The English language in 3000 AD

Here's a 2003 article by linguist Justin B Rye that looks at how the English has evolved over the centuries, and offers an example of what English could sound look in a thousand years.

2000 AD: We children beg you, teacher, that you should teach us to speak correctly, because we are ignorant and we speak corruptly...

3000 AD: *ZA kiad w'-exùn ya tijuh, da ya-gAr'-eduketan zA da wa-tAgan lidla, kaz 'ban iagnaran an wa-tAg kurrap...

FUTURESE: The American Language in 3000 AD

For once, I'm glad I'll be dead.

9-year-old boy told he's too good to pitch

This is disgusting. How do you tell a kid he's too good to play? That pretty much goes against every lesson you're trying to teach kids in youth sports. I can understand that the other kids may not like playing against him, though it seems hard to believe that a nine year old could be that much better than his peers. But I can't see where one game where the opposing team has to face this kid is so difficult for them that it's better just to teach them that when things are hard, you just quit and go home. It sounds like there's some other political issues going on, and maybe the kid's mother isn't very easy to get along with, and that's a real shame, because adults letting their petty problems get in the way of their kids having fun is pretty sad. I just don't understand how facing a tough pitcher is doing anything to the opposition other than making them better hitters. Maybe they can't hit against him, but after facing him, it should be easier for them to hit other pitchers. I'm sure there's more to the story than we see here, but still, I really think everyone would be better off if they let this kid pitch and just stop making a big deal about it.

Seen at our local Publix

We ran across this today while out doing a little grocery shopping. At first I just saw the big "Obama" and idly thought "Cool, another supporter". Then I saw the fine print. These people must be some serious idiots. This reminds me, I really need to go ahead and get some Obama/Biden bumper stickers and yard signs.

Solution, or Mess? A Milk Jug for a Green Earth - NYTimes.com

So, I just got one of these new milk jugs for the first time at Sam's Club. I was a little perplexed by it, because it has instructions on it. "Just tilt and pour." Maybe I'm an idiot, but that's pretty much what I did with the old jugs, so it works out fine, even if instructions hadn't been provided.

So, I was even more surprised to find this article about it. Are people really this retarded? So, I poured a glass of milk just to make sure there's not some hidden challenge to it. Nope, nothing, it seems to obey the same laws of physics that the old ones did. When you tilt it, the milk comes out of the hole in the top. You just need to get your glass somewhere between that hole and the floor. Not really all that difficult. And frankly, even if it was 10 times are hard to pour as the old jugs (still making it not that hard), the benefits detailed in the article make the switch easily worthwhile. Except, I couldn't quite figure out this one:

Others, even those who rue the day their tried-and-true jugs were replaced, praised the lower cost, from $2.18 to $2.58 a gallon. Sam’s Club said that was a savings of 10 to 20 cents a gallon compared with old jugs.

2.58 seems like more than 2.18, but even if they just got that backwards, I'm not sure how that comes out to 10 or 20 cents a gallon. Anyway, I'd be pretty happy to pay either price. Even at Sam's Club, where it's much cheaper than everywhere else, milk still costs about 3.35 a gallon here.

It's really not that clever

While I'm no internet curmudgeon like my brother :), I think sometimes people get a little carried away. I don't mind a little bit of clever wordplay if it's actually clever, but this election season, I'm seeing a lot of things that get old. For example, I've seen various permutations of McCain's name, used in every single comment the author makes - McSame, McLame, McInsane, JSMcC*nt, and others that escape me at the moment. There are also various other forms such as fRightwing, and Reichtwing I see fairly often. Enough already!

ESPN - TitleTown USA

As if it wasn't already clear that this was a stupid idea, the result clearly shows how ridiculous the whole exercise was. "Titletown, USA" has no professional sports teams, no major colleges, and most people have probably never even heard of it. This whole thing was just straight up contrived ESPN bullshit.

Sountrack of my Life

So I was tagged by Toast with this labor intensive meme he got from Furious. Normally, I shy away from blogging anytime it starts to resemble work in any way, as you may have gathered from the frequency of my posts, but this time, I'm kind of bored, so I'll give this a shot.

Basically, you start at the year of your birth, and pick the best album for each year. Unlike some of these other guys, I'm not even going to try to remember what I may have liked at the time, I'm just going to go with what I think now. So here we go:

1972 - Eagles - Eagles. Just because I had to pick something to get this thing started. Wow, what a crappy year for music.

1973 - Aerosmith - Aerosmith. Again, just because I have to pick something, if I didn't know they 80s and 90s would go much better, I'd quit about now.

1974 - Endless Summer - Beach Boys Apparently, the 70s had less good music than I originally thought. I'm really glad I was not yet old enough to care.

1975 - A Night at the Opera - Queen. How did people actually survive the 70s?

1976 - Hotel California - The Eagles I really don't like The Eagles as much as it may seem at this point.

1977 - The Stranger - Billy Joel. Finally found one that I didn't feel like I was just picking because I had to.

1978 - Van Halen - Van Halen. Getting slightly easier now. Unfortunately, while I expect there will be more good choices soon, that also means I have to choose between them.

1979 - Off the Wall - Michael Jackson. Whatever happened to this guy?

1980 - Back in Black - AC/DC. I'm not a huge AC/DC fan, but this one belongs on here.

1981 - I Love Rock 'n' Roll - Joan Jett & the Blackhearts. Ok, so I said I wasn't going to try to remember what I liked at the time, but for 1981, I couldn't find anything I liked more than a song or two on, but I had this back then and really liked it, though it does absolutely nothing for me now.

1982 - Thriller – Michael Jackson. Can't go wrong with the best selling album of all time.

1983 - Madonna - Madonna. I bought this on cassette at a gas station on some long trip we went on when I was a kid.

1984 - Purple Rain - Prince and the Revolution. Who doesn't love Prince?

1985 - Radio - LL Cool J. See, he has been here for years.

1986 - Licensed to Ill - The Beastie Boys. This was an easy one. I believe I can still recite the entire album from memory. Anyway, I didn't even look at the rest of the list for this year.

1987 - Appetite for Destruction - Guns N' Roses.

1988 - TIE: ...And Justice for All - Metallica and Straight Outta Compton - N.W.A. and Eazy-Duz-It - Eazy-E. How can I pick between those three?

1989 - As Nasty As They Wanna Be - 2 Live Crew.

1990 - Mama Said Knock You Out - LL Cool J. Don't call it a comeback.

1991 - Metallica ("The Black Album") - Metallica.

1992 - The Predator - Ice Cube. And I won't choke like the Buffalo Bills...

1993 - Doggystyle - Snoop Doggy Dogg.

1994 - Dookie - Green Day. Not much I liked to pick from here.

1995 - Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette.

1996 - Load - Metallica.

1997 - Big Willie Style - Will Smith.

1998 - Greatest Hits Live - Journey. I've tried to avoid greatest hits or compilations so far, but I couldn't come up with anything else, and I'm running out of meme steam.

1999 - Hooray for Boobies - The Bloodhound Gang. I picked this one because you were supposed to stick your tongue through the CD to make it look like a boobie.

2000 - The Marshall Mathers LP - Eminem.

Ok, that's all I can do. I don't listen to much music these days, especially anything new, and everything I see on the recent pages is barely recognizable at best. So the meme has beaten me, I give up.

Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

I haven't watched this show since the last time I posted about it. After watching part of it again tonight, I realize that this is a show I need to stay away from, as it only makes me depressed to realize how stupid people are.

The first question I saw was "What is the minimum number of letters required to make a word in the English language?" The guy did thankfully get it right, but only after peeking at the answer of the fifth grader beside him, which is I guess some kind of lifeline in this show. Jeff Foxworthy did make fun of him a little for it, but not nearly enough, as far as I'm concerned. He then counted on his fingers for a while before finally answering correctly how many days are in January, June and September combined, but at least he got it. Then came the question about which amount (in US currency) is greatest, half a trillion, 600 billion, or 999 million. This time he seemed pretty sure, and was reading through each one before giving his answer. He amazingly figured that half a trillion is 500 billion, so 600 billion is greater, then he sounded like he was about to say that obviously 999 was greater, when I guess he really noticed that million for the first time. Well, nothing wrong with that, he didn't read the question completely at first. But the sad part here was, he really seemed thrown by this revelation, and it took him time to recover before he thankfully did come up with the right answer. The next question was, "Which of the 50 state capitals lies at the greatest latitude?" The guy was pretty sure of himself this time and pretty quickly answered Maine. Now I don't know if the show is strict enough to tell him that Maine isn't the capital of anything, since it's obviously wrong for other reasons. But the thing that pissed me off here was that they guy got to continue because the little girl answered the question correctly. I stopped paying attention at that point, but looked up to see that he quit on the next question, though he could have continued if he would have taken the little girl's answer, which was correct.

Forgivable Five

Tracy put up a fun little meme -

Question - what five famous people would you want listed in the contract that your significant other had to forgive you if, you know, you just happened to meet them and you just happened to hit it off and they just happened to express interest in some hot, shallow monkey sex?

My actual list wouldn't have any famous people, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone but me and Michelline. And really, this isn't set in stone, it could change from day to day, depending on who crosses my path. So here we go, in no particular order.

1. Jessica Alba

She's actual a little less full-figured than I normally go for, but there's something about her.

2. Katherine Heigl

After seeing Knocked Up, I developed a kind of a thing for her. She also vaguely reminds me of a really sexy lady I work with (who's definitely on my non-famous list).

3. Lara Logan

I saw her on The Daily Show and wow, I would've thought she was an actress or a model if I hadn't been told. Smart, beautiful and a sexy accent. Here, just watch the clip if you haven't seen it.


4. Marina Sirtis

She'd have to use her Troi accent, though. That reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Barclay was using the holodeck to run his fantasies of Troi and Crusher. If you really had a holodeck, would you bother with that "goddess of empathy" crap? It would be all XXX, all the time. I probably would have been drummed out of Starfleet.

5. JK Rowling

I've always thought she was sexy. Smart and a good sense of humor certainly helps too.

Honorable mention

Demi Moore

After seeing her in No Small Affair with Jon Cryer, before she got famous, I had a little movie crush on her.

Ashley Judd

She's another one who's a little skinnier than I normally go for, but damn, she's hot. I think the first time I saw her may have been in that ST:TNG episode with Wesley.

I Watch Movies

So, I just watched this Jodie Foster movie, The Brave One, and it was ok, nothing special, but there were a couple of things that really annoyed me about it. First, this woman is so afraid after being attacked that she can't even walk through a hallway without being scared to death, and she absolutely has to have a gun RIGHT NOW and can't even wait through the waiting period. However, she's not too afraid to follow a strange man, who she knows to have a gun, into the bowels of Chinatown with at least $1000 in cash on her. Somehow, that doesn't really make any sense to me. She's also a magnet for crime, which was a little ridiculous.

And I know it's not really fair to type cast someone, but the other annoying thing about the movie is that they expect us to believe that Naveen Andrews' character can get beaten to death by a few punk gang members. We all saw Sayid kill someone with his feet, while his hands were tied behind his back, and it was perfectly believable. So if your movie needs someone to get beaten to death, find someone else.

People are Stupid

What kind of a moron do you need to be to think that being multilingual could possibly be a bad thing?

Michelline's roux-en-y gastric bypass is done. We got to the hospital this morning around 5 AM and she had the surgery from 7:30 to 9:00. According to the surgeon, it was very routine, no problems or leaks. She's been sleeping now ever since coming out of surgery. We're hoping to say goodbye to diabetes, high blood pressure, back pain and 80 or 90 pounds (not to mention the $10800.00 check I wrote this morning).

Fourth of July Meme

Tagged by Toast with this patriotic meme.

1. Are you "proud to be an American"?

Of course I'm proud to be an American...where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me and I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, 'cause there ain't no doubt I love this land.

2. Favorite Founding Father?

Probably have to go with Ben Franklin. He seems like a pretty interesting guy even without the founding father stuff.

3. Favorite president?

I'll go with Franklin Pierce, because we share the same birthday.

4. Biggest "Patriotic Moment"?

Probably some time in the 1992 Olympics watching the Dream Team.

5. Favorite patriotic song?

Living in America

6. Favorite American cuisine?

Pizza, and fuck anyone who says that isn't American.

7. Happiest political moment of your life?

I'll answer this one in about six and a half months.

8. Best fireworks display you've ever seen?

Probably something at Disney World, but that doesn't really fit the theme, I guess.

9. America's gift to the world?

Easy, football. And fuck them if they don't appreciate it.

10. Favorite Bill of Rights right?

The Second. Without it, all those gun nuts, who love to talk about their guns non stop, and look at pictures of guns as if they were porn, would have to keep those things to themselves, and then we wouldn't be able to so easily identify them as crazy people we should stay away from.

11. Favorite American Holiday?

I was born on Thanksgiving, so I'll go with that.

12. Favorite D.C. monument?

I don't know, but the knowledge that there will never be a Bush monument makes me pretty happy.

13. Your dream for America's future?

That we actually strive to uphold the American values that made this country great.

Tiger vs Michael

Angelos linked to a story by Bill Posnanski recently (I'd leave the link but this is an email post). The story was about Tiger and how he's an enigma. He related a story about Tiger and Michael Jordan playing in a pro-am together. They were joking around until they both hit the green and had makeable putts. Something like 15' for Tiger and 5' for Michael. They had a situation where they both had putts within their respective abilities, but not gimmes. Being the uber-competitive guys they are, the joking subsided and they concentrated on winning. Tiger nailed his and then stared down Michael, who yipped and pulled his putt left. Michael said "I'm a professional, but not at this game." Posnanski says "Everyone laughed, including Tiger. But the point was
made."

I read this and it didn't feel right to me. If the point is that Tiger is a more fierce, unflappable competitor, I don't think this story shows that. It's not fair to Jordan. Mental toughness comes in different flavors. The kind of toughness it takes to stand over a 12' putt to win a tournament and sink it is one variety. A related but different variety is the toughness it takes to run down the court with tens of thousands of people screaming at the top of their lungs, body nearly
worn out, people waving flags and towels, defenders jostling you and running at you full speed, and swish a 30' game-winner. If Tiger can make that 12' putt in those conditions (I have this mental image of a sweaty Phil Mickelson charging Tiger as he's standing over his putt),
then maybe I'll grant that he's tougher than Jordan. Until then, I'd call it a draw.

Those Zany McCainiacs!

So yesterday we heard Tim Pawlenty attempting to make a favorable comparison between John McCain's "energy policy" and Barak Obama's, stating that McCain favors a gas tax reprieve and offshore drilling and Obama opposes both. Today I read this on The Carpetbagger Report, in response to the Obama campaign's efforts to help downticket races in places like Texas and Wyoming (where he can't expect to win in the general).

I found the McCain campaign’s response rather amusing:

“It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Can we just go ahead an add a laugh track now? Otherwise some people might get the idea that they're actually serious.

A Tale of Two interviews

I heard two interesting interviews on NPR today while driving home.

The first was a short interview with Tim Pawlenty and Michele Norris. Pawlenty was trying to defend McCain's energy policy (it's hard to type that without snickering). Here's the money quote (paraphrased)

Pawlenty says there are "striking differences" between the Arizona senator and his rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, when it comes to energy policy. For instance, McCain supports offshore drilling for oil, as well as the creation of a gas tax holiday. Obama opposes both proposals.

He also mentions that Obama opposes expanding nuclear power. He says this like these are supposed to be bad things. McCain supports a gas tax holiday that everyone, even his own campaign, agrees will do little to nothing. He supports domestic oil drilling, calling it a short-term solution. Of course, not one economist, supports McCain's idea that drilling will provide any short-term (less than 10 years!) relief. Pawlenty's got a tough job trying to defend this so-called energy policy. It really makes him sound dumber just by making the attempt.

In the second, Robert Siegel interviewed George Charamba, a spokesman for Robert Mugabe. In a combative interview, Charamba denies that there's any violence against Tsvangirai and his supporters. He claims, "All the reports that you are dealing with are reports that are coming either from the British machinery or from the American machinery". When Charamba defends the upcoming runoff as legally required, Siegel brings up the fact that Mugabe and his party lost the presidential and parliamentary elections. Charamba acknowledges this, but dismisses the results because he said the people "voted on their stomachs", due to Western sanctions. It's amazing how this guy can calmly argue that the first election didn't count, but this runoff election does. All the while denying the thuggery and murder taking place. It's unbelievable. Can we stop referring to Mugabe as president and just start calling him dictator? He seems like the kind of arrogant asshole that would be bothered by this, if it spread in the media.

Snarky Amazon reviews for Denon's dumb-ass $500 Ethernet cable

It's always fun to make fun of stupid people, but it's even more enjoyable when people are actually paying someone to cater to their stupidity. That's why I always enjoy making fun of audiophiles who think they can hear the tiniest differences in music, and therefore pay obscene amounts for cables that can't possibly make any difference. This $500 ethernet cable isn't quite as funny as the $8000 speaker cables I saw a while back, but the reviews are the hilarious part.

Short-sighted

Obviously it's not a great insight to realize that people often act against their own best interests in pursuit of short-term gain, on both big and small issues. People care more about the economy now than global catastrophe in the future, corporations care more about the next quarter's earning report than about the long-term survival of the company, people smoke knowing that it's going to ruin their health one way or another. Sometimes something strikes you that brings it home, though.

I briefly met a woman earlier today who appeared to be in her 40's. She's attractive, well-dressed, obviously takes care of her appearance, etc... But she had skin that was just this side of leather. She had clearly spent a lot of time sunbathing or sitting under a tanning light. It amazes me, that with all the evidence walking around among us attesting to the damage that sun does to your skin (to say nothing of cancer), people will still sacrifice the health and appearance of their skin for a few years of bronzy glory. I for one don't see why people like the bronze look so much anyway. In any case, this woman would have looked noticeably more attractive with smooth, unwrinkled skin. And hey, it's her body, but since she clearly takes pride in her appearance, it seems out of place.

Would you drive yourself to jail?

This story got me thinking.

To recap, Samuel Israel was a hedge fund manager who defrauded investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. He was convicted, sentenced to 20 years and out on bail while authorities prepared his medication (I didn't know they did that). This CNN story has a little more background.

First, thinking about this has got me wondering if long prison sentences are appropriate for monetary crimes. I'm sure this guy is an ass, and the amounts of money he stole very likely could have ruined lives (cf. Enron), but wouldn't forcing him to live as a pauper while repaying his victims be a better sentence?

Second, and the thing that kind of blew my mind a little, he was supposed to drive himself to prison to start his 20 year sentence. The guy's 48. Neither article says if there's any possibility of parole or time-off for good behavior, but apparently Israel considered it a death sentence. So what's he got to lose? I can't fathom calmly driving myself to prison to surrender what could very possibly be the last third of my life. And especially not if I was as narcissistic as this guy has to be. What the hell were they thinking? If this guy isn't out of the country already, I'll be very surprised.

Barbara LeBey responds

Hey look who found my McCainocrat post -

Hello John,
Since you reviewed my NPR interview, I thought it might be of interest for you to know that I did carefully review Obama's record and found it sorely lacking. I don't make hasty or emotional decisions. Hillary's voting record and her list of achievements is not nearly as liberal as the plans Obama has put forth. She is more of a centrist. Obama is an extreme liberal, really more socialist than even liberal. I am not willing to vote for a socialist. Race is irrelevant. I would feel the same way if Obama was 100% white. As for Hillary's endorsement and her request that her supporters transfer their support to Obama, I would have to say I don't follow blindly. Furthermore, if Hillary wants to continue to be an active member of the party and have a future with the party, she is compelled to get on board whether she actually believes in Obama or not. Personally, I'd like to see her run as an Independent--not likely. As a former judge and corporate lawyer, I have learned early on that a slumping economy does not revive with higher taxes, and leaders of rogue nations like Iran and North Korea respect might, not coddling. With enemies who hate us more than they love life, only strong leadership and a ready military will keep them at bay. Obama's plans are completely contrary to what I believe is the right course of action for our nation. So there you have it. The best, Barbara LeBey

Well, I have to say, I'm still confused. Barbara says she reviewed Obama's record and found it lacking. She says Obama is a socialist and Clinton is a centrist. I say they have very similar records and policy proposals. Rather than throwing out assertions, why don't we look at some facts -

• Obama's Record - Barbara didn't say what she thinks is lacking in Obama's record, but I found some interesting stats here

  Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
  
  Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
  
  Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

  The summary is courtesy of a diary at Kos, but I confirmed the details at www.thomas.gov, the official congressional web archive. Co-sponsoring legislation isn't all that, of course, but it does show that Obama's been working and the kinds of issues he's concerned with. Then, of course, he has 8 years in the Illinois senate, but I suppose those years don't count.


• On tax policy, they really don't vary. Both support extending tax cuts for those earning under $250k per year. Both favor letting Bush's tax cuts expire for those making over $250k per year. Barbara says "I have learned early on that a slumping economy does not revive with higher taxes", yet she supported Clinton, who would enact essentially the same tax policy as Obama. Maybe she was voting for Clinton for other reasons, but she cites taxes and the economy in her comment here and in the NPR interview, so it appears to be a key issue for her. I checked several places for information, but a good summary can be found at here for Obama and here for Clinton.


• Another key issue for Barbara appears to be foreign policy. There are some differences here, but they're not substantive, in my opinion. Here's an exchange from one of the debates

  Q: [to Obama]: Do you support normalizing relations with Cuba now?
  
  OBAMA: I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some progress [on the US agenda in Cuba]. But I do think that it's important for the US not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies.
  
  CLINTON: I agree that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I've been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years. Because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, toward the world community. It's in our interests and in the interests of the people in countries that are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran. But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning

  
  Here's another-

  Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba & N.Korea?
  
  OBAMA: I would. The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them is ridiculous. I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.
  
  CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort but not a high level meeting before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro & Hugo Chavez & the president of North Korea, Iran & Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

  Clearly they both favor engagement with our adversaries. They differ in details but not in intent. This is a clear break with Bush's foreign policy, and McCain's.


• This idea that Obama is a socialist and Clinton is a centrist is silly. What does it mean to be a socialist? This is usually what right-wing people throw out as a slur anytime a Democrat proposes a government program. This Washington Post article has a pretty good rundown on the differences between Obama and Clinton in their Senate voting records. To start, they don't differ much - they vote together over 90% of the time. They have some real differences on the Cuban embargo and on gun control, but nothing substantial.
  
  The funny thing to me about this statement is that on the issue most likely to be labeled socialist - universal health care, Clinton is clearly to the left of Obama. Looking at Clinton and Obama on health care, Clinton has a clear progressive (socialist, perhaps) vison of universal health care involving mandates and universal coverage. Obama seems to support universal coverage, but doesn't support mandates and doesn't seem to have a clear vision as to how to achieve this.

After looking into these things, I can't see how a Democrat who cares about these issues can support John McCain. Maybe Maurinsky is right. She noted in the comments that "I feel confident reporting Barbara LeBey is definitely a Republican ... her whole comment (if that was actually her) is loaded with Republican talking points." I think it probably is the real Barbara LeBey (what possible purpose could deceit serve here?), and I agree that there were several right-wing talking points in the comment. I still lean toward my original assessment that she developed a (perhaps unconscious) antipathy toward Obama that really has nothing to do with his record or his stances on the issues.

Battlestar Galactica

So what did everyone think of that ending? Assume there will be spoilers in the comments if I still have any readers left.

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that this mid season finale crap is bullshit. If you go for over six fucking months without a new episode, then it's not still the same fucking season. Just call them shorter seasons, assholes.

McCainocrat?

I caught this interview on Day to Day yesterday - Madeleine Brand talks to lifelong Democrat Barbara LeBey about why she might vote for McCain instead of Obama in the general election.

I wish I hadn't actually, because it's frustrating to listen to reasonable-sounding people spouting such nonsense. I've seen Hillary commenters online saying that they would vote for McCain, but they were so unhinged it was easy to write them off. This lady sounds like she's actually thought it through and decided that McCain's the better choice.

She begins by saying she doesn't like Obama's economic plan. That we can't afford to raise taxes, it would be bad for the economy, it would hurt small-business owners and cost jobs. I'm thinking how can a lifelong Democrat buy into supply-side economics? Madeleine then points out that there's no difference between Hillary and Obama's economic plan. Barbara says that's true but offers no further explanation.

Then she says he hasn't done anything, he's a blank slate upon whom people are projecting their hopes and dreams, but they don't know anything about him. I guess she hasn't seen his highly-detailed policy papers, examined his voting records, looked at his non-government resume. This inexperienced meme is such a load of BS.

Madeleine asks her if it's a vote for McCain or against Obama. She starts eulogizing McCain, about his economic policy, his immigration plan, his environmentalism and how he's a maverick.

Finally Madeleine asks about abortion, and mentions McCain's awful rating. Barbara sounds resigned and says that since there's already a conservative majority, it doesn't matter who the next two judges are, so she's going to vote on other issues.

What to make of all this? Barbara was a big Hillary fan, and yet she doesn't seem to believe in any of Hillary's policy positions, which are extremely close to Obama's, and antithetical to some of McCain's positions that she now supports. She trusted Hillary, but not enough to heed her call to work for Obama. I think what happened to Barbara is that she got so personally invested in Hillary, which grew to include personal antipathy for Obama, that she can't rationally discuss him anymore. I know some people may accuse her of closet racism, but I don't think so. I don't get the feeling she doesn't like black folks, she just doesn't like Obama. Barbara accuses Obama supporters of being irrational, of projecting our hopes onto him without cause, but I think it's clear that Barbara's the one not thinking straight. Or at least the one who's abandoning principles that she claims to have supported all her life.

I think there are a significant number of Hillary diehards who are in this group with Barbara. It's no longer about policy or the greater good, it's about punishing Obama. However, I really do think that the numbers overall are small and most of Hillary's supporters, especially those who are longtime Democrats, will support Obama.

NBA Finals Commercials

So I'm sure you've all seen these split screen playoffs commercials that have been running all through the playoffs for what seems like the last six months or so. They have a new one in the Finals with Magic Johnson and Larry Bird which would be really neat except for some reason when seeing only half of these guys, they look really old and pathetic. Or maybe it's just seeing them in this unique way where I've so far only seen players in their prime. Anyway, as soon as someone saw the finished product, they should have scrapped it, because it's sad and not much else.

Gas hoarding eyed as cause of Dartmouth apartment fire

This is what happens when we don't teach people math. There's no way, even without taking into account the risk of fire and damage to your property, that hoarding gas is going to be at all cost effective. I don't care how long they were going to try to store 45 gallons worth of gas, it's never going to be long enough to generate a reasonable profit. And if they were going to try to increase the volume of their hoard, they would have gotten into issues with storage space long before it got to any point that could potentially be profitable. So when you factor in what should have been the somewhat obvious risk of storing gasoline this way, it turns into a really horrible idea.

Also, there was one part of the article that struck me as odd.

State law prohibits storing more than a quart of gasoline in a home, including attached garages.

What the fuck? Do these people not have lawn equipment? I routinely had around 5 - 10 gallons of gas in my house for the lawn mower and edger. I can't imagine that anyone follows this law. They'd have to go to the gas station everytime they had to do yard work.

10

That's how many free throws the Lakers took in game 2 of the NBA Finals tonight. And they hit them all. I'm not normally one to do much complaining about officiating, but that's fucking ridiculous. This compared to 38 for the Celtics. You expect the home team to get some advantages, but this is ridiculous. And even with that, the Lakers were within 2 with under a minute to play, when of course, it was decided by the officials as Paul Pierce drove to the basket and Derek Fisher grazed his finger and he hit the two free throws to basically put the game away. Hopefully, the Lakers get the same bullshit advantage in LA, but whether they do or not, they have to play a lot better, especially the bench. The reserves came up huge at times against the Spurs, but they've done nothing in this series so far.