As of September 30th, 2015 at 9:08 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, I do not give Facebook ...

As of September 30^th, 2015 at 9:08 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, I do not give Facebook or any real or imaginary entities associated with Facebook on any plane of existence permission to use my pictures, information, posts, insights, dreams, fantasies, commercial jingles, scripts produced on spec, theories, rants, ruminations, oil paintings, manifestos, position papers, white papers, talking points, or most private thoughts, both past and future in this timeline or in alternate timelines. By this statement, I read the riot act to Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, surveil by drone, post in the town square, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents, so get thee behind me Satan. The content of this profile is private and confidential information, locked away in a wax-sealed envelope inside a shoebox inside a booby-trapped suitcase inside a welded-shut steamer trunk locked so deep inside my soul that no key forged by the hand of man could ever open it. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103, the Rome Statute, the Magna Carta, the 28^th Amendment to the Constitution and the Bhagavad Gita) and penalties include necklacing, curb stomping, garroting, strappado, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering and paper cuts. NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members, from the dewiest babe to the most wizened elder, must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, even those you have never posted online, even those you never knew existed that preserve in perpetuity your most embarrassing moments, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy by quill pen and directly onto the computer screens of every other Facebook user.

What was Marvel's 'Heroes Reborn'?

The TV show Heroes is being reborn as Heroes Reborn. Almost 20 years ago, Marvel had its own Heroes Reborn experiment, which was one of the oddest and most disliked eras in its history.

After a period of intense profits fueled by speculation, Marvel Comics was on the verge of bankruptcy after the bottom fell out of the comics market in the mid-‘90s. To cut costs, in 1996, the company agreed to outsource several of its longstanding titles to Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld, former Marvel superstars who had jumped ship to work at Image Comics.

To outsource the titles Marvel first had to find a way to get its most popular heroes out of the picture and that took the form of the Onslaught story. Onslaught was a very powerful villain that originated in Professor X’s consciousness when his brain was corrupted after he shut down Magneto’s brain. The Avengers, Fantastic Four and other heroes seemingly sacrificed their lives to stop Onslaught. They vanished, while the X-Men remained behind. A lot of people didn’t like this story but I liked the team-up of all Marvel’s major teams.

The next month, Marvel relaunched Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Captain America and the Avengers to varying degrees of success. These comics basically started from scratch and retold team origins in an updated way. I had no problem with Fantastic Four or Iron Man. However, Captain America and the Avengers titles were disasters. The Avengers consisted of a weird lineup of Cap, Hawkeye in a brown costume, the Swordsman, the Scarlet Witch, the Vision and Hellcat, all of whom discovered a barbaric Thor frozen in the ice. Captain America had horrifying art (Google “Captain America Liefeld” if you want to see some questionable anatomy). These were both Liefeld titles but he was soon off both books. Avengers rallied a little toward the end of the run after the great Walter Simonson started writing but Cap’s title never improved.

All four titles ended in a year with an interconnected story of Galactus eating their world. But there was a 13^th issue of each that was a team-up of the heroes with characters from WildStorm, a rival publisher. This confused me because I didn’t know there was a deal between Marvel and WildStorm and didn’t know the WildStorm characters. The whole Heroes Reborn thing confused me because at the time, I didn’t know the backstage drama of Marvel’s bankruptcy.

The heroes later returned to Earth 616 in the Heroes Return miniseries. It turned out they were not dead but Franklin Richards used his immense powers to spirit them away into a pocket universe that was inside a blue ball he was playing with. Anyway, the titles were better from thereon out, with Avengers starting a critically acclaimed run.

Comic fans do not remember Heroes Reborn fondly. I have been gradually putting my loose comics in plastic bags but the Heroes Reborn titles sit unbagged and at risk of damage. I just can’t justify the expense or time of treating them better.  

Madonna Unspoiled

Madonna concerts are tightly choreographed affairs. They’re staged more like Broadway shows than traditional concerts. She might change up a song once in awhile but usually, once the setlist leaks, you pretty much know what you’re going to get.

But when I walked into the Wells Fargo Center last night, I had no idea what I was going to see. I didn’t want any spoilers so I ignored the setlist and didn’t look at any photos, which meant I had to restrict my Internet access over the last few weeks. The only thing I knew is that it was called the Rebel Heart Tour. This is the way things used to be: In 1993, we saw the Girlie Show and had no idea what songs she would sing. It was long before the Internet and since the show only played three dates in America, there was little press coverage, so we went in pretty much blind.

I’m glad I didn’t see any spoilers before I got to the show. Madonna’s latest tour was a ton of fun. She sounded great and looked very happy. There was very little concept or theme but it was just a bunch of fun songs, simply performed and drawn liberally from Rebel Heart and older albums, with a bunch of surprises.

The opener was the new song “Iconic” as Madonna entered the stage in a cage lowered to the floor while samurai warriors marched around her. The first big surprise was the inclusion of one of my favorites, “Burning Up,” which she played on guitar. It was a dark, hot performance. After that, women in nun veils danced on poles to “Holy Water” to its refrain, “Bitch, get off my pole.” She mixed this up with a little of “Vogue” and during the rap, paintings of Renaissance looking people flashed on the video as she name-checked Greta Garbo, Bette Davis and the gang. That and the Last Supper-esque table on stage made this really witty.

There was some darkness in the first section but after that, the show was a lot lighter and was a rollicking good time. A major shock was hearing “True Blue.” Madonna has released over 60 singles and this was the last one I ever thought she’d perform again, let alone on the ukulele. It was a delightful rendition, as was “Deeper and Deeper,” with her and her dancers whirling on stage. A spiral staircase descended from the ceiling for Madonna to perform the smoky breakup ballad “Heartbreak City” and in maybe the biggest surprise of the night, snuck in a few verses of the 1984 song “Love Don’t Live Here Anymore.” That was one of her left-field set inclusions that I always love. Madonna then danced across stage in ‘80s-reminiscent clubwear to sing “Like a Virgin.” As much as I enjoy the spectacle of the tours, I loved how she did this, just alone on stage and relying on her charisma.

There were a few references to Pope Francis appearing in Philadelphia and New York a few days after Madonna’s tour dates in both cities, as she joked that the pope was stalking her because “he’s secretly in love with me.” Later she would lightheartedly dedicate a section of the show to him and playfully said how she’d been excommunicated from the Catholic Church three times and saw it as a badge of honor because it meant the church was thinking of her.

The Latin section followed, starting with a remix of “Living for Love” and a bullfight theme. I could use a break for a few years from the over-performed “La Isla Bonita” but the song did have a pleasingly heavy bass and gritty feel. Madonna did a wonderful medley of “Dress You Up,” “Into the Groove” and “Lucky Star” to a Latin beat, which was one of my favorites of the night. The new power ballad “Ghosttown,” which recently replaced “Who’s That Girl” (which I also would have loved to see) was very strong. Then she got on the guitar for one of the highlights of the new album, “Rebel Heart,” sort of a manifesto for her career. Madonna thanked her fans for 30 years of devotion and behind her, the video screens flashed artwork of her as done by fans. It was a sweet, sentimental touch.

The most eye-popping set piece of the show was for the interlude of the song “Illuminati.” Dancers were swaying on top of these very high flexible poles in this delicate dance that looked actually dangerous. This and the opening were the most elaborate parts of the show but otherwise, it was almost a minimal performance, which was nice and different for her.

The final act took place in a ‘20s café, with Madonna looking great in this silver flapper outfit. She did “Music” with a cabaret-style intro, which was a wonderful touch. Inexplicably, she followed this with the third tour performance in a row of “Candy Shop,” which really needs to be retired. I actually thought “Material Girl” was retired but it worked really well in this art deco setting with a lot of heavy guitar. After her dancers threw a veil over her head, she threw a bridal bouquet to an engaged couple in the audience and playfully yelled, "Suckers!" Continuing the café theme, Madonna belted out “La Vie en Rose” in French, sounding wonderful. After the snarky “Unapologetic Bitch,” she left the stage, with a playful “Bye, bitches!” scrawled on the video screens.

One final surprise: A traditional encore, which she doesn’t normally do, usually powering through setlists with no breaks. This time it was “Holiday” and Madonna and all the dancers romped across the stage. It was just a fun, wacky performance of a song that was a former setlist staple but that was in semi-retirement for the last few years. I’m glad she brought it back because it reminded me what a deep bench of hits she has. 

I am so glad I made it through without any spoilers so I could let Madonna surprise me. This was not the show I expected but I loved it and loved seeing Madonna relaxed and happy. And as always, I’m grateful that after all these years, my friends and I can get together and sing along to every word together.

Financial Advice From 40something to 20something

Several writers have already called out the article “If You Have Savings In Your 20s, You’re Doing Something Wrong” from Elite Daily for offering really stupid financial advice to young people. Since I like to pile on, I’m going to add my own criticisms.

 

The writer’s main point seems to be that your 20s are a time for running around and having fun, not saving for the future. I’m not a total killjoy and I do agree that people should have fun while they can. But advising someone that they are wrong to save any money in their 20s is just asinine. True, I wasn’t able to save during most of my 20s. I didn’t make much money and lived in that tiny apartment and spent what little I had on going out. Many people are in the same boat but if people can save, they should be encouraged to do so.

 

Let me just quote some choice lines from her in italics with my responses following.

 

I don’t have any savings, but I also don’t have any wants. No? How about money if an emergency arises, like you sprain your wrist opening the door of the Uber car while carrying takeout from Seamless on your way to meet your friends for drinks and shopping?

I don’t know about you, but I like to enjoy my life. I like to go out to eat, buy clothes I don’t “need” and spend money with friends on memorable nights out. This goes back to a piece of advice a very successful friend gave me: “Don’t save money. Make more money,” he nonchalantly stated, pushing me into a taxi. Whoever your friend is, he is a wise man. Yes, living paycheck to paycheck and is the recipe for stability.

(Parents) want us to save because it provides us with a safety net, but that’s exactly why we shouldn’t. Their need for us to have a safety net is just a giant metaphor for the difference between our parent’s generation and ours. It sounds like she’s rebelling against not only her parents but also against common sense.

We’re taking our time growing up, refusing to be shackled by mortgages and diapers. When you do “grow up,” you’ll acquire the wisdom to know that mortgages and diapers are the necessary evils that lead to houses and kids, which many people actually regard as positives. Fiscal responsibility is freedom.

 

When you’re too worried about your bank statement, you’re not making your own. When you’re saving for yourself, you’re refusing to bet on yourself. VOMIT. Not only is this really, really dumb advice, but it’s phrased with as much substance as a Successories motivational poster.

 

People who are saving in their 20s are people who don’t set their sights high. They’ve already dropped out of the game and settled for the minor leagues. It’s actually the exact opposite. I can’t believe this writer doesn’t understand that those who are smart enough and lucky enough to have a savings in their 20s are actually planning ahead and have their sights set on something greater than running around “making a statement” or whatever (read: booze and drugs).

When you have nothing to lose, you have everything to gain. This is probably what the homeless tell themselves.

When you live your life by numbers, you strip yourself of poetry. PROJECTILE VOMIT. I’m a poet and yet somehow, I still have to live in the world of numbers, of retirement savings and amortization and mortgage refinancing. And you know what? I finally got the big house with a pool and have a 401k and I still get to write poetry.

 

What memorable experience does money in the bank give you? This has to be satire. Is this woman so dimwitted she actually doesn’t understand that, as Homer Simpson learned, “Money can be exchanged for goods and services”? Since she asked, here’s a short list of the experiences money can buy: Vacations, having family and friends celebrate your wedding, hosting parties at your house, dinners out, seeing your favorite artist in concert, the experience of not going broke if your car needs repairs, having nice things, tickets to cultural events, etc.

When you die, you can’t take your money with you. Yes, we’re all aware. But while you’re alive, having a savings account with more than $0 may come in handy.

 

When you care about your 401k, your life is just “k.” Got it.

When you’re 40, you’re not going to look back on your 20s and be grateful for the few thousand you saved. You’re going to be full of regret. You’ll regret the experiences you didn’t take, the people you didn’t meet and the fun you didn’t have because you were too worried about a future that came and went. At 41, I’m grateful that I was able to save a little bit of money and always had a little in the bank for emergencies. I scraped by in my 20s and didn’t live in a palace but I never overdrafted and just laughed it off on my way to meet up with my friends. Please try to understand: Financial responsibility is not a regret; it’s a goal.

The problem with this article, and I hate to sound like an old person, is that she thinks at 20, she can see the future and she just can’t. How can someone in her 20s suppose to know how a 40-year-old would feel? Why not just ask an actual 40-year-old who has actually had some life experience?

Under My Philistine Skin

Oh God, we watched the worst, most boring movie the other weekend: Under the Skin. It got good reviews but a lot of viewers sounded divided on it and I was firmly in the camp that the movie was no good. It starred Scarlett Johansson as an alien who drove around in a van picking up men, bringing them home and killing them, possibly as some sort of fuel. (You will thank me for offering spoilers because you do not want to watch this movie anyway.)

It was one of those movies that had no script and was just improvisation and I don’t care for that. Write some dialogue. Johansson was playing a character with no personality (by design) and I also don’t care for that. If I want to watch someone display zero emotion, I’ll stare at a doll’s empty eyes for two hours.

Some of the visuals were striking but the boredom was crushing. I kept falling asleep and when I woke up, I was disappointed that the movie was still on.

The problem with this movie was that it was all Big Themes and no plot or characterization. Ideally, I’d like both in a movie. Yeah, I got the themes in this movie. From the opening credits, I gathered Under the Skin was about an alien of some sort who was adjusting to pretend to be a human. “Who are we … under the skin?” if you will. My lack of enjoyment of this movie was not that I didn’t get it; I just thought it was not well done.

A lot of the reviews of movies like this can be condescending to people who don’t like them, as if you’re some kind of Philistine who doesn’t get it. Like you only watch movies with explosions. Read this review from IMDB with my remarks in bold:

“The film requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. (Yeah, after downing a pot of coffee.) It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. (The only people who should feel guilty about a lack of plot or characterization should be the creators.) Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. (Can’t we have plots, characters and themes? Is that so much to ask?) There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy 'Under The Sin' (sic) you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, 'the vast unknown' and an Alien perspective, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films. (Is having an actress master more than one facial expression really a banal convention?)

"Under The Skin is a (sic) absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.” (If you miss this movie, the only thing that will suffer a detriment is naptime.)

You know what — I’ve watched every episode of Mad Men twice and studied the Big Themes there. I read every footnote of Infinite Jest. So I can handle complicated art, is what I’m saying.

The difference is that the two examples I cited had plot and characterization and written dialogue — you know, the things people actually come to the theater to see. You can’t hang a movie on Big Themes and have some woman wandering around with no expression and expect me to care.

A list of breakup songs where you can kind of see why the person got dumped

Warning: The following list is meanspirited and will probably feature artists or songs you like. 

“Someone Like You” by Adele. When this song came out, I kept reading all these articles written in the tone of America’s Spokesperson with headlines like “Why Adele Makes Us Cry” and I didn’t get it. This song does not make me feel sad, just annoyed and a little creeped out. Adele shows up at her ex’s home to tell him that for her, it isn’t over. That is not romantic. That is borderline stalker behavior. The album 21 featured talent but was overrated. After far too many breakup songs, “Someone Like You” ends the album with a possible explanation as to why the two didn’t work out.

“Losing My Religion” by REM. Sorry. I don’t have anything against REM but this is insufferably whiny. I’m assuming it’s about a breakup and not literally about religion. The melody and music are fine but Michael Stipe’s mewling lines like “And I don’t know if I can do it” and “Oh no, I’ve said too much” just brings out the soulless hardass in me that says “That’s why you’re alone.”

“How Am I Supposed to Live Without You?” by Michael Bolton. Boy, life with you must have been a barrel of laughs. Who could stand being with someone this hysterical? It sounds like he’s going to burst a blood vessel.

“Guess I’m Doing Fine” by Beck. Once in awhile I will listen to albums that disappointed me and see if time has changed my mind on them. I am sorry to say that I still hate Beck’s Sea Change. "It's only tears that I'm crying/It's only you that I'm losing/Guess I'm doing fine,” he sings. Sorry, but I will resist your obvious invitation for me to dump a bucket of self-pity over your head so you can wallow in it. I just … I hate this.

Most of the Smiths’ and Morrissey’s discography. God — GOD — I hate these people. Relentless sad sack self-pity is never a good look and the voice doesn’t help.

“One Less Bell to Answer” by the Fifth Dimension. “One less egg to fry,” Marilyn McCoo laments. “Why did he leave me?” she asks. You just answered your own question: You only made him one egg.  

Victorian

Did you read about those winners who wrote an online essay for Vox about voluntarily living life as if they were in the Victorian era? They write with fountain pens under the light of an oil lamp. She wears corsets and he wears wool workout clothes. They ride those huge unicycles around town.

These people sound insufferable and I am so glad I do not have to know them. I hate the Victorian era. I hate everything about it, from its restrictive attitudes and colonialism to its pink Christmas decorations. These people acknowledge getting a lot of hatred for their lifestyle. I don’t hate them; I just think they’re wack jobs.

I understand the appeal of wanting to simplify and not run out and buy every device Apple makes and instead invest in well-made furniture and what not from the past. But walking around in corsets? My understanding is that corsets were not fun for women back then and I’m sure if it had been acceptable back then, many women would have thrown on some sweatpants while doing their hardcore chores. Of course, a lot of things weren’t great for women in the 19^th century. I wonder if this woman will go all the way authentic and not vote?

Things weren’t great for a lot of people back then. Basically life only worked out for straight white men during Victorian times. And there was nothing romantic about cholera. I see the appeal of recreating that era so it’s more equitable for people, keeping the positives and throwing out the negatives. But on the other hand, there’s something obnoxious about these people who have enough means to buy an old Victorian house and antiques and costumes who are using their privilege to celebrate the privilege of another era. Their essay doesn’t really acknowledge that Victorian times weren’t a barrel of laughs for everybody.

Of course, at the end of this online essay about Victorian living, the authors direct people to their website. Did irony not exist during the reign of Queen Victoria?

I had the most inefficient dream

I dreamed I had some work to do at our house in Elsmere to get it ready for rental. So I walked to the house, which is usually a 15- or 20-minute drive. I realized I didn’t bring any clear trash bags so I could dispose of the yard waste after weeding, so I stole some from some kind of work site. It also started snowing so I was looking around for a shovel I could steal. I ended up walking through places that are nowhere near Delaware on the way to our house, cutting through people’s houses.

In retrospect, it would have been more efficient to drive there.

This is all bubbling up in my subconscious because we have some applicants to rent the house. One couple asked us to do some work, like painting and cleaning. There is also the weeding. The back had become overgrown while we were on vacation so I went over last weekend to weed that big tree weed that’s always been in the back that I was unable to pull out entirely a few years ago. I got most of it done but the tenant was coming over minutes later so I had to stop and leave because I didn’t want to be there all sweaty when the people showed up.

In any case, we are getting closer. Our Realtor has been working hard and showing the house to a lot of tenants. We just need the right combination of responsible and solvent. It’s almost like a game to read through their information and how it paints a picture of a lifestyle. I hope we will soon be paying only one mortgage and have a little breathing room.

What were Marvel's heroes fighting about during 'Civil War'?

I don’t know if the movie version of Civil War will follow the comic version as I don’t know what everyone will be fighting over. The miniseries from 2006 basically concerned the conflict over whether people with superpowers should register with the government.

I never read the full miniseries because I got disgusted and dropped it but here’s what I know about it. As part of a reality show, the young superhero team the New Warriors had cornered a bunch of villains in Stamford, CT. There was an accident and the nuclear-powered criminal Nitro exploded, killing a bunch of civilians, including nearby schoolchildren. Many people blamed the heroes and argued that heroes should register to receive training in the use of their powers and in some cases, the government should conscript them.

Leading the pro-registration side was Iron Man, who found allies in Mister Fantastic, Hank Pym, the Wasp and Ms. Marvel. On the other side were Captain America, the Invisible Woman, Luke Cage, Hercules and the Falcon. Spider-Man unmasked and defected to the anti-registration side. The X-Men were neutral. 

Apparently, the writers meant for the readers to side with the pro-registration side but this backfired because Iron Man and company were acting very authoritarian. Civil War led to some ugly or stupid scenes, such as SHIELD ordering soldiers to fire on Captain America, Iron Man cloning Thor and the clone killing the hero Goliath, and a reporter lecturing Cap — who punched out Hitler on the cover of his first issue — for being out of touch with America because he didn’t watch NASCAR or go on MySpace.

Most risible was Reed Richards’ explanation for his pro-registration stance. His uncle had refused to name names to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the ‘50s and Reed sided with the HUAC because while he didn’t agree with the anti-Communism circus, he thought his uncle should obey the law. Reed Richards sided with Joe McCarthy over his own family. I can’t believe anyone could write that and expect to see Reed’s point of view. Sue certainly didn’t and left him temporarily over this. Oh, also, Reed and Iron Man built a prison in the Negative Zone for heroes who refused to register. So there was that.

I was firmly on the side of the anti-registration forces. Marvel has always had a laissez-faire approach to organizing its heroes. The Avengers and Fantastic Four would cooperate with the federal government and SHIELD but maintained their independence. The X-Men, especially Magneto, always fiercely resisted any registration of mutants, rightly fearing that it would lead to internment camps (as it did in Days of Future Past).

Readers also pointed out that during the ‘80s in Fantastic Four, it took all of one issue for Reed Richards to convincingly debunk the argument for superhero registration. I don’t know why they needed a seven-issue miniseries and multiple tie-ins to rehash the whole thing.

There’s an argument to be made for training superheroes so nothing like the Stamford massacre would ever happen again. But I don’t like the effect of the program that there were 50 Avengers teams and everybody joined. I think the Marvel Universe works better when there are unorganized, Wild West pockets of mysterious heroes who come and go.

Civil War was so joyless that it distanced me from Marvel. It kicked off a period when heroes didn’t defend Earth from villains or saved civilians from harm. They all just argued politics with each other and I had no interest.

How do you solve a problem like Kim Davis?

I don’t think Kim Davis should go to jail for refusing to grant marriage licenses to anyone in Kentucky as a protest against gay marriage because that would be basically handing her a set of nails and two pieces of wood and directing her to the nearest hillside. I do think she should be impeached or however we would treat an elected official who has exhausted her legal options and acts in contempt of court. Maybe they can work around her somehow. Just resolve this how you would any other official who will not do her job.

Anyway, what I read recently gets to the heart of what this seems to be about for Davis. One of the couples asked her on whose authority is she not issuing marriage license. “On God’s authority,” she said.

Really? Because it actually seems more like it’s on her authority. She’s acting on beliefs and preconceptions that sprung from her. Please show me the pile of evidence where God or Jesus explicitly condemned gay marriage.

Many of us, myself included, do this: We make God into our own image rather than the other way around as it was in Genesis. We cherrypick passages from the Bible and ignore the overall message of love thy neighbor. We do this to try to justify our very human personal prejudices. This is nothing new.

What especially bothers me about this is Davis is essentially making this issue, which affects who knows how many gay and straight couples in her county, all about her. I saw a still photo of her pointing to herself as if to say “This is about me.”

It’s not. It’s about the people she serves, as it is for any elected official. Leave aside the God stuff and Davis is still charged with a civic duty that has been confirmed by court after court. I don’t believe her argument that she is somehow legitimizing these marriages. Solemnizing the marriage is the job of a judge or the clergy (and clergy members can still reserve the right not to marry couples for reasons not limited to sexual orientation, which is why we have a secular process in place to let people access marriage). Davis is just handing out paperwork. If people are opposed to gay marriage, fine — then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But don’t stand in the way of people who have been together for years when it’s your job to facilitate their union. 

The other thing that pissed me off is how she told the gay couples that they will have to answer to God’s judgment. When people say this, I’ve always wanted to tell them that they should stop bloviating and leave the judging to God because they are not God; they are at best middle management.

Mrs. Davis, step side, hand out the paperwork and let these couples start their loving marriages. It’s over.

Buckle Down

You go back to the office with such good intentions. Vacation recharged you fully so you say you’re going to buckle down. No perusing any websites for you. For now, at least, it will be edit, edit, edit. You’ll be in good shape and on top of everything.

Little by little it starts to crumble. You have to check your personal email, of course. You can’t resist checking Gawker to see if you missed any gossip while you were away. There are a few links to Deadspin stories that look interesting and then it’s on to the site’s “Why Your Team Sucks” posts, a few of which you missed last week.

No, no, it’s time to work. It’s Monday and it’s a time of editing and getting things done. You look at a blog and another article for work. You make the necessary changes to your own website.

But wait, what’s going on with Facebook? What happened last week? Who liked your post? And you might as well check your favorite entertainment sites, like Vulture and the AV Club.

Then it’s lunchtime and you eat while catching up on what you missed on some comic websites. Kitchenette has a new post so you kill some time reading that.

Stop. Edit some more. You have a lot to do and a lot to catch up on.

Wait, you forgot about Vox and the Awl. Check email again. What’s the weather? You sigh into the fluorescent lights because it looks like a great beach week or at the very least, a pool week. And it seems on an unfocused Monday, there is even time for Slate. My God.

You look at the clock. It’s after 4. Tomorrow is another day.