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?
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Still Doing Texas Proud...
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
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, December 11, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)