TTSNB: Balrog Wall Mount

Hey, Jamie. You know how we've been trying to figure out what to do with that one wall in the bedroom...? Well, have I got something for YOU.

Fresh from the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, it's The Balrog Wallmount.

That's right, a "to scale" Balrog head. You, too, can enjoy the basilisk stare of the hellish beast from the time-before-time cast upon you while you're putting on your socks, folding laundry, and saying your vespers.


You can sleep tight knowing the unfathomable face of rage and destruction is gazing upon you

It's 48" long, 40" high, and 26" deep. And only $1800 before S&H. And it features the to-scale likeness of the only movie monster since I saw John Carpenter's The Thing in college to genuinely give me the heebie-jeebies. So why WOULDN'T I want this in my house?

I make fun, but if I owned a club, this would totally hang right over the bar. Also, it would give me an opportunity to shout "You shall not pass!" whenever I felt like it.

Movies for Boys of Summer?

Occasional Superheroine had an article up today about the lack of movies which come out in the summer which are "geared towards women". I found Valerie's questions legitimate, to an extent. But I think it oversimplifies the business of the Blockbuster movie and how and why it is made.

Valerie's post actually was spawned by an article in The Times entitled "Come Summer, Is There a Real Woman in the Multiplex?", which reminded me entirely too much of the sort of stuff you would read in RTF's Narrative Strategies class.

What becomes clear after a quick read of the article isn't that there's a lack of movies with a female audience in mind (and I would argue, the huge blockbusters try to be a big tent and include women as well). Rather, it seems that author Manohla Dargis basically doesn't care for the mainstream faire that comes out in the summertime. And has blacked out many movies and arguments which she might find inconvenient to her thesis.

Because the article reminds me so of RTF course quibbling, it relies on the same mish-mash of Gender Studies 101 to condemn the Apatow movies for showing non-He-Men, who discuss their emotions and should therefore be identified as women. An odd condemnation when she's simultaneously condemning summer movies for their machismo. What perfect balance of yin and yang Dargis is seeking in her male stars is as elusive as what she seeks in her female stars and stories.

With the other hand, Dargis complains that the women of "Sex in the City" are also not "real" women. Especially interesting as the debut of "Sex in the City" on HBO was, according to critics and fans alike, heralding a realistic depiction of the urban sophisticate. She has no praise for the Travelling Pants, Momma Mia!, or any other movie she has yet to see, and damnation for those she has seen.

So what, exactly, is Dargis looking for? It's easy to roll your eyes at movie's coming out, and its okay to criticize if you have a point. But her premise of "not enough movies for REAL women" seems a bit... well, if I was a lady, I'd be a bit offended. What movie is Dargis prescribing? If you enjoy the adventures of Indiana Jones, are you a traitor to your sex? What is this perfect movie of complicated female characters that would make he same $200 million opening weekend as Iron Man? Because it seems Dargis is completely dismissive of action movies in general, so I wouldn't bring up the recent spate of B-movies featuring tough-guy ladies fighting zombies, werewolves, vampires... what have you.

Val asks some questions.

1. Has Hollywood decided that women are not a viable audience?
No. But female-centric movies don't open to $200 million. Just as male-centric movies featuring martial arts, etc... don't open at $200 million.

There's a difference between there being no movies for women and the marketing push the Tentpole pictures receive. The sheer number of ads for Speed Racer and Iron man may give a feeling of some disproportionate balance, which may or may not actually exist. But the actual movie is not the point of a big summer pre-packaged blockbuster. "Sex in the City" won't sell millions in action figures at Target. Nor will "Made of Honor". You won't see Patrick Dempsey's face on a Coke cup at Burger King. Or Sarah Jessica Parker dolls in the BK Kids' Club meal. If "Made of Honor" loses money, the machine of the Hollywood Blockbuster won't make sure everyone gets paid. Whether Iron Man makes or loses money at the box office, the license rights alone may make up the deficit.

2. What movies DO women watch? In what format? Theater, DVD, what?
You know, back when I asked What Do Women Want in Superhero Comics, I got slammed pretty hard for asking what women want, as if I was asking a herd of people who all behaved alike. I think the question shouldn't be "women". It should be: how do mothers of 5-10 years olds enjoy entertainment? Do they take their children to see Iron Man? Do they make time for themselves to see movies of their choice? What about bad mothers who don't know they shouldn't take their kid to see "Saw"? What about Grandmothers? And professionals? Are they watching Lost on DVD instead of going to movies? Do they have time to go to the theater? Are they more aware of who the stars are than what movies they're actually in?

But, mostly, its a goofy question. What do guys watch? They don't all watch the same things. Now, comic book nerdy guys... we kind of do all watch the same things. We just enjoy them to varying degrees.

3. Does Hollywood assume that women either do not watch movies in theaters or will go to wherever their significant others will take them to see or that they are so busy mopping floors that they haven't even given the topic much thought?

Well, that's a loaded question. And I won't speak for Hollywood. Or women. But with movies costing $200 million dollars, I'm pretty sure the studios do some research to figure out what is going to be profitable.

But if the last five movies "for women" came out and all made between 50-75 million, how much are you going to spend on the next one you make to ensure a profit? Probably less than $50 million, I'd assume. From that point, I assume people who know more about marketing a movie than I would know how to narrowcast advertising to the presumd audience.

Anecdotally, I do believe women are more likely to see a movie of their partner's choosing than their male partner will really, really want to see "27 Dresses". Other than that, I refuse to comment on this, because it seems like talking about this would lead me into trouble with Jamie. Who went with Jason and me to see "Doomsday", even though we all agreed she would not like it.

4. Is a movie like "Indiana Jones," as mentioned in the article, not a movie of female interest because Indy and his sidekick themselves are not females? Or is this sort of reductionist?

I think its kind of reductionist.

As I mentioned, some movies are just going to overwhelm those niche categories. As an example: Titanic didn't make a billion dollars because of squeeing 13 year old girls who found Leo non-threatening. A lot of people saw that movie. It seems that a franchise like Indiana Jones can also have that cross-over appeal, once its ingrained in popular culture.

5. According to the article, the amount of female movie directors is something like 6%. Is this the movie studios fault for not hiring these women? Are these women not applying for the director track? Are they not applying to the director track because they are not interested, or because they are discouraged from doing so in school?

Uh... the Director track? In school? I went to film school, so I think I have a little bit of experience with this one (and there was no "director's track" at UT RTF. You're all doing everything from camera to feeding your actors). Honestly, my years in film school were sort of the opposite of discouraging women. They seemed a lot more focused on the opposite ideal, to look at narratives from non-traditional points of view and encourage everyone who wanted to participate.

And the hard numbers: our production track was about 40% women, 60% guys. But I would also question whether that has a direct effect on the number of directors as much as I would ask (1) if that figure 6% is accurate, (2) how many women went out to try to get features made, (3) are you counting television, documentary and directors of non-main-stream films, and (4) perhaps a bit of a rough point, but as in any industry... Life often complicates things. There are female CEO's and some female directors, producers and studio execs. But how many women decide to have a family and are unable to keep up the break-neck pace of working in the film industry to get to a point where they are given the opportunity to direct? Let alone decide to pursue something else requiring less time once the kids need parenting?

Looking for some sort of male-dominated conspiracy from film school to the directors chair is giving Hollywood entirely too much credit. There's a lot of money at play here, and decisions are made about how to be profitable. Its not a conspiracy as much as too much caution about unknown commodities.

My point being, in order to try to make a good investment, Hollywood mostly goes with what it knows. If "March of the Penguins" makes money, we get two animated penguin movies and a Bob Saget Penguin spoof within a year or so. If Iron Man made $200 million in an opening weekend, you make Iron Man 2. If Catwoman and Elektra failed to make any money (and, in fact, lost money) you put the brakes on hoping sexiness in a costume is enough to drag folks in. Then you take a long, hard look at your script for Wonder Woman and don't assume its going to rush into theaters because of T&A and a magic lasso. And if you think they're taking too long between pictures... How long between Superman IV and Superman Returns?

And, by the way, a woman is directing the next Punisher movie. So it seems Marvel doesn't believe women are off-limits when it comes to their movies.

One of the greater challenges for comic-to-movie adaptations has to be that most of the time-tested characters and ideas came from a time and place where diversity wasn't as valued as it is today, and where women held a different place in society. Keep in mind, Action Comics #1 premiered about 19 years after the 19th amendment passed. Finding female characters who starred in their own titles in a genre that typically featured male heroic archetypes for decades is going to be a bit slimmer pickings. And with the failure of two high profile characters like Elektra and Catwoman on the big screen (with terrible scripts to blame, really. Yes, I've watched most of Catwoman), its difficult to pick out who could be the female Iron Man.

Not that I think that's what Dargis is looking for. Really, I think what she'd like is to see the Oscar-season movies open in the summer and do 200 million in their first weekend. That's my guess, anyway. I'm not sure which "real" women she wants at the cinema. Are there not silly, ridiculous women in real life? Or are those silly women who will appear in comedies this summer, or the women of Sex in the City just not her cup of tea, in movies about topics which she holds in contempt, or are they just not the kind of person she personally likes to pal around with? "Real" women.

All this said, at last check, I'm not a lady. But I do know a few. And they like all kinds of movies, just how guys like all kinds of movies. CB likes Scorcese, horror, John Waters, and all kinds of stuff. Jamie likes fantasy movies and smart comedies. Nicole watches stuff that's a bit more art-house, and she likes Ocean's 11.

So if you want to know what I think at least Jamie's thinking this summer? I think she'd echo Marion Ravenhood from the first reel of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Indiana Jones. Always knew someday you'd come walking back through my door.

But, again, I'm not going to speak for her.

Toys That Should Not Be: Rocket Fishing Rod

I'm mostly linking to this toy because the ad which plays when you click over (and it starts without a warning, so be prepared if you click on the link to get some loud audio) reminds me of an SNL ad for a horrible kids' toy. The commercial just never makes that sharp left turn to show you any particular ways in which you can injure yourself or others with the Rocket Fishing Rod, but I can think of about three.

You know what I like about fishing? Sure, the time with family on a boat without much but to worry about but how much sunblock you're wearing is great. But its also quiet, peaceful and relaxing to just sort of sit there casting and reeling in.

It seems like today's kids, fed on a steady diet of hyper-active animation and video games that allow them to do everything from blow up 40' aliens to cruise for hookers may not feel (how do I say it?) fulfilled by dropping a lure and hook in the water and hoping something will eventually catch on the line. No matter how snazzy the rod.

Well, the makers of the Rocket Fishing Rod, apparently, believed that fishing should be more X-TREME. Now, don't get me wrong, I find the Rocket Fishing Rod a great idea. Pull a trigger, and... POW! You're fishing, suckah!

And, really, that's what they're selling. A fish gun. Alas, fishing is not a sport of instant gratification.

Really, if you're trying to teach Junior and Sally that fishing is Daddy's quiet beer-drinking time, this toy seems like the one to kill any interest they might ever have in again tagging along on another fishing expedition.

Now, I'm not really sure what the shooting device (if it works) means as per teaching a kid how to actually cast, and I don't know how loud this thing is as it launches the bait through the air. My suspicion is that even if its not loud enough to scare the fish, the repeated launch sequence of the thing would be enough to make you want to chuck little Sally or Junior from the boat. Or, heck, just push them into the drink from the end of the dock.

I suspect the dirty little secret of the Rocket Fishing Rod is that its more actual work than a regular old Zebco. After all, it seems like you have to reset this thing every time you reel it in, and if the line gets tangled... hoo-boy.

As I mentioned above, fishing is about patience. Guns and whatnot are sort of the opposite of patience. So while the Rocket Fishing Rod might hurl that bobber out there... Junior, you have a wait on your hands. I don't care what sort of futuristic weaponry your little toy fishing rod looks like in your mind's eye. The fish will come when the fish darned well feel like it.

But, hey, again... I may not want to pay $40 plus S&H to find out if this thing is fun, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to monkey around with this doo-hickey before Jamie's dad tossed me off the side of the boat.

FCBD and DC Universe #0

This is the first year that I think I did not insist on dragging Jamie and/ or Jason along with me to check out Free Comic Book Day (if you didn't go today, you sort of missed it. But you might be able to get free comics over the next week or so as the shops clear out their stock of free comics. There's an economics lesson in there about keeping inventory that, by definition, cannot draw any profit.).

This year I hit two of Austin's remaining comic shops. At this point, I'm not sure how many are left in town. Three of the four shops that were owned by the same person have shut down since I arrived, and the remaining one (Funny Papers) has recently been sold to some enterprising youths. I did visit Funny Papers to check out their sale items and pick up my weekly comics. And I visited Austin Books to check out their back issue offerings, see what was going on in-store, and pick up the second Kirby retrospective released in the past two months.

I am actually taking a bold step. I've decided that I'm going to start ordering all of my comics online. Its cheaper, and saves me the hassle of trying to park at my current comic shop, which is located in a great place for pedestrian student traffic to access from campus, but its a mess trying to get there just for comics (andone else remember the parking at Dobie Mall?). I'm not moving my pull list to Austin Books because I'm afraid of what I'd start spending if I had to go there every week.

The idea is to save money. And it will make the trips to the comic shop, when I do go, a bit more fun. Hitting the shop every week shouldn't be a chore, and I think a monthly or bi-monthly trip to Austin Books should keep it fun.

The offerings this year seemed, how do I put this...? A bit more sensible. Austin Books had a wide variety of selections, even as late in the day as I arrived. They had courteous staff on hand helping families that had come in. But, unlike past years, I didn't just grab whatever was free. I mostly took copies of stuff I was genuinely curious about and left the kiddy faire for the actual children who were running around.

It seems like FCBD is having some positive effects, or I don't think the industry would continue to support the initiative. Smaller publishers are still going to face trouble reaching those new readers if the shops order the FCBD offering but don't offer any issues on the shelf. New readers shouldn't have to guess at the byzantine ordering practices of comic shops (and it is unnecessarily complicated, i assure you), so I often wonder what step 2 is after giving them the first one for free.

Fortunately, visitors reaching Austin Books will probably be able to get exactly what they need, but at many other shops I've been to... I f I could make a suggestion to Austin Books (aside from suggesting they make all Superman's Pal: Jimmy Olsen back-issues 75% off on FCBD, or just for me), it would be to see what theyc an do to get a signing arranged. Atomic Comics, a place I frequented in Phoenix, landed the entire starting line-up for Image. Jim Lee, all those guys. In one room.

And this isn't to bag on Atomic Comics, because they were the best game in town, by far, in the Valley of the Sun, but Austin Books is just a better experience on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps the thinking is: FCBD is for new readers. We don't need to gum it up with a line of nerds waiting for Ed McGuinness to sign Superman back-issues. But they also had a guy in a Spidey suit at Atomic Comics. And I know there's a dude in Austin with a GREAT Spider-Man suit. Where was he?

I dunno. It was fun, don't get me wrong. But... it was also the first time in a while I've wished I could be in frikkin' Mesa, Arizona (and, Leaguers, that thought does not often cross my mind).

DC released DC Universe 0, which was billed as an "entryway into the DC Universe". And it was not. Fortunately, the comic was $0.50, and actually intended to get folks to see what's going on in some of DC's mainline books, such as Wonder Woman and Green Lantern. And reminded this reader that, right now, Geoff Johns and Grant Morrison are keeping DC alive and somewhat healthy, almost on their own (although Gail's Wonder Woman is refreshing, Rogers' Blue Beetle is a book i would recommend to anyone and everyone, and Rucka/ Trautmann's Checkmate is the most under-appreciated comic coming from DC).

There was a huge amount of sniping on the internet about the content of DC Universe #0, and some of that might have been residual negative energy from the epic screw-up of Countdown. Honestly, I didn't really see what had gotten so many folks' dander up. I thought it was a nice sampling of what was going on in the DCU. Badly marketed by Didio himself? Possibly. But for fifty cents? jeez. I can't tell you how many full-price comics I've closed and went through a beat of buyer's remorse. At least this had me jazzed for all of the stuff they showed coming up.

Were I a savvy shopkeep, I would have taken the gamble that DCU #0 was going to get folks interested in DC Comics on FCBD, and would have made it half-price or free, hoping that the upfront cost to myself would pay dividends later.

Also, yeah... looks like the news is out on a certain super-hero of the Silver-Age coming back. But I certainly didn't think it was so awkward and painful as the interwebs had led me to believe.

Ah, well.

I'm going to bed.

I am (a guy who saw) IRON MAN

I caught Iron Man today, and I have to give it the League of Melbotis rating of: 4.5 thumbs.

My expectations for the movie were somewhat tempered by a review or two from sources such as Variety and Newsarama.com, so I wasn't too surprised by the fact that I enjoyed the movie a great deal. That's sort of been the consensus.

Iron Man is a movie with one foot in fantasy, from the science-fiction of the armor and Tony Stark's household futuristic technology to the idealistic method in which Stark is able to redress his moral failings. The other (much smaller) foot is placed in the reality of the sort of combat our soldiers are facing overseas, and the responsibilities of folks buying yachts off the proceeds from the sale of scud missles.

The effects in Iron Man benefit from the fact that the armor is non-organic and there's no fear of the Uncanny Valley. Seeing the trailer for The Incredible Hulk, just minutes before Iron Man rolled, reminded me that despite the fact that I have no idea what an 8-foot green giant looks like, I can still look at CG-Ferrigno and know that I'm watching a nicely animated cartoon. Not so much here.

There's a lot of good stuff in Iron Man, and more than being a movie about two mad scientists duking it out, or a mad scientist and Afghani boogey-men, its much more about discovery of self and super-science development. And, kids, those scenes are a lot of fun to watch.

The talent in Iron Man is actually very impressive. Paltrow's Pepper Potts refuses to be another Mary Jane in distress. Jeff Bridges is more than a cackling villain, though the script does point him in some mad-sciencey, hand-wringing directions. Terrence Howard is a good James Rhodes, but you sort of hope he gets to suit up in Iron Man II.



And Robert Downey Jr.? For all the cliches of the movie, Downey makes you forget you've seen this movie before in bits and pieces. His Stark is not the boring guy with the mustache who kept me from reading Iron Man in middle school (alcohol problems or no). He's a guy who has already found his place in the world, he's succeeded in the ways of the American Dream, through hard work and brilliance, and he's enjoying the hell out of it. Unlike movies like Spider-Man, which show us a character in the transition of youth, we get a fully formed character with whom we get to see the exact why's and how's of their change of heart. And, maybe, being a few years out of high school, I'm relating a bit better to Tony Stark these days than Spidey. Although, you know, without the billions and genius.

Many will find Stark's moral awakening to be a contrivance, and somewhat childish. After all, blowing people up should be considered patriotic. But I found the reasons for the awakening to be plausible beyond just the confines of the story, and possibly asking some questions that Americans assume are usually taken care of, but... you know...

Anyhow, this is seriously one of the most fun superhero movies Marvel has managed to put out in a long time. Where Spidey 3 disappointed last summer, Ghost Rider utterly failed, and Fantastic Four went to the negative zone, Iron Man was a great ride.

I'm finding I'm enjoying superhero movies MORE when I don't know too much about the characters (or, like Superman Returns, its such a departure, I have nothing to compare it to). So I get the cool superhero action (and the action in this movie is pretty good), but I also don't spend the movie figuring out how this is different from the comic.

I'm looking forward to any potential sequels. And I may give this one another round before it leaves the theaters. Kids will want their Iron Man suit this Halloween. Adults will wish they could find a way to test drive the suit and have Stark's home management system.

Oh, and nerds will want to wait through the credits for the final scene of the movie. Oh, yes. You will want to stay.

Everyone in their right place

Yesterday, Jamie and I went to see the new Tina Fey/ Amy Poehler movie: Baby Mama

I'm a fan of 30 Rock, and I've liked Poehler on SNL. Plus it was better than cleaning my office, which is what I was doing.

When your criteria for seeing a movie includes: zombies, robots, gorillas, superheroes, spaceships or no small amount of kung-foolery, you don't always get a peek at what else is out there. And as the trailer for "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants 2" rolled up onto the screen, I came to the conclusion that "Baby Mama" was not aimed at the sci-fi/ kung-fu audience, and I might have a very long two hours ahead of me.

The good I can report: Baby Mama was, at least, a bit funny. It's a renter, or maybe something to watch on cable. Maybe a matinee, if you're really dead-set against Iron Man.

But one of the trailers they showed was the trailer for American Teen.



This documentary is about four white, suburban kids in middle-America who are in high school. So I'm trying to figure out what the movie is actually about.

The trailer uses the Breakfast Club stereotypes for each of the subjects, and, I would assume, is going to break down those stereotypes over the course of a year/ two hours as we learn about what makes these kids tic.

Perhaps fifteen year ago, this might have been a bit novel. The trailer suggests its about the heartache and romance of being young and just beginning your life, but after TV expanded to 200 channels of reality-based programming and the WB's five nights a week of teen-angst soap operas, and MTV went all-high-schooler inc ontent as well as audience... Add in teh fact that every single person over the age of 18 went through high school, so been there, done that... I'm trying to figure out what's there to draw me in.

Two things I find peculiar:

1) The trailer's insistence on framing this in a "Breakfast Club" sort of manner. Really, the only time "Breakfast Club" seemed like an accurate depiction of high school was when I saw it in middle school and had not yet been to high school (but was trying to figure out what it was going to be like). Somehow, we didn't all wind up in Saturday suspension, all surprising ourselves by learning a little more about ourselves and a lot about each other.

I don't recall people in high school actually believing in much in the way of the classic high school breakdowns of nerds, jocks, what-have-you. And its not just because I was completely unobservant.

2) Why do these kids in the trailer speak in seemingly scripted language? Has 10 years of reality TV really blurred the line so much that kids know how to alter their language into concise statements to accurately describe their yearnings and inner monologue? I have a lot of hours of of footage of high school on VHS. It's mostly people smiling politely and asking me to turn off the camera.


At best, I'd watch this movie if it showed up on cable pretty late and nothing else was on. Having already done high school, I'm not in a rush to relive the experience. It wasn't that great when I was there the first time around. And I assume that's the point.

We've all been to high school. We all experienced the awkwardness, the unrequited crush, had hopes and dreams and no idea what it means to show up in the same cube every day with a soul-crushing mortgage hanging over your head. Its the last time in your life when the whole world is before you as a blank slate. But its also the time when you're too dumb to appreciate where you're at in life. Youth is wasted on the young.

The interstitial text in the trailer makes it pretty clear that they're counting on the nostalgia of the viewer to get them in the theater. And I assume the marketing is inline with the intention of the movie, so... I guess they're counting on the audience really missing those halcyon days.

Do the kids see themselves as the jock? The rebel? Aren't those tags a little embarrassing, even as a starting point? Or have decades of teen movies, TV shows and whatnot just placed an artificial expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy for kids before they ever hit the high school. Moreover, what are we really getting when we're getting the kids who volunteered to have a camera follow them around for a year. I know I'd have been mortified. I assume most of the kids I knew wouldn't have leaped at a chance to have a camera there at prom, running around town, etc...

Moreover, how well do these roles translate to non-whitebread students in areas and schools that aren't just a bunch of middle-class kids filling their seemingly pre-destined roles? I have no idea. But that's a movie I might find a bit more interesting.

Voting in Austin

I'm getting geared up to vote for 3 city council seats here in Austin. As skeptical as I might feel about my ability to influence the November elections for President (the Republicans could put up a pelican for Prez, and Texas would still vote GOP), I DO think my vote counts when it comes to local politics.

But local politics are just as complicated as national, in some ways. I have some things I firmly believe will and will not work for Austin today and looking 10, 20, 30, 100 years in the future. So I'm looking for candidates who share my ideals.

And given the nature of the issues, there's a lot of splitting hairs. We all agree that Austin's traffic is a mess, but how do you solve that? We all know Austin will continue to grow, so how do you manage that? We need to protect the environment in Austin, but how do you enforce that or get industry and individuals to play along because they feel its the right thing to do?

Here's one of my challenges: Jennifer Kim made a pretty big PR flub trying to bypass airport security last year, flashing her City Council credentials, and I haven't always loved interviews I've seen on News 8. But I also think, from reading her site, that she's learned a lot. But I also think Randi Shade seems like a right-on kind of candidate. But I'm not sure, exactly how she'll vote, partly because her website seems a bit unclear other than "I think Austin should have a great future".

And then there's a third candidate for place 3, Ken Weiss. And, seriously, I have no idea what this fellow is up to.

For a bit of compare and contrast.

Jennifer Kim's informative, well-managed site. Here.

Randi Shade's well-designed, but somewhat ambiguous site. Here.

Ken Weiss's website based around begging for money. Here.

He sort of makes me wonder how far I could get raising money for a campaign I couldn't possibly win. What are the rules for how you spend that money once the campaign is over with? Can you keep it? Because if you get to keep it...

I'm just sayin'...

Anyhow, I'm not going to run for city council this year. Maybe one day. It seems better than working.

But, really, if any of them would agree to refuse to allow anymore damn skyscraper condos from going up, they'd get my vote. I don't really how crazy the rest of their policies are.

Now, off to read up on the candidates for the other two seats.

Oh, if you have a good reason why I should vote for Jennifer Kim or Randi Shade, let me know.