That's how much of my life I just wasted watching the nearly-unwatchable Van Helsing.
Sure. Hugh Jackman looked good. And so did Will Kemp - and at least he showed some skin. But to paraphrase a comment a friend made about Armageddon, "Will Kemp could have been naked for the entire movie and it still would have been awful."
I do have one question, however: Why didn't they have to fight Godzilla and Mothra? Or the Kraken??
Our friend Jonathan is in town to join in the festivities. He and my husband are making it a football weekend too - C.U. vs Texas today, and Broncos vs Falcons tomorrow. And, never forget, Hellywood tonight! We're going to be dwarves (as part of Snow Ho White's entourage. Pics as they're available (and not too embarassing...).
Last night we went to Six Flags for the haunted houses. It was, by far, the biggest haunted house I've ever been in, but I can't really say it's the best. The most frightening part was when the urinals exploded and doused us with water. Yeesh.
I do, remember, however the scariest haunted house I've ever been to - Hell House. That's the morality play put on by the Abundant Life Christian Center in Arvada. Talk about frightening. They are, interestingly, taking the year off from their Bible banging.
According to Nancy Halpern, of The Strickland Group, "metrosexual" behavior is becoming de rigeur in offices of the 21st century.
"The impact of women in the workplace has had an enormous effect on how men are expected to behave as leaders," said the executive, who first noticed the change and the advent of metrosexuals in 2002. ... And that behavior, says Halpern, means being a metrosexual, which includes "fabulous communication skills, how they dress, their haircut and posture; if they are kinder and gentler, are consensus builders and have good emotional intelligence--traits traditionally associated with women. The kind of drive to get the result no matter what it takes no longer is acceptable if it translates into abusive behavior."
She fails to address the most important question, however: Are these men zhuzhing their hair and sleeves correctly??
South Park is one of my favorite shows. Especially the early episodes. Newer episodes seem to start strong, but always seem to degenerate into either 1) excessive moralizing or 2) excessive scatology - often both. But I still watch 'em for the first 15 minutes at least - they're deliciously insensitive.
Last night's episode followed roughly the same pattern. They managed to get in some good shots about this year's election. The two candidates - a giant douche and a turd sandwich - were good, if obvious, slams. But the best was Puff Daddy's "Vote or Die" rap.
Yes, I'm still watching this foolishness. But the eye candy is so appealing. Anyway, it was so cute tonight when Kevin O. said a prayer before the meal they had at the spa (after the manicures and pedicures).
Now the important stuff: 2 of the guys left - I can't even remember their names; they weren't the cute ones, so who cares? It wasn't Rob or Matt - that's all that really matters. The good news is that the snotty Kevin P. (the planted professional) thinks that Rob can make it. He didn't have any comment about Matt, but I don't think he'll last long.
And next week's exciting preview? Rob outs himself! Rob is gay? What!?!?! Who knew?!?!?! Apparently none of the guys on the show with him.
OK. I took this test for reasons that I can't explain (like a moth to a flame, I guess, I seem to take every online test I come across). Anyway, when I started, I had no intention of publishing my result - it just seemed WAY beyond stupid. But I like the result too much not to publish it. I mean, did it nail me or what??
Jack Cafferty, my favorite sardonic host on CNN's American Morning, asked the question this morning "Has Congress taken too long to act on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission?" He got this spectacular response from a viewer:
maybe if congress thought that the terrorists were gay and thinking about getting married they would speed up the process
I hope my husband doesn't read this - not that he couldn't say it nearly verbatim off the top of his head. It is eerily accurate:
Are you Addicted to the Internet?
Hardcore Junkie (61% - 80%) While you do get a bit of sleep every night and sometimes leave the house, you spend as much time as you can online. You usually have a browser, chat clients, server consoles, and your email on auto check open at all times. Phone? What's that? You plan your social events by contacting your friends online. Just be careful you don't get a repetitive wrist injury...
Stephen Miller cuts to the heart of why I'm not jumping up and down and peeing myself to support John Kerry.
Mr. Kerry, as quoted in the New York Times:
"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."
And Stephen's take on it:
Sure, if Kerry wins we may get four years of vacillation and appeasement abroad, higher taxes and blocked entitlement reform at home, with Carter-era economic growth thanks to jacked-up minimum wage levels and an onslaught of anti-business regulation, trade tariffs and approval of the Kyoto protocols. While endorsing marriage-banning state constitutional amendments and leaving in place the military's don't ask/don't tell gay ban in deference to "unit cohesion," Kerry will appoint some lesbigay Democratic hacks to mid-level bureaucratic positions and send press releases to the gay media each June recognizing pride month. Happy Days Are Here Again!
All of my friends who are voting for John Kerry will aver that they aren't excited by Kerry either. Fine. We'd all like better candidates - even the Libertarian Party candidate (my usual candidate of choice) is a wing nut this year.
I've said it before (and taken heat privately) for saying that gay people are reflexively voting for John Kerry. But by and large I think it's true. I have gay friends who have seriously considered George Bush - and some will be voting for him. But, honestly, what percentage of the gay population gave ANY thought to voting for ANY candidate other than John Kerry? As I said, I don't think he's their ideal candidate by any stretch of the imagination, but there was never any doubt (at least not in my mind) that a large fraction of the gay population in this country would be voting for John Kerry in the general election.
But I can't make my vote for (probably) John Kerry so automatic. As the article says so nicely, I just don't see that Kerry is so far out ahead on gay issues as to make a vote for him a slam dunk. There are some differences - Kerry is, in some limited ways, better. But the differences are so minor, in my mind, as to make them trivial compared to the other issues facing gays (and everyone else) in this election.
he is so cute i wouldnt mind having hic cock in my mouth i would suck it so well he would want me attached to me all the time
ps i want him right now
i agree but i think u should let go as i would suck it so much better
October 22, 2004
"The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004"
Via Andy comes The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004.
This bill is the latest from (I assume) the GOP in the House of Representatives. Quoting from the bill:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
I'm certainly no expert, but this seems completely absurd. Doesn't this amount to amending the Constitution "just because we say", rather than having to go through the traditional mechanisms?
1. Tell me something obvious about you. I'm gay. 2. Tell me something about you that many don't know. I wanted to be an astronaut. 3. What is your biggest fear? Being completely, totally, dead broke. 4. Do you normally go the safe route or take the short cut? Short cut. 5. Name one thing you want that you can't buy with money. To look like Brad Pitt. 6. What is your most treasured possession? I can't think of anything here that qualifies. My health? 8. Tell me something sexual about you that I don't know. I slept with a woman. Twice. 9. Tell me something sexual about you that everyone knows. Everyone?! Everyone who? See #1. 10. What is your favorite lie to tell? That I weigh 180. 11. Name something you've done once that you can't wait to do again. Fly an airplane. 12. Are you the jealous type? Not generally. 13. What is the one person, place or thing you can't say no to? Chocolate. 14. What is the nicest thing someone has ever done for you? My partner bought me a wonderful condo in Aspen. 15. If you could do something crazy right now, what would it be? Move to the Caribbean and be a bartender. 16. When was the last time you cried? Really lost it? When my dog died. 17. When was the last time you felt so good that nothing else mattered? When I got my pilot's license and took my boyfriend for a flight. 18. Do you feel comfortable in public with no shirt on? Ugh. No. 19. Name something embarrassing you did while being drunk. Apparently (I don't remember it) I one time, while at a party, buried my head in a trash can, puking. John, can you confirm? 20. If you post this in your journal would you like me to answer it? Huh?
The good news today is that Paul Hamm will get to keep his Olympic Gold Medal. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling today, rejecting the appeal of South Korean gymnast Yang Tae-young.
As part of the ruling the CAS said the following:
"There two victims of this unusual sequence of events, Hamm and Yang," CAS said in its judgment. "Hamm because, as he eloquently explained a shadow of doubt has been cast over his achievement in winning the sport's prestigious prize.
"Yang because he may have been deprived of an opportunity of winning it."
E.R. E.R. is looking good this season. We missed the first couple of episodes, but since then so far so good.
Alias Personally, I'm most looking forward to Alias. It's consistently good, and this season promises to unravel the Rimbaldi mystery once and for all (sure.....) and move on to different plot lines.
The Simpsons And, of course, my perennial favorite, The Simpsons has its season premiere November 7th. I have to agree with most of the users, this show has never Jumped the Shark - I've been watching consistently since having Simpsons parties in the dorm junior year and always enjoy it. And don't forget, this season promises to out one of the characters. Rumors abound and have been discussed here before [potential spoiler alert!].
regarding Wilma and Graceless, the only reason to watch/tolerate this drivel is cause Bobby Cannavale is playing Wilma's boyfriend. What can I say, I'm a sucker for Tall-Stupid-New-York-Accented-Italian/Cuban-Men Sue me
October 20, 2004
Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!
Or to paraphrase Margo Channing, "It's going to be a bumpy month." The Democrats and Republicans are setting us up for a long November. The only way out is if one candidate seriously trounces the other. Doesn't seem likely right now. I guess this is the "new normal". Ugh.
So I set a (straight) friend up on a date recently. It was actually a group thing the first night when they met. Later friend and I had this conversation:
Me: OK. Here's her number: 303-555-1212 Friend: woo hoo Friend: so what's the "dating etiquette".. am I supposed to wait a day or 2 or some crap before I call her? Me: oh good lord. i don't know how you straight people do it. Friend: LMAO Me: you should ask [other friend]. Friend: yeah, like he'll know Friend: I'll ask one [some other chick i know] Me: LOL Friend: they'll know Me: good point. Friend: fuck it, I'll just call her tonight Me: there you go. Me: gay people would have slept together last night. Friend: LMAO Friend: you sure you don't need a short-stop?
Finally! Something is going in, rather than doing nothing but come out. For those of you with your minds in the gutter, I'm talking about the houses I'm developing... The forms for the foundation went in today. Concrete tomorrow!!!
Amendment 35 in Colorado (I think that's the right number) is a vote for imposing an extra tax on cigarettes. Normally, things like smoking bans, etc., violate my libertarian sensibilities, but not any more.
The f**king bitch that lives next door smokes - and she likes to do it outside. So her smoke is always drifting in my windows and doors. WTF?? It's not like the houses in our neighborhood are piled on top of each other. And still I smell it. EVERY DAMN DAY. I've lived in houses MUCH closer to each other that were near smokers and never had this kind of problem. What is she doing?
I'd say something to her, but she scares me. And her boyfriend is worse. I'd fear for my life if I said anything. Oh well...
We took Buster for a walk. It's an absolutely spectacular evening here in Denver. The sunset was postcard-perfect, with a few clouds perched lovingly on the snow-capped peaks in the distance. The wind is rustling through the leaves; the breeze just a whisper. The neighborhood is quiet.
John Kerry is accusing George Bush of planning a "January surprise" to privatize Social Security. The ONLY thing about this that would be surprising would be if George Bush, were he to be reelected, actually did it. He's had four fucking years - he continues to promise to do it. WHERE THE HELL IS IT???
VotePair.org has an interesting idea. Their goal is to defeat Bush, but give people who want to vote for a third party candidate a "safe" way to do so.
So, for example, I live in Colorado where the election will be close. I'd like to vote for someone else (the Libertarian, perhaps), but am afraid to "throw away" my vote by voting for someone other than Kerry - because Colorado is going to be so close. I would be paired with someone in a "safe" state (think California). They would agree to vote for my candidate, since it won't matter in a place like California - Kerry will win easily. And I'll agree to vote for Kerry, where the vote actually counts.
The details don't necessarily apply to me - I don't feel strongly enough about any candidate, in any party, this year to feel compelled to do this.
But it's an interesting idea and I did sign up. I'll let you know.
When you are in uncomfortable position and have got no cash to move out from that point, you would need to take the business loans. Because it should aid you for sure. I take car loan every single year and feel great because of it.
Bourne again. Again.
So I finally finished reading The Bourne Legacy. It's taken me over a month to finish it. If you know me, you know that I didn't think the book was very good - if it had been, you'd have been reading this post three weeks ago.
Honestly, the book was very poorly constructed and seemed to lurch from one place to another. And it just didn't have the lightning pace and intrigue of Ludlum.
And it had this odd affectation that I didn't notice immediately, but once I did it irritated me every single time: When the character was saying "do you", it was ALWAYS contracted as "D'you". What the hell? Something like that once in a while wouldn't bother me, but it really just added to the overly-constructed feeling this book had.
I'm starting to see some traffic to the site on occasion, and I've decided to do a few things to spread the word a bit. I'm still a bit hesitant, because I wrote the code myself and I've got various things posted that I don't necessarily want the whole world to see. I've got permissions set on the various categories, but I've wanted to make sure that my code works. I'm feeling pretty comfortable with it, so we'll just see what happens.
So I'm posting comments here and there, which has sent a few people my way - it should also get me into search engines.
That is well known that cash can make us autonomous. But what to do if someone does not have cash? The one way is to try to get the lowest-rate-loans.com and sba loan.
We tried a new restaurant last night: Somethin' Else. The menu consists entirely of appetizer-sized plates, priced from $6 to about $15. We went with friends that are frequent dining companions - and with whom we invariably spend WAY too much. Last night's tab for four: $300, including tip. I still can't figure out how we spent so much on appetizers (there was some wine, but not a huge amount).
The discussion touched briefly on politics, but otherwise was quite pleasant.
This cute couple was sitting next to us and as they left, they stopped by and mentioned that they have a wine store near our house - it's called City Wine. We'll have to stop by.
Frankly, I find this editorial a must-read for anyone voting this year.
Let's start with one of the early statements:
This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.
I know many Democrats, voting reflexively for Kerry, disagree with this statement entirely; they believe that Bush doesn't show integrity, intentions or abilities that are deserving of anything but contempt. Frankly, I don't consider that a serious position.
Moving on, the thing that worries me most:
As [Kerry] pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods.
Ugh. Kerry's statement is virtualy worthless to me. I don't care about responding to attacks - any fool would respond - I want to prevent attacks.
Finally, John Kerry wants to have it all ways on security:
On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.
I think this is right on. And his (and his handlers') response, inevitably, is "John Kerry defended this country as a young man, he'll defend it as President." Again, I find such a statement worthless.
Like I said, please read the whole article - it's well worth the time, even if it doesn't change your vote.
I still, having read it, find myself in the Kerry column, though more reluctantly so. As Bill O'Reilly said in a recent column, this election is about hope. I can only hope that the events of 9/11 were transformative for him, and that he will take the fight to those who would attack us.
Anyway, it appears that Kerry has opened a sizeable lead in the Electoral-Vote.com projected final map. Subject, of course, to their disclaimer that the only ones to pay a lot of attention to are the "strong" and "weak" numbers, not the "barely" numbers. In which case Bush still has an edge, 160-150, with the rest being basically too close to call. Whatever. I'm done with this. We'll know the answer on 11/3 - I hope.
In other news, I'm still in the Kerry column, but I should make one thing clear: I'm voting for gridlock. Which means that I'm voting Republican for House and Senate. Here in Denver my vote for anyone other than Diana DeGette for the House is wasted, but I'll also be voting for Pete Coors for Senate. He's extremely conservative, but if I'm gonna vote for Kerry, that's what I'm after. I don't know what the current Senate race looks like here, but it doesn't really matter.
One of my first memories of fantasy books as a kid is the Earthsea series, by Ursula K. LeGuin. I don't remember exactly what age I was, but I'm sure I was in the neighborhood of 10. One thing I do remember is having a crush on Ged. When he took those long trips in that boat, I wanted to be there with him. We could have killed that nasty dragon and then made beautiful love on the shore.
I remember also having a fight with my first boyfriend when we discovered that a fourth book in the series had been published. We were in college - and it had been 18 years since the last book. When I found it, I jumped. He tried to trick and bribe me into letting him read it first. But it didn't work - and I still got sex anyway.
This series is consistently rated as on par with Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Narnia. I never imagined that it would be made into a series. It just increases the respect I have for the SciFi Channel. They are, much like HBO and Showtime, increasingly investing in original productions. Thank god. The major networks continue to produce so much crap.
I hope the Earthsea production is as good as the Battlestar Galactica production was. That one, you'll remember, was so successful as a two-part mini-series that it's been picked up as a regular series, beginning in January 2005. Again, I can't wait.
Good news for Kerry supporters?
Does the latest Electoral-Vote.com vote count show good news for Kerry supporters? While technically Kerry is still behind by their count 257-243, Bush has clearly lost some strength; they also offer the following information on how to interpret their numbers [paraphrased by me]:
Add the "strong" and "weak" numbers for each candidate, giving us: Bush: 222 (down from 228 on 10/14) Kerry: 188 (up from 181 on 10/14)
That leaves 128 votes left to allocated - and 270 are needed to win, of course.
Even if you look at their projected final map, Bush is losing strength. By the formula above, you get (because of the way they're creating the data, it's better to use a longer time horizon): Bush: 228 (down from 287 since 10/01) Kerry: 154 (up from 143 since 10/01)
Again, plenty of room for either candidate to win.
Because the margins are so narrow for these votes, they apparently could go either way at this point.
Bush had gotten a bit of a bounce after the 3rd debate, but for whatever reason that seems to be fading in the current numbers.
As for what might be affecting the nubmers in the "current" field, it seems like the ONLY thing I'm seeing about the campaign lately is the nonsense about Mary Cheney. Could that be it?
It's amazing to me how close the margins continue to be in this election - the numbers really aren't moving much at all. I didn't think it would come down like 2000 again, but it looks like it very well may. God, I hope the margins aren't so agonizingly close in the individual states. If they are, plan to see the lawsuits fly. And they'll fly from BOTH sides.
Looks like Denver is getting ready for its very own grocery store worker strike! Woohoo! I thought we were gonna miss out. Ugh. I guess I'll be shopping at Whole Foods. Unless, of course, I get the chance to cross a picket line. Count me in.
The problem, as has been experienced in various other spots around the country recently, is health care. The grocery stores - here they include King Soopers (Kroger), Safeway and Albertson's - want the workers to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. The stores argue that price competition - most notably from Wal-Mart - is squeezing the bottom line. Add that to the ever-increasing cost of health care, and the companies say that they are being forced to cut benefits.
So what, exactly, is the problem here? Wal-Mart? Evil corporations like Kroger, Safeway and Albertson's? Shiftless union workers that want everything given to them? No. The problem is us. More specifically, we who want everything at the lowest possible price.
Al Lewis, a local Denver business columnist, covered the issue yesterday. One of the reasons for Wal-Mart's low prices, of course, is the fact that they do not have to deal with unions.
"There's no question that if a union organized Wal-Mart employees, Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to charge the prices it does," said Cindi Fukami, a management professor at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business. "The union wage premium is anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent."
Perhaps Wal-Mart is unfairly aggressive at keeping unions out. Perhaps Wal-Mart employees are, by and large, happy and really don't want unions. I don't know. It really doesn't matter. As Lewis points out:
... for now, America seems obsessed with "Always Low Prices. Always." Given that trend, it's not King Soopers, Safeway and Albertsons taking paid health-care benefits away from union grocery stores. It's Wal-Mart and everyone who shops there.
Not that I give a rat's ass - I frankly do not care at all what someone in Paris thinks about who should be president. Nevertheless, watching MSNBC this morning, I saw the results of some international poll for president that they had conducted. There were 10 countries in the poll, including France, the U.K., Russia, Mexico, Japan, etc.
I wasn't terribly surprised to see that Bush would win the Israeli vote by a large margin (50% to 24%). But I was quite surprised to see that he'd win in Russia, albeit by a much narrower margiin (52% to 48%, which is surely within the margin of error).
What I really want to know, however, is why these polls are news-worthy?? Surely the news organizations don't think we should let foreign citizens have some effect on the outcome of the election here?
I know this is very very old, but does it not seem a bit hypocritical for americans to bitch about how they do not care what foreigners think when their governments' tend to meddle and interfere in the elections of other candidates?
True, I can imagine that the actual public does not much care for foreigners (I also read that something around 50% cannot place Mexico and Canada on a map, so perhaps they are unaware as to the fact that there is the concept of something outside the USA), but in less politically apathetic countries, it is important to pay attention to American elections, for they will invariably have an effect on national politics due to the USA's prominence and tendency to meddle (see Any country in Latin America, Lebanon, Israel etc)
The title I chose for this article unfairly targets John Kerry. Rest assured that in this case I think both candidates are equally guilty. What am I talking about? Limited government. Jeff Jacoby says it pretty well. Money quote:
...there was talk of: firehouses not having enough firefighters, a shortage of flu vaccine, the rise in health insurance premiums, how laid-off workers should attend community college, the need for more grade-school math and science, the high price of gasoline and medicine, a minimum wage for unskilled workers, education for parents who don't speak English -- and those are just the ones I managed to scribble down. There was even a mention of ceiling fans from China. Where does the Constitution that whoever wins this election will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend say that *any* of these are properly the concern of the federal government?
This and the war on terror are going to be the two issues I end up voting on. I'm inclined to vote for Bush when it comes to the war on terror, but he and his GOP buddies in the Congress are so irresponsible with money that I just don't think I can. And I wouldn't say a vote for Kerry would be to punish Bush as much as just to end the GOP control of the executive and legislative branches of government.
When the budget was "balanced" (it really wasn't, but that's a topic for another post) under the later years of Bill Clinton, I'm convinced that was due, in large part, to the desire of the Republicans in Congress to annoy the Democrat in the Oval Office. I KNOW that I can count on the current batch of Republicans to annoy John Kerry.
William Buckley has an excellent piece about oil. His thesis is that those who whine about "not fighting for oil" have their heads in the sand.
To say that we must not fight for oil is utter cant. To fight for oil is to fight in order to maintain such sovereignty as we exercise over the natural world. Socialism plus electricity, Lenin said at the outset of the Soviet revolution, would usher in the ideal state. He was wrong about socialism but not about electricity. Electricity gives us whatever leverage we have over nature.
It's an interesting idea, and I think he makes a valid point. Energy, however, is one of the policies over which I'm most disappointed with the Bush Administration.
Why? Not because it pushes development of oil reserves. But because it fails to try to develop significant alternatives. Many people blame "corporate giveaways" and "protecting his friends in the oil industry" as the reasons for Bush's failure to push alternatives. Bush's reasons notwithstanding, Safire makes an excellent point about alternatives:
Oddly, those who speak so lightly about oil are often the most reluctant to explore seriously alternatives to it. In the history of discovery, only one such has materialized, which is nuclear power. Although nuclear power proceeds inconspicuously to light most of the lamps in France and promises to do as much in China, a mix of superstition and Luddism stands in the way of developing the nuclear alternative here.
Please don't talk to me about wind power; plenty of environmentalists denounce it, too.
Solar power is a potential alternative, but it will be decades before it has the potential to be a significant source of energy for the world's economies. That is certainly not to say, however, that we shouldn't be devoting resources to solar power research.
Nuclear power is the only currently available alternative. It can produce the power necessary to meet our needs with current technology. It's been made much safer in the years since the last nuclear "incident". But it's opposed at every turn to the extent that it's virtually impossible to develop a new nuclear power plant in the United States.
Cars are one of the biggest consumers of oil, especially in the U.S., so lots of people focus on ways to reduce that consumption. Fine. But unless we develop alternative power sources, all we're doing is moving the pollution - not fixing any of the supply problems.
What it all boils down to is this: Energy. As it stands, our economy - our entire way of life - operates on oil. We HAVE to fight for oil, or find alternatives. Many in this country seem to be opposed to both.
The FCC apparently has announced that it will not intervene to prevent Sinclair Broadcasting from airing the anti-Kerry film on all of its affiliates in the next couple of weeks.
Michael Powell, the Republican chairman of the commission, had this to say: "Don't look to us to block the airing of a program. I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that." I note the fact that he's a Republican in the interest of full disclosure - I don't think it had anything to do with his decision. I hope I'm right.
As I said before, I don't think Sinclair should be doing this, and if I were a shareholder I would be quite upset with them. Sinclair isn't an advocacy organization, and I don't want the companies that I'm a part owner of engaging in such blatant advocacy.
With that said - as you can see from my prior post - I think the FCC made the right call. I don't think the government has any business regulating speech like this - because it's pure censorship. And I don't think the Democrats' FEC complaint has a leg to stand on.
I have read various calls to action, trying to get people to put pressure on Sinclair through their advertisers. I hope they succeed. Many people call such efforts censorship - nonsense. It's simply people exercising their right to choose what they will buy and to tell the companies why.
God, Maria Alquilar is a self-important fucking bitch. She's the cunt who painted the mural at the library in California and misspelled 11 words. They paid her $40,000 to paint it. When they asked her to fix the problems, she wanted to charge an extra $6,000 - and the library actually agreed to pay her. Now she's refusing to fix anything. Why? Because people are so mean. Not the library people, mind you. Just people in general. Imagine that - people have been sending her nasty messages because she's so arrogant as to believe that she shouldn't have to be bothered to fix her mistakes.
I actually heard this piece of shit interviewed the other day. What a load of tree-hugging hippie crap.
UPDATE: Apparently, she's agreed to fix the errors. I assume she's going to take the $6,000 to do the work. But I love her explanation for the misspellings in the first place: "The art chose the spellings" (emphasis mine). Good god. I repeat my earlier statement: What a load of tree-hugging hippie crap.
I just couldn't stand it tonight. I would rather have eaten broken glass than watch tonight's debate. For one thing, I know where both of these clowns stand on domestic issues: Spend more money. There was no way I could listen to them tell me how the federal fucking government is going to solve all of my problems. Christ - it's like no politician anywhere believes in personal responsibility any more.
And besides, Sinclair Broadcasting says that John Kerry is evil. They said it. That settles it.
Sandals has long been a great destination for couples. It's an adults-only, all-inclusive resort that's not quite as out there as Hedonism (which doesn't discriminate against gays).
It's nice to see a company like Sandals reverse its policy, although I've seen no confirmation of the news on the Sandals site. If it's true, however, it's a welcome change - but entirely too far overdue.
One thing is clear to me: Sinclair can call this "news" all they want. It's not - it's clearly partisan.
It doesn't seem (to me) like a particularly wise choice to air something so partisan and call it news, but management has clearly decided it's the right thing to do. Sinclair is a publicly held company - if the owners (shareholders) of the company think that management has violated its duty to run the company responsibly, there are established ways to fix that problem.
The Democratic Party, however, is seeking an investigation into whether or not this amounts to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. I find such a move offensive. I know that, as a result of McCain-Feingold, there are restrictions on such things, but give me one good reason that Sinclair - as a private business entity - shouldn't be allowed to spend private money to disseminate any political material they deem appropriate. Why should this be any different from any other Swift Boat ad? Or an ad from MoveOn.org?
Firstly: I absolutely hope that some Sinclair shareholders will speak up. I think that, from an investor's perspective, this is exceedingly unwise and inappropriate. I don't mind if corporations lobby for particular legislation, etc., that will help their business - that's expected. But this is clear partisanship and if I were an investor I would be the one calling. Shareholders have every right to be upset and complain about this nonsense. As far as being private, it's private in the sense that it's not government owned or controlled - yet.
As far as the rest goes, you say
We're getting ourselves into a scary Big Brother situation when such a company is advocating a political position to its customers
but I think that the scary Big Brother situation is when the government can step in and say "you're not allowed to do that". That fundamentally makes companies like Sinclair and others into arms of the federal government.
And yes, it is a pointed, focused attempt to influence the election. But, once again, I think that private entities should be allowed to do just that. (See my definition of "private" above).
Talking Points Memo thinks George Bush dodged blame on troop levels in Iraq. I noticed it at the time and thought it sucked. Memo to the President: You're responsible for these things, no matter who gave you the advice or how bad it was.
3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "/art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.
4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.
Over there on the left side of my site, you should see an electoral vote total graphic that shows the current balance in the electoral college for each candidate. If you click the image you get this map - which is the main map they have, showing the current state of affairs (today John Kerry is in the lead, but just barely).
I just found another map, labeled on the site as "projected final map" that, from what I gather, shows what their current projection for election day is.
I can't possibly pretend to explain anything but the most rudimentary aspects of polling science - I did manage to get an A in that course in college - but it is fairly interesting.
Be sure to check out the feature that lets you see the various vote totals going back at least to May.
Via Drew comes this news: In a recent essay in Creative Loafing, an alternative weekly in Atlanta, Bob Barr says his choice for President isn't so clear.
As Drew notes, you certainly can't dismiss Barr's conservative credentials. Barr starts:
Voting for president used to be so easy, at least for a conservative. There was the Republican candidate. You knew he generally stood for lower taxes, less government spending, giving fewer powers to the government, lower deficits and a zealous regard for individual privacy.
Then, there was the Democrat. You knew he generally stood for higher taxes, more government and deficit spending, and a zealous regard for civil liberties.
As a person who would describe himself, more than anything, as a libertarian (and not so much a Libertarian), it is indeed troubling. Conservatism, to me, means those things Barr lists at the top of his article. Where in the hell did this recent crap come from?
I didn't always agree with Bob when he was in the House, but I think he's right on the money with this one.
George Will has a great piece in the Washington Post on conservatism in America. By conservatism, he is not referring to the Bush/Santorum/Delay brand of conservatism we've seen lately. Instead he means the more traditional notion of conservatism, as practiced by Ronald Reagan and, lately, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani.
The Washington Post has one of the best editorials I have read about the search for WMDs in Iraq, including the recently released Duelfer report on the subject.
At the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and most of its programs to produce them were dormant.
Addidionally, there was no evidence that Saddam had attempted to restart any of his WMD programs. All in all, a disturbing intelligence failure. We need to get to the bottom of the problem. More specifically:
The administration's culpability in ignoring uncertainties in that intelligence, in failing to ask hard questions and in publicly exaggerating flawed estimates has not been thoroughly examined.
[Bush and Kerry] have staked out dramatically contrasting positions, focusing on a theoretical question: If the president had known what the Iraq Survey Group now reports, would he have been right to order an invasion? Mr. Bush says he would have made the same decision; Mr. Kerry says he would not have. Yet in reality no president could have known what is known now.
Which brings up this [emphasis mine]:
What can't be known is what would have happened had Mr. Bush chosen not to invade. Here the new report suggests some answers. Saddam Hussein, it says, was focused on ending international sanctions, which were crumbling before the crisis began. Had he succeeded, he would have resumed production of chemical weapons and probably a nuclear program as well. Mr. Kerry suggested recently that Saddam Hussein's regime would have collapsed under the inspectors' pressure. That is one possibility; another is that it would have reemerged as a significant power in the Middle East, and as a de facto or real ally of the Islamic extremist forces with which the United States is at war.
Finally, and most importantly [emphasis mine]:
The larger question is how, or even whether, decisions about preemptive war can be made in the absence of unambiguous intelligence. This is not hypothetical: Whoever wins November's election may face a similar dilemma. The case of Iraq has shown that it is possible that the intelligence on which a war decision may be based may later prove to be mostly wrong. Does that mean the president cannot act in such cases? That's a question Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would do well to discuss.
I think this last is by far the most important question in this election. As said above, knowing what we know now was not possible at the outset of the war. So just how good does our intelligence have to be to justify pre-emption? It will never be 100% accurate - I hope nobody expects such. A President must always make decisions with incomplete information.
John Kerry has said that he would vote again to authorize the use of force, a decision which I wholly support. But as the report makes clear, even without large collections of WMD, Saddam was still a potentially significant threat. How justified is pre-emption? The candidates have apparently (I haven't seen the actual statements) made clear their positions on the threat of Iraq without stockpiles. I tend to agree with Bush on this matter: Saddam was so significant a threat as to demand removal, regardless of the actual presence of WMD stockpiles.
So what does that leave of the Bush Administration's assertions regarding those stockpiles before the war? I honestly don't know. The administration response has been so muddled as to be laughable. If I could just hear someone take responsibility - that the intelligence wrong. But then explain just what was said here - that no intelligence will ever be perfect, and we will always have to make decisions based on incomplete information. Just hearing that message, delivered forcefully and unambiguously from the President would make me feel so much better about his administration.
As for John Kerry, I still don't know where I stand. I take some comfort from the fact that he would vote again to authorize the use of force. Then again, he would have given inspections more time to work. Not necessarily the wrong decision, but how much longer? The report seems to say that Saddam wanted to re-start his programs. Would it have been possible to contain him? Once again, it's something we'll never know.
Ugh - I hate it when I can't sleep. It doesn't happen often, but it always aggravates me when it does. I guess I'm not really sure why - I didn't waste too much time lying in bed waiting for sleep to overtake me again. Might as well get up and do something usefulfun.
Kinda listless today. Not really sure why. I guess the debate last night really didn't help. Can't someone stand up and really DESERVE my vote??
I should be more up - it looks like my loan for building the new house has been approved. Gotta fill out a bit of paperwork, get them some bank statements and I'm good to go. Should close within the week, so I hear. I don't know why I'm not more excited - something in the air, I guess.
This debate was so much more interesting than the last (and, I imagine, the ones we are still awaiting). The best line of the night was when Dick Cheney spanked Kerry on his being absent from the Senate:
The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight
In the interest of full disclosure, I don't have any idea whether Cheney's criticism was legitimate or not.
I think Edwards did reasonably well, but I do think Cheney came off as the better V.P., however.
The most important things I learned from this debate:
1) Why can't Cheney be the Republican candidate??
2) To a lesser extent - Why can't Edwards be the Democratic candidate??
Yeah, I find that comment very odd. Is it credible AT ALL that he didn't remember meeting Edwards? If he honestly doesn't remember, he's too senile to be V.P. So I have to assume he's intentionally lying - and the Republican spin on this matter is absolute nonsense.
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt described the prayer breakfast photo as evidence of an "inconsequential meeting."
Yeah, I know. Tax day is April 15th. Not for me. I always file extensions to get it to October 15th. So going to the accountant to get it done. Fun fun fun.
Not that I care, but since George Bush's hometown paper endorsed John Kerry, I thought it was worth noting that John Kerry's paper has endorsed George Bush. I guess this does bring up the question: What do these people, who presumably know the candidates better than we do, know?
Of course then I'm back to my standard opinion of endorsements, celebrity or otherwise: Why would anyone base their voting decisions on what someone else says about who THEY are voting for? Be it John Kerry, George Bush or Tinky Winky (let's start a write-in campaign!!), shouldn't people make up their own damn minds???
If you are one of the millions of people still using Internet Explorer as your browser, PLEASE read this. Not only is IE a massive security threat - due, in part, to its ubiquity - it's an inferior browser. Firefox and Opera (my personal choice), among others, are much more capable browsers. Now, adding insult to injury, Microsoft isn't going to make security updates available to anyone that isn't running the latest versions of the Windows operating system.
Come on, people, the other browsers available - especially the ones mentioned above - are spectacular products in many cases.