Oscar? I Barely Know Her!

As I've already said, I'm not watching the Oscars this evening. I so rarely agree with the winners these days that it would just be an exercise in frustration. I've tried to watch all of the films with any kind of buzz around them, and got through all but The Reader. I had planned on writing a long diatribe about my picks for the major categories, but this morning my motherboard crapped out on me.

Since I'm borrowing time (and a computer) to write this, I'll have to make it brief:

I really hope that Mickey Rourke wins for The Wrestler. Not only was that the best performance, I think it was the best picture, even though it wasn't nominated. I'm one of the few people who aren't rooting for Slumdog Millionaire. Not only do I not think it was the best film of the year, I wouldn't have even nominated it. Hell, I don't think I would even put it in my top ten of the year. I honestly can't understand the push for this movie to win. (Of course, I couldn't understand The Departed winning either. I still think it's one of the worst films ever to win.) The characters are barely developed, the acting isn't that good (you'll notice none of them are nominated), the score quickly becomes irritating, and the direction--more specifically, the camerawork--is so "in-your-face" and obvious that it obscures what, at times, is an interesting story. And speaking of the story, I also felt that it couldn't decide what kind of film it wanted to be. If any of my students had turned in something like that, I would have called it "unfocused."

Don't get me wrong: It's not a bad little film. I just don't think it ranks up there with the others. I would gladly have replaced it with Gran Torino if I could. I never felt a connection, a care, or even a worry about the characters in Slumdog. Every time I thought I might, they moved on to some other aspect of the film. The Wrestler, Gran Torino, and many of the other nominees? I got into the characters; I felt moved by the stories. One of the ways I judge a film is how often I look at my watch, or how quickly (or not) the time flies by. I've had three hour films (such as The Shawshank Redemption) that seemed over before I knew it, and eighty minute films that seemed interminable. I checked my watch more than a little while watching Slumdog.

And I don't have anything against foreign films, or films with socio-political undertones, as anyone who knows me will attest. I thought The Visitor was a better film than Slumdog. (And even though I want the Mickster to win, I won't shed a tear if Richard Jenkins wins--he was great.)

Well, the ceremony is almost here, and I'm certain later tonight, or tomorrow, when I hear the winners, I'll be disappointed, but not that disappointed, as I've come to expect so little from the Academy.

There's always next year...

Facebook Worm

So Facebook users have been receiving notifications stating something along the lines of:

[friend's name] has faced some errors when checking your profile

Followed by a link that is supposed to allow you to "view the errors message." If you click on that link, you will be asked to activate an application named "Error Check System."

DON'T DO IT!!!!

Let me repeat that:

DON'T DO IT!!!!

It is some kind of spyware/malware/worm that I'm guessing takes your infomation and gives the author access to that information, including access to your page. It also appears to send itself on to people on your friends list, claiming to be from you.

If you've already activated it, or you find it in your list of applications, I would immediately delete it, and change your password. Don't know if it's already too late, but it couldn't hurt.

What's Next? The Knights Who Say "Nike"?

So I just watched that Gatorade commercial that references Monty Python & The Holy Grail, and I can't help wondering if they've missed their target audience ever so slightly...

And then I saw a Burger King commercial where a couple of nerdy guys unveil mini burgers, which draw a crowd of hands-on, attractive ladies who "just want to squeeze them." Bravo, BK...Bravo.

All The News That's Fit To Ignore

I'm sure by now that you've all seen the video of poor Henrietta Hughes asking President Obama to help her escape her homelessness. What I find really telling is his response:

"We're gonna do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you..."

It's a brilliant, sensitive answer that says...absolutely nothing.

"We"? Did Henrietta ask someone in addition to Obama for help? Who is this "we"? Maybe he means the "we" who will have to pay the taxes for some of the programs he's supporting. And notice that he says that this mysterious "we" will do everything we can to help. Well, if "we" can't do anything, then "we" won't do anything, right? Doing nothing is perfectly consistent with his answer. It's a non-committal committal. In fact he tries to weasel his way out of doing anything with his next statement: "but there are a lot of people like you." Translation: there are a shitload of people as fucked as you are, so don't expect too much from me. Then he gives her a kiss. Boo-boo all gone.

It looks like Henrietta did get a house to live in. A Florida representative's wife agreed to let Henrietta and her adult son live in a house she owned. And this is where I get pissed off. I read maybe a dozen reports about this and not one of them pointed out the fact that it was a Republican representative's wife who helped Ms. Hughes out. Not one. In fact, I noticed over at HuffPo, some of the comments criticizing those "selfish, greedy Repubs." Apparently they didn't know the whole story either. If anyone out there has seen a version of the story in which they actually identify Nick and Chene Thompson by their political affiliations, please send me a link.

This all begs the question of whether or not the media would have been so quiet about Thompson's politics if the parties had been reversed.

Ultimately, though, I find this to be an excellent example of one of the differences I see between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are always talking about how they're going to help you, usually by getting someone else to pay for it. The Republicans step up and do it.

Caption This!! (Part Whatever)

Yet another angle of Santonio Holmes' amazing end zone Super Bowl catch.

SNL 2-7-09

Opener: even the audience didn't laugh at that one. Also, small point, but haven't the Democrats had a majority for the last two of those last eight years?

Monologue: Who the fuck is Bradley Cooper? Seriously. This is the first time EVER that I have not known the host of SNL. EVER!

Today Show: Didn't like this bit the last time they did it. This one was no better. The real versions are more irritating, and so it's tough to make fun of them by trying to be irritating.

"I'm Gonna Have Sex With Your Wife": Yet another SNL skit that relies on one joke that goes on too long. On another note....I don't want any more sketches with Casey Wilson having pretend sex with the host. (See last week's Steve Martin cast orgy sketch)

Digital Short (Boat Ride): The highlight so far, but only because the rest has been so bad.

Four Guys & A Song: Not crazy about the choice of song, but this is always one of my favorite setups. Paul Rudd and his cell phone set the bar pretty high, but this one wasn't too bad.

TV on the Radio 1: Not really all that familiar with them, so I can't really compare the live/studio work, but I dig the music. The singing wasn't anything to write home about. Fans, is that normal for them?

Weekend Update: Nancy Pelosi joke...nice. The Phelps/Spitz bit gave me the first laugh out loud moments of the night. I like Seth's delivery, but I miss Amy. Especially with "Really?" (which was pretty hilarious AND insightful. Kellogg's sucks). Bjork? What does it say when Bjork is actually the most stable character Kristin Wiig's played in a while? On another side note, if life had sound effects, I've always thought "bjork" would be the sound an erection would make.

And Lorne Michaels, don't think I haven't noticed that we're more than halfway through with only ONE Casey Wilson sketch. I'm keeping my eye on you.

Locker Room: Sketch-wise, I'm beginning to think that SNL saves up all the suck to give it to the relatively unknown host. At least it was short.

Bad Guys & Good Conversation: I want to love any sketch that has Hans Gruber AND Jame Gumb. Of course, I should point out that none of these villains are from movies in the last 18 years. That may have killed the sketch a little. If not for Hader's Gumb, this one would have been a train wreck.

Intervention: Dear God...finally, another Casey sketch, and this is what we get? Can't they give her another paralyzed stripper sketch or something?

TV On The Radio 2: Best of the two performances, but still...music awesome, singing not awesome.

Christian Bale: Not a bad Bale. I'd rather go back and listen to the real thing, though. That's half the trouble with SNL: they find something already funny or something that everyone in the civilized world is already making fun of (and most of them doing it better) and then try to improve on the comedy. Thank god this is almost over. I'm so tired, I'm not even sure this post is going to make any sense.

Baldwin's on next week. Don't know if it's new or not, but even his repeats are better than this steaming pile of show.

"Well, It's Not This Bill..."

This is one of the best responses I've seen to the President's (kinda snarky) comments regarding the "stimulus" bill:

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)

And the best line in the response:

"Government spending is never a stimulus package, because the government cannot create wealth--it can only transfer wealth in the form of taxes. Government than spends and redistributes the taxes to programs and populations it deems worthwhile. The government sponsored economy is a a zero sum game."

I was trying to come up with some clever observation, such as "Stimulus is all spending, but not all spending is stimulus," or something like that, but I have a DVD I want to watch, so screw it.

Oh, Enough Already!!

What is it about Sarah Palin that bring out the assholishness in people? I used to find Andrew Sullivan interesting to read. Now he just seems petty and a little pathetic. Especially when he can't find anything else to write about other than whether or not Sarah Palin was lying about how she named her daughter Bristol.

First, I have to say: who gives a shit? Pssst....the election's over.

Second, although he's big enough to correct himself with an update, he just can't let it go, adding a second update saying "on the other hand, many readers have written to say that Palin was highly unlikely to have known of ESPN in high school. It was only founded in 1979 and became widely known only in 1982." Really? That's the best you can do? Well, seing as Palin was still in high school in 1982, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. In addition, it wouldn't surprise me that someone who was interested in sports broadcasting (in fact, Palin eventually got her bachelor's in communication) might just know about a 24-hour sports broadcasting network. But that's just me. I think "highly unlikey" is a huge stretch, and either a show of bias or a lame attempt to save face. I don't find it unlikely that a graduating student interested in profiling for the FBI might know about Quantico and the Behavioral Sciences Unit, even before CSI became "widely known." I don't find it unlikely that a student interested in the historical Jesus might have read a few books on the subject, even before The DaVinci Code became "widely known." And I don't find it unlikely--especially not "highly"--that a student interested in sports and broadcasting would know a little something about ESPN before it became "widely known." Frankly, it sounds like Palin did more research coming up with her daughter's name than Sullivan did for his post.

Yeah, I said it.

"Does This Outfit Make My Ass Look Big?"

"Dude...Is That Maui Wowie?" "No, It's Schadenfreude!"

So Kellogg's has decided not to renew Michael Phelps's contract.

Frankly, this whole thing is such bullshit. We have a president in office who has admitted to doing "blow," and the two before him have (I'm sure) smoked a little ganja themselves, inhaling or not. (Oh, and the president's half-brother was just arrested for possession.)

Kellogg's has the right to do as they see fit, but the press was being a little hypocritical by going after Phelps, while holding up Obama as a paragon of virtue.

If you ask me, anyone who smokes a bong and still manages to win 14 medals for swimming is a great spokesman for what human beings can accomplish. Remember, this is the guy that gave his one million dollar Speedo bonus to start a foundation for young swimmers, to help teach swimming safety. He's a good guy. People like Phelps, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the general public sees marijuana as the "demon weed" it once was. About half the country admits to trying it, and I'll bet many of the other half lied.

Prediction? This will come back to bite Kellogg's in the ass.

("Kellogg's Ass Bites" could be the worst cereal name ever.)

Here's To The Classics!

I'm putting this on my reading list.


Frankly, I think a lot of the classics could be improved by the inclusion of zombies. I'm looking forward to Jane Eyrrrrrgh by Bronte, Oliver Twist (Your Limbs Off) by Dickens, and Gore and Pieces by Tolstoy

It's Always Something...

So there are a lot of posts out there using still photos of the Santonio Holmes catch to somehow "prove" that he never got both feet down. Using a still photo to argue that Holmes never got both feet down is like using a photo of Fitzgerald at the ten-yard line to argue that he never reached the end zone. The truth is, you could have a thousand photos of his feet not touching and it still wouldn't prove anything. Yet all it would take is one photo with both feet down to prove he did make the catch.

So shut yer traps.

Photo from Robert Deutsch/USA Today. Click on the photo for larger, in-your-face-Cardinals-fans version.

This Time I Mean It!

I know I'm always saying that such-and-such is the funniest thing I've seen, but this may actually be the one. Thank you, Ken!

We Asked For It

By getting rid of Ebert, Roeper, et. al.

I'm watching the "Ten Worst" episode of the Ebert replacement show, and the one guy puts Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in the #1 slot on his list. Really? You thought Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a better film than Indy?

Douche.

Super Bowl

1st Quarter: I think it might have been a mistake to not go for it. Fourth and a foot, and you've got the best defense in the league? I know points on the board are points on the board, but it IS the Super Bowl.

2nd Quarter: 13 yards? Ouch.

See...this is why it was a mistake for the Steelers not to go for it in the first. The Cardinals can score that quickly.

Steelers D at it again. I thought there was :03 left on the clock, so if they don't give him the TD, they ought to put time on the clock for one play. Maybe I was wrong.

Doesn't matter, I guess--they gave him the TD.

Halftime: I caught Seth Meyers' joke on SNL about the Steelers and Cardinals "opening for Springsteen." Ha ha. Come see me in 20 years and we'll see which one is still on TV--the NFL or Springsteen.

Is it me, or does the overwhelming theme of Super Bowl commercials seem to be meanness?

Damn it! Where do I get me some "Chuck" 3-D glasses?

Third Quarter: Maybe it's just me, but what I saw was Warner reaching for a ball that came loose from his hand...NOT a forward pass. Certainly not enough of one to overcome the call on the field.

Heath Miller plays well enough that I'll forgive the occasional drop...but he still should have caught it.

Wow...Adrian Wilson self-destructs. That sucks...I like Wilson.

Fourth Quarter: One more to go!

I like that the Steelers are staying agressive on defense.

I spoke too soon. This is my problem with the Steelers' D: the team gets a lead, and what happens? They pull back and let the team dink and dunk right down the field. Being agressive worked so far. Pressure!

That 1st Quarter call...

I love my Steelers, but they deserve to lose this game. The Cardinals have given them every opportunity to win the game, and they've made bad decisions all the way.

Touchdown Steelers!! So...assuming the win stands...Holmes or Harrison for MVP?

At the risk of jinxing things, I should point out that I'm less than excited about the Steelers' special teams play (although they've been decent tonight).

And the defense wins it again. One for the thumb...on the LEFT hand.

I don't know what's going to happen, but I think MVP should go to Holmes.

Oh, man...what a game. Hats off to the Cardinals. They made it so close that I think I may be sick, and the game's over.

He Ain't Heavy...

Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and now...
George Obama.

Seems as if the president's half-brother was just arrested in Nairobi for possession of marijuana. Maybe he could market this, kind of like "Billy Beer." How about "Obama Ganja"?

Why is it that the Democrats always seem to have these embarrassing brothers? I guess maybe the Republicans just elect theirs.*

*Someone was going to say it...why not me?

Saturday Night Not-So-Live

My thoughts on SNL as I watch the episode I DVRed last night:

Opening: I can imagine the memo...
"Continuing the long-standing tradition of SNL making fun of American presidents, our opener will take a shot at President Obama. Writers, please note--we will not be doing anything that makes Obama himself look bad. Biden? Sure. George Bush? Even better."

Monologue: If jokes are a little lame, a "So Barack Obama is president" comment always works. "San Dimas High School football rules!!" (obscure movie reference)

Edible Pampers: Laughed a little; lost appetite a lot.

MacGruber: What a waste of Richard Dean Anderson. You get MacGuyver and that's the best you can do?

Super Bowl Bar: Not so great. Martin's character seemed a little out of place.

Digital Shorts - Laser Cats 4: KILL...KILL...LOVE. Awesome!

Issues: Oh, Casey Wilson...even with "permples" on your face, you are enchanting! When will you give up this comedy thing and settle down with a nice boy who occasionally writes about pining for you in his blog?

MacGruber 2: Still a waste.

Bernie Madoff Super Bowl Party: Cute, but suffers from the occasional SNL problem of "let's play the one note to death."

Cast Members/Steve Martin Orgy: NOOOOOOOO!!!! Why, Casey Wilson, Why? Damn you, Martin! I hate you with the heat of a thousand white hot suns!!
The singing was nice.

MacGruber 3: Pepsi pepsi waste pepsi.

Jason Mraz: He's always good live. No exception here.

Weekend Update:

1. Guys, making fun of Blago doesn't work, as Blago himself does it better than anyone.
2. The Angelina Jolie baby search - either kind of funny, or just seems so compared to the rest.
3. David Patterson - They've got some guts, going with this skit after they got so much flak last time. I thought it was funny, but I kept wondering if it would play outside of New York. Is Patterson well-known outside NY?
4. Jersey jokes are always funny.
5. I heard Lorne Michaels hates it, but I always like it when cast members break up.

Store Makeup: Casey Wilson and Steve Martin - "It really makes my lips look moist." "Your face looks much more like a baby's fanny now." My god, get a room you two...I am sooo over you, Casey Wilson. (Just kidding. You're still my comedy goddess. Call me?)

Steve Martin Banjo: I love when Steve Martin plays the banjo. Nice song, too, but I saw the punchline coming. I also would have liked more playing, less singing.

Forefathers of the Game: Hahahaha...."of course we were upset! He had a great arm and a GUN!" Best skit so far. Reminded me a little of Woody Allen's Zelig.

Jason Mraz 2: See Jason Mraz 1 above.

There's A "Hold The Onions" Joke In There Somewhere...

Study: Women's armpits smell of onions

Those Two Little Words...

Bacon. Pie.

I'm Just Talkin' Bout Liam!

I had occasion to see Taken, and I have to say...

Of all the bad motherfuckers in all of the action movies...Liam Neeson could just be the baddest. Hardcore...just hardcore.

It's not going to win any awards, I think, but I sure enjoyed watching it.

What The Hell??

Thanks to Doug Ross, I got a look at the details of The Stimulus Package. Here's a look at it from The Wall Street Journal. Doug calls it "The SS Titanic of Stimulus Packages." If only it were that good. This is like the cartoon version of the Titanic, where the ship itself stays up, and the entire world around it (i.e. us) sinks.

I've gone from worried to frightened in ten seconds flat. I'm nearly speechless.

Isn't this thing supposed to actually stimulate something? Besides my ire, that is. You know what this is like? This is like loaning money to relatives who claim to have trouble paying rent and grocery bills, only to find out later that they spent it on a Playstation 3.

Hat Tip: Infidelsarecool

What's In A Name? Maybe Three To Five With Good Behavior.

According to ScienceBlog (by way of FARK) young people with unpopular names are more likely to commit crimes.

"Fauntleroy Monkeypus! You put that flamethrower down! You hear me young man?"

Yeah, I could see that.

In Walks These Three Girls In Nothing But Bathing Suits...

Black bathing suits. John Updike, dead at 76. R.I.P.

Please Pull The Karma Over, Sir!

So I'm driving through a school zone today, and at a four-way stop a guy in an SUV runs the stop sign, cutting me off. In his attempt to completely ignore my existence, he apparently also completely ignored the cop car right behind me. Suck it, Scofflaw!

I live for that shit.

So What's Not To Hate?

I'm adding a link to I Hate The Media, In part, because of this.

UPDATE: Also adding The Patriot Room.

I'm Sorry, Blockbuster Online Customer Service; I Can't Hear You!

Must be because you have you have your head up your ass.

I'm a member of both Netflix and Blockbuster Online. Looks like I may have to drop Blockbuster. I've had a few problems with the films over the years, but lately it seems to be getting worse. And the customer service? Well, it all started when I noticed something wrong with my "recommendations...."

(Cue flashback harp music)

On both online sites, you rate movies you've seen and--based on your ratings--new movies you might like are suggested. At least that's how it's supposed to work. That's how it works on Netflix. On Blockbuster Online, though, about half of my shown recommendations were movies I had already rated. It really wasn't that big of a deal...until I got involved with Blockbuster's customer service. I sent them an e-mail alerting them to what was happening. My first response was this (I changed the tracking number):

------ Please do not remove your unique tracking number! ------
<<#8-675309#>>

That's it. Nothing else. No message. Frankly it was a little creepy. Of course I wrote back to ask what the deal was. Then I got a response which included this:

Our system is designed to not recommend movies that have previously been rated by the customer. The recommendations area should only display non-previously rated movies confirmed by the stars being only blue (yellow would indicate that they've been rated.)

There is, however, a limitation to this feature. Once the customer has rated over 1,000 movies, this function is no longer available and the customer may see previously rated items.

There is an enhancement request to up this limit to 2,000 and we hope that will be completed sometime in the near future.

I again responded, letting them know that their system wasn't working the way it was supposed to and that I hadn't rated anywhere near 1,000 films.

From the next e-mail:

Your comments are taken very seriously and we welcome them as a valuable tool needed to improve the quality of our service. I will make sure to forward your feedback to the appropriate department for review.

"Your comments are taken very seriously," which means nothing. I waited for the next e-mail:

I apologize if your issue about the rating system in our website is still not being addressed properly. Since addressing the issue through e-mail is a bit complicated, I kindly advice you to contact us at our Customer service hotline at 1-866-692-2789, we are open from Mondays to Fridays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Central standard time. Our customer service representative will be happy to assist you and guide you through the website. We will try and come up with a solution or an answer to the recommendations issue in the websiste. We kindly appreciate your patience and understanding.

This was the nicest response yet, but seemed to still be foisting me onto someone else. I grabbed my phone.

After being on hold for about 20 minutes, listening to a recording ("We take your calls very seriously...") I finally got an agent who spoke what I'm pretty sure was English, as I recognized a few words. I briefly explained the problem, at which point she put me on hold again for five more minutes. When she came back, she told me with what I can only assume was a straight face that Blockbuster doesn't use personal recommendations. I explained to her that a previous e-mail from them explained to me that they did indeed have them. This began a strange dance where she would repeat my problem back to me ("You are saying that...") and after I affirmed the problem, she would repeat her claim that there were no recommendations. I eventually gave up, and she asked me if I would care to participate in a satisfaction survey.

You bet your ass I wanted to.

The next thing I know, I'm listening to another recording, asking me to enter my agent number followed by the number I want to transfer my customer to. Over and over and over again. Apparently she couldn't ever transfer me properly.

What started as a non-issue had grown into an "I'm pissed off at your complete lack of competence" issue. I sent yet another e-mail. This one contained this little gem from the Blockbuster help web page on recommendations:

To give you personalized recommendations, we need to know what you think about the titles you've already seen. Start rating movies and let us know what you love and what's not your style....The more movies you rate, the better we are st[sic] recommending titles that you're sure to like. Once you've rated at least 20 movies, we'll be able to provide personalized recommendations. [emphasis mine]

I also pointed out the typo. You'd think that a big company like Blockbuster could afford to hire people to find and correct those kinds of errors. I thought so, too, until I got the latest e-mail today. If anyone can figure out what this means, please let me know:

I am sorry to learn that you were having concern with the personalized recommendation in our movies in our website. I am glad that you have informed us of your concern. The star ratings or personalized recommendation in our website was replaced by the shopping cart. Because majority of our customer is asking for it because of the convenience on purchasing movies on line. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this concern brought to you.

It was then I began to suspect that it was not a real person answering my e-mails, but one of those computer programs that's designed to sound like an actual person. I'm going to try including the phrase "open the pod bay doors" in my next e-mail and see what happens.

And here's the kicker....

Today the personal recommendation function that I've twice been told doesn't exist is working fine.

Yet Another Ceremony I Won't Be Watching...

I've given up on watching the various Hollywood awards ceremonies. Looks like this year will be no exception. While I am glad that Mickey Rourke got nominated, I have some issues with the other choices. First of all, nothing from Gran Torino? Maybe it's a slight to Clint for his (sometimes vocal) politics? Nah, that would never happen, right? In addition, although I have to see Benjamin Button for myself, everyone I've talked to has been...I guess "underwhelmed" is as good a term as any. And these are people whose opinions I trust when it comes to film.

UPDATE: Ken has a few choice things to say. Check the comments section for more from me.

UPDATE #2: Does anyone besides me think it's unusual that none of the Best Picture noms were in general release before mid-November or so? I know studios schedule the films they feel will be contenders that way, but not one from earlier in the year was worthy? It reminds me of those awful "Top 20 Whatevers of All Time" lists where nearly all of the entries are from the past couple of years. I hate those lists.

More Modifications

I think, anyway. I saw this picture, and I can't tell if this is an optical illusion, or a case of retouching gone awry. It's a picture of actress Danica McKeller. Take a look at her right leg...


That's right...you can't. It doesn't seem to be there. It could, as I said, be an optical illusion, but there doesn't seem to be enough space between her left foot and the wall behind her to hide her right one. Nor does that dress seem to be loose enough for her to have lifted her leg behind her (for whatever reason). Comments?

A (Modified) Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Megan Fox is beautiful, no doubt about it, but sometimes even the beautiful get some help. You can see from these two photos the adjustments that were made, most notably removing the edge of the tattoo on her arm, giving her more cleavage, and making her right arm thinner. Here's photo 1:

And the touched up photo 2:


And I put together a little animated GIF file to help you see the changes. (Just click on it.)

It's not often I get to inform AND post pictures of scantily-clad actresses. Life is good.

CLARIFICATION: I'm not the one who made these changes. I'm not sure where or for whom they were taken. My understanding is that the altered image was the one used and the other was the original photo as taken. My point was to show how nit-picky the media can be with their retouching of photos.

Where's The Happy Medium?

The other day, I noticed that the finance charge on one of my credit cards had gotten a lot higher, despite the fact that the balance on the card had not. The bank shall remain nameless. (It rhymes with Swashington Smutual.) Upon further investigation a noticed that my interest rate on the card had just about doubled. Determined to get to the bottom of things I called dear 'ol SS Bank and asked them about it. All the representative could tell me on the phone was that it had gone up, and apparently I was sent a notice, which gave me the opportunity to avoid the increase, but only by closing the account. I never got the notice, as far as I know.

A short time later, I received a letter from SS which said, basically, "We appreciate your business, but you represent an 'increased risk.'" Now, as I told the representative on the phone, I've never paid the bill late, I've always paid more than the minimum due, twice in the past year, I've paid off the complete balance (which has never been more than $1,500), and in the last six months, my salary has increased about $10,000. My credit score hovers somewhere around 700, give or take. I have to wonder: Where's the 'increased risk'?

The banks are in the mess they're in because they decided it would be a good idea to loan money to...well...anyone and everyone, regardless of circumstances. Then the roof caved in, and they demanded money from the government, which they got. Now it seems like they've gone too far the other way: they've got their money and they're sitting on it. The only people who are going to be able to get credit are the people who won't need to ask, it seems. I know, I know...the evidence is anectdotal. But I've heard a number of stories like mine, of rates increased like a thief in the night for the thinnest of reasons. I've also heard stories of people who are denied credit, who probably shouldn't be.

Can't the banks find a happy medium? You don't have to give the money away like lollipops, but you don't have to pile it in your mattress and sleep on it, either. In fact, the latter option seems about as dangerous to the economy as the former, considering the situation we're in. No credit to buy cars, houses, televisions, etc. would--I think--contribute even more to a recession/depression. But I'm no economist, so who knows. I do have one last question, though...

If we're a nation built on credit, and most of us have credit bills, then what happens if we receive our "stimulus" payment promised by our soon-to-be-president, and most of us spend that money on those credit bills, only to find the banks still aren't giving credit, or have increased the rates on the credit we already have? Will that "stimulate" anything at all?

If you're wondering about my situation, here's what happened: I called them back to give them an opportunity to correct the problem, which they passed up. So, I made a balance transfer to a card from another bank (which had a MUCH lower rate), and sent a letter to SS bank, telling them that while I have appreciated doing business with them, doubling my interest rate without adequate notification represents too much of an increased risk for me to continue to do so.

I still smile when I think about it.

Tis The Season

There's a new holiday in town...and you best get to celebratin' it. Like it or not, today is "Talk Like Jack Bauer Day." Add it to your yearly calenders. What's that? You don't want to?

"Damn it! We're running out of time! That's not the smart play here...you know I'm right."

You can also keep track of Jack and his wacky shenanigans here.

Thanks to The Insurrectionist for the heads up.

Hey, You Know What...?

Gil Grissom is leaving CSI. I know this because I've seen the commercial EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES!!!!

I like William Peterson, but for the love of God, go already!

For All You Giants Fans Out There...

Now that the Super Bowl is almost upon us, and the Giants are out of it, I thought this would help ease the pain a little. The voice-over is from an interview in which Tom Brady reacts to Plaxico "That's my gun, but I'm still happy to see you" Burress's prediction that the Giants would win the Super Bowl 23-17. It could be the greatest homemade sports video ever.


Of course, Brady wasn't the only one to react that way. ESPN had something to say about it.

(In case you were under a rock last year, the Patriots couldn't manage even 17 points. They lost to the Giants, 17-14.)

Just In Case You Thought X-Files Made That Shit Up...

I give you this:


I don't even know what to say about this...

Typical...

Here's the AP Headline (I kid you not):

Mother of Palin Daughter's Boyfriend Arrested

Attend an inflammatory preacher's church for twenty years? No ties there. Serve on a couple of boards with a former domestic terrorist? No ties there. Former fundraiser's a felon? The same fundraiser who was instrumental in setting up the administration of the governor who was just accused of selling your soon-to-be-empty senate seat? Move along, nothing to see here. But the mother of your daughter's boyfriend? That's worthy of a headline with your name in it. My god! You might as well be joined at the hip!

Maybe we should look at Obama's father's brother's sister's boyfriend's babysitter's hairdresser, and see what dirt we can dig up there.

And So It Starts...

I had to laugh a little when I read this:

President-elect Barack Obama said Monday a review by his own lawyer shows he had no direct contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the appointment of a Senate replacement, and transition aides did nothing inappropriate. (emphasis mine)

Yes, that's right...his own lawyer. This must be that transparency he was promising. Just think--this novel idea could spread to other sections of society. We'd have no need of juries anymore; we can simply let the defense attorneys decide the fate of the accused. No more jury duty! We could all give ourselves raises at work. No more economic problems there!

And just in case you think there might be something shifty about the investigation...

[Obama] said the probe was complete and thorough, but did not say which of his aides Craig interviewed, whether any of them was under oath at the time, or any other details.

Well, there you go. Obama's lawyer investigated him, and we know he did a good job because Obama (the guy he was--in part--investigating) said he did. Nothing shady there.

C'mon...are you kidding me? Even Clinton didn't have the balls to try to get away with something like this.

When asked about Obama's claims, the mainstream media replied "sounds good to us!"

Duck!

That's some damn fine reflexes on Dubbya, don't ya think?

Throwing something at the American president in Iraq has got to be right up there with running up to him and handing him a toy gun in terms of the "I have a death wish" scale.

Doomed, I Tell You! DOOOMED!

I was reading an article that discussed the fact that there's a spectacular moon out tonight when I found this at the end of it:

Another astronomical treat that could be seen tonight and for the next two nights is the annual Geminid meteor shower, one of the year’s best displays of shooting stars. Up to 100 meteors an hour can fly across the sky. The meteors, which are easy to spot with the naked eye, appear to shoot out from the constellation Gemini, hence their name, but they can be seen all over the sky. However, with a full moon so bright, the best place to look is away from the Moon.

Meteor showers happen when the Earth passes through clouds of debris shed from comets. As the tiny fragments smash into the Earth’s upper atmosphere at about 100,000mph, they burn up in streaks of light.

For reasons that are not understood, the Geminid meteor showers are tending to grow stronger each year.

Wait...What? "Growing stronger every year"? "For reasons that are not understood"? I got your reason--Maybe it's because we're hurtling towards them at galactic speeds!!

That's A Whole Different Kind of "Stiff"

Sadly, 1950s pin-up and bondage queen Bettie Page passed away yesterday. Apparently she had suffered a heart attack a few days ago, and never recovered. I'll be flying at half-mast for a while.

*The picture is from thebettiepage.com, and I'll most definitely take it down, should they ask. In the meantime, go visit them and check out some of the pictures too racy for me to post.

There Will Never Be Another

There's nobody today who even comes close. Happy Birthday, Frank.

A Pressing Matter

Let me start by saying that I don't really expect much of my fellow man. I think we're motivated primarily by selfishness, and that there isn't much altruism out there. Not only am I not that shocked by it, I actually find it fairly logical. I tell you this so you'll understand when I say how this next bit disgusted me, and made me ashamed to be a human being, you'll understand just how severe I think it is.

A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said.

Four other people were injured in the incident, including a woman who was eight months pregnant. And just when you thought you couldn't add insult to injury, it appears that the shoppers complained...because the store had to be shut down by the police.

[Police spokesman] Fleming said criminal charges were possible but that it would be difficult to identify individual shoppers in surveillance videos.

I dearly hope they can prosecute a few of these assholes.

Can You Say "Old News"?

You can if you've been a semi-regular reader here. This is by Wesley Pruden, and appears in today's op-ed in The Washington Times:

So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one. The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995.

he continues:

Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind." The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."

In this account, the institute had to make the humiliating climb-down after two leading skeptics of the global-warming scam, Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, discovered that temperature readings from September had been carried over and repeated for October.

I've pointed out some of the problems with the whole global warming/climate change frenzy here, here, and here, and there are many others out there (much more qualified than I) saying much the same thing.

What are the odds Al Gore will give his Nobel Prize back?

Wow

I can't say too much about this. I was tooling around YouTube, and I ran across this. It's one of my favorite songs, and I really like this version. If you like it, go visit her website.



Man, that's purty.

R.I.P.

This came out of nowhere:

Prolific novelist and "ER" creator Michael Crichton has passed away. He was 66.

I always liked him. I had just finished my latest book on tape (CD, really), and was ready to start his newest.

I Guess All Green People Look The Same To Him...

I was just watching Obama give a stump speech in Ohio, and he was trying to make a joke about John McCain being a "sidekick" to President Bush (a joke that he already had used, by the way).

"He's like Kato to the Green Lantern. Y'all remember that. Those of you who are over a certain age."

If you're going to make a pop culture reference, it's usually a good idea to get it right. Bruce Lee's Kato played the sidekick of Van Johnson's The Green Hornet.

Just a couple of thoughts...

* He couldn't come up with a better example of a sidekick in the last 40 years??

* Maybe he didn't want to. After all, unlike Obama's ticket, the one without the experience is usually the sidekick. Guess he didn't want to point that out too much.

* Another reason he shouldn't have choosen the show "The Green Hornet"? Kato kicked some serious ass. If I had to be any sidekick, Kato's a pretty good one to be.

UPDATE: It wasn't worth another post, but I just watched Obama say that we don't know what John McCain stands for because "he's talked a lot about me" but not the issues. This is after discussing for five minutes what he thinks McCain did wrong, including what I wrote about above. In fact, after writing the post, and this update, he's still talking about McCain. Does he understand the meaning of "hypocrite"?

Uh-Oh-Seven!

I actually like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I was a little bothered by his reasoning in answering a question for Parade Magazine:

"I finally ask this British actor a deeply American question: 'Who do you think would be the better James Bond—Barack Obama or John McCain?'

Craig doesn’t hesitate. 'Obama would be the better Bond because—if he’s true to his word—he’d be willing to quite literally look the enemy in the eye and go toe-to-toe with them.' "

Maybe someone should point out to Craig that one of the two actually has "quite literally looked the enemy in the eye and [went] toe-to-toe with them." Every day for five years.

Guess which one.

"And All The Women In My Family Are Female."

Petitedov has a post on the alleged threatening remarks yelled about Barack Obama during a Sarah Palin rally in Scranton.

One of the things that struck me was the defense offered up by Jeff Sonderman, the Metro Editor of The Scranton Times-Tribune, the paper that "broke" the story:

“We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.”

This is what's known as a tautology. That is, since the word "fact" means "true," you're comparing synonyms. It's like saying "All the women in my family are female." It's not only faulty logic, it's redundant. What Sonderman essentially said was "All the true things we reported were true." Of course that says nothing about things that may not have been true.

"Say Hello To Your Mother For Me."

I don't know why, but this video just cracks me up. Enjoy:



I heard that Mark Wahlberg didn't think too much of this. That's a shame because I always thought he seemed like a pretty decent guy, and would have thought that he would have been a really good sport about it. You know...maybe even appear on the show so that they could do "Mark Wahlberg talks to Mark Wahlberg."

"Hey, Mark Wahlberg. Hows it going'?"
"Pretty great, Mark Wahlberg. I like your movies."

Just Frightening...

I know the Ayers-Obama connection has been done to death. I'm not going to try to top what's already out there, but I will link to this post from Deroy Murdock that puts a lot of information about Ayers (and his Obama connection) together in one place. I have to admit--I already thought that Ayers was a dangerous individual, but after reading this, I realize that I had no idea just how dangerous. You really have to read this.

Here's a sample about Ayers:

In 1970, Ayers encapsulated the Weathermen’s worldview: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

And another about his wife and fellow Weatherman (Weatherperson?) Bernardine Dohrn:

She later said this about the Charles Manson family’s August 9, 1969, murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and her friends in her Beverly Hills home: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

I think Murdock also brings up an important point--while everyone is focusing on how Obabma could accept support from Ayers and Dohrn, we ought to also be asking just what it was about Obama that made Ayers and Dohrn decide he was the candidate they wanted to launch. What was it they saw in him?

UPDATE: You might want to read the reprinted article that originally carried the quotes above.

Deep In The Heart Of Taxes

It's things like this that made me dig Larry Elder. Although I already knew most of this, I still had a few surprises, like this:

A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

It just goes to show that for the most part, people are stupid. I'm not just talking about Democratic people, either. And perhaps I should say "uninformed" rather than "stupid." For example, I wonder who people picture when they think of "the rich"? As Elder points out, to be in the top five percent, you only need to make more than $153,542. That's a lot, but I'll bet when you think of "the rich" you think of a lot more wealth than that.

One last thought...I found it interesting that Obama and Biden, who try to pass themselves off as men of the people, donated a much smaller percentage of their incomes than those greedy Republicans President and Mrs. Bush. Only $3,700 in charitable donations over 10 years, Senator Biden? Say it ain't so, Joe.

Covering Your Fannie?

This is a little long, but very enlightening. I know that politicians generally think that we have short memories, but when you consider what the Democrats have been saying lately, this goes to the extreme.



Thanks to Ken for alerting me to this.

UPDATE: Here's a quote from Stephen Labaton's September 11, 2003 article from the New York Times:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

This seems to fly in the face of Democratic claims that this crisis is a result of Bush Administration policy. (I would have linked to the article, but the Times requires registration, and I have it in a .pdf file.)

But I Could Be Wrong...

I'm not just some guy who lives to bash the media (see below). I call 'em like I see 'em, and here's two that I think the AP did all right with.

Fact Checking the Debate
I have small issues with a few of the things said, but overall, I thought it was fair.

Who Won Debate? TV Pundits Don't Agree On a Winner.
Again, pretty fair overall.

For my money (I watched it twice) I thought it was mighty close. In the end, I have to give the smallest of margins to McCain for a couple of reasons:

1. He finished strong. He got better and better while Obama just seemed to become more and more flustered.
2. Unlike some others out there, I didn't think McCain had to wow people over with this debate. In fact, I think that although Obama was more eloquent "off-the-cuff" than he usually is, I'm not sure if he rose to the expectations people had for him. That performance was a far cry from a candidate who is supposed to lead us into the promised land, or send a tingle up our legs, or whatever. Is that, then, a failure? A letdown? I don't know. I'm not sure I want to watch either one of them for the next 4-8 years, honestly.
3. One moment that really stood out to me. After McCain talked about the bracelet from the soldier's mother, Obama tried to counter with his own "I have a bracelet" story. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't remember the soldier's name, and had to look down at his notes. It was a cringe-worthy moment, and made McCain look genuine while making Obama look too rehearsed and phony.
4. One last thought. It worries me that Obama argued that going into Iraq to remove Saddam created our problems today with Iran by taking away an enemy of theirs. I'm sure it's true, of course, that Iran becomes stronger when you take away their aggressive enemy, but is Obama really implying that we should have left a guy who was not only torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, but also participating in the largest scam in history (oil-for-food) in power simply because he might have kept his neighbor in line? That's genuinely scary. That's like the FBI saying "let's not bother going after Al Capone because he keeps the other families in check." First of all, I could make the argument that if we were to leave Saddam in power, that would have been an even more risky move as Iran still would have had plenty of reason (if not more reason) to pursue nuclear weapons with a psychotic dictator just over the border. Add to that that Saddam would likely have become even more aggressive in return, and you have a bit of a powder keg. Not good. Second, the only reason that Iran is stronger with Saddam gone is because the country (Iraq) is "in between" governments right now. I think the argument can be made that once a new government is firmly established in Iraq, especially one that is on friendly terms with the west, not only will Iran lose any strength they may have gained, they will lose some of what they originally had. Of course, all this is speculation, but as I said, that kind of logic, that kind of thinking, from someone about to take the oval office, really scares me. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on it yet.

That Explains A Lot About The AP

They can correct the article to reflect the release date of The Silver Chalice, but can't manage to run a corrected headline.

"The Films of Actor Paul Newsman"

Really? One of the most famous actors, I don't know...EVER, and you couldn't spell his name?

BTW: This may be corrected by the time you check it out, but take my word for it--they screwed it up.

UPDATE: Yep, they corrected it.

Sometimes Nothing Can Be A Real Cool Hand

Paul Newman lost his battle with cancer yesterday.

"Is that your answer, Old Man? I guess you're a hard case, too."

I didn't always agree with his politics, but I always loved his acting.

R.I.P., good Sir.

The Proof Is In The Pudding...I Mean Voting

So you think McCain doesn't know much about the economy? Think he's out of touch with what the people want? Just in case you'd better take a quick look at this. It's a report on the Senate, put out by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW).

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW. The CCAGW mission is to advocate the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through nonpartisan public education programs and lobbying activities. Each year, CCAGW tabulates its Congressional Ratings, evaluating how each member of Congress measures up on key tax and spending votes.

The report on the Senate covers 35 key votes from last year, explains whether the taxpayers "won" or "lost" the vote, and follows up by tabulating how often each senator was on the side of the taxpayers. Some very interesting results:

• Obviously, Sarah Palin is not on the list since she isn't a senator, but John McCain? On the side of the taxpayers 100% of the time. That's right--he voted against waste and to benefit the taxpayers every single time. And his lifetime record is 88%. Not too shabby. In fact no other senator had a 100% rating for last year.
• Barack Obama, who claims to be on the side of the taxpayers, measured fairly close to the bottom of the barrel at 10% (18% lifetime). But that's not even the worst percentage...
• Obama's running mate, Joe Biden (along with a bunch of other senators) came in at 0% (22% lifetime). That means in every single vote that he cast for those 35 key votes, he voted on the side that would hurt you, the taxpayer. Every single time.

I think it's pretty clear who's really got our best interests in mind.

*To be fair, though, most Democrats score consistantly poorly on these rankings, mainly because they always want to--you guessed it--raise taxes. They're generally for bigger government, also. So if you see the government taking more of your money and spending it to spread its influence into more and more of your life as a good thing, then maybe you're all right with the Obama/Biden rankings.

The Coolest Thing I've Seen In A While

You know how when you were young, you believed in cool things, like Santa, and the Easter Bunny, and Playboy models? And then some adult told you none of them were real, and pretty much ruined your life? This totally makes up for it.

Why Brian Austin Green Is The Luckiest Man Alive

Gulp!

For those following the "Brian Austin Green luckiest man" Google search here, I apologize. The above link was to a smoking hot picture of Megan Fox. It's no longer there. But I have confidence that you can find any number of smoking hot pictures of Megan Fox out there if you try.

I'm Sure It Won't Be Long...

before we see a headline like this:

We're Pretty Sure Palin Would Be Lying If She Had Said Some Stuff That We Were Hoping She Would.

The latest, from CNN (big surprise there) has the headline "Palin Never In Iraq, Campaign Now Says."

As NewsBusters points out, though, she never actually claimed she was ever in Iraq!

This is getting ridiculous, and it's beyond excusable. Palin never claimed she was in Iraq. "Palin officials" never claimed she was in Iraq. It seems that the only one who ever actually claimed she was in Iraq is an unnamed "Palin aide in Alaska." So, let me get this straight--the credibility of the entire story rests on someone who could possibly be some high-schooler doing an internship in the governor's office after school and most likely didn't know the difference between Kuwait (where Palin did visit) and Iraq?

The Boston Globe has a little more, and handles it a little better:

Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.
They still don't report when these things were said, or by whom, but I noticed that in one case, they use the term "Iraq battle zone," which it appears she did, by visiting a military installation on the border.

At least the Globe makes it clear that she only went to the border because she wasn't allowed to go any further.

But she did not venture into Iraq, Osborn said. "You have to have permission to go into a lot of areas, and [the crossing] is where her permissions were," he said.

The last thing that struck me is that both papers seem to imply that her occasional claim of traveling to Ireland, although technically true, should be discounted because it was only a refuelling stop. In nearly the same breath, though, even though she was in a potentially dangerous area on the border of Iraq, visiting troops that, as a matter of course, had to go into Iraq, she somehow can't count that because she technically didn't cross the border, as if she had somehow managed to do a hokey-pokey and put her left foot in and shook it all about, all of this wouldn't be an issue.

If anyone has any legitimate story with quotes from Palin herself or a named source, saying that Palin went into Iraq, would you send them to me, or post the links in the comments section?

UPDATE: I guess I need to read more carefully. It looks like Palin did cross into Iraq, however briefly. The NewsBusters uses a quote from the CNN article that appears to have been changed (another "stealth edit"?). The line in question, as quoted by NewsBusters, says

"The Boston Globe reported Saturday that Palin visited the Iraqi side of a border crossing -- but never journeyed past the checkpoint."

The CNN version?

"The Boston Globe, however, reported Saturday that in response to questions about the trip, Alaska National Guard officials and campaign aides said Palin did not go past the Kuwait-Iraq border."

I have no proof that CNN changed their copy, but the Globe article seems to indicate that she did, in fact, enter Iraq proper.

"Her visit to Iraq itself..." (bold mine)

"Palin did not stay the night in Iraq..." (bold mine)

Why say that unless she was there during the day?

Whatever. Maybe we should stop being nit-picky and look at the candidates for president. Can we start listing the trips that they've made? I guess we could start with Obama's vacation to Bali, where he worked on his book, or maybe his trip to Germany to speak in front of the Germans while electing not to meet with actual Americans...wait, do those count?

Eh...

So I watched the season premiere of Saturday Night Live last night. Random thoughts:

1) Tina Fey really does look a lot like Sarah Palin. It freaked me out a little at first.

2) Speaking of Sarah Palin, they didn't give her too hard of a time. I think there was maybe a half-dozen or so. And I could count the Obama jokes on one hand. Oh no, wait...no I couldn't BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY!! Not one. (Maybe I missed one...anyone?) I find that a little strange that this close to a presidential election that SNL chose to poke fun at only the Republican VP candidate. Granted, the opening sketch also made fun of Hillary "third place" Clinton, but she's not running, is she.

3) Casey Wilson is hot in that "Will you be my girlfriend and wear oversized tee shirts and white socks a lot?" kind of way.

4) What was going on with that camera work? Whoever was running things seemed to have them on the wrong person, and things seemed to be framed oddly.

5) The joke they stole from themselves (the locker room pep talk, originally with Peyton Manning) was weak. It's a long drive to the punchline, and when you know what's coming it's even longer.

6) Phelps stumbled once or twice, but did better than I thought he would. He's no Manning, though. (Manning's fake United Way commercial for SNL is hysterically funny.)

7) Really? No Obama jokes? In the couple of months you've been off the air, you couldn't come up with one thing to poke fun at? You couldn't get Tim Meadows to come back and do a bowling sketch or something?

8) Making fun of home schooling AND public education...sweet.

Google This! Some More

UPDATE: Ever since installing Google's new browser, Chrome, the Google Installer continues to try to connect to IPs for everyone but Google. The last two IPs were for Yahoo! and Amazon.

This sure seems like some kind of data mining to me...

UPDATE UPDATE: Looks like Google is going to be a little to busy with this and this to "fix" their browser any time soon. (Interesting...that second article about the partnership with Yahoo! seems to make my discovery above seem even more suspicious.)

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: Here's a copy of Chrome's privacy policy. I just buzzed through it quickly, but I didn't see anything about trying to send or get information when the browser isn't open, or is uninstalled.

UPDATE X 4: Okay, this morning, it finally tried to connect to an IP owned by Google; however, about five minutes after that, it tried to connect to a website apparently owned by the credit reporting company Experian, and which is apparently trying to sell you a "protect your credit" service. That's the scariest thing yet, I think.

UPDATE X 5: A little more searching tells me consumerinfo.com is apparently also known as freecreditreport.com (I bet you're singing the song right now...) They've been in trouble with the FTC and had a number of consumer complaints.

This Is News???

I really expected more from The Washington Post.

I mean, really? The thrust of the headline and the opening is that Palin somehow made a gaffe in her statements.

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.

Yeah. Except that's not what she said. She said that they would defend people from the enemies (not the Iraqis) who did those things. The paper is making the assumption (or hoping that readers will) that since the troops were "Iraq-bound" that she was talking about "the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein." Obviously that's not true for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that that government, and Saddam Hussein, no longer exist. So she's clearly not talking about them. The paper knows this, though, as the very next line explains:

But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Oh, so you mean al-Qaeda, which did plan, carry out, and rejoice in the deaths can actually be found in Iraq, where those Iraqi-bound troops seem to be bound for? And so the troops might defend the innocent (which I would argue includes the Iraqi people/government themselves) from al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Isn't that what she said???

Shit like this really pisses me off because it preys upon ignorance of both facts and language. And the Post should know better.

The rest of it has problems, too, but not as bad as this.

UPDATE: Ace (and others) beat me on this because I was doing stupid things, like e-mailing this info to Ken and going to work. As it turns out, that line about al-Qaeda taking root in Iraq? It was a stealth edit. It wasn't there in the first draft.

Person Sarah Palin

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Google This!

Okay, so I downloaded the new Google browser, Chrome, and installed it. First off, I'm not all that impressed. I haven't had much time to play with it, but so far, I'm doing everything that Chrome can do with Firefox and a few add-ons. And frankly, it seems a bit slow when loading pages. But I am really concerned about one thing, though. After installing Chrome, I've noticed that every half-hour or so, my firewall reports that Google Installer is trying to connect to the Internet. I let it through at first, figuring it might be trying to update or something. After a half-dozen or so times, though, I began to get a little suspicious. The program seemed to be working, and I checked manually for updates, so why did the installer need to connect to the Internet (and sometimes my trusted zone...trusted zone?? Stranger Danger!!!) I've also noticed that the IPs seem to be different every time.

To be frank, whether or not this behavior is intended, I don't like it. I traced a couple of the IPs and so far, not one has actually led to Google. There have been a few related to other, non-Google software that I have on my Computer. Anyone out there more knowledgeable than I know what might be behind this behavior? Is it some kind of data mining?

As you can see, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. In the first link a Google rep (at least I think it's a rep) says that it needs to connect to download the rest of the Chrome package. Yes, it does, but we're both beyond that step. We've downloaded and installed the complete package. We're up and running. In the second one, the poster says that even after uninstalling Chrome the Installer is still trying to connect, so I'm skeptical that that explanation is valid.

Considering that I'm not seeing any major difference with this browser as opposed to others, and the constant attempts to connect my computer to various IPs even after uninstalling (which I'm guessing would have been done without my permission, had I no firewall) I would advise you all to be a little wary about downloading and installing Chrome.

Doing The Right Thing?

Isn't this a little whiny, even for Spike Lee?

More on Mickey

You know, I'm just really pleased to even see his name considered.

Some Of Us Never Thought He Went Away

Mickey Rourke is getting good reviews as a washed-up wrestler in Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler:

Talk about comebacks. After many years in the wilderness and being considered MIA professionally, Mickey Rourke, just like the washed-up character he plays, attempts a return to the big show in "The Wrestler." Not only does he pull it off, but Rourke creates a galvanizing, humorous, deeply moving portrait that instantly takes its place among the great, iconic screen performances.

Diner is one of my favorite movies. Best Rourke line: when Rourke's (uncultured, ladies-man) character, Boogie, asks an upper class young lady with whom he has been flirting, her name.

"Jane Chisholm. As in the Chisholm Trail."

After she rides off on a horse, he turns to Kevin Bacon's character Fenwick.

"What fuckin' Chisholm Trail?"

When Did Bill Maher Become Such An Asshole?

I used to like the guy. The last couple of years, I haven't been able to stand him. He used to be witty, and insightful. Now, most of the time he comes off as smug and condescending. Oh, well...maybe he's learned who his audience is.

Regardless, I happened to run across this op-ed piece of his in Salon. It's fairly offensive and demonstrates a significant amount of prejudice and ignorance. Bill thinks that all Republicans are dumb? Wow. Does he subscribe to any other insulting or degrading stereotypes that we should know about? Does he think all black people like watermelon? Does he think that all Mexicans are shiftless and lazy? Does he think that all women are weak-willed and emotional? The whole "Republicans are stupid" line is old. It was old in 2000, it was old in 2004 and it's still old. Worst of all, it's not true. I posted on it a while back. Here's the highlights.

The Democrats in this country do not have a stranglehold on intelligence, or culture, or diversity of thought. For them to even think that they do, much less speak or write it, is the worst kind of prejudice.

So, for those of you out there who voted for George Bush, and are tired of the aspersions being cast on your intellect, here's what you do: The next time someone states, or even hints, that Bush won because the people who voted for him are ignorant, hit them with some facts from the people at Gallup.

* If the uneducated people of the country had NOT voted, not only wouldn't Bush have lost, he would have actually won by a larger margin. According to Gallup, nearly a third of all voters had an education described as "high school or less." Of that third, 54% voted for Kerry, while only 46% voted for Bush. Yes, that's right--more uneducated people voted Democrat than Republican.

* Bush kicked ass among those voters (48%) who had "some college" or "college graduate (no postgrad)," winning the first group by 12 percentage points, and the second by 16 points. That's nearly half the voting pool.

* To be fair, Kerry did win the "postgraduate education" bunch, but they were only 20% of the voting population, and he won them by only 6 percentage points. So, it appears that the Democrats would have you think that 47% of Americans who have made it to the highest echelons of our educational system, still managed to keep from picking up any smarts.

Here's the link to the rest. (NOTE: The original link to Gallup is gone, so I updated it here and in the original post. You might notice that the numbers for the 2000 election were essentially the same as for the 2004 election.)

There Are Probably A Few Sarah Palin Bikini Photos Out There Somewhere...

...but this isn't one of them.

The picture, allegedly of Palin in a red, white, and blue bikini, holding a gun has been "making the rounds." In the digital age, people should really know better, but I've already seen a number of posts on various sites describing the photo and then demanding "explain that!"

One word...photoshop.

Right Wing News has the goods on the fake and the original.

It's All In The Numbers

I saw this by Roger Simon over at Politico:

It is not an unfair question. While the standard that the vice presidency is “only a heartbeat away from the presidency” has become a cliché, it is also accurate. Four vice presidents have become president through the natural death of a president, four through assassination and one through resignation. That’s quite a number considering we’ve had only 43 presidents.

I guess it's all in how you frame the issue. I'm already a little sick of the "only a heartbeat away" line, especially when you consider that the other side of the aisle is trying to put someone who is (I think, anyway) just as inexperienced less than a heartbeat away--in the oval office itself.

I'm not sure you can count Ford, who became president after Nixon's resignation. The "heartbeat" issue--at least when I've heard it used--has always been in regards to the possibility of the death of a sitting president (generally a jab at McCain's age). Of the other eight, four have been "promoted" by the natural death of a president:
John Tyler (William Henry Harrison)
Millard Fillmore (Zachary Taylor)
Calvin Coolidge (Warren G. Harding)
Harry Truman (FDR)

And four by "unnatural" deaths:
Andrew Johnson (Abraham Lincoln)
Chester A. Arthur (James Garfield)
Teddy Roosevelt (William McKinley)
Lyndon Johnson (JFK)

You'll notice that only three of those happened in the last hundred years. I'm not sure that's "quite a number." We've had more wars in that time period. People living today may have seen it happen once...maybe twice. (I've never seen it happen--again, I'm not counting Ford.) Even the "natural" deaths are exceptional circumstances. Harrison, serving in his late sixties, died of pneumonia and its complications before medical treatment had advanced enough to even be aware of microorganisms. Taylor also died in his sixties (65) of a mysterious illness. Harding died at 57 from either heart attack or stroke while also apparently suffering from pneumonia as well. And FDR, also in his sixties, suffered from (most likely) Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which can be fatal. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know the likelihood that it may have caused the cerebral hemorrhage he died from. The point being that advances in medicine have extended life expectancy and the effectiveness of the Secret Service has reduced the chances of assassination. Three in the last hundred years isn't that frequent, and with the aforementioned advances, I would argue it's likely to be even less frequent in the future.

Look at it this way--you may be able to name the four presidents who were assassinated. Did you know the VPs who succeeded them? Could you have named the first four, who followed the natural deaths? Do you think most people could? Try this--ask friends and family to name more than four vice presidents from, say, 1850-1950. That's a hundred years. If Simon is right, and the possibility of a vice president taking over the presidency is so common, five shouldn't be a problem, right?