[2004.12.31 - 05:00 PM] HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Ah, how time does fly. No, I'm not talking about 2004. That was actually pretty long and action-packed, featuring both the absolute Greatest Day of My Life, when I married my beautiful wife Tracy, and also one of the sadder ones I've experienced, when Dumbya the Wondermonkey was inexplicably elected to a second term. Heck of a year all around.
No, I mean this particular week, which just blew right by. I blame my father-in-law. See, he's the one who gave me DRIV3R for my X-Box. All that time I had planned to spend catching up with the blog? Gone. Spent it driving really fast and bustin' caps in a whole bunch of bad guys. I have a sunburned feeling on my eyeballs now that I haven't felt since StarCraft came out all those many years ago. (Well, five years, but hey, we're talking computer games -- that's old.)
Actually, I can't feel too bad about the long dry spell. I've been surfing around a bit, and it looks like there are plenty of folks on my regular circuit who have dropped out for the holidays. So that's cool. Gotta recharge the batteries sometimes.
We've got a long four years coming up, so party hard tonight, and I'll see you in 2005.
|
[2004.12.26 - 04:00 PM] MISSING HISTORY
Hey, football fans! Do you know what "NFC" stands for? Nobody Fucking Cares.
Seriously, now. Here we sit, waiting for the monumental Jets vs. Pats game at four o'clock, and what does the NFL give us for an appetizer? Colts vs. Chargers, a game which has already featured Peyton's record-tying TD pass and may just include the record-breaker and, oh, by the way, has playoff seeding implications? How about Pittsburgh's AFC home-field-clinching victory over Baltimore? No, no, no. Those games would actually be interesting. Instead, because of the NFL's assinine contractual obligations, FOX has the double-header in our market today and we're stuck watching Giants vs. Bengals -- aka The Loserbowl.
Cranky. Very cranky.
|
[2004.12.17 - 09:16 AM] BROCK ISSUES SMACK DOWN
It's not every day that you get to see a 5'3" gay guy administer a
world-class ass whuppin' to a big, tough, red-blooded 'Murkan like Bill
O'Reilly. So, please, savor this open letter
from David Brock of Media Matters for
America to FOX News' Number One Big Mouth:
You once offered your viewers your definition of the
word "coward." On the January 5, 2004, O'Reilly Factor, you declared:
"If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an
obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a
coward."
Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you have attacked me publicly on
numerous occasions, and you refuse to face me. You, sir, are a coward --
by your own definition of the term. You are "hiding under your desk" (to
paraphrase your August 26, 2003, claim about a "coward" who declined to
appear on your show) rather than allowing me on your program to discuss
your insults. You are "gutless," to borrow the phrase you used on
January 10, 2003, and February 8, 2001, to describe people who would not
appear on your program.
Personally, I don't see what Big Bad Bill is so afraid of. If Brock
comes on and starts confronting him with uncomfortable facts, he can
just do what he always does: Yell "Shut UP!" repeatedly and then cut
the guest mike.
|
[2004.12.14 - 05:25 PM] IRAQI HITLER?
This quote just about knocked me off of my chair:
Long-term instability in Iraq could give birth to an "Iraqi Hitler" if citizens continue to feel humiliated and despondent, Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar has said.
But... but... but...
I thought we already captured the Iraqi Hitler. Wasn't he the guy we dragged out of his "spider hole" last year around this time?
Please don't tell me we're going to have to go through this again. It almost makes you wonder if somehow our imperialist military adventures might cause the very conditions that produce these repressive regimes...
|
[2004.12.14 - 04:56 PM] STUPID SHIT THAT ANNOYS ME - ITEM 5
After a hiatus of several months, the Stupid Shit That Annoys Me Series makes its triumphant return. Today's entry: People who use the term "Screen Saver" when they mean "Desktop Wallpaper":
On his screen saver, Kerik had a photo of a big house he had just bought in New Jersey that he said was across the street from former New York Giants quarterback Phil Simms's.
I very much doubt that Kerik had a picture of his house on his "Screen Saver" because, as static images, pictures don't do a very good job of preventing screen burn-in (which, by the way, doesn't really happen with SVGA or newer monitors anyhow, but we still keep "screen savers" around for their amusement value).
|
[2004.12.14 - 04:30 P.M.] Hard Enough For Ya?
Digby does a beautiful job of turning Beinart's hard/soft prescription on it's head:
[T]here is one surefire way to convince the American people that Democrats are hard enough to take on the enemies of the United States. And that would be for us to take on the goddamned Republicans. As long as we do not respond in kind to their in your face bully boy style of politics we will continue to look weak in the face of an existential threat --- because we ARE weak. We can look to history for Scoop Jackson lessons or Arthur Schlessinger lessons, but they are not relevant to the problem at hand. Our problem is that since 1968 the Republicans have waged a take-no-prisoner war against the Democratic party and they use that proxy war to prove to the American people that they are tough enough to protect the American people from threats, both internal and external, and the Democrats are not. (Indeed, to listen to their most skilled polemicists, Democrats are the threat.) And despite the fact that they are completely full of shit, it works quite well because they practice what they preach by fighting every last Democrat to a standstill and when they lose they get right back up and start fighting again with everything they have. People can see exactly what they are about. They demonstrate it. We, on the other hand, talk a lot.
Update: No, the posts aren't in any way related, but I was just surfing by Wolcott's blog, and this bit at the end of his post on Kerikgate seems to capture exactly what Digby's talking about:
I'm glad the press is having a dance party with this, because God knows the Democrats are frozen at the steering wheel. I just saw a segment on MSNBC (which has been all over the Kerik story today, bless Rick Kaplan's cyborg heart) pitting a Republican strategist against a Democratic one, and the Democratic spokesman--who goes by the name of Michael Brown--seemed to have washed down his weeny pills with warm Ovaltine. Instead of kicking Kerik and Giuliana between the uprights for three points, Brown fretted that vetting process for cabinet candidates was "going to far," and that we were in danger of discouraging people from public service. Oh no, we wouldn't want to discourage philandering, pocket-lining, deadbeat no-show bully-boys like Bernard Kerik from having the opportunity to muck around with our civil liberties in the name of "national security" and hold bigshot press conferences. I mean, if that sort of thing were to continue happening, people might start mistaking the Democrats for an opposition party and thinking that the press has an adversarial role to play, and we don't want that to happen, it might actually lead to signs of life in that mausoleum we call the nation's capital.
This Michael Brown wouldn't even criticize Alberto Gonzalez for botching the background check and vetting of Kerik. I don't understand the self-emasculation of so many Democratic strategists, what they're afraid of, why they concede so much in advance. Give them an opening, and they close it like a silk kimono, ever so demure. What are they in politics for, the professional grooming tips?
Yep. There go those evil, bullying Democrats with their message of hate again. Pussies.
|
[2004.12.12 - 10:30 A.M.] R-E-S-P-E-C-T
My New York Jets face their biggest game of the season today, on the road against the 11-1 Pittsburgh Steelers. The Jets are 2 games ahead of Baltimore and Denver in the AFC wildcard race, and a win here would put them in a very comfortable position the rest of the way. But there's more at stake than that. All week there have been rumblings in Jetsville about the "R" word. Earlier this week, CBS Sportsline's Pete Prisco offered up this assessment of the AFC picture:
the AFC is starting to look a whole lot more like the NFC: A few good teams, four in this case, and the rest fighting and clawing just to make it in. OK, not nearly as bad as the NFC, where those 5-7 teams still have a chance. We have basically a four-team race between Pittsburgh, New England, San Diego and Indianapolis in the AFC.
Echoing that assessment was Bill Simmons (aka the "Sports Guy") over at ESPN.com:
This has been the least confusing confusing season of all time, if that makes sense. Smart gamblers have been putting their faith in the same five teams every week: Philly, New England, Indy, San Diego and Pittsburgh.
Hmmm. So there are four power teams in the AFC: The Pats (11-1), Steelers (11-1), Colts (9-3), and Chargers (9-3). Right. Got it, guys. (Seriously, I could make the argument that the (ack) Patriots, Steelers, and Colts are the AFC's elite, but the Chargers? How are the 9-3 Chargers any better than the 9-3 Jets?)
Simmons, at least, is an egregious Patriots homer, so I'd be tempted to dismiss his dismissal of the Jets, but think about it: Who's been talking about my guys this year? Everyone knows the (ack) Patriots are the Greatest Team in NFL History (not). Everyone knows about the Steelers amazing run of victories. We've heard a million stories about the unstoppable Colts and Peyton's chase for the single-season TD record. We've heard a million more stories about the suddenly dominant Chargers and quarterback Drew Brees' breakout year. Outside of Jets Nation, however, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who's excited about (or aware of) their improbable 9-3 season. Why is that? Hell, we've even got two feel-good football stories of our own -- the 180-degree turnabout of our defense under mastermind Donnie Henderson, and Curtis Martin's eye-popping resurgence and scaling of the NFL career rushing marks.
No respect.
Well, today's the day. The Jets have never won at Pittsburgh. That's "never" as in not once in the franchise's history. The Steelers have been a charmed team all season, with Rookie QB Big Ben Roethlesberger winning his first 10 starts. They are the only team that has beaten the (ack) mighty New England Patriots. The Jets are without stud DE John Abraham. Why, given all this, do I think they have a chance? Because our defense has been stopping everyone's running game, and the Steelers' 1-2 punch of Staley and Bettis will do no better. Because idiot offensive coordinator Paul Hackett's ultra-conservative play calling might actually be just what the doctor ordered against Pittsburgh's way-above-average pass defense. Because as ugly as the Jets play at times, they never give up. And, well, because I have to believe. That's what fans do.
Biggest game of the season. Fingers crossed....
|
[2004.12.10 - 10:06 AM] SURVIVOR
I never imagined that I could despise a Survivor contestant
more than I did Susan Hawke, the ugly, belligerent truck driver from
season one. Not until the producers of the show went out and got Twila Tanner, that is.
Let's see: Hideous-looking redneck. Dumb as rock. Personality that
veers wildly between bitter paranoia and cackling smugness. Disloyal
liar who's completely undependable in an alliance.
Naturally, she makes it to the Final Four.
|
[2004.12.09 - 03:40 PM] Hot Nuts
SUNY Stonybrook just released a study which I might find
amusing if I weren't a laptop user trying to have kids:
[K]eep that laptop off your lap if you want to have
healthy progeny. That is the advice of State University of New York (at
Stonybrook) researchers who found that the heat caused by portable
computers is enough to raise the temperature of the scrotum and cause
damage to sperm.
..
Using an laptop on the lap raised the left scrotal
temperature by a median 2.6 degrees Celsius and the right by a median
2.8 degrees. Several previous studies have shown that increases in
testicular or scrotal temperatures of between one and 2.9 degrees are
associated with a sustained and considerable negative effect on
spermatogenesis and fertility.
..
"They are frequently positioned close to the scrotum,
and as well as being capable of producing direct local heat, they
require the user to sit with his thighs close together to balance the
machine, which traps the scrotum between the thighs," wrote the author,
who studied 29 healthy volunteers aged 21 to 35, measuring scrotal
temperatures with and without laptops.
Sheynkin now plans further studies to evaluate the
heating effect of laptops on testicular function and sperm parameters,
so he cannot now give an exact time limit for safe use. But the study
showed that within the first 15 minutes of use scrotal temperatures
increased by one degree, so it did not take long to reach a point that
may affect testicular function.
My goodness. Note to Self: Position laptop on coffee table when in
use.
Really now, I've been doing a little male fertility research lately
and I'm starting to wonder if there's anything that doesn't mess
up those little bastards. Alcohol. Cigarettes. Long-distance cycling.
Tight underwear. And now I have to worry about heat from my
laptop?
Oh well. At least the switch to boxers went more easily than I
anticipated...
|
[2004.12.08 - 12:12 PM] Beinart, Part II
A few more quick points on the Beinart article.
First, it really pisses me off that Beinart wants to jettison all the
"softs" from the Democratic party's coalition. Or, at the very least,
he wants to silence our voices in the party's ongoing debate over
foreign policy. In case Beinart missed it, we came up a few million
people short last month. We're not in a position to be kicking anyone
out of the clubhouse. (And if we were, it'd be Beinart and his
ilk that would be the first to go. I mean, really, the liberal hawks
want to give the rest of us the boot? Wouldn't that be like Alaska
deciding they were going to kick the other 49 states out of the union?)
It's OK for people within the party to disagree on policy. It's
healthy. Hell, I welcome the hawks in our party. We need them
to put options on the table that the rest of us would be disinclined to
consider. But they should extend the same courtesy to the "peaceniks"
at the other end of the spectrum, rather than try to muffle them.
Second, what really makes me nuts about this article is how loud and
clear it comes through that Beinart still thinks he and his TNR buddies
were right about Iraq. Check out this graf and see if you can spot the
problem:
Democratic foreign policy wonks not only supported
the war in Afghanistan, they generally felt it didn't go far
enough--urging a larger NATO force capable of securing the entire
country. And, while disturbed by the Bush administration's handling of
Iraq, they agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and, more generally,
supported aggressive efforts to democratize the Muslim world. As
National Journal's Paul Starobin noted in a September 2004 profile,
"Kerry and his foreign-policy advisers are not doves. They are liberal
war hawks who would be unafraid to use American power to promote their
values."
Find it? No? OK.
It's the part where Beinart says "they agreed that Saddam Hussein
was a threat" as if that's still a valid and laudable position. If
I have to keep shouting this until I'm a hundred years old, believe me,
I will:
SADDAM. WAS NOT. A THREAT. PERIOD.
There's a word for people like Beinart who still persist in believing
that Saddam was a threat. That word is "wrong". Fucking dumbass.
Third and last, what the hell did Michael Moore ever do to these
guys? I'm seeing this bullshit creeping up a lot lately, where this or
that "liberal" pundit blames the "Michael Moore wing" of the party for
our loss. Hey, go fuck yourself, all right? At least Moore stood up
and did something. At least he spoke out with perfect clarity about the
nightmare the Bushies have dragged us into. He showed more honesty and
insight than the vast majority of the D.C. circle-jerk punditocracy.
Fahrenheit 9-11 may have been a flawed movie, but it wasn't a
dishonest (or even particularly inaccurate) one. Get off of Moore's
back.
|
Beinart's central thesis is that there are two types of liberals: "Hard" liberals and "soft" liberals. The former group sees "Islamist totalitarianism" (by which he seems to mean both totalitarian governments and terrorist organizations) as the single greatest threat to our nation and the world, and they are unafraid of using American military power to address this problem. The latter group sees Islamist totalitarianism as one threat among many our nation faces, they are deeply skeptical of the efficacy of American power in dealing with that threat, and they tend to be more interested in focusing on the danger they see coming from our own domestic right wing.
I am certainly concerned about the threat of terrorism. I believe, however, that it is a threat that we should address by enhancing port and border security at home and by cooperating with our allies to secure nuclear materials and crack down on illegal arms networks abroad. The worst possible response to Islamic terrorism is to do precisely what the Bush administration has done and what people like Beinart have supported: Launching massive military campaigns in the heart of the Middle East. That's a great way to guarantee that we'll have terrorists up our ass for several generations.
I am considerably less concerned about "Islamist totalitarianism". Beinart's comparison of this phenomenon to the spread of communism in the last century strikes me as completely bogus. Unlike the communist revolutions in the USSR, China, and elsewhere, there is nothing to indicate that even the most militant Islamic groups have aspirations to take over the world. What they seem to want most fervently is for us to get the hell out of their corner of the world -- a desire which is by no means completely unreasonable. Even if Bin Laden and company did want to set up a world-wide Islamic theocracy, the fact is that they don't have the means to do so and they never will. Forcibly changing a government requires a conventional military large and powerful enough to occupy your enemy's territory and make them submit. Seriously: The United States has the most powerful military on
Earth, and we're having a bear of a time setting up a new government in Iraq. What is Beinart afraid of? That Syria is going to come over here and install a puppet regime in D.C.? (Insert Saudi-Arabia joke here)
The final element to asserting my soft-liberal bona-fides is this: Yes, I most emphatically do see the domestic right as being the greatest threat to our national health and prosperity. Their economic policies are turning us into a third-world country. Their pandering to domestic theocrats makes a mockery of everything our founders stood for. Their indifference to civil liberties smacks of the very totalitarianism Beinart is so worried about abroad. They have weakened our military and damaged our standing in the world, leaving us less secure as a result. The American right is Threat Number One, and I stand proudly with Mr. Moore and every other "soft liberal" who refuses to take their eye off of that particular ball.
[2004.12.03 - 07:15 P.M.] Re-Modeling
Finally got around to doing something I've been meaning to do for a while: I've gotten rid of the separate pages for sports and entertainment, and I'll be posting everything to the main page from now on. If you're looking for them, my previous sports-related posts can be accessed down in the Archives section. As for my sole Entertainment post, I've inserted it into the September 2003 archive page.
Fact is, I'm not nearly prolific enough to need to segment my stuff by topic. Up until now, ninety-five percent or so of what I've written has been on politics. That'll probably change. I'm feeling a need to spice things up a little bit more just to avoid burn-out (witness my longer-than-intended break this past week). Fair Warning: You might start seeing posts about the Trailblazers or Smallville. Don't be alarmed. The site has not been hijacked. It'll just be me bustin' out a bit.
|
[2004.12.03 - 01:16 PM] Choose The Blue
Richard over at ASZ points out an incredibly useful site today: Choose The Blue. These fine folks have been busy assembling a searchable database, based on FEC records, which shows the percentage given by various companies to Democrats versus Republicans. While political giving doesn't always indicate a given corporation's political leanings, it certainly seems like a fine place to start when deciding who deserves your dollars. Here are just a few fun facts to give you a taste of what you'll find over at CTB:
Costco, the all-time greatest store ever, gave 98% of their contributions to Democrats. (Let's try for 100% next time, shall we?) Barnes & Noble also clocks in at 98%, and Bed Bath & Beyond comes in at a healthy 93%. Predictably, Wal-Mart leaned 81%
Republican in their giving habits. More disappointing was seeing that Target offered 72% of their money to the GOP and, in the biggest eye-opener on the retail list, Home Depot gave 94% to Republicans.
Predictably enough, the gasoline bidness gave the lion's share of their cash to their GOP bitches. Of the companies listed, only Shell leaned into the blue. Not the most common station around these parts, but I think I can find one.
Professional sports teams seem to contribute overwhelmingly to the GOP. The one exception on the list? The NBA's expansion franchise, the Charlotte Bobcats, who gave 100% Democratic. Looks like Emeka's in good hands.
This was a surprise: TicketMonster went 95% blue. They're so big & evil, I just figured they'd be a natural fit for the red menace. Clearly, there's a blue bias wherever entertainment is involved.
On the software front, Adobe (97%) and RealNetworks (100%) are fighting the good fight.
Gallo wines leans heavily Dem with a generous 93% of their money flowing leftward. Also, a winery called Astrale E Terra
Wines, which I've never heard of, merits some serious product research due to their 100% commitment to the cause. As for the big beer companies, most of them seem to be playing both sides of the field. The exception, of course, is that bastion of American Fascism, Coors Brewing, which sent 86% of their support to the Wrong Wing.
Again, political giving isn't everything. In some cases (see FOX below) you need to look at the whole picture. But, caveats aside, this sort of information could provide the means to a "market-based solution" for coping with America's single most pressing problem: The Republican Party. "Spending Blue" won't always be convenient or practical, but why not reward companies which support Democrats and (in most cases) share our values? (To make the most of your choice, I suggest contacting someone at these companies and telling them why you're patronizing them. This will only reinforce the message.)
Don't you just love being empowered? Have a Blue X-Mas, everyone!
|
