The soreness of my feet is often (but not always) a good accidental measure of how good a time I had at something. This concert was no exception. Good times, and one of the (rare) times bouncy Pat emerged. I regret not showing up with time to stop by the excellent bakery out there, but one can't have everything.
The aftermath at EatNPark resulted in my bumping into someone I'd rather not have bumped into, but the encounters were fairly brief and at the expense of not getting change for my $20 when it was time to go, I got outta there and all was good.
MC Chris is coming (back) to town, in mid-June. I will probably go with J/R/Z if they're keen to go. The way everyone describes it, Mr Small's is the only place decent non-classical music happens in Pittsburgh, and everyone loves it. Is it all that? It's not bad, and I haven't seen anything better here. It's not nearly as cool as the new Outland (in Columbus) or the Bowery Ballroom (NYC), but I think nightlife is actually better in both places. Thinking about it in general, I think I've been undervaluing Columbus in several ways -- I still can't imagine ever living there again, partly because the land is flat and ugly, and partly because all the places one can live there are unsuitable, but Columbus does have a decent entertainment-oriented culture. The great culture Pittsburgh has is mainly in its charming neighbourhoods -- there are no neighbourhoods in Columbus that I would want to live in. Cultural events are better and more frequent there though. The ratio and amounts of people in the city and metropolitan areas may be related. For Pittsburgh, according to Wikipedia, there are about 335,000 people in the city, 2.4 Million in the greater area, while Columbus has 711,000 in the city and 1.6 or 1.8 million in the greater area.
I still feel silly for having been to neither Pittsburgh or Columbus's Zoo. I should fix that.
I got some beard tips from L today -- apparently, facial hair is not as simple as not shaving (at least if one wants to avoid looking bad). Hopefully I implemented the hints correctly and it looks better now.
I am now fairly certain that the intuitions that laws should be hard-edged and understandable by the people, together, lead to bad behaviour. Simple, hard-edged rules lead to people gaming the system. The current solution of complex laws is not ideal either -- instead, laws should be soft-edged (intuitions tying together principles) with a great deal of interpretation by philosopher-judges (lawyers are, or can be at least, more philosophically minded than one might think). Only with this kind of system would one keep those who would abuse from doing so. This approach, of course, has problems, especially with the adversarial system of justice we have in this country, and would be potentially troublesome for maintaining the current balance in checks and balances (if that is desirable anyway), but I think stomping out rules abuse should be a high priority in government design.