Out of the four teams hosting a playoff game this NFL Wildcard Weekend, there's only one favored against their opponent in the betting line.
If you guessed that 8-8 San Diego (in their favor winners of their last 4 games and 7-1 against the spread at home this season) would be favored by 1 point over 12-4 Indianapolis (winners of their last 9 games, and arguably the best team in football over the past two months), you'd have been right.
29 December 2008
Did Ken Jennings Just Make a "Glory Hole" Joke?
Ken, commenting on airport bathrooms.
(I suppose I should direct you to the surprisingly detailed and informative wiki on the subject of "glory holes")
(I suppose I should direct you to the surprisingly detailed and informative wiki on the subject of "glory holes")
27 December 2008
First of All, the Plural of Sheep is Sheep . . .
In my email inbox, this subject line, quote:
"Lesbians and their lovely sheeps"
I'm just trying to imagine who exactly sees that bit of spam and decides, 'wow, that's the porn for me, lesbian bestiality was just the particular kink that I was looking for!'
If you are a lesbian who also enjoys sex with animals, is that with female or male animals? Is there even more than 4 or 5 people on the entire globe who fit that description, and if so what are the chances that they've shot themselves engaged in that activity? Is this the sort of deeply philosophical and engagingly intellectual post on this blog that keeps you coming back for more?
And what is up with so many spam emails using bestiality as a come on? Is there really that big of a market for those sort of images and videos? I don't get it, I would imagine the vast majority of people with web access can happily live their lives without ever seeing any sort of image that even hints at inter-species carnal relations.
But, really, if you are going to spam my email, at least know what the plural of sheep is, it's not too much to ask.
"Lesbians and their lovely sheeps"
I'm just trying to imagine who exactly sees that bit of spam and decides, 'wow, that's the porn for me, lesbian bestiality was just the particular kink that I was looking for!'
If you are a lesbian who also enjoys sex with animals, is that with female or male animals? Is there even more than 4 or 5 people on the entire globe who fit that description, and if so what are the chances that they've shot themselves engaged in that activity? Is this the sort of deeply philosophical and engagingly intellectual post on this blog that keeps you coming back for more?
And what is up with so many spam emails using bestiality as a come on? Is there really that big of a market for those sort of images and videos? I don't get it, I would imagine the vast majority of people with web access can happily live their lives without ever seeing any sort of image that even hints at inter-species carnal relations.
But, really, if you are going to spam my email, at least know what the plural of sheep is, it's not too much to ask.
26 December 2008
Hey, Don't Blame Me, I Voted "Hell NO!"
Michelle Malkin notices our recently approved high speed rail line. It's not just Californians who are going to pour resources into this particular money pit, looks like the Obama Administration is going to get onboard and dump some federal dollars down this hole, as well.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, suckers!!!!!!
My predictions for this boondoggle, you won't be able to get from the Bay to L.A. on this thing before 2019 (they'll fast track portions of it, but the full connection will take time), and it won't ever make the trip in less than 4 hours (it will be slowed by stops, inclines and such, but there will be a few stretches where the thing hits the promised 220mph mark so everyone can claim success, but I doubt it will ever see better than 100mph for an average speed from its farthest connecting points), and that'll be after sinking over $30B over the next decade (supposedly it'll only cost $10B, but that's as much of a dream as the sub 2 hour travel time from Oakland to Los Angeles by rail), and either they'll have to subsidize the hell out of the ticket price to get anyone to ride, or they'll tax the hell out of the air links between the areas to force people to use the 'greener' alternative.
I did what I could, I tried to point out why this would be a bad idea when I made my voting recommendations, but I guess I lack influence and for some reason California voters think all that bond money falls from the sky and doesn't add to our state budget deficit or lead to increased taxation. Life must be wonderfully simple when you are that blissfully unaware of consequences.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, suckers!!!!!!
My predictions for this boondoggle, you won't be able to get from the Bay to L.A. on this thing before 2019 (they'll fast track portions of it, but the full connection will take time), and it won't ever make the trip in less than 4 hours (it will be slowed by stops, inclines and such, but there will be a few stretches where the thing hits the promised 220mph mark so everyone can claim success, but I doubt it will ever see better than 100mph for an average speed from its farthest connecting points), and that'll be after sinking over $30B over the next decade (supposedly it'll only cost $10B, but that's as much of a dream as the sub 2 hour travel time from Oakland to Los Angeles by rail), and either they'll have to subsidize the hell out of the ticket price to get anyone to ride, or they'll tax the hell out of the air links between the areas to force people to use the 'greener' alternative.
I did what I could, I tried to point out why this would be a bad idea when I made my voting recommendations, but I guess I lack influence and for some reason California voters think all that bond money falls from the sky and doesn't add to our state budget deficit or lead to increased taxation. Life must be wonderfully simple when you are that blissfully unaware of consequences.
How Could You Have a Discussion of the Possible Disestablishment of the Church of England Without Talking About Antidisestablishmentarianism?
So the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't too worried about the prospect of disestablishment, but he doesn't seem to exactly be an antidisestablishmentarian nor does he profess much in the way of antidisestablishmentarianist thought or rhetoric.The fact that the Church of England remains "established" may seem odd to my First Amendment worshipping American mind, but I question how and why a movement for disestablishment exists.
If it's an honest attempt to embrace religious freedom, then I'm for it. British society already seems to be very secular, so whether or not the Church of England is the official state religion won't make much of a difference.
There is one big unspoken thing that seems to be behind this disestablishment movement. Is it just about the Church of England, or is it about responding to pressure from Muslim groups? (whether perceived or actual, doesn't matter)
This same Archbishop also caused a bit of a stink earlier this year when he suggested that having some aspects of Sharia be adopted by Britain was "unavoidable".
There are already voluntary Sharia courts in Britain, but it's not hard to imagine those courts becoming mandatory for practicing Muslims within those jurisdictions (and given that in some parts of England segregation is almost total, some neighborhoods would be under Sharia rule exclusively), especially after disestablishment. That's given the overly accommodating nature of British politicians and their unwillingness to confront the bigots and crazies within their Muslim population.
Religious freedom is a great thing, if disestablishment is about increasing the free expression of religion (or non-religion) in Britain, then go for it, the sooner the better, if it's about something else, then don't mess with the tradition just to accommodate a vocal minority within an important and expanding constituency.
Being British needs to be about a shared experience, the center of that shared experience doesn't need to be an established church, but it should be about the basic traditions, laws, and deserved pride in their long and glorious history. That definition of Britishness can include people of all ethnicities and creeds, but if people choose to settle in Britain, be proud of becoming British and official doctrine should be about working towards "Britishness". The UK is failing their citizens when they don't work towards a common sense of Britishness regardless of from where, or from how long ago people came to their shores.
Anti-assimilation multiculturalism is a disease that corrodes societies. I see it here in Los Angeles, and from what I see in their newspapers, it's also a problem in Britain. I hope the desire to disestablish the church is just about freedom and nothing more, but given the behavior and rhetoric of some of their politicians it smells more like an act of appeasement, and you'd think the Brits would have learned their lesson regarding appeasement, but I guess not.
(Is this an issue that I really care about deeply, or was I just looking for an excuse to type the word, "antidisestablishmentarianism"?)
If it's an honest attempt to embrace religious freedom, then I'm for it. British society already seems to be very secular, so whether or not the Church of England is the official state religion won't make much of a difference.
There is one big unspoken thing that seems to be behind this disestablishment movement. Is it just about the Church of England, or is it about responding to pressure from Muslim groups? (whether perceived or actual, doesn't matter)
This same Archbishop also caused a bit of a stink earlier this year when he suggested that having some aspects of Sharia be adopted by Britain was "unavoidable".
There are already voluntary Sharia courts in Britain, but it's not hard to imagine those courts becoming mandatory for practicing Muslims within those jurisdictions (and given that in some parts of England segregation is almost total, some neighborhoods would be under Sharia rule exclusively), especially after disestablishment. That's given the overly accommodating nature of British politicians and their unwillingness to confront the bigots and crazies within their Muslim population.
Religious freedom is a great thing, if disestablishment is about increasing the free expression of religion (or non-religion) in Britain, then go for it, the sooner the better, if it's about something else, then don't mess with the tradition just to accommodate a vocal minority within an important and expanding constituency.
Being British needs to be about a shared experience, the center of that shared experience doesn't need to be an established church, but it should be about the basic traditions, laws, and deserved pride in their long and glorious history. That definition of Britishness can include people of all ethnicities and creeds, but if people choose to settle in Britain, be proud of becoming British and official doctrine should be about working towards "Britishness". The UK is failing their citizens when they don't work towards a common sense of Britishness regardless of from where, or from how long ago people came to their shores.
Anti-assimilation multiculturalism is a disease that corrodes societies. I see it here in Los Angeles, and from what I see in their newspapers, it's also a problem in Britain. I hope the desire to disestablish the church is just about freedom and nothing more, but given the behavior and rhetoric of some of their politicians it smells more like an act of appeasement, and you'd think the Brits would have learned their lesson regarding appeasement, but I guess not.
(Is this an issue that I really care about deeply, or was I just looking for an excuse to type the word, "antidisestablishmentarianism"?)
If Someone Is Really Demanding an Explanation . . .
From Megan McArdle
Is this really a concept that needs explanation? I think anyone who needs it explained to them that it's a very bad idea and patently unjust that the government should pick winners and losers and punish the rich, then I don't conceive of any amount of persuasion changing their minds.
I just hope that the parts of Obama's rhetoric that match the notion of picking winners and punishing the rich was just that, rhetoric, and not something he plans on putting into practice.
I am truly frightened by how many of Obama's more vocal supporters hope that his feints in that direction were more than empty rhetoric and instead part of his proposed "Hope" and "Change".
Obviously, if you think it's the government's job to pick economic winners and losers, and ensure that rich people lose as often as possible, then my stance is horrible and hypocritical. I will explain another time why I think that this is neither just, nor in the long-term interests of American society.
Is this really a concept that needs explanation? I think anyone who needs it explained to them that it's a very bad idea and patently unjust that the government should pick winners and losers and punish the rich, then I don't conceive of any amount of persuasion changing their minds.
I just hope that the parts of Obama's rhetoric that match the notion of picking winners and punishing the rich was just that, rhetoric, and not something he plans on putting into practice.
I am truly frightened by how many of Obama's more vocal supporters hope that his feints in that direction were more than empty rhetoric and instead part of his proposed "Hope" and "Change".
25 December 2008
Have a Happy Happy and a Merry Merry
Wishing everyone a happy happy and a merry merry. Whatever occasion you want to be happy and/or merry, enjoy it, cherish it, and be a source of happiness and merriment for others. Being the font of good times beats the alternative, though being the recipient of somebody else's good cheer is good, too, and even if you spend this time of year alone, enjoy that solitude, solitude has its pleasures (and if by familial responsibilities you are forced to be in the presence of a bona fide Grinch/Scrooge/Spreader of Ill Tidings, be forgiving, and be above their emotional crap, their misery will likely last all next year, while the misery they cause you will only be temporary).
(and yes, I can still rock the multi-hued tam o shanter when needed)
(and yes, pretty much nobody made it through the early 70s without taking a picture with some questionable clothing or interior decorating choices on view)
(back to blogging, hopefully, just haven't had much to say, but rather than worrying about whether or not my thoughts and notions are interesting, insightful, or engaging, I'll be like everyone else and post away any way, it's up to you to read or not read it, you can't ignore what isn't there, so I hope to give you plenty of material to ignore throughout 2009 which will likely be an interesting year)
11 December 2008
Is Al Gore Headed to Southern California This Weekend?
*Special Weather Statement*
This part caught my eye
So, a small chance of the first bit of snowfall in Santa Monica in my lifetime, thanks a lot Mr. Al Gore, aka The Coldinator.
Somehow I just know that snowfall in Houston and this upcoming bit of bad weather here are all connected to this recent Obama-Gore photo op.
Remember folks, The Al Gore Effect, it's not just a joke, it's science!
This part caught my eye
Another significant impact of this weather system will be the very low snow levels. On Saturday snow levels are expected to be initially 6000 to 7000 feet. Snow levels are expected to then lower to between 3500 and 4500 feet by Sunday... lowest across northern mountain ranges. Snow levels are expected to be even lower by
Tuesday night into Wednesday... possibly as low as 2000 to 2500 feet in heavier showers. While any snow accumulation in the foothills is expected to be minimal... the mountains could experience several inches of new snow with this cold and unsettled weather pattern. Interstate 5 from the Grapevine to Santa Clarita could be impacted by snowfall at times Sunday through Wednesday.
So, a small chance of the first bit of snowfall in Santa Monica in my lifetime, thanks a lot Mr. Al Gore, aka The Coldinator.
Somehow I just know that snowfall in Houston and this upcoming bit of bad weather here are all connected to this recent Obama-Gore photo op.
Remember folks, The Al Gore Effect, it's not just a joke, it's science!
28 November 2008
Ummm, Errr, Ummm, Yeah, I've Got Nothing.
It's already the most successful musical film ever, and it's now the fastest-selling DVD in British history.
Oh, yeah, I know what, I'm GOBSMACKED.
Oh, yeah, I know what, I'm GOBSMACKED.
22 November 2008
Quit Following Me Around You Damn Celebrities . . .
Haven't been blogging lately, that'll change, no reason for the non-blogging, and no reason behind blogging again, either, I'm just not reasonable.
Been noticing more celebrities in odd places lately, thought I'd mention it. A few weeks ago, saw Synecdoche, New York, and actually enjoyed it quite a bit, sort of, also kind of thought it was pretentious nonsense, but at least it was well acted pretentious nonsense, even as it was nearly completely directionless. Notably, very strong female roles in that film, and at its core a remarkably engaging performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, even if he was playing a version of the same character he nearly always plays. What's that have to do with celebrity sightings? After the film was over, while standing around waiting for my friend, saw a very attractive woman pass by, and dammit if it wasn't Madeleine Stowe. If I were to describe the look on her face as she left the theatre, I think it would be the look one would have while thinking, "Why the hell didn't I get that Catherine Keener role, I'm a lot hotter than she is, and at least as good of an actress, I totally could have pulled that off, why aren't there more roles that meaty out there, refuse to do the Lifetime victim of the week film, and you don't work in this town if you're an actress over 45, oh well, screw this town, I'm headed back to my ranch". It's amazing how much of her inner thought process she was able to convey with just a minor furrow of one of her brows.
Tuesday, while foraging for Kirkland brand yogurt at Costco, I was surprised to see a familiar face. Oddly, this wasn't the first celebrity I've spotted in the parking lot at this Costco, months ago while getting out of my car I saw non other than Bernie Casey, which was cool and all, but that doesn't compare to seeing David St. Hubbins, his own bad self. It's nice to see that even with great success and fame, even the David St. Hubbinses of the world still like to do a little membership bulk shopping.
The most recent brush with celebrity happened tonight while finally getting around to seeing Vicky Christina Barcelona, as far as late period Woody Allen goes, this one wasn't bad, the acting was quite good, and the film is well paced with interesting characters. Saw it in Westwood, it's amazing how uncrowded Westwood is on a Friday night compared to what it used to be like back in the late 70s through to the mid 80s. There are too many better choices for places to hang out and the number of screens in Westwood has dwindled, it's mostly just a place for UCLA students now, and that's not a bad thing, but it's not like it used to be. The celebrity in this case was Fisher Stevens, which as far as random celebrity sightings goes, it's about as random as it gets. Had he not been on four episodes of Lost last season, I probably wouldn't have recognized him as I've only seen three pictures he's been in, and don't remember him from any of the other numerous TV guest spots he's done. I was more interested in who he was with, though. He was with a young woman, not so young as for it to be totally creepy and inappropriate, but young enough for an age difference to be noticeable. I can't help but wonder if this young lady brags to her friend about hanging out with Fisher Stevens, or is this a source of some shame, or is she completely indifferent to his level of fame. He's just famous enough for any of those answers to be right, if he was super famous, than you'd lean towards bragging as the only possibility, if he was at one time only sort of famous, but not in a good way (say a Kato Kaelin type), then it'd just be embarrassment, but sort of, but not kind of famous, but famous enough to be recognized most places is a tricky middle ground. They seemed happy enough in each other's presence, and no visible oddness going on, they just seemed like your regular guy a little too old for a gal who is a little too young couple that you see running around all over Los Angeles.
Been noticing more celebrities in odd places lately, thought I'd mention it. A few weeks ago, saw Synecdoche, New York, and actually enjoyed it quite a bit, sort of, also kind of thought it was pretentious nonsense, but at least it was well acted pretentious nonsense, even as it was nearly completely directionless. Notably, very strong female roles in that film, and at its core a remarkably engaging performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, even if he was playing a version of the same character he nearly always plays. What's that have to do with celebrity sightings? After the film was over, while standing around waiting for my friend, saw a very attractive woman pass by, and dammit if it wasn't Madeleine Stowe. If I were to describe the look on her face as she left the theatre, I think it would be the look one would have while thinking, "Why the hell didn't I get that Catherine Keener role, I'm a lot hotter than she is, and at least as good of an actress, I totally could have pulled that off, why aren't there more roles that meaty out there, refuse to do the Lifetime victim of the week film, and you don't work in this town if you're an actress over 45, oh well, screw this town, I'm headed back to my ranch". It's amazing how much of her inner thought process she was able to convey with just a minor furrow of one of her brows.
Tuesday, while foraging for Kirkland brand yogurt at Costco, I was surprised to see a familiar face. Oddly, this wasn't the first celebrity I've spotted in the parking lot at this Costco, months ago while getting out of my car I saw non other than Bernie Casey, which was cool and all, but that doesn't compare to seeing David St. Hubbins, his own bad self. It's nice to see that even with great success and fame, even the David St. Hubbinses of the world still like to do a little membership bulk shopping.
The most recent brush with celebrity happened tonight while finally getting around to seeing Vicky Christina Barcelona, as far as late period Woody Allen goes, this one wasn't bad, the acting was quite good, and the film is well paced with interesting characters. Saw it in Westwood, it's amazing how uncrowded Westwood is on a Friday night compared to what it used to be like back in the late 70s through to the mid 80s. There are too many better choices for places to hang out and the number of screens in Westwood has dwindled, it's mostly just a place for UCLA students now, and that's not a bad thing, but it's not like it used to be. The celebrity in this case was Fisher Stevens, which as far as random celebrity sightings goes, it's about as random as it gets. Had he not been on four episodes of Lost last season, I probably wouldn't have recognized him as I've only seen three pictures he's been in, and don't remember him from any of the other numerous TV guest spots he's done. I was more interested in who he was with, though. He was with a young woman, not so young as for it to be totally creepy and inappropriate, but young enough for an age difference to be noticeable. I can't help but wonder if this young lady brags to her friend about hanging out with Fisher Stevens, or is this a source of some shame, or is she completely indifferent to his level of fame. He's just famous enough for any of those answers to be right, if he was super famous, than you'd lean towards bragging as the only possibility, if he was at one time only sort of famous, but not in a good way (say a Kato Kaelin type), then it'd just be embarrassment, but sort of, but not kind of famous, but famous enough to be recognized most places is a tricky middle ground. They seemed happy enough in each other's presence, and no visible oddness going on, they just seemed like your regular guy a little too old for a gal who is a little too young couple that you see running around all over Los Angeles.
12 November 2008
Lakers Chat, Part 6-0 Going on 7-0 (The Hornets Are Really Good, and This Is Going to be a Tough Game Edition)
Lakers continue to roll, sort of, they gave up 60 points in the first half against Dallas, and didn't take the lead again until late in the 4th quarter. They prevailed, though, and their biggest test of the early season is tonight.
2nd night of a back to back, in New Orleans, against most people's pick as the 2nd best team in the Western Conference, if they get past this game, then they have a serious shot at least matching the record of 15-0 starting a season.
Trevor Ariza continues to play amazing basketball, there was a sequence in the 4th where he stole the ball, almost got trapped, recovered, and then threw down a monster slam. It was a thing of beauty. The Lakers have two serious contenders for 6th Man of the Year honors in Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza. Both these guys make big contributions and I doubt there's any other non-starter more talented than either of these players. Right now, their play is matching their talent (except for Trevor's free throw shooting, his percentage from the foul line is barely better than his percentage behind the three point line, that ain't right). If the Lakers bench continues to pour in better than 40 points a contest, all my insane optimism won't be misplaced.
2nd night of a back to back, in New Orleans, against most people's pick as the 2nd best team in the Western Conference, if they get past this game, then they have a serious shot at least matching the record of 15-0 starting a season.
Trevor Ariza continues to play amazing basketball, there was a sequence in the 4th where he stole the ball, almost got trapped, recovered, and then threw down a monster slam. It was a thing of beauty. The Lakers have two serious contenders for 6th Man of the Year honors in Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza. Both these guys make big contributions and I doubt there's any other non-starter more talented than either of these players. Right now, their play is matching their talent (except for Trevor's free throw shooting, his percentage from the foul line is barely better than his percentage behind the three point line, that ain't right). If the Lakers bench continues to pour in better than 40 points a contest, all my insane optimism won't be misplaced.
11 November 2008
Lakers Chat Part 5-0 Going on 6-0 (The Mavericks Don't Have a Chance Edition)
Another night, another Lakers probable victory. Everything is sweetness and light in Lakerland at the moment. Dr. Buss was interviewed in yesterday's LAT, and he says some interesting things.
Mainly, he's happy, he'll spend the money it takes to keep this going, he's pleased with the kids working for the Lakers. Jeannie's doing great with the business side (and keeping Phil happy, presumably), and Jim is doing well with the basketball operations.
The next two nights will help either prove the Lakers just to be a good team with a shot at this year's championship, or if they continue on their roll and kill both Dallas and New Orleans, then all my crazy optimism about how they'll complete 2008 without a loss will seem a little less crazy.
Mainly, he's happy, he'll spend the money it takes to keep this going, he's pleased with the kids working for the Lakers. Jeannie's doing great with the business side (and keeping Phil happy, presumably), and Jim is doing well with the basketball operations.
The next two nights will help either prove the Lakers just to be a good team with a shot at this year's championship, or if they continue on their roll and kill both Dallas and New Orleans, then all my crazy optimism about how they'll complete 2008 without a loss will seem a little less crazy.
10 November 2008
Getting Paid by the Comment (Marc Stein Edition)
I'm guessing that Marc Stein gets a little bonus based on the number of comments generated from his posts.
How else can you explain elevating the Boston Celtics over the Los Angeles Lakers in this week's Power Rankings over at ESPN.com?
Laker fans and Laker haters are fighting it out in the comments, and by the end of the day I predict at least 1000 comments to turn up on this one. It's a good strategy, comments drive traffic, and they drive multiple visits over a day and a week as people make a comment, then obsess over responses to their comments, then respond to the responses to their comments, and so on.
More eyeballs to see their ads, so the big winner is the US Army who sponsor ESPN's NBA Power Rankings, so do your patriotic duty, and comment away.
(for the record, I understand his reasoning, even if I don't agree with it, and I suspect some east coast bias is at work, given that I doubt he's seen how the Lakers have accomplished their whopping 22.4 ppg win margin in their first five games, and he's probably just assuming it was done against weaker competition)
How else can you explain elevating the Boston Celtics over the Los Angeles Lakers in this week's Power Rankings over at ESPN.com?
Laker fans and Laker haters are fighting it out in the comments, and by the end of the day I predict at least 1000 comments to turn up on this one. It's a good strategy, comments drive traffic, and they drive multiple visits over a day and a week as people make a comment, then obsess over responses to their comments, then respond to the responses to their comments, and so on.
More eyeballs to see their ads, so the big winner is the US Army who sponsor ESPN's NBA Power Rankings, so do your patriotic duty, and comment away.
(for the record, I understand his reasoning, even if I don't agree with it, and I suspect some east coast bias is at work, given that I doubt he's seen how the Lakers have accomplished their whopping 22.4 ppg win margin in their first five games, and he's probably just assuming it was done against weaker competition)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)