« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »
March 31, 2004
Sure Feels Good To Me
There are a lot of things in life that feel good: sunshine, backrubs, fuzzy pajamas, sitting next to a fire on a cold winter day, hitting a fastball off of the sweet spot on a bat, peeing when your bladder has been overly full for a very long time, and so on and so forth. But I would have to say that taking off your shoes after 14+ hours of feet-al confinement has to be very near the top of the list.
It's true - there's nothing like letting the puppies get some fresh air at the end of a long day. So enjoy yourself: take off the shoes, kick back, relax, and read this amazing article by former Secretary of State George Shultz. You and your feet will thank me.
Posted by Pat at 07:59 PM | Comments (5)
March 30, 2004
Foul!
Something to think about as Iowa State attempts to reach the NIT finals: why do sports cause otherwise normal people to go completely insane? I'm not just talking about jumping up and down and yelling at the TV, either - I've had similar reactions to the 5 o'clock news on more than one occasion. There is just something about a game football/basketball/baseball/soccer/hockey (not golf) that sends people, mainly guys, back to their most basic, primitive levels. I don't know what it is, but there must be something special about athletics.
What else would cause a calm, polite, well-spoken coach to confront a referee, cursing and screaming? What could possibly cause a professional baseball player to charge a mound, in spite of the fact that, for a living, he has small, hard, round things thrown at him on a daily basis? And what on earth could possible cause grown men to harass refs and throw elbows in a CHURCH LEAGUE basketball game? And then there's hockey. Of all of the ridiculous things I encounter, things like this have to be pretty high on the list.
It's not as though I'm speaking from a great position of moral authority on this subject - I was, after all, once ejected from a high-school intramural basketball game that had no referees (which, I must say, requires a certain amount of skill, as well as sheer, unadulterated rage) - I just feel like we all need to take a quick time-out to assess what is happening. Perhaps we have, as a society, allowed ourselves too much freedom in the realm of athletics, and made it acceptable to over-emote and behave badly. Men, after all, are supposed to John Wayne-like pillars of emotional solidity: never flinching, never trembling, never showing excitement, except for when both feet were clearly in bounds you freaking moron!
Is the problem that no one ever tried to draw the line of acceptable behavior until everyone had already crossed it eight or twelve times? Or is the problem that men are out of touch with their emotions, and sports provide a necessary release? I wonder what would happen if we taught a bunch of loud, abusive fanatics how to open up and share their emotions. Would they suddenly feel less intensely about the Division 7 Women's Table Tennis Tournament Play-In Game? Would the world be more peaceful and serene? Could it be that perhaps, finally, men and women would be able to communicate, as would coaches and refs, elected officials and tyrants, and PC and Mac users, and that the world would finally live in harmony?
Ah, screw it, let's go watch some boxing.
Posted by Pat at 04:28 PM | Comments (4)
March 29, 2004
Bits and Pieces
Proposed by a woman, mind you.
City Wants Bigger Bust for Mermaid
You think YOU'RE having a bad day?
Cambodian cuts off penis to feed spirits
Could you take Alec Baldwin with you, please?
Korn takes on the music business - Davis threatens: "If it gets to the point, period, where you can't cuss on TV, I'm moving to a different country."
In honor of this, it seems only appropriate to link to this.
The guy who wrote this headline has probably already been fired:
Lakers continue assault on a title
And finally (props to Dan Lennander for the heads-up on this one)...
Saddam's French Lawyer Criticizes Bush
One would hope that, along with gall and either brain-damage or massive intestinal fortitude, this guy has a pretty good sense of irony. The article isn't worth reading, but the headline should win a Pulitzer: I couldn't make up a headline - or a scenario, for that matter - that is more ridiculous. Nonetheless, I'm going to hop on the next flight to Paris, walk around this guy's security fence, and kick him in the knee-caps, and then wait for an international trial to determine that he's a dunderhead.
Posted by Pat at 04:17 PM | Comments (4)
March 26, 2004
Sixty-Sixth Best
Congratulations to the Iowa State Cyclones basketball teams - men and women - for advancing to the NIT Final Four. The women get another game in Ames, and the men get to go to New York City (get a rope). While it was probably completely unfair to our competitors to have back-to-back games in Ames, I have to say that I don't really care. It was a great send-off for the seniors - Jake Sullivan and Marcus Jefferson, specifically - that have endured a lot.
Jake Sullivan gets my vote for Cyclone of the decade. While I admire his tremendous basketball skills, I think that he deserves a standing ovation for his attitude and behavior, both on-court and off. In his four years at ISU, Jake saw teammates and coaches come and go, many in a cloud of scandal and controversy, but he remained above the fray. Jake was always polite and well-spoken, and never bashful about his love for Iowa State and the Cyclones.
The incident that sticks in my mind the most (and that I can't find record of on the internet, for whatever reason) is an apology that Jake gave. He was frustrated with the game and did something silly like slamming his water bottle to the floor during a timeout. In the post-game interview, Jake made it a point to apologize for losing his temper, and especially setting a bad example for all of the kids that were watching. This apology was for throwing a water bottle, mind you, not for public intoxication, DUI, drug possession, armed robbery, murder, or any of the other shenanigans that college athletes are involved in on a daily basis. You have to respect his 3-point shot, but, more importantly, you have to respect his character.
I'm happy that, after all the struggles and doomsday predictions, the Cyclones have had such success, and that we have been able to give the seniors such a great send-off. Sure, the NIT is sort of a consolation prize for those that don't make the Big Dance: if you win the whole mess, you become the sixty-sixth best team in the nation. But Cyclones, you're still number one in my heart. And, for what it's worth, I'll move you up a few notches in the rankings; I have a sneaking suspicion that you could probably beat Florida A&M.
Posted by Pat at 04:13 PM | Comments (2)
March 25, 2004
We're Mad as... oooh, Smoothies!
What is John Kerry's biggest asset going into the 2004 election? Other than being married to a rich heiress? Many would say George W. Bush, or, more specifically, the complete and total contempt felt for Bush by those on the far-left. Many would argue that Democrats never got over Florida, including Democrats, themselves. A fine example of this is an interview given by Congressman Charlie Rangel, D-NY, last month:
I can't forget Florida. I really can't forget Florida. It took a long time for my people to get the right to vote. And once they got it, they did it the way that they should have. We won the popular vote. And then all of a sudden, the Supreme Court comes in and says, "We got enough votes for Bush. Stop counting." And that's what happened. ...there is no question that people who are entitled to vote were not allowed to vote in Florida. And so it was a bad count that we got. And we will never, never, never forget Florida. This is the only time that we have an appointed president of the United States in our history.
Ignore, for a moment, the fact that an elected Congressman apparently does not understand and/or acknowledge the existence of the Electoral College. Ignore, also, the fact that he doesn't seem to remember that Gerald Ford, less than 30 years ago, became the first appointed president. Finally, ignore the fact that what he is saying is complete hogwash. Rangel's point is that he's mad, and so are a lot of other people in Florida, and they're not going to take it any more! Starting in November.
It is undeniable that, for whatever reason or, more likely, myriad of reasons, Democrats really, REALLY hate George W. Bush. A quick look at "grassroots" websites like MoveOn.org and Democratic Underground will confirms this, as does a quick listen to the rhetoric of John F.C.C. Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and the staff at NBC Nightly News. Check out the anti-war protests that have been going on for the past year: these people are, with a straight face, comparing Bush to Hitler. That's as absurd (Hitler would have gassed them all, and long before the protests ever got started) as it is downright mean. Sure, Republicans hate(d) Clinton, but they never compared him to Hitler; Larry Flynt, perhaps, but that was about it.
So, since they're so darn upset, Democrats have been showing up in droves for the primaries, voicing their support for Kerry, their chosen candidate and savior (from things like tax cuts, apparently), right? Well, not so much. A study conducted by long-time Democrat Curtis Gans for the non-partisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, showed that primary turnouts have been at record lows this year. For the GOP, this is understandable since Bush faced no challenger. The Democrats, however, have a bit more to be worried about: they couldn't even get people to show up in Florida.
While the dismal turnout in Florida can be explained away, in part, at least, by the fact that Kerry faced no legitimate competition, it should still be cause for concern among devoted Democrats: if they are so angry and so motivated, shouldn't they at least be able to get out of the house for long enough to express their displeasure? Furthermore, the low turnout Florida mirrors the primaries that took place BEFORE Kerry had the nomination sewn up (excluding Iowa and New Hampshire). As the Washington Times points out, in a close election, voter turnout will be key, and, as of now, things do not look very promising for the challenger.
In fact, about the only news that could possibly be worse for the Kerry campaign would be the F.C.C. announcing a 10-second tape-delay on debates due to concerns about what he might say on live television.
***
Finally, from FoxNews.com, a sure sign that legal fees and court-room demands are getting out of hand:
Posted by Pat at 04:19 PM | Comments (4)
March 24, 2004
Health Nuts
For the health nuts out there, the hits just keep on coming! Hot on the heels of last week's discovery that coffee is good for you comes the announcement that nicotine prevents disease. Double your pleasure, double your buzz, light 'em up, and smoke 'em if you've got 'em, because researchers have found evidence that the leafy stuff reduces your chances of developing Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and a garden variety of other nasty diseases. From now on, you can have a smoke and a cup of Joe on your lunch break and honestly claim healthy eating.
The good doctors do point out that smoking is rumored to cause a myriad of terrible health problems (emphysema, cancer, stinky-breath), and they even go so far as to discourage non-smokers from purchasing and wearing the patch, since doing so could be dangerous without "doctor's supervision." I think On the other hand, these same researchers point out that nicotine can could be used to battle against short-term memory loss (go figure - smoking can help reduce the side effects of "smoking"), as well ADD and depression. I think the message is clear: a pack a day keeps the doctor away.
Believe it or not, there's more: DIFFERENT researches have found that drinking reduces high-blood pressure deaths. I quote (emphasis added): "Men with high blood pressure who reported having about one or two drinks a day were 44 percent less likely to die of cardiovascular causes such as heart attacks than men with hypertension who rarely or never drank." This means that, at 9pm, when you're all hopped up on the different "eens" (caffeine, nicotine, heroine, etc) that are good for you, you can calm down by throwing back a couple of cold ones. All in the name of living a longer, happier, healthier life, mind you.
(As an aside, these findings were published in Monday's "Archives of Internal Medicine." Where can I get a subscription to that? I cannot imagine a more perfect coffee-table (or perhaps stool-top) magazine.)
Of course, many doctors were quick to point out that HEAVY alcohol consumption can actually increase high blood pressure, and there is, of course, the obligatory hand-wringing that the study might send "a very bad public health message" regarding alcohol - this according one Dr. Lori Mosca of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, director of preventive cardiology, American Heart Association spokesperson, do-gooder, busy-body, and general pain-in-the-rectum know-it-all (timely use of medical terminology, +5). I have one thing to say about this: the word "mosca" is Spanish for "fly," as in, the tiny, annoying insect. Are YOU going to trust someone with that name? I thought not.
You know, I would have never guessed that all of the people in the bars every weekend are actually health junkies. Sometimes, I amaze even myself.
Posted by Pat at 04:22 PM | Comments (1)
March 23, 2004
No Handbasket Necessary
When I was younger, back around the time of the wooly mammoth, I used to carry a pocket-knife all of the time, mainly, I think, because I was a boy, and thought sharp things were cool (remarkably little has changed since then, I might point out). It began, I believe, in Boy Scouts, when I got a tiny Swiss Army knife. Probably around 5th or 6th grade, I upgraded to a bigger Swiss Army knife, with a blade that was a full 3" in length (or maybe not quite). At some point, I also had a fairly large lock-blade, but that somehow vanished. I am nearly certain that I lost it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that my parents played some role in the disappearance, either. Anyway, the shocking thing is not the potential treachery of my parents (which I doubt occurred, anyway), but the fact that I carried my knife everywhere.
Yes, that means school, too. And you know what? No one cared. It seems like ancient history, but I'm pretty sure I was still carrying a knife at school during the beginning of the Clinton administration. It was not a small, rural school, either; there were no kids with gun racks on their bicycles. Not only that, I some how managed to never stab myself, my fellow students, or any faculty members. The only knife-related injury that I suffered was when I cut myself 20 minutes after the knife-safety class at Boy Scout camp (I got 4 stitches, but I also got Subway for lunch, so I think it worked out fairly well). Of course, those joyous years of frivolity and whittling were short-lived: I don't remember why - there may not have even been a specific reason - but the rules were changed, and knives were barred from school, regardless of whether or not they were less dangerous than the Sporks available in the cafeteria or the halitosis of your teachers.
So I stopped bringing my knife to school. I only carried after school, on weekends, and when I went to the bars or casinos. Just kidding. Of course, I forgot one day and accidentally put my "big" knife in my pocket. I realized what I had done, I think before classes even started, and so I did what any good student would do: I went on a violent rampage. No, that's not right... I went to my guidance counselor, explained to her what had happened, and asked her to hang on to my knife for me until it was time to go home. As I said, I was a good kid (I'll let you know when I pinpoint exactly what went wrong), so she took the knife and locked it in her desk drawer. If you think that this is what would happen today, you should probably visit zerointelligence.net and see what a great effect those Zero-Tolerance policies are having. I probably would have been suspended, preventing me from getting into college and getting this great data-entry job. Who knows what could have become of me?
The good news is that young kids are no longer bringing tiny pocket-knives to school: instead, REALLY young kids are now bringing drugs. In a truly frightening story, a 4-year-old boy brought $10,000 worth of crack to his PRE-SCHOOL (Head Start, of course). He told his classmates that it was flour, but the teachers recognized that it the child wasn't packing ROCKS of baking material, and called the cops. How did the teachers know crack when they saw it? We're never told. The boy's parents are AWOL, he and his sister are in protective custody, and my kids are never going to Head Start.
In a DIFFERENT story (which I find slightly amusing, for some reason), a much older, wiser, more mature kindergartner brought a bag of pot to school. He is 5. The young man was busted when a cafeteria monitor saw him sprinkling the stuff on the lasagna of a friend. There is some doubt over whether or not the boy even knew what he had, although the fact that he may have said that the thought it was oregano would lead me to believe this kid isn't as dumb as he's pretending to be. I can certainly count, on less than one hand, the number of times that I, when in kindergarten, brought my own oregano to spice up the dull and lifeless cafeteria food. On the other hand, he wasn't baking it in to brownies, so apparently there is still some innocence left in the 5-year-olds of this great nation.
Want to know the kicker? The boy won't be charged. School officials are more concerned about, "the child's environment and what issues could have led to a child having a bag of marijuana in school." Oh, I don't know, maybe crappy schools? I don't think they should lock the kid up, but you'd better believe that he'd be hanging by his toe-nails right now if he'd brought a TOY gun, much less a real one. I doubt he'd get off by claiming that he thought it was a textbook, either.
When I say that my life gets more surreal every day, this is what I am talking about. Well, this, too, but you get the point. Maybe I should just move to Japan. I think I might feel more at home there.
Posted by Pat at 04:17 PM | Comments (2)
March 22, 2004
To The Moon
I love comic strips. It takes a certain amount of skill to get a laugh using so few words and such small pictures, and I appreciate that. I think that, more often than not, the key to a good comic strip is good characters, which is why a new comic will sometimes take time before I start to appreciate it. Then the key is for the author to keep writing without getting stale and repetitive. Like Garfield. They also have to be careful, lest annoying people (like me) stumble upon a borrowed (intentionally or accidentally) thought:
(from 3-22-93)
(from 3-1-04)
Oops. Oh well.
The reason I bring up comics is because, while in Kansas City last weekend, I discovered a new strip: Pearls Before Swine. It sarcastic, clever, and cynically, depressingly hysterical. So basically it's really strange that I'd be a big fan, right? Oh, and there's the occasional terrible pun, too. Why do I like it so much? See for yourself:
Cynical. Terrible puns. Post-modern meta-type references. Brilliant.
Posted by Pat at 05:09 PM | Comments (4)
March 19, 2004
Starting Over
Last night, my life changed drastically. For the first time ever, I reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows. I have had my computer for about 3 years. I got it when my previous computer, which I had also had for about 3 years, was stolen. I have added RAM, added an additional hard drive, and installed all kinds of programs (purchased and otherwise), but I have never reformatted. I am told that you're supposed to do it every 6 months, but I had never seen the need. Sure, my computer crashed occasionally and had plenty of malfunctions, but it was working well enough. And yes, Windows ME is hardly the greatest operating system known to man, but I got by, even after I purchased a copy of XP Professional: changing would have been a lot of work, and I was comfortable with what I already had. In hindsight, it really sort of reeked with unloveliness, but life seemed OK at the time.
But, with the persuasion of friends over a period of time, I finally decided to make the plunge. Resident computer experts (read: geeks (yes, that's a compliment)) Matt and Russ guided me through the process. It is a very scary thing to press the "Enter" key, knowing that you are destroying over 3 years worth of information and leaving everything behind. It was even worse when a little red bar came up on the screen, noting the 10 second countdown before the irreversible process began. It felt and looked very much like the self-destruct sequence at the end of Space Balls.
Once the decision was made and action taken, it took quite a while to delete all of the old garbage. That was also a scary process to watch/ignore. It also took a fair amount of time to completely install the new software. It would seem to be a safe assumption that when you install Windows and the machine says that the installation is complete, everything is ready to go. It is not. Due to well documented security problems, there are numerous large updates that need to be installed before the process is complete. Downloading roughly 80mb worth of updates is not necessarily a fun process, but the refinement is necessary, even if it does require 5 or 6 restarts during the process of it all. Once the Windows installation was complete, I got to start in on the little things. I now own every piece of software on my computer, and even though I am still in the process of installing all of the software and drivers, it is clear already very clear to me that things have changed for the better.
I don't even recognize my own computer any more. My desktop, once filled completely with files and clutter, now has only 4 icons. I have only a handful of programs installed, compared to the literally dozens that I had before. Things are clean, tidy, and organized. My computer doesn't crash (at least not yet). Everything is updated and functioning properly. I have a new operating system, and all of the old garbage that I had accumulated over the years is gone. Even though the box looks the same on the outside and has the same parts on the inside, it is as though, due to one simple decision, I have started over, and my computer has been transformed into a completely new machine.
Ahhh, if only life worked that way. There must be an analogy here somewhere...
Posted by Pat at 04:11 PM | Comments (4)
March 18, 2004
Nothing But Net
Man, I love March! Here in Iowa, the weather is finally starting to get nice (even if Spring was interrupted by a quick 16 inches of snow), and the basketball is getting ugly. By which I mean awesome. Baby.
In an amazingly absurd turn of events, the tiny University of Northern Iowa won the Missouri Valley tournament, securing their place as the only Iowa team in the NCAA Tournament this year. Though the 14th seeded Panthers probably won't get further than their round one match-up with 3-seed Georgia Tech, they deserve a big, if not a bit bewildered, congratulations for making it to the Big Dance.
The "big" schools, Iowa and Iowa State, ended up in the little dance, playing in the NIT and fighting for the chance to be considered the 66th best basketball team in the country. Iowa lost to St. Louis (who?) on a buzzer-beater in their first game, but the Cyclones fared much better: in back-to-back games in Ames, both the men and women picked up victories. The women started the evening off by whaling on Idaho State, and the men finished it off by picking up a hard-fought victory over Georgia. Though the game was tied at halftime, Georgia apparently wasn't used to being tested, and eventually fell behind, in spite of fouling any Cyclone, with or without the ball, in sight. Mega-kudos to the Cyclones for shooting a torrid 74.4% from the field. No, that is not a typo. Relying mainly on passes for points in the paint, ISU put up numbers that are ridiculous, sick, wrong, and unhealthy. And I loved every minute of it. While there really is something wrong when a team's free-throw percentage is 10.8% lower than their field-goal percentage, it's tough to argue with victory.
Iowa State also played brutal defense, forcing several shot-clock violations. They also forced Georgia to take almost half of their shots from behind the 3-point line (which would have worked better if Georgia hadn't made so darn many of them). Georgia also put up some incredible numbers, being charged with nearly a half-dozen lane violations on ISU free-throw attempts.
ISU has been plagued by stupid officials and terrible calls (3rd paragraph from the bottom) all season long (really, though, who hasn't?), and last night was no exception. Jackson Vroman gets the award for being the recipient of the Worst Technical Foul Call. Ever. While "trying to clear" after a rebound, Georgia's Chris Daniels took a clear shot at Vroman's head with his elbow, making contact and sending Vroman to the floor. Daniels was called for a foul, and seconds later, the whistle blew again. Watching the game on TV with friends, this led to a lot of confusion. Vroman got up, showed remarkable restraint by saying only a few quiet words as he walked past Daniels, and was immediately T'd up. There was no chest bumping, no threatening, no trash talking, nothing. Upon watching the replay, Heather Hanson (winner of the Lip-Reader of the Night Award) said, "It looks like he just called him a punk." Sure enough, that's what happened.
Good grief, where is Bobby Knight when you need him? What do you do when someone throws a chair, or uses incredibly vulgar and abusive language when they miss a shot and accidentally say something like "poop?" Tar and feather? Fortunately it didn't adversely affect the outcome of the game, but that is some truly terrible officiating. What a bunch of punks.
Posted by Pat at 04:31 PM | Comments (4)
March 17, 2004
Spanish Disposition
There are so many different aspects of the Al Qaeda bombing in Spain that it may be impossible to cover them all. While it will take years - decades, probably - to sort out the facts surrounding the attack and the subsequent reactions, there is still an enormous amount of information to be analyzed right now.
-We have been hearing for over a year that there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The people of Spain seem to think that this bombing would indicate otherwise. The newly elected Socialist Prime Minister has declared that Spain will be pulling out of Iraq, using the bombing as a catalyst for that action, while at the same time maintaining that the war was never legitimate. I have yet to read any criticism of these completely incompatible positions, so apparently intellectual consistency is not a requirement for leftists.
-If the UN sticks its collective foot any further into its mouth, it is entirely plausible that its own toes will start coming out of its buttocks. Almost immediately after the bombings, the UN released a statement condemning the ETA, a Basque separatist group, for the bombing. It's too bad that, while showing plenty of resolve in making an inaccurate condemnation, the UN is unable muster any at all for fighting terrorists. Watching the demise of this great organization is a lot like watching a harmless car accident in slow motion, except that millions of people are dying in this car crash.
-As mentioned above, Spaniards have decided that this bombing was retaliation for their involvement in Iraq, and responded by throwing the ruling party out of office. In scheduled elections, the conservative party, which had been highly favored, was strongly defeated by the socialist party. I suppose I could call the Spanish cowards for choosing to turn and run, but I'd much prefer to call them idiots. And cowards.
What logic can possibly presented for pulling out of Iraq AFTER a terrorist strike? The tacit assertion is that the terrorists are morally correct. The clear result is that an entire country can be blackmailed by a single attack with only roughly 5% as many deaths as 9/11. The situation is so absurd, so morally retarded, that it is hard to draw analogies. Spain's foreign policy decisions are now being made by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
-The bombing provided proof, if any was actually needed, that John Kerry is wrong: treating terrorists like common criminals, and terrorism like a criminal matter, is a huge and potentially tragic mistake. Oddly, this is the position of the new Spanish Prime Minister. Will he listen when somebody tells him that these policies are the ones that enabled the attacks?
-It should be a matter of grave concern that Al Qaeda was able to pull off a terrorist strike of this magnitude without alerting any western intelligence agencies.
-More is starting to be made of the timing of the attack, with good cause, I believe. Evidence is beginning to surface that supports the intuitive belief that the bombing was timed to affect the Spanish election. A December posting on a message board outlines the plans to push the Socialists into control. Even more chilling, in a February article in the Las Vegas Sun, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak predicts a similar attack in the United States.
Perhaps the most amazing thing of all is the default assumption by absolutely everyone that Al Qaeda, without a doubt, wants George W. Bush out of office. This fact is never called into question, never even discussed in any way. Much ado has been made about very little in regards to John Kerry's claim that he has been endorsed by various foreign leaders, but this endorsement is a chilling one, indeed.
Posted by Pat at 04:23 PM | Comments (2)
March 12, 2004
Go Joe!
As someone who is a bit of a nutritional expert (I'm diabetic), I have some advice: never trust nutritional experts. This group changes their minds more often than John Kerry. Remember the big fiber kick? Which one? Because there was a time when it was good, and, immediately afterwards, a time when it caused colon implosion, or something similarly disastrous. And what about eggs? They're good, they're bad, they're half good, but only if you cook them over a fire started with a magnifying glass. Remember when red meat was bad for you?
No more. Now the world is enthralled with the Atkins diet. Carbs are bad (how am I supposed to get fiber?), but you can eat all the meat you want. High fat meat? Doesn't matter, dig in, just skip the carbs. The Atkins diet has 2 major groups of critics, which has resulted in me being really conflicted. PETA are mad because people are eating meat; the bovine murder rate has gone way up. As a general rule, anything that annoys PETA makes me ecstatic; however, there is another group that doesn't like Atkins: people who know anything about nutrition.
These people know that eating nothing but proteins is really hard on your kidneys. They also know, because they study things like the way your body works, that the Atkins diet will treat/solve the symptoms, but it doesn't really solve the causes of obesity. Does anyone remember the food triangle from elementary school? What was wrong with that? Nothing. Eating a balanced diet and getting a moderate amount of exercise is just as effective as ever; it's eating 6000 calories a day and moving only to get from the TV to the fridge and back that results weight problems. Don't stop eating carbs, starting eating in moderation. Avoid high-sugar foods like fruits, candy, and milk for initial weight loss, and, for crying out loud, exercise.
Let me make one final, small point: Dr. Atkins is dead - obviously his diet didn't do that much for him. No matter what you eat, you are still going to die. It may be later on, but then again, if you live a healthy enough life, you may just wish that you'd die more quickly. Or, perhaps you could be hit by a car or a tactical nuclear weapon, in which case, it doesn't matter how much you exercise and how low your BMI is. This brings me to my real point...
The nutritional experts have now decided that coffee is good for you. That's right, poor a cup for both of us, because Finnish researchers have discovered that the more coffee you drink, the lower your risk is for adult-onset diabetes. It's not one of these "one glass a day" things - the more you drink, the better. The buzz is just an added bonus. Sure, I already have juvenile-onset diabetes, but I wouldn't want to get adult-onset, too, now would I? That would be horrible.
Diabetes is not something that I would wish on anyway. And to think that, all this time, coffee-critics were actually trying to persuade me, and fellow coffee drinkers, NOT to choose a healthy beverage. So fire up the coffee maker and have a brew. Coffee: it's the NEW health food.
***
I will be on "vacation" this weekend. Blogging will resume on Wednesday. In the event of a major crisis, breathe slowly into a paper bag until I get back.
Posted by Pat at 04:45 PM | Comments (4)
March 11, 2004
Lost in Translation
Today, we're going to learn a new language. Exciting, isn't it? It's called "politician." This isn't really a new topic for this column, but it'll be a bit of a refresher, and a well timed one, at that, since the media has been doing a good job of reporting what our Presidential candidates are saying, but not what they mean.
Keep an eye on anyone who accuses another individual or party of negative campaigning. There are times the accusations are true; for example, when John Kerry says, "These guys (the GOP) are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." That's a pretty nasty thing to say, especially considering that it's just outrageous rhetorical bluster (and terrible grammar). At least I'm assuming it is. If the Republicans are really the most crooked, lying group that Kerry has ever seen, I think he might be a little to naive to be running for President. What about the Baath party, the mafia, or the Nixon and Clinton administrations?
A different, but more common scenario is that a group will, upon receiving legitimate criticism, will accuse their critics of negativity. Bush's first advertisements portray Kerry as an unprincipled flip-flopper because, well, he is. Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to war, then criticized him for actually going, then voted against providing the funding for finishing the job. He's played about every side of the gay-marriage debate. Heck, he even sent one of his constituents two different letters, mailed less than 2 weeks apart, explaining his two different positions on the first Gulf War. Accusing Kerry of being a bigger waffler than the chefs at IHOP isn't negative, it's simply pointing out the truth. Claiming negativity is a nice diversion from what is actually being said, so remember, when you hear one candidate accuse the other of negative campaigning, what they're really saying is, "ouch."
Another thing to watch out for is the word "scary." Kerry also used this one when accusing the GOP of being liars, but he certainly didn't come up with it: both sides have been playing the "scary" card for years. "Why don't you like Bill Clinton?" Oooh, he's scary. "What's wrong with Clarence Thomas?" Have you seen what he thinks? It's scary. "What about Hillary Clinton?" Well, never mind... but you get the picture.
The word "scary," when translated from political-ese, means, roughly, "I don't like what they believe in but have no substantive arguments to attack them with, so instead, I will level an irrefutable ad hominem attack and hope that no one notices." No one ever does, but now you, my loyal readers, know. And knowing is half the battle.
Speaking of battles, in the near future, I'll explain another trick that can be used to skew good news: the battle of the buts. It should be quality. No matter what is being said, the one rule to remember is: always read between the lines. You may not like what you see, but you'll be better informed for doing it.
***
Quote of the week: "If they can figure out how to play 50 bingo cards at once, I think they all can handle this." Florida retiree Michael Thomas on the usability new touch-screen voting machines.
Posted by Pat at 05:02 PM | Comments (5)
March 10, 2004
Happy Blog-Day to Me
Well, my blog turned six months old today, and I thought to myself, "What better way to celebrate than by posting some stolen, copyrighted images?" So there you have it.
Six months seems like a long time, and yet, it isn't very long at all; regardless, I've done something consistently for half a year, for really no purpose other than my own enjoyment and sheer determination to stick with it. That's nearly better than I did at college. At an average of 5 posts/week over 26 weeks, there is no doubt that I've already spent more time writing this than I did on all of my college homework. Of course, I spend nearly 2 hours a day commuting now, so time has lost all meaning. 12 months ago, who would have predicted that? Who would have predicted that I'd be up before 5am every day to go to work?
As my life has changed, so has this column (don't you love how I make it sound like I've been doing this for 20 years?): Leftovers have come and gone, as have various topics and, probably, various readers. I have, however, consistently been ahead of the curve. I was ranting about obscenity on the airwaves long before anyone had ever heard the term "wardrobe malfunction." I predicted John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee before a single vote was cast (yes, I waffled in a moment of temporary insanity, but that doesn't count). I was ahead of the curve on the super-size meals. Music, sports, politics, ridiculous stories - I did it all.
Yes, I did it all, and in only six months. It takes some people an entire career to cover that much ground. Which leads me back to another point: I am not paid nearly enough. So, to celebrate six months of online brilliance, I am giving a gift to myself: more lame images. Enjoy, and go read the archives to see what you've missed out on.
Posted by Pat at 04:28 PM | Comments (6)
March 09, 2004
World's Smallest Violin
Since this story went largely unreported in the Iowa media, I feel it's necessary for me to bring it to light: David Harrison is a big, dumb, cry-baby. Allow me to continue. David Harrison is the Center of the highly mediocre Colorado Buffaloes NCAA basketball team. The CU media guide lists him as 7 feet tall, 250 pounds. Yup, he's big, alright. I'm one for one. So what about the other two?
Well, it seems that Harrison is a much better basketball player than sport. After losing to the Cyclones last week, Harrison unloaded at a post-game press conference, calling former ISU coach Larry Eustachy a "drunk," and ISU fans "classless." I would think that deriding a recovering alcoholic by calling him a "drunk" would be pretty high on the list of classless things to do, but that's just one reason, among many, that Harrison is dumb.
He also believes, apparently, that Iowa State fans are too mean. Yes, those nasty old ISU fans made signs saying bad things about Harrison, and at one point chanted, "David Harrison sucks." While true, it is mean. But you'd think a senior starter at a Big 12 university would be able to handle it by now. "I've just got to sit out there and smile because if I did attack one of them, I'll get in trouble." I don't think whining to the media counts as smiling, David.
Why is there all this bitterness between Harrison and the Cyclones? Well, it goes back 2 years, if you'll believe that, to an incident between Harrison and his brother, DJ, and some Cyclone players and coaches. Most people would have let this go by now, but not Harrison. He's still sore about it, to the point of having CU coach Ricardo Patton ask the Big 12 to review a play this year where ISU's Jared Homan may have elbowed Harrison in the jaw. Yes, a foul was called, but Harrison thought Homan should have been ejected. Cry-baby?
So Harrison used the occasion of losing to Iowa State as an excuse to complain about the incident:
Harrison was involved in an altercation during at game at Iowa State two years ago. He and his brother, D.J., were given technical fouls and reprimanded after the incident. Iowa State's Jared Homan and Ricky Morgan also were reprimanded.
Players pushed and shoved each other but no punches were thrown. The trouble appeared to start when D.J. Harrison yelled something at Eustachy. David Harrison said Eustachy, who no longer is Iowa State's coach, tried to "attack" him.
"If you want to write the correct story, put drunk Larry Eustachy cussed at D.J. and David Harrison, we went over there, somebody punched D.J. and then it was over," Harrison said.
I was at this particular game, and witnessed this incident. For some reason, Harrison's memories seem to be a bit off base. If my memory serves, no punches were thrown, and the Harrisons, in fact, both should have been ejected. The Associated Press agrees with me:
The trouble started when Iowa State coach Larry Eustachy called a timeout with 18:06 left and his team leading 51-28. Colorado's D.J. Harrison started toward the Iowa State huddle near midcourt and was confronted by Homan.
As they shoved each other, David Harrison, D.J.'s brother, joined the fray and began arguing with Iowa State's Ricky Morgan. Coaches and officials jumped in to separate the teams and no punches were thrown.
The Harrisons each received a technical and Sullivan made all four free throws. Homan, who had not been in the game at the time, was ejected for leaving the bench.
D.J. Harrison threw his wrist band toward the crowd as the officials tried to restore order. He was booed loudly whenever he touched the ball after that and fouled out with 8:38 to play, leaving to a long, derisive ovation.
Harrison sure talks tough, and, not only that, he acts the part, too. It seems to me that he tries to start a fight with Homan every time they meet on the court. I also seem to recall that Harrison always ends up backing away. He'd probably disagree, but I think we've established which of us has a better memory.
It must be tough, being 7', 250 lbs, a great basketball player, and a giant, colossal, embarrassing, tear-soaked, classless weenie. Sucks to be you, David.
Posted by Pat at 04:15 PM | Comments (2)
March 08, 2004
Spring Has Sprung.
The weather is beautiful. So is the economy. In spite of the fact that this will probably toast my rankings for the week, I'm going to go out and enjoy both. You should, too.
Posted by Pat at 04:15 PM | Comments (3)
March 05, 2004
A Time to Knit and a Time to Dropkick
I have said for many years that I am really excited about the prospect of getting old and cranky. And it has been said for many years that I already am. Even if you don't personally know me, I'm sure that regular reading of this column would be enough to convince you that I'd fit right in on the front porch of a nursing home, leaning forward in my rocking chair, shaking my cane in the air and yelling at the dang kids who are doing whatever it was that dang kids happen to be doing on that particular day.
Maybe "crotchety" isn't on the list of Top 10 Adjectives used to describe Pat Blair, but, then again, maybe it is. Maybe it should be. One could certainly make an argument. The reason I bring this up, though, is because I have found the place that I want to end up when I retire: The Spring Haven Retirement Community, in Winter Haven Florida. Other than the confusing seasonal issues, why choose Spring/Winter Haven? Well, it's close to Palm Beach, which affords me the chance to vote for Pat Buchanan every four years. And I think I'd fit right it. There was a bit of a fracas, to use an old person word, the other day. Or, a butt-whoopin', as the young rascals would say.
Apparently a 62-year-old resident was picking through the leaves of lettuce at the salad bar. This grossed out another resident, age 86, who told him to cut it out. Before you know it, those drugged-up, crazy ol' old folks are cursing at each other, and a fight breaks out! That must have been some darn good lettuce. Before you know it, there's an all-out brawl. ANOTHER man, 79, tried to separate the two, and ended up getting bit on the arm. At least that's what the article says. I think it is more likely that he was gummed, but who am I to let the facts get in the way of a good story? Then the MOTHER of the lettuce-picker jumped in the fight.
Allow me to digress for a moment. Mr. Lettuce Picker is 62. And he lives with his mother. At a nursing home. Did he ever even move out? Is he completely crazy? I mean, at age 62, you would think that, when examining nursing homes, one might decide that living with one's mother is not the best decision. I could be wrong, but I spent the first 20 years of my life living with my parents, and, while they were great years, I have no desire to spend the last 20 in the same situation. I'm sure they feel the same way. Aren't you supposed to fight your own fights, without the intervention of a parent, once you reach a certain age? Like 16? For crying out loud, does she still clean his room? Change his diapers?
Anyway, mom escaped the battle royale with only cuts, as did another 92-year-old resident who was nearby when the salad scuffle started. All of these little turds suing their teachers and parents and McDonalds would do well to learn a lesson from these seasoned citizens: the police were called but no charges were pressed. Lee Thoss, a.k.a. Salad-Boy, has been asked to move out of the home, and violence has returned to its normal level, with all beatings being administered by trained nursing-home professionals.
There is no word on the condition of the salad bar, but the article does say that the dining facilities at the Spring-Loaded Haven also include an ice-cream bar and pastry chef. Hmm. Ice-cream. Pastry. Salad. Ice-cream... pastry... and a brawl over a stupid salad bar? Man, those are some messed up geezers.
I'd fit right in.
Posted by Pat at 05:13 AM | Comments (3)
March 04, 2004
Who Made Who?
"I have made rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life," announced George Soros in January. "I am determined to do what I can," he added, to assure that President Bush is not re-elected...
According to reports last November, Mr. Soros had already pledged $18 million to three liberal anti-Bush groups of this kind, announcing that "If necessary, I would give more." As he sees it, "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."
So who is this masked man? The Wall Street Journal has a fascinatingly insightful article about the eccentric (and that's the polite term) billionaire who, having championed Campaign Finance Reform legislation, is now trying to purchase the 2004 election.
(Soros) pioneered maneuvers that exploited small variations from one country to another in the value of a given share or financial instrument. He had a sharp instinct for currency trading, and his specialty was the fast deal. As The New Yorker put it in a recent profile, he was "adept at finding tax loopholes and operating in gray areas where oversight is scant and maneuverability wide."
As late as the early 1980s, Mr. Soros was telling interviewers that he did not believe in philanthropy. He had already created the Open Society Fund, the first of what would become a constellation of foundations through which he was to channel his generosity. But the original motive, he explained, was not primarily benevolent. The fund was set up as what the law calls a charitable lead trust, which Mr. Soros described as "a very interesting tax gimmick" allowing him to pass large sums to his heirs untaxed.
Though making money is one of Mr. Soros' strengths, apparently ethical issues are not. Though this does explain how the man could, with a clear conscience, spend money to pass a law designed to get money out of politics.
At some point in the late 1990s, after years of devoting himself to the former Communist world, Mr. Soros decided that his attention was required in America. His first major venture into domestic issues was in support of the campaign to decriminalize drugs... Aryeh Neier, ...sometimes described as Mr. Soros's "secretary of state," has explained the allegedly malicious intent behind our current drug laws in these loaded terms: "Criminalization is a strategy that buys into the notion that if you lock up enough young black males--for whatever reason--you will promote public safety." In line with such thinking, Mr. Soros has not only made possible various state ballot initiatives to legalize "medical" marijuana, but he has advocated such "reforms" as "making heroin and certain other illicit drugs available on prescription to registered drug addicts."
Well, that's an interesting, if not completely ludicrous, policy point. What else does Mr. Soros have going on inside his head, I wonder?
"I had never quite become an American," he once said. Now he complains that today's America "is not the America I chose as my home," as if, by turning conservative and electing George W. Bush as President, the country has failed to live up to him.
The egotism of the remark is revealing. Mr. Soros has admitted to having "carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble." Having made his mark, he now seems to give them free rein. He told one interviewer that he had "godlike, messianic ideas," and another that he sometimes thought of himself as "superhuman." To still a third he explained that his "goal is to become the conscience of the world."
George Soros is the funding source for moveon.org, and he has also made himself a major player in the 2004 election. I've borrowed so many bits from this article because, well, I think it's important. Go read it in its entirety. While you can turn on the news every night and hear John Kerry talking about Bush and Cheney being beholden to Halliburton and the infamous "Corporate America," there has, to this point, been very little discussion of Soros, to whom, should he become the next President, John Kerry would certainly be beholden.
Only for the sake of argument, I'll concede that energy companies are actually running the Bush White House. If this is the case, the question is, who do you trust Soros the least? Big Business or Soros?
Posted by Pat at 05:22 AM | Comments (1)
March 03, 2004
Econ 501
Stupor Tuesday has come and gone, and John Kerry has likely been locked in as the official sacrificial lamb for the Democrats. Since we're gearing up for another lively election season of half-truths, quarter-truths, lies, mud-slinging, and fuzzy Washington math (and that's just tomorrow's agenda), this seems like a good time for a quick economics lesson. It is sometimes difficult to correctly understand what politicians are saying, especially in the realm of the economy, because even though it sounds like English, they're actually speaking in an entirely different language. This makes sense, of course, when you take into account that they exist in an entirely different reality than the rest of us.
Take, for example, the term "cut." Did you know that every program that gets a Washington-defined funding cut will still have a larger budget than it did the previous year? Here's an example of how this works. Let's say that my blog, The Real Pat Blair, receives public funding from the NEA (your tax dollars at work!). Every year, I will get a percentage increase in funding, probably around 4%. This is how every program works. So if I get $100,000 in 2004, I will automatically get $104,000 in 2005. This is not considered an increase in spending if you live in Washington. IF, however, John Kerry gets elected (hey, why not? This hypothetical was already well into the realm of ridiculousness), he may decide that he doesn't like me, so I will only get $102,000 in 2005. In the real world, this would mean that I got a 2% pay raise, and that I should be happy to have such a great job.
In politics, however, this would be a drastic cut. But Pat, you may be saying, I am irate and confused; this makes no sense, whatsoever! Good. This means you're starting to understand. My funding increase is assumed in the political world; it is guaranteed. Therefore, if I get a smaller increase, it is actually considered a cut; press-releases will be written, Armageddon will be announced, and Peter Jennings will report it all with a straight face. Some congressman would, no doubt, hold a press conference to decry the "absolutely outrageous 50% cuts to The Real Pat Blair." If he had a guilty conscience, it might be "50% cuts in new funding," but probably not. The sound-byte isn't as good. So remember, in Washington, "cut" = "smaller increase."
In reality, nothing ever gets cut. This year's budget will be bigger than the last, which was bigger than the last, and so on. The federal budget will be $2.4 trillion this year. Yes, TRILLION. How can anyone even comprehend a number that big? 31,709 years is not quite 1 trillion seconds. And yet, in spite of this gluttonous spending, you can turn on the TV at any given moment and hear a politician talk about how this or that program is in danger of failure due to under funding. We need more money for education, we need more money for prescription drugs, we need more money to fly to Mars... it kinda makes one wonder, what, exactly, in the heck are we spending all of that money on in the first place? And if these programs are so close to failure, if we are in such imminent danger of forcing old people to choose between eating dog food and buying prescription drugs, how have we survived this long? Every program that is going to spontaneously combust survived on less money last year than it did this year, and catastrophe hasn't struck yet.
This brings another question to mind: how much money is enough? We have been pouring money into the education system in this country for decades, yet it is in no better shape now than it was 20 years ago. How much money will it take to finally fix it? Another $100 billion? $200 billion? $1.21 jiggabillion? And what about poverty? How much money do we need to put in the budget to finally stamp out hunger and poverty in the United States? Or in the entire world, for that matter? Because I'm all about that; let's write the check and fix this, already!
Or, could it be, that after all of these years, and all of the money that we have spent, that the solution is not to spend more money? Doesn't logic dictate that, at some point, if a proposed solution is not solving the problem, you give up and try something different? A cut is really an increase. Spending money hasn't solved any of these problems yet. These are important things to keep in mind while watching the politicians try to buy their way into office.
***
On a side note, I would like to thank my sister, Megan, for bringing this to my attention: McDonald's Phasing Out Supersize Fries, Drinks. It took only a matter of days - another instance of one man and his blog, making a difference. I am, once again, ahead of the curve.
Posted by Pat at 05:32 AM | Comments (5)
March 02, 2004
That's What Makes Us Humans Being
My Oscar viewing on Sunday night consisted of watching Billy Crystal's opening monologue and the first half of Tim Robbins acceptance speech. They were, respectively, not that funny and not that interesting. The high point of the first 8 minutes was Catherine Zeta Jones, walking, talking, and acting completely elegant, refined, classy, and snooty. She did just fine right until she had to open the envelope, a simple enough task for any person who does normal, everyday activities without the help of 4 personal assistants. Once freed from the confines of the rehearsals, scripts, and Teleprompters, she tittered like a 12-year old: "I don't have any nails! Hee-hee!" Tell me again why anyone looks up to these people?
My hero for the night, though, was Peter Jackson, an anchor of slob and normalcy in a sea of botox, collagen, and $30,000 dresses. Amongst all the fake smiles and fake breasts, the Lord of the Rings director appeared even more disheveled than he really was. It looked like he had slept in his tux. For the past 4 days. It was clear that he bypassed a tummy-tuck for the big event, as well: neither his shirt nor his coat fit, which is pretty sad since it was probably a rental tux. I don't think the top button of his collar was ever actually buttoned, which means that his tie was loose the whole time, as well. This is what I like to call "mucho classy."
Yet for all of his slovenliness, Peter Jackson managed to accomplish something that no one else did at the Oscars: he looked like a real, live human being. In the crowd of plastic people, Peter appeared to be shockingly real. He put on no airs, he wasn't worried about impressing anyone, and he showed genuine emotion. Oh, yeah, and he won 11 Oscars, too; no one else has ever done that before, either.
It was a lot like when John Ondrasik from Five For Fighting showed up at the Grammys. He was so out of place on the red carpet: a middle-aged, aging, balding man, standing there with his middle-aged, aging wife (not balding, fortunately). They were both dressed up very nicely, but they fit in about as well as my parents would have. Ondrasik didn't dump his wife for a prosthetic that was half his age, he didn't get a new weave, he didn't buy flashy new threads; instead, he just took his wife out for the nicest night on the town that any of them will ever have. I thought it was really cool.
So why does it seem so refreshing to turn on the TV and see normal people? Does that seem absurd to anyone else? I felt this way long before the WB made a name for itself by filming shows solely for the purpose of putting pretty people on the tube, regardless of the caliber of plot or actor. I think it says something about the skill of popular actors today when they can't even convincingly act like real people.
Posted by Pat at 05:34 AM | Comments (9)
March 01, 2004
Strange Loners?
In the summer of 2000, Maxell announced that it would stop making its high-end audio cassettes. A cassette cost substantially more to manufacture than a CD-R, and, quite simply, the demand for the product was no longer there. Maxell's decision symbolized, in a way, the end of a recording era: analog was being replaced by the cheaper, easier, and user-friendlier digital equipment.
The end of analog meant something else, as well: the end of mistakes. Digital recording created an alternate reality, one in which a drummer was always perfectly in time, the guitars were at just the right volume and perfectly in tune, the bass guitar was perfectly in synch, indistinguishable from the kick drum, and vocals were always in tune, even when there were dozens of parts being simultaneously layered.
Drummer can't hold a beat to save his life? No problem, there's software to correct that, or, you can just use a drum track, and no one will even know the difference. Just ask Andrew W.K. Guitar playing is sloppy? Can't get it right after 25 takes? Easy, just take the best part from each take and mix them together. You don't even need to play two correct notes in sequence. Lead singer can't hit a pitch? Join the club (Britney, Backstreet, Kid Rock, Enrique, Vertical Horizon... everyone you hear on the radio, actually) and use Antares Auto-Tune software. Gone are the days of hit-and-mostly-miss vocal tracks by Paula Abdul and Sinead O'Connor being hidden behind reverb and synthesizers; now, they're more pitch-perfect than Pavarotti.
Yes, digital recording and editing has allowed great artists to make some truly amazing art. Unfortunately, it has allowed musicians that are mediocre - terrible, even - to make flawless albums, as well. This is the reason that nearly every song on the radio sounds exactly the same. This is the reason that is completely impossible to judge the skill of a band by their CD.
Many of you already know this, so why do I even bother to mention it? "D is for Demo" was recorded 100% live. There are no overdubs, no quick-fixes, no vocal processors, no click tracks, nothing. Every moment of greatness and genius was captured in the most authentic form. So was every missed entrance, botched note, chunked chord, blown fill, and background noise. These songs were recorded and mixed in a matter of hours, not days or months, and, quite frankly, it shows. So why choose to let anyone hear it? Because what you hear is what you get. D is NOT for Dub. This showcases The Lone Strangers at their absolute worst, and, quite frankly, we're pretty proud that our worst is not too bad.
This is not as good of a CD as recent releases by, say, Sum 41 or the All-American Rejects, but which band do YOU think sounds better playing live? "D is for Demo." It's real. It's good. You decide the rest.
Posted by Pat at 05:17 AM | Comments (3)