Wednesday, November 30, 2005
I'm not entirely sure that direction could be considered "forward", but it's not really my place to judge. What am I talking about?
We've gone from this:
Plan for victory? This is the best they could come up with? I think, four years into this, that they need to put forth a bit more than "Plan for Victory."
Also, I was watching CNN this morning and they showed a nice speech given by John Kerry (others spoke as well, but I only caught Kerry). He called out the President on some rather lame tactics that were employed in his speech this morning. I'm sure you all are aware, but the President assured the American people that we wouldn't run away from car bombers and the like just because of some artifical date. This would be a good point on the President's part if only someone, anyone, had suggested that America run away from the car bombers. Or if anyone had requested a dooms day date, which has never been requested. Putting up a straw-man argument just to knock it down is a worthless argument and only works on the weak willed. Sort of like the Jedi mind-trick, but without the hard guesture.
I'm glad that someone pointed out how ridiculous the entire speech was from the President. I don't really think anyone is buying it anymore, though, as the numbers just keep on falling.
Oh wait, should try to be funny...
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Patriot Act starting to work
...anyway, this is the latest from CNN:
Iceberg 'sings under pressure'
And in creepier news...
Iowa scientist seeks funds for body farm
Iowa's rich topsoil and climate have nourished some of the United States' most plentiful corn and soybean crops. Tyler O'Brien wants to learn more about their influence on rotting corpses.
(I wonder what Kansas has to say about this)
So, what's property value is like in the area surounding a couple acres of decaying corpses? Better or worse than living next to a rendering factory? I have so many questions that I don't even know where to begin.
Is there a section set aside for Cabbage Patch Kids?
Isn't this the equivalent of volunteering to live on an ancient Indian burial ground?
Did the idea for this come about after eating 3 bags of Sour Patch Kids while watching The Matrix?
What's career day like for the kids of one of these body farmers? I'm pretty sure it's either the best day ever or the most humiliating. Probably depends on their age. More importantly, what's "show and tell" like?
And, because it's jsut too easy:
Monday, November 28, 2005
Everything else first
What has been going on while I haven't been writing? Well, I haven't been running and, unlike some, I haven't being involved in squirrel-hijinx. Nope, I was basically just spending my time doing nothing.
Okay, back to the Cubs. The Cubs have many, many holes going into 2006. At the end of 2005, they sucked at the following positions: Outfield, shortstop, bullpen, and bench. Before the winter comes to a close, these position issues must be resolved or the season will be over before it starts.
What have they done so far? Well, the first thing Hendry did was address the bullpen by inking two solid relievers. Basically, they landed the best lefty and best righty available, non-closer-pixie-dust division. The other first thing he did was solidify the bench. Neifi was signed for lots of money because he can catch the ball, and Jon Mabry is rumored to be coming to the Northside as well, and he is a solid bat off the bench. Assuming that the Cubs acquire a real shortstop and Neifi is simply a backup, these are two solid bench players. And best of all, nobody could ever accuse Mabry of being a starter. He was never Rookie of the Year and he was never anointed the future of anything, so Mabry shouldn't threaten Murton's job. No, the biggest threat to Murton's job is still Dusty.
So now we can happily say that there is nothing left to do but everything else.
(and no, in is not strickly legal to use both asterices and quotes for the same word. Italices would be more appropriate).
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Anyway, I don't have anything all that interesting to say. Cubs have signed two middle relievers but no leadoff man. Rumors are they still have a chance at Pierre and Furcal.
Well, anyway, probably more to come on Monday.
Happy belated Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Chicago is blowing away, Part II
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Chicago is blowing away
Otters need more living space
From the article:
In an admission that the slick-furred creatures refuse to respect boundaries imposed by man, authorities want to officially abandon their otter-relocation policy.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Nope...it's Grizzly season. Good news Mr. Bear, you're not endangered anymore! Bad news Mr. Bear, you're not endangered anymore.
A-Rod wins MVP
In one of the worst articles I've ever read...ever, Scott Miller discusses how worthless Alex Rodriguez really is. Disclaimer: I am totally indifferent to A-Rod. He's a great player, but I neither like nor dislike him.
A few tidbits (for the non-native English crowd, that means bits of tid) from the article:
There is no question that A-Rod is one of the game's greatest -- perhaps the greatest -- and that from April through September, he deserves every single cheer he gets.
But the Yankees don't pay players millions upon millions of dollars to win individual awards. And the evidence so far not only is that the Yankees have failed to win a World Series in either of A-Rod's two seasons in pinstripes, but that A-Rod is one of the primary reasons why.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, A-Rod is possibly the greatest player in the game, but is also one of the primary reasons why the Yankees have failed to win the World Series in the last two years.
Where to start? First of all, I'm pretty sure only 2 of 32 teams have won a World Series in the past 2 years, so the odds of the Yankees winning the World Series in any given two years span is, what? 75%? 85%? I suppose it depends on the East Coast Bias...and, um, there's a formula somewhere. The point is that the Yankees are, on occasion, going to miss the World Series. So, you know, at least a quarter of the time there won't be a single Yankee in the World Series. I mean, not one.
Also, it seems questionable to pin the failures of a team on their greatest player. Call me crazy but maybe Bernie Williams is somewhat to blame. Or, perhaps, any pitcher on the Yankees staff not named Rivera.
With 48 home runs, Rodriguez set a new AL record for homers by a third baseman and snapped Joe DiMaggio's 68-year-old Yankees record for home runs by a right-handed hitter (46). He batted .321 with 130 RBI and, just as impressively, has transformed himself into a Gold Glove third baseman in only his second season at the position (one big argument in favor of A-Rod winning rather than Ortiz, a designated hitter).
Still, many of the overriding touchstone moments of A-Rod's career -- so far -- mostly are ones he surely would like to forget.
In Rodriguez's second ALCS in 2000, Roger Clemens -- then of the Yankees -- delivered a close shave up-and-in that buckled A-Rod's knees early in Game 4, and those knees never stopped quivering. He went 0-for-3 with two strikeouts that afternoon, the Mariners lost a series-turning game in Safeco Field and never recovered.
He is a great player who sometimes thinks too much, a superstar who remains uncomfortable in his own Gucci shoes.
Okay, come on now. Was this really necessary? Doesn't every player in baseball make enough money to afford Gucci shoes? Even Derek Jeter, captain of team hussle, could afford at least one pair. This is just a petty, petty man expressing his bitterness that he drives a Dodge Stratus while A-Rod can afford a Bentley. Baseball players make lots of money! News at 7!
I honestly don't understand how articles like this make it into the mainsteam media. And I hate to do this. You know, "intrepid blogger catches professional writer in web of stupidity". I never want to be "that guy". But, really, this was just so bad that I couldn't pass it up.
Besides, I didn't have any original ideas of my own.
Want to know who I would be if I were a superhero? link.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Original content tomorrow (most likely).
(links are safe)
Friday, November 11, 2005
Just because Pat Robertson is a doofus
Go check it out.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The Debate rages on
First off, Jamie r. posted a link to The scientific case for common descent.
(from the article)
"In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications.
It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. ..."
I think there seems to be some confusion regarding what it means to "test a theory." Once again, I pulled this out of the comments (these are my words):
Let's look at the theory of gravity. The many equations we have regarding the way thinks fall in a gravitational field (all based off of F=ma) are based on nothing but observation of evidence. There is nothing before F=ma. You can't derive F=ma from another equation. We simply looked at some evidence, it said F=ma, and there you go. You can't argue with Nature.
So then we look at evolution. There's a certain body of evidence. This "theory" describes that evidence. So I guess they wrote an equation: lightening+cell=human or something to that effect. What can you do? You can't stop nature, you can only hope to contain her.
You see, that's what it means to say that macroevolution is testable. We see evidence and we see how that evidence agrees with theory. Just like with gravity or relativity.
There are so many misconceptions regarding evolution, the definition of a theory, and the purpose of science. It is a good idea to read up on these concepts before attacking them.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Intelligent Design's back, baby!
Today, in response to the frustrating and backwards ruling in Kansas allowing the teaching of intelligent design as an "alternative" to evolution, I am reposting my argument against this pseud0-science (with some re-edits). The following was originally posted on August 3rd. Also, you can head over to On Religion where Scott makes a similar argument.
Warning: This entry is not particularly funny. It is good for you, though...like broccoli. Which is also not funny, but can prevent cancer. Cancer really isn't funny. I can't promise that this entry will prevent cancer, but I can't promise that it won't, either. Just to be on the safe side, I would go ahead and read it. And eat some broccoli.The Kansas Board of Education has voted to introduce Intelligent Design into the science curriculum. In response, I am knashing my teeth and making all sorts of nasty, angry sounds.
The key players in this debate are very proud of the fact that they are going to promote academic freedom and "[get rid] of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today." I'm not sure exactly what dogma they are referring to as I'm guessing that there is some dogma that would appeal to the board members and it probably involves a benevolent being with a snowy white beard and a very large index finger. And maybe a cloud of smoke. And the word poof.
And, to be certain, it involves a big, deep, echoing void of logic. Sort of a logic black hole, where no reasonable thought can escape.
But, the point of this post is not to insult the board. No, the point of this post is to present an argument against the teaching of intelligent design in schools. I will briefly explain what intelligent design is, the arguments for intelligent design, the arguments against, and my personal view on the matter.
In the end, you will see that there is nothing scientific or reasonable about intelligent design and it will be clear that this is just a thinly veiled religious argument.
The argument is, if schools teach a "theory like evolution" (it's just a theory, dammit!), then they should also teach alternate theories. You know, just in the interest of completeness. You gotta be fair. Of course, I would then argue that if you are going to teach those two theories (I'm using theory loosely here, intelligent design is not a theory) then you should teach all possibilities. I'm rounding up all my lobbyists to push my "Invisible gnomes shaped life through interpretive dance" theory into the biology textbooks. After all, there is no way to disprove it. Go ahead and try. Anyway, this idea that evolution is no more valid than any other theory is why we have reached this point. What is never mentioned is that there are a few more theories out there that nobody seems to attack, namely Gravity and Relativity. Really, though, they are just theories too.
Intelligent Design is not a theory
But seriously, why do I think it is absolutely, unequivocally wrong to teach intelligent design in the classroom? The answer is that it is not a theory, but more a flight of fancy. Like most Republican agendas, it is based more on scoffing and insults than on bearing the burden of proof. Let's look at some of the arguments brought up against evolution by proponents of intelligent design and see why they don't hold water.
"If you find a watch in the desert, odds are someone put it there; it didn't form on its own." This is paraphrasing an argument put forth by William Paley in 1802.
Life is incredibly complex, it's true, and so one can see how the idea of a super-being guiding the formation of life would be a popular one. But I think the problem is an inability to grasp just how long hundreds of millions of years really is. Over these hundreds of years, environment drives life to adapt, to change...or die. Those that fail to develop don't win in the quest for food and mates and don't get to proceed on to the next generation. I'm sure this isn't really news to anyone as I'm really just summarizing the idea of survival of the fittest. After all, nobody claims that evolution is "random" or "spontaneous." I agree that it is unlikely that a bunch of molecules would suddenly decided to form a monkey, but give it 100 million years and the forces or environment and before you know it you are dodging feces.
If you break down the argument of the watch in the desert to its true essence, the argument is really "it just seems too hard, it couldn't happen." That isn't such a good argument for science, but it is perfect for theology. While it makes for great Sunday School, it has no place in a biology class. The more interesting part to this argument is the more sophisticated arguments put forth against evolution, particularly the idea of irreducible complexity.
This is the point where the proponents give their argument a fancy name and start using big words. And I've got to hand it to them, Irreducible and Complexity are both big, fancy words. They sound very scientific...if only the argument sounded as good as its name.
What is irreducible complexity...in a nutshell, if possible? The idea is, some things are so complex that they could never have come about through evolution. The canonical example is the mousetrap; it could not function if a single piece was missing and each individual piece has no value in and of itself. If you've ever played the game "Mousetrap," you know that the little basket won't fall if even one of those pieces is set up incorrectly. It is a compelling argument, and one that becomes even more compelling when one looks at a real biological process.
The example most often cited is the bacterial flagellum, the propeller of the bacteria. In an amazing feat of
But this ignores the fact that a) there exist simpler flagellum out there that work without being so complex and b) These parts could have served a non-flagellum purpose originally and then combined together to form the flagellum. In fact, the bubonic plague bacteria's toxin injector is extremely similar to the flagellum.
Another popular example of the an irreducibly complex system is the blood-clotting system. Creationists argue that this is yet another wildly complex system and, in fact, if this system was incomplete it could be damaging to the body. But studies by Russell F. Doolittle of UC San Diego demonstrate that the blood-clotting system appears to have evolved from digestive system proteins. Hardly irreducible, I think.
The Larger Point and the Dramatic Conclusion
But I don't care. You know what? For every biological process that scientists explain creationist will come up with a new, harder to explain system. But that is entirely besides the point. Science can't explain everything right now. We can't explain how gravity fits in with the rest of the quantum world, but nobody doubts gravity despite the fact that gravity is nothing more than a theory.
The thing is, irreducible complexity is once again built on the foundation of "damn, that's really hard. Let's invent a superbeing." Even if we had no idea how the flagellum worked, it would be bad, bad science to just give up and not try to figure it out. Why does there have to be a stopping point? Why do we have to assume that, at some point, things are just unexplainable and it is time to give up? I can't emphasize enough that that is not science, that is religion, and it has no place in a science class.
What I wonder is, how did the burden of proof get shifted onto the scientists. Scientists are just trying to explain how the world works. They look at the facts at hand, try to come up with an explanation, and they only introduce new ideas when the evidence requires. Then they exhaustively test the hypothesis before allowing it to become a fact (or theory, depending on the nature of the hypothesis). But creationists have gone well beyond the introduction of an invisible force like gravity or magnetism to explain something observed, they have introduced an entire Super Being. One that is everywhere but nowhere at the same time. All knowing and all powerful. And there is absolutely no way to detect this being or prove his existence, you just have to believe. And if you don't believe there will be eternal punishment.
Which of these seems like more of a stretch? But the scientists have to refute every argument brought up by creationists or else the creationists will view it as a victory. Stump the scientist, go to heaven! I'll never understand this.
So the final point of this all? A summary of the argument, if you will. I don't give a damn about any of the creationist arguments. I don't care if the creationist come up with an example of a really complex system that no biologist can explain. I just don't care.
It just isn't. Scientists should, never, ever accept an endpoint to their research. There is always a next step and it is never acceptable to say "I'm stumped, somebody fetch me a big, pointing finger."
If there is divine intervention, who can say at what point it occurs? When do we give up? When did intelligent design occur? At the DNA level...the cellular level? Clearly we have no answer to this question so there is some work to be done and no, it isn't okay to look in your 2000 year old textbook for the answer. This isn't an open book test.
Let's keep science in the classroom and religion in the church. Creationism has no place in a science class. And that, my friends, is the bottom line.
Source: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American, July 2002.
...which can be read in its entirety here.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
- there is much joy at the Corner of Grace and Wayne as the Colts have finally vanquished the evil, evil Patriots. There will be three days of rejoicing followed by a short parade through our living room.
- We have started our volleyball season and so far, so decent. Last year my wife and I began volleyball season not having played volleyball since 4th grade gym class. And the early results were...um, icky. But, with a season under our belts, we are rapidly approaching the level of not-an-embarrassment-to-the-sport-of-volleyball. We even managed to snag on game from the second best team in the league. But don't worry, there won't be any sort of "Fermiball II: Bigger, softer balls" running series.
- Cubs sign Neifi to a 2 year deal. Thank *God* they got him off the market before someone snatched him up. Ladies and gentleman, your starting infield of 2006 (see: starting infield of 2005).
must. resist. urge. to. kill.
(I just posted my "analysis" (read: snarky comments) over at goatriders. And yes, that link is for goatriders dot org, not dot com. Never fear)
Monday, November 07, 2005
A life of it's own
A Helpful Suggestion: In order to keep up with the pace of this site, I recommend rereading my archives at least once a week. It is probably best to print them out and paste them all over your apartment. To make for easier reading, I would suggest installing additional lights. Track lighting should do the trick.
Anyway, to sum up, The Wife went as 80's girl for Halloween...and never went back. At first it was just a few little things like expounding on the many practical virtues of neon green leg warmers. But now it is getting out of hand. Her iPod is littered with Hall n' Oats and Journey. One Night in Bangkok blares out of our radio, frightening the cats and her husband.
Yes, the costume has taken over. It's there in the closet - the stone washed jeans and orange mesh shirt hanging there, mocking us. It bides its time, picks its moments...and then it springs to life! I can just imagine how it must possess her whilst we sleep, taking over her body and making her dance and sing I'm so Excited, her limbs flailing wildly (think Jesse on speed).
I woke up the other day and John Hughes movies were strewn about the house willy nilly. I found Molly Ringwald tied up in our hall closet, her eyes pleading with me to release her.
Alright, so that may not be entirely true, but I can totally see it happening. First you download the Hall 'n Oats, then you kidnap the 80's icon. Everyone knows Maneater is just a gateway song.
By now, if you can't see the obvious parallel here, then I pity you. Clearly you are not as cool, hip, and urban as I. It's really pretty obvious. This is her black Spiderman costume! I said, black Spiderman costume! No? Geez, come on people!
Okay, quick back story: Spiderman, along with pretty much every major super hero in Marvel Comics, was wisked away to a far off planet by The Beyonder (oh, he's that powerful). All the enemies were wisked off too (Dr. Doom et al.) and they all fought a really big, nifty battle and it was really cool. Honestly, it was probably the highlight of my early teens (sad, but true). Well, anyway, at some point in one of these drag-'em-out battles Spiderman's costume was
damaged and Reed Richards (stretchy guy from the Fantastic Four...there's a movie) used some fancy-ass space machine to make Spiderman a new costume.
Still with me?
Well, anyway, this costume was some kind of nifty. It was controlled by his thoughts and had built in web shooters and everything. Plus, it made him look more like a ninja and, if I know Peter Parker, this had to be appealing. But the problem was, this space costume was living!
Yes, living! And it tried to take over Peter Parker and it almost did but he got it off safely (whew! That was close!). Sadly, though, the costume managed to escape and then I don't really know what happened. Apparently that's when my brothers stopped collecting comics (because these
story-lines were all about 10 years before my time and I never actually bought a comic of my own) and so I lost track of Spidey. A little web research shows that the costume latched onto a guy named Eddie Brock and became Venom (see picture below), which sounds pretty bad. I'm thinking Venom was a nasty fellow or else they probably would have just named him Honey or Puddin'.
Okay, so we're all caught up. Evil costume, life of its own, controls host body. And from space. Could it be any more similar to the situation here at Grace and Wayne?!? I mean, it's like we're living a comic book! We don't know were those stone-washed jeans came from. They could just as easily been created on a far off planet and brought back here after an epic battle. And then my wife, innocent as can be, puts them on, becomes Venom, and terrorizes the city. Or, alternately, doesn't become Venom but does listen to Hall 'n Oats non-stop. Which would generally be worse if not for the fact that Rich Girl is a sweet, sweet song.
(singing) You're a rich girl, but you've gone too far, and
you know it don't matter anyway. You can rely on the old man's money,
you can really on the OLD man's money
Song stuck in your head? Welcome to my life.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
ING NYC Marathon
Run far, run fast!
(link has been certified 100% porn free)
Saturday, November 05, 2005
A Thousand Apologies
Okay, so, it seems like I might have made a teeny, tiny mistake with some linking the other day. Maybe, just maybe, I linked to a porn site. And maybe, just maybe, it was a highly inappropriate site (as far as those sites go).
So, anyway, sorry about that. From now on, no more porn. Sorry, I really have no idea you could find porn on the internet. Learn something new every day.
New Policy: After posting, I will follow all of my links just to be sure they don't go to any site that are not safe for work.
Along those lines, sorry if you followed the link at work.
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Old Vegas is Back, baby!
"In the old days in France, they had beheadings of people who commit heinous crimes," Mayor Oscar Goodman said Wednesday on the TV show "Nevada Newsmakers."
Goodman said the city has a beautiful highway landscaping project and "these punks come along and deface it."
"I'm saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb," the mayor said. "That may be the right thing to do."
Goodman also suggested whippings should be brought back for children who get into trouble.
Wow, this guy maybe be the coolest mayor of all time. And really, I could see this happening in Vegas. After all, prostitution and gambling is already legal in Nevada, isn't public dismemberment the next logical step?
I would like to point out, however, that "they used to do that in France" is not always the best argument. Some examples of things they "used to do in France" that we may not want to adopt into our culture:
- Get invaded by Germans
- Get invaded by Romans
- Invade Russia in the Winter (and die)
- Vote Napoleon as "leader of new democracy"
- Speak French
- Love Jerry Lewis
Links: Marathon Running (updated: sloooow and tiiiiirrreeed)
And: GoatRiders (updated: We're #3!)
And: JamieRieger.com (updated: irrational dislike of metric system (among other things))
NASA sets priorities
Seriously, what the hell? Apparently, "NASA's top priorities are a replacement for the space shuttle and completing the international space station." Oh, yeah, great...sounds wonderful (if a bit boring) until you read the other article in the sidebar:
China plans 2007 space mission
Those sons of bitches are going to beat us! They claim that they are going to send three men into orbit in the next two years with plans to eventually land on the moon! We're losing the Moon Race! First the standardized tests and now this. What happened to America being the great power of the world, leading the way for all to follow meekly behind? America, you're being scooped.
So what's the answer? Is it Bush's plan to colonize Mars and suck out all its precious oil? Is it the Church's plan to disavow the existence of outer-space and rename space "that big, black, speckled thing"?
No, neither of those are going to win us the space race. However, I have the solution. I have the solution and it's a dandy.
Yep, a giant laser would do it. Modeled after the Death Star, a really big, round globe-like object would be mounted with a really big laser and set into geo-synchronous orbit. It would remain up there and wait for a non-Free World sanctioned country to try and launch people into space.
Then we laser their asses.
You know, I should really be president.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Evolve, damn you! Evolve!
The key here is hairy; I'm all for ass-kicking (especially when it comes to artifact thieving Nazis).
He was discussing the various virtues of those who have yet to shed their furry shells and are fully haired (hair on chest, hair on head, etc...) versus the baldies and those that strive to be like the baldies, the shavers. Now, I agree that those who shave/wax their chests (and other things) are a curious creature and that this is not something society should accept. But what about those of us who are naturally hairless? Otherwise normal people who end life the same way they start it (I mean hairless, not naked and covered in embryonic fluid). So, in defense of my kind, I give my quasi-rebuttal.
The Reason Why the Hair-less are Actually Genetically Superior to the Hair-fullHas anyone here ever studied evolution? No? Well, me neither, so the following is just your word against mine (and I have instant cred as I have my own blog). It can be easily demonstrated that, as mammals evolve over time, they lose their coat of fur for a sleeker, more aerodynamic look. This effect is best demonstrated with a picture, so take a look:
(...and probably smarter...and definitely more virile...Picard was bald, you know...)
(...and probably smarter...and definitely more virile...Picard was bald, you know...)
As is shown on the above evolutionary chart, we are continually fleeing the state of monkey-dom for a more upright and shiny self. And who is more evolved than Captain Picard? He's in the 23rd century! He has a mechanical heart! Hell, he becomes a part of the continuum at the end of the series (and there's a reason they picked him over the more hirsute Ricker - Ricker is a doof).
And this evolution is not just evident amongst the opposable-thumbed. It's true what they say, after a bit of time, our pets start to look like us (or was that us like them? It's all just one, big, evolutionary mish-mash).
See? No hair, no problem. Plus, I'm pretty sure hairless cats are psychic and can burn a hole in your mind with their cold, wrinkly stares (can stares be wrinkly? Darn tootin').
And I say, this is good news! We should want to be moving in this direction.
The way I see it, we have two futures. In the first future, we are ruled by highly intelligent, telekinetic, super beings with not a hair to be seen:
And in the second, we are ruled by...
Damned, Dirty Apes!!!
Yeah...bald doesn't sound so bad now, does it.
Also see Marathon Running (updates: "I'm Fast" and "Too many SweetTarts")
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Ladies and gentlemen, your Gold Glove winners
What is there, exactly, that Lee can't do?
Debating the Cubs
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
A couple links
(*cue Tom Jones*)
Pluto may have three moons
I think this whole process is going in the wrong direction. Pluto is supposed to be becoming a not-planet, not gathering new moons. I think the Astronomy community is showing a shocking lack of responsibility in this respect and should be chastised with very nasty language by the scientific community. Remember kids, there should only be five planets. Five.
It's that time of year again!
It's sad, really. Now that the best hurricane they've got is named Beta (Beta?!?), they are forced to stroll up and down the streets of New Orleans reminiscing about the halcyon days of the Category 5. I mean, what are they going to do with all those yellow rain jackets? What is Miles O'Brien going to do? Clearly he is at his best when disaster strikes, or rather, when disaster strikes.
But dry those leaky eyes, because CNN is about to be back in its element. We've got: The Asian Bird Flu!!! Woooo! When chickens strike, CNN is there! And this is even better than the West Nile epidemic, this is a pandemic.
Pandemic - Similar to an epidemic, except with 40% more hand wringing. Also, pandemics have the opportunity to reach epic proportions, which can lead to much running around and screaming whilst waving one's arms. On the horror scale, think Night of the Lepus.So, given that we know terror is right around the corner, I give you:
Begin Simply: The President is helping you out here, so run with it. Hey, don't look at us, we're just reporting the news. We never said anything about a pandemic. His words, not ours.
Day Two of Pandemic: Now that the word is out, fly Miles O'Brien out to a chicken farm and let him walk amongst the feathered creatures. He will tell the story of the deadly fowl as he casually strolls amongst the demon beasts until finally stopping, assuming a dramatic pose, and delivering the terrifying punchline: we're all going to die, now everyone poop your pants.
Back to you, Soledad.
Day Three: It's time to introduce "the watch." It's not officially a disaster until CNN begins "the watch."
To the CNN Cave! Scatter your reporters like so many leaves in the wind. And remember, people, this is a pandemic. People are going to be dying everywhere and I want you to find them! And I want pictures! And wear those yellow rain jackets, we're still paying for them!
What's that? Iraq war? Don't bother me with details, we've got a pandemic!!!
Deliver death toll estimate based on early returns. We've got Gore taking Delaware. (Note: maybe time to update software)
Find racial angle. It's out there, so find it. Maybe spark an anti-Asian McCarthy-esque movement? I'm just free-styling here, but that sounds like a winner!
World pecked to death by giant, crazed birds. Should have listened to CNN. oops.
Marathon Running: 7 Continents?
Quick, follow this link!
No really, it is my favorite entry on jamierieger.com to date. Okay, sure, it is funny on the surface, it really is. But then if you follow the "What the [firetruck] am I talking about" link, and click on the part about Philosophical Zombies, and read the dinosaur cartoon, it gets even funnier.
Maybe I've made it all seem to complicated. Just follow the link, it is awesome. And then check back here in a couple hours when I will have my own little patch of fantasticness up for all to read.