just like A Nightmare on Elm Street...except that the people are awake!"

The film is basically ninety minutes of the Funny Man romping through the castle, killing people in supposedly humorous ways, often by putting on a disguise, creating some sort of weird illusion, or simply circumventing the laws of physics. He's essentially all-powerful, so at no point is there any discussion of how to stop him or escape the castle or anything. People just get picked off one by one until there isn't anyone left.

This gets old after about ten minutes.

There's one character, a Voodoo priestess or something, who seems like she might be able to put up a fight. At one point, she grows a gun out of her hand (don't ask, I have no idea) and starts shooting, but she ultimately gets dispatched just like everyone else.

And for some reason, Christopher Lee has a small role, as the evil former owner of the castle. You can tell he's evil, because he's constantly mugging for the camera, seems really pleased that people are dying, and...well, because Christopher Lee only plays evil people. Supposedly, this was his first horror movie in years, and did it because he enjoyed the script so much. I found that even harder to understand than the chick growing a gun out of her hand.

To the film's credit, the Funny Man costume and make-up are sufficiently creepy, and there is some creative gore, but that's about it has going for it.

Script: C-
Acting: D+
Gore: B-
Overall grade: C-




Satan's Cannibal Holocaust (2007)

Plot: An underground cult is abducting people, torturing and/or sacrificing them, and ultimately devouring them, and it's up to a plucky girl reporter to stop them.

Comments: The good news is, this film manages to get better as it goes. The bad news is that it starts off so horribly, there's really nothing it could have done that wouldn't have been an improvement.

The film's biggest failing is that it takes itself far too seriously. I mean, how do you call your movie Satan's Cannibal Holocaust, and not play it for laughs? The music is serious, the acting is serious, and in several places, the cult leader offers a lame melodramatic voice over, as he pontificates on various topics that are of no interest to the audience.

The acting--shocker--is abysmal, the one exception being Ashleigh Schremmer as one of the cult members. I wouldn't go so far as to call her good, but at least she seems to be having fun.

The story doesn't really have much of a resolution, and what little F/X budget the filmmakers had, apparently went towards lots of cheap looking fake blood. This leads to several amusing instances of corners being cut. For example, if you're a filmmaker and you've ever wondered what to do when a car accident plays a pivotal role in your script, but you don't have the money to wreck one car, let alone two, the answer is apparently to just cut to black right before the accident happens, and go crazy with the sound effects, all the while staying with the black screen. I'm not sure whether this film qualifies as guerrilla filmmaking or just horribly cheap, but either way, it's nothing worth seeing.

Script: D+
Acting: D
Gore: C-
Overall: D-

It's time to rethink Date Lab

Other than occasional fodder for this blog, I'm not sure what point the Washington Post Magazine's Date Lab serves anymore. As I see it, the feature should accomplish one of two things. Either to set people up who might actually be compatible, or in the very least, provide cheap entertainment for people like me.

Unfortunately, it's currently doing neither of these. Date Lab has become as formulaic as your average Law & Order episode: Couple meets. Couple has a nice time. Couple decides they aren't really right for each other. Readers yawn.

Don't take my word for it, check out how the last ten Date Labs ended:

UPDATE : "I'm sure we'll bump into each other one of these days through our similar social circles," Jake says. Meanwhile, neither has reached out.

UPDATE: Eric and Felicia texted and talked in the days after the date. "I called her gorgeous; she called me handsome. How romantic is that?" Eric says. They plan to stay in touch. (1)

UPDATE: Nuthin' doin'. "I think he could sense that he was not my type," Yolanda says. UPDATE: "He'll know that I enjoyed the date when he reads the column," says Kristee. (2)

UPDATE: Michelle and Kevin have e-mailed about taking a cooking class together. When we dropped the cost of the wine, she said: "Holy [maracas], that blows my mind... He wasn't pompous about it at all. He's such a great guy." (3)

UPDATE: Chuck and Tara e-mailed for a few days, but at this point, "the trail is probably cold," Tara says.

UPDATE: Nada. Nix. Nuthin'

UPDATE: When Ray e-mailed for a second date, Anne politely replied, "I just don't think we're quite the right fit."

UPDATE: The frisky couple e-mailed once, but when Tom didn't ask her out again, Lucie didn't push it. Turns out both were already seeing other people.

UPDATE: Hina got a call, but not from Marc. "A friend of his drunk-dialed me," she says. "He said, 'Marc had a terrible time.' " Marc sheepishly confirms. "We got really intoxicated, and he got her number from my phone."

Now, you may be thinking, "Wait a minute, three of those sound pretty good. Three for ten isn't bad, is it?"

And you would be right. Three out of ten wouldn't be simply not bad, it would be amazing. But:

(1) The woman moved to Korea right after the date.
(2) While she enjoyed the date, she said she didn't see him as anything romantic.
(3) She'd love to set him up with a friend.

So really, that's zero for ten.

Now admittedly, I have no idea how much thought and effort goes into the selection process. If they study each questionnaire carefully, and use some sort of highly complex scientific formula to determine compatibility, or if (as I strongly suspect) they just draw names out of a hat. But there's clearly something wrong with the system. So here are a few suggestions for future installments:

-- Go through all the photos people have submitted, and just pair up the best looking man and woman. After all, recent scientific evidence has indicated that attractive people tend to enjoy dating other attractive people.

-- Find the man or woman with the most lucrative high-paying job, and set them up with a hot 22 year-old fresh out of college. Person A gets a potential trophy wife/husband, while Person B gets a sugar daddy/momma. Everyone wins!

-- Geeks. In one Date Lab, there was a really attractive woman who was a big Star Wars fan. What, they couldn't find a male Star Wars fan without a girlfriend to set her up with? Please. You can throw a rock from pretty much anywhere and be guaranteed to hit one. Try it! It's fun!

-- A rabid hardcore Republican and a rabid hardcore Democrat. Even if it didn't result in a relationship, it would still make for a great column.

See? And that was just off the top of my head.

You might be wondering why I care so much about this in the first place. The thing is, Date Lab is sort of a guilty pleasure. When a date goes badly, where one or both people act like idiots, it basically amounts to a quick laugh and an easy Dating for DC Dummies blog entry. And when there's a good one, where people seem basically decent, it's sort of nice to read, in a totally non-creepy, voyeuristic way.

But lately it's just been dull. And that doesn't help anyone. Not the column, not the people going out on dates, and most importantly, not me. So come on, Washington Post. Get with it, will you please? Single people--not to mention, bloggers with nothing else to do--all around D.C. are counting on you.

Comic of the Week: Hero Squared, Vol. 1

Hero Squared, Vol. 1
by Keith Giffen, J.M. DeMatteis, & Joe Abraham
Published by Boom Studios ($14.99)

Synopsis:

In one universe, Milo Stone is Captain Valor, the greatest superhero in the world. In a parallel universe, Milo Stone is an unemployed slacker. When Captain Valor's world is destroyed by a supervillain, he's thrust into Milo's universe (not to mention his apartment). Hilarity ensues!

Comments:

God, this was awesome. Twenty years ago, Giffen and DeMatteis revolutionized the superhero comic book by abandoning all pretense of reverence and respect, and turning Justice League, DC's flagship title, into a superhero sitcom. Traditionalists kicked and screamed, and by all rights, this should never have worked. Yet it did, and in a spectacular fashion. In fact, one of the more irritating things about DC over the past couple of years is that TPTB over there seem more or less determined to systematically wipe out everything Giffen and DeMatteis did.

When I picked up Hero Squared, I was a little concerned. Like with other things, it seemed possible--likely, even--that what I found hilarious when I was a kid wouldn't be quite so amusing as an adult. (Case in point: the two Justice League stories Giffen and DeMatteis did a couple of years ago, which I found sort of underwhelming.)

By the third page, I knew there was nothing to worry about.

Not only is Hero Squared one of the best comics I've read in a long time, but it's one of those rare books I would feel comfortable giving to someone who doesn't read comics, because I'm fully confident that they'd get a real kick out of it.

Line of the Week:

"I always knew you were hard-hearted, Captain. But to call Sloat's self-improvement 'worthless'? That's just wrong."--Caliginous

Overall grade: A+

Summer Movie Scorecard

Have seen:

Live Free or Die Hard: A
Knocked Up: A-

Hostel Part II: B+
Transformers: B
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End: B
28 Weeks Later: B
Ocean's Thirteen : B-
Shrek the Third: B-
1408: C+
Bug: C

Spider-Man 3: C-

Definitely seeing:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
The Simpsons Movie
The Bourne Ultimatum
Fanboys

Might see:

Rush Hour 3
The Invasion
Superbad

Balls of Fury

Screw Cosmo, this magazine really will help women find a man

I was on the Metro this morning, when I noticed this woman sitting a few feet away from me, reading a magazine. She wasn't really someone I'd normally be attracted to, but hardly hideous looking or anything. Then I noticed what she was reading.

It was a fantasy football magazine. And...and...she was jotting down notes in the margins.

Let me say that again: she was jotting down notes in the margins.

All of a sudden, it was like a light shined down from the heavens, and she was this totally different person in my eyes. If I were the sort of guy who went up and flirted with strange women on a crowded Metro train, I probably would have done so. As it was, I just glanced surreptitiously in her direction now and then, and observed several other guys doing impressed double-takes as they saw her.

So anyway, ladies, that's your in. Forget clubs, forget blind dates, forget online dating. Just read fantasy football magazines in public. Now, I make no guarantees about the quality of guy you'll attract (sure, you might luck out and run into fantasy football studs like David Boreanaz or Paul Rudd or Chris Cooley, but you're obviously more likely to meet someone like...well, me), but you'll definitely get noticed. And maybe even hear a pick-up line you haven't heard a million times before.

I mean, tell me you wouldn't love it if some guy came up and asked, "So...are you a RB, RB, WR type of girl, or more of a RB, WR, RB?"

Bay, you...sort of...magnificent bastard

"Hey, kids. Michael Bay here. I'm living proof that even the most talentless hack can make millions and bang models. So what's your excuse?"

About 3/4 of the way through Transformers, I was sitting in the theater, thinking about how much I really, intensely disliked the film. There was so much to hate. The lame (and I mean, lame) attempts at humor. The many liberties the film took with the story. Optimus Prime's flames. Bumblebee flashing the "Autobot signal" in the sky. Jazz's somewhat uncomfortable black guy impression. John Turturro's bizarre and deeply unfunny character.

Then I noticed that everyone else in the theater seemed to be having a really good time. Laughing, cheering, even applauding at certain points. And it hit me...Transformers isn't about stuff like humor, or characterization, or logic. I mean, it would have been really nice if it did have some or all of those things. But that's just gravy.

Transformers is about giant robots beating the hell out of each other. It's about hearing Peter Cullen doing Optimus Prime's voice again after twenty years. It's about Megatron getting pissy with Starscream. It's about things...lots and lots of things...blowing up. It's about Megan Fox's abs.

In the end, these are the things that really matter, people.

Mr. Bay, congratulations. You finally got one in the win column. It was an ugly win. But it's a win.

(Seriously, though, what's up with the ending, where the Autobots sit around watching Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox making out on Bumblebee's hood? Which technically, given Bumblebee's sentience, qualifies as a theesome, doesn't it? "Robots in disguise"? Perverts in disguise, more like.)

Two steps forward, one step back

For the past couple of years, WJFK has been a complete train wreck of a radio station. Don and Mike used to refer to it as, "a rudderless ship," and that was ten years ago. Now, it'd probably be more accurate to call it a rudderless ship with several big holes in it, taking on water while the crew dies of scurvy.

This week, the station took two big steps towards...well, not reclaiming its former glory, exactly, but at least patching a few of the holes, and maybe giving the crew some Vitamin C.

First, it dropped Bill O'Reilly, which has been years in the making, and would have happened a long time ago, if he hadn't had some powerful friends high up the corporate food chain. More importantly, it also dropped Unzipped, its insipid relationship advice show that should never have been put on in the first place. So, you know, yay JFK. It only took several years of bad ratings, but you finally realized why pencils have erasers.

Here's where the station is taking a huge step back, though: hiring Big O & Dukes to take over the evening shift.

I'll admit, outside of a couple of appearances on Ron & Fez and The Junkies, I've never really heard very much of their show. So for all I know, they could be great. But fucking El Jefe and J-Dubbs from The Hideout are still unemployed, after getting canned from their Orlando station a year ago. Granted, the series of test shows they did on JFK a few months ago weren't their finest, but let's chalk that up to the presence of third wheel Shaffee, who no longer appears to be on the show.

How many more time slots have to open up before WJFK or XM or some other enterprising station gives these guys a shot?

In the meantime, Jefe and Dubbs are killing time by doing a weekly podcast. I'm not wild about their new format, "Next Radio" (not nearly as much homoerotic and dead baby humor as before), but it's still pretty good, and well worth checking out.

The greatest, most patriotic, Fourth of July-iest clip ever

If this doesn't make you tear up a bit and say, "God bless America," it's time to join al-Qaeda.

Change for the Metro

Way to prioritize, Metro. You guys have really honed in on the most important problems with the transportation system in this city.

Change, Catoe says, is inevitable, and he describes these as cosmetic. Dim stations need brighter, energy-efficient lighting.

Like those ghastly new lights at the Foggy Bottom station? No thanks. I feel like I'm standing underneath the spaceship from Close Encounters of the Third Kind whenever I'm waiting for a train there.

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm not 80 or don't have night blindness or whatever, but I've never had a problem seeing trains coming, reading the newspaper, or being able to avoid bumping into people. In fact, I think the dimness actually gives the stations character, compared to the ones in New York or L.A.

And I don't see how Metro can add more lighting, yet somehow make the stations more energy efficient. If, whenever the next inevitable fare hike occurs, Metro cites increased lighting costs as a reason, I'm going to be pissed. Just put torches on the walls.

More advertising could generate much-needed revenue.

I don't have a problem with this one, but for how many years has Metro been shouting "More advertising! More advertising!"? And for how many years have they refused to pull the trigger?

Sure, they've added those moving ads inside of tunnels (which, as much as I hate to admit it, are actually sort of cool) and occasionally wrap a train car in an ad (which aren't at all cool, and as far as I can tell, no one pays any attention to), but other than that, the amount of ads in stations and on trains hasn't changed a bit.

Either make room for more ad space or don't, but for Christ's sake, stop just talking about doing it.

Eliminating carpet would save money and allow mechanics to fix train wheels and brakes.

I don't really see the connection here, but I'm assuming that there's some sort of panel that would be easier to access without carpeting. There isn't room for compromise, here? Can't they just cut lines in the carpeting allowing the panel to be opened easily? Because people seem to dig the carpeting.

High-quality art at station entrances and on walls would give passengers an experience beyond the ride itself.

"High quality art"? Why not just hang up a sign outside the stations that reads, "Hey, taggers, please fuck with us?"

No one is planning to alter the most distinctive feature of the system: the vaulted arches in the underground stations.

"We won't take away any of the majesty," Catoe said in an interview, calling the design of the stations "timeless and brilliant."

Uh-huh. Look, I like the appearance of Metro stations as much as anyone, but in the end, I'd rather have "cheap and efficient" than "timeless and brilliant."

No one's saying that stations should be turned into Times Square, with bright neon lights and wall-to-wall advertising. But if some corporation's willing to pay a few million dollars to hang banners on "the vaulted arches"? What-the-fuck-ever.

(By the way, I reserve the right to do a complete 180 on this if the ads do prove to be ugly and intrusive, and rail against Metro for flushing the timeless brilliance of the stations down the drain, all for a few bucks, as if that was actually my position all along. It's my blog. I don't need to be consistent.)

Live Free or Die Hard

By all rights, Live Free or Die Hard should have sucked balls.

Die Hard, of course, is the greatest action movie ever made, and anyone who says otherwise is just an anti-establishment snob looking for attention.

Die Hard 2 was okay. It certainly has its flaws and goes overboard with the "I can't believe this is happening again!" jokes, but all in all, it's a solid film.

Die Hard With a Vengeance was pretty awful. It's the only Die Hard film I didn't see in the theater, and I'm glad, because I probably would have been checking my watch every five minutes. If it hadn't been for Samuel L. Jackson, the film would have been completely irredeemable.

So it wouldn't have been at all surprising for Live Free or Die Hard to continue the franchise's downward spiral. Yet amazingly, it manages not just to be a good movie, but a great one. Not only is it far superior to the two previous sequels, but it's one of the best action flicks to come out in years. All in spite of a PG-13 rating, a completely unnecessary and somewhat annoying Kevin Smith cameo, and being directed by the guy responsible for the Underworld films.

So far, this is the film to beat this summer. Of course, Transformers is just a few days away, but whenever I start to get psyched, I remind myself that no matter how cool it looks, it's still a Michael Bay film.