Andy Katz has a nice article about Gonzaga guard Jeremy Pargo's chances of being a first-round pick in this year's NBA draft. Jeremy's brother is former Bull and current Hornet Jeremy Pargo. This part struck me:
But the Zags coach did want to caution Pargo that the moment he does sign with an agent, the fun of being on a college team is over. It's a business from that point forward. The feedback he has received from former Zags Morrison, Ronny Turiaf, Dan Dickau, Blake Stepp and Richie Frahm is that the collegial experience is missed.
It is indeed a business, but this made me feel a mini-rant coming on. Here goes.
Yes, for many (or maybe most) people, college is a great time. The basketball part is also good, as practice time is limited by NCAA rules and the season lasts no longer than about 40 games.
However, college isn't for everyone. There are lots of otherwise smart and motivated people who do not want to sit through school. They would rather be out doing things, getting paid, and gaining experience.
There are also lots of people (athletes especially) who are wasting their time in college. They aren't very bright to begin with, so they have to get some useless, lame, and easy major, like Communications. An athlete is at least getting some exposure and practice time for what he hopes to be a career playing a sport, but most don't have that as a realistic hope. Why would some people who have no business being in college and don't like school want to spend time there?
This brings me to the guy who metasizes these arguments most often, or so far as I can tell: Dick Vitale. He is always ranting here and there about how college is the best time of people's lives and how athletes should stay in school unless they are no-brainer top draft picks.
Well, Dick, college isn't for everyone. I didn't especially like it, for example, so I graduated early in hopes of working sooner and making money. There are lots of athletes who, for whatever reason, don't want to do it. It may mean they play overseas or in the developmental league, but they are willing to do so to make some money while they can and to not be in school. Everyone has that choice, and your one-size fits all attitude does not, in fact, fit all.
It just really grinds my gears (thanks, Peter Griffin) to hear people talk like that about college and the college experience. So to end, those former Zags who say that the college experience will be missed should really just say that they miss it, not that everyone does or will.
Friday, May 30, 2008
No, not literally
Ever since I heard Dan Dierdorf say during a Colts-Chiefs game a few years ago, "Peyton Manning is literally carving up the Chiefs defense right now," I have been fascinated by people using the word incorrectly. Why? Because Manning wasn't running around the field with a samurai sword chopping linebackers' arms off. Dierdorf, of course, should have said "really" instead, thereby both emphasizing how great Manning was performing while continuing to keep the metaphorical nature of the action alive.
Stephen F. Hayes is with me. For more reading, click on the link within the link to get to his article on this topic.
Stephen F. Hayes is with me. For more reading, click on the link within the link to get to his article on this topic.
The Strangers review
No, I didn't see it (those who know me know that I'd rather eat a bowl of broken glass than go to a movie theater), but here's one by Sonny Bunch over at The Weekly Standard:
As a thriller, The Strangers is effective insofar as it has a number of chest-tightening sequences created by little more than mood, shadows, and figures in the background. It doesn't rely on sharp crescendos in the music or moments of shocking violence to provoke a start in the audience (though a Carrieesque ending feels forced). The little violence there is in The Strangers is methodical and unsurprising--in a way, inevitable. Not to mention gruesome.
I post this because the commercials for it look amazing. I am fired up for it come out on DVD so I can get it from Netflix.
As a thriller, The Strangers is effective insofar as it has a number of chest-tightening sequences created by little more than mood, shadows, and figures in the background. It doesn't rely on sharp crescendos in the music or moments of shocking violence to provoke a start in the audience (though a Carrieesque ending feels forced). The little violence there is in The Strangers is methodical and unsurprising--in a way, inevitable. Not to mention gruesome.
I post this because the commercials for it look amazing. I am fired up for it come out on DVD so I can get it from Netflix.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Roger Ebert's not a huge fan of Sex and the City
He starts his review with this:
I am not the person to review this movie. Perhaps you will enjoy a review from someone who disqualifies himself at the outset, doesn’t much like most of the characters and is bored by their bubble-brained conversations.
I don't blame him for disliking it, I just can't believe he gave it 2 stars. From the commercials, it looks like a sure-fire -34 stars from me. God willing, I will never see it and have to find out.
What I find interesting is that Roger Ebert is a hypocritical windbag. Let's see some movies that he gave zero stars to and didn't disqualify himself as not in the intended target audience as an adult movie reviewer:
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
Freddy Got Fingered
Police Academy
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Tomcats
I am not defending these movies, just pointing out that I guess when it comes to chick flicks, he's too much of a pansy to rip them honestly.
I am not the person to review this movie. Perhaps you will enjoy a review from someone who disqualifies himself at the outset, doesn’t much like most of the characters and is bored by their bubble-brained conversations.
I don't blame him for disliking it, I just can't believe he gave it 2 stars. From the commercials, it looks like a sure-fire -34 stars from me. God willing, I will never see it and have to find out.
What I find interesting is that Roger Ebert is a hypocritical windbag. Let's see some movies that he gave zero stars to and didn't disqualify himself as not in the intended target audience as an adult movie reviewer:
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
Freddy Got Fingered
Police Academy
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Tomcats
I am not defending these movies, just pointing out that I guess when it comes to chick flicks, he's too much of a pansy to rip them honestly.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
If Bryan Flory knew he had a blog, this would be in it
Scott Keith found this on the Wrestling Observer website. Only for pro wrestling dorks.
Book Reviews - STET, Damnit! and Ruthless
Since there's not much going on in election news and no one cares about what I have been doing, here are reviews of a couple of books I finished up in the past few days.
STET, Damnit! is the complete collection of Florence King's columns in National Review from 1991 through her retirement in 2002 (she has since come back to write a column in every other issue of the magazine). Most of them are from her back-of-the-magazine column that was in every issue for many a year called "The Misanthrope's Corner". Yes, she's my inspiration for this blog.
She's a crotchety, old (66 at the time of her retirement) Southern lady who never married and never had children. She reads voraciously, and in fact was for a very long time primarily a book reviewer. Her columns covered everything possible, so it was about much more than current events.
As I read it, I found that I could quote a passage from every one of them on this blog to show how AWESOME she is, but that would be tedious. The book is 496 pages long (and somewhat dense), but I had no problem reading it since she's one of the most fascinating writers whose work I've ever encountered. It gets a high recommendation from me, but I also realize it's not for everyone.
Ruthless: A Memior by Jerry Heller is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Heller, the co-founder of Ruthless Records with Eazy-E, tells his side of the story of the history of label. He was there from the beginning until shortly before Eazy's death, after which Ruthless quickly fell apart.
Any rap fan from the early 1990's knows that Heller was vilified by both Ice Cube and Dr. Dre after their departure from N.W.A. By Heller's account, they are not being honest. I won't give away too much of the history for those who don't know it, but he never liked Ice Cube. He thinks Dre listened to the wrong people (Suge Knight, primarily), which Dre would likely admit today.
Heller also says in the book that if those two hadn't left, they would have made tons of money together for years to come. His model was going to be similar to what the Wu-Tang Clan eventually did, which is dedicate everyone to one album at a time, be it the groups's album or a solo project for one of the members. I agree with him that with the combination of Dre's and Yella's production, Cube's lyrics, and Eazy and Heller's business sense, it could have worked.
I tend to believe Heller over Cube and others. Why? Little did I know, Heller was a very big manager in the 1960's and 1970's rock world. Among his clients were Elton John, Marvin Gaye, and Van Morrison. He hit a slump in his career from about 1975 to 1985, when he go involved in taking West Coast gangster rap national using his music industry connections. To me, he's got tremendous credibility when it comes to the business side of music.
At about 315 small pages with lots of space, this book is a quick read (I read it in two days). I give it a very high recommendation for anyone interested in the development of west coast hip-hop. He's also got lots of great stories from the 1960's and 1970's, too.
STET, Damnit! is the complete collection of Florence King's columns in National Review from 1991 through her retirement in 2002 (she has since come back to write a column in every other issue of the magazine). Most of them are from her back-of-the-magazine column that was in every issue for many a year called "The Misanthrope's Corner". Yes, she's my inspiration for this blog.
She's a crotchety, old (66 at the time of her retirement) Southern lady who never married and never had children. She reads voraciously, and in fact was for a very long time primarily a book reviewer. Her columns covered everything possible, so it was about much more than current events.
As I read it, I found that I could quote a passage from every one of them on this blog to show how AWESOME she is, but that would be tedious. The book is 496 pages long (and somewhat dense), but I had no problem reading it since she's one of the most fascinating writers whose work I've ever encountered. It gets a high recommendation from me, but I also realize it's not for everyone.
Ruthless: A Memior by Jerry Heller is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Heller, the co-founder of Ruthless Records with Eazy-E, tells his side of the story of the history of label. He was there from the beginning until shortly before Eazy's death, after which Ruthless quickly fell apart.
Any rap fan from the early 1990's knows that Heller was vilified by both Ice Cube and Dr. Dre after their departure from N.W.A. By Heller's account, they are not being honest. I won't give away too much of the history for those who don't know it, but he never liked Ice Cube. He thinks Dre listened to the wrong people (Suge Knight, primarily), which Dre would likely admit today.
Heller also says in the book that if those two hadn't left, they would have made tons of money together for years to come. His model was going to be similar to what the Wu-Tang Clan eventually did, which is dedicate everyone to one album at a time, be it the groups's album or a solo project for one of the members. I agree with him that with the combination of Dre's and Yella's production, Cube's lyrics, and Eazy and Heller's business sense, it could have worked.
I tend to believe Heller over Cube and others. Why? Little did I know, Heller was a very big manager in the 1960's and 1970's rock world. Among his clients were Elton John, Marvin Gaye, and Van Morrison. He hit a slump in his career from about 1975 to 1985, when he go involved in taking West Coast gangster rap national using his music industry connections. To me, he's got tremendous credibility when it comes to the business side of music.
At about 315 small pages with lots of space, this book is a quick read (I read it in two days). I give it a very high recommendation for anyone interested in the development of west coast hip-hop. He's also got lots of great stories from the 1960's and 1970's, too.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Annual shareholder meetings
I own a few individual equites, and thus I get invites to attend their annual meetings. I never go, mainly because they are seemingly always on a random Tuesday in Virginia or something.
This Sun-Times article contains interviews with 3 local investors who frequently attend these meetings. I had no idea they give things away:
Best spread: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which at the Swissotel Chicago in 2006 offered a full line of buffet items (sliced roast beef, turkey, ham), salads, dessert and open bar.
Then there is this, which made me laugh out loud:
Easiest to get a word in: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. But one of the easiest this year was female condom maker Chicago-based the Female Health Co. He was the only shareholder in attendance. "They let me talk all I wanted."
This Sun-Times article contains interviews with 3 local investors who frequently attend these meetings. I had no idea they give things away:
Best spread: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which at the Swissotel Chicago in 2006 offered a full line of buffet items (sliced roast beef, turkey, ham), salads, dessert and open bar.
Then there is this, which made me laugh out loud:
Easiest to get a word in: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. But one of the easiest this year was female condom maker Chicago-based the Female Health Co. He was the only shareholder in attendance. "They let me talk all I wanted."
John McCain is a liar
John McCain saved his presidential ambitions last year by ditching his rhetoric about amnesty for illegal aliens. He started saying that he heard the American people, that they want border security first, and that he would work on that before he would push for amnesty as president.
I never actually believed this, but I was willing to at least believe him since despite his many flaws, he had a record of being a man of his word.
That's no longer true.
Here he is last night speaking to a business group:
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
John Hawkins reaches the following conclusion:
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
I agree completely. McCain WILL NOT have my vote in November, regardless of what happens from now until then. If we have amnesty (and we likely will, since Obama is also in favor of open borders), I'd rather it not have the support of a Republican president. Let the Democrats be blamed for its disastrous results.
Oh yeah, about that post the other day? Now Obama isn't the only one I'll be going after.
UPDATE: Ace is with me, and of course does a better job of saying it:
What surprises me is that John McCain fetishizes his own integrity and honor and yet apparently doesn't think a promise made to conservatives "counts" -- perhaps he imagines we're children, or perhaps legally incompetent lunatics, who cannot enter binding contracts, and thus the contract he made with us can be voided without consequence?
I don't know. For a man to whom integrity and honor is supposedly so important one would imagine he'd be slightly less cavalier about lying and breaking a promise, even if he didn't like that promise.
...and...
This is the nasty edge of McCain's conception of himself as impeccably righteous -- he believes he's so above the rest of us in terms of honesty and integrity he can also decide what constitutes a lie and what constitutes bad behavior and what represents a broken promise. As in, his mind, his presidency is absolutely indispensible to America, tiny deceptions like this are not merely excusable, but downright imperative, and thus justified.
I never actually believed this, but I was willing to at least believe him since despite his many flaws, he had a record of being a man of his word.
That's no longer true.
Here he is last night speaking to a business group:
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
John Hawkins reaches the following conclusion:
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
I agree completely. McCain WILL NOT have my vote in November, regardless of what happens from now until then. If we have amnesty (and we likely will, since Obama is also in favor of open borders), I'd rather it not have the support of a Republican president. Let the Democrats be blamed for its disastrous results.
Oh yeah, about that post the other day? Now Obama isn't the only one I'll be going after.
UPDATE: Ace is with me, and of course does a better job of saying it:
What surprises me is that John McCain fetishizes his own integrity and honor and yet apparently doesn't think a promise made to conservatives "counts" -- perhaps he imagines we're children, or perhaps legally incompetent lunatics, who cannot enter binding contracts, and thus the contract he made with us can be voided without consequence?
I don't know. For a man to whom integrity and honor is supposedly so important one would imagine he'd be slightly less cavalier about lying and breaking a promise, even if he didn't like that promise.
...and...
This is the nasty edge of McCain's conception of himself as impeccably righteous -- he believes he's so above the rest of us in terms of honesty and integrity he can also decide what constitutes a lie and what constitutes bad behavior and what represents a broken promise. As in, his mind, his presidency is absolutely indispensible to America, tiny deceptions like this are not merely excusable, but downright imperative, and thus justified.
Warning
Since last night was the Corporate Challenge, and since my job was company denmother and I spent the race drinking a sixer of Budweiser and reading the latest issue of Forbes and watching the pile of jackets and bags, and since I blacked out and was out until who knows when, there will be nothing insightful today.
"So how is that different than usual?" asks the regular reader. To that I have no response. In other news, at least, the Sox have won 8 games in a row! Wait until they win the World Series again and the Cubs fans will be on 101...
OK, I'm clearly still drunk. I am listening to what is possibly the greatest album of ALL TIME - Death Certificate by Ice Cube. 20 tracks, every single one of them being great.
"So how is that different than usual?" asks the regular reader. To that I have no response. In other news, at least, the Sox have won 8 games in a row! Wait until they win the World Series again and the Cubs fans will be on 101...
OK, I'm clearly still drunk. I am listening to what is possibly the greatest album of ALL TIME - Death Certificate by Ice Cube. 20 tracks, every single one of them being great.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Corruption and a one-party system
Yes, yes, we all know Chicago's political system is corrupt. More stuff is coming out today, and I hope Patrick Fitzgerald keeps it up. No one is surprised, so I don't even find the details interesting.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
The reasons behind our high gas prices
Greedy oil companies, as to many Democratic Senators think? Not at all, according to John Hinderaker's analysis over at Powerline.
I recommend reading the whole thing if you think the oil companies are behind gas prices. Among many other reasons:
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
Not that anyone who follows politics closely would be surprised that liberal Democrats are most concerned with having lots of money coming into the government through taxes.
Another big point was raised by John Hofmeister of Shell:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that most Democrats, because they are beholden to the environmentalist left, want high gas prices as means of both punishing our economy (and those people especially who use lots of petroleum personally, like SUV drivers) and weaning the world off of petroleum-based fuel sources. That's an understandable enough position (not that I agree with it), but the Washington Democrats who agree with it don't have the courage to actually come out and say it. Instead, they do the one thing that accomplishes nothing toward reducing gas prices (berating oil executives on the Hill) and push for something that would make prices even HIGHER (a windfall profits tax) by discouraging investment in new technologies and exploration.
Again, I encourage anyone with the interest in this topic to read the whole thing.
Of course, it wouldn't be something I disagree with if John McCain didn't get involved (scroll down to see his part):
“Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
I recommend reading the whole thing if you think the oil companies are behind gas prices. Among many other reasons:
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
Not that anyone who follows politics closely would be surprised that liberal Democrats are most concerned with having lots of money coming into the government through taxes.
Another big point was raised by John Hofmeister of Shell:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that most Democrats, because they are beholden to the environmentalist left, want high gas prices as means of both punishing our economy (and those people especially who use lots of petroleum personally, like SUV drivers) and weaning the world off of petroleum-based fuel sources. That's an understandable enough position (not that I agree with it), but the Washington Democrats who agree with it don't have the courage to actually come out and say it. Instead, they do the one thing that accomplishes nothing toward reducing gas prices (berating oil executives on the Hill) and push for something that would make prices even HIGHER (a windfall profits tax) by discouraging investment in new technologies and exploration.
Again, I encourage anyone with the interest in this topic to read the whole thing.
Of course, it wouldn't be something I disagree with if John McCain didn't get involved (scroll down to see his part):
“Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
I love the South
Some dude fell 150 feet at a Braves game last night and died:
A 25-year-old man died from injuries sustained after falling about 150 feet down a stairwell at Turner Field during Wednesday night's game between the Atlanta Braves and New York Mets.
Not surprisingly, good ol' boy horseplay was involved:
Campbell said Hayes may have been sliding down the hand rails when he fell and that alcohol may have been involved.
A 25-year-old man died from injuries sustained after falling about 150 feet down a stairwell at Turner Field during Wednesday night's game between the Atlanta Braves and New York Mets.
Not surprisingly, good ol' boy horseplay was involved:
Campbell said Hayes may have been sliding down the hand rails when he fell and that alcohol may have been involved.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ranking of my alma mater
Here are the top 5% of high schools in the country by some kind of AP-test measure. Mine is #721, but in fairness, we are a state-wide magnet school. I still don't know how I ever got in.
Anyway, a certain school that is supposedly populated with the progeny of the Purdue professorate is missing. Hmmm. I'd heard such good things...
Anyway, a certain school that is supposedly populated with the progeny of the Purdue professorate is missing. Hmmm. I'd heard such good things...
The Senate's mini-amnesty goes down
Thankfully, as Michelle Malkin again links to the details. Note the following:
Opposition to the Feinstein/Craig provision came from open-borders Democrat Robert Menendez, who complained that the mass amnesty didn’t do enough for illegal aliens.
I guess it's good that it was defeated, regardless of the reason. It reminds me of the amnesty debate last summer where more than one observer noted that it was a compromise bill that pleased no one, and was thus defeated by a strange combination of the open-borders left and the pro-amnesty right.
Opposition to the Feinstein/Craig provision came from open-borders Democrat Robert Menendez, who complained that the mass amnesty didn’t do enough for illegal aliens.
I guess it's good that it was defeated, regardless of the reason. It reminds me of the amnesty debate last summer where more than one observer noted that it was a compromise bill that pleased no one, and was thus defeated by a strange combination of the open-borders left and the pro-amnesty right.
Praise McCain, get a cookie
OK, not a cookie, but points or something from the campaign website for leaving pro-McCain comments on certain blogs (not this one). Michelle Malkin has the details. She also has this following suggestion, snarkily:
In the spirit of open dialogue and outreach, I encourage the rest of you all to reciprocate and leave your thoughts about McCain–say, his decision to retain Juan Hernandez, speak at the the La Raza/The Race conference, embrace anti-assimilationist campaign finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio, and perpetuate global warming hysteria, for starters– on the McCain campaign blog.
I enjoy that she is treating this election much like I am, by disliking both candidates.
In the spirit of open dialogue and outreach, I encourage the rest of you all to reciprocate and leave your thoughts about McCain–say, his decision to retain Juan Hernandez, speak at the the La Raza/The Race conference, embrace anti-assimilationist campaign finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio, and perpetuate global warming hysteria, for starters– on the McCain campaign blog.
I enjoy that she is treating this election much like I am, by disliking both candidates.
Obama's team on the general election
The Telegraph of London has an article about how Obama's senior advisors are (behind closed doors) predicting a November blowout of McCain.
There is a LOT in here that I'd like to comment on, but it would take a big chunk of time for me to do so. I want to read it another time or two before I do (if I ever do, as I know I have a history of promising follow-ups that never, um, follow up).
It's not that I think their premise is wrong, that Obama will win handily. I just think there are a lot of things working for and against both candidates, and we are still 5 and 1/2 months away. It's far too early to be making predictions like this, and Team Obama better not get too cocky too early. For an example of that, think about how 5 and 1/2 months ago the nominees were supposed to be Hillary and Giuliani. Hillary in particular never put together the ground game in the caucus states, and that basically lost her the nomination.
Like I say, I'll attempt to have more later.
There is a LOT in here that I'd like to comment on, but it would take a big chunk of time for me to do so. I want to read it another time or two before I do (if I ever do, as I know I have a history of promising follow-ups that never, um, follow up).
It's not that I think their premise is wrong, that Obama will win handily. I just think there are a lot of things working for and against both candidates, and we are still 5 and 1/2 months away. It's far too early to be making predictions like this, and Team Obama better not get too cocky too early. For an example of that, think about how 5 and 1/2 months ago the nominees were supposed to be Hillary and Giuliani. Hillary in particular never put together the ground game in the caucus states, and that basically lost her the nomination.
Like I say, I'll attempt to have more later.
The hangover
The New Yorker finally tackles this important subject. The whole thing is worth reading. Here's a sample:
Application of the hair of the dog may sound like nothing more than a way of getting yourself drunk enough so that you don’t notice you have a hangover, but, according to Wayne Jones, of the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, the biochemistry is probably more complicated than that. Jones’s theory is that the liver, in processing alcohol, first addresses itself to ethanol, which is the alcohol proper, and then moves on to methanol, a secondary ingredient of many wines and spirits. Because methanol breaks down into formic acid, which is highly toxic, it is during this second stage that the hangover is most crushing. If at that point you pour in more alcohol, the body will switch back to ethanol processing. This will not eliminate the hangover—the methanol (indeed, more of it now) is still waiting for you round the bend—but it delays the worst symptoms. It may also mitigate them somewhat. On the other hand, you are drunk again, which may create difficulty about going to work.
Application of the hair of the dog may sound like nothing more than a way of getting yourself drunk enough so that you don’t notice you have a hangover, but, according to Wayne Jones, of the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, the biochemistry is probably more complicated than that. Jones’s theory is that the liver, in processing alcohol, first addresses itself to ethanol, which is the alcohol proper, and then moves on to methanol, a secondary ingredient of many wines and spirits. Because methanol breaks down into formic acid, which is highly toxic, it is during this second stage that the hangover is most crushing. If at that point you pour in more alcohol, the body will switch back to ethanol processing. This will not eliminate the hangover—the methanol (indeed, more of it now) is still waiting for you round the bend—but it delays the worst symptoms. It may also mitigate them somewhat. On the other hand, you are drunk again, which may create difficulty about going to work.
Election coverage
As anyone who regularly reads this space knows, I am no fan of John McCain. He's not a conservative (no matter how much he fooled people in the primaries), and he would be destructive to the Republican brand if he won the presidency. His stands on illegal immigration and global warming show this clearly enough.
I also don't like Barack Obama, as you might guess. He's playing the usual game that the Democratic nominee has to every four years of pretending he's not as liberal as he really is. If he came out and said what he really thought about issues (and the media highlighted his past votes the way they scrutinize Republicans), he'd be lucky to get 40% of the vote in November. The liberal media is thus complicit in this deceit. Obama had the most liberal 2007 voting record in the Senate, which says a lot when you have the likes of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy populating the chamber. New kind of politics and bringing people together? He couldn't even vote to confirm the superbly qualified John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice. He's a left-winger who has come up through the twin pillars of corruption that are the black urban political system and the Chicago Democratic machine. On foreign policy he would be a disaster for our country on the scale of Jimmy Carter.
Given that, you might then conclude that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain. Not so, at least not at this point. Given McCain's history, he has to earn my vote. Being not-Obama isn't good enough.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that although I have basically stayed away from commenting on the Democratic candidates, that's now going to change. There will be tons of anti-Obama stuff coming, but for you Obama fans, don't despair! McCain will no doubt continue to annoy me to levels a Republican presidential candidate shouldn't, so while there may not be equal time, it won't be because I am trying to tear down Obama and prop up McCain. I want to tear them both down.
Besides, my vote won't matter anyway. Jesus Christ himself could be resurrected and run as the Republican nominee, and Obama would still win Illinois.
I also don't like Barack Obama, as you might guess. He's playing the usual game that the Democratic nominee has to every four years of pretending he's not as liberal as he really is. If he came out and said what he really thought about issues (and the media highlighted his past votes the way they scrutinize Republicans), he'd be lucky to get 40% of the vote in November. The liberal media is thus complicit in this deceit. Obama had the most liberal 2007 voting record in the Senate, which says a lot when you have the likes of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy populating the chamber. New kind of politics and bringing people together? He couldn't even vote to confirm the superbly qualified John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice. He's a left-winger who has come up through the twin pillars of corruption that are the black urban political system and the Chicago Democratic machine. On foreign policy he would be a disaster for our country on the scale of Jimmy Carter.
Given that, you might then conclude that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain. Not so, at least not at this point. Given McCain's history, he has to earn my vote. Being not-Obama isn't good enough.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that although I have basically stayed away from commenting on the Democratic candidates, that's now going to change. There will be tons of anti-Obama stuff coming, but for you Obama fans, don't despair! McCain will no doubt continue to annoy me to levels a Republican presidential candidate shouldn't, so while there may not be equal time, it won't be because I am trying to tear down Obama and prop up McCain. I want to tear them both down.
Besides, my vote won't matter anyway. Jesus Christ himself could be resurrected and run as the Republican nominee, and Obama would still win Illinois.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Was Obama ever a Muslim?
Some people go through great pains to say that Obama isn't a Muslim. True enough, he is a Christian (if you can call his church's insane teachings Christian).
His campaign says that he was never a Muslim. That's not quite accurate, as Daniel Pipes points out.
Does this matter? Not to me, since he can't be held accountable for how he was raised. However, my concern is similar to Pipes':
Obama's having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.
His campaign says that he was never a Muslim. That's not quite accurate, as Daniel Pipes points out.
Does this matter? Not to me, since he can't be held accountable for how he was raised. However, my concern is similar to Pipes':
Obama's having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.
Monday, May 19, 2008
I hate the French
Every good American doesn't like the French people. Here is another reason:
France is considering a ban on happy hours in bars and on the sale of bottles of vodka and other strong liquor in nightclubs as part of efforts to curb binge drinking among young people, an official said on Monday.
France is considering a ban on happy hours in bars and on the sale of bottles of vodka and other strong liquor in nightclubs as part of efforts to curb binge drinking among young people, an official said on Monday.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Fascism and jaywalking
Not fascism as ignoramouses use it (meaning anything bad), but in the strict definition of it (which this book and blog are about).
Anyway, I found this interesting about the west coast. Perhaps the Seattlites, or Coffeeheads as I imagine them to be called, who read this blog could comment on their experiences. I'd also like to read what folks who have spent significant time living on the west coast in other places think.
Anyway, I found this interesting about the west coast. Perhaps the Seattlites, or Coffeeheads as I imagine them to be called, who read this blog could comment on their experiences. I'd also like to read what folks who have spent significant time living on the west coast in other places think.
Post-mortem on that Iowa immigration raid
Cry me a river:
"I like my job. I like my work. I like it here in Iowa," said Escobedo, 38, an illegal immigrant from Yescas, Mexico, who has raised his three children for 11 years in Postville. "Are they mad because I'm working?"
I bet he does like it in Iowa, since it's got to be better than the third-world crap-hole from whence he came. (Although since it's Iowa, not much. Heh.) He doesn't realize that our country is better than just about every other one in the world, though, so should we let them all in?
And yeah, dumbass, they are mad because you are working. It has nothing to do with being here illegally and likely extensive Social Security and document fraud.
Also, how about this for a cultural shift in a small town in Iowa, of all places:
Half of the school system's 600 students were absent Tuesday, including 90 percent of Hispanic children, because their parents were arrested or in hiding.
The most appalling part of this piece of propaganda disguised as straight news is the absence of a single pro-enforcement voice in the article (I don't count the administration, since they are just doing their job, however weakly and sporadically). I am amazed that the country is still overwhelmingly for enforcement after the media's continual browbeating of us into submitting into open borders and amnesty.
"I like my job. I like my work. I like it here in Iowa," said Escobedo, 38, an illegal immigrant from Yescas, Mexico, who has raised his three children for 11 years in Postville. "Are they mad because I'm working?"
I bet he does like it in Iowa, since it's got to be better than the third-world crap-hole from whence he came. (Although since it's Iowa, not much. Heh.) He doesn't realize that our country is better than just about every other one in the world, though, so should we let them all in?
And yeah, dumbass, they are mad because you are working. It has nothing to do with being here illegally and likely extensive Social Security and document fraud.
Also, how about this for a cultural shift in a small town in Iowa, of all places:
Half of the school system's 600 students were absent Tuesday, including 90 percent of Hispanic children, because their parents were arrested or in hiding.
The most appalling part of this piece of propaganda disguised as straight news is the absence of a single pro-enforcement voice in the article (I don't count the administration, since they are just doing their job, however weakly and sporadically). I am amazed that the country is still overwhelmingly for enforcement after the media's continual browbeating of us into submitting into open borders and amnesty.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Defacing money
Thanks to Ace, I found this picture.
I really shouldn't laugh, but I can't stop after seeing it. It was 143 years ago, so I think it's OK as a comedic subject.
I really shouldn't laugh, but I can't stop after seeing it. It was 143 years ago, so I think it's OK as a comedic subject.
Mine is now only the second-best blog on Blogger
But that's only because DePo has one now. That's right, former Dodger GM and Moneyball subject and current Padre executive Paul DePodesta now has a blog.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Great shirt
If you don't understand it, then you're not a politics nerd. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing it out, and also for showing how cranky conservatives are with the national Republican party.
These guys are kind of smart
Dana O'Neil has a good profile of the Cal Tech basketball team over on ESPN.com. I like this description of one of the players:
Cullina -- whom coach Roy Dow calls "one of the very special intellects at Caltech," even among his peers, as he has been known to be able to help students with questions in classes that "he has not even taken" -- will be working in a jet propulsion lab, developing avionics hardware that NASA can reuse on its unmanned missions.
Yikes.
Cullina -- whom coach Roy Dow calls "one of the very special intellects at Caltech," even among his peers, as he has been known to be able to help students with questions in classes that "he has not even taken" -- will be working in a jet propulsion lab, developing avionics hardware that NASA can reuse on its unmanned missions.
Yikes.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Lance Briggs is the new Shawn Kemp
Well, not quite yet, but he's still only 27. Give him some time:
In court Wednesday, Briggs' ex-girlfriend Brittini Tribbett, 21, again pleaded for Briggs to provide adequate emotional and financial support for their baby girl, while another pregnant woman stood by, listening to talk of how she's set to deliver a Briggs baby.
Briggs, 27, wasn't in court. He is living in Arizona with yet another woman who recently gave birth to another daughter of Briggs, those involved in the case alleged.
In court Wednesday, Briggs' ex-girlfriend Brittini Tribbett, 21, again pleaded for Briggs to provide adequate emotional and financial support for their baby girl, while another pregnant woman stood by, listening to talk of how she's set to deliver a Briggs baby.
Briggs, 27, wasn't in court. He is living in Arizona with yet another woman who recently gave birth to another daughter of Briggs, those involved in the case alleged.
"Oh Boy"
That's the title of this blog post on The Corner by Kathryn Jean Lopez, where she reproduces an e-mail:
Subject: McCain's Speech(es)
Every time I hear one I wonder if there will be a Republican response, like after the State of the Union.
Good question!
Subject: McCain's Speech(es)
Every time I hear one I wonder if there will be a Republican response, like after the State of the Union.
Good question!
Now for some Senate amnesty
Anyone who didn't believe what I wrote yesterday (about how in DC the elites are always trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens) can take a look this from Michelle Malkin and Numbers USA:
Our NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team got several confirmations through both Democratic and Republican sources that Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) was preparing to add an [agricultural] amnesty to the Iraq bill Thursday afternoon in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Yesterday it was the House trying to invalidate local and state laws that crack down on illegals. Today it's Senator Feinstein attempting an amnesty. What a surprise.
I'm sure John McCain supports it.
Our NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team got several confirmations through both Democratic and Republican sources that Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) was preparing to add an [agricultural] amnesty to the Iraq bill Thursday afternoon in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Yesterday it was the House trying to invalidate local and state laws that crack down on illegals. Today it's Senator Feinstein attempting an amnesty. What a surprise.
I'm sure John McCain supports it.
John McCain pushes me closer to the edge
John McCain is making voting for him in November more and more difficult. Obviously (to anyone who reads this space with any regularity, that is), his open-borders and pro-amnesty stance for illegal aliens is the big one. He's lately been getting worse on this issue (after his mild flirtation with enforcement that brought back his campaign last year), which was bad enough.
The other day, though, he gave a big speech on global warming. Conservatives didn't like it:
It looks like Senator McCain is going to be his own worst enemy. He’s feisty and stubborn and those attributes are showing (and not in a good way) in his refusal to compromise with conservatives on issues like global warming and illegal immigration. The more I hear from McCain, the less likely I am to vote for him. I initially intended to vote for him because he’s the Republican candidate, but with a Democratic-controlled Congress and McCain’s inclination to “reach across the aisle,” what will I get for my vote?
Exactly my thoughts. Then there is this:
The latest sign of that is the recently introduced “eco-friendly” campaign merchandise the McCain campaign has showcased on its Web site. Included are his and hers “Go Green” McCain embroidered polo shirts, T-shirts, hats and visors with or without the recycle logo. Organic cotton onesies for the babies. You can also find “Go Green” McCain tote bags, notebooks and travel mugs (with up to 100 percent recycled material and an “enhanced biodegradability additive”).
It sounds like a joke, and I wish it was. This is nauseating to me. If hippies want to get into that stuff, fine, but for the conservative party's nominee to is too much for me. Here's Rush's take:
“The troubling thing here, Senator McCain, is I’m mapping out plans here to try to persuade Republicans to eventually cross over to vote for you and this is not making it any easier,” conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his May 12 show. “At some point Republicans are going to have to decide whether to cross the aisle and vote for McCain. Clearly, he’s rolling the dice in thinking that the ‘green’ community and the independents and the yutes out there will buy into this global warming business and think he’s different than the average conservative Republican and that will stand him in good stead.”
If the election was today, I'd leave the presidential spot blank.
The other day, though, he gave a big speech on global warming. Conservatives didn't like it:
It looks like Senator McCain is going to be his own worst enemy. He’s feisty and stubborn and those attributes are showing (and not in a good way) in his refusal to compromise with conservatives on issues like global warming and illegal immigration. The more I hear from McCain, the less likely I am to vote for him. I initially intended to vote for him because he’s the Republican candidate, but with a Democratic-controlled Congress and McCain’s inclination to “reach across the aisle,” what will I get for my vote?
Exactly my thoughts. Then there is this:
The latest sign of that is the recently introduced “eco-friendly” campaign merchandise the McCain campaign has showcased on its Web site. Included are his and hers “Go Green” McCain embroidered polo shirts, T-shirts, hats and visors with or without the recycle logo. Organic cotton onesies for the babies. You can also find “Go Green” McCain tote bags, notebooks and travel mugs (with up to 100 percent recycled material and an “enhanced biodegradability additive”).
It sounds like a joke, and I wish it was. This is nauseating to me. If hippies want to get into that stuff, fine, but for the conservative party's nominee to is too much for me. Here's Rush's take:
“The troubling thing here, Senator McCain, is I’m mapping out plans here to try to persuade Republicans to eventually cross over to vote for you and this is not making it any easier,” conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his May 12 show. “At some point Republicans are going to have to decide whether to cross the aisle and vote for McCain. Clearly, he’s rolling the dice in thinking that the ‘green’ community and the independents and the yutes out there will buy into this global warming business and think he’s different than the average conservative Republican and that will stand him in good stead.”
If the election was today, I'd leave the presidential spot blank.
A small step towards sanity for the Chicago City Council
As much as I like to hammer on the nanny-staters in the Chicago City Council, I should give them credit when they deserve it. Yesterday they repealed the city's ban on foie gras, which is some kind of fancy food, being served in restaurants. You could still always buy it at the store and cook it home. I had never heard of it before the ban (as I imagine is the case with most Chicagoans), but for some reason Alderman Joe Moore thought it was important enough to pass the ban a couple of years ago. That, of course, made our city a laughingstock. I mean, it's FOOD.
Apparently there were some protocols that were violated to get the repeal through, but I don't care. The right thing was done, and it's not like the city council is known for staunch constitutional principles. What I do know is that Moore is PISSED:
When Moore tried to debate the merits, Daley ruled that the measure was not debatable. He ordered the clerk to call the roll and to continue, even as Moore shouted for the right to be heard.
"If it can happen to me, tomorrow it could happen to you," Moore warned his colleagues.
"Thank you, Ald. Joe ‘Foie Gras’ Moore," Daley said.
After the show of force, Moore denounced the mayor as a dictator and Wednesday’s meeting as a new low.
"Even in the ugliest days of one-man rule, members of the City Council still had the opportunity to ... state their case. For the mayor to fail to recognize me to debate the merits of this issue was the height of arrogance," Moore said.
"The city had placed its mark as a city of compassion, a city that was standing up against [animal] cruelty and it’s taken a giant step backward. But, it’s also taken a giant step backward in ... good old fashioned democracy. ... There was no reason that this issue had to be ramrodded through today," Moore said.
The animal rights crankss are also unhappy, but that just tells me that this was the right thing to do:
Julie Janovsky, a spokesperson for the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary, argued that the foie gras ban had "massive public support" and that the City Council’s repeal "effectively endorsed animal cruelty."
"Chicagoans were proud to live in a city that took a stand for humanity. To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in society -- animals raised for food," Janovsky said.
Yeah, that's exactly what this repeal did did. Next thing you know they will pass a resolution praising Michael Vick. And a goose or duck is not quite the most vulnerable being in our society (how about babies?), since many of them are killed anyway for food.
I've never eaten it before, but now I want to have some the next time I'm in a fancy joint just to shove it up these animal rights dorks' asses.
Apparently there were some protocols that were violated to get the repeal through, but I don't care. The right thing was done, and it's not like the city council is known for staunch constitutional principles. What I do know is that Moore is PISSED:
When Moore tried to debate the merits, Daley ruled that the measure was not debatable. He ordered the clerk to call the roll and to continue, even as Moore shouted for the right to be heard.
"If it can happen to me, tomorrow it could happen to you," Moore warned his colleagues.
"Thank you, Ald. Joe ‘Foie Gras’ Moore," Daley said.
After the show of force, Moore denounced the mayor as a dictator and Wednesday’s meeting as a new low.
"Even in the ugliest days of one-man rule, members of the City Council still had the opportunity to ... state their case. For the mayor to fail to recognize me to debate the merits of this issue was the height of arrogance," Moore said.
"The city had placed its mark as a city of compassion, a city that was standing up against [animal] cruelty and it’s taken a giant step backward. But, it’s also taken a giant step backward in ... good old fashioned democracy. ... There was no reason that this issue had to be ramrodded through today," Moore said.
The animal rights crankss are also unhappy, but that just tells me that this was the right thing to do:
Julie Janovsky, a spokesperson for the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary, argued that the foie gras ban had "massive public support" and that the City Council’s repeal "effectively endorsed animal cruelty."
"Chicagoans were proud to live in a city that took a stand for humanity. To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in society -- animals raised for food," Janovsky said.
Yeah, that's exactly what this repeal did did. Next thing you know they will pass a resolution praising Michael Vick. And a goose or duck is not quite the most vulnerable being in our society (how about babies?), since many of them are killed anyway for food.
I've never eaten it before, but now I want to have some the next time I'm in a fancy joint just to shove it up these animal rights dorks' asses.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Newsflash: Congress still trying to sneak amnesty for illegal aliens past us
It's hard to surprise me lately when it comes to Washington DC, but I should always keep in mind how much they all want to give amnesty to as many illegal aliens as possible, along with keeping the borders wide open.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
To wit, in the past few years many states and municipalities have passed there own laws to combat illegal immigration since the federal government has no interest in doing so. They have been pretty darn successful. So what does Congress want to do? Invalidate them all!
As always when dealing with the political class growing ever more distant from the populace it rules, the NEVA devil is in the details. For all of its noble goals, hidden in the voluminous wording of this legislation is the true agenda of its sponsors, to wit, the section on preemption, Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
This preemption, buried deep in the text of the bill, would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Gone would be the recent highly effective and highly successful enforcement legislation of Arizona and Oklahoma, the local laws and ordinances of towns like Hazleton, PA, Costa Mesa, CA, Herndon and Prince William, Virginia, and over a hundred other localities, and of hundreds more in process of enactment.
For one example, the control of business licenses is now one of the few areas not preempted. It is one of the few tools still left to states and local governments to fight the presence and hiring of illegal workers, and the award of benefits and welfare. NEVA would take even those tools away. Having abdicated its own responsibilities on immigration enforcement, the Congress is apparently on a search-and-destroy mission for any lower elected body that might actually want to follow the rule of law and provide the protection for its citizens that the federal government seems incapable and unwilling to provide.
Who is responsible for this abomination? Here is where I'm surprised, since House Republicans were the only thing that stopped the last few attempts at amnesty:
Although labeled “bipartisan”, this bill submitted by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) is overwhelmingly Republican in its sponsorship (28 out of 31). It appears to be a counter to Democrat Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act legislation, a much better, if not perfect, alternative now blocked by fellow Democrat Speaker Pelosi’s pro-illegal obstinacy.
Apparently the Republican leadership in Congress, not having been slapped around enough by the voters in the disastrous 2006 elections for its disconnect with those voters, is hell-bent on continuing to fight the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the illegal immigration problem fixed, not facilitated. Rather than listen to the people, they seem to be more attuned to the special interests whose siren call on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2006 led Republicans into the minority.
Gee, I can only imagine what John McCain thinks of this bill. Oh wait...since, despite all of his lies since the amnesty fight last year almost (and should have) ruined his presidential run, he still wants open borders and amnesty for all the illegals here now, I don't have to imagine.
Sorry, Urlacher
So Brian Urlacher wants a new contract from the Bears, and he is willing to sit out mandatory workouts to show how serious he is. Oh and he has FOUR YEARS left on his current deal. Here's his rationale:
Urlacher, who said he has recovered from neck surgery, has four years left on his nine-year, $56.5 million contract, but he believes the deal is outdated.
"It's easy for people to criticize me for wanting [a new deal], and I understand that it's a contract and I signed it," Urlacher said, according to Yahoo.com. "But this is the NFL, and if I'd signed it and I'd played like [expletive], they'd have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there's no difference. If they can 'break' a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.
"When I signed my deal the salary cap was $75 million. It's, what, $116 million now? Things have changed. I understand that all of this, to a normal person, sounds crazy. It's all relative to what you do. If you're a chair-builder, and you feel you're the best at what you do, and other chair-builders are making more than you, then you'd want to be paid more, too."
(Chair builders don't sign 9-year contracts with large signing bonuses. This sounds like Scottie Pippen all over again.)
He's right that the Bears could cut him any time during the contract. That's because in the NFL, there are almost no guaranteed contracts. When free agency first started back in the 1990's, there were a couple of guys who had them, but nobody since has, I believe. So sure, this is bad for Urlacher. But let's dig a little deeper.
Every time a big contract is signed, we always hear about how much guaranteed money the player is getting. It's always much more than the average salary for the life of the deal. The reason (generally) is that the signing bonuses are quite large in comparison, with the money prorated over the life of the contract to make it advantageous for cap purposes. It's all explained here.
However, a reason the team wouldn't want to cut him is that his prorated 4 years of bonus for cap purposes would be accelerated to this year, leaving the team with less money to spend on other players.
So obviously this is all more complicated than Urlacher's analysis. What's really going on here?
After Urlacher's original rookie contract expired, the Bears gave him his current contract. At the time, it was very large for a linebacker, probably the highest in the league if I recall correctly. So he got a huge signing bonus back then.
Why did he sign a 9-year contract rather than a 5-year one? Give youself a gold star if you said it's because he got a bigger signing bonus! He could have opted for a shorter deal with a smaller bonus, but he got greedy.
I don't see why the Bears should renogotiate with him now, because, as the article states:
Despite playing with back pain, Urlacher led the Bears in tackles last season with 123 and added five sacks and five interceptions.
That's right, he developed some back problems last year. He also turns 30 over Memorial Day weekend. Clearly, he is going for a big payday while he can still command one, because there is a chance of his career going south quickly.
If I were running the Bears, I would just sit tight. The only leverage Urlacher has is his huge popularity, and that's not enough when he has 4 years left on his contract.
Urlacher, who said he has recovered from neck surgery, has four years left on his nine-year, $56.5 million contract, but he believes the deal is outdated.
"It's easy for people to criticize me for wanting [a new deal], and I understand that it's a contract and I signed it," Urlacher said, according to Yahoo.com. "But this is the NFL, and if I'd signed it and I'd played like [expletive], they'd have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there's no difference. If they can 'break' a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.
"When I signed my deal the salary cap was $75 million. It's, what, $116 million now? Things have changed. I understand that all of this, to a normal person, sounds crazy. It's all relative to what you do. If you're a chair-builder, and you feel you're the best at what you do, and other chair-builders are making more than you, then you'd want to be paid more, too."
(Chair builders don't sign 9-year contracts with large signing bonuses. This sounds like Scottie Pippen all over again.)
He's right that the Bears could cut him any time during the contract. That's because in the NFL, there are almost no guaranteed contracts. When free agency first started back in the 1990's, there were a couple of guys who had them, but nobody since has, I believe. So sure, this is bad for Urlacher. But let's dig a little deeper.
Every time a big contract is signed, we always hear about how much guaranteed money the player is getting. It's always much more than the average salary for the life of the deal. The reason (generally) is that the signing bonuses are quite large in comparison, with the money prorated over the life of the contract to make it advantageous for cap purposes. It's all explained here.
However, a reason the team wouldn't want to cut him is that his prorated 4 years of bonus for cap purposes would be accelerated to this year, leaving the team with less money to spend on other players.
So obviously this is all more complicated than Urlacher's analysis. What's really going on here?
After Urlacher's original rookie contract expired, the Bears gave him his current contract. At the time, it was very large for a linebacker, probably the highest in the league if I recall correctly. So he got a huge signing bonus back then.
Why did he sign a 9-year contract rather than a 5-year one? Give youself a gold star if you said it's because he got a bigger signing bonus! He could have opted for a shorter deal with a smaller bonus, but he got greedy.
I don't see why the Bears should renogotiate with him now, because, as the article states:
Despite playing with back pain, Urlacher led the Bears in tackles last season with 123 and added five sacks and five interceptions.
That's right, he developed some back problems last year. He also turns 30 over Memorial Day weekend. Clearly, he is going for a big payday while he can still command one, because there is a chance of his career going south quickly.
If I were running the Bears, I would just sit tight. The only leverage Urlacher has is his huge popularity, and that's not enough when he has 4 years left on his contract.
Monday, May 12, 2008
This seems like a dream
Yep, a sweet, sweet dream:
This stretch of Lafayette Avenue in the Manassas area is a fairly gloomy scene. "For Sale" signs flap outside two of the 30 1960s-era red brick starter homes on the block. Eight others appear to be vacant. Few cars are parked on the street. The worn sidewalks are deserted.
But to Pannell and Kipp, it is a tableau of hope. And victory.
For much of the past decade, according to the women and other neighbors, parking was bumper-to-bumper and most of the empty houses were packed with Latino residents they believe were in the country illegally. Now Pannell and Kipp are convinced that Prince William's illegal-immigration crackdown, which both championed as first-time activists, has helped flush many of those people out of their neighborhood, West Gate.
The experiences that hardened their attitude and the relief they now feel have been voiced by many Prince William residents who bridled at the influx of immigrants, many of whom they suspected were here illegally, according to activist leaders.
This stretch of Lafayette Avenue in the Manassas area is a fairly gloomy scene. "For Sale" signs flap outside two of the 30 1960s-era red brick starter homes on the block. Eight others appear to be vacant. Few cars are parked on the street. The worn sidewalks are deserted.
But to Pannell and Kipp, it is a tableau of hope. And victory.
For much of the past decade, according to the women and other neighbors, parking was bumper-to-bumper and most of the empty houses were packed with Latino residents they believe were in the country illegally. Now Pannell and Kipp are convinced that Prince William's illegal-immigration crackdown, which both championed as first-time activists, has helped flush many of those people out of their neighborhood, West Gate.
The experiences that hardened their attitude and the relief they now feel have been voiced by many Prince William residents who bridled at the influx of immigrants, many of whom they suspected were here illegally, according to activist leaders.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Drunkblogging
So I woke up at 7:30 this morning. How? Well, I found some evidence that I went to Burger King last night and had 2 Whoppers. I guess I made a cabbie go there.
Anyway, I am pounding water and already went to the store to get a frozen pizza, which I am cooking now.
The exam feels like a 6, which is passing for those non-actuaries. I never feel this confident, so that's a bad sign. I probably got a 3. We'll see.
The real winners last night? America's brewers.
Anyway, I am pounding water and already went to the store to get a frozen pizza, which I am cooking now.
The exam feels like a 6, which is passing for those non-actuaries. I never feel this confident, so that's a bad sign. I probably got a 3. We'll see.
The real winners last night? America's brewers.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
That's it
It's 7:30 PM the night before my exam, and my brain is offically full. I can't take any more in without losing things like how to put on pants. It reminds me of a Married...With Children episode. (Yes, I can relate most anything to an episode of Married...With Children, Futurama, The Simpsons, South Park, or Beavis and Butthead. Draw your own conclusions.):
Told he hasn't got enough "personality" to appear on a TV sports-trivia game show, Al (Ed O'Neill) trains his daughter Kelly (Christina Applegate) to take his place. Unfortunately, Kelly's brain capacity is such that she can't handle the onslaught of new information--in fact, all of her "old thoughts" are spilling all over the place (including her memories of her unlamented foster brother Seven [Shane Sweet]). American Gladiators host Todd Christensen appears in this final episode of Married. . .With Children's eighth season, which may represent the last time that an American sitcom invoked the name of O.J. Simpson without mentioning you-know-what (since "you-know-what" hadn't happened yet!)
So yes, I'm no smarter than Kelly Bundy. On an unrelated note, I don't recall ever seeing women wearing clothes like hers in the early 1990's:
...which was always a bit of a shame.
Just doing the jobs Americans won't do
Like impregnating 10-year-old girls, I guess:
KIDK-TV says Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez, a suspected illegal immigrant, is being held at the Fremont County Jail. He's due in court next week to face rape charges.
"I wouldn't have believed a 10-year-old could conceive in the first place," Fremont County Sheriff Ralph Davis tells the Associated Press.
KIDK-TV says Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez, a suspected illegal immigrant, is being held at the Fremont County Jail. He's due in court next week to face rape charges.
"I wouldn't have believed a 10-year-old could conceive in the first place," Fremont County Sheriff Ralph Davis tells the Associated Press.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Studying and exam update
I have come to realize that I probably won't pass this exam I'm taking on Friday. Thus, I've done things like go out all night Saturday and spend my Tuesday at the bowling alley until 2:30 WITHOUT EVEN BOWLING.
That being said, I'm still going to give it a shot. It's the most odd exam I've ever taken; I can really see myself nailing it, bombing it, or doing something in between (most likely bombing it, though).
I have nothing else here, but I'd like to note that I'm home studying the next two days, so barring another stupid decision like going out to the lanes tonight, the next time you people will see me is at Hidden Shamrock on Friday at around 3:30.
That being said, I'm still going to give it a shot. It's the most odd exam I've ever taken; I can really see myself nailing it, bombing it, or doing something in between (most likely bombing it, though).
I have nothing else here, but I'd like to note that I'm home studying the next two days, so barring another stupid decision like going out to the lanes tonight, the next time you people will see me is at Hidden Shamrock on Friday at around 3:30.
It's Obama
Hills didn't get the job done last night in the motherland, and she got clobbered in NC. The result is that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for president.
Given that he's the most left-wing presidential nominee in the history of the country, I don't find this to be a positive development. I do think, though, that McCain will beat him in November if McCain can avoid bleeding too many conservative voters.
And that's the crux of the problem for McCain. Despite his slick talk in trying to fool the voters, he's still pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He's also loved spending the last four years stabbing conservatives in the back. He made a big speech a couple of days ago on his supposed judicial philosophy, but he can't be trusted on that issue, either. If the general election was today, I really don't know if I'd vote for him or stay home.
Of course, I realize that it wouldn't matter since Illinois is in the bag for Obama regardless...
Given that he's the most left-wing presidential nominee in the history of the country, I don't find this to be a positive development. I do think, though, that McCain will beat him in November if McCain can avoid bleeding too many conservative voters.
And that's the crux of the problem for McCain. Despite his slick talk in trying to fool the voters, he's still pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He's also loved spending the last four years stabbing conservatives in the back. He made a big speech a couple of days ago on his supposed judicial philosophy, but he can't be trusted on that issue, either. If the general election was today, I really don't know if I'd vote for him or stay home.
Of course, I realize that it wouldn't matter since Illinois is in the bag for Obama regardless...
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Loyola's ranking in the newest from US News and World Report
#112. Not too bad, as they edged out such august institutions as Kentucky, Arkansas, and Samford.
Friday, May 2, 2008
When is your "rebate" coming?
I use scare quotes around the word rebate because it's not necessarily a rebate. It's a welfare check to people who made less than $75,000 last year.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Does Hollywood have amnesia?
The Incredible Hulk is coming out June 13. That would be fine, except that I could swear we just had a different, crappy Hulk movie just a few years ago.
Lo and behold! In fairness, it was all the way back in 2003. Life was simpler then. After all, the White Sox and Red Sox had the second and third longest streaks of championship futility in baseball, respectively.
This one isn't a sequel:
The film was originally meant to continue from Hulk (2003) but Edward Norton rewrote the script to make it similar to "The Incredible Hulk" (1978) and Bruce Jones's (run in the the comic books, thus severing all ties to its predecessor and retelling Bruce's origin through flashbacks. Therefore the two films are not within the same continuity.
So Edward Norton, who has done nothing good since Rounders and Fight Club (and I didn't like Fight Club), has enough stroke to pull off a re-write?
We will find out once and for all how stupid the American public is.
Lo and behold! In fairness, it was all the way back in 2003. Life was simpler then. After all, the White Sox and Red Sox had the second and third longest streaks of championship futility in baseball, respectively.
This one isn't a sequel:
The film was originally meant to continue from Hulk (2003) but Edward Norton rewrote the script to make it similar to "The Incredible Hulk" (1978) and Bruce Jones's (run in the the comic books, thus severing all ties to its predecessor and retelling Bruce's origin through flashbacks. Therefore the two films are not within the same continuity.
So Edward Norton, who has done nothing good since Rounders and Fight Club (and I didn't like Fight Club), has enough stroke to pull off a re-write?
We will find out once and for all how stupid the American public is.
You knew this was coming
Since illegal aliens who want citizenship, despite breaking numerous laws such as crossing the border without authorization and Social Security fraud, like to march for it on the biggest communist "holiday" of them all, let's check in on yesterday's events.
Apparently turnout was way down. I guess illegals are too stupid to realize that there actually won't be ICE agents there loading them into busses and shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from:
Some said participation likely was lower because many immigrants increasingly fear deportation.
Margot Veranes, a volunteer organizer in Tucson, Ariz., - where 12,000 took to the streets last year but early estimates Thursday put the crowd at about 500 - blamed the turnout on aggressive enforcement by Border Patrol and police.
This line from the AP's story struck me as funny:
"We're marching to end the raids and the deportations, but we're also marching for health care and education and good jobs," she said.
So people with no right to even be in this country are marching for health care and education (meaning, of course, stuff paid for by you and me), along with "good jobs"? How is an uneducated peasant from a third world country going to hold down a "good job"?
Then there is this, from a kid who probably hasn't mastered the fundamentals of his courses just yet, but has an EXCUSED ABSENCE from school:
Seventh-grader Vicente Campos of Milwaukee was granted an excused absence from school to attend the march. He said he was concerned by stories of immigration officials separating parents and children.
That last line is the newest refrain we hear from the illegals and their left-wing advocates in general, that we are "'separating families" by enforcing our laws. How, you ask? Well, the parents are illegal but the kids are American due to their parents using them as anchor babies. So the parents get shipped back to their home country. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from taking their kids with them, so in fact the parents are voluntarily separating themselves from their kids. Should we stop enforcing our other criminal laws that send parents to prison because it "separates familes"?
My own experience on the day came when I looked out the window of my office and saw some kids walking around. Two of them were draped in Mexican flags and one in a US flag.
Three points. First, if they want to convince Americans to come to their point of view on the topic, wearing a MEXICAN flag is not going to do it. All it shows is that they have dual (or singular, as I tend to think) loyalties and they do NOT consider themselves American first.
Second, these kind of protests, especially on (Commie) May Day, are quite common in the third world countires of Latin America. They are not common here, and we generally just get pissed off when a group of people goes around demanding a bunch of free stuff, including citizenship.
Finally, I was immediately struck by the disrespect of our flag by the little bastard who was using it as a cape. He may as well have set it on fire (hopefully he'd still be wearing it). Here is the relevent part of the US Flag Code:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor...
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery...
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
But hey, it's not like a little shit like him, unmoored in our traditions and respect for this country, would know that. After all, his parents probably just snuck across the border for a better job!
Apparently turnout was way down. I guess illegals are too stupid to realize that there actually won't be ICE agents there loading them into busses and shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from:
Some said participation likely was lower because many immigrants increasingly fear deportation.
Margot Veranes, a volunteer organizer in Tucson, Ariz., - where 12,000 took to the streets last year but early estimates Thursday put the crowd at about 500 - blamed the turnout on aggressive enforcement by Border Patrol and police.
This line from the AP's story struck me as funny:
"We're marching to end the raids and the deportations, but we're also marching for health care and education and good jobs," she said.
So people with no right to even be in this country are marching for health care and education (meaning, of course, stuff paid for by you and me), along with "good jobs"? How is an uneducated peasant from a third world country going to hold down a "good job"?
Then there is this, from a kid who probably hasn't mastered the fundamentals of his courses just yet, but has an EXCUSED ABSENCE from school:
Seventh-grader Vicente Campos of Milwaukee was granted an excused absence from school to attend the march. He said he was concerned by stories of immigration officials separating parents and children.
That last line is the newest refrain we hear from the illegals and their left-wing advocates in general, that we are "'separating families" by enforcing our laws. How, you ask? Well, the parents are illegal but the kids are American due to their parents using them as anchor babies. So the parents get shipped back to their home country. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from taking their kids with them, so in fact the parents are voluntarily separating themselves from their kids. Should we stop enforcing our other criminal laws that send parents to prison because it "separates familes"?
My own experience on the day came when I looked out the window of my office and saw some kids walking around. Two of them were draped in Mexican flags and one in a US flag.
Three points. First, if they want to convince Americans to come to their point of view on the topic, wearing a MEXICAN flag is not going to do it. All it shows is that they have dual (or singular, as I tend to think) loyalties and they do NOT consider themselves American first.
Second, these kind of protests, especially on (Commie) May Day, are quite common in the third world countires of Latin America. They are not common here, and we generally just get pissed off when a group of people goes around demanding a bunch of free stuff, including citizenship.
Finally, I was immediately struck by the disrespect of our flag by the little bastard who was using it as a cape. He may as well have set it on fire (hopefully he'd still be wearing it). Here is the relevent part of the US Flag Code:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor...
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery...
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
But hey, it's not like a little shit like him, unmoored in our traditions and respect for this country, would know that. After all, his parents probably just snuck across the border for a better job!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Today's random thought
Sobriety sucks. I am thinking more about where to go out after my exam next Friday than the exam itself. Not a good sign.
By the way, I'm thinking Durkin's since for $15 I can drink all the beer and eat all the pizza I want from 5-9. Check out Christine M.'s winning review:
The smell of Durkin's makes me feel a bit nauseas. The floor is sticky. TVs loud. I have a hard time taking any bar seriously when I am handed a plastic cup.
I think it gets the job done if you are 21 years old (or under) or if you went to Purdue. Otherwise there are a lot of other places to visit. Or if you have a good friend who loves going there and gets happy when you join her :)
Sounds good to me.
Then a fun drunk CTA bus ride to Four Shadows would be nice. Thanks for checking in, spoons35:
Food was below average and took forever to get to our table and they were not even that busy? The bartender looked hung over and the waitress was a bit snotty. We were not offered refills on our drinks and my girlfriend had to go up to the bar and order more as the waitress was too busy on her cell phone. Might have been the wrong day but I WONT be back.
Yes, these are two of my favorite places in the city.
By the way, I'm thinking Durkin's since for $15 I can drink all the beer and eat all the pizza I want from 5-9. Check out Christine M.'s winning review:
The smell of Durkin's makes me feel a bit nauseas. The floor is sticky. TVs loud. I have a hard time taking any bar seriously when I am handed a plastic cup.
I think it gets the job done if you are 21 years old (or under) or if you went to Purdue. Otherwise there are a lot of other places to visit. Or if you have a good friend who loves going there and gets happy when you join her :)
Sounds good to me.
Then a fun drunk CTA bus ride to Four Shadows would be nice. Thanks for checking in, spoons35:
Food was below average and took forever to get to our table and they were not even that busy? The bartender looked hung over and the waitress was a bit snotty. We were not offered refills on our drinks and my girlfriend had to go up to the bar and order more as the waitress was too busy on her cell phone. Might have been the wrong day but I WONT be back.
Yes, these are two of my favorite places in the city.
This day in music history
Misleading title, I know. Anyway, here is a website that shows you the #1 song on any date in history.
Please note that on the day I was born the top song was Eric Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff". In other news, I'm old.
Please note that on the day I was born the top song was Eric Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff". In other news, I'm old.
News on the illegal alien front
This article focuses early on remittances, but then we get to some great news near the end:
As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.
We can only hope! Maybe 100% of Logan Square illegals will be part of the 1/3. That would be AWESOME.
As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.
We can only hope! Maybe 100% of Logan Square illegals will be part of the 1/3. That would be AWESOME.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)