Recently I've been listening to the Cataracs. Their most memorable song is perhaps 'Scars,' a catchy, simple tune about a sad topic. I looked up the lyrics at a popular lyrics site and noticed something interesting:

Well she say she couldn't be free
I was suffocating again
She tries to make it work, but it's not working
And she doesn't want to have to pretend

Well it's late now and I should go
[?]
And that's where it hurts, it's all for worse
I hope we can still be friends

[Chorus:]
Scars that do not heal
We try to put them behind us
They only remind us
Of when we had something real
Oh scars (scars!) scars that lingers there
We try to put them behind us
They only remind us
Of when, we had some, thing real

Does it hurt, when it bleeds
Or is it worse when you hold it in
Feels like the first, cut like a virgin
Underneath my skin

So turn me up, and take me home
Twenty years now since I've been
No tears to cry, only empty [?]
I hope we could still be friends

[Chorus:]

Scars "that lingers there?" No, "scars that linger still." It's very clear the last word is still, but it's a more poetic and slightly less colloquial turn of phrase.

Well she says she couldn't be free
I was suffocating again
She tries to make it work, but it's not working
And she doesn't want to have to pretend

Well it's late now and I should go
I'm sorry, I have to work
And that's where it hurts, it's all for worse
I hope we can still be friends

[Chorus:]
Scars that do not heal
We try to put them behind us
They only remind us
Of when we had something real
Oh scars (scars!) scars that linger still
We try to put them behind us
They only remind us
Of when we had something real

Does it hurt when it bleeds?
Or is it worse when you hold it in
Feels like the first cut - like a virgin
Underneath my skin

So turn me up, and take me home
Twenty years now since I've been
No tears to cry, only empty promises
I hope we could still be friends

[Chorus]

[Chorus]

The entirely missing line is also quite telling: it's a pretty common brush-off phrase in that context. Has the listener who submitted the lyrics never been the subject of it, never delivered it, never heard it delivered to anyone in a smoky bar? Were these lyrics about the pain of separation, written by a young adult, interpreted by a younger teen?

Whenever I hear a fiction writer railing about the inadequacies of religion, because it is not 100%, literally true, I get a very strange feeling.

Today, I listened to a man sing Lady Gaga's 'Alejandro.'

Keith Olbermann was suspended from reporting for MSNBC, where he has a prestigious job delivering the news in front of a camera. The company had a clause stating that all donations had to be OKed with the bosses, so the question isn't whether or not they had any reason to do this. The question is:

How is Olbermann giving money significantly different from stating his opinion on who's a good candidate and who's not?

Now, I had someone tell me:

according to my ethics prof only giving money is direct support

But I contend that the division between direct and indirect support is an artificial distinction. What we really should be asking is what kind of a difference something can make. Campaign contribution rules use this very logic: everyone gives dollars, and putting a cap on the number of dollars is a very easy way to limit how much of a difference each person can make.

Keith Olbermann's word, on his program, is worth millions of dollars. This is an economic reality (consider the cost of ads in that time slot, which are not exactly the same thing, but can establish a ballpark figure.) Since he is already throwing that behind whatever candidate he supports, what is the point in raising a fuss over another $2400? It's a small number compared to what is already going on - no matter what, he exhibits disproportionate influence over voters.

If we are truly concerned with equity we should assess the economics of coverage, and the influence a few people have over millions of voters. Sure, the networks can make up their own rules and then follow them doggedly, in an attempt to convince us that this shows their ethical backbone. But this is game-playing according to arbitrary rules they made up for themselves, plain and simple, and we shouldn't dignify the farce.

A correspondent on Xanga used to use the line, "Seduction is easy."

I didn't understand what she meant at the time, because I thought: seduction is actually hard! Any number of things may possibly go wrong, and then you've lost your shot at that person! But now I think what she meant was that a momentary success is far easier than a lasting victory.

Christine O'Donnell is the Republican party candidate for Delaware.

Given that she has run with a very public emphasis on universal moral judgments of sexual behavior, Gawker decided to run a column titled, "I had a one night stand with Christine O'Donnell."

This is bad journalism, and bad taste, to be sure.

But is it bad politics? I'm not so sure. Given that part of O'Donnell's stance seems to suggest it would be morally acceptable to enforce sexual standards on the public - a stance that Politics Daily notes is "being scrubbed from her website" following national media interest - is her own sexuality sacrosanct?

When Bill Clinton was castigated for having sex with Monica Lewinsky, was it because he was a man, or because he was a politician? Was it a feminist issue that Monica Lewinsky was hounded by the press?

Is it a feminist issue that O'Donnell is being hounded for this seeming hypocrisy?

Life is a bit like a Prince concert: sometimes you get music; sometimes you get something you really didn't ask for, like public masturbation.

Let us explore the nuanced tactical challenges that the present Starcraft 2 metagame offers.

1. Play zerg
2. tech to banelings
3. explode everything
4. if you miss, quit* and try again

As you can see, Starcraft 2 offers rich and varied gameplay, providing hours of carpal-destroying replay value.

*experienced players may opt to "ragequit" instead.

The unattainable are those with the most potential.