games-----------------------------me-------------sg-----------sg's wife
RAMS (-3) vs Chiefs-----------chiefs---------rams----------chiefs
Bengals (+3) vs RAVENS------bengals--------bengals-------ravens
GIANTS (-13) vs Texans-------giants---------giants--------giants
Titans (+10) vs JAGS----------titans---------titans--------titans
BUCS (+1) vs Saints------------saints---------bucs----------saints
Packers (+3)vs BILLS---------packers--------packers-------packers
LIONS (+5) vs Falcons--------falcons--------lions---------falcons
BEARS (-13.5) vs Dolphins-----bears---------bears----------bears
Cowboys (-3) vs REDSKINS----cowboys-------cowboys-----cowboys
49ERS (+5.5) vs Vikings--------vikings--------49ers----------vikings
CHARGERS (-12.5) vs Browns--chargers-----chargers------browns
Broncos (+2) vs STEELERS-----broncos-------broncos-------steelers
SEAHAWKS (-8) vs Raiders-----raiders-------seahawks------seahawks
PATRIOTS (-2.5) vs Colts---------pats----------pats----------pats
last week----------------------------5-9------------6-8--------------7-7
season------------------------------58-56---------52-57-5-----------56-53-5
Friday, November 03, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
what to do
sometimes i come across stories and i'm not always sure what to do with them. do i keep it to myself? do i put it up here?
with that in mind, i saw this story about ted haggard, head of the national association of evangelicals. a man in colorado is accusing him of being gay, and of having homosexual relations with him. haggard has stepped down from his position as well as his pastorate, awaiting the matter to be further investigated.
i'm not posting this here because i want to say, "gotcha!" i think i'm posting this so we can see haggard as a human, who struggles with a lot of issues in life. and, if it's true, i hope that he carries on in life with a lot more grace towards those he has vehemently opposed.
i realize that some may see this story, and add him too the list of hypocritical Xians out there. if that's your response, i understand. others will say, this guy has always been a jerk, and i'm not surprised. hey, i don't know the guy, and all we can usually know is from the public personna out there. and all i know is that if these allegations are true, mr. haggard needs to do some explaining.
so, finally, i'm wondering, if you found out something about a person you believed in, their ideas, writings, whatnot, did something that compromised their message, how do you handle that? (not that i followed haggard at all.) do you throw out what they've done? or does it just taint the work? or, do you just carry on?
with that in mind, i saw this story about ted haggard, head of the national association of evangelicals. a man in colorado is accusing him of being gay, and of having homosexual relations with him. haggard has stepped down from his position as well as his pastorate, awaiting the matter to be further investigated.
i'm not posting this here because i want to say, "gotcha!" i think i'm posting this so we can see haggard as a human, who struggles with a lot of issues in life. and, if it's true, i hope that he carries on in life with a lot more grace towards those he has vehemently opposed.
i realize that some may see this story, and add him too the list of hypocritical Xians out there. if that's your response, i understand. others will say, this guy has always been a jerk, and i'm not surprised. hey, i don't know the guy, and all we can usually know is from the public personna out there. and all i know is that if these allegations are true, mr. haggard needs to do some explaining.
so, finally, i'm wondering, if you found out something about a person you believed in, their ideas, writings, whatnot, did something that compromised their message, how do you handle that? (not that i followed haggard at all.) do you throw out what they've done? or does it just taint the work? or, do you just carry on?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
so you don't really like it
this psa made me laugh, think of adam corolla and his rants on the subject, and wonder what they are really trying to say.
1+2=...?
i saw this story, and yes, it made me laugh. and then think. hey, i don't know if the results that they are claiming are true, but they've delivered them in a witty fashion. now i'm going to go and vandalize wikipedia.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Vladimir Luxuria vs. Elisabetta Gardini
i'm always intrigued by other countries governments. you know, you see footage on the news of some parliment in taiwan or somewhere, and the guys are literally duking it out. or other nations that elect former porn stars to high positions. these things always seem the bickering done in our houses of congress seem mild and tame.
here's the latest example:
i don't know when or if the u.s. will get to the point where we elect a trans-gendered person. i hope that if we do, we can figure out who gets to use what toilet.
here are some of the things i find amusing in the article:
first off, Ms. Vladimir Luxuria changed her name from Wladimiro Guadagno. usually, when you change your name, you change your first name. and maybe your last name too. but, why would you just change the spelling of your pretty manish first name? is vladimir more connotative of a woman than wladimiro? but, i've got to hand it to you, i dig luxuria as a last name.
second, a former "showgirl" is upset? i don't know about italy, but "showgirl" is a friendly euphemism for stripper here in the u.s. maybe the transgender person should be upset that she has to share a restroom with her. and, ms. gardini calls it "sexual violence?" uhhh, you might want to dial that claim back a little bit. maybe you might want to save that label for real sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, and so on).
finally, i feel it's pretty important that they point out that ms. luxuria has never had any sort of surgery. this isn't really funny. but, i think it opens a whole new can of worms to the issue. i mean, this is a guy in the women's restroom. what defines gender? generally, in society, it's the parts attached. if you have male parts, you use the male restroom. if you have women's parts, you use the women's. sure, i definately think that someone dressed in the opposite clothes would be a disturbance. but, if i didn't know, it wouldn't bother me at all. furthermore, if we were using a coed restroom it wouldn't be a problem at all. i thought europe was supposed to be more liberal. i thought they had all sorts of loose morals. yet, they're wierded out over a restroom? come on.
here's the latest example:
i don't know when or if the u.s. will get to the point where we elect a trans-gendered person. i hope that if we do, we can figure out who gets to use what toilet.
here are some of the things i find amusing in the article:
first off, Ms. Vladimir Luxuria changed her name from Wladimiro Guadagno. usually, when you change your name, you change your first name. and maybe your last name too. but, why would you just change the spelling of your pretty manish first name? is vladimir more connotative of a woman than wladimiro? but, i've got to hand it to you, i dig luxuria as a last name.
second, a former "showgirl" is upset? i don't know about italy, but "showgirl" is a friendly euphemism for stripper here in the u.s. maybe the transgender person should be upset that she has to share a restroom with her. and, ms. gardini calls it "sexual violence?" uhhh, you might want to dial that claim back a little bit. maybe you might want to save that label for real sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, and so on).
finally, i feel it's pretty important that they point out that ms. luxuria has never had any sort of surgery. this isn't really funny. but, i think it opens a whole new can of worms to the issue. i mean, this is a guy in the women's restroom. what defines gender? generally, in society, it's the parts attached. if you have male parts, you use the male restroom. if you have women's parts, you use the women's. sure, i definately think that someone dressed in the opposite clothes would be a disturbance. but, if i didn't know, it wouldn't bother me at all. furthermore, if we were using a coed restroom it wouldn't be a problem at all. i thought europe was supposed to be more liberal. i thought they had all sorts of loose morals. yet, they're wierded out over a restroom? come on.
Friday, October 27, 2006
football picks wk 8
oooh, time for football picks.
game-----------------------------me-------------sg---------sg's wife------mr.burns
TITANS (-3)vs Texans---------titans--------titans--------titans--------no pick
EAGLES (-7)vs Jaguars--------eagles--------eagles-------jaguars------jaguars
BENGALS (-3.5)vs Falcons----bengals-------bengals----bengals-------falcons
Buccaneers (+9)vs GIANTS----bucs(pts)-----bucs-------giants--------giants
BEARS (-16)vs 49ers------------bears---------bears------niners--------bears
Cardinals (+4)vs PACKERS----cardinals-----cardinals--packers------packers
CHIEFS (-6)vs Seahawks-------chiefs--------chiefs-------seahawks--seahawks
SAINTS (-2)vs Ravens----------saints--------saints-------saints-------saints
Rams (+9.5)vs CHARGERS-----rams----------rams------chargers-----chargers
Steelers (-9)vs RAIDERS--------steelers------steelers---steelers-----no pick
BROWNS (-1.5)vs Jets-----------jets----------browns-----jets--------browns
Colts (+3)vs BRONCOS---------colts---------colts---------broncos-----colts
Cowboys(+5.5)vs PANTHERS---panthers----cowboys---cowboys---cowboys
VIKINGS (+2)vs Patriots-----patriots--------vikings------pats-------patriots
Last week------------------------7-6---------------6-7--------4-9
Season--------------------------53-47------------46-49-5----49-46-5
game-----------------------------me-------------sg---------sg's wife------mr.burns
TITANS (-3)vs Texans---------titans--------titans--------titans--------no pick
EAGLES (-7)vs Jaguars--------eagles--------eagles-------jaguars------jaguars
BENGALS (-3.5)vs Falcons----bengals-------bengals----bengals-------falcons
Buccaneers (+9)vs GIANTS----bucs(pts)-----bucs-------giants--------giants
BEARS (-16)vs 49ers------------bears---------bears------niners--------bears
Cardinals (+4)vs PACKERS----cardinals-----cardinals--packers------packers
CHIEFS (-6)vs Seahawks-------chiefs--------chiefs-------seahawks--seahawks
SAINTS (-2)vs Ravens----------saints--------saints-------saints-------saints
Rams (+9.5)vs CHARGERS-----rams----------rams------chargers-----chargers
Steelers (-9)vs RAIDERS--------steelers------steelers---steelers-----no pick
BROWNS (-1.5)vs Jets-----------jets----------browns-----jets--------browns
Colts (+3)vs BRONCOS---------colts---------colts---------broncos-----colts
Cowboys(+5.5)vs PANTHERS---panthers----cowboys---cowboys---cowboys
VIKINGS (+2)vs Patriots-----patriots--------vikings------pats-------patriots
Last week------------------------7-6---------------6-7--------4-9
Season--------------------------53-47------------46-49-5----49-46-5
i loved you in...
so, it's friday afternoon, i've got some freetime. what to do? well, this is always a good time for a movie. so, i'm scrolling through the free movies in the on demand menu, and what do i see as a new edition? krull. i don't need to scroll any farther. i will be watching this movie. and, in the movie description, the credit this as an early role for liam neeson. sweet. another person that i could say, "i loved you in (insert obscure early, embarassing reference)" to if i ever saw them on the street.
i loved this movie as a little kid (it came out in 1983). i even made my own version of the throwing star dealy that the main character used in battle. i do have to say, though, that i'm a few minutes in, and the acting is less than impressive. but who cares? this is a chance to relive the past!
it's odd, i was thinking about this movie lately. i'm not sure why, but i was. and, i wondered if it had been on demand. surprise, it's new.
i loved this movie as a little kid (it came out in 1983). i even made my own version of the throwing star dealy that the main character used in battle. i do have to say, though, that i'm a few minutes in, and the acting is less than impressive. but who cares? this is a chance to relive the past!
it's odd, i was thinking about this movie lately. i'm not sure why, but i was. and, i wondered if it had been on demand. surprise, it's new.
it's a new day
i'll admit that i can't prove this. but last night, all of the networks were showing reruns. sunday night, there was no football. why? we can't have exhausted all the new episodes. i know, the shows usually have a lull before the "sweeps" time. but, it seemed that the episodes i saw were pretty much old episodes rather than replays of this season's stuff. my main thought is that the other networks don't want to go against the world series. i know this is the truth with sunday night football. in return, there was no world series game on monday (monday night football).
the problem with this thinking, and what the networks need to wake up to, nobody cares about the world series anymore. the ratings are crap. really, the first two games were a record low. and, this is a trend that has been developing. last year's were the previous record lows. game three, in a series tied 1-1, lost out to dancing with the stars. game three beat reruns on nbc, and whatever was on cbs. hell, if i'm the other networks, i worry about programming against the dance equivalent of kareoke. baseball is no longer the national pastime.
having said all of that, survivor didn't truly put up a rerun. the did show a clip show. and, they had some completely new scenes in it, and recut some of the other footage. for being a recap, i was pretty pleased with it. good info, more character development. and, since i was at work while it was on, i got to watch it using the magic of on demand (i love that).
the problem with this thinking, and what the networks need to wake up to, nobody cares about the world series anymore. the ratings are crap. really, the first two games were a record low. and, this is a trend that has been developing. last year's were the previous record lows. game three, in a series tied 1-1, lost out to dancing with the stars. game three beat reruns on nbc, and whatever was on cbs. hell, if i'm the other networks, i worry about programming against the dance equivalent of kareoke. baseball is no longer the national pastime.
having said all of that, survivor didn't truly put up a rerun. the did show a clip show. and, they had some completely new scenes in it, and recut some of the other footage. for being a recap, i was pretty pleased with it. good info, more character development. and, since i was at work while it was on, i got to watch it using the magic of on demand (i love that).
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
how about a monkey with a knife
jay, the animal world is turning on itself. we may not have to boil the oceans.
look out pigeons. apparently, you don't have a deal with the pelicans either.
look out pigeons. apparently, you don't have a deal with the pelicans either.
some ethics related questions
"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"
does this relate though, to the concept of our country? has it? should it? is "the one" akin to the minority viewpoint, and is it not the role of the majority to protect that viewpoint?
does this relate though, to the concept of our country? has it? should it? is "the one" akin to the minority viewpoint, and is it not the role of the majority to protect that viewpoint?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
another perspective on 600,000 dead
"Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened."
that's a quote taken from probably my favorite blog. she doesn't update every day, but when she does, it means something. and really, it had been long enough since the last update that i worried about her health, considering the situation in iraq.
this quote really spins things another way:
"Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years."
on a completely unrelated note, rush limbaugh said that michael j. fox was acting, playing up his parkinsons in a commercial. when he was informed later by callers that he was wrong, at least he had the sense to apologize.
that's a quote taken from probably my favorite blog. she doesn't update every day, but when she does, it means something. and really, it had been long enough since the last update that i worried about her health, considering the situation in iraq.
this quote really spins things another way:
"Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years."
on a completely unrelated note, rush limbaugh said that michael j. fox was acting, playing up his parkinsons in a commercial. when he was informed later by callers that he was wrong, at least he had the sense to apologize.
footloose 06
no, kevin bacon isn't making a new movie about how he liberates a town from john lithgo. but, don't get caught dancing in orange cove. it's nice to see a political race not about republicans and democrats, but about to dance or not.
(i guess i was wrong about not posting).
(i guess i was wrong about not posting).
getting it all together
just so you know, this will probably be a slow week of posts. i'm still trying to get my act together on this class i'm teaching. so, at least today, no real updates.
Friday, October 20, 2006
foosball pickem week 7
dang, i screwed up last week. i didn't get around to making picks. in fact, i didn't even realize that i had forgotten until after the first games had finished. lame. so, that sort of screws up me vs the sports guy & his wife on the season. i think i'll cheat, and figure out what i would've picked. so, hopefully i won't cheat. but, we'll never know. here's the picks for this week:
game----------------------------------me-----------sg-------sg'swife---sideshow bob
Panthers (+3.5) vs BENGALS----panthers------panthers----panthers----panthers
Patriots (-5.5) vs BILLS----------patriots------patriots----patriots--------patriots
Chargers (-5.5) vs CHIEFS-------chargers------chargers----chiefs---------chargers
Steelers (-2.5) vs FALCONS------steelers------steelers----steelers-----falcons
BUCS (+5.5) vs Eagles------------eagles---------bucs--------eagles-------eagles
JETS (-3.5) vs Lions--------------jets------------jets----------lions--------jets
Packers (+5) vs DOLPHINS------packers-------packers-----dolphins---packers
Jaguars (-9.5) vs TEXANS--------jaguars-------jaguars-----texans-------texans
COWBOYS (-3) vs Giants--------giants--------cowboys-----giants-------no pick
BROWNS (+4.5) vs Broncos-----broncos-------browns------browns----broncos
Redskins (+9) vs COLTS---------colts---------redskins----redskins-----colts
Vikings (+6.5)vs SEAHAWKS--seahawks------vikings-----seahawks--seahawks
Cardinals (-3) vs RAIDERS-----raiders-------raiders-----cardinals----cardinals
last week--------------------------7-6-----------7-6---------5-8
season-----------------------------46-41------40-42-5-----47-37-5
game----------------------------------me-----------sg-------sg'swife---sideshow bob
Panthers (+3.5) vs BENGALS----panthers------panthers----panthers----panthers
Patriots (-5.5) vs BILLS----------patriots------patriots----patriots--------patriots
Chargers (-5.5) vs CHIEFS-------chargers------chargers----chiefs---------chargers
Steelers (-2.5) vs FALCONS------steelers------steelers----steelers-----falcons
BUCS (+5.5) vs Eagles------------eagles---------bucs--------eagles-------eagles
JETS (-3.5) vs Lions--------------jets------------jets----------lions--------jets
Packers (+5) vs DOLPHINS------packers-------packers-----dolphins---packers
Jaguars (-9.5) vs TEXANS--------jaguars-------jaguars-----texans-------texans
COWBOYS (-3) vs Giants--------giants--------cowboys-----giants-------no pick
BROWNS (+4.5) vs Broncos-----broncos-------browns------browns----broncos
Redskins (+9) vs COLTS---------colts---------redskins----redskins-----colts
Vikings (+6.5)vs SEAHAWKS--seahawks------vikings-----seahawks--seahawks
Cardinals (-3) vs RAIDERS-----raiders-------raiders-----cardinals----cardinals
last week--------------------------7-6-----------7-6---------5-8
season-----------------------------46-41------40-42-5-----47-37-5
hey, pot, you're black, too
stupid kettle
and really, this isn't just an assessment on the person giving this commentary, but rather on the idea that any of the hacks, err, i mean, journalists on cable news would talk about the "vitrol" being put out by far right and far left blogs. hey, have you listened to talk radio ever? nevermind that, have you listened to yourself or the show that you are currently guesting on?
and really, this isn't just an assessment on the person giving this commentary, but rather on the idea that any of the hacks, err, i mean, journalists on cable news would talk about the "vitrol" being put out by far right and far left blogs. hey, have you listened to talk radio ever? nevermind that, have you listened to yourself or the show that you are currently guesting on?
Thursday, October 19, 2006
the difference a few hours can make
so, earlier today, i posted about my interview yesterday. no, they didn't miraculously call me and offer me a dream. but, i did have an appointment with a private junior college in the area. i was recently hired as a substitute professor, and had to fill out some papers. so, i did that, and while i was with the h.r. person, one of the program managers called her. he wanted to see me when she was through.
guess who's teaching a class starting next week. no, not you, me. i'll be teaching a class in ethics. 2 hours & ten minutes a day, four days a week, for the next 5 weeks.
so, i've got some preparation to do this weekend. write a syllabus, plans some lessons, etc.
guess who's teaching a class starting next week. no, not you, me. i'll be teaching a class in ethics. 2 hours & ten minutes a day, four days a week, for the next 5 weeks.
so, i've got some preparation to do this weekend. write a syllabus, plans some lessons, etc.
keep on keepin on
i love art hop, and have been hopping for years. i watched it grow, galleries move, and less wine being served. well, i don't know about that last one, i guess it just depends where you go.
i've also known that several other cities do similar nights. i encourage us all to read this article from the la times about long beach, and the resurgence the art night has helped to bring to their downtown.
we're on a good path people. let's keep it up.
(and i've posted this at my ff blog as well)
i've also known that several other cities do similar nights. i encourage us all to read this article from the la times about long beach, and the resurgence the art night has helped to bring to their downtown.
we're on a good path people. let's keep it up.
(and i've posted this at my ff blog as well)
update on me
some of you know that i had an interview yesterday, with the university that i want to teach at. sadly, there were no miraculous offers, i didn't run out of the building triumphantly, nor was i totally defeated. the interview went well enough, and i'm on their list of people to use in the future. unfortunately, i had hoped to get in on something for next semester. it looks like the earliest i could be teaching would be in the fall.
what does that mean for all of you? well, my blogging won't be slowed up by tedious work preperation. hurray! of course, i'll still be looking for other work, dreaming dreams, and painting.
what does that mean for all of you? well, my blogging won't be slowed up by tedious work preperation. hurray! of course, i'll still be looking for other work, dreaming dreams, and painting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)