I mean, It was bad...

Dear Dick Clark,

As I watched you celebrate New Year's in the Eastern Time Zone, one thought crosses my mind:

Okay, that's enough.

Look, it's time. It's just time to walk away from doing this New Year's Rockin' Eve thing.

Last year, your first time back after the stroke, you looked...well, bad.

This year, you looked terrible.

Please, step away before they make you step away. You should feel proud that you tried, but seriously...that's enough. Walk away with what pride you have.

I hate Ryan Seacrest. Yeah, I really hate him. He doesn't know that we can all see, despite what he says, that he didn't really get a kiss from Christina Aguilera.

Yeah, that's generally pretty embarrassing.

What's more embarrassing, Dick, is you stumbling over what time it is as the ball drops. What's more embarrassing is seeing you try, and fail, at doing this New Year's Eve thing.

Look, Dick, you've had a great run, more than any person could have hoped for. However, when it's time to step away, it's time to step away. When you just can't do it anymore, you can't do it anymore.

As embarrassing as Ryan Seacrest's mooching is, your slurring and stumbling is worse. Please, for the sake of your dignity, step away from New Year's Eve.

You don't really want to be remembered as being more embarrassing than Ryan Seacrest, right?

Still Doing Texas Proud...

KATY, Texas - A man unhappy with an Islamic association's plans to build a mosque next to his property has staged pig races as a protest during afternoon prayers.

Craig Baker, 46, sold merchandise and grilled sausages Friday for about 100 people who showed up in heavy rain. He insisted he wasn't trying to offend anyone with the pigs, which are forbidden from the Muslim diet.

"I am just defending my rights and my property," Baker said. "They totally disrespected me and my family."

Dear Texas Jackass,

Regarding the property of other people, you have little to no right to tell those other people what to do with their property. If they were building on YOUR property, that might be a different story. But no one's building on your property, so shut up.

Perhaps most importantly, if you insist on being a jackass, at least be honest about it. Not trying to offend anyone? Sure. I bet you race pigs by Islamic holy sites just for the fun of it.

Look, you can be a jackass if you must, but don't be a liar to boot. Do that and you're beneath the scum of the Earth.

See, this is why people hate Texas.

Sincerely,
Me

This Has Got To Stop

Another day, another foiled plot to attack students and faculty at a school.

I've asked before, and I ask again: why does this keep happening?

Look, it's nice that the plots are being uncovered before they happen, but why does the very idea of attacking a school continue to promulgate? Why do kids repeatedly want to resort to this tactic? What can be done?

It is too much to ask the current "Lame Duck" Congress to tackle this problem (or any relevant, meaningful problem that isn't moral in nature, for that matter). It is also too much for our President to address the issue, as his administration's response is repeatedly, "Teachers and parents need to do more together." The Supreme Court may address this issue soon, but they'll likely say that it isn't their place to address these matters (and they're correct).

This problem is much too deep to ask teachers and parents to "do more together." I am planning on writing my Congressperson, and I encourage everyone to do the same, to request that this next Congress form a committee investigating the problem of school threats.

It is time for the causes of these problems to find a solution. The root of the problem must be found first though, and it must be found before it is too late.

Justice Perlaky, dissenting (I like typing that)

"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is"

So says United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the controversial and conservative Supreme Court Justice, commenting in a recent speech that the annual Federal Judicial salary of $165,200 (in 2006) is too low.

And now to respond in a judicial opinion-like blog entry:

History and tradition have never seen any federal employee being paid well. Justice Scalia would like to see this change, at least for the occupation that he himself holds. I suppose I should take that to mean that Justice Scalia's own salary of roughly $200,000 yearly is not enough. From this ridiculous and untenable premise, I must dissent.

As an American citizen who pays his taxes, I do not feel the need to apologize to Justice Scalia for his inability to buy that Acura last year. Nor do I feel the need to apologize for him being unable to construct that indoor pool that he always wanted. I simply cannot see fit to say that a salary of over even $80,000 yearly is "not enough," especially in light of the fact that many teachers, auto workers, truck drivers, social workers, soldiers, and other people who keep this country humming along do not make even half that amount.

"Something must be done!" Justice Scalia cries, "or the judiciary will only appeal to those who...GASP!...LIKE doing public sector work!" Silly me. Here I was, thinking that the U.S. Government WAS the "public sector," as serving the public seems to have been exactly the goal that the Framers of the Constitution sought to achieve. Not so, says Justice Scalia, who believes that at the current judicial salaries, the federal judiciary "cannot attract the really bright lawyers." Actually, Justice Scalia may have a point here, at least if his own presence on the U.S. Supreme Court has been any indication. Further, I do not see how a higher salary necessarily makes a smarter worker. Wasn't former Enron CEO making a salary into the millions of dollars before he came up with the foolish idea of cheating and bankrupting his company and all of its investors, thinking that he would get away with it?

Justice Scalia also outright mocks the interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that has evolved over time. Without such "evolution" of Constitutional theory, however, I wonder how Justice Scalia and his brethren would be paid at all. Article III of the Constitution, which controls the federal judiciary, mentions only that a "compensation" is due to said judges. Under Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution, I believe we must interpret history to show that John Jay, John Marshall, and Oliver Wendell Holmes all earned nearly $200,000 at some point. This is despite the fact that the salaries that federal judges make today might shock all of these aforementioned individuals, if they were living, into the graves that they in reality inhabit.

As is usually true with him though, reality has no place in the thoughts of Justice Scalia. Never mind that it is doubtful that there are many "families" living the in the wealthiest part of Manhattan in the first place, Justice Scalia must outright deny that the Constitution is evolving right before his eyes, even though many men who have come before him on the Supreme Court have made it so. Really now, if the Constitution was not a living and evolving document, would Justice Thurgood Marshall have sat next to him on the Court for a number of years? The original document said that Justice Marshall was not a person. On that note, would either Justice Clarence Thomas, also African-American, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have ever served with Justice Scalia, if the Constitution was not a living and changing document?

At least this observer is grounded in reality enough to see that Justice Scalia is too old and obstinate to realize his errors. Since this is the case, our living and evolving society deserves a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who interprets a living and evolving document.

It is a shame then that Justice Scalia will not step down, probably more out of fear that his pension will be too low than anything else.

And I approve this message

I am a Steelers fan.

This means that I can't be a Browns fan, I guess.

Regardless, I lend my official approval (whatever that's worth) to Craig Lyndall's idea that Bill Cowher should coach the Cleveland Browns.

I will make my reasoning short and sweet, especially since it's exam time:

1) Cowher is a bona fide winner who spent some of his coaching and playing time in Cleveland.

2) Cowher is burning out from the same scenery in Pittsburgh, and honestly, we can't expect that he'll be there forever. Putting one of his understudies in the head coaching position may put some new fire into a gassing team.

3) The Browns-Steelers rivalry has weakened. This means that the games aren't as exciting anymore (what was the last Steelers win by? 20?), and worse, Cincinnati and BALTIMORE are ruling the division. If Cowher's on the Browns and the Steelers are fired up again, every Browns-Steelers game will be meaningful because both teams will likely control the division...and that's how it should be.

4) Chad Johnson would have to answer for his lack of wins in the Battle of Ohio

5) Steelers fan though I am, I think Cleveland Browns fans deserve better.

I repeat, not even a week after a study was released saying that winning the Iraq war was impossible...

From cbs11tv.com:

President Bush, standing alongside his chief Iraq war ally, asserted Thursday that success in Iraq depends on victory over extremists across the "broader Middle East."

Not even a week after a study was released saying that winning the Iraq war was impossible...


And now, an open letter to President Bush:

Dear President Bush,

Ahem.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

(smacks him on the nose with a newspaper)

No.

And I CANNOT make the message any clearer than that.

Sincerely,
Me

Boston Hearts the Yankees

So, Boston, I see that your Red Sox are on a spending spree again.

By paying J.D. Drew $70 million, the Red Sox payroll is up to...looks like well over $190 million.

I'd like to call to your attention three old axioms that seem particularly relevant to this situation:

1) "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery": by following the Yankees' payroll ideas (a.k.a. "Buy everything in sight to create a winner"), you flatter them by essentially acknowledging that they have the right idea. That's right, Boston Red Sox, you LOVE the Yankees AND their ridiculous payroll ideas. There, I said it.

2) "When you stoop to the level of your enemies, you prove yourselves no better than them": Yep, this pretty much describes the Boston Red Sox all right. Way to prove yourselves as part of the payroll problem in baseball, rather than the solution. Can we rename you "New York Yankees North?"

3) "When you sleep with dogs, you're bound to get fleas": I like this one best. Hey Boston, look how much good your insanely high payroll did you last year. YOU MISSED THE PLAYOFFS! And the Yankees were out in round 1. Team chemistry ever strike you as an idea?

Guess not. Oh well. Just let me know, Boston Red Sox, when you want to order your pin-striped uniforms to complete the transition.

Sadly serious

Wait...

I mean, seriously...

Some things just strike you as, "No freakin' way this is for real."

The pop duo Prussian Blue falls into this category.

I didn't really think they existed, but according to Wikipedia, and their website, they are apparently very real.

And so are their fans.

Prussian Blue is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl duo that apparently spews racism, Holocaust denial, and in general, the eradication of black people from the Earth.

Oh, and they think that Hitler had some good ideas.

Unless this is the greatest hoax ever unleashed upon mankind, I could not make this stuff up.

They have received death threats. According to the Facebook Group "Please Join In Protest Against Prussian Blue," their father has been shot and the girls were sent into hiding.

I haven't been able to confirm statements that the group has made it onto the Billboard charts.

In any case, it is unbelievable that there are still people out there who teach their kids this shit.

I don't even know what to say about people who still believe that Hitler had the right idea and that blacks should be eliminated as a race. I don't know what to say to those people who believe that the white race is in danger.

Except, maybe, "get help."

But I'm not even sure why Prussian Blue bothers me.

Maybe it bothers me because I see a young duo like Prussian Blue, and I lose hope for the future. Prussian Blue means one more generation will be around to spew hatred and bigotry. Prussian Blue means that any advancements that might have been made to eliminate hate are marginalized, if not outright forgotten.

I don't have a fix-all cure for racism. I do know, however, that groups like Prussian Blue mess things up even more. So do rioters.

It is naive to think that racism doesn't exist anymore, and that differences are not apparent. However, society will only advance once people work together in spite of those differences. Hate groups, on either side of the racial equation, accomplish nothing. There are problems between these groups, and with that comes inherent mistrust. Solutions are needed, and none are clearly in sight.

I think it's legitimate to point out that the numbers of these hate groups seem to grow when domestic problems are ignored. I realize that it is impossible to address every domestic political problem that exists, but the growth of hate groups underscores the fact that not enough attention is being paid to these people and their problems, and these people are generally afraid. Fear helps them grow, and this fear needs to be addressed.

As it is, our government tends to address issues that don't need attention. The citizenry appeared to speak loudly against such tactics in the past election. This gives me hope for the future because it shows that our nation as a whole does care about problematic issues and will move to address them.

So maybe, in the long term, hate groups will see their numbers decline as time moves on.

The appearance of Prussian Blue doesn't give much hope though. They're just one more setback.

Is it possible to go below square one?

I admire good sportswriting.

That said, Scott Burnside is the man.

Today, the Chicago Blackhawks finally admitted that their season is going into the tank and fired coach Trent Yawney. As the Miller Lite Men of the Square Table would say, "Good Call."

I was hoping, however, that assistant coach Denis Savard, whom I have never liked behind the bench for his terrible offensive coaching, would be fired.

Too much to ask for, and then some.

I have long felt that Savard was a driving force behind the Blackhawks' suffering. For those who don't recall, Savard did take over the Blackhawks for the final six games of the 2000-2001 campaign.

He didn't win a single game.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Savard didn't win a single game again. No, it's too much to ask of the Blackhawks to hire a proven winner, like Pat Quinn, who happens to have a gold medal under his belt, and plenty of playoff appearances with the Toronto Maple Leafs, and who is available to hire at the moment.

At least Burnside FINALLY calls out Savard for what he is: a bad offensive coach. He also calls out GM Dale Tallon for signing constantly injured (or just plain bad) players, and he calls out the organization in general for consistently hiring and firing bad coaches.

Thank you, Scott Burnside, for saying what loyal Blackhawk fans have been thinking for years now. We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

Hopefully this isn't the last of the firings for what has become a sad organization. Hopefully Savard will eventually join the unemployment line. Hopefully Tallon will follow him. Hopefully some new leadership and fresh blood will be placed in the organization.

In other words, hopefully, Burnside's message doesn't fall on deaf ears.

But when you're a Blackhawk fan, you have to know that no one inside the Chicago Blackhawks will get the message. As a Hawks fan, you grow accustomed to cynicism and disappointment, especially these days...

...where even a step in the right direction turns out to be wrong.

Tom Hanks isn't dead either

So I just randomly heard that this rumor was false.

And I decided to investigate the website where it allegedly came from. The site is FakeAWish.com

So, apparently, you can do this with any celebrity or athlete. For an example, I'll use the player recently signed to the Cubs for a lot of money, Alfonso Soriano.

I can say that he died in a plane crash.

Personally, I think it looks fake, and kinda stupid, but apparently, it fools people. Hence the belief that Tom Hanks was dead in New Zealand, even though he wasn't anywhere near New Zealand.

I do not know what's more sad...the fact that people actually fall for these goofy things, or that there's actually a "market" for them. It's not even limited to celebrities or athletes either. You can also make someone "Masturbation World Champ." Classy.

I don't know why I'm posting this. Perhaps I'm merely crying out for society to do better...much better. It is indicative, I think, of my own level of intellectualism (or boredom), that I actually chuckled a bit at some of the headlines.

Regardless, the kind of havoc this site could wreck is a bit frightening. It hasn't happened, and it probably won't happen, but for the sake of argument, what if someone eventually makes an article saying that a plane has crashed into the Sears Tower or something? Then a number of people are in legal trouble, including the site's creators, probably.

I guess I'll just end by saying, be aware of this goofy site and don't be drawn in by articles that come from it. This is how ridiculous hoaxes get started.

On the bright side, at least that keeps snopes.com in business.

A letter to Juice

Dear O.J.,

If it makes any difference to you, we really didn't need a book or a television series to know that you're still guilty as hell.

I don't know how many jokes I can take hearing that end with the punchline, "How's O.J. coming along with that 'finding the real killer' thing?"

Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be a walking punchline.

Then I figure that somebody out there has probably already made it as such.

See the Michigan-Ohio State Wikipedia entry while you can...

...here's the link.

And here's a phrase in the Trivia section of the article that will undoubtedly be gone soon:

"The Ohio State University is contemplating a switch to artificial turf due to OSU cheerleaders grazing on the field during halftime."

UPDATE: And now it's gone. It was funny while it lasted though. I guess it goes to show that nothing is sacred between these two teams, as they meet for a spot in the National Championship next weekend.

I will withhold endorsements for luck purposes this year though.

Kinda makes me want to see this Borat movie...

This link is funny for the following reasons:

1) Frat boys were humiliated

2) A lawsuit has been filed

3) The South was shamed

4) An RV was involved

5) Two guys randomly trusted another guy in a bar who talks with a Russian accent while berating women and minorities.

Just...funny.

On July 29, 2006, I posted these words:

"So why, Donny Rumsfeld, would you want to stick around to see the end of this? Why would you want to keep being called a liar, a murderer, a scoundrel? (I'm thinking British insults here, forgive me.)

Dude, look around you. There's like, you, Cheney, and Condi Rice still around from the first administration. The rest saw a sinking ship and jumped off before their lives got any harder. The only reason Cheney's still around is because he feasts on human flesh to keep himself fit. The only reason Condi has stuck it out is because...well, probably because she's the only high-ranking woman in the Bush administration and MIGHT be subject to less heat. But those days are numbered too.

So, with the casualties rising, the whole administration facing 1000 attacks from 100 different directions every day, and Iraqi, Iranian, and Afghanistani citizens making our nation look foolish, as well as money and oil-hungry, why do you want to stick around, Mr. Rumsfeld? I admire your loyalty, but come on! Don't you have pride? Don't you have dignity? Don't you have some hunting to do or something?"

Today is November 8, 2006. Lookie here

Finally

Thank you, Ohio.

I always knew you had the potential to do the right thing.

Projected winner - *

Governor
Ted Strickland (D) -- 2, 253,757*
Ken Blackwell (R) -- 1,382,644

U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D) -- 2,086,784*
Mike DeWine (R) -- 1,648,165
(from toledoblade.com)

And though I know that you STILL won't get the message, here's the message anyway, President Bush.

Come on down!...to say goodbye

I just had to comment on this.

The reason? I never thought I would see the headline. I seriously thought that the man would do the show until he died.

He might yet...he said he's quitting next June.

Even after that, I hear that "The Price is Right" is on a huge tape delay, so we may be seeing Barker on the show until at least next December.

Don't get me wrong: I don't WANT Barker to die on the set. It's just...wow. I seriously can't imagine Barker not doing the show. 35 years hosting "The Price Is Right"? 50 years in television overall? Especially in today's "work 'til you drop" atmosphere, I cannot possibly fathom anyone breaking Barker's record on either that show or any other show, for that matter.

I don't get to watch "The Price Is Right" anymore, but it's always something to flip on in the daytime that neither I, nor anyone else I can think of, for that matter, could hate. How can you not like, "The Price Is Right?" People win new cars, boats, appliances, cash, etc. It's awesome! And I wish I were on it!

And Barker made the show what it is. Sure, "Barker's Beauties" helped the show a ton, but Bob Barker IS "The Price Is Right." His appeal spanned generations. Even though he went through 2 or 3 other announcers, Barker remained a staple. He knew the games. He knew the people. He got kisses from 340-pound, 55-year-old women, and model-type 23-year-old women. He gives away more new cars in a month than some dealerships do in a year. If there is a man who can be called an "institution," it is Barker.

And now he's going to leave? I can't imagine who could replace him.

No matter who does replace him though, the show just won't be the same.

A Bright Spot for the Cubs

In recognition of Chicago Cubs fans finding the silver lining in every cloud...

Congratulations, Cubs!

You're better by comparison!

Chicago Cubs 2006 record against World Series teams: 11-11 (decent...)

Chicago Cubs 2006 record against World Series CHAMPION St. Louis Cardinals: 11-8

Yep. The last-place team in the National League (and 3rd-worst team overall) took the season series from the World Series champs.

Does that mean anything? Probably not.

But enh, the Cards were due.

Absolutely Stunning...Or Is It?

I refuse to get optimistic over polls.

Polls can lie...even today.

Ask Harry Truman in 1948.

Ask Carty Finkbeiner, current mayor of Toledo, in 1993.

Polls don't mean much.

What does mean much: this.

The Republican Party is surrendering Mike DeWine's TV ads in Ohio?

There's got to be a catch. Either they expect DeWine to pull it out in the end anyway because it's Ohio, or Republicans are planning a different strategy for DeWine.

It just can't be that the Republican Party is giving up a U.S. Senate race in Ohio. It just can't be that Ohioans have seen the end of DeWine's smear-happy commercials.

Can it?

Are Ohioans this mad over the Coingate scandal? Are they finally opening up to ideas that the Democratic Party might have? Are these polls really that symbolic of Ohio sentiment?

If so, I'd be stunned. Ohio hasn't went "Blue" for anything since Clinton was re-elected.

I'd like to believe that Ohioans have finally gotten fed up with a stagnant economy and empty Republican promises. I'd like to believe that Mike DeWine is going down with the rest of the old-guard Bob Taft brigade. I'd like to believe that Ohioans are finally going to make the right choice.

But read the title of this blog. I want proof...

Marty McFly enters politics

So Michael J. Fox has entered the political scene in the U.S., in Maryland, Missouri, and Wisconsin (CNN article here).

He is, understandably, advocating candidates who support stem-cell research, in the belief that such research may eventually provide a cure for Parkinson's Disease, a nervous disorder from which he suffers. Parkinson's causes its victims to shake, almost completely uncontrollably. How badly it affects Fox can be seen in one of his political spots here.

Republican backlash has come primarily from Rush Limbaugh, who said that Fox was either "acting," or, "off his medication." A competent doctor, seen in each article above, refutes this claim.

I am hardly surprised at Limbaugh's amazing lack of sensitivity, since this has proven to be an indispensable trait shown by Rush in the past. I am even less surprised, however, at Limbaugh's missing the larger point.

The larger point of which I speak of: even if Fox is acting or off his medication (and he claims that, ironically, he was TOO medicated), so what?

The only reason I am surprised at Fox appearing in these political ads is because I thought he was not an American citizen. He was born in Canada, but he must have acquired dual citizenship at some point. Apparently, he has lived in California for some time now, and though he is likely not a resident of the States in which his political ads are appearing, as an American, I believe that Fox has a right to convey his opinion on such an issue.

Does Fox suffer from Parkinson's Disease? If he doesn't, it's the greatest hoax in American history. Does he likely take medication to improve his ability to cope with the disease? I can't see why not. Will stem-cell research aid in coming up with newer, better medications to treat Parkinson's Disease? Maybe, but I don't know.

If Fox feels that such research will help, why shouldn't he speak up about supporting it? He's in pain, he wants help, so he's expressing his desire that Americans venture down the avenue of stem-cell research to investigate. What's the problem?

Republicans, who are largely opposed to stem-cell research, will say that the problem is that of Fox exploiting his disease for political purposes. My question is, how is Fox exploiting it if he's being open and candid about it? Isn't exploitation connotated with the idea that one person is using another person to achieve some sort of ill-gotten gain? If anything, in this situation, I see Fox using political candidates to push his own issues by piggy-backing onto their campaigns...and, um, that's no crime.

Democrats and Republicans alike receive money from special-interest groups and other issue-advocacy organizations in order that those candidates promote the agendas of those groups. Everyone in politics is guilty of this because that's how politics works. Even if donations to political candidates by these groups were to cease, little exists to stop these groups from putting issues on ballots, trying to sway the public to one side or the other of an issue. In other words, even if Fox weren't backing candidates here, he could push to have the issue of stem-cell research put on the ballots in certain states for approval or disapproval by the public.

And either way, Fox would be exerting his influence.

Bottom line: as things stand now in the political process, there is nothing wrong with what Fox is doing. He suffers from Parkinson's Disease, he thinks stem-cell research would help, and he spoke out about it. Nothing Limbaugh or any other critic could say would change the fact that Fox has a right to express his opinion about this issue that so profoundly affects him. So what if it was done to help one candidate or the other? That's how the system works.

What bothers me is Limbaugh and his supporters not recognizing the double-edged sword on this point. Limbaugh's show is entirely done for the political gain of the Conservative Right. Listen to his show, and this point is obvious.

If Rush can speak up about a point on an issue, he has to sit back and let the other side present their view. That's how the American system works. No side, especially Rush's, can have it their own way, all the time, even though that's how they'd like it.

Come and waste another year...

Please, make the pain of another season go away...

Havlat is injured too. He was injured last year. He'll likely be injured again.

I don't want to pay for Blackhawks tickets right now...I really don't. Why give money to a team that doesn't get it?

I think some of them actually just get injured so they don't have to wear the Chicago uniform out onto the ice. I really do.

I'm finding an East team to throw my hat upon. I'm really fed up.

The Chicago Sports Pessimism with Mark

I'm sorry in advance if that title is copyrighted. I claim ignorance.

So let me call it instead, "A Guy in DeKalb Making Observations About Chicago Sports"

But I just need to comment on a few things from this past week:

1) The Cubs hire Lou Piniella- That's it? That's your solution for curing a nearly 100-year World Series Championship drought? Lou Piniella? Look, the man has won one, count 'em, ONE World Series title, and that was before he just plain went psycho.
Pinella is not the answer. The answer is forming a cohesive team unit with strong pitching and competent hitting that doesn't constantly get injured. There, I'm instantly smarter than Jim Hendry (WHO INEXPLICABLY HAS KEPT HIS JOB!)
And now the Cubs are talking about getting A-Rod? Have you seen what he's done in New York? So let me get this straight: he'll face LESS pressure in a city whose media predominantly comments on baseball, on a club that hasn't won a championship in 98 years. Right.
I know what the Cubs are thinking: Cubs fans don't have patience to wait another year for a championship. That may be true, but the Cubs fans will be forced to have patience. Piniella will not get the Cubs to the World Series. No one will do so until the Cubs make a consistent effort toward winning, and Piniella was bribed to come to Chicago under this exact false pretense. Throwing money at the 7th-highest payroll in baseball is NOT making a consistent effort; it's just that: throwing money at the 7th-highest payroll in baseball. 99 years come next Fall, Chicago.

2) Bears fans drunk and ecstatic over beating Arizona: No, the Bears are not going to the Super Bowl. Playoffs? Sure. But is Rex Grossman a consistent-quality QB? Not by a longshot, if his performance against Arizona is any indication. I'll give them this: their defense is good. But the Bears' defense was good last year, and look how that turned out. I just don't buy that this team is good enough to win a championship, and I don't BELIEVE that Bears fans are actually saying that they'll go UNDEFEATED. Get off the Crack! The Bears are not going undefeated- not with three games against the Giants, Jets, and Patriots (all away games) and with inconsistencies remaining on offense.

3) The Bulls: yeah, I don't really care about the Bulls.

4) The White Sox: Hey Ozzie: aren't you glad you refused to play worthy players in the All-Star Game this year? I mean, since you obviously went back to the World Series like you planned...oh...right. Maybe you should have given those starters some rest last year, huh? Overrated manager says what?

5) The Blackhawks: Well, nice to see that they're in first place for the moment. Will it last? Yeah, that'd be nice. I'll give GM Dale Tallon this: he at least made the Hawks more exciting to watch by adding Martin Havlat and Bryan Smolinski. But he obviously overpaid for Khabibulin, and though Nikolai has been stout in goal so far this year, I don't buy that any among this trio has the power to stay healthy...or in Khabibulin's case, good. Good luck anyway, Hawks.

6) The Fire: Sorry, I don't drive a minivan with a soccer logo on the back, so I can't comment on this.

That's your Chicago Sports Pessimism...I'm Mark.

UPDATE: And...adding Alan Trammell to the Cubs' bench doesn't help anything...

This is funny. Please watch. And then scroll down.

Thanks September Fund

And this is sad. Please read.

A high school student, nearly 2,800 miles away in California, is a threat to President Bush? Really? Well gosh, don't forget to investigate employees at the Hello Kitty! factory too. I bet they were involved in some way too.

Does this high school student pose the same type of threat that homosexuals do? You know, because they're knocking down my door and trying to break up my engagement all the time?

Um, compared to North Korea right now, for example, how great of a threat does this high school student pose? Is she hiding nuclear weapons in her diary or something?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: damn, this government has some screwed-up priorities.

Northwest Ohio, You Make Me So Damn Proud Sometimes...

Teen Faces Litter Charge for Bra Antenna

By Associated Press

TOLEDO, Ohio - A teenager who put her bra on a car antenna before it flew off and led to a highway accident will be charged with littering, a prosecutor said. Emily Davis, 17, of Bowling Green, told investigators she took her bra off while her friend was driving on Interstate 75.

James Campbell, who was driving behind the girls, said he swerved to avoid the bra and his car flipped several times. Campbell, 37, broke a vertebra in his neck during the Sept. 26 accident. His passenger, Jeff Long, 40, broke several ribs.

A State Highway Patrol crash report, obtained by The Blade, said that the girls told investigators that before the accident the men were motioning to them to lift up their shirts. Both men denied making the gestures.

Davis will be charged next week with misdemeanor littering, said Tim Atkins, a juvenile prosecutor in Wood County. Atkins said he'll meet with troopers before filing the charge.

The girl's friend, Tabitha Adams, 17, of Bowling Green, said she told Davis not to hang her bra outside because she knew it would fly away, according to the report.

Atkins said no other charges were expected.

An Open Letter to Brian Vickers

Dear Brian Vickers,

Though I am not a NASCAR Nextel Cup driver, I feel that I must explain some fairly basic, and almost certainly well-known, concepts to you:

1. When fighting for the win at the end of a race, do not, under any circumstances, spin out your teammate.

2. When fighting for the win at the end of a Talladega race, do not, under any circumstances, do something that causes Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to crash.

3. Never, ever combine concepts 1 and 2.

But since you did, if I were you, I wouldn't go home for a while...you might find it burned down. I also wouldn't open your mail alone, nor would I go outside without a bodyguard.

As for the rest of your family, I'd talk to the FBI and ask about getting them into the Witness Relocation Program.

Oh, don't worry Brian, I won't do anything to you. In fact, your actions caused my favorite driver, Kasey Kahne, to finish 2nd. Who knows? NASCAR might even deprive you of your win (which, if they want their rules to have any teeth, they should) and award it to Kasey instead.

But I can't control other enraged Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and Jimmie Johnson fans.

Nor can I control those drivers on the track during future races.

Watch your back for a while buddy...

UPDATE: And by the way...well-said, Bill Elliott.

Your turn, Jim

"I'm gone, I won't be back. Somebody's got to take the blame, and it might as well be me."

Thank you, Dusty Baker. Throughout all the hardship, all the blame, you took it with class. You were a man, stood up to the critics, and basically said, "Yeah, I know we're losing, and I know I'm going to get blamed for it. Well, if they're gonna fire me, they're gonna fire me. At least I tried."

Yes, Dusty Baker did try. And he was fired. I can't see any reason why Jim Hendry wouldn't have fired him. Someone has to take the blame off of Hendry...

It won't be Cubs Team President Andy MacPhail either. He also took it like a man, accepted that things weren't going well, and stepped aside to let someone else give it a shot. MacPhail was equally blunt in his assessment of the Cubs' situation: "It's not just that we had a terrible season," he said. "I've been here 12 seasons and only two postseason [appearances] and to me that's not what I came here to do. Obviously, I've not been as effective as I wanted to be."

Thank you, Andy MacPhail. You acknowledged that you tried, that you had a goal to succeed, and that you failed. You did the right thing by stepping aside. And hey, even two playoff seasons is better than some of your Chicago predecessors could do.

So MacPhail is gone, Baker is gone...

I guess the only question to ask is, will GM Jim Hendry at least do the right thing and step aside as well?

I have a vision of Hendry, sitting in his office, watching the resignations unfold in front of him, thinking to himself, "Well, they're shouldering the blame. I guess everything's golden in my world!" Yeah, for the moment Jim, everything is "golden" in your world.

And why the hell is that?

It's always been easy to blame Dusty for the Cubs' woes. Hell, it would even be easy to blame Jim Hendry for not firing Dusty. The problem remains though, that neither Dusty Baker nor any other manager, should be expected to win with a complete crap team. No motivator could take this current team and get them anywhere beyond a third place finish.

And the only man left to blame for the construction of this team is Hendry.

Hendry stood by Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, though he knew, HAD to have known, that they would get injured again. He brought in players who weren't good beyond a supporting role: Jacque Jones and Juan Pierre. He thought he had all the pieces, and when he saw that he was wrong, Hendry signed known rejects like Phil Nevin. This was following the terrible signing of Jeromy Burnitz last year. Hendry also created a terrible farm system that was called up too early to save a team that was beyond saving. He relied on sub-par pitchers, and refused to go after a competent pitching coach to try to ameliorate the situation (Leo Mazzone himself was available last year).

Perhaps the worst sin Hendry committed this year: backing Derrek Lee with nothing, no power bat, no consistent substitute. When Lee went injured, the Cubs went down.

That's where Nevin was supposed to come in. Why again?

Instead, Hendry sat back and let Dusty take the blame. He distracted the team by leaving Baker's status open at the All-Star Break. He let Baker dangling in the wind with no life support, while he, for the most part, dodged criticism. Sure, the Chicago media and fans were hard on Hendry from time to time, but they were hard on Baker ALL the time.

And every time, Dusty's team came to his defense. When he was under pressure the most, they won for him. They showed Chicago that they would play for Dusty Baker. They even stood up for him again in the article on Baker that you can link to above.

But injuries crippled the team, and the overall lack of skill players ground the team to a halt. They might have played for Dusty, but they didn't play very well.

So the team sucked. So Baker sucked. So the Bleacher fans littered the field with trash in frustration. All the while, Hendry sat comfortably in his seat, last year when the Sox won the Series, and this year, as the Cubs were almost the worst team in baseball.

Enough. It's time for Hendry to get out of that seat. If MacPhail and Baker are out, Hendry should be out too. Cubs fans have been through 98 years without a World Series now, and they should not (and indeed Baker even said that they should not) be made to sit through another year without one. I think I speak for many Cubs fans when I say that I don't want Hendry to be given this off-season to try to put together a winner. I think it's a proven fact by now that he CAN'T put together a winner.

Proof: just look at this season. The free agent market was bubbling over with possible talent, but Hendry didn't get any of it. He either can't negotiate with other teams or he doesn't want to. The Cubs had a very good chance to make the playoffs in what was one of the weakest years for the National League yet, and they couldn't do it. They couldn't even make a run at it. For that reason, MacPhail rightly stepped aside. If I were Baker, I'd have resigned before Hendry got the opportunity to fire me. Why get gunned down by the man who can't shoot straight?

But I must digress. I could go on about the Cubs' problems all day. I can't even begin to address the problems with Tribune Company continuing to own the team (which will only serve to damage the team more. Tribune Company is so stingy with money and management that their cable company, Comcast, won't even put ESPN on basic cable, though many other national cable outlets have already done so. You get "local channels," some of which are in Spanish, instead. Thank you SO MUCH, Tribune Company).

The point is: The Cubs have many, many problems. The players took the blame. The manager took the blame. The Team President took the blame. Everyone, it seems, has shouldered some of the blame except Hendry. All Hendry can say after today?

"Maybe if I'd done a lot better, it wouldn't be this way."

At least you got that right, Jim.

Hendry's arrogance and cowardice should not be rewarded. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Kick Jim Hendry to the curb.

An Open Letter to Apple and iTunes...

Dear Apple,

Tell ya what:

Just sit down for an entire year, meet in a board room every day, and decide on every possible improvement that you are capable of making to iTunes (in light of technology that would develop in a year). After that happens, and ONLY then...

...release a new version of iTunes.

Look, I know it's free, but why am I downloading a new version every other week? It's a bit ridiculous.

Thanks.

Mark

It's Easy to Talk

Sure, being a million dollar athlete really gives you no reason to miserable.

Not much excuse when you voluntarily put yourself in the spotlight either.

Of course, when you want to get out of the spotlight and can't, maybe you have no one to blame but yourself.

But you know what really doesn't help?

When the media really won't stop harassing you.

Celebrity or not, when your privacy disappears, life is going to be HELL.

Let me make it clear: I don't like Terrell Owens.

I think he's either an asshole or a tool of Drew Rosenhaus. If you were either of these things, it'd be hard to say which way your life would be worse.

I don't have much sympathy for him...

...but everyone is capable of being depressed.

And it's so much worse when no privacy is left.

Want a possible reason that Terrell Owens would kill himself?

Maybe because he can't get away.

Maybe because even when he doesn't intend it, he's headline news.

Evidenced by this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.


Would you be able to live if everything you did was in the media, and you were unable to live your own life?

Well...

This story is kinda bad...

...And certainly I don't condone this kid's actions...

...And the kid is stupid for not following the directions, which were apparently clear.

On the other hand, the pug is now at least nationally famous...for real.

So in other words, the kid's idea worked. Perfectly.

It went outside the bounds of the assignment, and drew the ire of animal rights' groups everywhere...

...But, I mean, it's kind of hard to argue with results, isn't it?

OU Fans...

Okay, I'm so sick of hearing about stories like these.

All right, the man made a bad call.

All right, the Sooners lost the game.

Yet, somehow, inexplicably, life...goes on.

IT'S JUST A SPORT.

IT'S JUST FOR FUN.

IT'S JUST A GAME.

GET A GRIP.

AND GET...THE FUCK...OVER IT!

There's never, NEVER any reason to threaten a guy's family.

Geez...

Dear Kids in America Today...Redux

As my good pal Shultzy pointed out recently, I don't get as many hits here on Blogspot as I did on Xanga.

I'd still like to believe I reach some people.

Just in case, this next post will be seen on both my Xanga and Blogspot because I think it needs to be said again, in light of the recent shootings in Montreal, and another Columbine-like plot uncovered in Green Bay, WI.

If there are any kids reading out there, please pay attention to this post. I cannot stand reading about these situations and wondering when someone's going to get smart and succeed like the Columbine shooters did. I worry more because my father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, and soon, my sister...are all teachers.

I think the saddest part about this post is that it wasn't that long ago that I wrote it because of a similar story.



Dear kids in America today,

For the love of God, stop picking on each other in school.

Look, I'm not saying this just because I was sometimes the picked-on kid in grade school. I'm saying this because this day in age, you might just get killed for doing it.

Don't believe me? Check this link.

Yes, these kids were caught because they were dumb enough to put their plans on MySpace

Yes, their putting it on MySpace was, in all likelihood, an obvious cry for help.

Yes, they probably have severe emotional issues (partly the result of bullying, no doubt).

None of these things really make any difference. Remember Columbine? No, you kids probably don't because you were too young to know or care at the time. Well, I believe today is the 7th anniversary of the massacre there. To fill you in, what happened was, two kids came into the school loaded with guns and bombs, and they killed a bunch of people. No one could stop them. The authorities couldn't come in time.

People made fun of these kids. People shoved them around in the halls. They responded with guns. Big, murderous guns. They started shooting almost everyone, and if they hadn't killed themselves, who knows when they would have stopped.

To fill you kids in some more, I can tell you that the media made a much bigger deal about violence in schools after the Columbine tragedy. They reported almost any incident where a kid brought a gun to school and threatened to kill someone.

The strange thing is, after Columbine, the reported incidents where kids brought guns into school threatening to kill people seemed to grow. It seemed like the only thing that bullied and taunted kids learned from Columbine was, "Hey, my parent has a gun in the front closet...I could that!"

The reports had younger kids every time too. A sad example is in the movie "Bowling for Columbine," Watch the movie, even if you hate Michael Moore. You'll see that, in Flint, Michigan, there was an incident where a 1st grader was shot in school by a classmate. 1st grade!!!!!!! And the little girl/victim DIDN'T pick on the shooting kid!

Today, apparently, the threats have moved to the internet. Fortunately, people read some of these websites where these threats are located, and action is taken on a much quicker scale. Still, I have a feeling that one smart kid or group of kids is going to come along, pass messages to each other on the internet, carry through with a plan, and that will be the end of it.

And then everyone will remember Columbine and forget its lessons all over again.

Please, tell me, kids of America today, why, in light of all this, you would taunt and tease one of your classmates today? Why would you take such a risk? How do you know that the kid you taunt and tease doesn't have a gun at home, and that all he needs is to find the cartridge and a way to bring it to school? How do you know that he isn't ready to snap inside and that he wants you to be his first victim?

And hey, whoever you are, if you've got problems at home, talk to someone outside your home. If you're having trouble in school, talk to your teacher. Do something, do ANYTHING to make yourselves feel more confident, just DON'T PICK ON OTHER KIDS!

You just might save your life.

There Exist Democrats in Ohio?

Everyone must watch this video.

Please, for your own good.

President Bush got smacked by this guy.

Facebook's Woes and Other Problems

I have seldom seen so much anger out of college and high school students than I have over the new Facebook News Feed.

For those unfamiliar with Facebook, or if you just haven't logged on in a while, Facebook News Feed pretty much lets you know EVERYTHING that happens with all your Facebook friends, and I do mean EVERYTHING. You know what groups your friends joined, who they became friends with (which is kind of silly, considering you don't know half the people your friends know at other colleges), and you know when they change something on their profile or "status."

The final result was, as so many people put it, "stalker-esque." People didn't want to know what some of their friends were doing, and more people didn't want others to know what they were doing. The resulting anger spawned countless groups on Facebook, including one that sent a petition to Facebook demanding changes.

The outcry sparked an apologetic letter from Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg that appeared on my Facebook homepage this morning. Here are some excerpts:

"We really messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I'd like to try to correct those errors now..."

"...We didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away. This was a big mistake on our part, and I'm sorry for it. But apologizing isn't enough. I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends' News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about. If you have more comments, please send them over."

I personally admit to joining the petition group: "Students Against Facebook News Feed." With all due respect to my law school colleague Evan, who does make a valid point ("My mantra - don't put or say anything on Facebook that you wouldn't want physically posted in your University's Union bulletin boards. Now that you are suddenly aware of what a dedicated person (stalker, employer, professor) could have - and now any person instantly can- found out about you, change it."), I still must protest these changes.

My reasoning: unfortunately, in both high school and college, there will be occasional stalker-esque boys and girls, and tensions among friends, couples, and certain social groups will run high. This being the case, these tensions might boil over if one friend sees his/her friend join a group or befriend an individual that the original friend cannot agree with. Bad things, especially if dealing with stalker-esque boys or girls, may follow from this. It seems silly that tensions should start over things on Facebook, but the reality is...it happens. There are certain innocent things that could cause enormous fights, and Facebook's lack of privacy features for News Feed seems to set the stage for such conflicts. If, on the off chance someone would be emotionally or physically hurt, or even killed over such things (in this day and age, I cannot say definitively that it wouldn't happen), I think the outcry at Facebook would be even greater, even though probably undeserved. For this reason, I cannot agree with Facebook's changes; inevitably, Facebook must do more to protect people's privacy.

That said, I think this decision was not thought out very well on Facebook's part. I understand where Facebook was coming from though, being that they are losing much ground to MySpace and maybe other websites in terms of users and features. The pressure to keep pace with these sites inevitably forced Facebook to brainstorm new, unwise ideas, and add a new feature quicker than it probably should have. At the very least, it looks as if Facebook panicked facing such competition. I cannot sympathize because Facebook's creators make much more money than I do, but on the same token, I cannot say that if I were Facebook's creators, I wouldn't have felt the same pressure to do the same thing.

Regardless, the one thing I wish more than anything else in the world is that the people on Facebook who protested these changes so boisterously put half as much passion and effort into other national and world causes as they did protesting Facebook. It speaks volumes about the current generation that Yahoo! wrote in an article (follow the link at the top), "Generation Y had previously been shockingly devil-may-care in its attitude towards privacy, but News Feed seems to be the last straw."

I cannot help but wonder if much of Generation Y felt remotely the same way about President Bush's wiretapping policies. I also cannot help but wonder if they even knew that a District Court judge ruled against the President's power to do this.

In that regard, perhaps this fury over Facebook's new feature highlights a bigger problem among Generation Y: the nearly complete inability to see beyond their own private worlds. If there IS such tunnel vision on the part of Generation Y, I fear for the future. This nation and this world cannot continue to espouse the attitude, "Nothing is important enough to make me care unless it directly affects me and my immediate surroundings."

I fear that such an apathetic and isolationist attitude could elect another President Bush, and such thinking seems even more dangerous as we approach the 5th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. I believe that it was partly the casual, "They'd never attack on American soil" dismissal of terrorist threats by our own leaders that led to the attacks. We cannot afford to have another generation thinking this way.

I am optimistic when I see people joining different political causes on Facebook. I can only hope that these people carry those causes over to make a difference outside the "Facebook box."

**UPDATE**

Facebook, responding to the pressure, has upgraded their privacy features to allow an individual to remove all news and notes from the News Feed feature. The petition group applauded the move and thanked Facebook for responding so rapidly to the protests.

Time will tell if the damage is already done, and I can only reiterate the rest of my concerns.

List Shmist

Can I just say how much I hate lists like these?

This time, CNNMoney.com took a study that only the most bizarre reader of the World Almanac could appreciate. In this study, it found the "Brainiest Cities."

"Brainiest," of course, means that many citizens have a bachelor's degree.

Not to say that having a bachelor's degree is a worthless thing because I do not think that is true in the least. However, that person with a "General Studies" degree, who took classes on a part-time schedule over the course of 7 years and likely barely passed can shove his "braininess" up his ass.

(Want to be depressed? The above statement might apply to Shaquille O'Neal, who makes more money than probably 95% of you)

Regardless, this particular list, like many that CNNMoney puts out, is pointless. Every city on it is basically either a population center or a college town or some combination of the two (Austin, Columbus, Omaha). The key stats that CNNMoney doesn't point out? Population centers tend to have major businesses in them and major businesses tend to want to hire people with college degrees.

So, the results of this list are just, um, shocking. Really, I'm surprised. Population centers and college towns tend to house smart people. No kidding. I bet you're next going to tell me that the sky is blue, infants are usually shorter than adults, and alcoholics tend to have liver problems.

And this article was the top story today.

Was money actually spent on this study? If it was, I'd bet that the people conducting it weren't from one of these towns.

I'm also sure they missed a town or two, or maybe there's a statistic or two that was off in the study. I'm also sure that there are plenty of other towns out there who house good, honest, hardworking people. Where's the list for friendliest people then?

What are readers supposed to get out of these lists anyway? Are they supposed to automatically move to these cities to affirm their intelligence, or take jobs that they may eventually hate? Are they supposed to move to these cities for their short commutes, which will inevitably cause long commutes when everyone moves there? Not that you would move to these cities. I mean, Bismarck, North Dakota is on this list...

Enough already! Home is where you feel at home. The best city in the world is your hometown, if you put a little pride and work into it. If you're so smart, live where you feel most comfortable. Find a job that fits your needs. Stop buying into these ridiculous lists, and better yet, email CNN or Money and tell them to give it a rest already!

I already did. I told them that the list was pointless and flawed. I reasoned that any list that would put Naperville, IL among the Top 5 Best Places to Live had to be illegitimate. Come on, have you been to Naperville? Have you put up with their crazy driving? Have you seen these shiny, plastic people?

...I've received no response yet.

It pays to be skeptical

And...I can't say it's particularly good to be right about this.

But it pays to be a skeptic, that's all I'll say.

Of the '60s and bus driver nightmares...

I'm a goddamn hippie.

This war in Vietnam is bullshit.

Impeach President Johnson...

...and Hendrix is awesome.

Sorry, I'm just in a 1960s sort of mood today. Mainly because I read this article.

Yeah, I'll approach the issue with caution because I am skeptical of the media, I don't know the entire story, and I do know how bad kids on the bus could be.

But man, you gotta know that this doesn't look good on its face.

Bus driver, in the south, in Louisiana, where racial tensions haven't exactly been LOW lately, makes black kids, but not the white kids, go to sit in the back of the bus.

I'm sorry, but I'd really like to ask the bus driver, "Why would you even chance it?"

Then again, who knows? This is the South, and though I love certain aspects of the South (namely the hospitality and the beaches of South Carolina), many people still consider their citizens backwards, and it might be because stories like this keep popping up.

Well, that, and the fact that they tried the most inane and nonsensical excuses to try and uphold segregation and other forms of racism in the 1960s. If you can find them, see the Supreme Court cases of Loving v. Virginia (holding that interracial marriage cannot be outlawed by state statute) and Cooper v. Aaron (where Arkansas pretty much asked if they could disregard an order of the Supreme Court to prevent integration of their schools. The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, said, um, No). The justifications that the segregationists put up were pretty silly, to say the least. You'll have trouble believing that people once thought this way.

Or maybe you won't.

So... here we are, nearly 40 years after the last Civil Rights Act was passed, still talking about this stuff, still remembering it as if Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus just yesterday. I'm not saying that we should ever forget the lessons of history (and certainly we should not, as our President has shown), but I am saying that it's sad that we must still so vividly remember it, with stories like the one above, one with so much similarity to those days that it makes me feel like I might just be growing up in the 1960s (you know, that coupled with a war-hungry Texan in the White House, a pointless war with high casualties, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young on tour, and political dissension everywhere...gosh, it's more like the '60s than I thought).

So... Southerners... you're still drawing national attention for issues such as these. Please start asking yourselves if there is anything you can do to fix these situations. If there is, start doing it. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Southerners, I really do, but I hate hearing stories like these. These stories keep people in the North saying, "Southerners are backward, NASCAR-watching, beer guzzling hicks." I should note that I am a NASCAR fan myself, and I hate that sort of image as much as some proud Southerners do. Hell, why is there still this "political" distinction between "North" and "South?"

And please, Southerners, don't say, "To hell with you, I am what I am." What you are (indeed, what we all are) is a part of the United States, a nation whose government has went out of its way to solve these problems as best they can. Yes, they've been doing a pretty poor job of it lately, but strides have been made.

I admit, I'm not a Southerner, and I don't understand everything about being a Southerner. It's just that something's got to give with these things, you know? Something's just got to be done.

And soon.

Especially look at the entry on the Chicago Cubs!

From a history compatriot at the University of Toledo:

You've heard of Wikipedia? Meet Uncyclopedia!

Unlike Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia gets mad when you give it factual information.

Which is really, really funny.

The whole website, no matter what the article, is guaranteed to keep you laughing for hours, as it did me (well, not hours for me, per se, as I am usually working on law school stuff).

But this site was too good not to tell y'all about, so check it out.

First, check the extensive editing done on this Our Lady Peace article.

Especially this article on the Cubs...

And the one about Chicago itself...

Wait, really?

Wow, gotta say, this surprised me.

Seems like a serious stretch though, mainly because the majority of the details are not known. Maybe when more information becomes available, I'll form a different opinion.

I admit, I pegged the parents as being guilty as hell, but that's just me.

One thing that troubles me about this story:

"Wood would not say how the Ramseys knew Karr. But JonBenet was born in Atlanta in 1990, and the Ramseys lived in the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody for several years before moving to Colorado in 1991. "

So what was the guy doing in Colorado then? I dunno, I live in Illinois now, and I have no family, no serious friends, no real reason to be in Colorado. Even if I were single (I'm happily engaged), I don't think I'd even make a serious effort to go to Colorado for sex. So what was this guy doing there, unless he was working? I also thought I heard something about there not being any sign of forced entry. SOMEONE had to let him in, and I don't trust that it was JonBenet.

Again, I don't have enough information, but it seems like the cops really wanted to close this case. The only thing that legitimizes it in my eyes is, after more than a decade, no one could possibly care that much about closing this case. Everyone pretty much was okay accepting that the parents probably did it, though no one would know the truth.

If the case is officially closed though, thank God. I'd like to believe the system works in some fashion.

Outrage? Anyone?

"I am grateful … to be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults."

These were the words of Surgeon General Richard Carmona, whose term "expired" over the weekend.

I'd like to believe that.

Carmona was the man who outright stated, bravely and in the face of Big Tobacco lobbyists, "Secondhand smoke kills, PERIOD."

And now he's suddenly gone.

Two things stand out to me from the CNN link above:
1. Carmona's resignation went by without a single mention of it by the Department of Health and Human Services.
2. Health and Human Services deferred to the White House, who "did not wish to comment on personnel matters."

What?

Okay, let's look at this. So...THE CHIEF GUY at Health and Human Services steps down, and there's not one word from the Department? Um, if your director, your head, your "big kahuna" resigns, don't you think you ought to at least let the American public KNOW outside of a quickly disappearing article from CNN.com, and a letter that's "floating around Washington?"

Another thing: the White House doesn't wish to comment on personnel matters? Earth to the White House, YOU'RE THE WHITE HOUSE! The entire NATION has the right to know about YOUR personnel matters!!!! You are not the CIA, the FBI, or even the KGB for that matter. You are headed by a publicly elected official, and unless it's an issue of national security (which Carmona's resignation certainly is not), you should be OBLIGED to comment on personnel matters, and if you're in the White House Press Corps, it's your...gasp!...JOB!

I just think that the whole thing smacks of hiding something, which means shady business as usual for the Bush Administration. One guy speaks out against a major Republican funding lobby, and suddenly, he disappears with almost no comment.

So far, I've only seen one newspaper comment on this, namely, the Toledo Blade. Isn't anyone else suspicious of this? Isn't anyone else the least bit outraged at the possibilities here?

Is anyone home in my country?

The Sad Story of Maurice Clarett

Maurice Clarett is in the news again, this time for being arrested after being found with ammunition more appropriate for a German soldier than a washed-up former NCAA running back.

In a poll on ESPN.com's Daily Quickie, the majority of people said that they didn't care about Clarett's story (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/quickie).

I wouldn't normally, especially since I grew up a Michigan fan and lost a bet after Miami lost to OSU in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl. Damn you, Clarett.

But I care about this.

Clarett is hardly the first athlete to fall from grace. Why, just in the past couple weeks, Floyd Landis fell out of the entire world's favor. Different reason than Clarett though, but a similar sad story.

What makes Clarett's story so sad (and if it weren't for his constant stupidity, he might even be sympathetic too) is that his upcoming long-term jail time might, MIGHT have been avoided if he had just...stayed...in...college.

If Clarett had just stopped, told himself, "Hey, I'm at the top of the world here in Columbus. I'm a god to these people. Why don't I just hang around for a couple years and let my legend grow, along with my Heismans," things would be different. We'd be talking about "Maurice Clarett: Upcoming NFL Running Back Superstar" instead of, "Maurice Clarett: Prisoner # 250391."

Instead, he chose to challenge the NFL's rules, his coach's opinion, and plain common sense. Clarett thought he knew better. He sat out a year, then fought a court battle that everyone thought, maybe knew, would be a loser, got drafted in what, the 3rd round by the Denver Broncos? Then he got cut.

Then he decided to rob a Columbus couple, threaten police officers, and pack himself with ammunition, "Out of fear for his daughter's life."

Congratulations, Maurice. You're now a bottom-feeder in society and a poll on a reputable sports website agrees. It took you just less than three years to fall from "king" to "miserable peasant."

And you could have avoided all of it had you just...stayed...in...college.

Why do people have no sympathy for Maurice Clarett? He had it all! He had fame, glory, a championship, and savior status. Some athletes play their entire lives and never get that. Clarett had it and could have had more. For some reason though, he didn't know how to get the "more." He thought it came through challenging the rules and being bombastic. Boy was he wrong. He threw it all away. No ordinary person should be expected to understand this.

And none of it would have been an issue if he had just...stayed...in...college.

Maybe Clarett had the wrong people whispering in his ear. No, there's no maybe in that. He obviously had the wrong people whispering in his ear. They probably told him exactly what he played out: "You have it all now, but I can get you more." So Maurice listened. Realistically, all of us in society probably would listen if someone came up to us and said "You think you have it all? You don't, but I can get it for you." Sure, we'd listen. Most of us would at least be skeptical though. Not Maurice. He listened and followed it through to its bitter, tragic end. Challenge the well-established NFL! Go to court and win! Get more money, more fame, more power!

But he could have had that if he had just...stayed...in...college.

And now his life is essentially over. Maybe he could get hooked up later with some OSU collectors who want to pay him for signing footballs and baseball caps. That would bring him some money to support his new baby daughter (the real loser in all of this). Maybe he could ask one of those boosters who was likely so kind to him in the past if he could have a job with one of them. Maybe one of them would be willing to put his reputation on the line by taking a chance on Maurice. Maybe, but not right now.

Now, he goes to jail. If Maurice Clarett's life isn't at rock bottom, it probably will be soon, if he continues down this path he's on, a path he probably wouldn't be on if he had just...stayed...in...college.

Clarett couldn't see the big picture. He couldn't see that he had everything he needed in Columbus and that that could be enough. Maybe no one told him that. It doesn't matter, as he couldn't even see that for himself after a couple years. In this regard, Maurice Clarett is a truly blind man. Hopefully jail will give him some much-needed perspective.

And while he's in there, he can ponder (if he hasn't already) how things might have been differently had he just...stayed...in...college.

Just for a couple more years.

Beats a couple years in jail, which is where Clarett might end up now.

When Lou Dobbs is right, he's right

Thank you, Lou Dobbs, for saying what many don't have the guts to say. Haven't heard "do-nothing Congress" since the days of Truman.

Dobbs: Five-weeks off for 'do-nothing Congress'

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 12:34 p.m. EDT (16:34 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- This Republican-led, do-nothing Congress is on its way home for a five-week vacation. I'm sure while there, they'll be glad to explain to their constituents why they need so much rest in a year in which they will work fewer than 80 days.

The Republicans in Congress have little to brag about when they return home. And the Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, as well. Once the party of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society, the party of working men and women, the Democrats are now buried as deeply in the pockets of their corporate masters as are the Republicans.

The Democratic Party has played a major role in helping to pass legislation that is grossly injurious to middle-class Americans and their families. This Congress, Republican-led with complicit Democrats, has cut $13 billion in college-student aid, passed numerous free-trade agreements that threaten good-paying jobs and approved an unconscionable bankruptcy law written by credit-card companies that is nothing less than a federal government heel in the neck of American families bankrupted by catastrophic illness and crushing medical bills.

In fact, 18 of the 44 Democrats in the Senate and 73 of the 201 Democrats in the House voted in favor of the creditor-friendly bankruptcy bill. They apparently either didn't bother to learn or didn't care that half of all bankruptcies are caused by the soaring medical bills that stem from unforeseen illnesses and injuries.

The Democrats are also casting deciding votes on the so-called free-trade agreements that have allowed corporate supremacists to export American jobs to the cheapest sources of labor. Twenty-two House Democrats approved the recent Oman free-trade agreement, including 10 that had previously voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. CAFTA, which passed the House by only two votes at the midnight hour, opened up to American businesses a market about the size of New Haven, Connecticut.

And Democrats in the Senate have embraced the wrongheaded policies of the Bush administration on border security and illegal immigration. Thirty-eight Democrats joined with the Senate Republican leadership to crush the Republican majority and pass the illegal-alien amnesty bill.

Forty-two Democrats voted against legislation that would have built a border fence to stop the flow of illegal aliens and drugs across our borders. In fact, it was Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut whose amendment was attached to the legislation that would require the U.S. government to consult with the Mexican government before building a fence along our southern border.

Congressional Democrats are even more dismissive of the need for border security than the Senate Republicans. House Republicans have taken to calling the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill the "Reid-Kennedy bill" because Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts shaped most of the legislation.

The Democrats incredibly talk about illegal aliens as victims as they press for amnesty, yet not one has raised concerns for the true victims of corporate America's lust for cheap labor: American working men and women, taxpayers all.

It was, after all, Sen. Reid who argued in 1993 that illegal aliens place "tremendous burdens" on this country's justice system, schools and social programs, stretching our federal wallet to the limit as a result of "illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits."

What could possibly explain Sen. Reid's complete conversion on the issue? He's said it was from talking to his wife and immigrants, but could his state's wholesale importation of illegal aliens and the importance of all that corporate lobbying and campaign contribution money be a factor? Surely not.

And how about that firebrand advocate for the Democratic Party's traditions and values, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean? Once considered a presidential candidate with a refreshing vision for America, Dean now spends no time pursuing ideas and proposals that would help working men and women. Instead, he's devoting his time and energy begging for money at the same contribution slop trough as his opponents while hurling insults at Republicans and indulging in petty name-calling.

Instead of articulating a vision and plan to help the United States win the war in Iraq, he said simply late last year, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong." And when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was to address a joint session of Congress, Dean called him an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. The petulant DNC chairman outdid himself by comparing an inconsequential Republican congresswoman, Katherine Harris of Florida, to the rather consequential Joseph Stalin. The incomparable Howard Dean managed to do that while calling for an end to political divisiveness.

The Democrats want to wrest control of Congress from Republicans, and they have a better than average opportunity to accomplish the feat. The next five weeks just might be a good time for frustrated, disgusted constituents to ask what it will take to elect a Congress willing to represent working men and women and their families.

And let me know what you hear.

Same old (stripper) story

Immaturely, I still check collegehumor.com. I found this article linked to it today:

Club Plans Tubing Trip With Strippers

(AP) NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas A San Antonio topless club is planning a tubing river excursion that features strippers. Trey Maddox, a manager at Palace Men's Club, said Sunday's event, during which men can pay $25 to join the strippers, isn't meant to fly in the face of the city's new rules.

"We're not hookers, dope dealers or Mafia thugs," he said, noting that the strippers will be appropriately dressed. "We're just coming to have a good time."

City Councilman Ken Valentine isn't so sure.

"I'm really disappointed that this is going to occur on Sunday when people should be in church," he said. "I hope they behave themselves and keep their clothes on, but I'm not sure they will because strippers are trained to take off their clothes."

The New Braunfels City Council has been cracking down on rowdy behavior on the Comal and Guadalupe rivers in recent months, banning volume drinking devices better known as beer bongs, increasing the maximum fine for noise ordinance violations, and prohibiting sound amplification on the river between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

A new ordinance banning containers with a liquid volume of 5 ounces or less — an attempt to ban Jell-O shots and the associated litter — will take effect after the next city council meeting.

Mayor Bruce Boyer said he thought it was unfortunate that the San Antonio club is taking advantage of the situation "to get free publicity."

"And all we're trying to do is make it safe and pleasant for anybody 8 to 80 to come and have a safe and enjoyable river experience," he said.


My initial thoughts on this article:
-"I'm really disappointed that this is going to occur on Sunday when people should be in church"... So it's okay any other day of the week then, even weekdays, when people should be in work? All right, let's reschedule.

-"I hope they behave themselves and keep their clothes on, but I'm not sure they will because strippers are trained to take off their clothes..." They're trained? What are the strippers, dogs? Seals? Look, strippers though they are, they're still people. Or are women not people to Mr. "Everyone's in church on Sunday"?

-"And all we're trying to do is make it safe and pleasant for anybody 8 to 80 to come and have a safe and enjoyable river experience," he said. No you're not. You're trying to circumvent the rules, and you know it. But therein lies the bigger problem.

I've never even been in a strip club (I know it's hard to believe, but it's true), but this kind of argument has undoubtedly been seen before. Conservative, likely Christian, town in America wants adult business proprietor to take a long walk off a short pier. Conservative town tries to implement ridiculous excuses and legislation to convince adult business to shut down. Adult business obstinately refuses and usually finds some way to circumvent the rules to thumb their noses at conservative town.

The major problem is not only that this dilemma is recurring, but that both sides obstinately refuse to budge even a little, and thereby they avoid the real problems involved in strip clubs. Women with low self-esteem and few good employment opportunities have nowhere else to turn but stripping? Doesn't need to be discussed in conservative town. Low self-esteem males who either treat women like objects or are too lonely and desperate to get an actual date spending all their time in said strip club? Not an issue.

No, instead we get conservative town saying, "You stop that right now!" and strip club owner yelling "Make me."

Reminds me of my teenage years.

Just once, I'd like to hear a conservative town say, "Strip clubs represent a bigger problem with society's views of women and the opportunities that women have. In order to fight this problem, we need to investigate this problem at all levels of government. It should start with us."

Just once, I'd like to hear a strip club owner say, "The sad thing is, these girls make more money here than they would in some of the jobs this city has to offer them. The region's economy is to blame, of course, and conservative town would rather ignore the problem than help its citizens. The real problem with my establishment? It points out the ineffectiveness that government has had in addressing this bigger picture."

Too sophisticated and clean-cut of an argument to expect from both sides? Probably.

Then too, there's a certain entertainment value with the arguments, "Stripping is not in the Bible," and "Up Yours!" right?

A few months ago, I went to a bar in DeKalb

It was a law student thing. Free beer (Miller Lite). Free pizza (thin crust).

Some law students I got along with. Others repulse me.

I am coming to the realization that the ones who do not repulse me are the ones who are fairly older than me.

There are many of them who are younger than me or are my age. They were at the bar last night too. Most of them I can't stand. You see these students at the bar more often.

One of them had a popped collar (this makes fun of itself, doesn't it?). He and his friends went over to play Golden Tee. Needless macho competition expressed through a video game about golf. Fun.

Then there are the girls who still dress all slutty like sorority girls, trying to fall all over guys who are acting like frat boys. Gotta love that Greek scene. Yeah...

What's even more fun are the girls who are badly overweight and still try to do that. Shameless self-denial. More fun!

Some of the guys just stared at and/or flirted with the waitresses. Classy. Her steroid-popping, steel-lifting boyfriend would kick their asses if he was there. Maybe that guy is even sitting at the bar. Who knows?

There was a professor there. He's got to be in his 50s. Dude, don't you have a family or something?

It was crowded. I absolutely hate overly crowded bars. I hate it when you can't move without almost knocking someone else's or my own drink over. Got me to thinking...

I think I have officially tired of the college bar scene. Then too, I really didn't anticipate the law school social scene to be this much like undergrad. I expected a little more maturity. As usual, I was wrong.

Still, I don't need to engage in stupid, macho competitions to prove my worth as a man. I don't need to hit on or flirt with girls who seem to think that they need men to give them attention. I don't need to be around a whole bunch of people who are in a bar for the sake of being in a bar.

I have a loving, attractive girlfriend. I like a little different flavor in my beer than what even Miller Lite has to offer. I want to sit in a bar and drink those various beers and have a conversation where I can actually hear myself speak. Is that so wrong?

As I left the bar last night, I thought to myself, "I will have no trouble leaving the college scene behind." I really feel that I'm ready to leave that whole undergrad scene behind and get on with the rest of my life.

Maybe I'm just getting older, but there's no shame in acting your age.

Besides, my life's far from over...it's just beginning.

A letter to Donald Rumsfeld

Dear Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,

People are saying that you should be fired.

Unfortunately, our President isn't smart enough to do so...yet...maybe ever.

To hell with that, I say. I say you should resign.

Well gee, quite a thought pattern there, huh? I think you should either be fired or that you should resign. I'm still a liberal, all right. However, there's more to my thinking you should resign than me just being a liberal.

Dude, why would you want to keep taking responsibility for this war? Why would you want to keep taking shots for Bush? Did you see what happened today? Here, take a look:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/05/06/385995.html&cvqh=itn_britishcopter

What a mess. Sure, you're partly at fault for it. You said, "Full speed ahead, there's weapons of mass destruction to be found!" Yeah, good call there. You find those yet?

However, Bush still could've stopped you. He could have forced his hand and said "I want more proof." But he cared about proof even less than you did, Rummy. He just wanted to finish what his daddy started (but, incidentally, not something that his daddy even WANTED to finish. Read his memoirs some time).

So why, Donny Rumsfeld, would you want to stick around to see the end of this? Why would you want to keep being called a liar, a murderer, a scoundrel? (I'm thinking British insults here, forgive me.)

Dude, look around you. There's like, you, Cheney, and Condi Rice still around from the first administration. The rest saw a sinking ship and jumped off before their lives got any harder. The only reason Cheney's still around is because he feasts on human flesh to keep himself fit. The only reason Condi has stuck it out is because...well, probably because she's the only high-ranking woman in the Bush administration and MIGHT be subject to less heat. But those days are numbered too.

So, with the casualties rising, the whole administration facing 1000 attacks from 100 different directions every day, and Iraqi, Iranian, and Afghanistani citizens making our nation look foolish, as well as money and oil-hungry, why do you want to stick around, Mr. Rumsfeld? I admire your loyalty, but come on! Don't you have pride? Don't you have dignity? Don't you have some hunting to do or something?

If I were you, I'd have left ages ago. I wouldn't want to take responsibility for a war that hardly anyone wants anymore. I'd have grown tired of constant attacks on my character and legacy. I'd be sick of taking bullets for a man whom I probably hold a great deal of contempt for (don't deny it Rummy...I see the contempt in your eyes...you have it for everyone!)

In conclusion, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, can you look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that the hits you take every day are worth it? Can you look into the eyes of the mother who has lost her son or daughter to this war and honestly tell them that they did what they did for the right reasons? Hell, some of those soldiers probably didn't even like you! Can you honestly tell me that you have nothing better to do than speak up and defend this, the world's worst war-zone mess?

You're probably a proud man, Mr. Rumsfeld. I know that the last thing you'd like to do is admit that you and your administration were wrong. Still, look at who and what you're taking the blame for. Is this how you want to spend what will probably be the last years of your life?

Walk away while you've still got legs to walk on, Rummy.