Sunday, February 3, 2008

How To Turn Legislation Into a Cage Match

Talk about sensationalism. This article was on the front page of the Oregonian today:

"For 26 days, can Oregon lawmakers get along?
Legislature - The success or failure of the session could determine whether it becomes a yearly fixture
Sunday, February 03, 2008
MICHELLE COLE
The Oregonian Staff

SALEM --Put 90 politicians inside the Capitol for 26 days during an election year. Add a mix of potentially volatile issues, including all-day kindergarten and immigrant driver's licenses.

Stand back.

On Monday, Oregon launches a historic experiment with annual legislative sessions.

Normally, the Legislature meets every two years, unless an emergency special session is necessary. Oregon is one of only six states where lawmakers do not meet every year to craft budgets or debate policy.

But that could change -- depending upon what happens in Salem in the next 26 days.

Democrats and Republicans agree state government -- and its $15 billion budget -- is too complex an enterprise to have a Legislature that meets only in odd-numbered years.

During the next month, they'll try to prove that they can do the people's pressing business and then go home.

So what will they do and how will it work? Check out the issues list and legislative user guide inside.

Will the experiment succeed?

You will decide. Voters would have to change the constitution to make annual sessions permanent. "

WHAT?!?!?! It sounds like they're advertising a TV show about people in suits beating eachother up. and then the whole "you will decide" bit? COME ON!
I guess this is the only way to get people interested in politics.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

The First Annual Karen O Look-Alike Contest

I just read a really awful book, Exit Here by Jason Myers, which I don't recommend to anyone. It's about a bunch of coked up teenagers hooking up with each other, doing drugs, and being really empty. It's not very well written, has a little bit more depth than your typical rich teen girl series (Gossip Girl). It name-drops noisy indie bands and hair metal alike, a combination which I don't think exists in nature, leading me to think that people like these (hopefully) don't exist. What's more, in trying to be hip by mentioning underground indie bands like Fantomas, Entrance, and Ugly Casanova (which the author implies put out multiple CDs, a falsehood if I've ever heard one) alongside Guns 'n Roses and Dio, he brings up a band called Blood on the Wall, who do exist. The band the author actually namedrops, however, is Blood on the Walls, plural, who do not exist. Do your research, man.

But this isn't my point. I wanted to bring up a particular scene in the book where our narrator, Travis, goes to a Karen O look-alike contest. Karen O is the eccentrically dressed singer of Yeah Yeah Yeahs. So a look-alike contest would probably produce a bunch of wackos, which it does. But my real point comes up when Travis overhears a conversation between two Karen Os which goes like this:
"[It's okay, it's okay.]"
"No it's not. I spent ten hours getting ready for tonight."
"That guy judging the outfit didn't know what he was talking about, sweetie."
"He told me I looked like a PG version of Ashlee Simpson. I'll never get over that for as long as I live."
"Yes you will. I think you look good. You look more like Karen O than Karen O does."
"You really think?"
(pause)
"Um, of course I do."


Now, aside from the clear problems here, such as the ridiculous girl habit of lying to their friends about ridiculous things just to boost their egos (I will never understand this), there is another. While Travis clearly feels disdain towards these girls, and while I agreed with him at first, I later realized that it is now actually possible to look more like a person than that person looks like themselves. Especially a person as mythologized as Karen O.
The standard Karen O look is, as Travis puts it, "lots of black hair styled every which way", "lots of really big sunglasses", "lots of blue eye shadow streaked across both eyes", and "lots and lots and lots of shredded and V-neck and mismatched color tops and off-color pantyhose".
ANYONE CAN PULL IT OFF! ANYONE CAN LOOK LIKE THAT! Meaning, of course, that at moments, a person can actually look more like "Karen O" than Karen O looks like "Karen O" at other moments. Because, really, does she actually dress up like that all the time? I hope not. It would get really tedious.
This brings to mind the classic story of Charlie Chaplin coming in second at a Charlie Chaplin Look-alike contest, under a fake name. The thing is, this happened for a completely different reason than the reason for Karen O to, hypothetically, come in second at a Karen O lookalike contest.
Chaplin had a look: Bowler hat, little black mustache,cane. Most people could easily pull that off. But Karen O has a "look", a look which can be done in many different ways, with many different outfits, many different options, eyeshadow colors, etc.

See? But Chaplin only had one:

So whoever was judging that contest just had to pick the guy with the best mustache. While a person judging a Karen O contest would just have to pick which of these look-alikes did their favorite version of the Karen O "look". Which color combination they liked best. Which hair do. It's totally up for grabs in this case, because Karen O has been so highly publicized, and seen in so many different outfits that any which one could apply more than any other one, depending on the day. Someone going for "Karen O" could easily be considered "PG Ashlee Simpson" by a judge in a bad mood. Where as if a Charlie Chaplin look-alike had worn a porkpie instead of a bowler, he would've been booted out the front door for sheer ignorance. Charlie Chaplin had a look. Karen O has a "look". Does that make sense?
I just thought that was interesting.