Out of curiousity, I bought some of this. I tried a couple of swigs and wasn't impressed. It tasted a little funny, but I couldn't really describe it. Well, tonight I saw it in the fridge and tried another shot of it, and I realized that it tastes like Pepsi, but with the teensiest little bit of dirt in it.
I saw this book at the store last night, and it caught my eye, because I've read several of DeMille's books and liked most of them. However, as soon as I read the jacket, I was disappointed that this book features characters used in two of his other books. The characters were pretty good, and I enjoyed the other two books, but at some point these characters get stale. Yet authors continue to churn out new books recycling the same characters over and over again. I guess it's because people continue to read them, and I guess I can understand that, so I'm doing my part not to perpetuate this terrible trend.
I first noticed how much I hated this when I read about 12 of John Sandford's Prey books. I was stuck, when I finished one, I just read the next one, then finally when I read something else instead, I realized I had been reading the same story over and over again. Once you get to know the characters, they aren't nearly as interesting, there's no mystery. Also, the writers (at least in my experience) seem reluctant to develop characters further after a certain point. They turn into superheros, almost. You know nothing bad is going to happen to them, and you definitely know they aren't going to die.
Later, I read Tim Dorsey's Florida Roadkill and the books following it. I thought the first two were hilarious. But after that, it was just the same characters doing the same things againa and again. I'd really love to see how Dorsey would handle a new group of characters, since he is a very good writer. I gave up after reading five books with the same characters, I think there are now seven he's written.
I've read four books by Dan Brown and he uses the same characters in two of them, which I think is about enough, unless you're telling some long epic continuing story. Unfortunately, Brown recycles the entire plot for all 4 of his books. And while he may not use the same characters, they all fit into the same roles in his single plot.
I know writers do this because it is what is profitable, but it's sad to me to see good writers writing the same thing over and over again, and I really wish people wouldn't read these recycled stories and recycled characters and encourage this.
I don't know what Bill Parcells is thinking about. Maybe Vinny gives them a slightly better chance of winning, but they need to find out if Henson is going to be the QB of the future or not, and if he is, let him make mistakes now and get some experience in real games, so come next season, he won't be so raw. And if he's not, they can find out now, so they can address it in the offseason. Vinny has no future with this team, so why play him? I could understand if they were contending for the playoffs, but even if they win the last 5 (which would have to include a road win overt he Eagles), they're only 9-7. And while 9-7 may be good enough to get in the playoffs in the NFC this season, I don't see any reason to believe that they can win all of those games. Why sacrifice the future of the team for an outside shot at winning now? Ok, myabe if Vinny was clearly much better than Henson, I could understand it, but let's not forget, it was Vinny that led them to the 3-7 record in the first place. In the last two games where both Henson and Vinny have played, Henson has looked pretty bad, but has led the team to two TDs. In the same two games, Vinny has led the team to...two TDs. Yes, he came in on Thursday and led the team to the victory, but it wasn't like they were losing when he came in and brought them back like Clint Longley. It was a 7-7 tie. Also, when he first came in, he looked terrible, throwing balls into the ground and throwing an ugly interception. And it's not like he really did a lot to guide them to victory, he played ok, but they won because of how effective Julius Jones was running the ball, and also because the Bears suck. Sure, Henson threw a pick for a TD to let the Bears into the game, but let's not forget that Vinny has done that the last two weeks.
I say put Henson in for the rest of the season. Not because he's any better than Vinny, but because you need to find out how good he can be, and also because it's not like Vinny is Brett Favre or something.
$400,000 in prizes is great and everything, but this is a good way to make it seem like a disappointment. Especially for the kids who got guitars. Hey, your sister is now a multi-millionaire, no, just kidding, sorry, but hey, you do get a guitar. I only watched the last half of the last episode, so maybe I missed a lot of great TV with this show, but somehow, I doubt it. And either those people knew what was going on already and were poorly acting surprised, or they are a bunch of retards. That family looked really stupid throughout the entire listing of the prizes. When the guy said they were all getting PS2s and iPods, the mother looked like she was going to faint. They're PS2s and iPods! Nice prizes, but it's not like anyone can quit their jobs or anything.
Oh, and NBC, I realize that with some reality shows, production seems to have really gone into the toilet, but the $ in the title of the show actually means "dollar," that's why they call it a dollar sign. So putting $ and "dollar" in the title is redundant and makes you look kind of stupid.
What a disgusting display on Friday between the Pacers and the Detroit fans. As much as I think Artest and Jackson and O'Neal were wrong to go into the stands, and I think the suspensions that David Stern handed down are appropriate, most of my disgust in this situation is reserved for the Pistons fans. The first guy throwing the cup was bad enough, but at least that could be dismissed as an isolated act by a stupid fan. But when Artest went into the stands, the number of people who went over to take a shot at him, and the number of people who rushed over to the tunnel as the Pacers were being led off the court to pour things on them and throw things at them, was ridiculous. It made Detroit fans look really bad.
And what about the security? I'm sure that it's difficult to be prepared for something like that, but in all the stuff that was shown on TV, I didn't really see any security trying to break things up. I'm sure there was security in the arena somewhere, but it was noticeably absent in the worst parts of this incident. How did that fan ever even get onto the court?
This incident was disgusting all the way around, from the Pacers, to the Detroit fans to the lack of security, to Ben Wallace who overreacted in the first place.
Everyday our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying in a war with no discernible objective and no reasonable plan for obtaining that objective if we even had one, other than "it takes as long as it takes" and it's "hard work," but not only are Americans not outraged by that, they seem to be just fine with it, and even supportive of the administration that has put us in that position. I have no doubt that the soldier who was captured on video killing an injured Iraqi wasn't just doing it because he could and because it was easier than helping him. I'm sure he was worried that the Iraqi was an insurgent that may throw a grenade when his back is turned. However, no matter what the circumstances, we should still be bothered by this either way. Whether you think the was is justified and necessary or not, we should all have a health disgust for the horrors of war, which I just don't see.
On the other hand, if a white woman jumps naked into the arms of a black man on network television, as in the intro to Monday Night Football this week, then people can't contain thier outrage. I hate to think that the race of the people involved had anything to do with people's reactions, but since there is no rational reason for this outrage, I have to consider that it may be motivated by such an irrational reason. Whether or not people were truly and honestly offended (which I doubt many people actually were), you should ask yourself, what harm this could have possibly caused. If you were getting ready to watch the football game with your children and this came on and you were not expecting it, I can understand feeling it is inappropriate, but honestly, is it that much different than anything you will see during the course of the game with shots of cheerleaders, and beer commercials? If you weren't going to watch the game and were just surfing by and saw the intro and were offended, then honestly, how long does it take to change the channel again, a second or two? How much could you have actually seen to be offended by? And finally, if you were worried about your children watching without your knowledge, and you think this is something that is not appropriate for them to see, then you really need to be more closely monitoring what they watch, because this is far from the worst thing they will see if they are watching television unsupervised. And honestly, what harm is going to come to your children from seeing something like this? I can understand not wanting them to see it, but if they happen to see it by accident, is it really such a tragedy that you need to immeadiately call, email or write ABC and the NFL? Please try to have some perspective. Nothing bad is going to happen to your children if they see a naked breast.
If people were able to get have as outraged about violence and death in real life as they do about the possibility of sexual innuendo on television, then maybe we could make some meaningful changes in the world.
Personally, I was far more offended by the fact that the Cowboys came out and played like a Pop Warner team on defense, than by anything that happened in the intro. Maybe if TO had stayed in the locker room, they would have looked a little better.
Ok, granted, it looks like there is a woman's face on this sandwhich, but who gets to decide it is the Virgin Mary? What a bunch of nonesense. Is there some picture of the Virgin Mary somewhere that I'm not aware of, so we know it's her? How do we know it's not actually Cleopatra, or some woman we never heard of who lived in the 1300s, or someone lady who's now living in Boise, Idaho, or some future woman who will do great things. The only thing worse than someone automatically labeling this the Virgin Mary sandwhich is people accepting that label. Ridiculous. No wonder George Bush is still the President.
I guess it's the teeth mostly that make this picture look bad, but really a Google Image search for ODB will quickly produce quite a few more flattering results. Have some respect for the dead, Iowa's News Leader!
I can understand that Emmitt was supposed to be over the hill, and the Cowboys didn't want to pay him if he wasn't going to produce. But he's got almost as many yards now as all three of Dallas' running backs combined, and he has 3 more TDs. He's not doing great, but he's a solid back and is on pace to rush for over 1000 yards this season. For the CARDINALS. As bad as it is to watch this guy put on another uniform, it's even worse when he's out-producing his replacements. I can understand wanting to build a team with younger guys, but Richie Anderson and Eddie George don't qualify for that, expecially when they're not getting the job done. I hope that Dallas can find someone who can run the ball soon, but I also hope that Emmitt continues to make them look bad for letting him go.
What a ridiculous system. I hope we end up with three unbeaten teams from major conferences, so this thing can be exposed as a joke once again. Last year, we had a split championship, which is just what this system was supposed to avoid, and this year we may have an unbeaten team with no chance at a title shot. Why is this so difficult? People shouldn't have to argue about whether USC or Auburn or Oklahoma is the best team, they should get out on the field and find out for sure. Stupid NCAA.
Well, both teams are undefeated this season on Monday Night, so something has to give. Seriously, I'm almost afraid to watch. TO should be open all night long, since they don't have anyone with the ability to cover him. I'd love to think Dallas could win this game, but I just don't see it.
My son loves this show. Actually it's more like an addiction. But now they've screwed it all up. The clues draw themselves, then talk (?), then move around. I don't get it So far my son doesn't seem bothered by it, but it bugs me, why change something that works so well. Kind of reminds of how they changed Suffleuffagus (or however you spell it) from Big Bird's imaginary friend to a "real" mammoth that everyone could see.
I always pretty much assumed, as most people did, I think, that these things were pretty accurate. Why shouldn't we think that, they always seem to be pretty good at projecting things. That is until the 2000 election, when I guess everyone just lost faith in them and dismissed them as inaccurate after the Florida mess. But for me, the 2000 election really just made it clear to me that it's the actual vote couting itself that is inaccurate. I'm still convinced that the first projections were correct and Gore won Florida in 2000. I said it at the time, and the more I have seen since about the voting problems has convinced me even more.
Which brings me to this election. We hear so much now about how badly wrong the exit polls were, which no one really seems to question much. Without the 2000 election, I think people would be much more confident in the polling and would be asking a lot more questions about the voting/counting instead. But since we all conveniently lost confidence in the exit polls in 2000, no one is suprised that they were wrong again. And horribly wrong. But it just makes me wonder how we can dismiss this so easily. We put a lot of confidence in these things over the years, they always worked before, why not now? Where are the people who conducted the polls standing up for their methods and standing behind their results? I'm not suggesting that John Kerry actually won the election, but I do have a lot more confidence now in a scientific poll than I do of the vote counting process after seeing wat a fiasco it is in 2000. I wonder why I don't hear more about this on the news? Am I the only one that thinks when there are two methods of finding the same result, that the "official" one must somehow automatically default to being the correct one, is somewhat silly? Especially after seeing what a mess it can be to count all those votes. I haven't seen anyone point to any evidence that shows why the exit polls would suddenly be wrong, but I have seen evidence that makes me believe that there could be lot of problems with the official vote counts.
I keep changing templates. I think I'll keep this one for a while. Not that I think it's great or anything, but it's one of the few that doesn't look incredibly narrow and stupid when viewed on a screen with any decent resolution (at least 1280 x 1024, my screen is at 1920 x 1440). Most of the ones available from Blogger seem to use images which restricts their ability to resize at all, which seem kind of stupid to me. So, I'll use this one probably until I feel like trying to figure out how to make my own.
I'm getting tired of seeing this claim on drug commercials. Isn't the only real definition of "prescription strength, " the strength at which a prescription is required to get it? And since that is the case, then this claim is just a lie. I know, I know, it's probably something that used to require a prescription, and for whatever reason no longer does. But still, it sounds pretty misleading and ridiculous to me.
As a matter of fact, I'm pretty much sick of all drug commercials in general, especially the ones for prescription drugs. "Ask your doctor about..." I go to a doctor so he can tell me what I need, not the other way around. Besides, half of these commercials barely even mention what the drug is supposed to treat, so I would look pretty stupid asking my doctor about some of them if they don't even apply to my symptoms.
Doc: Looks like you've got a bit of indigestion.
Me: Yeah, just hook me up with some of that Ortho-Evra.
Doc: Uh, well...
Me: Yeah, I know about the side affects, they listed them on the commercial, no problem.
Doc: It's not really something I would prescribe for your condition.
Me: Oh, I see you have some deal with a competing drug company, but luckily they have all these great ads now, so I don't have to rely on your biased advice.
Doc: Lucky you.
Me: Yeah, your days of kickbacks are over.
Doc: Boy, you really have me all figured out.
Me: Yeah, so anyway, how long will it take to know if this stuff is working?
Doc: Well, it's working fine as long as you don't get pregnant.
Me: Huh?
Doc: Maybe I could explain to you exactly what Ortho Evra is.
Me: Oh, is that not the right one? Well, just give me a little Claritin, then.
Doc: I quit.
See, I really don't want to go through that, it would make me look pretty stupid, then I'd have to find a new doctor. Not worth the hassle. Maybe I'll just let him decide how I should be treated, and if I'm not comfortable with it, or I don't agree, then I'll go get a second opinion from another doctor. Stupid commercials.
As I observed a couple of weeks ago, the Cowboys suck. It's really depressing, especially since I know they'll lose next week. I guess last week was a fluke. What really makes me mad is a lot of problems seem to be related to coaching and lack of discipline. Bad calls on 4th down, stupid plays, bad personnel descisions, penalties, turnovers, these aren't things you expect to see from a Parcells team. Very disappointing,
Do people not understand what the word morals means? I guess they don't. Hey "rural voters", way to reinforce the sterotype that you're all a bunch of ignorant bigoted idiots! I think everyone who voted for this guy should be required to sign their kids up to be sent to Iraq. It really makes me sick how people are so cavalier about the lives and freedoms of other people. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since it's pretty clear people already think stubborn = strong.
Meaning of MORALITY
Pronunciation: mu'ralitee
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
[n] motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Despite the fact that I don't really know many gay people, for some reason this issue just really gets to me. There is absolutely no reason for people to support these things so strongly. If you are straight, gay people getting married is going to have absolutely no affect on you.
If you're voting this way because you just think homosexuality is wrong, then you're just a bigot trying to force your beliefs on everyone else. Guess what, gay people will still be here, whether they are allowed to get married or not. If they truly are doing something wrong, then isn't that really a decision that should be left up to them?
If you have a religous objection to homosexuality, guess what, not everyone shares your religion. Do you want to outlaw anything that doesn't fit in with your own religous beliefs? That pretty much directly conflicts with the principles our country was founded on. You practice your religion, let others practice theirs.
If you're worried about gay marraige having some negative affect on families, take a look at any family, chances are some of them won't look anything like yours, but will be perfectly happy and healthy, and some of them will look just like yours and have any number of problems. What's important in a family is that the members love and support one and other, not what one's sexual orientation is.
If you're worried that not condemning homosexuality will somehow encourge people to "switch teams", then you just don't understand it, and you should take some time to learn what you're talking about before you make judgements that will affect the lives of others. Homosexuality isn't a disease that can be stamped out if we just don't encourage it. Face the fact that there are and will always be gay people and they have just as much right to be happy as you do. It might encourage people to be more open about who they are, and that's a good thing.
If you just want to deny rights to other people because you don't like them, then you're a bigot. And voting for measures like this may make you feel good about yourself, but in the long run, all you've done is document the fact that you're a bigoted asshole. You're not going to make anyone stop being gay, you're not going to get them to stop having relationships, and you're not going to stop them from committing to each other if they want to. All you can stop is their unions from being officially recognized, and even that will only be temporary, until stupid bigots like yourself are dead.
Finally, why do you really care? If you're straight, why should it bother you that other people are not? What's so terrible about other people being happy? You don't have to like their lifestyle, no one is asking you to, but is it really to much to ask to just leave them alone? As much as Bush's re-election upset me, seeing these bans pass so eaily really, really depressed me, because now I realize that I live in a country that only pretends to be accepting, but when it comes time to vote, they vote for hatred and bigotry.
I could rant for hours about how stupid it is to vote for Bush, but it's clear he has most people fooled. I don't understand it, it makes no sense from any perspective. Wake up, America, look around you, things are bad and getting worse. Your freedom is being taken away, your family members are being sent off to die, the economy sucks, your children are not being given a decent education, and Bush seems to think things are just fine. How can anyone vote for this idiot, much less a majority? I guess people are more impressed with someone who pretends to be a tough guy then with anyone who has any real substance.
I cannot understand why so many people are so concerned with something that does not affect them in any way. Assuming all the homophobes that voted for these bigoted bans are straight, why should it even matter to them at all? These nonesense arguments about the "sanctity" of marraige are clearly ridiculous. No matter what you call it, gay people will continue to have relationships, so the only real reason to vote in favor of these bans is for people to deny the rights of others that are different from themselves. A vote in favor of one of these bans is a vote that says, "I'm better than you are, so there!" If you're not gay, don't like gay people, think it's disgusting or whatever, fine, but why do you think you should have any say in how they live their lives? I'm pretty disgusted today. I thought America was about freedom, but it's really more about freedom to be an asshole.
Especially on TV where we have to watch them do it, then hear some asshole ask who they voted for (funny!). These stories rank right up there with coverage of lines at the post office on April 15th.
The Roy Williams showdown never materialized as Detroit's Roy was sidelined by injury. But Dallas' Williams and the defense stepped up after letting Detroit go right down the field to begin the game. With Cincinnati next week, Dallas has a shot at getting to .500 before getting waxed by Philly on Monday Night.
In a related story, according to some ridiculous trend, the Redskins' loss to Green Bay means Kerry will win the election. I guess anything helps.
