mead is a cross between whiskey and mucus

I absolutely love Craig Ferguson. His monologues are always 10-12 minutes long (as opposed to 2-3 Letterman/Leno), and he has the most random thought processes--just like mine! Of all the stuff he covered in tonight's monologue, the train of thought that I remember is something like this: mel gibson - movies - eragon - sean connery - orlando bloom (weather forecasting amount of blood spilled after a red dawn) - medieval times - medieval dentistry/exorcism - dying from plague - mead - king arthur - nazis (and how king arthur couldn't stop the luftwaffe with his sword). Can you see why I love him? He managed to hit up Sean Connery, 'Lord of the Rings', the Black Death, King Arthur, and the Nazis in one monologue!!!! He is my hero!!!! To top it off, he had Dominic Monaghan on after the commercial, wearing a ridiculous bald cap and holding a brandy snifter while impersonating Sean Connery telling a touching family holiday memory about the time he broke his brother's leg and ruptured his spleen. I would love this show if only for the near constant Sean Connery references, but Craig Ferguson really has the whole package.

Today was nice; I went to work in my pajamas because it was pajama day, in a company-mandated display of 'fun'. It felt like high school--hopefully next quarter they'll do inside-out day or something. I'm not complaining, though; I wore the v. patriotic pajamas that Aunt Becky sent me in college, which are super comfy, and so it was a great day. I ran home and threw on some jeans after work, then met Claude for sushi at our favorite place in Menlo Park. I don't know how I ended up loving sushi as much as I do, given where I grew up, but it's awesome. I had miso soup, calamari tempura w/spicy mayo (yum), a crunchy shrimp and eel roll (double yum), and a piece of that weird Japanese omelette nigiri sushi that I inexplicably love. It was all v. tasty, especially since I haven't had sushi in at least six weeks. Then, I went to Shari, Ariel, and Aparna's apartment for a surprise birthday party for Shari; it turns out that they live about four minutes from me, so I'll have to make more plans with them. Tom and Julie were there, as was Bhavya, and so we had a good time catching up. Then, I came home, cleaned up my kitchen and sorted my laundry, then watched some TV while surfing the net. Now, the evening is over and I should go to bed so that I can accomplish all that I need to accomplish tomorrow.

One last thing, though. Today, the 'New York Times' published an edited list of findings reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Two things struck me. One was that they claimed that only 10% of people in their twenties are under 5'6". I don't buy that at all; if you assume that people in their 20s are 50/50 male/female, and that all men are taller than 5'6" (not true), then 80% of women in their 20s would have to be taller than 5'6". I just don't see how that's possible. The great thing is that all of that must have been self-reported, since census takers don't measure people--and most people probably upgraded themselves an inch or two. I do it slightly; according to Walter and Allie, I'm 4'11.5", but I say 5' for both ease of use and for avoidance of the shame that comes with being under 5'.

The second thing that struck me was this quote: 'That might help explain a shift in what college freshmen described as their primary personal objectives. In 1970, 79 percent said their goal was developing a meaningful philosophy of life. By 2005, 75 percent said their primary objective was to be financially very well off.' Sad, huh? Especially since if all of them achieve their primary objective, it will just drive up the classifications for being rated 'very well off.'

Then again, I think that just stating that objective doesn't really make much sense out of context. More people go to college now than did in 1970; while this probably doesn't explain everything, it's conceivable that a higher percentage of college freshmen now are going with specific monetary goals in mind, because they're part of the first generation to go to college, or they're aware that it now takes a college education to get ahead; conversely, in 1970, college freshmen were skewed towards male (now, more women than men go to college)...and I could well be completely wrong, but college attendance back then depended more on ability to afford it, and also on whether someone wanted to serve (or was drafted, or avoiding the draft) in Vietnam. No wonder the 1970 freshmen were interested in philosophy--the 2005 classes aren't as worried about drafts, even if there is a war on, and many see college as a method to improve marketability, rather than a unique environment for self-realization.

So pretty much I don't trust the census, and I'm open enough to admit that I probably found faultin it because I wanted to disprove the height issue :) If you want to read the whole article, you can do so here; I'm going to bed!