Tuesday, September 30, 2008

on only by the night.

A week ago, the new Kings of Leon album, Only by the Night came out. Compared to the insane amount of text (ink?) spilled on the new My Morning Jacket album, not to mention that hip-hop instaclassic that droppsed a while ago, I thought it was unfair to let such a good record slip out semi-under the table.

The Rolling Stone review cast it in a pretty favorable light, but I was disappointed with Prefix on this one. But enough about other people!

From start to stop, the album is a groovy one. I hate to use such a cliche, dated word, but that's really the first thing I thought. When the vocals are great, they're only the icing on the cake. The rhythm section in the Followill boys' band has really stepped it up a notch. The first single "Sex on Fire" is a pretty good example, but for the best, you have to catch the halfway-point highlight "Manhattan."

When Youth and Young Manhood dropped, these guys were really riding a very specific train. Their second album, Aha Shake Heartbreak was supposed to do good things for their careers, but it turned me off so much that I skipped the third one Because of the Times. Mainly for those reasons, I was a little wary of the music being put out by the fellows now. According to the reviews I've read from others of this album, though, I missed out on something very similar. It disappoints me to hear that, on one hand, but also excites me that I have another album along these lines to go out and discover.

Before this one was out, though, I was reading news that Kings of Leon considered this to be a political album but for the life of me, I can't figure out why now. This is a sex album! And it's not just the blatant jump for attention in the first single's name. The album starts with "Closer" which throws things into the bedroom right away. Atmospheric in that good way. "Crawl" is up next, which I guess I could see some politicism in the lyrics, but the ambiance of the guitars really plays over that aspect, in the best way possible. After the single, we have "Use Somebody," which sounds like a classic 80's love jam mixed with a cross between jam-band mentality and the more classic Southern sound they're famous for, before the twin peaks of "Manhattan" and "Revelry." I'm not going to lie and say it's a perfect album, because it starts to falter at this point, in my opinion, but the closer "Cold Desert" is a good one, if maybe a bit overlong. (It is the longest track on the album.)

Kings of Leon have seemingly been pegged for something they're not for their whole career. They came out around the time of the "The" bands (you know, The Strokes, The Vines, The Hives, etc.) but they weren't really anything like those guys. And I'm not really convinced they were ever interested in taking part in the so-called rock revival. I'm of the mind that, to them, rock didn't need reviving. In the south, it seems, they never abandoned this sort of music. It might have been hiding in different forms, but it was still there. And it is still there. Good stuff, go check it out.

Monday, September 29, 2008

on chinese democracy.

I'll believe it when I see it. That is all.

on the unstoppable march of time part 2.

When I posted that other video I was really enamored with it. However, when I re-posted my blog on MySpace, one of the coolest girls in the world, Sarah Cracky, as I call her, linked me to her friend's video which does the same thing in a much, much better way.

Check the video here of his twenty-sixth year and be sure to check out the rest of the site, which has got some really, really cool stuff.

It's times like this that I realize while I may be a semi-decent writer, I really appreciate the artists out there who are capable of making stuff like this. It's inspirational, really. Very cool.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

on boys wearing makeup.

I got a chance to watch this video segment on CNN.com today (while at work) about a boy being told he was out of dress code for the make up he was wearing.

It's an interesting story, and certainly a headline-grabber. (CNN has this feature that tracks the top-read stories, and I didn't see it in the list, but I also didn't see a text link for the story, so it might only be on video at this point.) I like that stories like this get published and are (generally, in my opinion) popular, but I do find it a bit ironic that this is seen as the liberal crusading of the media by those folks in Middle America while the press bends over backwards not to ask any tough questions of the Administration and that's just them doing their job.

Insofar as the story itself, there's little to go on. When schools and school districts make up dress codes, they intentionally use vague language (like is highlighted in the story) on purpose. Trust me, it doesn't take being there to know that; we all get it. "No excessive/distracting make-up"? What does that even mean? "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." Not a great precedent for law - or in this case, rule.

It's dangerous to set these kinds of limits, in my opinion. But, speaking as an over-25 adult who's officially sold out, I also understand the need for these sorts of rules. I was recently told a story by my good buddy's wife, whose step-father is in deep trouble over in his school district for simply trying to look after a kid whom he thought the other kids might be laughing at/teasing. It's a cruel, cruel double-edged sword, the fact that people expect us to give so much of ourselves to their kids and to the job in general, but then feel the need (right? responsibility?) to hold us to their standards when something doesn't work out. It's hard work. No, but really; it is.

What's the feelings out there? If you saw that guy in your class, would you think it was distracting? What about other commonly addressed issues? I'll tell you the one they warn me about the most often: "Don't even bother to tell that girl she's out of dress code. It's not worth the potential lawsuit." So I'm told there's a set of rules (most of which I don't agree with anyway) and then told to ignore them because of the threat of the litigious society in which we live. Man. What a world.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

link of the day.

Back in the day, the Albuquerque Dukes used to be the farm team for the LA Dodgers. When the Dukes left town (an eternal shame) and the Isotopes took their place, they were farmed out to the Florida Marlins. In happy news over the weekend (and in a press conference yesterday), we learned that the Dodgers are part of 'Burque baseball once again! Happy news.

Monday, September 22, 2008

on the josh howard madness and all appropriate corollaries.

Josh Howard is a basketball player. Some people say he's the best player on the Dallas Mavericks team. Other people say he's the most important player on the Dallas Mavericks team.

Some people say that he's got no sense of humor and...hey, maybe he shouldn't be on any team. Simply because he's said some things that others disagree with.

For examples of what he said at different times, see this chronological timeline:

He dared to admit that people (among them, NBA players) smoked weed every once in a while. (Daring, I know, when Presidential candidates admit they've done it.)

Then he did a bad thing that almost everyone else does - he sped. (We have a guy like this in ABQ. I know he should be in trouble but...it seems like he never is.)

And lastly, he was pretty much a dick while the Star Spangled Banner was playing. Yep. Exhibiting free speech. A pretty dastardly thing.

As always, when I'm dealing with basketball news, Joey over at Straight Bangin' has done a better job summing up most of the major points and FreeDarko is right behind him, expanding on what we already know, in addition to getting all the good stuff that we want to talk about.

Let's be clear...this is a racial thing, because the USA is a racial country. (And yes, that statement sounds ridiculous in its obviousness, but while I was tempted to say "racist country" I don't want to get that far...yet.) Basketball, in particular, is a racially-tinged hobby/pastime/sport/obsession for those people who choose to love it more than America's beloved football. To deny these facts is to deny reality.

At the beginning of this month, Mario Chalmers and Darrell Arthur were caught with weed at an NBA transitional camp. Except that...since then...well, it's gotten more complicated. Michael Beasley was fined for...something...as well and no one's been able to really say what that something was, in all honesty. The last official word is that the men (boys?) were kicked out of camp for having women in their room, which is a violation of camp rules. Which is understandable... For 12 year olds at summer camp. This is supposed to be a camp that teaches NBA players how to deal with the rigors of NBA life? I'd say the NBA is fooling themselves if they think women, much less weed, won't be a normal part of these men's lives.

(For what it's worth, as just a quick sidenote here: Sports Night is maybe one of the best shows ever created. Aaron Sorkin is a genius, and my Mom is my hero for getting me into that show. If you ever need to prove a powerful point, a Sorkin show probably has done it in superbly dialogued form already for you. Love you, Mom.)

It's obvious that drugs are a destructive force on our society. Beyond the pale of the obvious, the people who get hooked on those drugs, the further ramifications of the drug industry and trade are well-documented and we're all familiar with the dangers of those ramifications. However, it is also my opinion that if one added up all the deaths, arrests, and monies spent on the Drug War and its various subsidiaries, one would be amazed to see how much worse things are now than they were even in Prohibition - a time that's looked back at now as shockingly violent.

So the question becomes...what to do about all this? Not how does it all tie together, because I think it's rather pathetically obvious how it does, but what is to be done? How can this be solved? It's my rather simplistic breakdown of Democrats and Republicans that leads me to a conundrum: at their most basic, I've always thought, Democrats look at something that's working, whether it's working well or not, and say, "Can it be done better?" If the answer is yes, they want to try to do so, no matter what. Republicans, on the other hand, look at something, and if it's working well enough, say, "It's working well enough. Leave it alone."

With this in mind, I say now that the Drug War, as is, is not working. Therefore, it is my position as a liberal progressive to say that we should fix this. However it can be done, we need to fix this.

However, it is also my opinion that one of the major reasons why Prohibition failed so spectacularly is that Americans are not particularly into the idea of vast, expansive changes all at once. Gradual change over a certain course of time is something that we've relatively mastered, but when we try to change things too suddenly, it just doesn't work. (There's a lot more in here about basketball, racism, Jim Crow laws, etc.) So, what can be done to avoid the reverse-Prohibition badness of just suddenly throwing a switch and legalizing all kinds of things that are currently illegal? Will studies help? Will there be distinctions between so-called lesser drugs (marijuana, obviously, but what else? Is acid a lesser drug? What about cocaine?) and the acknowledged heavier ones? (Who would argue that crack or heroin should be legalized?) What can be done to solve this problem? Because it should be universally acknowledged: the way we're approaching it now isn't working.

Our rights to free speech trump a lot of other things in this country. When that stops being true, we'll know we have to worry. But until it's not true, we have a responsibility to push a real dialogue on people who are capable of real thought at any time possible. I just think it's sad that it takes Josh Howard, a basketball player, saying something as ridiculous as, "I don't celebrate that shit. I'm black," to get people really involved in what has become readily apparent to even the most casual basketball fan over the last decade or so. The intersections of race, racism, drugs, culture and the culture of the Drug War appear to be coming to a head. Here's to hoping cooler heads prevail and we get a dialogue out of this, as opposed to reactionary-ism.

on trent being trent.

Usually, I'm going to try not to post more than one blog entry per day (I really don't know why...if anything, that seems self-defeating, like I'm purposely trying to limit my output and limit the amount of reading that people will do when they make their way here, but...I digress...) but I have have have to get this Josh Howard piece put out (which will be up later today, I promise) and I just got this hilarious e-mail from Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and it's worth sharing. I'm sure that anyone who clicks through on this link will be welcomed to the survey as well, even if you didn't sign up for The Slip or whatnot. Anyway, for your enjoyment, see below:

Message from Trent:

Hello everyone.
I'd like to thank everyone for a very successful year so far in the world of Nine Inch Nails. I'm enjoying my couple of weeks off between legs of our Lights In The Sky tour and got to thinking... "wouldn't it be fun to send out a survey to everyone that's shown interest in NIN?" Well, that's not exactly how it went, but regardless - here it is. As we've moved from the familiar world of record labels and BS into the unknown world of doing everything yourself, we've realized it would benefit us and our ability to interact with you if we knew more about what you want, what you like, what you look like naked, etc. I know it's a pain in the ass but we'd truly appreciate it if you'd take a minute and help us out. As an incentive, everyone who completes the survey will be able to download a video of live performance from this most recent tour (and I know what's going through your little minds right now: "I'll just grab this off a torrent site and not have to fill out the survey!!!" and guess what? You will be able to do just that and BEAT THE SYSTEM!!!! NIN=pwn3d!!!)
What if we were to select some of those that DO complete the survey and provide them with something really cool? I'm not saying we'll ever get around to it, but if we did maybe something like signed stuff, flying someone to a show somewhere in the world, a magic amulet that makes you invisible, a date with Jeordie White (condoms supplied of course), you know - something cool. See, you'd miss that opportunity AND be a cheater.
Do the right thing - help us out. You'll feel better.

Thank you and I've had too much caffeine this morning,

Visit here to take the survey:

Good stuff, Trent. Way to embrace the future.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

on josh howard in preview fashion.

I thought that I'd have time to write about all the Josh Howard news that's been popping up and add my thoughts, but it's just not gonna happen today. I will say this real quick about that: Josh Howard is a great basketball player. He does his job well. And even if he didn't, we live in a country where people are supposed to have free speech. If you're up in arms about what he said, I guess that's your prerogative. However, if you think something should happen to him just because of what he said, you are officially a hypocrite. The funniest thing to me about all this happening now is how it's tying together in my head the long-gestating entry on the Drug War, the issues of race and class inherent in America and put so boldly on display this election season, as well as basketball. I thought my life was coming together with music, basketball and politics. Now I have Josh Howard to thank for keeping it keeping on.

In closing, I have to say that most of my contemporaries have constantly dogged on Stephen A. Smith for most of my life. I've defended him for most of that time, because I thought that if he wasn't the smartest guy, at least he was keeping it real. That defense is done with this new article, wherein he takes Howard to task in one of the most irresponsible fashions I've ever read. Race-on-race racism? That's nearly the worst kind.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

link of the day.

Could it be considered dick-riding if I just re-posted every single hilarious video that the guys at It's The Real post? Cuz, I mean, it's not like I'm doing it and then going over there and name-dropping my site. It's not even like I'm really all about all the stuff they ever do. But I will say this...99% of what they do is funnier than the funniest comedians I've ever seen.

And this video, their latest, on the epidemic of chain snatching is perhaps the funniest ever. Go check it out and show The Real your love by following their Twitter feed, as I just signed up for.

God, these guys seriously crack me up.

Tomorrow? Josh Howard, marijuana, the NBA and a little thing called free speech.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

on the unstoppable march of time.

For what it's worth, I consider stuff like this to be really cool - a girl takes a picture of herself every day for three years and we get to see the result all sped up. This is something uniquely us, uniquely 21st century, uniquely post-modern. The photos alone might have been possible before and maybe (maybe some publisher would have taken interest and finally released it as a book years after the fact, but the very idea that we get to see this pretty much as it's happening and that she had this idea and that she can put it up herself is a remarkable thing to me. Additionally, the fact that it's being considered a good work of art, I think, says good things about our society. If everyone did this sort of thing, it would be diminished, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that, but it's an amazing thought-experiment in my head to contemplate what the world would be like if everyone took this much time to think about these rather deep thoughts. What does it mean to change? How do we change every day? How can we see that? How can we measure that? Is it worth it to do so? And what does it mean to be on the outside looking in on such a personal journey? Is it cheapening the voyage that each of us has to take now that so many people have such unfettered access to it?

Monday, September 15, 2008

on not getting caught.

This has been brewing for a long time... You'll be able to tell because some of the references are dated, but I think it's still timely, not to mention important.

A while ago, there was a bright, shining Apollo in Democratic circles who got busted for being very, very bad at the things that he most criticized others for - trying to get away with it. I was (and still am, at least kind of) a big fan of Elliot Spitzer. I knew that he wasn't going to run for President this year (it had always belonged to Hillary and Barack) but I had held out a lot of hope for him in 2012 (barring the worst this year) or at least 2016, if not a potential Veep slot.

All that talk now seems so so so ridiculous. So...long ago. Fortunes can be made and lost in the political world in less time than it takes the seasons to change. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Fortunes should change, people should be held accountable for their actions. But just like my always-in-progress, never-to-be-delivered polemic on the futility of the Drug War, I'm not sure if this event actually did anything; other than change the fate of one man.

It's always my hope when terrible things happen that it will lead to a national dialogue on the subject, because it's when people are truly engaged, when they're not just talking about things, but when they're thinking about them, that results are more likely to become tangible or measurable.

For a while, in the aftermath of the Spitzer scandal, it looked like that might actually happen - why is prostitution illegal anyway? I don't support the legalization of prostitution but I know many feminists who do. I also don't (at this point) support the legalization of drugs, but I know many rational people who do. These things are worth talking about! And even more than that, they're worth seriously considering. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, but it's also worth a little time to perhaps produce some insight when it seems we're constantly treating symptoms as opposed to the disease.

Once upon a time, it seemed like everyone was talking about Elliot Spitzer and what his scandal meant to the Democrats and how we were going to recover from it. Then it died down for a while and then everybody got obsessed afresh with John Edwards and his mistakes. While I think there's room here for a sidenote that, to be fair, for the most part, these are deeply personal issues that, perhaps, are no one else's business, I do also acknowledge that as the 21st century has progressed, these things matter more than ever. The people who put themselves in these situations should know better.

And yet...they don't. People who should know better continue to put themselves in precarious positions. And for a while, there's some outrage, but very quickly it seems to die down and nothing actually comes about of the issue. And isn't that the real tragedy? To be continued...

Thursday, September 11, 2008

on the dunning-kruger effect.

Basketbawful just absolutely killed it yesterday when he put up this re-cap of an old study that reveals why people who are terrible at something think they're so much better than everyone else. I seriously want to read this to my students very, very badly today.

On top of the hilarious examples he riffs on in his post, there are serious, serious repercussions to following this thought to its logical conclusion. If this is truly the case (and it seems likely that it is) we have great reason to doubt pretty much everyone all the time. This is a great start point for anyone who wants to suggest some sort of mandatory testing for (literally) any given activity. If the people who want to do something are over-estimating their skill at that thing, and they will consequently underestimate everyone else, that means, in essence, they're a danger to everyone else doing that thing. (Although, to be fair, I suppose in some inherently un-dangerous activities this wouldn't be a life-threatening concern; it's hard for me to get worked up over old women playing Bridge and overestimating themselves...) However, it's certainly worth thinking about.

And it does explain so, so, so, so much.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

on tombstone and not the untouchables.

Despite my nerdtastic knowledge of music, movies and comic books, there's this odd disparity in my life: a lot of the things that most people my age know really well (all the lyrics to [in my opinion] terrible old rap songs) seem to have passed me over completely. I didn't get to watch The Godfather until my best friends at college sufficiently man-shamed me into sitting and dedicating an entire weekend to it. (This was all started because, it should be noted, these same guys watched the series at least 147 times. I'm not kidding. They were obsessed.) Anyway, because of this edge missing in my life, and because I'm otherwise pretty complete in all the requisite pop-culture ways, it oftentimes surprises people when I tell them, "Oh yeah, I haven't seen that," or, "No, I've never heard this song in my life." Which is not to say that I know everything. Rather, it's an admission on my part that I'm missing some parts that pretty much everyone around me thinks are pretty standard. It can be pretty embarrassing.

For this reason, my Netflix Queue oftentimes reads like a best-of for everyone else. The films and movies that everyone else loves and has fond memories of from their childhood are littered throughout my list, in a desperate attempt to catch up and finally understand what people are talking about.

In regards to this catching up, over the course of this week, I've watched two films that people had previously said nothing but good things about to me. The first was The Untouchables and, seriously, I'm not going to spend any more time on that movie other than to say this: anyone who says this is compulsory viewing must be out of their damn mind. It was beyond just bad, it was pretty mind-blowingly terrible. I can't understand how it gets the press it does. While I understand the appeal of stories about Elliot Ness, this one was just poorly told. And just because the subject matter is good doesn't mean the story's well told. Boo.

On the other hand, I was supremely impressed by Tombstone. I say this without any malice at all, but it was seriously the first time that I'd thought of Val Kilmer as a serious actor - and in my memory, he used to get that press all the time! I never understood it growing up, probably because I'd never seen Tombstone. (And no, Top Gun doesn't count! Just because girls like to ogle the pictures doesn't mean it's a good acting job.) But Kilmer as Doc Holliday? A genius turn of acting! Really, the whole story was well-told, the conflicts drove the story in just the right direction, the characters were well-developed and pretty believable in all of their actions and the resolution was satisfying; what more do you want from a flick? (As a sidenote, here, since I just remembered it: one of the details that I was super-happy about, watching Tombstone, since I was comparing it in my head so heavy to The Untouchables, was the decent use of music. Tombstone's soundtrack flowed with the events of the movie and never seemed out of place. Literally every single time the music began in The Untouchables, it jerked me out of the scene and made me wonder if anyone had actually been in the Editing Room for this film's final cut. How anyone could hear that jarring music and think that it played well is beyond me.)

So there you have it folks: if you haven't seen Tombstone, go check it out. If anyone tells you that The Untouchables is a must-see...well...consider abandoning their friendship in favor of an animal or a plant.

Monday, September 8, 2008

on judas.

Once upon a time, there was a nice President. He ruled over a time of prosperity, and lots of people liked him but some people were very, very pissed off that he got a blowjob in the office. He lied about it, too. So that was kind of bad. His Vice-President, though, was a really, really smart guy, if kind of boring. So, when the nice President's term ended, most people assumed that the transition would run smooth from the nice guy to the boring guy. No one counted on...well...W.

Al Gore, the fairly nice, kind of boring ex-Vice-President (who would later prove to not only be really, really smart but extremely "In Your Face!" right about things that he'd long insisted were important), however, made a really, really bad mistake in choosing his own Vice-President. He chose a guy that some people liked a lot, but that even more people disliked intensely. (Want proof? He couldn't even keep his Democratic seat...without cheating!)

Joe Lieberman is now, and has always been, a gigantic Judas. He is literally half the reason why I held my nose as I voted for Al Gore. (The other half, for what it's worth, was Tipper Gore and her PMRC.) The Democrats have run away from most of the issues that got them elected in such sweeping fashion in the 2006 elections, and now say that Liberman's words at the RNC "might" endanger his position as the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It's important to keep reading that article after that pull-quote, though, too, because it's worth noting that, when asked in May if this would happen, Harry Reid said no.

The Democrats have tolerated this Judas for too long! I am fully aware of the fact that the DLC used to be important and that Bill Clinton's Presidency is widely considered to be a success, and that our majority in the Senate as it is right now is the slimmest of slim margins. However, those facts do not mean that the public will be endeared to a Party that is afraid of action! We can still be the Party of Peace, the Party of the Civil-Rights Movement, the Party of Equality, while rattling a saber or two of our own! The two are not mutually exclusive.

Joe Lieberman has no place in the Democratic Party.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

link of the day.

My brother Johnny is an avid YouTuber and always makes me envious with his video-making skills. Not to mention, he has some pretty dope biker friends. He's put up two videos in the last day of one of his better buddies, Karl LaVine doing some amazing things on a bike that y'all would benefit from watching. Check the links and go out and do some biking. It's good for you! Plus, the weather is cooling down everywhere, so it's a perfect time to do so.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

on famous friends.

Two of my best friends are on their way to geek-fame and indie-fame, respectively:

Today, via his Twitter account, I found out that Brando's tattoo got put up on Wired's photo blog of the "Best Geek Tattoos" - way to go geek, you make me so proud!

Also, of course, the old roomie, Rocafella himself, is now out of the 505, living in the Bay City about to make a name for himself as one of the dopest tattoo artists. Keep watching that space, so as to be able to claim you knew him before he was a household name.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

on chrome.

So, Google has released a browser. Yeah, I know, kind of out of left field, huh? Remember when everyone thought that Google was putting together a G-Phone to take on the iPhone and then they took the wind out of their own sails, by announcing that it wasn't a phone at all, but rather an OS to run phones on? (And then, after getting the wind taken out of their [and our] sails, we all got super-excited again when we realized what that really meant and how crappy the iPhone truly was...? Or, was that just me?) Well, this is kind of like the opposite of that.

Mozilla and Google had been so comfy for the last few years that I guess I had just kind of figured they wouldn't care about this approach. I couldn't have been more wrong. Chrome has been unleashed on the world in a very public beta test and the early reviews are...middling at best? I don't know what to say about that. Here's my rundown.

I'm disappointed that it's not able to run on anything other than PCs so far, but I expect that'll be changed very very soon. Google is smart enough to realize that Apple's picking up a non-negligible share of the market and (at least in my opinion) they've always been pretty supportive of the Linux crowd.

The extensions and add-ons (at this point) are pretty sparse, which means that Firefox wins for now. I need things to work to the point that I exactly want them to in order to consider switching over at this point. If it doesn't, I'm not going to bother yet.

However, the new tab page is a very cool idea. As is the (I-didn't-know-we-had-it-yet) ability to move tabs. Firefox 3 has it, as does Safari, but I didn't know that. I guess that says more about me than the development of browsers.

The streamlined look is nice, but I've never been one to extraordinarily clean up my Firefox browser, so I'm guessing that I could make it look pretty close if I really really cared about that. (Obviously, it's never been a deal-breaker.)

Finally, the best thing that I have to say about Chrome is what it betrays about the imminently-coming Android phones: I hope they follow this through all the way. Give us a phone and let us choose: IE, Firefox, Safari, or, hey, look, we have our own browser too. It'll work great with this phone. But we won't force it on you. Choose whatever you want.

The Internet should be open and free. I firmly believe that Google is doing a good job pushing that agenda. And if Chrome is helping them do so, then I'll be more than willing to give it equal playing time with Firefox. At least on my PC at work, until they come up with a Mac-compatible version. Then we'll really start to hack away at things here at home.

Go check it out, download Chrome and see if you like it yourself.