Wait, So What's Water Ice?

So last night was when I finally saw Amanda and Mariellen for the first time in like 20 months. Well, Amanda for 20 months, Mariellen since the 15 minutes I saw her at Rob's over Christmas break (good times). Amanda brought her friend, and Mariellen brought her boyfriend Jordan from Centre (whose name Amanda failed to remember the whole night). I found out a few things:

1) I need to hang out with those two more often. You know, when they're not working or at camp.
2) The name "water ice" is stupid.

Jordan brought it up when he asked "What's...water ice?" and I thought it was a ridiculous question. Until I realized that I had asked the exact same thing the first time I heard it and just adjusted to the state cuisine.

How can something be water AND ice? It's Italian Ice. Which again, the Italians didn't invent ice, but it's a more conventional and logical name than water ice. First of all, it's more of a slush than ice, but certainly not water. Second, the flavoring isn't water, it's flavoring. It comes in mango, vanilla, cherry (with pits), Alex's Lemonade (which Alyson still needs to steal for me), and tons of others. But it's not both water and ice. If anything, it should be called "flavored slush in a cup."

But I don't think that would sell as well.

Your Sweeper Can Suck It

Yet another war has broken out in Bogart. And this one started over...a vacuum.

That's right. VACUUM.

We started talking about perhaps the most heated topic next to religion and political views: Midwestern Slang. See, Allie and inexplicably, PA born & bred KellyPaul both use the words "tennis shoes" for sneakers, "pop" for soda, "suckers" for lollipops, and "sweepers" for vacuums. Morgan and I choose to use the correct words the East Coast versions of those terms

I'm not even going to touch the "pop" argument, because it never ends well. I argue that sneakers is the better word, because they're not just for tennis. They're also basketball shoes, walking shoes, running shoes, baseball shoes, too rainy to wear sandals shoes, and Chuck Taylors. And I do admit that "suckers" does make sense, although I still prefer "lollipop" because that's what I'm used to.

I have a problem with the "sweepers" argument. A huge problem with it.

See, "sweepers" are brooms. They sweep. Or they're the big things that clean up the streets after a wild night of drinking and partying in New Orleans, like the sucker (sorry, lollipop) seen at right.

Vacuums suck. They do not sweep. And yes, both have two vowels in a row, but I argue that two "U"s next to each other is exponentially cooler than two "E"s. Vacuums are designed to suck up all the crap on your floor, not sweep it into a corner.

To be polite, your names are illogical. To be crass, your words are stupid. and it seems to me that your belligerence on these terms and refusal to give up your foolish ways can only mean one thing. Morgan Pepper of 205 and Alexandra Palombo of 209 of the Glorious Dorm of Bogart do hereby declare Lingo War on Alexandria Taylor of 213 and KellyPaul Paul of Hood Dorm 214.

(It's on like Donkey Kong)

Maybe If It were Brangelina

I kind of hate it when celebrities are overtly political.

Don't get me wrong, I am plenty worried about the people dying in Darfur, and I'm completely appalled that the world is doing so little about it.

But according to BBC News, actress Mia Farrow will be starting a hunger strike next week in solidarity with the people of Darfur. My only question is this: does anyone care about Mia Farrow anymore?

I mean, she was great in Rosemary's Baby. And it does suck that her daughter married Woody Allen (Farrow's ex-boyfriend, in a plot straight out of a Woody Allen film). But other than adopting insane amounts of kids, does she really have that much impact anymore?

I mean, if Brangelina were going on hunger strike, the world would take notice and shit would get done.

Should've Used Laundry View

I've never seen a show really nail laundry etiquette in the college sense, and really, it is a subject that should be discussed because so many people lack it. Tonight, ABC's new show (and a new favorite of mine) Castle decided to address it by having a dead body rolling around in the dryer.

The cops were talking about how the old lady found her in the dryer when she was going to take someone else's clothes out to put hers in, because someone else was being a jerk-off and left their clothes in the washer.

This brings up an interesting point: what is the appropriate grace period for commandeering a dryer? The old lady in this episode waited a full half hour for it, and then found the dead body (which one police man said served her right for going downstairs to grub through someone else's undies to use the dryer).

Now generally, I wait about 5 minutes until I go downstairs to pull someone else's laundry out of the dryer. It's rude, I understand. I really don't have much of an internal grace period because I firmly believe that when you're doing laundry, you should be there to take your stuff out. And if you're not, you should be able to deal with your clothes neatly piled on the table next to the machine. If you wait more than 5 minutes, people will take over the entire laundry room, using all 3 washers at once and being a laundry douche.

Furthermore, I don't take peoples' clothes out of the dryer until they are completely dry. I cannot stand when people take your clothes out of the dryer only 30 minutes in, because let's be honest: dryers on campus aren't that good. They do take the full hour to dry your clothes, and if you take them out halfway through, I can guarantee that your jeans and towels will still be damp to the touch. So for a woman to wait 30 minutes for someone to get their stuff out of the laundry in my eyes, is really effing polite.

This episode of Castle raises a few good questions about laundry. One, what amount of time is acceptable before someone takes over a dryer? Two, if Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson knew that illicit affairs in the laundry room could lead to murder, would Little Children ever be the same?

Is Editing Like Covering A Song?

This is by no means ruling out editing as a practice, just to say that up front. And it is by no means trying to insult anyone who does edit—your job is very important, and I respect that.

As someone who writes, I think that editing is a necessity. It's to make sure that things are true, it's to make sure that things are logically put together, and it's to keep a sense of style signature to a publication. Editing is necessary, and sometimes, it turns out wonderfully.

I do admit, though, sometimes when I edit, I'm not as proud of the end result as I was with the original. Yes, the story would probably make more sense for print, and yes, the story turns out good with my name on it.

But sometimes when it's finished, it doesn't sound like I wrote it anymore. It's like when an artist covers a song. The lyrics, the music, and the intentions behind the song all stay the home. But it loses the voice of the artist in translation (kind of like this picture of my Aunt hiding behind Peter Gabriel's mug).

Now sometimes, this is a good thing. Listening to original demos and then to the people who made them famous? Sometimes it's a very good thing (Whitney Houston owes a lot to Dolly Parton, who originally wrote "I Will Always Love You," and I argue that Fountains of Wayne's version of "...Baby One More Time" is the best incarnation of Britney's first hit, with Travis's version being a close second).

But sometimes, you get Pat Boone covering Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train." Or Madonna murdering Don McLean's epic "American Pie."

(Come to think of it, this cover war deserves its own post)

But what do you think?