Everybody likes Russell Brown!
today i got the pleasure of "debating" in a group again.
for some reason our legal writing professor is of the
impression that good oratory skills translate into good
writing skills. kind of dubious but what the hell. i was
given the pleasure of being assigned to a group which
included ms. yamamoto who was fresh off of her triumphant
run-off simple majority victory over mr. krycewiski (read
about it in my student election entry) and mr. brown a
morbidly obese guy who apparently started eating from the
second he left the womb (or probably while within the womb)
to the second that we sat down at the table.
i have a horrible habit of judging people without giving
them a chance. i have the sociopathological inclination to
think that people are antagonistic towards me from the
outset and therefore i write them off. the upside is that i
am rarely disappointed but the downside of course is that
mr. brown (who has been going by 'brown' ever since he first
raised his tree trunk of a limb to answer a question in
torts) was something of an ambiguity to me as we seated
ourselves around an oval table (why the tables in our lunch
area are oval i will never understand, shouldn't they be
circular?) in our lunch area to discuss our
now we sat down and i started to present my view against
affirmative action (which i'll lay down in my next journal)
as brown reached into his bag and pulled out what appeared
to be a pound of chocolate chip cookies carefully packaged
he offered one to me and ms. yamamoto and then diligently
started chomping on them. they were the crunchy kind and he
was about as quiet as parrot on crack.
'chomp, crunch, slurp, smack'
it went on and on. he must have downed about 14 cookies.
all the while i was trying to set forth my analogous view on
"russell, what do you think?" ms. yamamoto then intervened
as i thought i was getting to the apex of my argument (she
obviously didn't agree with me and was using the diplomatic
way of not confronting my views explicitly).
russell. what a name. i can't tell if i love it or hate it.
well russell started to give his view of the argument as he
reached into his bag and pulled out a sandwhich. i couldn't
believe my eyes. according to what this man had pulled out
of his backpack over the course of the past 3 hours
(including property and contracts) i was convinced that he
had a cooler in his backpack.
he worked his way through the sandwhich while at the same
time expounding his view through what appeared to be
mayonaise and salami dripping out of the left corner of his
mouth. by the time he had finished his lips were lined with
a film of grease and his fingers looked like little shiny
that's when he reached into his bag again! i was half
expecting a whole pork roast to come out, but instead a 20
oz soda came which looked cold! what the hell? he obviously
had a fridge in his backpack. it's like a god damned
grocery store in there!
anyhow, enough of all that. russell brown is fucking
hilarious. very few people can make me laugh but this guy is
so good natured and funny that you can't help but like him.
as opposed to someone like jill who seems to have no human
traits, she acts like a god damned pre-programmed robot
which has been set to charm and win over anyone and everyone
with a conbination of banal banter and inane interjections.
i guess the crux of this whole entry is that even though i
find a lot of qualities about brown disgusting (namely the
incessant eating) at least he's just more real as a person.
it's sort of like the stepford wives debate. do we really
want someone like jill who is perfect to a T? who never
argues? who is completely sychophantic? i mean why is that
unappealing? i don't know but i guess it has a lot to do
with how meaningless our lives become in light of a person
like her. with her you may not always be able to do right
(i.e. her not agreeing with me and circumnavigating the
debate) but you can also never do wrong. whereas with brown
he'll argue with you and at least be funny when you
disagree, it just seems like the corollary of only being
able to appreciate the good by knowing what is bad.