More Poll Dancing

Sigh...another one of these. This time, it's a New York Times/CBS News poll, just in time to celebrate Obama's first 100 days in office. I'm not going to insinuate that this poll is untrustworthy because it comes from NYT/CBS, or because it's been linked to by articles singing its praises while all-but-ignoring its negatives. I'm going to tell you flat out that it's untrustworthy. How can it not be, when--for example--you notice that the percentage of Republicans is only 20 percent, compared to 38 percent Democrat and 36 percent Independent? That 20 percent is the absolute lowest percentage of Republican respondents in the included statistics, which go back to January of 1992. Is it really that surprising that Obama's approval rating went up 5% since February when the percentage of Republicans polled went down 6%, and Democrats went up 2%? I'm only surprised it didn't go up more.

It's also untrustworthy for questions such as this one:

Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

This is what's known as a false dilemma. You only provide two options, one of which is in some way unsatisfactory, thereby influencing people to choose the other one. "America: love it or leave it!" is a good example. Here, you'll notice that you only have two options as well: the first one, that things are generally going in the right direction, and the second, that things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. See? If you don't think things are seriously wrong (an extreme), you are left with only one other choice--that they're going in the "right" direction. This question is horribly worded, whether through deceit or incompetence. Seeing as this is from NYT/CBS, neither reason seems all that unlikely. This question should either have been written with balanced options:

In general, do you feel things in this country are going in the right direction or the wrong direction?

or with more alternatives:

How do you feel things are going in the country: seriously in the right direction; generally in the right direction; generally in the wrong direction; seriously in the wrong direction?

Why would NYT/CBS do this? Well, I suspect that it was an attempt to show how great the new administration is doing. "Look," they could trumpet, "the public thinks things are going great!"

Unfortunately for them, those polled must really think things are sucking hardcore because even with the obvious bias built into the question, they still thought by a 50-41 percent margin that we have gotten "pretty seriously off track." Of course, this still didn't stop news outlets from writing glowing articles about the poll. The CBS News headline:

Poll: 100 Days In, High Marks For Obama
On The Cusp Of His 100th Day, President Enjoys High Approval Ratings On A Host Of Issues - But Few Republicans Are On Board

Oh yes, those high marks...like the 54% who had a favorable opinion of Obama, down from 60% when he took office, and the percentage of those who had an unfavorable opinion of him in the same time period, which doubled, from 9% to 18%. High marks, indeed. Oh, and don't forget the people who are optimistic about the next four years with Obama--they dropped from 79% in January to 72%. Again, you should remember that the percentage of Republicans is the lowest since '92, which should be reflected by an increase in Obama's numbers.

I could go on, pointing out that although 68% of people thought he was a "different kind" of politician, only 9% thought it was because of his policies*, or that one of the choices in the question asking how many of his campaign promises Obama would be able to keep was "all of them," which--considering he's already broken several of them--is impossible. I could mention that the percentage of people who think Obama will divide different groups of Americans has increased ten points since November of last year, which is distressing for a president who ran, partly, on the idea of unification.

What's obvious here is that NYT and CBS put together a poorly written, slanted poll designed to artificially inflate Obama's numbers, and when that didn't work as well as they expected, they wrote puff pieces on it, highlighting the good, burying the not so good. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. Even the NYT/CBS poll itself shows that the percentage of people who think the news media has "gone easier" on Obama than other candidates/presidents has steadily risen over the last year, from 24 to 40. 'Nuff said.

* I find it interesting that they used the term "different," since depending on one's mindset, "different" could be a positive or a negative.

I Guess It Depends On What Your Meaning Of The Word "Is" Is...

A politician named Clinton playing semantic games--now there's something you don't see every eight years.

Here's the headline for Hillary's speech to Iraq:

Clinton to Iraqis: US not going to abandon you

Unless by "abandon" you mean "take all of our soldiers and weapons and protection out of your country." In that case, yes, we are going to abandon you.

And let's not overlook this gem:

"We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years," Clinton said.

I'd love to see someone try that one in other aspects of life...

"Honey, I'm totally committed to you and the kids, but I'm taking my stuff and leaving and you won't see me again."

"Boss, I am completely committed to this job, but the nature of that commitment is going to look somewhat different because I'm clearing out my desk and not coming back."

And one last whopper:

On her first trip to Iraq as America's top diplomat, Clinton said the country has made great strides despite a recent surge in violence. High-profile attacks this past week primarily targeted Shiite worshippers. More than 150 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, have died.

Ahead of her arrival, Clinton said the attacks are a sign that extremists are afraid the Iraqi government is succeeding.

"I think that these suicide bombings ... are unfortunately, in a tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," Clinton told reporters aboard her plane.

Note that its a recent surge in violence. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being a sign the Iraqi government is succeeding, it's a sign that those responsible are ramping up in anticipation of our leaving. You know, that maybe they're invigorated by the thought of the U.S. going home.

What Bias?

So I'm reading an AP article about an AP poll that shows just how wonderfully people think Barack Obama is doing as he nears his first 100 days. Here's a sample:

In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.

Now there's a sign of objective journalism. It gets better:

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

And these:

The AP-GfK poll suggests that 64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, down slightly from 67 percent in February. President George W. Bush's approval ratings hovered in the high 50s after his first 100 days in office....

Just as many people say Obama understands the concerns of ordinary Americans. That's a sharp contrast to Bush, who won re-election in 2004 despite the fact that 54 percent of voters on that Election Day said he cared more about large corporations.

Well...there you go. Everything will be fine. He's doing much better than that other guy.

Now far be it for me to expect the AP to include all sides of the numbers. Maybe they figured no one would be interested in reading the actual poll results. And few people probably will. Good thing I'm here to do it for you. Here's a few things I found...

First of all, the poll (like a lot of AP polls, I've noticed) isn't quite as balanced as you might think. Twice as many surveyed consider themselves to be Democrat (36%) as Republican (18%). When pressed, 10% of independents stated they leaned Democrat and 9% stated they leaned Republican. That means we end up with 46% Dem. and 27% GOP, if my math is correct. That becomes important, not only because the group polled is woefully unbalanced in favor of the left, but because the AP article implies that everything's copacetic. Do the numbers bear that out? Let's see...

A larger percentage does think the country is on the right track, but just barely--48% as compared to 44% who think we're on the wrong track. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%, which seems to me to make those numbers pretty darn close. And since the political makeup of the group isn't close, those numbers don't seem as favorable as the AP would have us believe. For example, if everyone who claimed to be/lean Democratic was behind the president, and all those "no affiliation" people split evenly, I would think the numbers would be around 60/40 that we're on the "right track." The fact that it's actually a dead heat doesn't inspire me.

What about approval ratings? That is split about 60/40, which is what you'd expect; however, one thing is notable: Obama's approval rating has gone down 10 points since January, and his disapproval rating has doubled, from 15% to 30%. And more importantly, the number who strongly disapprove has tripled from 7% to 22%! Does that sound like "a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future" to you? Yeah, me neither.

More nuggets:

• More people disapprove than approve (57% to 38%) of the way congress is handling things.
• Obama does get a majority who approve of the way he handles the issues, but most of them break down along that 60/40 split.
• One thing that surprised me was that 65% said that they disapproved of the job the Republicans in congress were doing with the economy, with 39% strongly disapproving. I guess it makes sense if Republicans aren't voting along party lines, but I still would have thought the number would have been a little lower, considering they're outnumbered in both houses.

To be sure, there are some positive results for Obama here, but are they enough to warrant the glowing interpretation from the AP article, especially since the current Rasmussen poll says 57% of likely voters think the nation is heading in the wrong direction? (I couldn't find the breakdown of those polled.)

I Swear...

...if they cancel "Chuck," I'm taking a road trip to NBC and kicking somebody's ass.

At Least He's Getting Older

So the question arises: just how old is the Somali pirate? Here's an idea--cut the bastard in half and count the rings. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five...here's what's important--he was old enough to hold an AK-47 to a man's head and stood ready to pull the trigger. That's how old he is.

Apparently he cried in court. I wonder how much he would have cried had he succeeded in his plans and made off with the ransom? I wonder if he would have been even slightly nagged by a guilty conscience had his hostage...sorry, his victim, been killed?

I have no sympathy. None.

Are You Sure You Don't Mean The 10th Commandment? Because I've Never Heard Of The 10th Amendment.

At the risk of being considered an "extremist" for my slavish devotion to such wild concepts as, you know, the Constitution, I wanted to send you to two interesting columns about state's rights and the 10th Amendment.

Welcome!

I should point out that I have my first "follower." Look up in the right-hand corner, and you'll see someone with exceptional taste who has decided to follow this blog. Go and do likewise.

TEA, Anyone?

In case you didn't realize how successful the TEA Party movement was (and why wouldn't you, with all the coverage it's been getting in the mainstream media....hahahahahaha!!! Oh, man...I almost got it all out without laughing!) Michele Malkin has some pictures over at her site.

Bow...Wow!

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

A photo of President Obama apparently bowing in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is stirring a royal-size controversy.

The photo and a video were largely ignored by mainstream media outlets but created outrage in some quarters.

Look, first of all, I don't really care whether it was a bow or not. If I hadn't read that it goes against protocol or tradition or whatever, I wouldn't have known, honestly. That's not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is the fact that the Obama Administration thinks we are a bunch of idiots. It was a bow. It was clearly a bow. It wasn't even questionable in the slightest. He couldn't have bowed any deeper if he was tying his shoes. If the administration had just said "Ooops, it was a blunder, a mistake," no one but Hannity would have cared. But they didn't. They tried to pass it off with one of the most ridiculous explanations/excuses I've ever heard: that it was because the Saudi king was short. Not only does it make me angry for insulting my intelligence, it makes me cringe because it's so lame that it ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework."

But what should we expect, I guess. This is the man who spent years in Rev. Wright's church, but didn't pick up any ideas from him. This is the man who worked with Bill Ayers, but...you know...didn't really know him all that much. This is the man who played the race card to tell us that his opponent would play the race card. This is the man who told us he would lower taxes for most of us, knowing all the while that thanks to energy tax increases (among others) we'll likely pay more taxes overall. This is the man who ran on a platform of hope and change, and so far, has given us very little of either. This is the man who said he was going to raise our status among the world, who not only couldn't find anyone to translate a single word to Russian correctly, but apparently couldn't give a thoughtful gift to a world leader if his life depended on it. Why wouldn't he try to float this idiotic explanation past us? We've bought all the other ones.

And where is the media? Where are the pundits who came out of the woodwork every time George W. Bush so much as pronounced something wrong? Where are the people who criticized the decision to go into Iraq because "hey, most of the hijackers were Saudis!" Where's their outrage over a president who bows to a Saudi King? Where is Michael Moore with his baseball hat and camera? The same Michael Moore who argued so vehemently about Bush's connections to the Saudis. Where is he? I would think he ought to be able to make one of his typical "documentaries" with all the half-truths around Obama. Questions about his birth, his early schooling in religion, his connections with...unsavory characters, many of whom I've mentioned above. And now the bow.* C'mon, Michael, where's your working man's persona now? Hell, I'll even give you the name: Hussein. It practically writes itself.

Again, I don't give a shit about the bow. Do it, don't do it; I don't care. I just want a little consistency in the way we treat our leaders. And if you're going to lie, at least do it with a little style, a little smoke and mirrors. Photoshop the image, doctor the video, but "the king is too short" sounds suspiciously like "the Emporer has no clothes on," if you know what I mean.

* I'm not saying I believe all of those things about Obama. I'm just saying that Moore never seems to worry too much about the truth in his films, so why start now?

Never Underestimate Stupidity

see more pwn and owned pictures

Sometimes You Just Can't Pass Up The Joke.

I see Bruce Willis's new wife worked for Victoria's Secret. All I can say is "Yippie-kai-ay, Modelfucker!"

Seriously, though, I'm a huge fan of Bruce's and wish the happy couple the best, and I'm not just saying that because he could totally kick my ass.

Uh Oh! Looks Like Someone Got Hisself A Lolcats Account!

Shut Up, Chuck

Someone asked me why I dislike Schumer so much. It really all started with the hearings about the seige at Waco years ago. Schumer was part of the committee and I heard him say the most astonishingly stupid and arrogant thing I had ever heard any politician say.

Anyone who knows anything about these things ["flashbang" grenades] knows they can't [kill, injure, or maim]

Watch from about 3:45-5:45


I have loathed Chuck Schumer ever since. I'm embarrassed to say that he's a senator for my state. "Flashbangs" are explosives. I don't know if anyone's ever died from one, but there have been numerous injuries from them (just do a Google search). If you think they're harmless, watch these two videos. You'll note that the "flashbang" that Schumer thinks is so harmless sets off the alarm in the car across the street.

And the second one:

At one point during the hearings, I believe that Schumer maintained that he could hold a "flashbang" in his hand with no problem (which is why they ask the fellow in the first video above if he would feel comfortable holding it). Clearly, you wouldn't want to do that.

Hypocritical Thinking

In today's AIG hearing, Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch (not to be confused with comedian Stephen Lynch, who has penned such masterpieces as "Hermaphrodite") along with others committee members, lambasted AIG CEO Edward Liddy for the bonuses to be paid to AIG executives. A couple of points:

1) Liddy was not the CEO when the bonuses were drafted. He made that clear to the committee, and added that he would not have done them this way. Despite this, Lynch still went after him personally, so much so that Liddy took offense. "Offense was meant, Sir," replied Lynch.

2) Liddy was there voluntarily, because he was asked, much like he was asked to take over the failing AIG, by the government. His salary as CEO? One dollar.

3) One committe member said (condescendingly, I thought) that Liddy should just not pay the bonuses, pointing out that the bonuses amount to only about a tenth of one percent of the bailout money AIG received. I guess the idea is that because it's not that much, it's not worth causing all this trouble. The trouble is, you could argue that same point the other way: since it's only a fraction of the bailout money, and is contractually required, it's not worth causing all this trouble. Just pay it and move on. Institute measures to prevent it in the future, if you want, but this is done. Seriously, how much is it costing in time and money just to hold the hearings, not to mention the probable resulting lawsuits should either AIG or congress try to renege on the contracts. I'm no happier than anyone else that some of these people are getting bonuses, but a contract is a contract. I think it's a dangerous precedent to let congress decide what contracts should or should not be upheld.

4) So...Democratic congressmen are going after the current CEO of AIG, even though he wasn't presiding over the company at the time everything happened? The same group of congressmen who keep insisting that the current crisis isn't the fault of the current administration, and keep reminding people that they inherited it? Really? Pot...kettle...you know the drill.

5) I can't say this enough: these bonuses are contractual. Not only are they contractual, but the legislation, written by Congress, that provided the bailout monies to AIG had language in it to preserve the bonuses!! Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recepients of AIG contributions from 2000-2008, so one might wonder how that language got in there...but I digress. All that is happening here is that Congress is trying to deflect their own incompetence in passing this bill (obviously without having read it) by going after Liddy, who frankly is the only innocent in the whole shebang.

6) This didn't happen today, but I just wanted to say that Chuck Schumer is a miserable fuckin' lowlife for a lot of reasons, but lately it's because of his statement that if the bonuses weren't returned voluntarily, "we will do it for you." Frankly, I'm surprised we even heard the statement, considering that his head was, as usual, up his ass. Someone should remind this assdart, who recently remarked that the American people didn't care about "porky" amendments, that like AIG after receiving bailout money, he also is responsible to the American people! I wonder how he would respond if he was asked to give back his salary because of Congress's miserable approval numbers and track record, including failure to prevent this economic crisis. It would actually be easier to influence that money, I think--let's just not vote him back to office. I just can't express strongly enough my dislike for Chuck Schemer.

Forty Five Just Seems Too Young.

Sadly, actress Natasha Richardson has been declared dead. I find it incredibly shocking that a person could seem fine, but be so damaged internally. The whole thing just seems like such a terrible accident. My thoughts go out to her family.

You Stay Classy, Washington D.C.

Looks like the "great orator" continues to rely on the teleprompter. This time, he actually thanked himself during a St. Patrick's Day speech. This was apparently due, not to Obama's narcissism, but rather to his reading of whatever was put in front of him.

Wasn't that a punchline in Anchorman: The Ron Burgandy Story?

Pssst...you're the president now...take off the training wheels.

Remind me again why Bush, McCain, Palin, et. al were considered to be so dumb?

Hat tip: Infidels are Cool

What Comes After Friday The 13th? Maybe You!

Just wanted to remind everyone out there that it's now officially "Steak and a Blow Job Day."

It's a Simple Question, Really.

I'm a single guy. I make an honest living. And I live in an apartment, primarily because I'm afraid of getting into a housing situation that I can't afford. It's a big commitment, and one I don't take lightly.

So why on earth should I have to pay taxes to help bail out those people who didn't take the same care that I did?

I've denied myself one of the most basic aspects of the American dream--one's own house--to avoid overreaching and making a costly financial mistake, and now with the administration's decision to bail out homeowners, many of whom spent beyond their means, I find myself literally paying for someone else's.

Now There's Something You Don't See Every Day: A Hypocritical Liberal

Yes, the title drips with sarcasm. I just ran across this from Bonnie Fuller. Fuller has never been one to let little things like logic get in her way, but this one was a bit much. I don't have anything against Michelle Obama. In fact it's hard to think of anything I care about less than her biceps. But I have to take issue with a couple of things.

First of all, most of what's there is just an ad hominem attack. It translates roughly to "against the man." That's when you attack the person rather the view the person holds, generally because it's usually easier to attack the person. The idea is that if you can prove the person unacceptable in some way, people will assume the person's position is unacceptable, too. Fuller here goes after David Brooks of the NY Times, calling him a "sore loser" and speculating that he has "girly-man arms" and is just jealous. Again, it's easy to attack a person. I could, for example point out that Michelle Obama at times looks a little like she might be a guy in drag. Or that at other times, she looks like a younger version of Aunt Esther (LaWanda Page) from "Sanford & Son." ("Barack, you fish-eyed fool!") But I wouldn't do that.

The other thing that irks me about Fuller is that she goes on to talk about Michelle Obama's place as a female hero:

Because if there's one thing this country needs right now besides a strong and principled president instituting change, it's a superhero, and the non-sexist American public will take a female one.

There's a long history of strong female warriors in Western culture, from the goddess Athena who was a wise warrior (how Michelle-like), to the the Brit chick Boadicea, to young French babe, Joan of Arc, to Queen Elizabeth 1 to tough bicepped protector-mom, Sarah Connor in Terminator to Xena, the Princess Warrior to ... WonderWoman.

So...let me get this straight. Fuller is championing the strong, female warrior.

Really?

I just have to ask: where was this sentiment when another strong female was running for vice-president? I mean, arguably, Sarah Palin fits the definition of strong female warrior much more than Michelle Obama does. Palin quite literally could bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never let you forget you're a man. (Admit it, you were singing along with that.) And yet, Fuller was one of Palin's most vehement critics (again, mostly ad hominem attacks). She even went so far as to criticize Palin's running for office because--good heavens!--her daughter Bristol might end up in the spotlight. This is supposed to be evidence that Palin running for office proves she is a bad mother. Can you imagine?! A president or vice-president's child in the spotlight?! It's a good thing that never happened to the Bush twins, or Chelsea Clinton, or Patti Davis, or Ron Reagan, Jr., or Amy Carter, or Susan Ford (who had her prom in the White House!), or Tricia Nixon, or Julie Nixon, or Luci Baines Johnson, or Caroline Kennedy, or John John Kennedy, or even Magret Truman. And that's just the presidential children...

I'm always irked by those who swear up and down that they are feminists, damn it, and yet are so willing to lay down those principles when a strong woman comes along with whom they disagree ideologically. Fuller is one of the worst kind of hypocrites--one who, at her core, truly believes she isn't one.

Rush To Judgement**

Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh is a pompous windbag, and most of the time I'm cringing at the things he says, but this piece by Camille Paglia is too good to pass up.

This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name.

Of course, many people--me included--believe this was a calculated move. Rush is a...polarizing figure. Setting him up as the Voice of the Republican Party only exacerbates the discord currently present. (Witness the reactions of certain party members as examples.) Divide and conquer. And now that it looks like the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to go through, I'm just waiting for The Night of the Long Microphones. (If you don't get the allusion, check here.)

One last thought: heads should roll throughout the administration, but I think I'd start with someone Paglia didn't even mention.--Robert Gibbs. The only reason I might not fire this incompetent is that he might get replaced with Bill Burton, who's even more of a tool.

**Sorry for the title, but the "Rush" jokes have all been done to death, so I didn't even try.
Hat tip to the angelic Petitedov

No More Teachers, No More Bo...Wait, What??

From McClatchy:

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that American children should go to school longer — either later in the day or into the summer — if they're going to have any chance competing for jobs and paychecks against foreign kids.

Bet those little moppets that sang about how "Obama's gonna change it" never saw that coming.

Truth In Advertising??

An "honest" R&B song. This ranks right up there with "Dick in a Box" as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe There Are No Accidents...

President Obama, in explaining his decision to reverse (or as the NY Times says "lift the limits of") President Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research, said: "Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident." Unless, of course, you're talking about Quinine, Smallpox vaccine/vaccinations, X-rays, Insulin, the Pap smear, LSD (once used to treat schizophrenia), discovery of allergies, Viagra, bromide treatment for epilepsy, Botox, Librium, Valium, anti-depressants, anesthesia (Ether/Nitrous Oxide), a virus in the Polio vaccine that led to the p53 gene (which may lead to a breakthrough in cancer discovery and treatment), Medical Marijuana, Interferon, and perhaps the most important medical "miracle" of all: Penicillin.

Think what you want about the issue, but I'm getting tired of the tripe that this man throws out there, and which passes for insightful dialogue.

Uh...Hey, Call Me, Okay?

David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, had this to say:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.

You think?

If only there had been voices of reason that could have warned you...

This is like going on an all-night bender and waking up next to someone you don't quite recognize, and making up an excuse while gathering your clothes together so you don't have to stay.

Except this time you're not leaving for the next four years.

Doctor Obam...I Mean, Utopia.

This is a cartoon produced by Harding College in 1948, but it seems particularly relevant today also. Ken says it's required viewing by all, and I agree with him.



My only criticism is that it uses the invention of the auto as an example of "American" ingenuity. (It doesn't specify that this is America, but it obviously is supposed to be.) The auto was invented by a Frenchman (steam-powered) and a German (internal-combustion engine).

It's still a damn good cartoon.

But Some Animals Are More Fair Than Others...

Yet another example of how the Right and Left think completely differently...

One of the latest issues of the teachers' union magazine had this gem on the cover:

The wealthy pay the same top tax rate as the working class. Is this really fair?

I wonder if they apply the same definition of "fair" when handing out those grades?

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"?