October 30, 2004

October 29, 2004

But I'm Suuuure He Felt Better After The Apology

Ouch. I guess Brittany Murphy had revealed--on national TV, mind you--a "little" secret about ex-boyfriend Ashton Kutcher. Regarding Kutcher's relationship with Demi Moore:
She [Murphy] said at the time: "I suppose that the crux of their relationship is that, to him, age doesn't matter and, to her, size doesn't matter."

While I'm cool with taking uppity celebs like Kutcher down a peg or two, I think this one hits below the belt (unintentional pun). I mean, who wants their shortcomings revealed on national TV (another unintentional pun)? And what about poor Demi Moore? I mean she's really getting the short end of the stick. (okay, THAT one I meant...and worked hard for.)

Well, at lest Murphy apologized.

October 28, 2004

My Hero

Larry Elder, one of the guys out there that I admire the most, has written a short, must-read piece.
Let's call this the Exploitation Theory: America enriches herself at the expense of other countries. America takes; others receive less. But for America's dominant, evil culture, and her extraction of wealth from others, the rest of the world could live in prosperity and happiness. America's wealth causes poverty in other countries. We win. They lose.

But the United Nations' Arab Human Development Report, written by Arab political scientists and scholars, came to a different conclusion. The scholars wrote about the comparative backward nature of 22 Arab states, covering nearly 300 million people. The Arab countries scored the lowest of all world regions as to freedom, the political process, civil liberties, political rights and media independence. The report found 65 million illiterate adults. Half of Arab women still cannot read or write. Ten million children between 6 and 15 years of age are out of school. The report describes a "severe shortage" of new writing. In the last 1,000 years, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in just one year. Only 1.2 percent of the population uses a computer, and only half of those access the Internet.

I'm just sorry I didn't link to it before today.

October 25, 2004

Apologies To Andy Kaufman

But I thought this was funny, no matter who you're voting for this election. They're Quicktime Movies. Medium quality is about 5 megs, and high quality is about 15.

Medium Quality

High Quality

October 21, 2004

Fake News

BOARDMAN, Ohio (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he bagged a goose on his swing-state hunting trip Thursday, but his real target was the voters who may harbor doubts about him.

Kerry returned after a two-hour hunting trip wearing a camouflage jacket and carrying a 12-gauge shotgun, but someone else carried the bird he said he shot.

"The goose was carrying an AK-47, and was a clear threat," said Senator Kerry, "so I chased it down and shot it in the back."

Representative Ted Strickland was one of the hunting party members, as was Neal Brady, assistant park manager of Indian Lake State Park in western Ohio. "Neal had been winged," said Strickland, "and was on the ground in obvious pain. Senator Kerry, with no thought for his own safety, swung into action." When pressed about the incident, Strickland admitted that when he said Brady had "been winged," he was talking about an actual goose wing. "I don't think the bird liked the hat he was wearing," he continued, "and it just went after him."

Brady plans to request a Silver Star for Kerry. When reporters explained that Kerry wasn't actually eligible for one, Brady dismissed it with a wave of his hand. "ineligible, inschmeligible. I wouldn't be surprised if pretty soon papers showed up granting John Kerry the medal he deserves. "

In response, various hunters' groups across the country have come forward to question Kerry's version of events.

A Quickie

Two, actually. Here's the links to two great posts. (found the links on Antimedia's site) The first one is called "Why I Won't Vote For Bush," by Nelson Ascher. The second is a post over at Froggy Ruminations saying something that Ken and I (and, admittedly, many others) have been saying for years: Osama BinLaden is dead.

October 20, 2004

Just So You Know

I havent' dropped off the face of the Earth. However, that cold I had (which is still hanging on like a kitten on a screen door) put me way behind in my work. I hope to have some new stuff up this weekend.

October 13, 2004

Caption This! Part 11

I don't really have a caption for this one. It just really creeped me out. It has a very Dante's Inferno kind of vibe to it.

October 12, 2004

Who'd A Thunk It?

The Los Angeles Times has a very nice eulogy for Rodney Dangerfield. It was written by...wait for it...Roseanne Barr. Surprisingly, though, it's a wonderful testimony to Rodney, and it's obviously full of love and the respect that he always claimed he never got. You have to sign up to get the story, but it's free to do so. So, do so. Here's a little bit to whet your appetite:

My favorite Rodney story is the time we went walking in Venice, and he didn't want to walk all the way to the crosswalk, so he just darted out into the middle of a very, very busy street. I said, "We're gonna get killed!" and he said, "No, we're not, kid, I'm a draw." Then, like Moses, he walked on and the traffic parted. People honked at first, but then they caught a glimpse of old Rodney, waving and smiling, and they started to honk and yell, "We love you, Rodney!" There isn't much that can stop traffic in Los Angeles at lunchtime. "OK, I love you too," he was yelling back.

October 11, 2004

Someone Told Me It's All Happening At The Zoo

But apparently it's not. Seems that in the wilds of central Africa, scientists may have found a new species of giant ape. The new species is very much like a gorilla, but has a few oddities, almost as if they had been mating with another species.

Ken, you've been taking a lot of vacation time recently, I've noticed.

Some Great News...

...about some great news. Television news, that is. Over on Antimedia's blog, he's got a post about a new Iraqi TV station--of, by, and for the people. He makes the points that this is:

1. Something that could never have happened under Saddam, and

2. Big news that likely won't be reported in the mainstream media.

I happen to agree with him on both counts, so stop on over and check the post out. And pass the word on.

UPDATE: I didn't read close enough. It's a station located in the United Arab Emirates, but it serves Iraq. Still pretty good news.

October 09, 2004

Why Sean Penn Is A Prick

I mean, besides the giant ego. Personally, I think the ego tends to make him overract a bit. That's right, I said it--he overracts. And it's not a politically motivated statement because I disagree with Tim Robbins' political views just as much, but I have no problem telling you that Robbins acted circles around Penn in Mystic River, and--unlike Penn--actually deserved the Academy Award.

But enough of that for now. What really pisses me off is that Penn just wrote an open memo to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of "South Park" and the upcoming Team America. Like most of Penn's writing, it's filled with some awkward constructions and sounds like some of the student writing I get when the student seems particularly interested in impressing me.

I do mind when anybody who doesn't have a child, doesn't have a child at war, or isn't or won't be in harm's way themselves, is encouraging that there's "no shame in not voting" "if you don't know what you're talking about" (Mr. Stone) without mentioning the shame of not knowing what your talking about, and encouraging people to know.


Grammatical issues aside, the memo is tactless and unnecessarily vicious. He begins by (I guess) implying that Parker and Stone somehow used his name to achieve their success.

I remember not being bothered as you traded on my name among others to appear witty, above it all, and likeable to your crowd.

I remember them making fun of a lot of people on "South Park," and maybe Penn was one of them, but I honestly don't remember it. But so what if they did? I mean, is it that wrong to trade on the Penn name, son of famous director Leo Penn (and actress Eileen Ryan)? At least Emilio Estevez had enough class not to use the name Sheen. And Nicholas Cage didn't need to use Coppola, either. You see, despite that "bad boy" image that seems to follow Penn around, he didn't really have to struggle that much. Growing up in a show-business family in southern California? Jeez, it must have been tough to break into the business.

Now, let's go back to this winner:

I do mind when anybody who doesn't have a child, doesn't have a child at war, or isn't or won't be in harm's way themselves, is encouraging that there's "no shame in not voting" "if you don't know what you're talking about" (Mr. Stone) without mentioning the shame of not knowing what your talking about, and encouraging people to know. You guys are talented young guys but alas, primarily young guys. It's all well to joke about me or whomever you choose. Not so well, to encourage irresponsibility that will ultimately lead to the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitation, and death of innocent people throughout the world. The vote matters to them. No one's ignorance, including a couple of hip cross-dressers, is an excuse.

I'm not sure what Penn's point is here. Is he claiming that people who have children (like his--11 and 13, I believe) are in the same group as those who currently have a child at war? And that if you don't, your opinion doesn't matter? Well, that just seems stupid. Is he upset that the South Park guys say that there's no shame in not voting if you're uninformed without stressing that they should be informed? That sounds great, but doesn't seem to go with the next bit, which claims that not voting will "ultimately lead to the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitations, and death of innocent people throughout the world." This assumes--and stop me if I'm wrong--that these uncast votes would be cast for the candidate of Mr. Penn's choice. We all know that Penn is a Bush hater. Is he really arguing that it's the vote that counts and not who you vote for? If so, then his argument makes no sense. He seems to be arguing that if we just get enough votes, irrespective of for whom they were cast, we will prevent bloodshed. No, he's trying to sound objective, but he's really saying "vote for my guy." Or maybe he's just so egotistical that it doesn't occur to him that some of those newly informed voters could possibly vote for the other guy.

And while I might agree with Penn that the vote matters to those innocent people around the world he alleges will be disemboweled, etc., I also have to say that it's none of their fucking business, nor is it yours, Mr. Penn, for which candidate I cast my vote. You see, that's the one place in this country where the lowly man on the street has the same exact amount of power as self-important assholes like yourself. We all get one, and only one vote. It's my vote, and if I decide to vote for either major candidate, cast a write-in vote for myself, or take the vote and piss it away completely...Well, that's my decision, Mr. Penn, not yours.

So, a sincere "fuck you" to you too, Mr. Penn, the man who has somehow found the moral high ground to criticize two young satirists, who--by the way--have done much more to educate the young people in this country than you have. The work that they produce may be irreverent and push the envelope, but it's also timely and thought-provoking. But maybe that's not fair. After all, in your career, you've been such an inspiration to young people. In Fast Times at Ridgemont High, you played an apathetic pot smoker. In Bad Boys, you played a...well, a bad boy. Oh, and then in The Falcon and The Snowman, you got to play Daulton Lee, a traitor to the U.S. (And they say life doesn't imitate art.) Of course, there was Casualties of War, where you got to play a psychopathic sergeant in the My Lai mold--that must have been inspiring for young people. And let's not forget the times you played a psychopathic cokehead lawyer (Carlito's Way); an unrepentant death row inmate (Dead Man Walking); or a paranoid crime-boss (Mystic River). Yeah, you're the fucking paragon of virtue. Maybe before you criticize others about the influence they exert, you ought to climb down off your soapbox and check out a mirror, jack.

In a P.S., Penn offers to take Parker and Stone, and Dennis Miller(?) to Iraq. If Mr. Penn really wants to come off as a tough guy, he'll make sure to let all the Iraqi press know before he goes over that his father was Jewish because we all know in what high esteem Jewish-Americans are held by some of the locals. Just ask Daniel Pearl's family.

Everyone Should Read This

Over at Iron Monkey, you can find a neat and tidy little guide to ways in which people can confuse the general public with statistics. Should be required reading.

October 08, 2004

I'm Getting Angry Again

From Britain to the Baltics, many sense a sea change in sentiment toward an America they once admired - largely linked to what they call an arrogant contempt of others after 9-11.

The headline? "Europeans Lament a 'Changed' America." Now...Let's see...What could have changed us? Perhaps it was when 3,000 of our citizens were murdered while the cameras rolled. And, of course, our "allies" who are now "lamenting" the change were actually busy fucking us in the ass by making backdoor (no pun intended) deals that made rich men out of leaders of countries that train, support, harbor, and encourage those who commit these kinds of murders. That enough reason for change, Braniac?

I mean, is there really even an issue here? Does anybody here remember the way Americans were treated abroad pre-9/11, and isn't it pretty much the same as today? C'mon, the French never much cared for us before...What's changed?

Among ordinary Frenchmen, the feeling is clear.

"We no longer feel much sentiment for America," remarked Laurence Torno. Her husband, a softspoken dentist, agreed. "It is too aggressive, too full of itself."

Their son, Pierre-Charles, 17, saved for years for a post-high school grand tour, starting in Florida and ending in New York. This summer he graduated and went to Australia.

"Before the Iraq war, my friends and I all felt a strong sympathy with America," Pierre-Charles explained. "Now we see no respect for people's human rights or international agreements."

So let's see...Saddam broke how many resolutions? Killed, gassed, tortured, and imprisoned how many people? But Americans are the ones with no respect for human rights or international agreements? Right. And "too full of ourselves"? From the French? Well, ain't that the crepe pan calling the kettle black.

I look at it this way...If my friends and neighbors stop by to visit and tell my my lawn looks like shit, and they don't like the way I'm landscaping, or raising my family, or whatever, I tell them "Hey...You don't like it? Stay the fuck home."

Anyone know how to say that in French, German, or Russian?

They're At It Again

Those funny guys over at jibjab. They've got a new cartoon/video/whatever the hell it is, and this one may even be funnier than the first. Look for "It's Good To Be In D.C."

October 05, 2004

Finally, A Little Respect.

He always said he couldn't get any (respect, that is), but Rodney Dangerfield was one of the most respected comedians of the last century. He passed away today, emerging from a post-heart-surgery coma long enough for one last round of laughs and to tell his family he loved them.

Known primarily for short, self-depricating jokes ("when I was young, they had to tie a steak around my neck to get the dog to play with me"), he will probably always be best remembered for his role as Al Czervik in 1980's Caddyshack. Although Bill Murry stole most of the film for himself, Dangerfield had a few gems. My favorite?

"Nice boy, wonderful boy, marvelous boy...now I know why tigers eat their young."

Like I said, Rodney...finally, a little respect. You've earned it. Make 'em laugh up there, will ya?

October 04, 2004

If It's October, Does That Mean This Is The Surprise?

I'm extremely hesitant to report this, considering all the falsified documents floating around out there, but everyone else is going with it, and as you'll see CNSNews.com is doing a lot more than CBS did to back up their reporting.

CNSNews.com is reporting that they have obtained 42 pages of documents which purport to show that

numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

If these hold up to scrutiny, they could end up being some serious mojo for the Bush Administration, as they tie Saddam to a number of significant terror events, including the 1993 ambush of American soldiers in Mogadishu.

I'm a bit leery of trusting CNSNews, and would feel better if a different source had broken this story. However, as I said, CNSNews does do one thing which CBS should have done and failed to do with their fake memo story: document their methodology.

In another article, CNSNews.com lays out how they came by the documents, who looked them over, and how others can see the documents for themselves. Although they don't name the source, they do say he/she is NOT a political appointee, and that they did not make contact with either the Republicans or the Democrats. They state that the document was translated by two independent translators, working alone. They state that the documents were examined by three other "experts," (only one remained anonymous) who all had experience with Iraq, in a double-blind test. Finally, they invite all journalists who want to examine the documents to make an appointment for viewing.

Oh Yeah? Well It IS Mightier Than The Sword, You Know!

I was watching Fox news, and they have reported that John Kerry pulled a black pen out of his pocket during the debate. I also found this article from the NY Post. While this is still a clear violation of the debate rules, and is still an indication that this is a man who feels some sense of privilege and thinks the rules don't apply to him, It's not the end of the world.

I'm still not 100 percent convinced, though. Kerry had something in his hands. And it was not a pen. In fact, the pen, which seems clear from the reverse-angle still photo that Fox showed, would have been blocked by Kerry's hand from the angle the rest of us saw. And yet we all saw something. Did anybody check the other hand? I'm going to try to find a higher-resolution clip/photo and report later.

Okay, looking through the video again, it looks like Kerry might have something already in his right hand, but I can't be sure because the resolution sucks. I think what it is, is that Kerry pulls the pen out of his jacket with his left hand and his right hand, hidden by the left, picks up some notecards or something already on the podium and transfers them to the left hand in an attempt to straighten them or unfold them, making it look like the cards came from the left hand.

And before you go accusing me of making a big deal out of nothing, let me point out:

1. The pen is still a violation of the rules, confirmed by the Kerry camp who said "we plead guilty to having a pen."

2. If the Bush team had made that same sarcastic confession, you all know the headlines would read: Bush Admits Breaking Debate Rules!

Bush Breaks Rules, Too

In an update to an earlier post, I pointed out that the Bush camp may have broken the rules of the debate as well. I'm posting this so you'll be sure not to miss it.

Since so far it seems that the networks and both candidates couldn't abide by the rules of the debates, I have to wonder why they even bothered writing them in the first place.

Reading Between The Lies Lines

Citizen Smash - The Indepundit has a couple of good points about some of the truth behind Senator Kerry's debate statements.

Kerry would have you believe that the President has a sand table in the White House War Room, where he gathers his generals around him and commands them on how to fight the war. He’s telling us that he could do a better job directing those generals than Bush has.

Indeed. Like a lot of the Senator's claims...that's all they are--claims. With little or no evidence to back them up. For example his claim to reduce world nukes in 4 years instead of 13 reminds me of an old Zen parable:

A young man approaches a master and says "I wish to become enlightened. I will work very hard." The master says "Hmmmm....that will take you 10 years. Are you ready to devote 10 years of your life?" The student responds by saying "Ten years is a long time, so I will work twice as hard." "Ah," the master replies, "in that case it will take you 20 years."
If it's worth doing, it's worth taking our time doing. Besides, according to proliferation expert Richard Falkenrath, 4 years is a pipe dream. Here he is, quoted in the New York Times:

Mr. Kerry's timetable is unrealistic, he said, arguing that the easiest of Russia's hundreds of nuclear sites had been secured under the first President Bush and President Bill Clinton, and that those remaining involve more complex bureaucratic challenges.

"It's simply a preposterous claim for anyone to be able to say that the American government could compel the Russian government to transfer its nuclear materials from one facility to another - no amount of bribery or coercion or arm-twisting could ensure that," Mr. Falkenrath said in an interview. "Senator Kerry suggests there's some magic wand he can wave to make this move faster. There is none. We're making progress where progress is possible."
Perhaps in the next debate, Senator Kerry could discuss his use of the magic wand.

And Speaking Of Following The Rules...

Can someone explain to me just how the following two items don't break the agreed-upon rules of the debate.

1. The broadcast I watched had a split-screen, so that viewers at home were able to see both candidates. However, section 9 (a) (v) of the memo of understanding says:

When a candidate is speaking, either in answering a question, or making his closing statement, TV coverage will be limited to the candidate speaking.
Clearly this rule was violated.

2. The Democratic National Committee released a video entitled "Faces of Frustration," which shows clips of George Bush's reaction while Kerry is speaking. While I might argue that it's more like "Faces of Disgust," it still seems to be in violation of rule 5 (e), which states:

Neither film footage nor video footage nor any audio excerpts from the debates may be used publicly by either candidate's campaign through any means, including but not limited to, radio, television, internet, or videotapes, whether broadcast or distributed in any other manner.
Unless someone wants to argue that the DNC is not part of Kerry's campaign, which although technically true, seems like a ridiculous argument, considering that they went so far as to consider the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be part of Bush's campaign, doing his "dirty work." Take a look at the DNC's bylaws. Article 1, Section 1:

The Democratic Party of the United States of America shall: Nominate and assist in the election of Democratic candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States
or this, from their website:

Function of the Committee: The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support...
technically, not Kerry-Edwards '04...just spending money and working in an organized, active way towards the same goal. Someone remind me what the definition of 'campaign' is? Once again, I guess the rules change depending on who's breaking them.

P.S. Even if you don't feel that the DNC is part of Kerry's campaign, then I'd like to find out who the video footage belongs to--how did the DNC get it? If Kerry's people gave it to them, it would then still seem to violate rule 5 (e) which prevents the campaign from using it "through any means" whether "broadcast or distributed in any other manner." I would argue that prevents the campaign from distributing it to another group (the DNC) to be used publicly. If the footage belongs to a specific network, then that should be made clear too. Did the network sell the rights to the footage to a clearly partisan group like the DNC?

UPDATE: Looks like the Bush camp may have broken the rules, too. On GeorgeWBush.com, they have a video titled "global test" that shows John Kerry speaking, with a voice-over talking about the debate--specifically, Kerry's "global test." Now, I should point out that it simply shows Kerry giving a speech--I can't quite tell if it's from the debate or not, and there is no audio. However, the voice over clearly refers to the debate, so even if it's NOT actual debate footage, it is certainly presented that way.

Are Those Notecards In Your Pocket...

...Or are you just happy to be here? Various websites (The Daily Recycler was the first one I encountered, so they get the nod) are claiming that John Kerry "cheated" during the debates, because video seems to show him pulling what may or may not be a piece of paper from his jacket as he approaches the podium. My thoughts:

Kerry would have to be pretty ballsy to attempt something like that, knowing that he would be on-camera. Although, I suppose he could have just thought that it was unlikely that anyone would make a scene while cameras were rolling.

The video certainly shows him taking something out of his jacket pocket and placing it on the podium. In addition, it looks to me as if he unfolds it after he places it on the podium. It has been suggested that it may have been a handkerchief. This seems unlikely, as I never noticed him using it, nor do I think he would have, considering he was wearing makeup. Regardless, the rules of the debate, agreed upon by both candidates, specify that "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate" (emphasis mine). The only thing that might be allowed under those rules would be a pair of eyeglasses, which the object clearly was not. I have no choice but to conclude that given the rules and the video, that Senator Kerry did, in fact, break the rules of the debate.

So he broke the rules. Is it really that big of a deal? I guess it depends on what the object actually was. Some people have suggested that since the moderator is from a network that is clearly on Kerry's side, he may have had some advance knowledge of the questions. Without some other evidence, I find that a little unbelievable. Related to that, it's been pointed out that at one point, Kerry gives part of an answer and then says something to the effect of "we'll talk about that later." The idea is that he had some advance knowledge of what the questions were going to be. I think it's probably more likely that he didn't specifically know, but had a good idea, as we all did, what other kinds of questions were coming and wanted to wait until an appropriate time. Now, having said all that, it does look to me like a piece of paper. And since pens and paper had been placed at the podium previously for the candidates to use, there would be no reason for Kerry to bring his own paper unless that paper had notes, etc. on it. If that is the case, I believe it is very serious. Those who read this blog semi-regularly know that I believe (and that a great preponderance of evidence has shown) that Kerry has manipulated, spun, and outright lied about his war record. I know that political candidates tend to exaggerate while campaigning--for example, Kerry's little story about the veterans who said "we need you," etc., struck me as just as phony as his line from a while back about how foreign leaders had contacted him--and I try not to hold that kind of thing against them. But in Kerry's case, it just seems to be part of a larger pattern. And that's a problem, at least for me. I don't want that sort of fellow in charge of the country.

Well, that's about it. It seems likely that Kerry did break the rules, but we'll probably never know for sure just what was on that paper, if that's what it was. I don't think you can say much more than that. I don't think the Bush camp should even bother with it. Truth is, it sounds like a bit like a nutty conspiracy kind of thing, and it will just make them look bad to complain about it. But I would keep a close eye on Kerry the next debate if I were them, and if it happens again, I would politely point out to the moderator that Senator Kerry might be unaware that the rules prohibit bringing notes to the podium, and that as the moderator, he has a duty to enforce those rules. Of course, after this has been all over the Internet, Kerry would have to be crazy to try it again. I mean, he's no Dan Rather.

October 03, 2004

What The Hell Am I Doing?

I added a little section on the sidebar, documenting my current listening, reading, and viewing habits. I'll try to put the less obvious choices on the list (for example: I'm watching the Star Wars DVD box set, but so is the rest of the country) and change them when the mood strikes me.

Be sure to take note of that Curtis Stigers album. Man, that's purty! It's worth it just for the title track--written by Elvis Costello if I'm not mistaken.


If my body is a temple, let me just say that my temple has been taken over by the enemy. I'm not sure which enemy exactly, but they seem to have shut down most systems, and reprogrammed the temple to do one thing: convert everything I ingest into snot. I've tried decongestants, allergy pills...nothing. I'm nearly finished with a second box of tissues, and it just. Will. Not. Stop.

I don't know why my body has revolted in this manner because honestly, I find the normal rate of snot production to be more than sufficient.

Anyway, I can't sleep...or breathe, but I've been in bed a good portion of the day, and am likely to remain there for a while. That means blogging may be sporadic. Sorry.

October 01, 2004

Yeah, But Who Got The Worm?

According to The Smoking Gun, some students in a Virginia grade school were accidentally served margaritas when the lunchroom staff mistook the pitcher for limeade. The swap wasn't noticed until after lunch, when students refused to return to class, instead insisting on "nibblin' on sponge cake and watchin' the sun bake."

Although some parents were concerned, the students seemed to suffer no ill effects, and some--like third-grader Tommy Williams--refused to blame the lunch lady for the incident. "Some people say that there's a woman to blame," he said, "but I know it's my own damn fault."

Old Blue Eyes Is Back

Sure, it might be in bad taste, but when has that ever stopped me?

I've been pointing out recently that were the chairman of the board still chairing, he'd probably have to kick some ass when he found out his image and voice were being used to promote Visa cards. But here's a little something I'd like to think he would get behind. (sound required)