The Jeopardy guy, Ken Jennings, lost! I tune in to Jeopardy after not watching it for a really long time, and I see him lose. I can’t believe it!
That guy is uber-crazy. 2.5 million dollars. From Jeopardy. Damn, I don’t think anyone will ever win as long as he did.
If you never tell a bad joke, it means you never tell enough jokes. I tell bad jokes all the time. That just means I tell too many jokes. Too many bad jokes.
I’ve run out of funny material, but I will keep pressing on, keep telling unfunny things until, finally, I find it again. Because if I say nothing, it’s just as unfunny.
Or maybe I never really had it in the first place. I know I have said some funny things occasionally, but for the longest time, I never considered myself a funny person. Now, I’m starting to think of myself as a funny person, but I’m quickly running out of things to say.
Then again, maybe I just need a rest from the funny. Try to be serious for a while. Let the funniness recharge.
A weblog becomes very interesting when one thinks aloud, does it not? Or maybe it becomes less entertaining?
I don’t know. I really can’t tell anymore. I’ll just stick with what works. (Doesn’t work?)
Tomorrow: Back to regular ol’ commentary.
“Catch 22” is the best novel I have ever read. Period. It is also the funniest.
This article pissed me off: Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School.
Right after a quote about supposed discrimination against Christians, we get this ending paragraph, “In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words “under God” struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.”
… what the hell?
Tell me, what the hell does that have to do with anything at all in the article? Nothing, actually. It’s just a sneaky way to make people think that taking the words “under God” back out of the Pledge of Allegiance equals persecution against Christians. Sorry, wrong.
There’s just a few minor differences. First off, the Pledge of Allegiance did not originally have “under God” in it. That’s why I said “back out” in that previous sentence. We got through two world wars without saying “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. Yeah, that’s right, the “greatest generation” did not start out saying “God” in their Pledge of Allegiance. How’s that for tradition?
Second difference: the word pledge. It’s a pledge of allegiance! Can you get that through your minds?! Not a document of historical importance. (Again, I must note that “under God” wasn’t in there in the first place.) It’s a PLEDGE! Doesn’t that mean something to you? Doesn’t it mean that it means the government is endorsing God if it’s in the pledge of allegiance? If you agree, then I must inform you, there’s a little thing standing in the way of keeping “under God” in the pledge… and that thing is called the Constitution.
… which brings me back to the Declaration of Independence. I don’t know the context, but I think it’s stupid to ban the Declaration of Independence. It’s stupid to ban all historical documents that have mention of God. There, I said it. It is stupid. Because that’s misrepresenting history. But let’s analyze this situation a little deeper: It is not discrimination against Christians to ban these documents. Why? Because some of the Founding Fathers were deists. It’s not specific against Christianity. So there. Nyah.
Anyway, the real point non-technicality point I want to make is: So what if the Declaration of Independence says “God” in it? People wave that around as if it’s proof of God. Yeah well, there’s a little thing standing in your way again, and that’s the Constitution. Guess what’s the basis of our laws? Guess… I’ll make it easier. Multiple choice: Is it A) Declaration of Independence, or B) Constitution. If you answered A, you are wrong.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws here in the United States. So, you can wave around your historical opinions, but I’d rather stick with the document that makes us a more perfect union.
It’s not okay if the teacher has a specifically Christian agenda and is shoving said agenda down his students’ throats. It’s okay to have these documents if he’s teaching real history, not his evangelical version of it. Wait, you may ask, why can’t the teacher teach it if he wants to? Isn’t it a freedom of speech issue? No, it’s not. The teacher is getting paid by the government, and is working at a state institution. The teacher is essentially acting as a state official in his position, and the state cannot promote a specifically Christian agenda.
If you teach that some of the Founders were deeply religious, you must also teach that they so valued religion that they deemed it necessary to separate it from government. The personal views of some Founding Fathers do not make this a Christian Nation. And so, before I end this entry, I must invoke the Constitution one more time. Remember, the Constitution does not say any god made this nation, but starts out with “We the people”.
Little known tic tac toe tidbit: Starting on the side is just as good as starting in the middle. With both starting points, there are four moves your opponent can make that will make you win.
Of the seven deadly sins, which one are you? In case you don’t know them: envy, greed, lust, sloth, gluttony, wrath, and pride.
Geeze, I hate naming the seven deadly sins. I always forget one. It’s never the same one, but I always forget one, nonetheless. It’s like naming the seven dwarves, or reciting my phone number.
Anyway, you might be wondering, which sin am I? It’s really a toss-up between greed and pride. Some people tell me I’m greed, some people tell me I’m pride. I think I’m pride.
Don’t be shy, leave a comment. But don’t give me any of the “little bit of each” crap. There’s always one. Which sin are you?
Veteran CBS news anchor Dan Rather to step down. Yeah, Rather steps down, but he’s not actually completely out. He’ll still be working for CBS. Psh. Like I said before, lying to the American public just isn’t as important as other issues.
This part was the best: “‘It is baffling that a journalist with Rather’s skill and experience could have made such an egregious mistake on the Bush National Guard documents story,’ Hanson said, while adding, ‘it was not an error that should define his career, but to many detractors it will.'”
It’s not baffling, if you think he did it on purpose. It’s just not in my cynical nature to give him the benefit of doubt. Besides, consider Ockham’s Razor… malicious intent is a simple explanation and it makes sense.
What makes TV so much better than real life is reruns.
My senior quote for the yearbook: “I will take a yardstick to God himself, and measure him.”
Very bold.
It was that, or “If Jesus was a professional wrestler, what would be his finishing move?” I decided on the yardstick one because it was bolder.
I was going to mention this earlier, but I completely forgot. However, it is still relevant.
Someone in one of my classes, after Bush’s victory, criticized Bush because his electoral map was the same as 2000, and it meant that he hadn’t convinced anyone new.
Hm… Let’s see. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and won it this year. Even with Bush’s bad job as president, he still won. Who is it that didn’t convince the electorate?
That’s some of the worst spin ever. Bush didn’t convince anyone? The winner didn’t convince anyone? The winner who got a clear popular majority? The winner with the most votes for president ever? Methinks it was John Kerry and the Democratic Party who didn’t convince anyone.
I doubt my experience is a truly isolated one. If you know anyone who embraces this myth, please set them straight.
It takes two to polarize the nation.
Picture of bus. From Halloween. We won for best group. More details later.
Finally broke my beginner record… new time: 3.
I also have a new intermediate time (this was done earlier, but I never posted it): 31.
Expert is still 88.
schizo killer: better that you learn your life lessons
schizo killer: from The Apprentice
schizo killer: than Pokemon
BuRniNgCiGar: LOL
BuRniNgCiGar: hey that line is classic
BuRniNgCiGar: “i want to be the very best”
BuRniNgCiGar: and u live by it too
BuRniNgCiGar: so STFU
Despite the CW that the nation is so polarized, I still think there were swing voters in this election. After all, how else could the Republicans have gained such a bounce after their convention? The Democrats, meanwhile, did not experience such a bounce.
I think the main reason the Democrats lost the election is because there were Democrats who voted for Bush. Why would they vote for Bush? Because of the war on terror.
Moral issues did not decide this election. See The Gay Marriage Myth. Terror did.
One reason I thought Cheney won the VP debate was because his closing statements focused on the war on terror and homeland security. Edwards gave this folksy populous message that did not appeal to me, at all. It sounded like very pre-Sept. 11 politicking.
Democrats, if you want to win, you have to convince the general American public that you understand that radical Islam (called Islamofascism in some circles) is a threat to America, and the world. And it’s not restricted to simply Osama bin Laden. Although I agree that we should not have invaded Iraq, I’m still aware that this threat is bigger than bin Laden. Why didn’t we try to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan first? That should be what should be asked, not a question about Osama bin Laden.
About the get out the vote effort… Youth did not quite turn out in record numbers, at least in proportionate to the rest of the electorate. Advice: Reject the Hollywood bunch. Okay, these guys can say what they want, but maybe, just maybe, people don’t trust actors to make their political decisions for them. I don’t think some Democrats understand that. Maybe, just maybe, the youth are a little smarter than voting because of idol worship. Don’t rely on Hollywood to energize your base.
After the convention, some of the advice was for Kerry to focus only on domestic issues. That would’ve lost him the election for sure. Don’t revert to that thinking in ’08. I know I won’t vote for Edwards in ’08, if he runs. Maybe he’ll fight for me on some level, but I have no assurance that he will fight the terrorists for me.
The problem with Kerry was Kerry. I remember reading a news article in the San Jose Mercury News (or was it the Chronicle), that was so obviously biased towards Kerry. It presented him as one who defies definitions. Yet, at the same time, it was mentioning how he was such a political opportunist. They were trying to spin his shifting with the political winds as defying his party. Face it, Kerry was a bad candidate. I was only barely Kerry because of the SCOTUS, the fact that he would set up a Republican win in ’08, and to punish Bush for some of the bad decisions he has made. Of course, none of these reasons were really reasons to vote for Kerry, they were still anti-Bush (on a different level than the “anybody but Bush”-ers, though). Face it, Kerry was a bad candidate. But I guess Kerry lost because he couldn’t fundamentally show that regarding the war on terror, he gets it.
Anyway, don’t latch on this morality and faith thing. Don’t try to become the Republican party. Keep your positions, but show us that you understand the threat of terrorism. Only then can you swing back the Democrats who voted for Bush.
Having grown up in a Republican family during the Clinton years, I’ve developed an irrational fear of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want her to run in ’08, and I don’t want her to ever become president. I’m sure if I looked her up, though, I’d find my reasons… but I’ll wait until ’08.
Anyway, here goes my future low-blow line for ’08:
Hillary: If she wasn’t good enough for Bill, she’s not good enough for America.
Tomorrow: Commentary on resignations
Day after tomorrow: Advice to Democratic Party
From Patterico’s Pontifications: New York Times: Crime Goes Down “Despite” Increase in Prison Population. I could not resist linking that. Wonderful.
Okay, I understand that the certain military leaders wanted us to invade Iraq with more troops. And that more troops could’ve better stabilized post-war Iraq (remember the looting of the museum?). The military wanted something on the order of 10,000s more troops, or even 100,000s more troops.
I also understand that we have a veritable backdoor draft, with people serving two tours in a row, etc.
I also understand that there have been less than 2000 casualties.
So, I pose the question: Where would these extra troops to initially invade have come from? If we’re running out of troops now, after less than 2000 casualties, how would we have gotten way more troops earlier?
Mazda 3. Titanium. 6-CD Changer. Leather seats.
Zoom zoom.
On yesterday’s The Apprentice, Raj was fired. I didn’t necessarily want him to win, but I wanted him to stick around longer. So, I wore a bowtie today, haha.
Goddamn it. Just call it for Bush already. We already know he won. Fox called Ohio for Bush, CNN called Nevada for Bush. Put it together… I know no one wants to get it wrong, but if y’all are afraid, I’ll officially call it for Bush, for you.
And Mr. Kerry, please don’t try to litigate your way to victory in Ohio. Once they’re completely done counting, concede. For the good of the nation, for the good of the Democratic Party, and to maybe instill some confidence in the American people, that we still are a democracy.
Caveat: What if I’m wrong and Kerry actually wins? Psh. I doubt it.
I just want it to be over.
Would Dubya Run in 2008? from Slate.
The moral of the story: Read the Agnoiologist weblog.
ADDENDUM: Oh man, this gets better: “The prospect of a Dubya run in 2008 has been considered by almost no one, but Ken Herman of the Austin American Statesman wrote about it last month.”
Yes… proud to be part of the “almost no one” crowd.
New Minesweeper time:
88 seconds for Expert.
Crazy 88.
I beat Delora.
Now, no one I know personally has a better time.
