I'm ok with your feel-good fluff stories, but I'm about sick of this particular brand of fluff. Enough with the kids called for jury duty. Enough with the pets who got credit cards in the mail. This kind of thing was mildly amusing the first time, now it's just tired, and just highlights the fact that the MSM doesn't care about real news. It's just a data error, get over it!
So, I'm old enough to remember when MTV first got started, and young enough to have watched it quite a bit from then right up until now. Who would have thought an entire network devoted to playing music videos (whatever those are) could possibly work? Oh right, it didn't really work, since I can't remember the last time I saw music video on MTV. I guess they still play them late at night or something. And they still seem to be focused on that silly experiment, only they now call it MTV2, except that it now seems to be just a clone of MTV showing the same original programming over and over (and over...). I guess they've moved the music to MTV Hits (or something), where it can fail again. So, anyway, MTV has for sometime relied on orginal shows (some good, some bad, some terrible)to carry the network, and they seem to be doing ok that way.
MTV's shows, as ridiculous as some of them are, don't get enough credit in my mind, for changing the way people think. Everytime I see people debating gay marraige, it always irritates the shit out of me that people still can have some of the stupid bigoted attitudes that they do. Yet, as I get upset, I'm always comforted by the certainty (in my mind anyway) that in the near future, the gay rights debate will be decided by people who grew up watching MTV. For at least 15 years, gay people have been presented positively, and just like anyone else on MTV, particularly on The Real World, and it's many spin-offs. My ideas on the subject were pretty well formed already by that time, and luckily I came up with the right opinion anyway, but for younger people who may otherwise fall into the trap oh homophobia, I think seeing these people on TV will really help. I think it's almost impossible for people to hold on to their bigotry when growing up in a world where they can plainly see that gay people are just like anyone else.
In my entire time in school there were probably a handful of kids who were suspected of being gay, and people were rough on them. Now, I hear a lot more about kids being openly gay, and obviously the more kids who know those kids, the less bigots we're going to have.
I've often thought of this as I watch MTV, but as I saw a few seconds of some (really, really, really, almost painfully bad) dating show on MTV the other day, where teen lesbians were on the show, and the show was exactly like it was with heterosexual contestants, it really hit me how much progress we've made, and how much I think MTV has contributed to that progress.
Now, if they could just bring back Remote Control, because that was a great show. And it's where I first saw Adam Sandler.
When this show firststarted, I was very excited to see it, as I usually enjoy shows that are unique and different from whatever else is on TV. But for whatever reason, I just couldn't get into it. And since I stubbornly hate to start things in the middle, I didn't try to pick it back up even after hearing so many great things about it. Well, with all the hype around this season's premiere, I decided to give it another try, figuring that a show whose entire season covers a single day shouldn't be able to have too much going on from the past that I shouldn't be able to enjoy it anyway. So, I watched the two part, two night, four hour premiere, and I'm pretty well hooked. I wish they had done it that way in the first season and maybe I would have been watching all along. Knowing FOX, they'll cancel it next week, despite all the great ratings, but at least if I'm watching, I'll be able to bitch about it along with everyone else.
One thing that did bother me, though, was Jack Bauer having two cell phones. Now, I'm sure that's pretty normal for a super spy, but seems a little odd for a drifter trying to catch work on oil rigs. So if he wasn't carrying around both phones in his new life, and he had the Treo in his bag o' spy stuff, I could see that. Except that since the bag was crammed in an air vent, presumably for quite some time, I'm not sure when he had time to charge the new phone. I don't know why these things bother me, but I'd be willing to forget about it if FOX will send me one of those Treos. Anyway, it's a pretty small thing in a pretty great show, and something I guess you have to give them license for in a show like this with a tight timeline.
So after watching 4 of 24 hours, I'm left with the impression that Jack Bauer is a bad motherfucker. I hope to get the DVDs or something and catch up on the rest of the seasons sometime.
A little over a year ago, I voted for John Kerry for President, and while I still wish he had won, nothing that has happened since the election has made me sad that he lost, other than the fact that we still have to live being led by George Bush. A little over five years ago, I voted for Al Gore for President, and at the time, I didn't have much more feeling for him than I had for Kerry. I've learned a lot about politics since then, and everytime I hear Al Gore speak, I'm sorry that he isn't the President. It makes me even sadder because I'm still convinced that he won the election.
I hope he runs for President again, because I just can't get excited about anyone else whose names are out there. I would vote for most of the Democrats over any of the Republicans, but I wouldn't be happy about voting for Clinton or Biden or Kerry. I would enthusiastically support Al Gore*. And if he doesn't run, I hope the democrats can scare up someone who has some sort of personality and seems to have ideas about what is going on in our country.
* As long as he doesn't grow that nasty beard again.
I found this article pretty interesting. I've long wondered why people who claim to oppose abortion from a moral perspective focus so much time and effort trying to make it illegal, which really doesn't do anything to change the fact that people are going to get abortions. As I read through the article, I was a little bothered by some of the tactics used by this "clinic" particularly in the postabortion counseling which seems to be just a way to make women feel guilty about what they have done. However, I'd much rather see people who oppose abortion do things like this that rather than try to take that choice away from everyone. Discouraging abortion makes a lot more sense to me than trying to outlaw abortion, and it seems to fit better with what most anti-abortion people claim to be bothered by. I don't think abortion is ever a good thing, even if it sometimes might be the best thing available in a particular situation, so it's nice to see that at least some of the people that oppose it actually try to do something to prevent it rather than just make it illegal. It would be nice to see similar efforts trying to make sure the unwanted pregnancies don't occur in the first place, then it would be a lot easier to believe that anti-abortion people were more concerned about stopping abortions than about limiting freedom.
Like I said, there were quite a few things in the article that bothered me, it seems that they're probably misleading women, or even lying, and definitely trying to make them feel guilty, and I wonder how much assistance they actually offer after a baby is born. But overall, doing more of this kind of thing would represent anti-abortion people a lot better than blowing up abortion clinics, and trying to take away women's rights.
I wonder if he hadn't had a wounded knee if Harper could have gotten by Rothlisberger and scored the game winner. Someone should see if his wife is possibly a Steelers fan.
Wow. Maybe someday the US can be as progressive as Africa.
I've found a good way to make people smile at least, if not laugh, is to not send their family members halfway around the world to get killed for no reason, but I'm no expert or anything.
"I think there may well be a strict party-line vote," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters.
...
Confident Republicans and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said a filibuster is unlikely.
"The point is the key to this was whether or not there was enough critical mass established during these hearings to trigger not only a filibuster but ... that so-called nuclear option," Toobin said, referring to a move to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees.
"I'm pretty sure -- I could always call for one order of crow -- but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen."
So, it's looking like most Democrats in the Senate are going to vote against this guy. If that's the case, why in the world would they not use the filibuster? I can only think of two reasons - either they don't have the votes for a filibuster, or they're just spineless dogs.
First possibility, enough Dems are voting yes that they don't have enough votes for a filibuster. If that's the case, what the hell is wrong with these people? Although these hearings do little to provide any real information(I blame the Senators themselves for much of that, since they ask the same type of questions over and over knowing they're not going to get an answer), it's clear to me that there's no reason to believe that Alito's changed his position on abortion, rights for workers and minorities, or presidential powers. If any Democrats believe that putting a man like this on the Supreme Court is a good thing, they should just go ahead and switch parties right now.
Second possibility, they have the votes to support a filibuster, but they're afraid to rock the boat and possibly invoke the so-called nuclear option. In this case they're just gutless cowards, more afraid of looking too partisan than in doing what's right. As John has said, there's no reason to be afraid of Republican threats, if you're afraid to use it on vitally important issues, then the filibuster is useless. And what's more important than the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice? Do the right thing and let the Republicans do whatever they're going to do. They won't be the majority party forever.
The bottom line for me is it's clear that Alito trusts authority, whether it's the executive branch, or large corporations, and he's willing to err on their side. He's shown this in his previous rulings and legal papers. I think there's an idea among Democrats that it's more difficult to justify denying him the position because he's obviously qualified technically to do the job. He's certainly no Harriet Myers. But it's wrong to think that because he's got the resume that you have to rubber stamp his nomination. The responsibility of the Senate is to consent. To my mind that doesn't mean a 51-49 ramming down our throat of a right-wing judge. It implies consensus, as much as possible. There have been plenty of nominees from both parties who have been able to gain consensus. Look at Sandra Day O'Connor, the woman he's replacing. She was confirmed 99-0, and is generally considered a centrist. For the Democrats to cave on this nomination and vote yes or avoid the filibuster is an abdication of their constitutional responsibility.
What the fuck? Who was "confused or hurt" by this? So, is he sorry that it's hard to ski while drunk or just that he pointed it out? And isn't it really pretty much common sense? Lots of things are harder when drunk, why should skiing be any different? Who the fuck hears something like this and decides to make an angry phone call or write a letter? Don't you have anything better to do with your time? There are far, far, far more serious things to get upset about than a drunk skier.
Costing about $400, the RedWire DLXs are on a price par with other designer
jeans such asTsubi, Nudie and Paper Denim Cloth.
Well, it's about fucking time.
Not that I'm a huge fan of core Republican principles, but I'll take them in a second over the ridiculous, out of control spending, bloated government, and corruption we currently enjoy.
Toast has a post over on this over at his place. You create a map of all the states you've visited. I didn't count airports, or states where I've only driven. I figure if I've spent the night, I can count it.
As you can see from the contiguous nature of my map, we don't fly in-country much. The only place I've flown in the US is Las Vegas. There are a lot of places I'd like to go. The Northeast is conspicuously absent, as is the West coast. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see in both places.
Hey if you put my map together with Toast, we've been everywhere in the continental US except North Dakota and West Virginia. I almost counted West Virginia as I drove a trailer through the mountains there at night, which was very interesting - if you've ever been on I-77 there, it's pretty hilly, to say the least. There are a lot of runaway truck lanes. The scary thing was these lanes actually had worn tire tracks, so you know they got used. We tried to spend the night, but every hotel at every exit in the entire state was full. No shit. We had to stay in North Carolina. So if you're ever driving through West Virginia, make a reservation.
This story is just tragic all around, and reading notes from people who knew they were going to die makes it even worse. But the part of this article that really seemed odd to me was this:
Peggy Cohen went to the Central Elementary School...toemphasis mine
identify the body of her 59-year-old father, Fred Ware Jr.
Happy Birthday to my new blog partner and big brother, Chris. Chris is now officially old enough to be President, so remember him on your ballots in 2008, instead of whatever assholes actually run. Of course, by the time 2008 rolls around, I will also be old enough, so you can vote for me as well.
Seriously, though, as annoying as it was everytime I started a new school year to have teachers ask, "Are you Chris' brother?" It's worth it to have a big brother. I know quite a few people who have pretty distant or strained relationships with their siblings, and I can't understand that, as I really value my relationship with my brother. I'm glad that my son has big brothers, also, and though they are considerably older than he is, which will mean he won't be able to grow up with them the same way I did with my brother, the trade off is that he will also not be held down and forced to smell things, so it's probably worth it. My only complaint is my brother never beat anyone up for me, but I suppose there's still time for that.
Anyway, everyone join me in wishing Chris a happy 35th birthday!
Ok, so now can we stop hearing about how USC is the best team in the history of team sports? I mean, they had some wonderful accomplishments, but after a month of talking about one team, it gets kind of old. Aftet Texas played an excellent first half and was leading comfortably, all we could fucking hear about was how USC is a second half team, which is true, but how about a little credit for Texas? Assholes. Had USC won that game, I fully expected most of ESPN's on air talent to line up to give blowjobs to Reggie Bush. Luckily, we didn't have to see that.
Can someone tell the ADT guy that no one cares about their 8,000,000 customers, 40,000 employees, or their authorized dealers? Just present the trophy, already.
Vince Young is pretty good. Reggie Bush is also very good, but he's an idiot for that attempted lateral.
I could write for an hour about the things Dan Fouts and Keith Jackson said that pissed me off, but I'll just give a few highlights. The stupidest comment I think I've ever heard is when USC was up by 12 with around 6 minutes to go, and Young threw a pass that should have been picked off, Fouts said that the USC defender had decided to just knock it down instead. Yes, it had nothing to do with the receiver getting in his way or maybe just an inability to catch the ball. He decided. Because really, when faced with intercepting a pass that will all but asure you of winning the National Championship or knocking it down and at best sweating it out for 6 more minutes and at worst, uh losing the game, knocking it down is clearly the right decision. I don't know what the gramatically correct plural form of time-out is, but I do know that time-outs sounds fine, and times-out sounds really, really stupid, but I think Keith Jackson may be dead soon, so I guess he deserves a pass on that. Dan Fouts also pissed me off by harping on the fact that Texas scored a TD that should have been overturned. He was right about that, but the way he talked about it made it seem like they were given 6 free points. If they had overturned the play it still would have been first down in the red zone, and Vince Young proved last night that he's hard to stop in that situation, so it's not like they couldn't have scored anyway.
Once it got to 4th and 5, I knew Young would run it unless he was just blitzed and blindsided before he had a chance to decide where to go, and I knew he would make it. It was way too easy for him running the ball. Once he tucked it down and took off, I knew he would score. I think he only even bothered to look around first to give the defense a chance to get moving in other directions, and to see if he possibly had a wide open receiver somewhere.
I hate the BCS, because they suck, but they did give us two great games and a pretty good game (I didn't watch the FiestaBowl, so I don't know about that one), so if we have to have a fucked up system, it's nice to have good games to watch, anyway.
Ok, so I'm a pretty big football snob, I don't think any sport even comes close, especially soccer. So of course, I make fun of it. However, that is mostly just in fun, if a world of foreigners like to watch soccer and get in a big brawl or cut their balls off or throw urine on each other or whatever, I say more power to them. But when you try to prove that soccer is more exciting scientifically, then I have a problem. Particularly with this part:
The team decided to make unpredictability - how often a leading team isHuh? Unpredictability is the best measure of how exciting it is? So all those countless hours that they run around NOT scoring goals don't really factor in at all, I guess. I'm all for rooing for the underdog at times, and appreciating a good upset, but sheer dominance can be pretty exciting as well. This "research" is pretty flawed from the beginning.
overcome by an opponent with a worse record - the best measure of how exciting a
league is.
So I finally finished re-reading The Chronicles of Narnia (reviews). They were pretty much exactly as I remembered, except they were definitely kids books, and I was more aware of the religous aspects of the stories, particularly in the last book. They're still great to read, though, especially being able to remember reading them as a kid. I think The Magician's Nephew is my favorite, with The Last Battle being the worst by far.
Now, I'm going to start Scattered Suns, the fourth book in the series I've been reading, that I got for my birthday. By the time I finish that, hopefully my wife will be done with The Historian, which I got her for Christmas. There's a guy at work who read it and wants to talk about it and keeps asking me if I've read it yet, so I need to read it.
What's everyone else reading? Any recommendations?
So my favorite college and pro teams would both be in better shape now if they had decent kickers. Dallas would likely be in the playoffs without about three big misses on field goals this year, and FSU probably would have won the Orange Bowl with a decent kicker. I can almost excuse the missed field goals in overtime, but the missed extra point was too much. And Bobby Bowden has no excuse for not finding a good kicker, he's seen this all too many times, big kicks missed in big games with FSU on the wrong side at the end. It's not enough to hope the other guy sucks a little bit worse than your guy, although last night (this morning) it almost seemed like it would be, and it did work for Penn State. I don't know if Bill Parcells has had any major kicking problems in his past coaching stops, but I hope this season teaches him that a good kicker is invaluable and that he either goes out and gets a reliable free agent kicker, or find some young kicker who actually shows real promise. I'll be pissed next season if they still have a shitty kicker, considering what it cost them this season.
Now, on to my BCS complaint. Since this season they lucked into getting the right teams in the championship game, I won't complain too much about that. Even though a system that works once every five years seems like a failure to me. Anyway, what I want to complain about today is the game times and length. If a game starts at 8:00, it shouldn't end at 1:00, regardless of how many overtimes there are. Regulation didn't end until after midnight. And if you're going to start the games at 8:00, how about starting them at 8:00, and not at 8:20? I don't need any more pregame or buildup, these teams haven't played for a month, that's all anyone's been talking about. Your extra twenty minutes just means I have longer to wait. One game like this might not be so bad, but after staying up for the Sugar Bowl, then the Orange Bowl, I don't know if I have enough left in the tank to make it to the end of the Rose Bowl tonight. Especially if it's a long game that goes down to the end, like last night's. But no matter what time they start, a football game shouldn't take 4 hours to play. It's an hour on the clock, that means they had three hours of commercials, halftime and other crap. That's too much. I love football and wouldn't mind it the games lasted six hours if they didn't put them on so late on a weeknight. Why is it more important for west coast viewers to see the beginning that for east coast viewers to see the end?
And why were Mike Tirico and Kirk Herbstreit so intent on defending Jeff Bowden last night? The guy blows as a play caller. The one constant in all their underachieving offenses is him. Sure they've had injuries that have hurt, but they still have plenty of talent and ought to be able to rush for more than 50 yards in a game. I think it's a testament to that talent that they can go to overtime with the #3 team in the country despite such an anemic offense. And I especially think it's ok to blame Bowden when he so clearly uses his players the wrong way. Running Booker between the tackes and Washington wide, when it should be the exact opposite. Or after Washington easily converts a third and 2, only to have it come back for a holding penalty, giving it to Booker on the subsequent fourth and 2, where of course he was stuffed. Or trying a QB sneak almost from the 2 yard line. That really could have cost them, just a completely wasted play. I can understand why Bobby Bowden would defend Jeff Bowden, being his father, but I don't get why anyone else would.
As the NFL playoffs start, I will be rooting for the Jaguars and the Colts. Mostly the Colts since I think the Jaguars will get hammered this weekend, and I don't think I could stand listening to the radio if they win. I like Peyton Manning and Tony Dungy, and would like to see both of them win it all. Especially Dungy since he's been through enough lately, and also because he got screwed in Tampa and wasn't there for their SuperBowl win. I can't really get excited about anyone in the NFC. Seattle is the worst number one seed I've seen since the Giants a few years ago. They got a lot of luck this year in the games I saw them in. Chicago is a nice story, but I don't want to watch a team with no offense again. We've seen that too much recently with the Ravens and the Bucs. The Giants are incredibly overrated, if you watch them play, it's amazing that they're able to win at all. I guess having nine home games helps, especially when you suck on the road (nice job, NFL). I guess I'll probably root for Tampa, though I can't get too excited about them either. I do hope Washington gets beat badly, that's one thing I can get excited for. Whatever happens, I hope the games are good. Anyone have any predictions?
So after posting yesterday that I didn't see any way these guys had survived, I was pretty surprised but happy to hear that I was wrong last night. Well, of course, as it seems happens with any big story these days, somebody fucked up and apparently only one guy survived. I'm sure there will be a lot of people blaming the mining company or the governor's office, or the media, but as upset as I would be if someone in my family was one of the miners, I can't too upset at anyone in this situation. I'm sure it was a terribly stressful couple of days all around, and obviously this shouldn't have happened, but I don't think anyone would maliciously spread false information, or withhold the real information. At least I hope not. I imagine that this rumor started somewhere that they were alive, possibly because the one guy was, and it spread quickly because that's what everyone wanted to believe.
I'm glad to see that the Republicans have been able to restore honesty and integrity to the government.
Is there any chance these guys are still alive? I guess they need to go through the motions of a rescue, and I'd certainly want them to if I was down there, but it's been like a day and a half, I don't see much chance these guys are still alive even if they survived the initial explosion. In 2006, shouldn't there be better ways to do mining than sending people down there? It sure seems like there should.
Anyway, on the bright side for West Virginia, they did (barely) hang on to win the Sugar Bowl.
I'm just shuffling through the music on my pc and a song from Ragtime just played. For any musical theater fans (I know there's at least one of you out there), does anyone know why this show isn't touring somewhere? Great music, great story, epic sweep, universal themes. I'm glad I was fortunate enough to see a Broadway-caliber regional production.
I don't know if this guy was innocent or not, but I hope the DNA testing is done. I think if the state is in possession of viable DNA evidence from old cases, and that evidence could be exculpatory, the state has a responsibility to do the test, and to do it as quickly as possible. My guess is that 99% of these tests will show that the proper person was convicted, but it's that remaining percentage that makes all the difference.
I do wonder how much difference it would make in public opinion if Coleman is exonerated by the DNA. From the article -
"I think it would be the final straw for a lot of people who are on the fence on the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.
I think there's some truth to that, but I also think there are a lot of people who will say that even if he didn't do this crime, he was still a bad guy and point to his attempted rape conviction. I don't agree with this view, but I think a lot of people will take that position.
On the subject of DNA testing, I wonder if OJ would have gotten off if his trial were held today? I think CSI has made the average citizen much more aware of DNA evidence. DNA evidence is no longer considered lofty scientific stuff, in fact, I would say it's solidly mainstream now. I wasn't one of the trial-watchers back then, but I remember the defense trying to confuse the jury about the blood evidence, which was damning for OJ. I wonder if they would fall for it now?
I just ran across this interview with the writer/director of Better Off Dead. I was really surprised to find out that John Cusack didn't like this movie. I actually saw it first-run back in 1985 and I've always loved it. When I think about 80's movies this is one that always comes to mind.
