When Pundits Go Awry

When it comes to elections and whatnot, Marc Ambinder knows a lot more than I do.

But this latest post is poppycock.

He starts by giving credence (as Josh Marshall and others did) to Republican Tom Cole's quote in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine:

"I happen to think Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate in the end" .... "You couldn’t raise money against Obama right away like you could with Clinton, that’s true, and so maybe by the time you were able to raise money it wouldn’t matter. But he’s ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he’s got a national-security deficit. I think she’s a plausible commander in chief, and I don’t think he is. It may not matter. But those two areas are where we would fight the election, and with McCain, I think we contrast with him very well.”

That's the NRCC Chairman Tom Cole, by the way. What possible stake could he have in this game? Why would he be suggesting that the Republicans get what they've been drooling over - the chance to run against Hillary Clinton!

Ambinder comments:

Against Obama, John McCain and the Republicans are going to front national security. They'll run on "who'll keep your safer" -- they'll try to force members in swing congressional districts to own -- or disown -- Obama. There is much more a messaging function in having Obama as the candidate, where Clinton would clearly provide the energizing function.

Really? If Clinton is the nominee, Republicans won't run on a national security platform? OF COURSE THEY WILL. John Kerry, like HRC, voted for the war, and that was the entire Bush re-election campaign. The one thing John McCain reportedly has going for him is his advocacy for the surge. Whoever is the Democratic nominee will have national security being run after them.

And it's not like Clinton has any more outs than Obama does on this. It's not like she's going to be agreeing with McCain on his policy on the war. Therefore, they'll attack her. Over and over again.

Obama provides a clean contrast with McCain on the war, and to the extent that Americans are ready to choose a "side" on Iraq, Obama has the upper hand. But Iraq has not been his trump card in the primary -- indeed, at least about half of Democrats do not believe that Clinton's 2002 vote disqualifies her.

About half, you say? Hm...maybe that's why the Democratic nomination is still going on! Sure, it doesn't disqualify her, because it's not a one-issue race and she has been building up support for the last eight years - not that it's sealed up a nomination for her by any means.

Democrats may be tempted to conflate John McCain's national security arguments with the Bush-Republican national security arguments. Superficially, they sound alike. But McCain has much more standing to make them -- registered voters say this, not me, as does McCain's biography and life.

Obama supporters bristle at the notion that Obama will become as polarizing to Republicans as Clinton is right now. We will see. The net effect of the competitive Democratic Primary may well be that Obama becomes less of a unifying figure and more of a, well, Democrat.

Look, any Democratic nominee is going to get the full onslaught that Democrats always do - soft on national security, tax-and-spend, blah blah blah. The difference is that Obama, more than any other candidate in recent years, has broken through that noise to many voters and gotten them to look at real life problems and why he is the right person for the job of solving those issues.

Play Ball!

I could definitely do without the ass-kissing by Joe Morgan and Jon Miller (nor Miller's evocation of 9/11...geez, is he part of the RNC?), but you have to like the chorus of BOO's that dominated President Bush's first pitch at the new Nationals stadium.



Sure, he can throw a good ball - I'll give him that. But he's still the worst president ever and a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being.

Play Ball!

Reality Roundup: The Biggest Loser Couples

It's pretty rare when I get an actual request for a blog posting, but hey, it does happen from time to time. And I recently got an email that said, partially, this:

Can you please post about "the biggest loser". I have always watched the show and this season is RIDICULOUS...I have to spout to you, cause you are the only person besides myself who I know watches this terrible show. I so wish I could stop this season as they annoy me every episode, but I am 2 close to the end now.

I'm not willing to say the show is terrible, but it's NOT good. Here are just a few of my complaints:

• The show is generally two hours long, with maybe 22 minutes of actual content. It could be a half hour, realistically should be one hour, and has absolutely no business whatsoever being two goddamn hours long. It's brutal.


• That being said, it's easy to fast forward through long portions of it, because there's a preposterous amount of product placement. It's one thing to watch people learn about healthy eating, it's another to watch a trainer have a "conversation" with them about why Quaker Healthy Start (or whatever it's called) is the best way to start each and every morning. Product placement is sadly a part of many reality shows, but it doesn't have to be forced down your throat.


• Another thing we fast forward through? The earnest heart-to-heart talks with Jillian or Bob (the trainers) and one of the contestants is just way over the top and preposterous. And while I realize that it's a pretty intense experience for the contestants themselves, STOP WITH THE CRYING, ALREADY. Or, maybe that's a note to the editors - let those kids cry it out...just don't show it. We get it.


• Speaking of earnestness (is that even a word?), newly departed Dan - a 21 year old kid who lost 112 pounds while on the ranch - just about slayed me. Not in a good way. It's amusing because he is so young (for me, that is, not all you youngsters out there) but the way he talks...oy, Dan. OY. He explains everything, because it's all new to him! So it should be to you! Too! Seriously. I also cut him some slack because he has to walk around for the rest of his life with a really bad forearm tattoo he somewhat got talked into. But the fact that he specifically requested a "Keith Urban haircut" (and got one) doesn't help him.


• "1-2-3-PRIDE!" Enough said.

So...any rational person would ask...what the fuck are you doing watching this show?

Solid question. Well, here's my answer.

• It's hard to not find what these people are doing amazing, and really sort of shocking. These people are cutting themselves in half, really. More than a handful of them have lost over 100 pounds just on the ranch, and that's hard to not find impressive.


• And, of course, inspiring. Whether it's cause or effect of the weight they're carrying, most of these people start not all that happy with themselves, and that seems to change too. I'm not made of stone, people.


• Not a lot of other things are on.


• I do actually like that the financial prize for this show, while large at $250,000 is still way short of most major prizes. It's because there should be no one doing this primarily for the money. And that does always, always seem to be the case.

I just spent a few minutes trying to add to the list of why I like the show, and since I don't feel like spending much more time on that, I'll move on. But the show is worth watching. My friend who wrote the note above complained about the host, which is Allison Sweeney, replacing former host Caroline Rhea. I think they are both about the same - which is not terrible, but certainly not good. Sweeney is likeable (and easy on the eyes) but I will agree - when she calls challenges, it's just painful. Frankly, they should just clone Jeff Probst and make a rule that Probst-bots must host all reality shows from here on out.

I don't really care who "wins" the show - many people are predicting, they think Roger, who still has the most to lose, is a lock since he will have lost the most. And Mark at this point looks to be already at a very healthy weight - it's hard to see him being able to improve on an amazing feat already. It's more of a curiousity to see who wins rather than ever much caring about it one way or the other. Whoever wins earns it, and everyone else benefits a lot as well, of course.

Anyhow, it's certainly not great. It wouldn't be hard to convince me not to watch it next season, especially if -- okay, when my time is a lot less free. But in the meantime, it stays in the rotation.

They Just Won't Learn

Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle posted a story today about how the Giants ballpark (which I still call Pac Bell) has essentially been Bonds-scrubbed:

The leftfield fence now features a long green blank between the ads for Chevron and Bud Lite. Last season, that space was devoted to Bonds - first a mural of Bonds and three other Giants' legends, and then a "Road to History" mural featuring a photo of Bonds and a highway sign with his name and team logo.

It makes sense that those temporary tributes would be removed. But for the last few years the Giants milked Bonds' home-run-record chase for all it was worth, and now not even a simple "756" sign or some other visible nod to the man and the record?

There is a small sign urging fans to "Remember '51," the year of Bobby Thomson's "Shot Heard Round the World." But nothing to help them remember 756.

Bonds has been erased. Even the grass he killed in left field has grown back.

I asked team president Peter Magowan if management considered some kind of visible tribute to Bonds and his record.

"No," Magowan said, eloquently.

What a douchebag. The lack of respect for Bonds and how much money and press he brought the Giants - through whatever means - is simply, without question, disgraceful.

Only Baseball Matters actually puts it eloquently (as Magowan clearly doesn't):

How can Magowan sit there with a straight face and act like Bonds somehow fucked him and the Giants over? That is as much an affront to me as a fan as any lying about the direction the team is going. Wiping clean all traces of Bonds is a disgrace.

And, again, let’s point out that Roger Clemens is again being defended by members of Congress, while Bonds is still hunted and, of course, being colluded out of baseball. That virtually every member of the mainstream media is standing by and applauding while this is happening is another travesty. The number of sportswriters who have profited from Bonds’ efforts, who have profited at his expense is staggering. Not content to cash their new, bigger paychecks, they still spew vitriol and bile at him, even when he’s out of the spotlight.

I remember reading how Joe DiMaggio became a recluse, hiding from fans and sportswriters, until finally he spent all of his time and effort protecting his name and reputation, suing people who even thought about making money off his fame without him getting his due. Sadly, history is repeating itself. The destruction of Barry Bonds will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in baseball history. Bonds has been a tremendous player, one who dedicated himself to his craft, getting every last ounce of production out his talent; and this is like watching him be torn apart by hyenas. It makes me feel dirty.

Douchebags. I really wonder how many of the 18 games I have tickets to this season I'll actually attend. I'll put the over/under at 3.5.

Marcus Giles To The Giants - Why Not?

Colorado doesn't want him, and apparently the Dodgers don't either. He's 29 and has certainly had some good seasons. And...the Giants infield is a disaster - Kevin Fransden tore his Achilles heel, Ray Durham is banged up and Omar Vizquel could miss 60 games on the DL. Plus, they suck.

So, why not Marcus Giles? It's not inconceivable to think he'd hit .280, with 10-15 HR and 60+ RBI and Runs. Sure, that's not great...but it IS way better than any one else who can man that job right now.

I Apologize In Advance For This

...but it seems that since this would do more harm than good for John McCain, I feel compelled to post it.



Once again, sorry.

Hilarious. I Want Barack!

The latest Barack Obama video from a "celebrity" -- and this is just funny stuff.

The Long Winters: Hindsight

Happy Saturday.

Cute.

"I'm Casey Knowles, and I approve this message. And not the other one."

The Sabean Chronicles

This season should prove to be a real exercise in how crappy of a GM Brian Sabean is, and here's just one crisp example of such.

Courtesy of my friend the Van Buren Boy, this posting on Brian Sabean is just too good not to reprint. It's from Shysterball, a blog that describes itself as being about "Baseball (and occasionally the lesser sports) from the Shyster's point of view."

First, Shyster quotes an article from the Chronicle:

With reliever Vinnie Chulk shelved with shoulder tendinitis and starter Noah Lowry rehabbing from surgery and unavailable until at least late April, the Giants are shying away from trade talk if it means giving up pitchers.

"We're going to try," general manager Brian Sabean said when asked if he expects trade activity before Opening Day, "but I don't see us trading pitching in any regard to try to solve what we want to do offensively."

Then, Shyster really makes the point that any intelligent, rational beings would arrive at, even if they don't know the science that he references:

See, here's the thing, Brian. When you seek to upgrade your pathetic offense through trades, but limit your trading chits to parts of that same pathetic offense, you are creating the sort of closed system that Lavoisier described. One which, by virtue of the law, is immune to enhancement (really, what are you going to get for Daniel Ortmeier?). On the bright side, given how crappy the Giants' hitters are, it is one that is probably immune to degradation as well (really, how much worse can you do than Daniel Ortmeier?).

Why Barack Obama Matters

As noted across The Internets, Senator Barack Obama gave a speech today about race. I've only read the transcript, but even in print, the words moved me.

Updated: Here's the speech:


Some excerpts here, and much more below the fold:

...On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

...

I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

...In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

The Bugatti Veyron

If you are at ALL interested in powerful, slick AMAZING cars, this Bugatti video is probably as close to porn as it gets without naked people:



From the site: Bugatti's Veyron is the world's most expensive and powerful production car ever. At $1.3 million, it boasts a 8.0L quad-turbo W16 engine that produces 1000+hp and 927 ft. lb torque -- rocketing the vehicle from 0-60 mph in just 2.4 seconds.

Thanks to my Pops for forwarding this on...

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

I’ve had Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln on my shelf for awhile, but I finally took it down and attacked it – it’s not always that I feel in the mood for a 700 page biography on Abraham Lincoln, but with a baby on the way, it’s not like a huge amount of free time is out there sitting on my doorstep.

And of course, I’m very happy I took the time, as Team of Rivals is fantastic. It’s really a comprehensive account of Lincoln’s political life and how unlikely a rise to prominence and power he charted. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who didn’t think Lincoln was one of, perhaps THE, greatest President our country has been fortunate to have.

I’m not going to recite the details here – the book does that in a much better way, naturally. But the central thesis of the book, repeated in its title, is that Lincoln did not reject insight and opinion from those who disagreed with him – he did just the opposite. His cabinet was comprised of his chief rivals for the Republican nomination as well as some Democratic opponents who were aghast at his anti-slavery stance.

(It’s a bit jarring that back then, the Republicans were the party of tolerance and the Democrats the oppressors, but you’ll get used to it after awhile.)

Can you imagine that? It’s certainly possible that a Barack Obama presidency could include Hillary Clinton in his cabinet, as well as prior contenders for the nomination like John Edwards, Bill Richardson and maybe Joe Biden. (The same could likely be said for a Hillary Clinton presidency.) Presumably, John McCain – if he didn’t hate everyone – could include seats in his cabinet for Fred Thompson, and maybe others like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani…but it’s less probable. But can you imagine him putting Obama or Clinton in his cabinet? Or the reverse? It’s inconceivable.

Now…in an event that caused the incredibly angry John McCain to freak out at a reporter, it’s widely known that John Kerry asked McCain to be his VP pick in 2004. But…this was done as a purely political move, not – as President Lincoln did it – as a way to heal a fractured country and achieve solutions to problems by encouraging different kinds of opinion.

In any case, the book is fantastic – Kearns Goodwin is an incredibly talented historian, and she writes in a way that makes it so accessible that you almost forget its history you are reading. If all historians wrote like she does, our country would be a lot more informed of a place.

Rating: 9.0/10.0

Customer "Service" Ain't What It Used to Be

Here are two different experiences I’ve had with companies lately which I think bear repeating in public.

The first involved two bank cards – coincidentally, I received two cards in the mail at about the same time. One was from Bank of America, the other from Charles Schwab (one of their High Yield Bank accounts, should you care.) Both cards came with instructions that I needed to call a 1-800 number from my home phone in order to validate. I got the BofA card first, but forgot about validating it until I received the Schwab card.

(Sigh. I need more space to write about this. Click below the fold to read the whole charade.)

So, one night I called the BofA number first, keyed in the relevant information (the last four digits of my SSN, etc.) and then heard an automated ad for some type of Privacy Protection. I had no interest in this – but it was very unclear as to whether I was finished with the validation process. So, I pressed the button to continue but not opt-in to the Privacy Protection. I then heard another pitch for the ad I’d just declined. That’s really fucking annoying. I heard something which basically confirmed that I was done and hung up – but not before noting that they were still trying to get me to sign up for Privacy Protection. (I should add that the only reason I hung on the phone as long as I did was that the language of the ad made it sound like I might be opting in to the program simply by validating my phone number. I’m fairly sure this is not unintentional.)

Next, I called Charles Schwab. They asked me for the same information that BofA had asked for…then thanked me for being a client of theirs and … that was that!

I think I can leave that comparison alone, but I’ll just put a bow on it and say this – one of those companies made me happy to be doing business with them, the other made me feel dirty. I’ll let you draw the line between those dots.

The next instance is actually much more frustrating. As noted here, I recently took a trip to Maui with my lovely wife – because she is pregnant and because I wanted to spend as much of our trip on vacation rather than traveling between two places, I booked us a non-stop flight from San Francisco to Maui. About a month before our trip, I received a phone call from United Airlines, noting that our outbound flight had been cancelled – but that United had rebooked us and just wanted to make sure that the new details were okay with us. The new details had us leaving at approximately the same time, but flying through Los Angeles. I told the agent that this was unacceptable, and furthermore, if this was the only acceptable option, how much would I expect to be refunded for taking what is a cheaper flight?

The agent told me that she’d have to call me back and would see what she could do. When she did call back several minutes later, we were surprisingly rebooked on a non-stop to Maui…leaving 30 minutes after my original flight. Now, I know airlines are pretty screwed up…but it seems pretty inconceivable to me that there would be two nonstop flights from San Francisco to Maui leaving 30 minutes apart from one another. Which means that United was simply trying to knock me into a cheaper flight, hoping I wouldn’t care. (If there were two separate flights leaving that close to another…why shouldn’t I have been booked on the second nonstop in the first place? There’s no answer here that makes United look good, except for the fact that we eventually got booked on the right flight.)

I would have let this gone unnoted, until I got a call this past Friday. I’m taking another flight on United at the end of April to Myrtle Beach, and lo and behold…United called to tell me that my flight had been cancelled and they had rebooked me. This time, I started with a one-stop flight going through Washington Dulles. United’s solution to my dilemma (which, after much back and forth with the representative, turned out to be that the Dulles-Myrtle Beach flight had been cancelled) was to have me leave about four hours LATER, fly through Newark Airport to Dulles and arrive in Myrtle Beach about five hours after my original plans.

How is this convenient? How is this customer service?

I told the representative that this was unacceptable – and she couldn’t understand what the problem was. Granted, in no short amount of time I was yelling at her, not talking…and in retrospect, I feel badly about that. She seemed to think it was critical that I fly through Dulles – even though I specifically told her this wasn’t the case. All I wanted was to do was fly to Myrtle Beach from San Francisco, making only one stop, and arrive in the early evening. Just like the trip I had booked. (I also asked what my refund would be for having to take three flights instead of two.)

Much like my first call, the United representative told me that she’d have to call me back – and when my phone rang, it was a new United caller, much calmer and more polished. (My wife thinks I made the first representative cry.) He asked me how he could help, and I repeated what I stated above – in no short order, he booked me on a flight that left at approximately the same time, went through Charlotte, and got me in Myrtle Beach at roughly the exact same time as my original plans. He then reserved my seats on those new flights – as well as on the return, which I hadn’t done originally.

Now that is customer service – I only wish I hadn’t have had to scream and yell in order to get it.

Reality Roundup!

Yet another edition of Reality Show Roundup!

Yeah, it’s about that time. With a few standout shows going on right now, and one that's just ended, it's worth a look into what's okay, what's crap and what is actually worth watching. Click the link below to read on.

First, a note or two about Project Runway which I foolishly left out of a recent posting about what I was watching on TV. It was a very good season, especially in terms of the talent level – all three finalists were significantly more talented than, I should think, the finalists in Seasons 1 and 2. (Certainly, the first season.) As it turned out, Christian was the favorite and he certainly is talented. But it really put a cap on something – I don’t understand fashion at all. His clothing – and the stuff they show on the runway shows – are all unwearable by maybe 99.999% of the world’s population…and this is somehow a good thing? Sure, Victoria Beckham (a finals judge) could wear it I guess, but I don’t think I even understand the point of showing off something with such a limited audience. In any event, it’s a good show.

I’ve also been watching The Biggest Loser which hasn’t been that great – although watching Jillian swear like a drunken sailor at host Allison Sweeney was particularly entertaining this week. The game is definitely not as interesting as in season’s past, but it’s certainly not all that bad and amazing to see how people transform themselves so quickly. One obvious quibble is…the show is TWO freaking hours long. That’s ridiculous for a show that could conceivable be squashed into thirty minutes.

While I've only caught a bit of America's Next Top Model (I can't take it much anymore), it's not that my standards have somehow gotten better. Exhibit A is that I have something to say about Paradise Hotel 2, which has only improved on the original by getting even more vapid folks than the first go round. There does appear to be a prize to win at the end (I'm not sure the original show got to the finale before being canceled), it's really pretty horrible. But yeah, I end up watching it.

I’ve already written about Big Brother and it’s still not a very interesting show. Usually, it’s gotten quite good at this point in the show – but the problem is, there’s not a single likable person on the show. There are maybe three people who aren’t that objectionable, but that’s really not the same thing.

On the other hand, I’m really enjoying Survivor: Fans vs Favorites, despite the fact that the “fans” are a collective bunch of morons. If they are in fact fans of anything, it’s of players like Ozzy and James, not the actual game. Because they’ve largely played like a bunch of idiots.

And I have to think that Survivor execs are regretting the fact that they ever cast Chet. Chet might be the least competitive person I’ve ever seen, and if there is one thing that unites people who play Survivor, it’s that they are type-A, incredibly competitive people. (Witness Jonathan Penner this week trying to stay in the game with an infected abscess on his thigh.) Chet was …awful. Just weak in every sense of the word. I’m sure he’s a nice person to his friends and family, but he couldn’t have been worse at this game – his only hope was that he’d be dragged into the finals by someone knowing the jury would never give him anything. That can only last so long. At this point, the truly inept players like Joel and Chet are gone, but there’s no reason to think anyone but a ‘Favorite’ will take this home. Ozzy deserves it in one sense – he’s by far the best physical player the game has EVER seen – but I’d put odds on him not making the finals at pretty close to 100%. But, it’s good, good stuff.

And, as noted earlier this week, Top Chef is back! I think that of all the reality shows I watch, it has the most appeal to people. I know several folks who watch none of the shows above but who love Top Chef. This season started really well – the chefs seem very talented. Two of them made Quickfire pizzas that sounded repulsive, but apparently tasted great according to judges Padma Lakshmi and guest judge Rocco diSpirito (who is on a serious PR push these days, fresh off The Biggest Loser as well). Those were the peach and sweet tea pizza and the one using Marmite. (If you didn’t wince at either of those, good on ya.) It’s good to know that Ted Allen will be back, and hopefully Anthony Bourdain will return again quickly after an appearance this episode. (One interesting thing – the show is in Chicago for the first time, and has at least four chefs from San Francisco, more than I can ever remember. I am not sure if there’s anything else to stay about that, but I found it worth mentioning.)

The Adam Carolla Podcast

It's the Adam Carolla Show!

For some silly reason, the Bay Area no longer gets Adam Carolla's morning show. First it got banished to a terrible AM station that I couldn't even receive on part of my commute. Then, as of January 1, it's been pulled off the air in favor of a financial news show.

But...never fear, the show is podcasted every day, so with a few hours delay, I can hear a few segments here and there while I work. I know some people can't work while listening to people talk, but I've always been able to selectively tune things out - I used to go to sleep using sports radio as a white noise machine.

In any case, it used to be relatively stable -- that is, each segment got uploaded about two hours after it aired. Good times, right?

Well, for the last month or so, it seems like not a day goes by where I don't attempt to listen to a segment that is curiously short - only to see that a 'revised' segment shows up later. Or, it's completely mislabeled and it's from another day entirely. Or, it's from another SHOW entirely - as Frosty, Heidi & Frank (an LA show, as I understand it) appeared the other day.

I actually called the station this morning, thinking I'd maybe tell Adam what a big stoner he had uploading the podcast - turns out the phone screener IS that guy. And, he told me not to take it off of iTunes, but instead go to the website itself and listen there.

"iTunes sucks for some reason with this," he said. And he was extremely nice, very professional - but...he's also, at least today, wrong. Because it's the middle of the afternoon and both iTunes and their website have maybe a third of the segments from this morning's show.

As Mr. Carolla himself would say, I'm not complaining, I'm just explaining.

OK, I am complaining.

Keith Olbermann is Incredible

Enough said.

The Workaholic Quandry

I thought I’d post on this yesterday when I first saw it – I actually started with the response from 37signals but let’s start at the source, a posting by Jason Calacanis on his blog, calacanis.com about “How to save money running a startup.”

Among those tips was this, which sparked the debate:

Fire people who are not workaholics…. come on folks, this is startup life, it’s not a game. go work at the post office or stabucks if you want balance in your life. For realz.

Well then. Jump below the fold to see more takes on this...



David at 37signals responded as such:

Here’s another take on that: Fire the people who are workaholics!

He then listed several good reasons why working with workaholics is not conducive to good productivity or creativity, among them:

…despite their claims, working like that all month, all the time is not going to be sustainable. When the burnout crash comes, and it will, it’ll hit all the harder and according to Murphy at the least convenient time...

People who are workaholics are likely to attempt to fix problems by throwing sheer hours at the problem. If you’re dealing with people working with anything creatively that’s a deadbeat way to get great work done.

People who always work late makes the people who don’t feel inadequate for merely working reasonable hours.

Working with interesting people is more interesting than just working. If all you got going for your life is work, work, work, the good team-gelling lunches are going to be some pretty boring straight shop talk. Yawn. I’d much rather hear more about your whittling project, your last trek, how your garden is doing, or when you’ll get your flight certificate.

Calacanis amended his original post, changing it from “workaholics” to “people who love their job” and point well-taken. But several others have chimed in, including the always sage Mitch Joel and via him, a posting on Jackson Fish, which had some more gems:

Clearly being flexible with your employees and making sure they have time to have a life makes sense. Clearly not hiring slackers or people who don’t love their job makes sense as well (though I would ask Calacanis, why does he write it as “fire” as opposed to “not hire in the first place” — but that’s another post). But I have noticed (in an ad-hoc fashion) that the companies that talk about scaling back from “seven days a week to six” are often funded by angel and VC money. And the companies that have a more liberal attitude about time spent at work are not part of that funding model.

My take is this: VC money comes with a countdown. At a certain point the fund ends. At a certain point the investors need to see return. At a certain point there’s a deadline for progress past which it’s no longer worth it to spend any more time or money on a particular startup. When you start a company with an hourglass, it’s no wonder startup CEOs feel the need to work six and seven days a week. The’re battling the clock. “It’s in the DNA” as Umair Haque would say.

...

I don’t know about other folks trying to create businesses, but I am under no illusion that I have any predictive power in terms of when we’ll reach certain revenue milestones. I can guess. I can make educated guesses. I can even make spreadsheets and presentations that look like I really know what the fuck I’m talking about. But I don’t. And I believe nobody else does either. When you’re starting a new business, there’s simply no way to know. You can guess, but I’m not sure what that gets you other than a false sense of comfort.

Like anyone who has worked in the business world for any amount of time, I’ve worked with plenty of folks who not only were workaholics, but would proudly describe themselves that way. There is a distinctly American badge of honor to wear when it comes to talking about how hard one is working – in business school, it was how much studying we were doing, and in our internships, how little sleep we got. It gets old really quickly, and for me, part of growing up was realizing when I was the most efficient. Frankly, long after 6:00 PM (which by the way is about a 9 ½ work day since I eat at my desk probably four days a week), I stop being productive. Some people work better late at night, some early in the morning and many of them work just fine in the 9-5 time zone. None of them are any better or worse than each other, and what I love about my current employer is that – like all smart companies – we let people work around the schedule that works best for them. There are days I leave and my car is the only one in the parking lot; other days, I leave at 4:00 and no one bats an eye, because it’s all about getting your work done. Employers who don’t realize this, who place a premium on seeing you at your desk from a certain time in the morning to the afternoon regardless of what else is going on, are living in the past. Or, at the least, they are employers I don’t want to work for.

It should be said that the discussion centered around a start-up mentality, and obviously there is a difference in that scenario – but, at the end of the day, not much. You need employees (and bosses) who are passionate about what they are doing, and a business model that doesn’t require anyone to be working hours that would jeopardize their non-work life. If you can’t combine those two, the problem is with the business model, not the folks trying to implement it.

Top Chef Starts Tonight

And while I am very excited about it - along with Project Runway, Top Chef is in the pantheon of never miss reality shows for me like Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race and...well, I watch plenty of others, but those are the big ones. Anyhow, while I am pretty psyched about the show, this note from THE HATER at the Onion A/V Site is pretty choice:

As foretold by Bravo text polls, posters filled with gleaming knives, and the hidden heiroglyphics in Padma's giant arm scar, the fourth season Top Chef begins tonight. In order to get the pre-judging underway, Bravo has already posted the new chefs' bios to their website, which was nice of them--except they're calling the chefs "Cheftestants" which makes me so chefmad I chefwant to chefstab Bravo with their cheflogo chefknife. Going to BravoTV.com already feels like being punched in the face repeatedly with fists of annoyingness, so poking me in the eye with a word like "Cheftestant" is just really unnecessary.

Check it out.

The Risk Of Being A Public Figure

Poor Kaz Matsui:

Kaz Matsui will miss four to five days with an anal fissure.
That's an unnatural tear or crack in the anus skin, for those of you not in the know. Matsui is expected to be out until at least Friday. Anal fissures can become chronic problems, but the Astros hope using a different medication will sooth Matsui's issue.

The word you are looking for is, "Eeks."

Garfield Sans Garfield

God, I love the Internet. Someone has taken the time to scrub Garfield out of a variety of strips, and the result?

...the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness in a quiet American suburb.

Too Lijit...for this blog

About five months ago I added a widget called Ligit to this site, which not only provided search on the site, but tagged those searches to see what the majority of folks are looking for, etc.

Turns out that most of them are looking for, among other things, Vivica Fox doing things on tape that she probably regrets. And Pamela Anderson, several swear words, and in general, a cruder thing than I'd want here. By the way, most of those searches will return zero results...so, sadly, I've found that more folks look for things on this blog that don't exist here than for existing content. Good times.

Anyhow, Lijit is gone. I wonder how many others have had this same result...if Lijit offers a filter for these kind of things, I couldn't find it. (I emailed them to let them know why I quit the application, just to see if they write back.)

Update: Well, they did get back to me, obviously very quickly, both in email and in the comments below. It's true that you can filter things out, though to some degree that's a continual effort that could be a pain. But at least it's cleaned up, so it's back. I'm sure everyone reading this can breathe a huge sigh of relief, and know that they can sleep well tonight.

Stuff White People Like

You have probably seen this site, but until this weekend, I never had.

GOOD GOD. This is hilarious stuff, and frighteningly true. The site's name seems fairly self-explanatory, but it's essentially a detailed analysis of things white people - like me - enjoy. Some entries are things like "Graduate School" or "T-Shirts." (The sound you hear is of me coughing because that's actually pretty spot on.)

Witness, for instance, the description of #52, Sarah Silverman.

The easiest way to find out if a comedian is approved by white people is to see if they get mentioned on music blogs or have ever given an interview where they talk about how much they love The Magnetic Fields, Of Montreal, or The Shins. But this does not guarantee white acceptance.

If the topic of comedy comes up, the best thing to do is talk about how much you love Sarah Silverman. White people can’t get enough of her!

Her whole shtick is about saying really offensive things! But it’s ok because she’s pretty and has a small voice so it all sounds so cute! Get it? It’s not offensive, because when she says racist or sexist things she knows they are offensive. So it’s ok.

...

Other acceptable ‘alternative’ comedians: David Cross, and the Comedians of Comedy (Patton Oswalt, Brian Posehn, and Zach Galifinakis).

Also acceptable: Any comedian who shares your ethnicity.

WARNING: under no circumstances should you EVER list Dane Cook as your favorite comedian. The wrong kind of white people like him. And mentioning him will cause white people to lose all respect for you.

More good examples snipped after the fold, but go check the whole site out for yourself.


Wrigley Field

The main reason why people flock to Wrigley Field each year is the fact that it is one of the few ballparks that is trapped in time. People come to experience baseball tradition (although the definition of tradition when it comes to baseball is sketchy, remember the sport did not integrate until 1947). However this tradition comes at a high cost, which white people don’t mind. On prime dates a ticket in the bleachers costs $45. But this does not deter rich white people from enjoying the “simpler things” in life. Wrigley is an old stadium where people still pee in troths, but white people love paying top dollar to do this.

Bottles of Water

Currently, white people on the cutting edge are really into metal bottles of water with a twist cap. It is recommended that you buy one of these as soon as possible.

Having one will give you precious leverage over any white person who is drinking from a plastic bottle. “Oh bottled water? really? I mean it’s cool, but I kind of thought you cared about the earth.” If you see someone drinking a Fiji water, you do have the opportunity to go in for the kill. “Do you know that your bottle of water has a bigger carbon footprint than me? I think they were originally going to call it ‘aboriginal blood’ but that bottle was as close as they could get. You know, legally.”

Again, this should only be used in extreme situations.

Um...cough.

The Idea of Soccer

Many white people will tell you that they are very into soccer. But be careful, it’s a trap.

If you then attempt to engage them about your favorite soccer team or talk about famous moments in soccer history, you are likely to be met with blank stares. This is because white people don’t actually enjoy watching soccer, they just like telling their friends that they are into it.

In fact, the main reason white people like soccer is so they can buy a new scarf. As you may or may not know, many soccer teams issue special scarves, and white people cannot get enough of them!

Much, much more - at the main site.

Bourdain on Romania

It was a pretty good episode of No Reservations, for many of the reasons he talks about in his blog post, excerpted below:

Things WERE fucked up. My Russian pal, Zamir, who had helped make such good shows in Russia and Uzbekistan, was definitely NOT a good choice to show me around Romania. I think, if nothing else, we made that explicitly clear.

...

But to describe Romania as particularly friendly? Not really. I’ve been all over the world. Over 50 countries. On the friendly scale? Romania not exactly in the top 40. The food--on camera, off camera? Didn’t matter. It was mostly pretty primitive. Soups may taste good--but they don’t make interesting television. I could lie. But I ain’t gonna.

Which is really what it’s all about, isn’t it? Should I--when faced with a show that’s clearly going wrong--as far as depicting good times and good food--do my best to LIE about it? Put on my best, tightest smile and slog through an hour, yammering a lot of utter bullshit about what a great time I’m having and how good the food is and how friendly the people? You can see that on every other travel and food show. Or get it straight from the tap--at the Tourist Board. This show never pretended to have any responsibility to show the “best” of any place--or the “top ten” of anything. Or to even be diplomatic. I, me, Anthony Bourdain went to Romania. I made some bad decisions. And this is the show I came back with. At the end of the day? That’s what happened. That’s what it felt like. Period. Frankly? I think it’s a pretty funny show.

Another Battle of the Indie Bookstore

Good article here on the particular stress of an independent bookstore and thieves. Must admit I hadn't thought that in this area, it would be any real different than at a chain.

In my eight years working at an independent bookstore, I lost count of how many shoplifters I chased through the streets of Seattle while shouting "Drop the book!" I chased them down crowded pedestrian plazas in the afternoon, I chased them through alleys at night, I even chased one into a train tunnel. I chased a book thief to the waterfront, where he shouted, "Here are your fucking books!" and threw a half-dozen paperbacks, including Bomb the Suburbs and A People's History of the United States, into Puget Sound, preferring to watch them slowly sink into the muck rather than hand them back to the bookseller they were stolen from. He had that ferocious, orgasmic gleam in his eye of somebody who was living in the climax of his own movie: I suppose he felt like he was liberating them somehow.

...

When I worked at a big-box chain bookstore, shoplifters never crossed my mind; the corporation paid security guards for that. Employees were told not to get involved. The legal issues were too Byzantine for us peons to understand. The guards, instead, created problems: We had to fire one for masturbating in the children's section.

But independent booksellers, understanding that the line between profit and failure is so fine, take it personally, and sprint after thieves all the time. On the rare occasion when a shoplifter would run faster than I could, I would shout at his back as he escaped into the city: "Why don't you steal from a fucking corporate bookstore, you asshole?" None of them ever responded. They just kept running.

An Auto Draft Exclude List

For anyone who does fantasy sports, the auto-draft is never a good idea. Too often, the "logic" used by an auto-draft, especially if you haven't gotten your rankings down pat, leave you with five catchers and one second basemen, or a totally unbalanced team in terms of statistics.

But sometimes it's unavoidable. For instance, I'm in an upcoming league full of managers who not only know what they're doing, they (like me) write about it. And, the draft is scheduled for the day we'll be celebrating my father's 70th birthday, so I have to use Ye Olde Auto Draft.

Now...there are guys I wouldn't mind adding to my squad, but if I'm not actually doing the drafting, I just want no part of them. That is, unless I think it's the right time and place to take them, I won't feel happy about them being on my roster.

If that doesn't, here is a list of some players on my Exclude List, and why I don't want a machine drafting them for me.

PITCHERS:

Chris Carpenter -- When healthy, he's probably a top-10 pitcher. But he's not healthy, and is out at least until the All-Star break. Worth stashing on your bench until then? Perhaps - but I'm not wasting a draft pick on it.

Curt Schilling - And not just because of the self-righteousness. The dude is old, has lost a lot of his fastball and, like Carpenter above is probably out until July or so.

Noah Lowry - Perhaps not as obvious a choice as the above, Lowry is someone who can be great for your fantasy squad, getting double digit wins and not hurting you anywhere along the way. Even though the Giants say his wrist surgery won't have him missing much time, the Giants...also suck. Those wins will be harder to get and based on his ranking from last year, fine tuning my rankings enough to get Lowry down far enough to be fair value isn't worth the effort.

Dontrelle Willis - Unlike Lowry, I could rank Dontrelle just fine. But he's the kind of guy I'm never happy owning. He's just as likely to blow up and allow 8 ER as he is to pitch a shutout, and if he makes it through another full season without that motion seriously causing injury, I'll be suprised. On Detroit, there's a chance he could have a turnaround season, but I'll leave him for someone else.

Mark Mulder - You know how you're hearing how great Mulder feels, and from 2001-2005, Mulder averaged over 17 wins, with generally great ERA and WHIP to boot. But it seems like a lot longer since he's been "for real," and he's the kind of guy that I'd draft and be terrified of starting, probably just long enough to finally put him in my lineup the week he gets shelled.

HITTERS:

Ken Griffey Jr. - Griffey was one of the best values in fantasy baseball last year - perhaps the best value. But he's ranked a lot higher this year, perhaps justifiably so. But it's personal with me and K-Griff. I owned him in consecutive years when he missed more than half of each season. If I have full say so on my draft, this guy won't ever be on my roster.

Brian Giles - Oh, how Bri-Gi has fallen. Now, he's a high average hitter with virtually no power or speed. That is simply never worth paying for.

Rocco Baldelli - You may note in the above that I'm a bit averse to injury-prone people. Baldelli needs no further explanation.

Pedro Feliz - Trust me, I'm happier than anyone that he's no longer on the Giants. And with Philadelphia, he probably has a better chance for RBI and R, and increased HR in a bandbox stadium, than he ever had in San Francisco. But...Peter Happy is a terrible player, and his OBP barely sniffs .300. I hate this guy.

Jarrod Saltamacchia - This guy is going to be good, and he's been drafted as a starting catcher in 10-team leagues...but the odds are just as good that he'll be in the minors instead. I'll let someone else waste a pick on a position with so few good options.

Jay Bruce - If this was a keeper league, or something happened during Spring Training, I'd want Bruce on my team BADLY. But Dusty Baker hates rookies and loves Corey Patterson and, like Salty above, might instead be in the minors to get regular at-bats. He'll be available to pick up - or if not, it's my loss.


So, why all of these guys? Because there is a good chance that they'll all be taken, and I'd rather waste my later picks on gambles I'm excited about. Guys with some playing time opportunities, youngsters with promise, that sort of thing. We'll see how it works out.

I'm So Sorry...for The Dodgers

As a confirmed Giants fan, I therefore understand that the Los Angeles Dodgers are, in fact, the spawn of Satan, pure evil incarnate and a stain on the world in general.

That being said, it doesn't make it any less painful to watch this and not feel even a slight bit sorry for the Dodgers:



I mean...when was a guy wearing a pink satin jacket EVER acceptable? I guess the answer is 1986.

A Mystery That Needed To Be Solved

I'm talking, of course, about Girl Scout Cookies.

Oh, you don't think there's mystery here? Perhaps you don't realize that the delicious coconut and caramel cookie you've known and loved as a "Samoa" is sold - sometimes - as a Caramel deLite? Or that the Tagalong is called a Peanut Butter Pattie, again sometimes?

When I first discovered that the Samoa was no longer called that, and instead the wishy-washy, Anglicized Caramel deLite, I assumed that a group from American Samoa had complained. (Although, who could complain about having THE MOST DELICIOUS COOKIE EVER named after you?) Then, I wondered...what about the Tagalong? Who would care about that name?

Using my admittedly finite deductive powers, I assumed that the Girl Scouts of America decided that we consumers were too stupid to know what was in a Samoa, a Trefoil or a Do-si-do. So, they renamed them with names that actually described the cookie contents.

That is...until last night, when while complaining about this at my friends house, they pointed out their box of...SAMOAS.

Yes, that's what they're called. Still.

The only logical question here is, "What the fuck?"

In her wisdom, my wife suggested I do a little online digging and it's a pretty easy nut to crack:

Girl Scout cookies are made by large national commercial bakeries under license from Girl Scouts of the USA. The bakers that the organization licenses change from year to year; as of 2005 they are Little Brownie Bakers, a subsidiary of Kellogg's; and ABC Bakers, a subsidiary of Interbake Food (since 1939). Licensed bakers can offer up to eight varieties of Girl Scout cookies. The national Girl Scout organization reviews and approves all varieties proposed by the bakers, but requires only three types: Thin Mints, Peanut Butter Sandwiches (called Do-Si-Do's by LBB) and Shortbreads (called Trefoils by LBB). The other kinds can be changed every year, though several popular favorites, such as Caramel DeLites (LBB's Samoas) and Peanut Butter Patties (Tagalongs by LBB), are consistently available. Each bakery names its own cookies. Thus the exact kinds, names, and composition of the cookies varies depending on who has the license. Little Brownie Bakers and ABC Bakers have been the primary competitors for the past several years.

So, essentially, Little Brownie Bakers has the cool, old school names, and ABC Bakers uses the more descriptive but decidedly less fun names. It seems, from reading this, that there's probably many folks who have never heard of a Samoa at all. And that's just a shame.

Yes, I know this is a seemingly lot of energy to expend on Girl Scout cookies, but it's a pretty simple answer to a question that had bugged me, and - maybe - bugged you as well.

Ricky Gervais and Chris Martin

This makes me laugh every damn time I see it.

Clear Eyes, Full Heart, CAN'T LOSE

Some welcome news for anyone who likes quality television:

I'm told that Jeff Zucker, Marc Graboff and Ben Silverman had been searching for a way to renew the critically acclaimed but low-rated Friday Night Lights for a 3rd season so that it would still make financial sense. The answer came in a deal with DirecTV, now owned by John Malone's Liberty Media.

Darn good news...while FNL stumbled out of the gates to start this season, it certainly found its footing late on. Not everyone watches the show, but almost everyone who does (like myself) loves it, because it's pretty honest (aside from the conceit that Dillon, TX has the best looking population on Earth), incredibly well acted and written and everything else you'd want in a TV show.

Good times.

One of these things is not like the other...

One of these things is doing its own thing...

Many people remember this quote, at least those of us who are devoted readers:

Steven P. Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, has nothing to fear from the Kindle. No one would regard it as competition for the iPod. It displays text in four exciting shades of gray, and does that one thing very well. It can do a few other things: for instance, it has a headphone jack and can play MP3 files, but it is not well suited for navigating a large collection of music tracks.

Yet, when Mr. Jobs was asked two weeks ago at the Macworld Expo what he thought of the Kindle, he heaped scorn on the book industry. “It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is; the fact is that people don’t read anymore,” he said. “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year.”

While there's no denying a sad truth to how few people really read anymore, I'm somewhat comforted by this, which I read today:

Books have found a vibrant market online, according to Global Industry Analysts.

The global market for books purchased online is projected to reach $9.5 billion by 2010.

The US has the largest share of the market, with sales of $4.8 billion in 2007.

And sure, maybe that's because I work for an online book company, but what of it?

Random Thoughts on a Wednesday Evening

Regular visitors to this blog - there are some - may expect me to be writing about the primaries yesterday that Senator Clinton largely won. While that last sentence is true, I'm not really going to spend much time writing on it because the delegate math is still way in favor of my guy, Barack Obama, and because it's really exhausting. I do think Obama gains by getting "street-tested" but it's sad that Clinton and her staff are going to read into these wins that getting dirty really helped. I'm not sure how that can possibly be the case when she lead those three states, with the exception of Texas only in the last few days, for the entire electoral season.

OK, so I did write about it.

But anyhow, I've been away for a week and a few things have struck my fancy that are worth mentioning.

• The 49ers signed Isaac Bruce. That's the 35-going-on-50 year old receiver...who today, I heard the 49ers GM proclaim as the #1 WR on the team. Sigh.


• On the other hand, Justin Smith seems like a very good investment. There's a reason Cincy made him their franchise player last season, folks.


• Finally, rounding out the "name" 49ers signees, Panthers reject DeShaun Foster is now a 49er. As someone who repeatedly gambles on Foster in fantasy football because of his promise, I'm both excited and horrified by this.


• Articles like this make it hard for me not to think of Microsoft as being royal pains in the ass. Seriously, it's nice to give stuff for free to libraries...but to do so SOLELY as a way to force development in your software? This is the money quote, I think:

  
  Most disturbingly, users are locked in, too: anybody using an iPhone, an old version of Windows, any version of Linux, or any other operating system or device not supported by Silverlight will be unable to use the Library of Congress' new website. How is that compatible with the principles of democracy or librarianship? It's taxation without web presentation. And how exactly is that a quantum leap forward?

  
  Um, that includes me. I have to use the LOC website occasionally for work and sure, I use Windows - sometimes. But this just drives me nuts.


• Adam Carolla is going to be on Dancing With The Stars. I really can't quite get over this. I heard a Dave Damashek podcast today where he asked whether it was "gayer" for Jimmy Kimmel to say he's having sex with Ben Affleck...or for Carolla to be on this show. I think the only thing that swings the argument away from Carolla is that THIS is his partner, Julianne Hough.. Here's the thing - I'm a diehard Carolla fan, and a reality TV whore...and I'm still not going to watch.


• That being said...the Project Runway finale is tonight. The betting money seems to be on Christian, but I'm going to go with Jillian who seems more talented, more seasoned and definitely way less annoying.


• Is it me, or is this season of Lost just insane? In a good way of course. Not only does each episode truly make me think about things, but everything has actually been set up extremely well. If they didn't know where this show was going from Day One, then it's a miracle. And if they DID know where they were going that early, it's a bigger miracle. Anyhow, it's DAMN good television.


• Among the things we did in Maui, some of the highs and lows....on the plus side, the weather was amazing, the food was terrific, I took a great helicopter ride, saw a lot of whales, and it was awesome to spend some quiet time along with my girl. (Insert your "Awww" noise here.) On the downside, I absolutely fried my right arm in the sun on Day Fucking One, which had the effect of me not nearly getting as much sun elsewhere as one should in a week in Hawaii. I never, ever learn. Also, I had the pleasure of paying for not one, but two $40 club sandwiches.
  
  Read that again. I paid $80 for two freaking sandwiches. Which weren't even that great, and Abby didn't finish hers. That was room service during the Oscars, further showing the brilliant marketing strategy of a captive audience. Hawaii is great, but it's truly criminal how expensive things like meals are over there. I am not sure we had a lunch or dinner under $80 until we left the beach part of the island.


• That being said...when can I go back?

Crazy Humpbacks

DSC00601
Originally uploaded by greebytime

The resolution here isn't great, but I shot this from a helicopter and it's two humpback whales breaching themselves. They did this repeatedly, and it was really insanely cool to watch -- I've gone on "whale watching" tours before as a kid and saw nothing...on the helicopter flight alone, I must have seen 10-15 whales (it helps when the water is crystal clear) and this in particular was an absolute highlight from a great trip to Maui.