Here is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, fielding a question about Rick Santelli's rant.
Translation: "Santelli got to us. He made us mad. He got under our skin. We don't like him. Does someone have a tissue?"
I wonder why the White House bothers with this stuff. So a reporter mocked you. So what? Move on. Nothing can be gained by scrapping with someone that isn't running for anything.
Three weeks ago, Obama made a point of singling out Rush Limbaugh. All it did was increase Limbaugh's stature in the eyes of the Right. For Limbaugh, it was great publicity. He's still on the air, feeling pretty cocky that the President of the United States took time to point him out. For the White House, it was a stupid move. No political gain was made from it. After a week or so it died down to nothing. Why? Newsflash: Limbaugh isn't going anywhere. He can't be defeated in an election. He's a disk jockey.
Today, Gibbs said that Santelli was more or less a doofus that hadn't read the spending bill and added, "I’d be more than happy to have [Santelli] come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf."
Who trained this guy? Now he's turned the ravings of a cable news reporter into an actual issue.
Picking a fight with a reporter has absolutely no upside. It only makes people go to the reporter's webpage to see who he is and what he's saying. Gibbs has opened the door to Santelli using his CNBC microphone to mock him and the president at every turn, rightly thinking that picking a fight with a willing White House makes for great exposure.
Gibbs has been pretty unimpressive so far. Obama should take a long look at him and let him go at the earliest convenience.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Bill Passed, Time To Party
The American people are feeling a great deal of pain, they have uncertainty about their jobs, about health care, about the ability to pay for the education of their children, and sad to say — in our great country — even the ability to put food on the table. - Nancy Pelosi, February 13, 2009, hours before leaving on a trip to Italy.
You have to hand it to politicians for chutzpah. When the auto chiefs showed up in Congress last year and asked for cash, the lawmakers raked them over the coals, berating them for lousy business practices and flying around in private jets. The auto chiefs went home with their tails between their legs, then came back in cars, hoping to make a more humble impression.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. CNN's Drew Griffin is digging into congressional travel expenses. Among others, he's keeping an eye on Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who immediately took off to Italy after voting to spend $787 billion of taxpayer money. She met the Pope, had a visit with the Italian PM, and is generally having a fine old time. And why wouldn't she? The American public is footing the bill.
She's not alone on the jet set. Democrat John Tanner is touring Europe, John Kerry is all over the Middle East, and Democratic Representative John Lewis is touring India with Martin Luther King III. As Drew Griffin pointed out, MLK III sold his father's papers two years ago for millions, but the trip to India is being paid for by you guessed it.
Griffin reports that when he told Lewis' chief of staff that he would come back in a couple of months to examine the trip's expense reports, the chief of staff said, "Is that a threat?"
No, you arrogant hypocrite, it's his job.
Add Drew Griffin to my short list of reporters that haven't been completely engulfed by the J-school Kool-Aid.
You have to hand it to politicians for chutzpah. When the auto chiefs showed up in Congress last year and asked for cash, the lawmakers raked them over the coals, berating them for lousy business practices and flying around in private jets. The auto chiefs went home with their tails between their legs, then came back in cars, hoping to make a more humble impression.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. CNN's Drew Griffin is digging into congressional travel expenses. Among others, he's keeping an eye on Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who immediately took off to Italy after voting to spend $787 billion of taxpayer money. She met the Pope, had a visit with the Italian PM, and is generally having a fine old time. And why wouldn't she? The American public is footing the bill.
She's not alone on the jet set. Democrat John Tanner is touring Europe, John Kerry is all over the Middle East, and Democratic Representative John Lewis is touring India with Martin Luther King III. As Drew Griffin pointed out, MLK III sold his father's papers two years ago for millions, but the trip to India is being paid for by you guessed it.
Griffin reports that when he told Lewis' chief of staff that he would come back in a couple of months to examine the trip's expense reports, the chief of staff said, "Is that a threat?"
No, you arrogant hypocrite, it's his job.
Add Drew Griffin to my short list of reporters that haven't been completely engulfed by the J-school Kool-Aid.
The Chicago Tea Party
CNBC is having some fun with Rick Santelli's declaration that he'll hold a Chicago Tea Party come summer. Here's the video. You can go here to vote on whether or not you'll join in.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Dirty RAT
News about the US spending bill just gets better and better. Bold mine:
DC Examiner: The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.
In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.
As the guys at Hot Air note, what is this doing in an "economic recovery" bill? Seeing as how so many Dems are in hot water over their finances and shady deals, and that the Dems drafted this provision, it reeks.
DC Examiner: The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.
In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.
As the guys at Hot Air note, what is this doing in an "economic recovery" bill? Seeing as how so many Dems are in hot water over their finances and shady deals, and that the Dems drafted this provision, it reeks.
Steyn Wars: Good Luck (II) - The Numbers Game
(Scroll down or go here for a warmer on this post).
I spent some time on the phone with a guy from Statistics Canada. I asked him to look up some numbers for me, vis a vis the rate of violence against women in Canada generally, and Ontario specifically. I told him that a politician (Cheri DiNovo, MPP) said in a speech that 51% of women in Ontario are abused or assaulted. When he got back on the phone he said, "I found numbers quite a bit different from yours."
I figured. Yet he ran into the same problem I did. That is, define abuse or assault, and define whether she meant spousal abuse, or assault by a stranger.
I have to believe she's talking about spousal abuse, because her speech concentrates on women escaping violence in the home. She also states that the houses of Ontario act as a staging ground for "guerrilla warfare." This statement in the speech is also very clear (bold mine): "...here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes."
The problem with statistics is that they're easy to play with. The guy on the phone directed me to a few tables in a report, and told me to be careful: most stats come from surveys with a limited time frame, in this case five years. He said it's possible someone could have morphed a couple of different surveys, or projected the numbers from all of the surveys to make up a "lifetime" number.
Still, he told me that the report was the most detailed the government had and that it was the go-to paper on the subject. His warning to be careful was exactly what I was thinking: if you say someone's wrong, they could use a calculator for five minutes, bend the figures, and call you a liar.
With that in mind, I took a look at what a Statistics Canada official calls the most detailed report on violence against women. Note that they're careful to advise "caution" on virtually all of their graphs and tables.
National surveys for violence against women have only been conducted since 1993. Before that, the government relied on police reports. What the three five-year studies show is that since 1993, violence against women nationwide has been declining (as has violence against men, a subject I can't remember being mentioned by any politician in my lifetime). In the three studies, at no time do 50% of women declare that they have been assaulted in the past five years:
The report struggles to figure out why the numbers are dropping and gives a list, such as increased use of women's services, increased public awareness, increased treatment for violent men, so forth. Never mentioned is this: maybe less men are hitting women.
Now let's look at DiNovo's main theme: violence against women in Ontario. DiNovo: "51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean?"
That means someone like me is going to pick up the phone to see if that's correct. Note she's talking in the present tense: 51% of the population are abused and assaulted.
The facts don't back her up:
According to Statistics Canada in the 1999 and 2004 reports, 7% of women reported being assaulted by their spouse. [I misread this graph earlier as representing 1999 through 2004. Note that it's two different reports covering ten years, but neither goes anywhere near 50%]. More numbers from the same period (click to enlarge):
The estimated number of violent incidents against women in Ontario from 1999 to 2004 was 227,000. For men, it was 215,000. Of those, the most prevalent form of violence against women is that their spouse pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. Men were more likely to be slapped or have something thrown at them. Both sexes reported an equal amount of being hit with something (23%).
These aren't happy number. Even though spousal violence is in decline, it's not good that 400,000 people reported being assaulted by their spouse. But there is no way that a politician can take these numbers and declare that half of the households in Ontario are battlefields. Further to that, it's insulting to men to imply that violence in the home only occurs against women, and that men are responsible for making Ontario resemble Darfur.
It's impossible to go through the entire report and write a blog about every detail. No point. The numbers are there. I can also see how the numbers and graphs in this report could be shaped and massaged to say anything someone wants. But guerrilla warfare? Not in Ontario. DiNovo seems to be going with the old gossip-rag saw: "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
You can find the Statistics Canada report here. PDF format.
I spent some time on the phone with a guy from Statistics Canada. I asked him to look up some numbers for me, vis a vis the rate of violence against women in Canada generally, and Ontario specifically. I told him that a politician (Cheri DiNovo, MPP) said in a speech that 51% of women in Ontario are abused or assaulted. When he got back on the phone he said, "I found numbers quite a bit different from yours."
I figured. Yet he ran into the same problem I did. That is, define abuse or assault, and define whether she meant spousal abuse, or assault by a stranger.
I have to believe she's talking about spousal abuse, because her speech concentrates on women escaping violence in the home. She also states that the houses of Ontario act as a staging ground for "guerrilla warfare." This statement in the speech is also very clear (bold mine): "...here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes."
The problem with statistics is that they're easy to play with. The guy on the phone directed me to a few tables in a report, and told me to be careful: most stats come from surveys with a limited time frame, in this case five years. He said it's possible someone could have morphed a couple of different surveys, or projected the numbers from all of the surveys to make up a "lifetime" number.
Still, he told me that the report was the most detailed the government had and that it was the go-to paper on the subject. His warning to be careful was exactly what I was thinking: if you say someone's wrong, they could use a calculator for five minutes, bend the figures, and call you a liar.
With that in mind, I took a look at what a Statistics Canada official calls the most detailed report on violence against women. Note that they're careful to advise "caution" on virtually all of their graphs and tables.
National surveys for violence against women have only been conducted since 1993. Before that, the government relied on police reports. What the three five-year studies show is that since 1993, violence against women nationwide has been declining (as has violence against men, a subject I can't remember being mentioned by any politician in my lifetime). In the three studies, at no time do 50% of women declare that they have been assaulted in the past five years:
The report struggles to figure out why the numbers are dropping and gives a list, such as increased use of women's services, increased public awareness, increased treatment for violent men, so forth. Never mentioned is this: maybe less men are hitting women.
Now let's look at DiNovo's main theme: violence against women in Ontario. DiNovo: "51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean?"
That means someone like me is going to pick up the phone to see if that's correct. Note she's talking in the present tense: 51% of the population are abused and assaulted.
The facts don't back her up:
According to Statistics Canada in the 1999 and 2004 reports, 7% of women reported being assaulted by their spouse. [I misread this graph earlier as representing 1999 through 2004. Note that it's two different reports covering ten years, but neither goes anywhere near 50%]. More numbers from the same period (click to enlarge):
The estimated number of violent incidents against women in Ontario from 1999 to 2004 was 227,000. For men, it was 215,000. Of those, the most prevalent form of violence against women is that their spouse pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. Men were more likely to be slapped or have something thrown at them. Both sexes reported an equal amount of being hit with something (23%).
These aren't happy number. Even though spousal violence is in decline, it's not good that 400,000 people reported being assaulted by their spouse. But there is no way that a politician can take these numbers and declare that half of the households in Ontario are battlefields. Further to that, it's insulting to men to imply that violence in the home only occurs against women, and that men are responsible for making Ontario resemble Darfur.
It's impossible to go through the entire report and write a blog about every detail. No point. The numbers are there. I can also see how the numbers and graphs in this report could be shaped and massaged to say anything someone wants. But guerrilla warfare? Not in Ontario. DiNovo seems to be going with the old gossip-rag saw: "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
You can find the Statistics Canada report here. PDF format.
Steyn Wars: Good Luck - Updated
I stopped by Mark Steyn's site for my weekly roll through the Canadian political BS. I'm amazed he's still interested in the Canadian human rights stuff. Maybe it's his therapy to get away from US politics and demography rants.
Steyn linked to a paper that had a note from Cheri DiNovo. She's an Ontario MPP and was one of the people tossing questions at him last week. Here's her statement to Eye Weekly: "You see I am absolutely in favour of right-wing bigots having freedom of speech. Their opponents deserve the same rights."
No mention of left-wing bigots. They don't exist. There's only right-wing bigots and the people protecting us from their evil ways.
I decided to look up her webpage and found a blog. On it, there's a transcript from a speech she gave on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
I think it's fair to say that Ms. DiNovo has a fairly heavy political agenda, and a massive axe to grind against anyone and anything that isn't far left. Here's the first part of the speech. Sorry it goes on for a bit, but I want you to see the logic at work here:
The statistics are awe-inspiring. They’re horrendous. They’re absolutely an assault on the senses. These are the statistics: 51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean? That means, for those viewing at home and watching this discussion, when they look at their daughters, if they have two daughters, that one of those little girls is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means that, if you look at your mother and your grandmother, one of those women is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means, as you look around this assembly, that 50% of the members of provincial Parliament who are women have been abused or assaulted at some point in their lifetime. So the question is, are we doing enough? The answer is always, absolutely not.How are we failing women in this province? That is the question before us, because we are failing women in this province. How are we failing them? Let me list the ways. First and foremost, there isn’t any daycare. Only one in 10 families can find daycare. Now you ask, how does that contribute to violence against women? Well, it’s very simple: If a woman can’t find adequate daycare, she can’t escape an abusive relationship. If she can’t find an adequate place to stay-transition housing, a shelter; and there are not enough beds in shelters and there’s not enough transition housing for women escaping abuse-then she can’t escape abuse. Then this province condemns her to that abuse.
We can look at the Congo, we can look at Darfur, we can look at the horrors of the world; here, it’s more guerrilla warfare; here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes...
It goes on in the same vein for the rest of the speech, wrapping up with a statement about how there's nothing to celebrate in Ontario because "51% of the population [I'm guessing she means the population of women] will be abused or assaulted."
I could never be in politics. How do you keep your mouth shut while someone declares that half of the households in Ontario are as bad as Darfur?
Besides, do those numbers sound right? I'm up late and don't feel like looking them up, but those numbers seem pretty steep. If your mother isn't beaten, your grandma surely was? Can she be right that half of the women in the province have been abused? Damn. I just opened the door, didn't I? "It depends what you mean by abuse. Lack of daycare is abuse. Unequal pay is abuse. Sexist language is abuse..." I can hear it already.
I've got a funny feeling that no matter what Steyn said at that hearing, he wasn't going to change this politician's mind about anything. As for his sweating about the logic of the "fire in a crowded theatre" stuff, he needn't bother. It's pretty plain that logic has nothing to do with it.
If DiNovo is an example of the politicians that the free speech crowd will have to go through to get the human rights commission brought to heel, I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.
Update: I had a cup of coffee and called Statistics Canada this morning. For a closer look at the numbers, go here.
Steyn linked to a paper that had a note from Cheri DiNovo. She's an Ontario MPP and was one of the people tossing questions at him last week. Here's her statement to Eye Weekly: "You see I am absolutely in favour of right-wing bigots having freedom of speech. Their opponents deserve the same rights."
No mention of left-wing bigots. They don't exist. There's only right-wing bigots and the people protecting us from their evil ways.
I decided to look up her webpage and found a blog. On it, there's a transcript from a speech she gave on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
I think it's fair to say that Ms. DiNovo has a fairly heavy political agenda, and a massive axe to grind against anyone and anything that isn't far left. Here's the first part of the speech. Sorry it goes on for a bit, but I want you to see the logic at work here:
The statistics are awe-inspiring. They’re horrendous. They’re absolutely an assault on the senses. These are the statistics: 51% of our population are abused or assaulted; one in every two women in Ontario experiences abuse or assault. What does that mean? That means, for those viewing at home and watching this discussion, when they look at their daughters, if they have two daughters, that one of those little girls is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means that, if you look at your mother and your grandmother, one of those women is going to be abused or assaulted in her lifetime. That means, as you look around this assembly, that 50% of the members of provincial Parliament who are women have been abused or assaulted at some point in their lifetime. So the question is, are we doing enough? The answer is always, absolutely not.How are we failing women in this province? That is the question before us, because we are failing women in this province. How are we failing them? Let me list the ways. First and foremost, there isn’t any daycare. Only one in 10 families can find daycare. Now you ask, how does that contribute to violence against women? Well, it’s very simple: If a woman can’t find adequate daycare, she can’t escape an abusive relationship. If she can’t find an adequate place to stay-transition housing, a shelter; and there are not enough beds in shelters and there’s not enough transition housing for women escaping abuse-then she can’t escape abuse. Then this province condemns her to that abuse.
We can look at the Congo, we can look at Darfur, we can look at the horrors of the world; here, it’s more guerrilla warfare; here it’s one man against one woman in the quiet of their own home where no one else can see it, away from prying eyes...
It goes on in the same vein for the rest of the speech, wrapping up with a statement about how there's nothing to celebrate in Ontario because "51% of the population [I'm guessing she means the population of women] will be abused or assaulted."
I could never be in politics. How do you keep your mouth shut while someone declares that half of the households in Ontario are as bad as Darfur?
Besides, do those numbers sound right? I'm up late and don't feel like looking them up, but those numbers seem pretty steep. If your mother isn't beaten, your grandma surely was? Can she be right that half of the women in the province have been abused? Damn. I just opened the door, didn't I? "It depends what you mean by abuse. Lack of daycare is abuse. Unequal pay is abuse. Sexist language is abuse..." I can hear it already.
I've got a funny feeling that no matter what Steyn said at that hearing, he wasn't going to change this politician's mind about anything. As for his sweating about the logic of the "fire in a crowded theatre" stuff, he needn't bother. It's pretty plain that logic has nothing to do with it.
If DiNovo is an example of the politicians that the free speech crowd will have to go through to get the human rights commission brought to heel, I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.
Update: I had a cup of coffee and called Statistics Canada this morning. For a closer look at the numbers, go here.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The "Intellectual" Lie
Maybe I'm getting better at reading the tea leaves of politics and language. It's been a hobby of mine for a long time, watching how they influence each other.
Yesterday I wrote a quick The Bus Arrives blog, and said I was throwing the word "intellectual" into the path of the next Greyhound. It's a silly word, conjured up by people who think they've cornered the market on human "intellect." They are the elite. The bright. The smart. The thoughtful. They dress their ideals up in prom dresses of language, then dazzle us with their beauty.
Today I saw an article called Conservatism and the Intellectual. It's a two-page piece that worries itself to death over what an intellectual is, and why the Left is more comfortable in the role of intellectual.
Waste of time. For the record: there are no intellectuals. Absolutely none. Zero. There has never been an intellectual on this planet, and there never will be. "Intellectual" is not a role you can achieve for yourself, nor is it a title you can apply to others.
There are only people. If they say things you agree with, throw in the odd bit of Latin, quote Montaigne, have only been wounded by household appliances, and cross their legs knee-over-knee, you call them intellectuals. If they say things you don't agree with, you call them an idiots. End of story.
"A great man you say? I always see only the actor of his own ideal."
That's me quoting Nietzsche. I even think I understand it. In fact, I think it sums up every "intellectual" on the block. It's no Montaigne, but can I play, too?
Yesterday I wrote a quick The Bus Arrives blog, and said I was throwing the word "intellectual" into the path of the next Greyhound. It's a silly word, conjured up by people who think they've cornered the market on human "intellect." They are the elite. The bright. The smart. The thoughtful. They dress their ideals up in prom dresses of language, then dazzle us with their beauty.
Today I saw an article called Conservatism and the Intellectual. It's a two-page piece that worries itself to death over what an intellectual is, and why the Left is more comfortable in the role of intellectual.
Waste of time. For the record: there are no intellectuals. Absolutely none. Zero. There has never been an intellectual on this planet, and there never will be. "Intellectual" is not a role you can achieve for yourself, nor is it a title you can apply to others.
There are only people. If they say things you agree with, throw in the odd bit of Latin, quote Montaigne, have only been wounded by household appliances, and cross their legs knee-over-knee, you call them intellectuals. If they say things you don't agree with, you call them an idiots. End of story.
"A great man you say? I always see only the actor of his own ideal."
That's me quoting Nietzsche. I even think I understand it. In fact, I think it sums up every "intellectual" on the block. It's no Montaigne, but can I play, too?
The Bus Arrives - Michel Therrien
What was the line from Goodfellas? "See, your murderers come with smiles...And they always seem to come at a time that you're at your weakest and most in need of their help."Or, as Pittsburgh Penguins head coach Michel Therrien put it: "I never saw it coming."
I'll bet. Last June he was two wins away from a Stanley Cup. Eight months later, he's unemployed.
After Saturday's 6-2 loss to the Maple Leafs, Therrien had this to say: "It’s up to the players...There’s a price to pay to win games on the road and right now we’re having a hard time staying focused and executing.”
The price ended up being his own execution as head coach. For a team struggling to make the playoffs it was the same old-same old: somebody had to go under the bus, and it wasn't going to be a high priced player.
Sports is as unforgiving as it gets, and job security is zero. We'll see if the Penguins take anything away from this, though they lost their first game without Therrien on Monday.
A Barack Obama Film
After looking at Friday the 13's box office haul of $43 million (THR has it as $45.2 million) I checked out how the rest of the weekend movies fared. Pretty well:
THR: Collectively, the Presidents Day weekend registered a whopping $224 million in a record performance that surpassed last year's holiday haul by 34% and 2007's then-record tally by 19%, according to Nielsen EDI.
Yes, that economy. Quite a catastrophe. It's so bad that the American people dropped a quarter of a billion dollars on movies in 4 days. Note to Obama: need a stimulus plan? Do something useful and produce a Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
Think I'm crazy? Think about it: the president has a ton of Hollywood friends. Remember that dumb pledge video where all of the stars said they'd do his bidding? Time for those sanctimonious goofballs to put up. They'll work cheap. Imagine the screenwriters and directors who will be begging for a pitch meeting in the Oval Office. He'll have the pick of the best talent around. He can put "Produced by Barack Obama" on the movie posters. People will flip out. The lines will be huge. Every Obama zealot will go to see the thing, and the press will give it a load of free advertising. He is virtually guaranteed a nice profit, if not an outright blockbuster, and an Oscar is in the bag. He'll even be able to smoke in public, using one of those long cigarette holders like the old-time directors used to sport.
"A Barack Obama Film." That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like a cash register. The Chrysler bailout will be chump change, and anytime there's a scandal his press secretary can say, "The president's in his trailer," until it blows over.
If he puts his mind to it, he can do it. Yes, he can.
THR: Collectively, the Presidents Day weekend registered a whopping $224 million in a record performance that surpassed last year's holiday haul by 34% and 2007's then-record tally by 19%, according to Nielsen EDI.
Yes, that economy. Quite a catastrophe. It's so bad that the American people dropped a quarter of a billion dollars on movies in 4 days. Note to Obama: need a stimulus plan? Do something useful and produce a Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
Think I'm crazy? Think about it: the president has a ton of Hollywood friends. Remember that dumb pledge video where all of the stars said they'd do his bidding? Time for those sanctimonious goofballs to put up. They'll work cheap. Imagine the screenwriters and directors who will be begging for a pitch meeting in the Oval Office. He'll have the pick of the best talent around. He can put "Produced by Barack Obama" on the movie posters. People will flip out. The lines will be huge. Every Obama zealot will go to see the thing, and the press will give it a load of free advertising. He is virtually guaranteed a nice profit, if not an outright blockbuster, and an Oscar is in the bag. He'll even be able to smoke in public, using one of those long cigarette holders like the old-time directors used to sport.
"A Barack Obama Film." That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like a cash register. The Chrysler bailout will be chump change, and anytime there's a scandal his press secretary can say, "The president's in his trailer," until it blows over.
If he puts his mind to it, he can do it. Yes, he can.
Friday the 13th - Do I Have To?
I wrote in the Dark Knight review that weekend grosses don't mean anything as far as how good a movie really is. Take Friday the 13th: the critics flushed it down the toilet, but it grossed over $43,000,000 last weekend, proving once again that audiences couldn't care less what critics think. $43 million? Those are "it's a hit" numbers by any stretch, especially for a run-of-the-mill slasher flick.In one weekend Friday the 13th has outgrossed The Reader and Milk combined, both of which have been in theaters for months are up for Best Picture. That has to be absolutely demoralizing for artsy film producers, doesn't it? Yet they should learn their lesson: if times truly are tough, don't give people heavy handed films that leave them feeling like hell. Who wants to see that when they can get bad news for free on CNN? Give audiences mindless entertainment and they'll be happy to hand you their money.
You know Friday the 13th has to be awful. You just know it. But then, people are seeing it, and you get that itch to see it for yourself to find out just how awful it is. You start talking to yourself: "Well, it's a slasher flick set on a lake. So maybe there's a few bikini babes. That wouldn't be so bad. And hey, maybe the special effects are cool. The budget sure didn't go on actors, so it had to go somewhere, right?"
So...it's February. There's nothing else to see. Won't be for at least another two months.
Do I have to?
Photo: Rotten Tomatoes
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Bus Arrives - "Intellectual"
I just read a blog where someone described someone else as "intellectually honest."I have decided that the word "intellectual" is probably my least favorite word in the language, and I will do my best never to use it again.
The word sounds bogus, and drips with condescension. What is an "intellectual," anyway? Someone who reads books all day? Picks their toenails while pondering life? Some jackass university professor? And where do they get their "intellectual" certificate?
I'm reminded of the time I was on the phone with an actress. She wanted to delve deep into some script treatment I'd written. She said, "I need to really examine this because I am an intellectual." It took all of me not to scream with laughter and hang up the phone.
"Intellectual" is going under the bus.
All The Leaves Are Brown...
...in California? Figuratively, at least:
Bloomberg: Senate President Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, plans to lock lawmakers in the capitol unless they pass a $40 billion package of tax increases, spending cuts and bond sales today. The bills, backed by the Republican governor and by Democrats, remain one Republican vote short.
“We are dealing with a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions,” said Senator Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach. “We cannot deny it any longer.”
California, a state that would rank as the world’s eighth largest economy, is close to running out of cash because its tax collections have fallen amid the U.S. recession. It has already stopped paying income tax refunds and next month may be forced to pay bills with IOUs for the second time since the Great Depression unless a new budget is agreed.
The budget proposal would raise the state sales-tax rate to 8.25 percent from 7.25 percent; boost vehicle license fees to 1.15 percent from 0.65 percent of the value of an automobile; add 12 cents to the per-gallon gasoline tax; reduce the dependant-care tax credit to $100 from $300 and impose a surcharge on income taxes of up to 5 percent.
Democrats screaming to raise taxes? Nothing new. But screaming to cut spending, too? Things must be pretty serious. Still, it's the tax hike that the Democrats are really after. Only they could be sage enough to say, "Consumer spending is down? Damnit! We'd better make things more expensive."
I don't know about you, but short of winning the lottery, spending cuts seems to be the only way to get your financial life back on track fast.
This morning I looked at my phone bill and was stunned. My old phone plan just wasn't cutting it. In the space of two months, my bill doubled because business was better and I was receiving more phone calls and emails. My phone bill was now higher than my car insurance. Something about that didn't sound right, so I called the phone company. The guy on the other end said, "Yeah, you're spending a lot more money. More phone calls, more emails. You're exceeding your plan."
There's two ways I could have looked at that. I could have said, "No big deal. I'll charge my clients a bit more, say, an extra five dollars an hour. Shouldn't hurt them too badly." Or I could have said, "I need to get this spending down."
I went with the latter and the guy gave me a new plan. Win some, lose some: I get unlimited email and incoming calls, but it shortens me up on my outgoing minutes. Problem? Perhaps, unless I remind myself to reach across the desk and use the land line for every outgoing call while I'm in the house, and don't make any calls outside the house when a text will do the trick.
I don't think the economy is so difficult. Hand the budget to three single working moms, a bait shop owner, a trucker, plus an accountant to help with the software, and I bet they'll have the budget balanced in no time. You may not like their results, but they'll get you off the schneid. They couldn't possibly do a worse job than the politicians and economists are doing now.
William F. Buckley had some kind of line that said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard."
Quite, though I wouldn't pick Boston. Never liked the Red Sox.
Bloomberg: Senate President Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, plans to lock lawmakers in the capitol unless they pass a $40 billion package of tax increases, spending cuts and bond sales today. The bills, backed by the Republican governor and by Democrats, remain one Republican vote short.
“We are dealing with a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions,” said Senator Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach. “We cannot deny it any longer.”
California, a state that would rank as the world’s eighth largest economy, is close to running out of cash because its tax collections have fallen amid the U.S. recession. It has already stopped paying income tax refunds and next month may be forced to pay bills with IOUs for the second time since the Great Depression unless a new budget is agreed.
The budget proposal would raise the state sales-tax rate to 8.25 percent from 7.25 percent; boost vehicle license fees to 1.15 percent from 0.65 percent of the value of an automobile; add 12 cents to the per-gallon gasoline tax; reduce the dependant-care tax credit to $100 from $300 and impose a surcharge on income taxes of up to 5 percent.
Democrats screaming to raise taxes? Nothing new. But screaming to cut spending, too? Things must be pretty serious. Still, it's the tax hike that the Democrats are really after. Only they could be sage enough to say, "Consumer spending is down? Damnit! We'd better make things more expensive."
I don't know about you, but short of winning the lottery, spending cuts seems to be the only way to get your financial life back on track fast.
This morning I looked at my phone bill and was stunned. My old phone plan just wasn't cutting it. In the space of two months, my bill doubled because business was better and I was receiving more phone calls and emails. My phone bill was now higher than my car insurance. Something about that didn't sound right, so I called the phone company. The guy on the other end said, "Yeah, you're spending a lot more money. More phone calls, more emails. You're exceeding your plan."
There's two ways I could have looked at that. I could have said, "No big deal. I'll charge my clients a bit more, say, an extra five dollars an hour. Shouldn't hurt them too badly." Or I could have said, "I need to get this spending down."
I went with the latter and the guy gave me a new plan. Win some, lose some: I get unlimited email and incoming calls, but it shortens me up on my outgoing minutes. Problem? Perhaps, unless I remind myself to reach across the desk and use the land line for every outgoing call while I'm in the house, and don't make any calls outside the house when a text will do the trick.
I don't think the economy is so difficult. Hand the budget to three single working moms, a bait shop owner, a trucker, plus an accountant to help with the software, and I bet they'll have the budget balanced in no time. You may not like their results, but they'll get you off the schneid. They couldn't possibly do a worse job than the politicians and economists are doing now.
William F. Buckley had some kind of line that said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard."
Quite, though I wouldn't pick Boston. Never liked the Red Sox.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Congrats, Mr. President-For-Life
Depressing:The United States Tuesday welcomed Venezuela's "civic" referendum lifting term limits for the president and all politicians, but urged support for democracy and tolerance in the country.
"We congratulate the civic and participatory spirit of the millions of Venezuelans who exercized their democratic right to vote," State Department spokesman Noel Clay told AFP.
Venezuelans on Sunday voted 54 percent in favor of constitutional reform sought by President Hugo Chavez to run for unlimited reelection, in his bid to consolidate his brand of socialism critics compare to Cuba's communism.
This is the same guy that said the US is a terrorist state and called Bush the devil. Now the State Department gives a hat tip to his lifetime power grab.
Maybe I'm alone, but I don't always think it's only important that someone voted, but sometimes what and whom they voted for.
Inglourious Basterds - Preview
Quentin Tarantino and a war movie? Sounds like fun to me. Whether or not you agree with his Peckinpah point-of-view, at least the man says something and stirs the pot (I'll save my other argument until later, but leave you with a question for now: When, exactly, do you think a 'gutsy' filmmaker will make a movie about relentlessly punishing Islamic jihadists and Al Queda terrorists? Just wondering...)
Anyway, it's good to see him get back to his roots, leaving the cheese of Death Proof behind.
If the Germans had a problem with Valkyrie, wait until they get a load of this.
Let the debates begin...
Anyway, it's good to see him get back to his roots, leaving the cheese of Death Proof behind.
If the Germans had a problem with Valkyrie, wait until they get a load of this.
Let the debates begin...
Oh, The Humanity
Ever since Peggy Noonan's on-air goof up about Sarah Palin's VP candidacy, I haven't been able to take her seriously (you may remember that she supported McCain's pick while the cameras were rolling, then, when she thought the mics were off, she declared Palin's appointment "bullshit.")
I used to like reading Noonan, even though her flowery prose was often hard to stomach. After the Palin lie, however, I just see her as a hack that tries too hard.
This piece of Peggy's from the Wall Street Journal should prove my point:
This is New York five months into hard times.
One senses it, for the first time: a shift in energy. Something new has taken hold, a new air of peace, perhaps, or tentativeness. The old hustle and bustle, the wild and daily assertion of dynamism, is calmed.
And now Washington becomes the financial capital of the country, of the world. Oh, what a status shift. Oh, what a fact.
Oh, what bullshit.
I used to like reading Noonan, even though her flowery prose was often hard to stomach. After the Palin lie, however, I just see her as a hack that tries too hard.
This piece of Peggy's from the Wall Street Journal should prove my point:
This is New York five months into hard times.
One senses it, for the first time: a shift in energy. Something new has taken hold, a new air of peace, perhaps, or tentativeness. The old hustle and bustle, the wild and daily assertion of dynamism, is calmed.
And now Washington becomes the financial capital of the country, of the world. Oh, what a status shift. Oh, what a fact.
Oh, what bullshit.
Coughlin Retiring From Family
The Onion's been on a pretty good roll lately, and this one deserves a link. It's the best sports satire I've seen in years.
Best line:
"Do you think he's making the right call by stepping down from his family at this point?"
"Look, Coughlin has spent 41 years with his family."
"That's a pretty good run."
Best line:
"Do you think he's making the right call by stepping down from his family at this point?"
"Look, Coughlin has spent 41 years with his family."
"That's a pretty good run."
Despondex to the Rescue
I could probably line up fifty people that need this drug.
Best line: "Doctors estimate the new drug could cut down on the number of costume or theme parties in the US by up to 40 percent."
Best lower-third: "Drug was tested on hundreds of realtors, kindergarten teachers."
Best line: "Doctors estimate the new drug could cut down on the number of costume or theme parties in the US by up to 40 percent."
Best lower-third: "Drug was tested on hundreds of realtors, kindergarten teachers."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Hey, Friend, Spare A Billion?
For the US, one troubling aspect of the $787 billion spending bill is that it sets a very high bar. Any number below that suddenly becomes peanuts.
Hot on the heels of Congress passing a 1000+ page bill without even reading it comes this news:
Mr. Obama plans to unveil his housing plan during a visit to Phoenix. As part of his swing through western states, he is set to stop in Denver Tuesday, when he will sign the $787 billion economic-stimulus plan just passed by Congress.
Mr. Axelrod provided few details of the housing plan, but said a government investment of $50 billion to $100 billion to fund foreclosure prevention "is obviously a necessary part." He promised that the plan would contain "a lot of aspects."
You know money has become confetti when people can demand $787 billion one week, then say they'll need $50 to $100 billion the week after, all while keeping a straight face.
Let's use Berry's Common Sense Economics for a second. Say a friend comes up and says, "Hey, can you lend me some money?" And you ask, "Sure, what do you need?" And he says, "$50 to $100."
At that moment, you might reach for your wallet. Then again, you might say, "Well, which is it? Fifty or a hundred?" If he says he isn't sure, you might just hand him the hundred and call it quits.
Now let's say he says this instead: "Hey, man. Can you lend me $500 or $1000?"
Whoa. Now you must be thinking that an answer to "Which is it?" is pretty important. When he says he isn't sure, you hem and haw, and finally give him $750 to split the difference. You're not happy about it, but he's your buddy, so what the hell.
But what if he'd said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $5000 to $10,000?" Suddenly the difference between those two numbers is very important. When you ask him what it's for and he says a new car, you might say something like, "Well, it's a lot of money, dude. I'll give you five and you'll have to make it work out with a used Honda."
Now let's say your friend had said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $50,000 to $100,000?"
The first thing you'd say is no, and ask him if he's been using crack. But let's say you want to find out what it's for and he says, "I need to buy a house." Even if you were rich, I'm willing to bet you'd say, "Well, buy the cheaper house. I'll give you fifty, but no way am I giving you the hundred. I want a contract, with a deadline. I'm going to have to put interest on it and, if you can't pay it back, I'm going to take your car and maybe your kids, too." If you aren't rich, you'd simply tell your friend to take a hike.
Now let's say your government asks, "Listen, I need $50 billion to $100 billion."
And you say...what?
As far as I can tell, nobody in the US would say anything. Last week's "stimulus" mess proved that the government can ask for whatever it wants, and nobody's going to do squat. Hell, the government's not even asking: they're taking. And nobody's marching on Washington to say, "What a second. I wouldn't give my best friend a thousand bucks without asking when I'll get it back. And you want how much?"
Though I'm just a regular dummy, I crunched a few numbers for the heck of it: using 2005 numbers, roughly 134 million people filed returns in the US. Of those, roughly 100 million paid taxes. Now let's take the $50 to $100 billion. We'll throw out the fifty because it's the government, and there's no way they'll go lowball. So:
$100 billion (which is a thousand million for each billion, in case you forgot) divided by 100 million taxpayers = $1000. Poof.
And the $787 billion from the Obama spending bill, divided by 100 million = $7870. Poof.
Then there's the $700 billion bailout plan from last year, divided by 100 million, which equals another $7000. Poof.
These figures are wonky because high earners pay way more in taxes than low earners, but that doesn't diminish the total costs. If we pretend that every taxpayer is "all in this together" to spend their way out of the economic doldrums, then their government has so far spent $14,870 for each of them in the past five months. If Axelrod is right, they will be charged another $1000 on Wednesday when Obama unveils his housing plan. Seeing as Mr. Obama has said that this is merely the beginning, that figure is sure to grow.
It's funny that no one finds this as creepy as having a friend show up asking to pick your pocket. It really is a study in psychology: a friend asks for a thousand bucks and you don't trust him anymore; a stranger blows 15 grand of your cash without asking and you don't say a word.
Perhaps a return to the Middle Ages is in order, where a tax collector can show up at the door and say, "I need $1000." And when you ask what it's for, he says, "Well, among other important things, the National Endowment for the Arts is receiving $50 million to help the economy recover."
"But I don't like independent movies," you say.
"Well, they do sculptures and stuff, too. Great paintings for the kids. Very important."
"No, thanks."
"It's not a request."
"But I don't want to pay for sculptures. Who decided this, anyway?"
"Your representatives. Your friends. You picked them."
"Who?"
"The guy in the big house, and the bunch of people in the other big house."
"Maybe, but I didn't know--"
"You're under arrest."
Maybe it will start to sink in. Eventually.
Hot on the heels of Congress passing a 1000+ page bill without even reading it comes this news:
Mr. Obama plans to unveil his housing plan during a visit to Phoenix. As part of his swing through western states, he is set to stop in Denver Tuesday, when he will sign the $787 billion economic-stimulus plan just passed by Congress.
Mr. Axelrod provided few details of the housing plan, but said a government investment of $50 billion to $100 billion to fund foreclosure prevention "is obviously a necessary part." He promised that the plan would contain "a lot of aspects."
You know money has become confetti when people can demand $787 billion one week, then say they'll need $50 to $100 billion the week after, all while keeping a straight face.
Let's use Berry's Common Sense Economics for a second. Say a friend comes up and says, "Hey, can you lend me some money?" And you ask, "Sure, what do you need?" And he says, "$50 to $100."
At that moment, you might reach for your wallet. Then again, you might say, "Well, which is it? Fifty or a hundred?" If he says he isn't sure, you might just hand him the hundred and call it quits.
Now let's say he says this instead: "Hey, man. Can you lend me $500 or $1000?"
Whoa. Now you must be thinking that an answer to "Which is it?" is pretty important. When he says he isn't sure, you hem and haw, and finally give him $750 to split the difference. You're not happy about it, but he's your buddy, so what the hell.
But what if he'd said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $5000 to $10,000?" Suddenly the difference between those two numbers is very important. When you ask him what it's for and he says a new car, you might say something like, "Well, it's a lot of money, dude. I'll give you five and you'll have to make it work out with a used Honda."
Now let's say your friend had said, "Hey, man. Can you lend me $50,000 to $100,000?"
The first thing you'd say is no, and ask him if he's been using crack. But let's say you want to find out what it's for and he says, "I need to buy a house." Even if you were rich, I'm willing to bet you'd say, "Well, buy the cheaper house. I'll give you fifty, but no way am I giving you the hundred. I want a contract, with a deadline. I'm going to have to put interest on it and, if you can't pay it back, I'm going to take your car and maybe your kids, too." If you aren't rich, you'd simply tell your friend to take a hike.
Now let's say your government asks, "Listen, I need $50 billion to $100 billion."
And you say...what?
As far as I can tell, nobody in the US would say anything. Last week's "stimulus" mess proved that the government can ask for whatever it wants, and nobody's going to do squat. Hell, the government's not even asking: they're taking. And nobody's marching on Washington to say, "What a second. I wouldn't give my best friend a thousand bucks without asking when I'll get it back. And you want how much?"
Though I'm just a regular dummy, I crunched a few numbers for the heck of it: using 2005 numbers, roughly 134 million people filed returns in the US. Of those, roughly 100 million paid taxes. Now let's take the $50 to $100 billion. We'll throw out the fifty because it's the government, and there's no way they'll go lowball. So:
$100 billion (which is a thousand million for each billion, in case you forgot) divided by 100 million taxpayers = $1000. Poof.
And the $787 billion from the Obama spending bill, divided by 100 million = $7870. Poof.
Then there's the $700 billion bailout plan from last year, divided by 100 million, which equals another $7000. Poof.
These figures are wonky because high earners pay way more in taxes than low earners, but that doesn't diminish the total costs. If we pretend that every taxpayer is "all in this together" to spend their way out of the economic doldrums, then their government has so far spent $14,870 for each of them in the past five months. If Axelrod is right, they will be charged another $1000 on Wednesday when Obama unveils his housing plan. Seeing as Mr. Obama has said that this is merely the beginning, that figure is sure to grow.
It's funny that no one finds this as creepy as having a friend show up asking to pick your pocket. It really is a study in psychology: a friend asks for a thousand bucks and you don't trust him anymore; a stranger blows 15 grand of your cash without asking and you don't say a word.
Perhaps a return to the Middle Ages is in order, where a tax collector can show up at the door and say, "I need $1000." And when you ask what it's for, he says, "Well, among other important things, the National Endowment for the Arts is receiving $50 million to help the economy recover."
"But I don't like independent movies," you say.
"Well, they do sculptures and stuff, too. Great paintings for the kids. Very important."
"No, thanks."
"It's not a request."
"But I don't want to pay for sculptures. Who decided this, anyway?"
"Your representatives. Your friends. You picked them."
"Who?"
"The guy in the big house, and the bunch of people in the other big house."
"Maybe, but I didn't know--"
"You're under arrest."
Maybe it will start to sink in. Eventually.
Billy Mays Here...
I watch a lot a late night TV and usually run into Billy Mays somewhere after the sports highlights and before Conan. He also haunts the airwaves during the football season when the other networks have nothing to show but informericials.
He dresses in a blue shirt, and his pitch always starts out the same way: "Hi, Billy Mays here for [name a household product]." Then he spends the next twenty minutes YELLING AT YOU ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THE PRODUCT IS.
The pitches are a crack up in the first place, but this parody is a beauty (language advisory):
Alternate Mighty Putty Commercial - Watch more Funny Videos
He dresses in a blue shirt, and his pitch always starts out the same way: "Hi, Billy Mays here for [name a household product]." Then he spends the next twenty minutes YELLING AT YOU ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THE PRODUCT IS.
The pitches are a crack up in the first place, but this parody is a beauty (language advisory):
Alternate Mighty Putty Commercial - Watch more Funny Videos
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Valentine's Day
Here's a re-run of what I had to say about Valentine's Day a while back.
I've never been a fan of people that sit around and trash holidays. There's always some guy sitting in the corner of a Christmas party that says, "Christmas is materialistic crap." These types are looking to have an impact, which they do. They make everyone looking for the rum punch tell their friends to avoid the loser in the corner.
Valentine's Day is no different. People that don't have a hope in hell of getting laid hate Valentine's Day. But hatred isn't enough. You need a reason to hate something. It's simply less humiliating to say that you hate Valentine's Day because it's too commercial, as opposed to saying that you dislike it because you can't score at the office bender.
More...
I've never been a fan of people that sit around and trash holidays. There's always some guy sitting in the corner of a Christmas party that says, "Christmas is materialistic crap." These types are looking to have an impact, which they do. They make everyone looking for the rum punch tell their friends to avoid the loser in the corner.
Valentine's Day is no different. People that don't have a hope in hell of getting laid hate Valentine's Day. But hatred isn't enough. You need a reason to hate something. It's simply less humiliating to say that you hate Valentine's Day because it's too commercial, as opposed to saying that you dislike it because you can't score at the office bender.
More...
Friday, February 13, 2009
What's This Button Do?
I wrote this morning about the baby steps the Republicans are taking with regards to web media.
Slate has noticed it, too. Tonight's article makes the Republicans sound like goofs in the tech department, which is fine because it's true.
It's an interesting article. People forget that losing an election and becoming a minority opposition group can do wonders for reinvigorating a base.
"To our friends on the 'Net, what's up!" Michael Steele is waving at a tiny video camera at the National Republican Club on Capitol Hill. It's the Republican Party's first-ever Tech Summit—a gathering of party leaders, wonks, and tech gurus—and the idea of a simulcast must feel rather exciting.
When the mugging is over, the RNC chairman outlines the Steele Doctrine: "If we haven't done it, let's do it. If we haven't thought of it, think about it. … Don't just think outside the box—I hate that phrase anyway—take it someplace the box hasn't even reached yet."
All of which might sound like hollow rhetoric, if it weren't for the box-busting nature of the event itself: The summit might be the most un-Republican thing the Republican Party has ever done. More...
Slate has noticed it, too. Tonight's article makes the Republicans sound like goofs in the tech department, which is fine because it's true.
It's an interesting article. People forget that losing an election and becoming a minority opposition group can do wonders for reinvigorating a base.
"To our friends on the 'Net, what's up!" Michael Steele is waving at a tiny video camera at the National Republican Club on Capitol Hill. It's the Republican Party's first-ever Tech Summit—a gathering of party leaders, wonks, and tech gurus—and the idea of a simulcast must feel rather exciting.
When the mugging is over, the RNC chairman outlines the Steele Doctrine: "If we haven't done it, let's do it. If we haven't thought of it, think about it. … Don't just think outside the box—I hate that phrase anyway—take it someplace the box hasn't even reached yet."
All of which might sound like hollow rhetoric, if it weren't for the box-busting nature of the event itself: The summit might be the most un-Republican thing the Republican Party has ever done. More...
They Might Exist
I have to be careful, or Jake Tapper is going to get me thinking that there's some real reporters still walking the Earth. You know, guys that think everyone is full of crap and believe in the maxim, "If your mother says she loves you, have it checked out."
Tapper's been on the ball since Obama took office, and he's relentless in asking questions that make press secretary Robert Gibbs reach for his "Um...Ah...Mmm..." crutch. I've been watching the press conferences over the past couple of weeks, and Tapper's always in the mood to make things uncomfortable.
Here's Tapper today, in response to an obvious dodge from Gibbs regarding Obama's bogus Caterpillar claim: "I don't even know how to respond to that." In other words, "Sell me another one." Tapper goes on to rephrase the question, keeping Gibbs on the spot. It was a great moment.
Then there was this, after Tapper quoted a congressman.
GIBBS: Well, I haven't -- I haven't seen what the congressman said. I think...
TAPPER: Exactly what I just said.
In other words, "You heard me. Now answer the damn question."
The guy works for ABC, too. Unreal. According to his bio, ABC made him their senior White House correspondent the day after the November election. Interesting. I'm glad to see he's a reporter that all politicians can hate, because that makes him a reporter that I like.
More from Tapper here.
Tapper's been on the ball since Obama took office, and he's relentless in asking questions that make press secretary Robert Gibbs reach for his "Um...Ah...Mmm..." crutch. I've been watching the press conferences over the past couple of weeks, and Tapper's always in the mood to make things uncomfortable.
Here's Tapper today, in response to an obvious dodge from Gibbs regarding Obama's bogus Caterpillar claim: "I don't even know how to respond to that." In other words, "Sell me another one." Tapper goes on to rephrase the question, keeping Gibbs on the spot. It was a great moment.
Then there was this, after Tapper quoted a congressman.
GIBBS: Well, I haven't -- I haven't seen what the congressman said. I think...
TAPPER: Exactly what I just said.
In other words, "You heard me. Now answer the damn question."
The guy works for ABC, too. Unreal. According to his bio, ABC made him their senior White House correspondent the day after the November election. Interesting. I'm glad to see he's a reporter that all politicians can hate, because that makes him a reporter that I like.
More from Tapper here.
What's This Video Thing All About?
I'm always curious to see how web media and video evolves. Down in the US, the Democrats have done a superb job using the web to their advantage, and Obama's team knows the value of YouTube: "Radio address? Forget it. The chief's going on the air to look people in the eye."
Republicans have been very slow to catch up. Almost stupid-slow. I don't know if they recognized the power of web video until Obama used it to his advantage, and by then it was too late.
A couple of weeks ago, Minority Leader John Boehner reportedly told his fellow Republicans that if they had 48 seconds for YouTube, get it up there. It looks like Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price heeded the advice.
It's funny to watch the baby steps being taken in the clip below. Almost everything in the clip is perfect. Timely. Good white balance so the exterior light from the windows doesn't make Price look blue. Decent background. Host sitting down so he doesn't shuffle and look nervous. Good eye contact with the lens. Unscripted so it seems more real. Simple and effective subject: handwritten notes in a bill designed to spend hundreds of billions. Call to action at the end: "Call your representative."
What they did wrong: no tripod. The cameraman (probably one of his staffers) is shaking like a leaf.
Handheld work is fine as long as the cameraman is steady and the situation warrants it. In this clip, they could easily have thrown five books (or one copy of the stimulus bill) under the camera and it would have worked fine.
But it's a start.
Update: A video friend of mine responds, "I thought it was fine, they were going for the impromptu look because the bill just landed on their desk." Damn. Now I'm rethinking it. But I still think the camerman could have been steadier.
Republicans have been very slow to catch up. Almost stupid-slow. I don't know if they recognized the power of web video until Obama used it to his advantage, and by then it was too late.
A couple of weeks ago, Minority Leader John Boehner reportedly told his fellow Republicans that if they had 48 seconds for YouTube, get it up there. It looks like Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price heeded the advice.
It's funny to watch the baby steps being taken in the clip below. Almost everything in the clip is perfect. Timely. Good white balance so the exterior light from the windows doesn't make Price look blue. Decent background. Host sitting down so he doesn't shuffle and look nervous. Good eye contact with the lens. Unscripted so it seems more real. Simple and effective subject: handwritten notes in a bill designed to spend hundreds of billions. Call to action at the end: "Call your representative."
What they did wrong: no tripod. The cameraman (probably one of his staffers) is shaking like a leaf.
Handheld work is fine as long as the cameraman is steady and the situation warrants it. In this clip, they could easily have thrown five books (or one copy of the stimulus bill) under the camera and it would have worked fine.
But it's a start.
Update: A video friend of mine responds, "I thought it was fine, they were going for the impromptu look because the bill just landed on their desk." Damn. Now I'm rethinking it. But I still think the camerman could have been steadier.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
I, Me, Mine
Regarding the "intense discussions" at Boston College, which recently hung some Christian artwork:
Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.” He added that in the lecture hall where he teaches, there’s a small sculpture of a mother and child (Mary and Jesus? – “I suppose,” he replied. “Who else would it be?”) – as opposed to a crucifix. “Probably if a crucifix had been placed in my lecture hall, I might have felt more strongly about it not being in my lecture hall.”
What's all this "my" stuff? It reminds me of the line in Saving Private Ryan:
"They took away your company?"
"It was the army's company, last time they told me."
Incidentally, how many hands does Dr. Kirschner have? A professor of biology shouldn't flunk anatomy this badly.
Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.” He added that in the lecture hall where he teaches, there’s a small sculpture of a mother and child (Mary and Jesus? – “I suppose,” he replied. “Who else would it be?”) – as opposed to a crucifix. “Probably if a crucifix had been placed in my lecture hall, I might have felt more strongly about it not being in my lecture hall.”
What's all this "my" stuff? It reminds me of the line in Saving Private Ryan:
"They took away your company?"
"It was the army's company, last time they told me."
Incidentally, how many hands does Dr. Kirschner have? A professor of biology shouldn't flunk anatomy this badly.
Chanelling Howard Hughes
If it's an act, a la Andy Kaufman, then it's a beauty. If it's for real, then it's sad and creepy.
Joaquin Phoenix has been sporting a Jeremiah Johnson beard for a while now, declaring that he's quit acting to pursue a hip hop career (scroll down to see how that's coming along).
As far as I can tell, people on the net are split 50-50 as to whether Joaquin Phoenix has gone off the deep end or if it's a hoax. Letterman looks to be going with the latter and doesn't want to be the sucker. Then again, Letterman's always a jerk, so who knows? Maybe he thinks Phoenix has lost it and doesn't care one way or the other.
vs. 3 years ago:
Phoenix the hip hop "artist." Most of the comments are split as to whether he's nuts or kidding around. Your call:
Joaquin Phoenix has been sporting a Jeremiah Johnson beard for a while now, declaring that he's quit acting to pursue a hip hop career (scroll down to see how that's coming along).
As far as I can tell, people on the net are split 50-50 as to whether Joaquin Phoenix has gone off the deep end or if it's a hoax. Letterman looks to be going with the latter and doesn't want to be the sucker. Then again, Letterman's always a jerk, so who knows? Maybe he thinks Phoenix has lost it and doesn't care one way or the other.
vs. 3 years ago:
Phoenix the hip hop "artist." Most of the comments are split as to whether he's nuts or kidding around. Your call:
Flagging Sales Make Strange Bedfellows
Here's a bit from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It's under the title "Submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission."
The report is either a) a way to show solidarity to the folks living in the mother ship; b) a signal fire to fellow human rights commissions that it's time to circle the wagons; c) a sign that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will never be able to pass its own legislation and therefore needs the CHRC to get its act in gear and have legislation passed all across Canada, thereby letting the OHRC off the leash. Call it Trickle Down Tyranny.
But tyranny over whom? Read on. My comments follow.
The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.
The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada.
At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship.
This is hardly a surprise. Two years ago, I had no idea that Canada had a human rights commission in Ottawa, plus separate human rights commissions in every province. No clue. Two years later and they're all over the papers, and not in a good way.
Bloggers and - to a much smaller extent - the press have been hammering the human rights commissions over the past six months. They've upturned the rock and exposed the commissions for what they are: bureaucracies that rule outside and above the law, imposing fines, holding hearings, and punishing people for the crime of being "offensive."
Their tribunal hearings have no set rules of discovery or evidence. Anyone accused of being a bigot does not have the right to face his accuser, nor is the accused presumed innocent. He or she must prove that they're not a meanie. The latest most egregious example of their outside-the-law rule came from Saskatchewan, where it was decided that a restaurant owner should have made it clear that he was not a bigot before throwing a man out of his restaurant. The price tag for the accused? $7000. The crime? He offended the accuser's "dignity."
Bloggers and - again, to a much smaller degree - the media have kept the heat on since the Maclean's fiasco in British Columbia. It is no wonder then that the OHRC and others want to shut them down.
Let's take a closer look:
The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.
Believe it or not, that's one sentence. Tough to break into, and it literally rolls over you, wave after wave. It seems harmless and friendly enough, until you realize that if it had been written in bullet points, it would be a frightening look into the minds of people that want to do serious harm to your country.
a) "Non-state actors including the media..." All right, so what is a "non-state actor?" That would be you. The lowly citizen. It should hit you again that people who work for the "state" no longer see themselves as "citizens." You are a non-state actor. They are the state. Separate. In charge. (It may be handy to remember that not one person in any human rights commission in the country is an elected official).
b) "...have the responsibility to address issues of hate expression..." This is a tough one because we don't know who they're talking about. If "non-state actors" includes the media, then who are the other non-state actors? Your plumber? The guy handing out fliers on the street corner? Your mom? If they're saying that the media has a responsibility to address issues of hate expression, the answer is simple: "No they do not." They have a responsibility to sell newspapers and beer commercials. Period. If the OHRC is saying that your mom has the responsibility to address issues of hate expression, get ready for some long Thanksgiving dinners.
c) "...should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership..." Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on a minute. Did I just hear a provincial body tell a Federal body that it was time to write a new national law? Funny. And here I thought it was elected Federal representatives that did that. Not so. And notice the trick: the provincial press councils would be voluntary, but if that doesn't fly, a national one would be compulsory. Now, why wouldn't they say that the national one should be voluntary too? That is a huge leap: voluntary at the provincial level, but compulsory at the Federal level.
d) "...powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions." Go fly a kite. Where's the 'professional standards' handbook, and who's going to write it?
e) "The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada." Bingo. See (c) above. So much for all of that "voluntary" hogwash. They were just kidding around. What they particularly support is national, compulsory media oversight. And, because they're on the low end of the totem pole, they need to call for help from their big brothers at the national level to make it happen. (Two random thoughts: one is the envy they seem to have for their CHRC brethren; the other is that leftists always think about the collective).
The last paragraph in their release is a beauty. You can't make this stuff up. Here comes the doublethink, right to the side of your head: "At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship."
This is hilarious. But not amusing. In order: a new law should be written to force publications - including those online - to join a press council that will oversee their content, using standards written by...somebody, and if the content is deemed irresponsible or unprofessional, then the publication will have to publish the findings of the council saying their own publication is a joke, but don't worry because the media still has full freedom and control over what they publish.
Huh?
But I'm not concerned. I can't believe the big boys in the media would ever go along with this. Sure, it might help shut down bloggers and other non-professionals, but the big boys would never agree to it on moral grounds. All right, and yes, it would silence the small publications that rely on edgy stuff to draw an audience, but no, the big boys wouldn't want censorship in Canada because there's room for everybody. And yeah, okay, the handful of big papers in Canada are hurting for cash, but surely they would never want to sit on a press council just to kill the competition. Never happen.
Yesterday I was watching the radio show (that still sounds funny) on Sportsnet and Mark Spector was a guest. According to the lower-third, Spector's their lead columnist. Fancy. He was telling a story about how a blogger released a rumour about so-and-so, and it took Spector and other reporters 3 whole hours to chase it down and find out it was false. The three-hour deal really bothered him. He repeated it a few times and said it was a huge waste of his time. At one point co-host Nick Kypreos said, "Easy." Spector said, "This is why reporters hate bloggers." He went on to say that blogging should be outlawed and all bloggers should be banned. The hosts laughed, Spector didn't, and they moved on with the show.
I'm sure he wasn't serious.
The report is either a) a way to show solidarity to the folks living in the mother ship; b) a signal fire to fellow human rights commissions that it's time to circle the wagons; c) a sign that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will never be able to pass its own legislation and therefore needs the CHRC to get its act in gear and have legislation passed all across Canada, thereby letting the OHRC off the leash. Call it Trickle Down Tyranny.
But tyranny over whom? Read on. My comments follow.
The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.
The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada.
At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship.
This is hardly a surprise. Two years ago, I had no idea that Canada had a human rights commission in Ottawa, plus separate human rights commissions in every province. No clue. Two years later and they're all over the papers, and not in a good way.
Bloggers and - to a much smaller extent - the press have been hammering the human rights commissions over the past six months. They've upturned the rock and exposed the commissions for what they are: bureaucracies that rule outside and above the law, imposing fines, holding hearings, and punishing people for the crime of being "offensive."
Their tribunal hearings have no set rules of discovery or evidence. Anyone accused of being a bigot does not have the right to face his accuser, nor is the accused presumed innocent. He or she must prove that they're not a meanie. The latest most egregious example of their outside-the-law rule came from Saskatchewan, where it was decided that a restaurant owner should have made it clear that he was not a bigot before throwing a man out of his restaurant. The price tag for the accused? $7000. The crime? He offended the accuser's "dignity."
Bloggers and - again, to a much smaller degree - the media have kept the heat on since the Maclean's fiasco in British Columbia. It is no wonder then that the OHRC and others want to shut them down.
Let's take a closer look:
The OHRC agrees with the Report’s recommendation that: Non-state actors including the media also have responsibility to address issues of hate expression, and should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership and powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions.
Believe it or not, that's one sentence. Tough to break into, and it literally rolls over you, wave after wave. It seems harmless and friendly enough, until you realize that if it had been written in bullet points, it would be a frightening look into the minds of people that want to do serious harm to your country.
a) "Non-state actors including the media..." All right, so what is a "non-state actor?" That would be you. The lowly citizen. It should hit you again that people who work for the "state" no longer see themselves as "citizens." You are a non-state actor. They are the state. Separate. In charge. (It may be handy to remember that not one person in any human rights commission in the country is an elected official).
b) "...have the responsibility to address issues of hate expression..." This is a tough one because we don't know who they're talking about. If "non-state actors" includes the media, then who are the other non-state actors? Your plumber? The guy handing out fliers on the street corner? Your mom? If they're saying that the media has a responsibility to address issues of hate expression, the answer is simple: "No they do not." They have a responsibility to sell newspapers and beer commercials. Period. If the OHRC is saying that your mom has the responsibility to address issues of hate expression, get ready for some long Thanksgiving dinners.
c) "...should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership..." Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on a minute. Did I just hear a provincial body tell a Federal body that it was time to write a new national law? Funny. And here I thought it was elected Federal representatives that did that. Not so. And notice the trick: the provincial press councils would be voluntary, but if that doesn't fly, a national one would be compulsory. Now, why wouldn't they say that the national one should be voluntary too? That is a huge leap: voluntary at the provincial level, but compulsory at the Federal level.
d) "...powers to determine breach of professional standards and order publication of press council decisions." Go fly a kite. Where's the 'professional standards' handbook, and who's going to write it?
e) "The OHRC would particularly support a national press council given that, increasingly, media services publish online editions. This would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada." Bingo. See (c) above. So much for all of that "voluntary" hogwash. They were just kidding around. What they particularly support is national, compulsory media oversight. And, because they're on the low end of the totem pole, they need to call for help from their big brothers at the national level to make it happen. (Two random thoughts: one is the envy they seem to have for their CHRC brethren; the other is that leftists always think about the collective).
The last paragraph in their release is a beauty. You can't make this stuff up. Here comes the doublethink, right to the side of your head: "At the same time, the OHRC recognizes the media must have full freedom and control over what they publish. Ensuring mechanisms are in place to provide opportunity for public scrutiny and the receipt of complaints, particularly from vulnerable groups is important, but it must not cross the line into censorship."
This is hilarious. But not amusing. In order: a new law should be written to force publications - including those online - to join a press council that will oversee their content, using standards written by...somebody, and if the content is deemed irresponsible or unprofessional, then the publication will have to publish the findings of the council saying their own publication is a joke, but don't worry because the media still has full freedom and control over what they publish.
Huh?
But I'm not concerned. I can't believe the big boys in the media would ever go along with this. Sure, it might help shut down bloggers and other non-professionals, but the big boys would never agree to it on moral grounds. All right, and yes, it would silence the small publications that rely on edgy stuff to draw an audience, but no, the big boys wouldn't want censorship in Canada because there's room for everybody. And yeah, okay, the handful of big papers in Canada are hurting for cash, but surely they would never want to sit on a press council just to kill the competition. Never happen.
Yesterday I was watching the radio show (that still sounds funny) on Sportsnet and Mark Spector was a guest. According to the lower-third, Spector's their lead columnist. Fancy. He was telling a story about how a blogger released a rumour about so-and-so, and it took Spector and other reporters 3 whole hours to chase it down and find out it was false. The three-hour deal really bothered him. He repeated it a few times and said it was a huge waste of his time. At one point co-host Nick Kypreos said, "Easy." Spector said, "This is why reporters hate bloggers." He went on to say that blogging should be outlawed and all bloggers should be banned. The hosts laughed, Spector didn't, and they moved on with the show.
I'm sure he wasn't serious.
Newspeak (III)
The other day I was writing about the Newspeak dictionary, and the people that are using "god" instead of "God" even when it makes them look stupid. As in, "Thank god it's Friday," or "Thank god the truck missed my car," as if Hera or Aphrodite might be listening.
Today I saw a new one. "Good lord," instead of "Good Lord." The guy over at Hot Air wrote it. He goes under the name Allahpundit, he's an atheist, and he often bends himself into all kinds of knots trying to prove he's an atheist. As if we care. (Random aside: atheism, being the religion that it is, is proving to be a blossoming home of evangelicals and zealous true believers).
I'm no Bible thumper and I haven't been to church in forever, but people like Allahpundit are pathetic clowns. Are they that frightened of the bogeyman - read, religion - that they're afraid to even spell things correctly? And, if the word "Lord" bothers their sensitivities so much, why don't they just say, "Good grief," or "Great Scott," unless they work as serfs on an English estate, in which case "good lord" is apt and I'll give them a pass.
Of course, the answer as to why they can't just say "Great Scott" is because, like it or not, "Good Lord" is part of the language and culture (for now, and shrinking more each year, I'd wager). Has been for a long time. And so clowns like Allahpundit write "Good Lord," realize their horrible mistake, hit backspace a few times, and replace it with "Good lord." I'm sure they feel they're helping to drive the revolution against religion to a higher plane, and are spreading the good word of their own small-g religion, but all they're doing is looking like desperate buffoons.
Is there anything more pathetic than people that take someone else's symbols and words and change them so they can use them too, then deny that those original symbols and words have any value?
Get a grip, Allahpundit. Or is it "allahpundit?"
Today I saw a new one. "Good lord," instead of "Good Lord." The guy over at Hot Air wrote it. He goes under the name Allahpundit, he's an atheist, and he often bends himself into all kinds of knots trying to prove he's an atheist. As if we care. (Random aside: atheism, being the religion that it is, is proving to be a blossoming home of evangelicals and zealous true believers).
I'm no Bible thumper and I haven't been to church in forever, but people like Allahpundit are pathetic clowns. Are they that frightened of the bogeyman - read, religion - that they're afraid to even spell things correctly? And, if the word "Lord" bothers their sensitivities so much, why don't they just say, "Good grief," or "Great Scott," unless they work as serfs on an English estate, in which case "good lord" is apt and I'll give them a pass.
Of course, the answer as to why they can't just say "Great Scott" is because, like it or not, "Good Lord" is part of the language and culture (for now, and shrinking more each year, I'd wager). Has been for a long time. And so clowns like Allahpundit write "Good Lord," realize their horrible mistake, hit backspace a few times, and replace it with "Good lord." I'm sure they feel they're helping to drive the revolution against religion to a higher plane, and are spreading the good word of their own small-g religion, but all they're doing is looking like desperate buffoons.
Is there anything more pathetic than people that take someone else's symbols and words and change them so they can use them too, then deny that those original symbols and words have any value?
Get a grip, Allahpundit. Or is it "allahpundit?"
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The News From Kripton
I don't often read Slate, but sometimes a link from another site takes me there. In this case, it was Hot Air.The title of the Slate story: Is Michael Steele Barack Obama's Evil Twin?
Michael Steele is the new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Here's some choice bits from the article:
Evil twin, nemesis, archenemy—whatever the term, every great protagonist has one. Superman had Bizarro, his alternate-universe self. Spock from Star Trek had the shady, goateed "mirror" Spock. Super Mario has the cackling Wario....
And as the term would suggest, evil twins look similar but usually have distinctive physical differences—an eye patch, say, or a scar. Michael Steele, like Barack Obama, is African-American. But unlike Obama, he is bald and sports a mustache—a classic nemesis signifier, although a goatee would be ideal....
None of this, of course, is to say that Michael Steele is evil. In fact, "evil" twins sometimes turn out to be good. Or the "evil" one and the "good" one team up. Or we simply learn that the world is complicated and tolerates many reasonable, if clashing, perspectives.
The creepy thing about this article from a "political reporter" is that it's not satire and he isn't kidding.
Political reporting is getting weirder every minute.
Photo: Denver Post
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A-Rod's Rebirth Begins
I have a cast iron stomach, but these guys make anyone want to hurl.What was A-Rod's "mistake?" Sitting on a syringe over and over again without asking for a new stool?
From Yahoo Sports, quoting the Yankees' front office:
"We strongly believe there is no place in baseball for performance-enhancing drugs of any type, and we support the efforts of the Commissioner to continually improve the testing process,” the statement read.
“We urged Alex to be completely open, honest and forthcoming in addressing his use of performance enhancing drugs. We take him at his word that he was. Although we are disappointed in the mistake he spoke to today, we realize that Alex - like all of us - is a human being not immune to fault.”
The Yankees also reiterated their family-type atmosphere, and Rodriguez was no exception.
“We speak often about the members of this organization being part of a family, and that is never more true than in times of adversity,” the statement read. “Alex took a big step by admitting his mistake, and while there is no condoning the use of performance-enhancing drugs, we respect his decision to take accountability for his actions.
“We support Alex, and we will do everything we can to help him deal with this challenge and prepare for the upcoming season.”
Photo: Newsday
Steyn Wars: Bloggers Bummed By Moon
With the US economic drama taking up all of the headlines, I was remiss in looking at the Canadian news for a while. Lo and behold, the human rights deal has boiled over again with the latest episode of Steyn Wars.
Yesterday, Mark Steyn showed up at an Ontario legislature meeting looking into the behavior of government agencies. Sounds nice, but let's be real: who cops the cops?
Anyway, Steyn made an appearance and said that human rights commissions should be abolished because they trample upon a free people's ultimate freedom: speech.
All fine, and to be honest, nothing new. While I think it's a good thing to have someone like Steyn keeping the pressure on (and let's face it, he doesn't have to; the human rights gurus must be wondering when he'll take his bestselling book money and disappear), it will be a cold day in hell before the government dissolves an entire branch of itself. If the government can be likened to a human body, then asking it to dissolve the human rights bureaucracies at the Federal level and in each province would be like asking a man to cut off all of his fingers and toes. Ain't gonna happen.
Still, yesterday did provide one piece of comedy: Dr. Richard Moon slammed the free speech crowd, to the chagrin of anyone who used his November report as ammunition for saying that the commissions must go. The National Post:
Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who last fall became a darling of right-wing free speech advocates when he recommended scrapping the federal human rights hate-speech law, on Monday lashed out at his admirers.
He accused them of launching a "smear campaign" against human rights commissions and "baseless personal attacks" against their staff.
"I urge the committee not to be taken in by these individuals. They don't care about the truth. They make stuff up," he said in a submission to an Ontario government committee reviewing the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Ah, the old liar-liar-pants-on-fire approach. How I miss it. Grammar school was such fun.
I hate to say it (well, no I don't), but...I told you so. Here's me, back in November, after reading Moon's report:
Moon's peace treaty isn't bad. If he had stopped typing after saying that Section 13 should be scrapped, I would have been on board. But the second he remembered who he is (and who he's working for) I got off the train. Telling papers what to print, and who to write stories about, is how we got into this mess in the first place.
See, here's the thing. Did you really expect Dr. Moon to enjoy the atta-boys from the free speech crowd? After submitting his report, he must have thought that was that. Imagine his horror when bloggers - bloggers! - began using his name to prove their cause was just. The man's a university law professor. He must have taken fifteen hot showers to wash the heebie-jeebies from his skin after hearing that people with emoticons for signatures were quoting him in the footnotes.
More from the Post:
In an interview, Prof. Moon said he was initially "perplexed" by his invitation, given that his expertise is not with Ontario's Human Rights Code, nor the Tribunal that adjudicates complaints.
"Why invite me? It didn't make any sense," Prof. Moon said. He initially declined, but accepted after hearing Mr. Steyn, author of a controversial book excerpt that led to three human rights hate speech complaints against Maclean's magazine, would also appear.
He said he also felt obliged to publicly rebut the claims of personal malfeasance by CHRC staff, of which he found no evidence in his own research, and which are often repeated by commentators who cite him admiringly as an authority.
The invitation "made me realize that there is serious interest, and maybe this smear campaign against the commissions generally has taken hold to some extent. Why else invite me?"
If the Post's story is accurate, then this is a scream. A scream. Let's take it one by one: The man admits having no expertise on the Ontario Human Rights Code, yet shows up when a celebrity declares he is going to attend, then admits that he felt obliged to refute a smear campaign against people that hired him last year, though the article quotes him as saying, "I'm hoping to return to obscurity." Uh-huh. Just as he was until Steyn walked on stage.
Even better, the Post has it that Moon only realized "there is serious interest" in Canada's human rights commissions after being invited to Ontario, though last year he was asked to write a report about the CHRC and was paid for his services. That would have sounded like pretty serious interest to me. Honestly, did the man think the CHRC wanted him to investigate their raison d'être merely for the hell of it?
So now I get what all the hoo-haw is about. Note to Mark Steyn and his blogger friends: the only reason people are taking this seriously now is because your smear campaign has taken hold "to some extent." Way to go, jerks.
There's a punchline to all of this. Dr. Moon showed up to clear the CHRC's good name, yet only the National Post quotes him as saying anything. In fact, the other major papers don't even let you know he was in the vicinity. For the Ottawa Citizen, it's "Moon who?" For the Toronto Sun, it's "What Moon, where?" Even the Toronto Star hasn't seen the Moon since it don't know when.
Who does let you know that Moon was around town and then quotes him so he can have his say? The bloggers.
Funny.
Yesterday, Mark Steyn showed up at an Ontario legislature meeting looking into the behavior of government agencies. Sounds nice, but let's be real: who cops the cops?
Anyway, Steyn made an appearance and said that human rights commissions should be abolished because they trample upon a free people's ultimate freedom: speech.
All fine, and to be honest, nothing new. While I think it's a good thing to have someone like Steyn keeping the pressure on (and let's face it, he doesn't have to; the human rights gurus must be wondering when he'll take his bestselling book money and disappear), it will be a cold day in hell before the government dissolves an entire branch of itself. If the government can be likened to a human body, then asking it to dissolve the human rights bureaucracies at the Federal level and in each province would be like asking a man to cut off all of his fingers and toes. Ain't gonna happen.
Still, yesterday did provide one piece of comedy: Dr. Richard Moon slammed the free speech crowd, to the chagrin of anyone who used his November report as ammunition for saying that the commissions must go. The National Post:
Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who last fall became a darling of right-wing free speech advocates when he recommended scrapping the federal human rights hate-speech law, on Monday lashed out at his admirers.
He accused them of launching a "smear campaign" against human rights commissions and "baseless personal attacks" against their staff.
"I urge the committee not to be taken in by these individuals. They don't care about the truth. They make stuff up," he said in a submission to an Ontario government committee reviewing the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Ah, the old liar-liar-pants-on-fire approach. How I miss it. Grammar school was such fun.
I hate to say it (well, no I don't), but...I told you so. Here's me, back in November, after reading Moon's report:
Moon's peace treaty isn't bad. If he had stopped typing after saying that Section 13 should be scrapped, I would have been on board. But the second he remembered who he is (and who he's working for) I got off the train. Telling papers what to print, and who to write stories about, is how we got into this mess in the first place.
See, here's the thing. Did you really expect Dr. Moon to enjoy the atta-boys from the free speech crowd? After submitting his report, he must have thought that was that. Imagine his horror when bloggers - bloggers! - began using his name to prove their cause was just. The man's a university law professor. He must have taken fifteen hot showers to wash the heebie-jeebies from his skin after hearing that people with emoticons for signatures were quoting him in the footnotes.
More from the Post:
In an interview, Prof. Moon said he was initially "perplexed" by his invitation, given that his expertise is not with Ontario's Human Rights Code, nor the Tribunal that adjudicates complaints.
"Why invite me? It didn't make any sense," Prof. Moon said. He initially declined, but accepted after hearing Mr. Steyn, author of a controversial book excerpt that led to three human rights hate speech complaints against Maclean's magazine, would also appear.
He said he also felt obliged to publicly rebut the claims of personal malfeasance by CHRC staff, of which he found no evidence in his own research, and which are often repeated by commentators who cite him admiringly as an authority.
The invitation "made me realize that there is serious interest, and maybe this smear campaign against the commissions generally has taken hold to some extent. Why else invite me?"
If the Post's story is accurate, then this is a scream. A scream. Let's take it one by one: The man admits having no expertise on the Ontario Human Rights Code, yet shows up when a celebrity declares he is going to attend, then admits that he felt obliged to refute a smear campaign against people that hired him last year, though the article quotes him as saying, "I'm hoping to return to obscurity." Uh-huh. Just as he was until Steyn walked on stage.
Even better, the Post has it that Moon only realized "there is serious interest" in Canada's human rights commissions after being invited to Ontario, though last year he was asked to write a report about the CHRC and was paid for his services. That would have sounded like pretty serious interest to me. Honestly, did the man think the CHRC wanted him to investigate their raison d'être merely for the hell of it?
So now I get what all the hoo-haw is about. Note to Mark Steyn and his blogger friends: the only reason people are taking this seriously now is because your smear campaign has taken hold "to some extent." Way to go, jerks.
There's a punchline to all of this. Dr. Moon showed up to clear the CHRC's good name, yet only the National Post quotes him as saying anything. In fact, the other major papers don't even let you know he was in the vicinity. For the Ottawa Citizen, it's "Moon who?" For the Toronto Sun, it's "What Moon, where?" Even the Toronto Star hasn't seen the Moon since it don't know when.
Who does let you know that Moon was around town and then quotes him so he can have his say? The bloggers.
Funny.
Thoughts On Press Conference Coverage
No big deal. I was expecting the same old-same old, and it's what I got. But I did have fun reading some of the analysis from the pundits. I saw these on Politico.
A few samples:
Larry J. Sabato, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia: It was a tour de force, and Obama proved he was fully in command on a wide variety of matters. If he can just learn to add a bit more humor, he'll be the equal of JFK--the acknowledged master of the forum.
Gee, I wonder what kind of politics they're teaching at Virginia? The last line cracks me up: JFK is remembered as a god for a lot of things, sure, but when is the last time you heard somebody say, "JFK - national hero, unequalled talent. Yes, he was a master of the - drum roll - press conference."
Bradley A. Blakeman, Republican strategist, consultant, entrepreneur:
President Teleprompter was at it again. I cannot recall the last time, if ever, a President used a Teleprompter at a Press Conference. The President must learn to be less scripted.
I agree, but the folks that make 'prompters must be pretty happy with the all of the publicity lately. Except for one small detail: it's a brand name, and it's spelled TelePrompTer. The brand name went generic, so nobody bothers to spell it that way anymore. I don't know why that bugs me, except the old-fashioned TelePrompTer spelling just looked cool.
David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop: My take is that tonight the nation saw up close President Obama as Professor in Chief. By mid-conference, he was letting the students--reporters, citizens--know what they could expect as a passing grade on the test: 4 million jobs, improve credit markets, stabilize housing values, stem the contraction, and create growth in the economy.
Oh. Well, let me know when the contraction's stabilized and growth is created. Then the students - citizens (I guess Obama's no longer a lowly citizen or something), reporters, so forth - can celebrate. Leave it to a modern day poet to call a president "Professor in Chief." I'm guessing this dude's stuff doesn't even rhyme.
A few samples:
Larry J. Sabato, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia: It was a tour de force, and Obama proved he was fully in command on a wide variety of matters. If he can just learn to add a bit more humor, he'll be the equal of JFK--the acknowledged master of the forum.
Gee, I wonder what kind of politics they're teaching at Virginia? The last line cracks me up: JFK is remembered as a god for a lot of things, sure, but when is the last time you heard somebody say, "JFK - national hero, unequalled talent. Yes, he was a master of the - drum roll - press conference."
Bradley A. Blakeman, Republican strategist, consultant, entrepreneur:
President Teleprompter was at it again. I cannot recall the last time, if ever, a President used a Teleprompter at a Press Conference. The President must learn to be less scripted.
I agree, but the folks that make 'prompters must be pretty happy with the all of the publicity lately. Except for one small detail: it's a brand name, and it's spelled TelePrompTer. The brand name went generic, so nobody bothers to spell it that way anymore. I don't know why that bugs me, except the old-fashioned TelePrompTer spelling just looked cool.
David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop: My take is that tonight the nation saw up close President Obama as Professor in Chief. By mid-conference, he was letting the students--reporters, citizens--know what they could expect as a passing grade on the test: 4 million jobs, improve credit markets, stabilize housing values, stem the contraction, and create growth in the economy.
Oh. Well, let me know when the contraction's stabilized and growth is created. Then the students - citizens (I guess Obama's no longer a lowly citizen or something), reporters, so forth - can celebrate. Leave it to a modern day poet to call a president "Professor in Chief." I'm guessing this dude's stuff doesn't even rhyme.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Baseball Player to World: I Was Young And Rich, So Of Course I Took Drugs
And that's that. Another user of performancing enhancing drugs, another liar to come out of baseball's hollow halls, another round of BS excuses about being young, rich, and "under pressure."
I'd love to know what they mean by pressure. So they boo you. So what? When you sign a multi-million dollar contract, you're going to get paid even if you strike out every at bat for an entire season. Some pressure.
I watched A-Rod's 60 Minutes interview last year, where he didn't even blink when saying that he never touched the juice. He's a very good liar. Since he's now confessed to the hero-worshipping ESPN (can he have picked a more friendly outlet to talk about his "mistakes?"), we can only assume that the evidence behind the Sports Illustrated article that outed him must be overwhelming.
I said a few days ago that it was disappointing to see A-Rod now on the list of liars and drug users. He is the only active player that stands a chance to beat Barry "Balco" Bonds' bogus home run record. Among active players, Ken Griffey Jr. sits in the #2 spot for home runs with 611. But he's 38 years old, so there's little to no chance that he can eclipse Bonds. A-Rod, at 32-years-old, seems destined to beat the record. He only needs a couple of hundred more in his career and, should he play until his late 30's, he can beat that record easily.
But who cares? His records are meanignless now.
So that's it. I think I am entirely justified in believing that Hank Aaron is still the home run king, and probably will be for at least the next two decades.
I'd love to know what they mean by pressure. So they boo you. So what? When you sign a multi-million dollar contract, you're going to get paid even if you strike out every at bat for an entire season. Some pressure.
I watched A-Rod's 60 Minutes interview last year, where he didn't even blink when saying that he never touched the juice. He's a very good liar. Since he's now confessed to the hero-worshipping ESPN (can he have picked a more friendly outlet to talk about his "mistakes?"), we can only assume that the evidence behind the Sports Illustrated article that outed him must be overwhelming.
I said a few days ago that it was disappointing to see A-Rod now on the list of liars and drug users. He is the only active player that stands a chance to beat Barry "Balco" Bonds' bogus home run record. Among active players, Ken Griffey Jr. sits in the #2 spot for home runs with 611. But he's 38 years old, so there's little to no chance that he can eclipse Bonds. A-Rod, at 32-years-old, seems destined to beat the record. He only needs a couple of hundred more in his career and, should he play until his late 30's, he can beat that record easily.
But who cares? His records are meanignless now.
So that's it. I think I am entirely justified in believing that Hank Aaron is still the home run king, and probably will be for at least the next two decades.
The Egos Can`t Afford Not To Use A Crisis
It looks like the Government Hand-Out Sweepstakes might pass in the Senate, after three so-called conservative senators spent time hammering out a deal with the Democrats.
Here's Republican Senator Arlen Specter in the Washington Post, explaining why he wants to blow $780 billion dollars. The article is a full page, but all you really need ìs the first line:
I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.
Bingo. Gotta love politicians. The country cannot afford not to take action.
Au contraire, Senator. Left to itself, the country can afford to do lots of things. That`s up to the citizens of the country. The government, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely. Specter, of course, has been in the Senate so long that he no longer thinks there`s a difference between government and country. Imagine the conceit the man must have to unconsciously call his merry band of 100 senators the country.
While I`m quoting politicians, I might as well throw Reagan into the mix. This was the truest thing a politician ever said: "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Here's Republican Senator Arlen Specter in the Washington Post, explaining why he wants to blow $780 billion dollars. The article is a full page, but all you really need ìs the first line:
I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.
Bingo. Gotta love politicians. The country cannot afford not to take action.
Au contraire, Senator. Left to itself, the country can afford to do lots of things. That`s up to the citizens of the country. The government, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely. Specter, of course, has been in the Senate so long that he no longer thinks there`s a difference between government and country. Imagine the conceit the man must have to unconsciously call his merry band of 100 senators the country.
While I`m quoting politicians, I might as well throw Reagan into the mix. This was the truest thing a politician ever said: "The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The Last Place to Hide...Isn't
From the Herald Tribune:
For all the annoyance of being crammed into an aluminum tube at 35,000 feet with a bunch of strangers, air travel has offered one benefit: the ability to tell bosses and colleagues, "I'll be on a flight, so you won't be able to reach me."
So much for that excuse.
Wireless Internet service is starting to spread among airlines in the United States — Delta and American have installed it on more than a dozen planes each, and several other carriers are planning to test it.
For all the annoyance of being crammed into an aluminum tube at 35,000 feet with a bunch of strangers, air travel has offered one benefit: the ability to tell bosses and colleagues, "I'll be on a flight, so you won't be able to reach me."
So much for that excuse.
Wireless Internet service is starting to spread among airlines in the United States — Delta and American have installed it on more than a dozen planes each, and several other carriers are planning to test it.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Another *
Not a stunner, but still disappointing:In 2003, when he won the American League home run title and the AL Most Valuable Player award as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two anabolic steroids, four sources have independently told Sports Illustrated.
I wrote a while back that if anyone could save baseball's record books, it would be Rodriguez. Given good health, he could eclipse Barry Bonds' tainted home run record and get things back on the up-and-up.
If the above story is true, then that hope goes up in smoke.
Friday, February 06, 2009
More From Canadian Human Rights Commissions
This time in Saskatoon. Absolutely shameful. Read it and call Saskatoon's MPs, your MP, and the PM's office. Do something. Blogs and strong language around the water cooler do nothing. Right now every politician in Canada is worried about their jobs. Get on the horn and let them know you can hit where it hurts: votes.
I'm sick of seeing news reports in the US where no one can get through to their representatives because too many other people are already on the line. In Canada, we just frown and head for the closest Tim Horton's. It's time to steal the American playbook and jam some phone lines.
We're told that a recession is killing us and that business owners are hurting, but we're prepared to let a business owner lose $7000 for this (boldface mine):
A Saskatchewan Human Rights tribunal has ordered a Saskatoon restaurant owner to pay $7,000 to a man who claimed he was kicked out of the restaurant because he's aboriginal.
The complainant, Leslie Tataquason, admitted no racial epithets were used during the brief exchange with Northwoods Inn and Suites owner John Pontes more than two years ago. In an interview Sunday, Pontes said he would have kicked Tataquason out "if he was blond-haired and blue-eyed" and it had nothing to do with race.
Tataquason was kicked out because he was visiting his wife while she was working as a waitress there, all sides agreed. Pontes said Tataquason was distracting her while she worked, and Tataquason said he wasn't.
No racial epithets were used, and all sides agreed the guy was hanging around his wife's work. Turns out he was there over an hour. The boss understandably tells the hubby to take a hike, and now he's out 7 grand. Why?
Tataquason said he was "deeply hurt" by the remarks. It caused him to "trigger" memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he "spiraled into depression," leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified.
According to the ruling, the onus was on Pontes to prove he did not discriminate by denying service to someone in a restaurant.
Pontes was found to have inflicted an injury to Tataquason's dignity and was ordered to pay $7,000. The maximum for such an offence is $10,000.
Just another day in Canada.
Update: It gets better. More from CanWest:
Leslie Tataquason of Saskatoon was forced to leave the restaurant of the Howard Johnson Inn "at least in part" because of his race, Gingell said in her closing statement...
Restaurant owner John Pontes asked Tataquason to leave in a way that one could "infer" was stereotypical, Gingell said.
She said Pontes did not make any overtly racist remarks, but it was Pontes' responsibility to clarify that he wasn't being discriminatory.
Note to bouncers, ushers, police, bartenders, stadium staff, and business owners everywhere: when telling someone to leave an establishment, gather witnesses, break out the camcorder, and announce in a clear voice that you aren't being a bigot.
I'm sick of seeing news reports in the US where no one can get through to their representatives because too many other people are already on the line. In Canada, we just frown and head for the closest Tim Horton's. It's time to steal the American playbook and jam some phone lines.
We're told that a recession is killing us and that business owners are hurting, but we're prepared to let a business owner lose $7000 for this (boldface mine):
A Saskatchewan Human Rights tribunal has ordered a Saskatoon restaurant owner to pay $7,000 to a man who claimed he was kicked out of the restaurant because he's aboriginal.
The complainant, Leslie Tataquason, admitted no racial epithets were used during the brief exchange with Northwoods Inn and Suites owner John Pontes more than two years ago. In an interview Sunday, Pontes said he would have kicked Tataquason out "if he was blond-haired and blue-eyed" and it had nothing to do with race.
Tataquason was kicked out because he was visiting his wife while she was working as a waitress there, all sides agreed. Pontes said Tataquason was distracting her while she worked, and Tataquason said he wasn't.
No racial epithets were used, and all sides agreed the guy was hanging around his wife's work. Turns out he was there over an hour. The boss understandably tells the hubby to take a hike, and now he's out 7 grand. Why?
Tataquason said he was "deeply hurt" by the remarks. It caused him to "trigger" memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he "spiraled into depression," leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified.
According to the ruling, the onus was on Pontes to prove he did not discriminate by denying service to someone in a restaurant.
Pontes was found to have inflicted an injury to Tataquason's dignity and was ordered to pay $7,000. The maximum for such an offence is $10,000.
Just another day in Canada.
Update: It gets better. More from CanWest:
Leslie Tataquason of Saskatoon was forced to leave the restaurant of the Howard Johnson Inn "at least in part" because of his race, Gingell said in her closing statement...
Restaurant owner John Pontes asked Tataquason to leave in a way that one could "infer" was stereotypical, Gingell said.
She said Pontes did not make any overtly racist remarks, but it was Pontes' responsibility to clarify that he wasn't being discriminatory.
Note to bouncers, ushers, police, bartenders, stadium staff, and business owners everywhere: when telling someone to leave an establishment, gather witnesses, break out the camcorder, and announce in a clear voice that you aren't being a bigot.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Clank...Clank...Clank...
I remember years ago hearing a quip about Chuck Yaeger: "When entering a room, his presence is announced by the sound of his balls clanking together."
Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff talked about Yaeger and his influence on pilots that came after him. Wolfe says it was Yaeger that started the distinctive, calm, drawling cadence that we hear over the airplane intercom every time we hop a flight. Pilots have imitated it since Yaeger's day, and it would be a sad sack of pilot who bitched, whined, or screamed over the air. He'd never live it down with his breathren.
Wolfe has it that most pilots are calm and collected: "I'm going down...I've tried A...I've tried B...I've tried C..." And all of it barely above a whisper.
Now US Airways pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III has achieved Iron Balls status, and he has the voice to prove it. The air traffic control crew deserve credit, too:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Photo: Yaeger with the Bell X-1, the plane that broke the sound barrier. He named it after his wife.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
The Politics of Fear
Doom and gloom all day, every day. That's just what the doctor ordered when a government wants to spend, spend, spend. "No objections, please, the world is ending now...unless you give me what I want."
Here's Nancy Pelosi. I saw it on Drudge. She declares that the United States will lose 500 million jobs for every month that the stimulus bill is not passed. That's 6 billion job per year. Since the USA has a little over 300 million people, they'll all be out of work by March. I guess she's saying that if the $900 billion spending package isn't rubber stamped, the entire planet will end up on the unemployment line by next spring.
Here's Nancy Pelosi. I saw it on Drudge. She declares that the United States will lose 500 million jobs for every month that the stimulus bill is not passed. That's 6 billion job per year. Since the USA has a little over 300 million people, they'll all be out of work by March. I guess she's saying that if the $900 billion spending package isn't rubber stamped, the entire planet will end up on the unemployment line by next spring.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Pamplona On a Bender
Just like Spain, the Mexicans have a "running of the bulls" deal. It's just longer, more chaotic, laced with booze, and you have a better chance of getting gored.Events like these always make me wonder who the first guy was to say, "Hey, Diego. I've got a great idea. Let's get hammered, release all the bulls in town, then run through the streets and try not to get tossed through a window."
TLACOTALPAN, Mexico (Reuters) - Ten half-tonne bulls charged down the winding colonial streets of the small Mexican town of Tlacotalpan Sunday, kicking at screaming spectators in a chaotic version of Spain's famous "Running of the Bulls."
The tradition, enacted in a handful of Mexican towns, traces its roots back to the centuries-old Pamplona bull-run in Mexico's former colonial power.
But unlike Pamplona, where a pack of bulls chases people for a few minutes down a carefully cordoned-off path, in Tlacotalpan the beasts are let loose to rampage through the streets for hours as crowds taunt them.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Fool On The Hill
Samuel Johnson: "Remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience."
To wit:
Paul McCartney and girlfriend Nancy Shevell are reportedly planning to marry.
The couple, who have been seen in public together regularly for the past year, are now legally allowed to marry after Shevell's divorce from lawyer Bruce Blakeman was finalized in December.
McCartney's last marriage didn't end well either, lasting only 6 years, the last two of which were spent separated. Heather Mills received £24.3 million (roughly $50 million) in a divorce settlement, plus £35,000/year ($70,000) for their daughter Beatrice, plus the girl's nanny and school fees. When Mills heard the ruling, she poured a jug of water over the head of McCartney's lawyer, declaring, "I'm not a loser."
By the way, this was 10 months ago.
To wit:
Paul McCartney and girlfriend Nancy Shevell are reportedly planning to marry.
The couple, who have been seen in public together regularly for the past year, are now legally allowed to marry after Shevell's divorce from lawyer Bruce Blakeman was finalized in December.
McCartney's last marriage didn't end well either, lasting only 6 years, the last two of which were spent separated. Heather Mills received £24.3 million (roughly $50 million) in a divorce settlement, plus £35,000/year ($70,000) for their daughter Beatrice, plus the girl's nanny and school fees. When Mills heard the ruling, she poured a jug of water over the head of McCartney's lawyer, declaring, "I'm not a loser."
By the way, this was 10 months ago.
Dude, Where's My Prada?
Enough about steel workers and single moms. Let's hear about the people that are really hurting:Their clothing allowance has been halved, they've had to fire their personal trainers and their sex lives have tanked.
They're the once-pampered -- now highly disgruntled -- women partners of U.S. bankers and they're speaking out about how the financial meltdown has changed their lives and their relationships.
Photo: Guido Harari
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Mr. Smooth
Say whatever you want about this guy, but he sure doesn't get rattled. I still say he'll have his own talk show somewhere down the line. His week long media blitz has been one long audition, and he has a Larry King interview coming up tonight. I don't know who his agent and PR rep is, but they're pretty good.
Honestly: is this the face of a man about to lose his job as Governor? He was taping this while his impeachment trial was in progress back in Illinois.
Honestly: is this the face of a man about to lose his job as Governor? He was taping this while his impeachment trial was in progress back in Illinois.
That Makes 10
I haven't watched women's tennis since Graf retired and the women began grunting and screaming with every backhand delivery. Still, a 10th Grand Slam title deserves a mention.
Serena Williams beat Dinara Safina in straight sets for her 4th Aussie Open title, and 10th Grand Slam overall.
Photo: AP
Serena Williams beat Dinara Safina in straight sets for her 4th Aussie Open title, and 10th Grand Slam overall.
Photo: AP
Congratulations, Iraq
Shhh. Hear that? That would be the sound of Iraqi men and women putting their votes in a ballot box. Alas, because it is going well, no one wants to talk about it.Today was Iraq's nationwide election for provincial councils. 14,000 people are running for office, including roughly 4000 women. The polls were kept open an extra hour because of turnout.
What I admire about the Iraqis is that they've always shown off their purple fingers, even a few years ago when times were bad. The ink takes days to wash off. That's bravery, to literally paint yourself as someone seeking democracy in a land where people could kill you for it.
The BBC report tries desperately to find something, anything, to show that things are exploding. Instead, they come up with a shooting where one man may have been killed or two injured (and they don't mention the motive behind the shooting; could have been hold-up for all we know), and a few mortar rounds going off in Tikrit. Other than that, one of the correspondents says that the polling stations have a "holiday atmosphere."
This bit caught my eye:
The head of the Iraqi electoral commission in Anbar province - a centre of the Sunni resistance to the US occupation - said he was expecting a 60% turnout.
Fewer than 2% voted in the 2005 election, with the result that Shia and Kurdish parties took control of parliament.
Some Sunnis, like Khaled al-Azemi, said the boycott last time had been a mistake.
"We lost a lot because we didn't vote and we saw the result - sectarian violence" he told the BBC.
"That's why we want to vote now to avoid the mistakes of the past."
That is huge. Huge: "We lost a lot because we didn't vote."
As you can see in this clip, Iraqis have taken to democracy so much that they've managed to make the election ballots too complicated for a Florida voter:
Photos: Getty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)