Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
ZOMFG!
So I googled myself (n00b!) because I saw on the news that you are supposed to do that tp see who's stealing your identity (?) and this is the first thing that came up. WTF man? Seriously...what the fuck? I don't ever remember being this drunk. Were we? Did someone put drunk tracks up? Nick, I'm looking in your direction.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
baseball
Also, your awesomely awesome Tigers have to stop this man:
I mean, he rallied the Spartans against the Persians. Sorry, you lose.
I mean, he rallied the Spartans against the Persians. Sorry, you lose.
PEPTIDE BOND!!!
This has nothing to do with football, baseball, politics but is somehow still TOTALLY AWESOME. Think Jesus Christ Superstar, Hair and and basic biochemical processes. And lots of acid. It will blow your mind.
Mad props to Lindsay.
Mad props to Lindsay.
Transition
I know the Superbowl is yet to happen, but maybe we can switch the sports discussion to how awesomely awesome the Tigers are going to be this year? Anyone?
Oh yeah, and every time McCain says his opponents are flying the "white flag of surrender" I think about Zap Brannigan attacking the Neutral Planet.
"Fly the white flag of war!"
Oh yeah, and every time McCain says his opponents are flying the "white flag of surrender" I think about Zap Brannigan attacking the Neutral Planet.
"Fly the white flag of war!"
Saturday, January 26, 2008
JB (and other fans of the Brownies)
Looks like they will get Anderson and Lewis back. So will Anderson start?
Friday, January 25, 2008
NFL Records
This article rates the Top 10 seasons overall by individual players. I thought it was kind of interesting and puts the Pats individual records (Brady and Moss) into perspective that most people miss (Brady's season vs. Marino and Peyton and Moss vs. Rice). I'm not knocking their ridiculous numbers this year. They are impressive. But I will point out that they wouldn't have been anywhere close without all the running up the score that Peyton (had almost 100 less attempts than Brady) or Rice (set the then record of 22 in 12 games b/c of strike-shortened season) didn't do. The most impressive, to me, is #10. Reggie White had 21 sacks in the 12 game season in 87. 21! In 12 games! I'm pretty sure if that season hadn't been shortened, Strahan and Moss would be distant seconds to White and Rice.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Warren vs. Michael
Has anyone else noticed that quite a bit of Warren G's musical accompaniment (and therefore also Warren's wealth?) sounds like Michael McDonald songs? I'm tempted to get some Nate Dogg and see which smooth jazz musician he samples for his songs. Waking up with hangovers has led me to favor the smooth jazz station. And while we have all known for a while that rappers are thiefs* (Baggins!), I am actually a little surprised how much they take from the "Smooth" section of your local record store.
*that was intentional, not a misspell....
*that was intentional, not a misspell....
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Re: Gemmell
I'll have more on Gemmell later, but I just wanted to note that the WSG article is by John J. Miller, the National Review guy with whom I increasingly seem to have a lot of interests in common. He's a big Tigers fan, and a while ago he published the 50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs list (just search on that term to find). The list was gimmicky and predictable (some Rush, some thing that aren't conservative at all but are just all around American-values songs), but kinda fun.
David Gemmell
The Wall Street Journal has a profile on the late fantasy writer (and favorite of John, Nick and mine) David Gemmell. Although it includes a cheap shot at Golden Compass while lionizing LOTR and Narnia (as conservatives are wont to do) it did serve to remind me some of the reasons I enjoy reading fiction (particularly fantasy/science fiction). While I've come nowhere close to reading all of Gemmell's books (Nick is probably much closer) I can recommend his first novel, Legend as his best. As someone who sits and reads science all day (and much of the night now) I can tell you that nothing is better than sitting down with Gemmell's mighty heroes for an hour or two before bed.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Found this and thought it was interesting
especially after Nick's conspiracy about the Pats...
"With 9:14 left in the second quarter, word came over the press box P.A. system: 'LaDainian Tomlinson has a sore knee. He can return.'"
So......
"With 9:14 left in the second quarter, word came over the press box P.A. system: 'LaDainian Tomlinson has a sore knee. He can return.'"
So......
Drug Imports
I believe many of the drugs that would be imported from Canada are the same drugs that went through the FDA from the same U.S. pharmaceutical companies, so of course these companies would oppose imports. (I don't believe drugs can circumvent the FDA just because they are foreign.) In this case, the companies would eventually stop selling in Canada to keep their U.S. prices from being undercut. This would be bad for Canada, obviously, but also bad for the U.S. because prices would be even higher here.
Canada has price controls that make the price of drugs artificially low in Canada, and to some extent artificially high in the U.S. The U.S. is basically subsidizing, in part, cheaper drug prices in other countries. This makes the import question a little more complex--meaning it makes it harder to stick with our free market principles. But we must nonetheless. We would do well to put some pressure on other countries to lift their price controls. I am guessing this could be done through the WTO, but I have no idea.
As for an option not to go through the FDA, I think it is a good idea. Consumers could chose to pay more for FDA approved drugs or less for non-approved drugs. Also, the notion is tossed out every once in a while when Congress is considering tort reform that companies should not have product liability if the FDA approves the drug. This would lower costs at least marginally.
Canada has price controls that make the price of drugs artificially low in Canada, and to some extent artificially high in the U.S. The U.S. is basically subsidizing, in part, cheaper drug prices in other countries. This makes the import question a little more complex--meaning it makes it harder to stick with our free market principles. But we must nonetheless. We would do well to put some pressure on other countries to lift their price controls. I am guessing this could be done through the WTO, but I have no idea.
As for an option not to go through the FDA, I think it is a good idea. Consumers could chose to pay more for FDA approved drugs or less for non-approved drugs. Also, the notion is tossed out every once in a while when Congress is considering tort reform that companies should not have product liability if the FDA approves the drug. This would lower costs at least marginally.
McCain....
Well, I would guess there is some truth to the idea. Pharmaceutical companies pay big bucks to have their products on the market (not just promotions, etc. but the cost of getting a drug or product through the FDA, EPA, etc. is astronomical). I'm guessing they have a big say on not allowing drugs to be imported, namely because they spent money to get it through our system so they don't want to be outdone by imports that are significantly cheaper because other countries don't have a system akin to the FDA like we do, hence the ability to produce (significantly) cheaper drugs. While FDA is nice, it should be an option for companies, not a requirement. I don't think the companies are necessarily big, evil corporations, but they are manipulating the system a bit to make their profits. A six digit bribe (what it boils down to) is an easy thing for the Mercks out there to do when it means that their competition is virtually nonexistent and ensures their making tens or hundreds of millions off their drugs.
Just say no to McCain
George Will lashes out (Again. He, like me, really hates campaign finance reform.)
Money quote:
In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."
There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, (Oh, snap!) where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.
Republicans are supposed to eschew demagogic aspersions concerning complicated economic matters. But applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut by more than half in 50 years.
Money quote:
In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."
There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, (Oh, snap!) where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.
Republicans are supposed to eschew demagogic aspersions concerning complicated economic matters. But applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut by more than half in 50 years.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Football
I am a sad, sad, very hungover man. Despite me best efforts (16 beers) the Pack blew it. For the record, the NFL and my Madden PS2 franchise will have to agree to disagree since after the game last night, I may have stayed up to drink more beers and see if the Packers really lost. Turns out they didn't. They beat the Colts in the Super Bowl 35-7 and Favre retired (seriously, players retire in this game and Favre retired after the Super Bowl - ridiculous).
At any rate, I don't see how a blow out in two weeks would vindicate the BCS. The last two BCS champs have made OSU look like an all-girls high school squad (or like a JB controlled Tecmo team). The Giants played the Pats pretty tough in week 17 and have relied on their defense to control their game and Eli hasn't made mistakes. Many teams since the merger and birth of the Super Bowl have used such formulas for success (even NE with their upset over the Rams - that game was won by ferocious defense and mistake free play by the offense). The disenchantment for me (aside from the Pack losing) is along the lines of what you said Nick. If the Patriots win (which seems pretty likely) the allure of a perfect season loses some appeal since they won the Super Bowl against a wild card team and it's pretty much what everybody was expecting, even if they didn't want it. If the Giants win, we've already seen that scenario played out (albeit with the aid of trash officiating) in the Steelers/Seahawks game where a team underachieved most of the season and the Super Bowl, but still "got hot"/paid the refs at the right time to go all the way.
I would think, if anything, the NFL would have wanted a Favre/Brady matchup. Perfect season vs. crazy verteran on the brink of retirement seems a more appealing and exciting prospect than Eli trying to slay Goliath. I'll probably watch the game, but only because I have to work and it will be on the TV there.
In other news, Cleveland has an arena football team that apparently has open tryouts. I'm going to start getting in shape so I can try out. To hell with science. Arena football is way more exciting. Also, season tickets are only $80. So, who's in?
At any rate, I don't see how a blow out in two weeks would vindicate the BCS. The last two BCS champs have made OSU look like an all-girls high school squad (or like a JB controlled Tecmo team). The Giants played the Pats pretty tough in week 17 and have relied on their defense to control their game and Eli hasn't made mistakes. Many teams since the merger and birth of the Super Bowl have used such formulas for success (even NE with their upset over the Rams - that game was won by ferocious defense and mistake free play by the offense). The disenchantment for me (aside from the Pack losing) is along the lines of what you said Nick. If the Patriots win (which seems pretty likely) the allure of a perfect season loses some appeal since they won the Super Bowl against a wild card team and it's pretty much what everybody was expecting, even if they didn't want it. If the Giants win, we've already seen that scenario played out (albeit with the aid of trash officiating) in the Steelers/Seahawks game where a team underachieved most of the season and the Super Bowl, but still "got hot"/paid the refs at the right time to go all the way.
I would think, if anything, the NFL would have wanted a Favre/Brady matchup. Perfect season vs. crazy verteran on the brink of retirement seems a more appealing and exciting prospect than Eli trying to slay Goliath. I'll probably watch the game, but only because I have to work and it will be on the TV there.
In other news, Cleveland has an arena football team that apparently has open tryouts. I'm going to start getting in shape so I can try out. To hell with science. Arena football is way more exciting. Also, season tickets are only $80. So, who's in?
Oh yeah and...
...now cue Bert chiming in saying I have a diminished soul or somesuch because I can't appreciate excellence.
Football...
...or any sport for that matter--I think my interest level (ranging from entirely apathetic to engrossed) is based on whether an interesting, compelling, and fresh narrative emerges. I'm sorry, the Patriots are not a fresh narrative. They are probably the best team ever, but they've won the Superbowl multiple times, and they even with the majesty of an undefeated season, they've also also duplicated 18-0 before (what was the streak before, 23-0 over two years or something?). There's nothing new here, excepting an unlikely Eli Manning coming-of-age Giants-victory, and that looks pretty unlikely.
In the process, the Brett Favre gritty-old-gunslinger-leading-a-bunch-of-upstarts story died on Sunday, and that both makes me sad and diminishes interest in the Superbowl. It was a great game, but I think the cold really did level the playing field between those teams. As for Chargers-Pats, when is a coach going to grow some balls and realize that field goals will not cut it with the Patriots and go for it on some of those Fourth and Goals?
Some questions: If the Patriots win, do you see a Belichick and/or Brady retirement? There's absolutely nothing more to accomplish, though I'm sure the sports pundits will want Brady to start mopping up all the QB lifetime records. I know its a cynical view, but sometimes I wonder if the the league just agreed to let the Patriots be the dominant team so various stars can cycle through and claim their rings (Cory Dillon, Seau, Moss...)
Another question: After seeing the Giants win out in close games against the Packers and the Cowboys (who I still think were superior teams), how do you think the playoff system is holding up, say, in opposition to the BCS? Is this NFL season more satisfying than the college season? Would a Superbowl blowout change your minds?
In the process, the Brett Favre gritty-old-gunslinger-leading-a-bunch-of-upstarts story died on Sunday, and that both makes me sad and diminishes interest in the Superbowl. It was a great game, but I think the cold really did level the playing field between those teams. As for Chargers-Pats, when is a coach going to grow some balls and realize that field goals will not cut it with the Patriots and go for it on some of those Fourth and Goals?
Some questions: If the Patriots win, do you see a Belichick and/or Brady retirement? There's absolutely nothing more to accomplish, though I'm sure the sports pundits will want Brady to start mopping up all the QB lifetime records. I know its a cynical view, but sometimes I wonder if the the league just agreed to let the Patriots be the dominant team so various stars can cycle through and claim their rings (Cory Dillon, Seau, Moss...)
Another question: After seeing the Giants win out in close games against the Packers and the Cowboys (who I still think were superior teams), how do you think the playoff system is holding up, say, in opposition to the BCS? Is this NFL season more satisfying than the college season? Would a Superbowl blowout change your minds?
Well?
Anything? That GB-NYG game was an awesome, edge of your seat nailbiter. It was exactly what I wanted/hoped for/expected, the best game of the year. Despite my liking of New England, I might have to cheer on the Giants as they've been underrated all year and especially in the playoffs. San Diego played a pretty good game too; I was actually surprised that Rivers played so well.
Do the Giants have the momentum to make this a good Superbowl? I hope so.
Do the Giants have the momentum to make this a good Superbowl? I hope so.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Championships!!
I have things to say about all this primary business, but it can wait until after...
FOOTBALL!!!!
AFC: Will Rivers play? He's "optimistic." Is that enough? Probably not. The Chargers played their asses off last week in what turned out to be an awesome game (both sunday games last week were infinitely more exciting than the saturday blowouts). I think this is New England's game to lose. I hope Volek/Rivers can make it exciting though. NE wins either way, barring some horrendous Brady/Maroney/offensive line injury. But wait, what about LT? He's feeling "good". After last week they have some momentum.
NFC: Who, at the beginning of the season would have predicted this NFC championship game? I had the Cowboys pegged early in the season to take the NFC. But the might New York football Giants showed they have the guts to go all the way. Their obstacle? An amazing GB team. Seriously, it's going to be below zero in Wisconsin tonight (as it is in Cleveland right now). I don't know who will take it. I'd say GB has the weather edge, but seriously, when was the last time it was this friggen' cold? I look forward to an awesome game, no matter who wins. Although Michael Strahan is a wonderful human being. And Bart Oates was a mighty Giant. Strahan vs. Favre, too close to call.
Edit: I forgot to add...Both games are outdoors! In cold-ass weather! Fantastic! This is better than the Superbowl...indoor wimps.
FOOTBALL!!!!
AFC: Will Rivers play? He's "optimistic." Is that enough? Probably not. The Chargers played their asses off last week in what turned out to be an awesome game (both sunday games last week were infinitely more exciting than the saturday blowouts). I think this is New England's game to lose. I hope Volek/Rivers can make it exciting though. NE wins either way, barring some horrendous Brady/Maroney/offensive line injury. But wait, what about LT? He's feeling "good". After last week they have some momentum.
NFC: Who, at the beginning of the season would have predicted this NFC championship game? I had the Cowboys pegged early in the season to take the NFC. But the might New York football Giants showed they have the guts to go all the way. Their obstacle? An amazing GB team. Seriously, it's going to be below zero in Wisconsin tonight (as it is in Cleveland right now). I don't know who will take it. I'd say GB has the weather edge, but seriously, when was the last time it was this friggen' cold? I look forward to an awesome game, no matter who wins. Although Michael Strahan is a wonderful human being. And Bart Oates was a mighty Giant. Strahan vs. Favre, too close to call.
Edit: I forgot to add...Both games are outdoors! In cold-ass weather! Fantastic! This is better than the Superbowl...indoor wimps.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Fred
I am increasingly convinced that Fred Thompson is the best candidate. However, I am increasingly afraid that he has no chance, and that by the time I get to vote he will no longer be a candidate.
Why did the Republican establishment (not in the Rockefeller sense, but in the machinery sense) jump on the Romney campaign so early? It is unfortunate and mind-boggling that the Republican primary would come down to Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. As I reflect on 2000, though, it was not so unpredictable or inexplicable. Romney now is playing the part of Bush back then. One wonders if Americans can have serious political discourse in a presidential campaign anymore (see the link above). In 1858 people turned out in droves to witness the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and they couldn't even vote for either of them because state legislatures elected U.S. Senators (damned 17th amendment). Now a couple hundred people turn out to see presidential candidates and wave signs and cheer at platitudes and vulgar one-liners.
Why did the Republican establishment (not in the Rockefeller sense, but in the machinery sense) jump on the Romney campaign so early? It is unfortunate and mind-boggling that the Republican primary would come down to Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. As I reflect on 2000, though, it was not so unpredictable or inexplicable. Romney now is playing the part of Bush back then. One wonders if Americans can have serious political discourse in a presidential campaign anymore (see the link above). In 1858 people turned out in droves to witness the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and they couldn't even vote for either of them because state legislatures elected U.S. Senators (damned 17th amendment). Now a couple hundred people turn out to see presidential candidates and wave signs and cheer at platitudes and vulgar one-liners.
Michael Gerson...
...is a self-righteous ass. He is a former Bush speech writer who is a proponent of "compassionate conservatism" (read liberalism with Christianity as the driving force). He is enjoying some notoriety now that he is at the Post and has recently published a book about why Republicans should embrace "conservative" government activism.
NFL
Cable companies suck. Bryant Gumbel sucks. The NFL will not keep the network going if it is bleeding money, but there is money to be made there. Football is the most popular sport in America right now, and will be for the foreseeable future I would venture to say. The question will be whether there is enough money to make it worth it. Other networks, especially ESPN, can shell out the dough for the NFL. I think it is unlikely that the NFL will take over all of its own broadcasting, but having NFL games is worth enough to networks to allow the NFL to keep one a week.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Re: Paying for Football
Bert, that's an admirable sentiment, but a little on the naive side. The government already has its handprints all over the the NFL. If Specter's threat had gone through, removing the anti-trust exemption that has been in place since the AFL-NFL merger, the net result would actually be less government interference in football, and this would, presumably, open the door to the chance of increased competition from, heh, other football leagues.
The case of the NFL network is less an example of freedom than the result of a war between two cable companies, but on the whole I'm fine with it. I just won't pay to watch it. The NFL has the money to keep the channel going no matter what the viewership is, so you're going to see these sorts of discussions and disagreements Honestly, it's pretty close to unwatchable anyways. Bryant Gumbel as a football commentator?!
The case of the NFL network is less an example of freedom than the result of a war between two cable companies, but on the whole I'm fine with it. I just won't pay to watch it. The NFL has the money to keep the channel going no matter what the viewership is, so you're going to see these sorts of discussions and disagreements Honestly, it's pretty close to unwatchable anyways. Bryant Gumbel as a football commentator?!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Paying for Football
I need a free car and a free house and free food, non-football entertainment, etc.; while we're at it, I definitely need free sex with hot women. But nothing is free. If the NFL can make more money with it's own network than it can selling games to other networks, it will, and it should.
TANSTAFL!
TANSTAFL!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
PacMan Jones Likes Strippers
Alot. And while I don't see the virtue of paying a woman to show me something I can't touch (wouldn't the whole point of paying a woman be to touch?), I do admire his persistent and seemingly insatiable appetite for strip clubs. Especially when he sucker punches women attorneys in them. Just forget the question of what a female attorney was doing in a strip club and enjoy Pacman Jones and his crazy love/hate of strippers and their lairs. That's what I did and my day is infinitely better because of it.
Hail Brigham Young!
As you may know, I have boarded the Romney train. I do agree that he looks a little plastic in some of the debates, but, he seems to overall be the best candidate in a series of mediocres. As far as the most recent debate goes, it seems like Huckabee answered his questions in the best way, and he looks pretty comfortable and I enjoy listening to him. I would not enjoy him as president and would probably rate him as 4th on my nominee list for reasons of domestic policy, because social issues aren't enough anymore, I got that with the current president and nothing else, and it feels unsatisfactory. McCain is a tool, and I shall never, ever vote for him, neither in a primary nor in a general. Bucked conservatives too many times, sold himself out to the media years ago and his strong qualities notwithstanding, he would not make a strong candidate, even if the establishment media says so. He can be SecDef if he must join the executive branch. Thompson is the most curious candidate. He appears conservative, but his alliance with the Baker/Nixon/GHW Bush wing of the party is very concerning. I can't stand the realists-yes you Condi Rice-but nevertheless it is hard not to like Thompson when I hear him speak. I would rate him as 2. Guiliani is, of course, dead to me, and Ron Paul is an embarassment. However, I did find some of the FoxNews questions towards Paul were ridiculously unfair and hostile. And Ron Paul doesnt' have his Republican party history just right and for him to assert that the US "cannot afford" certain things on a 2.5 trillion dollar budget is absurd. Our spending rampage is another matter, but the implications that Paul has in his rhetoric is seemingly ridiculous, in my view.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Football
Well done on the predictions Slaps. I had a couple thoughts while watching the Packers game:
1) Favre is the best QB ever. But only because he starts snowball fights as a TD celebration.
2) Regardless of whether their teams are in the playoffs, 1 game per week should be held at Lambeau and Buffalo. If you aren't manly enough to win in such places in January, you don't deserve a trip to some plush Super Bowl field. Period.
As for the whole direct tv thing, it's BS, but I think this largely because of the way the NFL zones games. I shouldn't have to pay extra to see a game with playoff implications just because the Bengals are in a closer "regional zone" and therefore have TV priority when they blow nads. That's crap. The NFL can charge to see all games (a la DirectTV), but only if it's putting quality games out there for us poor folk to watch as well. I'm not some fat republican with his pockets fattened by corporate bribes. I need my free football. And I'd prefer it to be quality.
1) Favre is the best QB ever. But only because he starts snowball fights as a TD celebration.
2) Regardless of whether their teams are in the playoffs, 1 game per week should be held at Lambeau and Buffalo. If you aren't manly enough to win in such places in January, you don't deserve a trip to some plush Super Bowl field. Period.
As for the whole direct tv thing, it's BS, but I think this largely because of the way the NFL zones games. I shouldn't have to pay extra to see a game with playoff implications just because the Bengals are in a closer "regional zone" and therefore have TV priority when they blow nads. That's crap. The NFL can charge to see all games (a la DirectTV), but only if it's putting quality games out there for us poor folk to watch as well. I'm not some fat republican with his pockets fattened by corporate bribes. I need my free football. And I'd prefer it to be quality.
Rudy
I know none of you follow George Will as closely as I do, but have you noticed that he seems to be supporting Giuliani? I don't really know what to think of this. He's written some flattering things in his column and he was defending him Sunday on Stephanopolous's show. He did mention, though, Rudy's money trouble that was reported last week. Rudy is not campaigning in Michigan and is instead going after Florida very hard. His staff is working for free at the moment, but his campaign strategy is still in place in targeting the blue states and states with more delegates.
PS
Arlen Specter sucks! (and not just for the following reason). Keep the government out of football. I paid good money to DirecTV for NFL Network. All you damn plebians can do the same.
Come on everyone...
...we've got some quilting to do. (Thanks for reminding me of that piece of musical comic genius.)
And to respond to Nick's McCain/Thompson question:
Thompson went after Romney in NH I heard. In the SC debate he went after Huckabee. This makes sense seeing as these two were sort of the front runners in those states demographically. These are also the two men McCain needed to be taken down. I watched some of Stephanopolous yesterday, and there is a conspiracy theory thriving in the media that Thompson is McCain's hitman. They are friends, and there was the rumour that Fred was going to drop out and endorse McCain. I was glad to see Fred step up in SC. I think he is running a more serious campaign now (acting like he wants to be president--he was already running a substantively serious campaign). I hope he gets a win in SC and some other states, and sticks it out although it looks unlikely.
I'm not sure about McCain. Part of me really respects him and thinks he would be a pretty good president, but the conservative in me is not so sure. I'm afraid of some cult of personality/"I'm a Senator (the president) it doesn't matter what the constitution says, this is good for the country" approach a la campaign finance. Perhaps his presidency would be one that put politics on the back burner since he is not such a controversial figure. In that sense he might be good for the country, and I think he has the potential to be a pretty good statesman foreign policy-wise. Right now, though, I can't vote for him in the primary while at least Fred is still a candidate. I think I would put a couple of the other candidates in front as well if I had to vote today.
And to respond to Nick's McCain/Thompson question:
Thompson went after Romney in NH I heard. In the SC debate he went after Huckabee. This makes sense seeing as these two were sort of the front runners in those states demographically. These are also the two men McCain needed to be taken down. I watched some of Stephanopolous yesterday, and there is a conspiracy theory thriving in the media that Thompson is McCain's hitman. They are friends, and there was the rumour that Fred was going to drop out and endorse McCain. I was glad to see Fred step up in SC. I think he is running a more serious campaign now (acting like he wants to be president--he was already running a substantively serious campaign). I hope he gets a win in SC and some other states, and sticks it out although it looks unlikely.
I'm not sure about McCain. Part of me really respects him and thinks he would be a pretty good president, but the conservative in me is not so sure. I'm afraid of some cult of personality/"I'm a Senator (the president) it doesn't matter what the constitution says, this is good for the country" approach a la campaign finance. Perhaps his presidency would be one that put politics on the back burner since he is not such a controversial figure. In that sense he might be good for the country, and I think he has the potential to be a pretty good statesman foreign policy-wise. Right now, though, I can't vote for him in the primary while at least Fred is still a candidate. I think I would put a couple of the other candidates in front as well if I had to vote today.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Playoff predictions, round 2!
Seattle-GB: If Seattle's might defense shows up, this will be a close, exciting game (Favre throwing a winning TD with seconds left). If not, a GB blowout.
Jax-NE: I think this one will also be close until the 4th quarter, when Tommy decides he's not putting up with anymore crap. I predict a low scoring game...say 21-10.
SD-Indy: A close, high-scoring game. I think LT determines how SD does (shocking, I know). However, Indy has all the offensive weapons in action, so they have the edge I think. But LT might pull SD through.
Giants-Dallas: Giants roll over Dallas and Romo gets no less than 3 ints. After Eli runs in the winning TD tears off Witten's head and drinks his blood, gaining his sweet, delicious courage.
Jax-NE: I think this one will also be close until the 4th quarter, when Tommy decides he's not putting up with anymore crap. I predict a low scoring game...say 21-10.
SD-Indy: A close, high-scoring game. I think LT determines how SD does (shocking, I know). However, Indy has all the offensive weapons in action, so they have the edge I think. But LT might pull SD through.
Giants-Dallas: Giants roll over Dallas and Romo gets no less than 3 ints. After Eli runs in the winning TD tears off Witten's head and drinks his blood, gaining his sweet, delicious courage.
Re: Fox Debate
Bert, I didn't watch the debate you saw but I watched the Fox debate (on the eve of the New Hampshire primary) as well as the conjoined debate on ABC a day or two earlier. My thoughts align almost exactly with yours with only some small differences:
Mitt Romney is an unimpressive candidate. He looks so good on paper, but he has a calculating edge that makes him appear entirely inauthentic. I'm very divided on Romeny--I think his experience is of the sort that would make an excellent president, but when you see him on TV he just never appears to be the same guy that his resume suggests. Moreover, the fact that the Republican establishment is pushing so desperately for his nomination gives me pause. (Incidentally, I believe Fox stacked their pre-New Hampshire debate in Romney's favor, by giving him more time than the other candidates, and fluffing their bogus focus group in his favor.)
Rudy... is he still around? I agree with you... it's tough to trust Rudy on anything that isn't directly related to 9/11.
McCain is unsurprisingly my favorite on the Republican side (of those who can actually win, see Thompson below). I'm a fan of Republicans who stick their thumbs in the eye of the establishment (I'm pleased to have Specter as a Senator... by the way, thank Specter for forcing NFL network to let us watch the Giants-Pats). His campaign finance bill has made a messy thing messier and probably worse, admitted. I admire his resistance to play the 'who-hates-immigrants-more' game, but I think he is being pushed into a dangerous position on immigration.
Huckabee is incredibly likable. He does well everywhere he goes. He was a little weak in the Fox debate I saw him in, but again I believe Fox was biased towards Romney. I'm still convinced he would make a terrible president.
Thompson is a puzzle for me. Of all the Republicans he seems most grounded, the most honest, and I think he would make a terrific president. But then, I view his supposed inactivity as a plus. In the nomination process, I'm just not sure what he's doing there. He and McCain are obviously allies... nowhere was this more obvious than in the ABC debate. They were seated next to each other, and they both treated each other like old guns who suddenly found themselves on the same side in a shoot-out. A McCain-Thompson ticket would be extremely attractive to me, but perhaps is impossible. McCain wouldn't pick Thompson unless Thompson did better in the primaries, but then Thompson would not drop out if he was doing well. Did Thompson attack McCain on anything in the debate you saw? They stayed out of each other's ways in the ones I watched, but that could have been a function of attacking the presumed frontrunners (Huckabee and then Romney).
Ron Paul: Still like Ron Paul, though the racist-bigoted letters that have his name all over them are troubling. At the very best, he was not paying attention to how someone was using his name. If he were a viable candidate, these letters would be enough to sink him, but he's not, so I think he may weather the storm and stick around.
Mitt Romney is an unimpressive candidate. He looks so good on paper, but he has a calculating edge that makes him appear entirely inauthentic. I'm very divided on Romeny--I think his experience is of the sort that would make an excellent president, but when you see him on TV he just never appears to be the same guy that his resume suggests. Moreover, the fact that the Republican establishment is pushing so desperately for his nomination gives me pause. (Incidentally, I believe Fox stacked their pre-New Hampshire debate in Romney's favor, by giving him more time than the other candidates, and fluffing their bogus focus group in his favor.)
Rudy... is he still around? I agree with you... it's tough to trust Rudy on anything that isn't directly related to 9/11.
McCain is unsurprisingly my favorite on the Republican side (of those who can actually win, see Thompson below). I'm a fan of Republicans who stick their thumbs in the eye of the establishment (I'm pleased to have Specter as a Senator... by the way, thank Specter for forcing NFL network to let us watch the Giants-Pats). His campaign finance bill has made a messy thing messier and probably worse, admitted. I admire his resistance to play the 'who-hates-immigrants-more' game, but I think he is being pushed into a dangerous position on immigration.
Huckabee is incredibly likable. He does well everywhere he goes. He was a little weak in the Fox debate I saw him in, but again I believe Fox was biased towards Romney. I'm still convinced he would make a terrible president.
Thompson is a puzzle for me. Of all the Republicans he seems most grounded, the most honest, and I think he would make a terrific president. But then, I view his supposed inactivity as a plus. In the nomination process, I'm just not sure what he's doing there. He and McCain are obviously allies... nowhere was this more obvious than in the ABC debate. They were seated next to each other, and they both treated each other like old guns who suddenly found themselves on the same side in a shoot-out. A McCain-Thompson ticket would be extremely attractive to me, but perhaps is impossible. McCain wouldn't pick Thompson unless Thompson did better in the primaries, but then Thompson would not drop out if he was doing well. Did Thompson attack McCain on anything in the debate you saw? They stayed out of each other's ways in the ones I watched, but that could have been a function of attacking the presumed frontrunners (Huckabee and then Romney).
Ron Paul: Still like Ron Paul, though the racist-bigoted letters that have his name all over them are troubling. At the very best, he was not paying attention to how someone was using his name. If he were a viable candidate, these letters would be enough to sink him, but he's not, so I think he may weather the storm and stick around.
Friday, January 11, 2008
LEGOs make even awesome things better.
This person has the exact right amount of time on their hands:
If you don't get it, here's the original.
And Bert, your Alzheimer's link is broken.
If you don't get it, here's the original.
And Bert, your Alzheimer's link is broken.
Headline of the Day
Clinton On Immigration: 'No Woman Is Illegal'...
It would be much funnier if it were referring to the former president and not his wife, though.
It would be much funnier if it were referring to the former president and not his wife, though.
Fox Debate
This was the first debate I've watched so far. I really haven't been that interested, and I suspected the debates would not be very substantial, so I have avoided them. Last night, however, there was nothing on TV, and I didn't feel like reading.
I was pleasantly suprised at the substance. I don't know if the others have been as substantive, but the questions and answers seemed better than what I had gleaned from accounts of the previous debates, but this may be because the coverage has been so bad.
A couple thoughts:
Mitt Romney is not impressive. He lived down to his plastic reputation. He says nothing that appeals to me.
Rudy was pretty good. He did a good job of handling the "are you a conservative" question, but I don't know if I trust him on anything but terrorism. He was a zealous prosecutor, and I fear an even more zealous, overly-powerful justice department than we already have.
McCain: I don't know what to think about the guy. I respect him for his heartfelt patriotism, but I can't get past his anti-constitutional position on campaign finance/1st Amendment and immigration silliness (although he claims to have gotten serious). He didn't perform all that well, but looks to have some momentum as a default/he can win candidate.
Huckabee: The guy is a natural politician. I don't see how you can't help but like him (K-Lo at NRO seems to be able to hate the man though, so perhaps some people can help it). I thought he handled the religious questions very well. He seems like a decent, respectable man, but I fear another round of "compassionate conservatism". Let's not reconcile ourselves to big government just yet please.
Thompson finally showed that he might actually want the job which is good, because although I wasn't excited about any of these guys, he's my candidate. I think he's the closest thing to a movement/fusionist conservative in the group. Will he be around by the time we get to vote in Ohio? I hope so.
Ron Paul: In the back of my mind the kook alarm is going off. However, if we could have two presidents and put one in charge of domestic policy and one in charge of foreign policy, I might give him the domestic policy job and Rudy the foreign policy job. Since, we don't do that, I think Fred again is the fusionist (conservative/libertarian mix) candidate. The focus group after the debate liked Fred, so maybe he will win SC as he probably needs to do. The focus group, though, was way too hard on Paul. I thought he did fairly well in the debate. He did especially well with answering the "are you a Republican/can you appeal to conservative/Republican voters" question. In many ways he is more conservative/Republican than the rest--limited government, less political engagement with the Middle East, anti-tax and spend. However, in some ways he is obviously radical which is, needless to say, very unconservative. Limited government would be wonderful, but limited government we don't have and cannot overnight. There is little of Edmund Burke in Paul, and no willingness to compromise to move the country back to its limited gov't roots. It seems like an all or nothing approach with him, and that is bad politics.
All in all I did not feel like I wasted my time watching. I am much more impressed with the candidates than I thought I would be (setting the bar low here of course) with the exception of Romney. He seems to have much of the party machinery backing him which, judging by my limited exposure to him, is unfortunate. He does not impress me, and I am disappointed that NR came out and endorsed him. I suspect this was the doing of Rich Lowry, since he's the man in charge. I would've preferred Rush's approach to stay out of endorsements.
I was pleasantly suprised at the substance. I don't know if the others have been as substantive, but the questions and answers seemed better than what I had gleaned from accounts of the previous debates, but this may be because the coverage has been so bad.
A couple thoughts:
Mitt Romney is not impressive. He lived down to his plastic reputation. He says nothing that appeals to me.
Rudy was pretty good. He did a good job of handling the "are you a conservative" question, but I don't know if I trust him on anything but terrorism. He was a zealous prosecutor, and I fear an even more zealous, overly-powerful justice department than we already have.
McCain: I don't know what to think about the guy. I respect him for his heartfelt patriotism, but I can't get past his anti-constitutional position on campaign finance/1st Amendment and immigration silliness (although he claims to have gotten serious). He didn't perform all that well, but looks to have some momentum as a default/he can win candidate.
Huckabee: The guy is a natural politician. I don't see how you can't help but like him (K-Lo at NRO seems to be able to hate the man though, so perhaps some people can help it). I thought he handled the religious questions very well. He seems like a decent, respectable man, but I fear another round of "compassionate conservatism". Let's not reconcile ourselves to big government just yet please.
Thompson finally showed that he might actually want the job which is good, because although I wasn't excited about any of these guys, he's my candidate. I think he's the closest thing to a movement/fusionist conservative in the group. Will he be around by the time we get to vote in Ohio? I hope so.
Ron Paul: In the back of my mind the kook alarm is going off. However, if we could have two presidents and put one in charge of domestic policy and one in charge of foreign policy, I might give him the domestic policy job and Rudy the foreign policy job. Since, we don't do that, I think Fred again is the fusionist (conservative/libertarian mix) candidate. The focus group after the debate liked Fred, so maybe he will win SC as he probably needs to do. The focus group, though, was way too hard on Paul. I thought he did fairly well in the debate. He did especially well with answering the "are you a Republican/can you appeal to conservative/Republican voters" question. In many ways he is more conservative/Republican than the rest--limited government, less political engagement with the Middle East, anti-tax and spend. However, in some ways he is obviously radical which is, needless to say, very unconservative. Limited government would be wonderful, but limited government we don't have and cannot overnight. There is little of Edmund Burke in Paul, and no willingness to compromise to move the country back to its limited gov't roots. It seems like an all or nothing approach with him, and that is bad politics.
All in all I did not feel like I wasted my time watching. I am much more impressed with the candidates than I thought I would be (setting the bar low here of course) with the exception of Romney. He seems to have much of the party machinery backing him which, judging by my limited exposure to him, is unfortunate. He does not impress me, and I am disappointed that NR came out and endorsed him. I suspect this was the doing of Rich Lowry, since he's the man in charge. I would've preferred Rush's approach to stay out of endorsements.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Decisions, decisions....
Republican debate on Fox News....or Tommy on VH1 Classic? Oh Oliver Reed, you win my heart every time!
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Because you needed to know:
Some David Bowie facts:
David Bowie could have fought Robin Williams in Hook! That blows my mind. I want David Bowie in every movie.
- Turned down the role of Max Zorin for the 1985 James Bond film A View to a Kill (1985), citing his lack of enthusiasm for recent Bond villains.
- Turned down the role of Captain Hook in Hook (1991)
- He has one son in 1971 with his then-wife Angela Bowie, originally named Zowie - who later changed it to Joe and who is now known as Duncan.
David Bowie could have fought Robin Williams in Hook! That blows my mind. I want David Bowie in every movie.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Yes, Oklahoma...
... lost both in 2003 and 2004.
But is it really the Buckeyes' fault they got put into a game where they (arguably) didn't belong?
But is it really the Buckeyes' fault they got put into a game where they (arguably) didn't belong?
Are the Suckeyes
the first team to ever blow back to back championship bids? Anyone know? I'm just curious.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Mike Tomlin IS a good lookin' fella
The resemblance to Omar Epps is uncanny. And I agree he is handsome. Do you have one where he's looking thoughtful with his hand on his chin? That would drive the ladies (and gentlemen) wild.
And if that didn't convince you:
Shit, if you guys are gonna post cats all the time, I don't see nuthin wrong with lots of pictures of the best-looking coach, nay, the best-looking person in the entire NFL. Check out that style!
Way off base Kris...
Gaze upon this and then revise your predictions:
A coach this good looking will not lose to the Jaguars.
A coach this good looking will not lose to the Jaguars.
Playoff predictions
Here are my (almost) totally baseless predictions for the first round of the playoffs, starting later this afternoon.
Washington over Seattle....But I think it will be close. Winning the last 4 games, the most recent the blowout against the Cowboys, helps a bunch. I like Seattle, so I kind of feel bad.
Jaguars over Steelers, I'll go ahead and say a blowout. Steelers got no Fast Willie and a bunch of other beat up players. Jaguars have old man-extraordinaire Fred Taylor and some crazy momentum.
NYG over TB. Giants are nigh unstoppable on the road. And that last game against NE? Holy smokes! But Tampa's defense will step up and intercept Eli at least twice. Another close one I think.
Chargers over Titans. Too bad about Vince Young. But if the Titans even keep this close, I'll be surprised. And impressed.
Washington over Seattle....But I think it will be close. Winning the last 4 games, the most recent the blowout against the Cowboys, helps a bunch. I like Seattle, so I kind of feel bad.
Jaguars over Steelers, I'll go ahead and say a blowout. Steelers got no Fast Willie and a bunch of other beat up players. Jaguars have old man-extraordinaire Fred Taylor and some crazy momentum.
NYG over TB. Giants are nigh unstoppable on the road. And that last game against NE? Holy smokes! But Tampa's defense will step up and intercept Eli at least twice. Another close one I think.
Chargers over Titans. Too bad about Vince Young. But if the Titans even keep this close, I'll be surprised. And impressed.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Oh. My God.
The pink one kind of looks like its checking you out. The blonde one is trying to look sultry. These freak me the Hell out. Somehow, this is so much worse than pet clothes. Mocking description. Website.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Tomlin
I would've voted for Mike Tomlin. He made the Steelers a force again after an off year, and he's a very attractive man. Almost too attractive to be a head coach. Sometimes I dream of him singing to me in a deep baritone.
Mister "I only wear hooded sweatshirts"
I'll just go ahead and say that coaching probably isn't all that necessary for that team. I'd nominate Brad Childress, who in addition to supposedly being a flat-out asshole seemed to turn a crappy team around. You know, instead of making insanely good free agency pickups then getting credit for coaching them well. But what the hell do I know?
Damn it
This makes me sad. I guess the "mystique" of that fat ass slob lives on.
Whatever. I'm really sad the Browns won't get a chance to beat them in the playoffs. I wanted a Clev - GB Super Bowl :o(
Whatever. I'm really sad the Browns won't get a chance to beat them in the playoffs. I wanted a Clev - GB Super Bowl :o(
Some more science
Drunk flies have low mating standards:
"The researchers noted that male flies repeatedly exposed to ethanol vapour became less discriminate in their mate selection."
Crap. That explains some things.
"The researchers noted that male flies repeatedly exposed to ethanol vapour became less discriminate in their mate selection."
Crap. That explains some things.
Sharks v. Squids v. octopi
This is some scary stuff. I like science and all, but this sort of research would scare the piss out of me.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Re: Best of 2007?
Zomg NROs Apatow fan-boiz!
I've seen exactly zero of the movies listed there. I'm always a year or two behind these things; it takes a lot to get me to a theater because the theater experience is so universally shitty these days (annoying teens, laser pens, babies... those dumb movie-reference questions that some dude yells the answer out like he's some hot shit).
So I guess it's a tie between the Simpsons Movie and Transformers for me, as those were the only movies (along with Golden Compass) that I can remember seeing this year. The Simpsons Movie was pretty good, I thought... definitely much much much better than the straight-to-DVD Family Guy movie. The second half lagged out (live in Alaska, wtf?) and re-tread over the same ground the show has been going over for years (Homer and Marge's strained relationship, that if you believe the future episode will end in divorce and Homer living in an ocean house). But Albert Brooks is the best and funniest non-cast voice actor the show has ever had, imo.
I will try to see No Country before it leaves the theater, if I can finish the book in time. The unvarnished truth in my opinion is this: Cormac McCarthy is the best and most influential living American author.
I've seen exactly zero of the movies listed there. I'm always a year or two behind these things; it takes a lot to get me to a theater because the theater experience is so universally shitty these days (annoying teens, laser pens, babies... those dumb movie-reference questions that some dude yells the answer out like he's some hot shit).
So I guess it's a tie between the Simpsons Movie and Transformers for me, as those were the only movies (along with Golden Compass) that I can remember seeing this year. The Simpsons Movie was pretty good, I thought... definitely much much much better than the straight-to-DVD Family Guy movie. The second half lagged out (live in Alaska, wtf?) and re-tread over the same ground the show has been going over for years (Homer and Marge's strained relationship, that if you believe the future episode will end in divorce and Homer living in an ocean house). But Albert Brooks is the best and funniest non-cast voice actor the show has ever had, imo.
I will try to see No Country before it leaves the theater, if I can finish the book in time. The unvarnished truth in my opinion is this: Cormac McCarthy is the best and most influential living American author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)