July 30, 2007

I have been inspired

My dad loves the Food Network (and let's be serious, who doesn't?). Last week we were watching the top 10 best places to pig out* and they featured a buffalo wing joint with a hot wing challenge. It made me crave hot wings, BADLY. This isn't a typical 30-wings in 30 minutes type challenge, this is a HOT wing challenge. "Finish six Wingers drenched in 911 sauce in five minutes without quenching your thirst or eating other food." Then today I found this and now I must try it. I am going to challenge Jordan, Cox, Janitor, and, well, anyone else who'll get in the ring. GAME ON! Check back in 3 1/2 weeks to see the results.

*apparantly it was on the Travel Channel, although I don't think I've ever watched the Travel Channel

4-eyes no more

I'm getting LASIK sugery in approximately 72 hours. I know I'll look different without my glasses but the benefits FAR outweigh the drawbacks.

benefits:

  • I can actually see
  • My head won't ache from wearing my glasses
  • No squinting at the computer screen
  • No worrying about where to put them when engaged in a marathon make-out session (or similar scenario)
  • No jamming my finger into my glasses because I forgot they're on and needed to rub my eye
  • I can wear my sunglasses and not lose my eyesight at the same time

drawbacks:

  • $4000
  • Don't look as smart or sophisticated

Yeah, this is a no-brainer

July 25, 2007

Very proud of this one


I was white and pretty much kicked his trash in the corner, even though my king is out in the open and naked as the day he was born. It was only about 12 or 13 moves too (I think).

July 23, 2007

After 2 minutes of the Youtube dem. debate

I have 1 question: Why do Democrats hate rich people so much? I heard more than 1 candidate talk about how they're going to raise taxes for the top 1%. That's awesome, let's simply tax them because they can afford it, wonderful logic there. Forget about the fact that the top 1% of wage earners already pay more than a THIRD of all federal income tax. I suppose they just want to tax the top 1% until they're not in the top 1% anymore. Let's tax people for being successful, bravo idiots.

July 22, 2007

Attention Whore


hat tip: You Been Blinded


OK, ump, we get it, you're the big man in charge.

July 20, 2007

Here we go...

This is bad bad bad bad bad. More to come later...

Am I being punished?

So this lady I've never seen comes over to my area and asks me, "Is this your cubicle?" My first thought was, "No, I live down the street, I just wanted to use the internet." Of course I didn't SAY that and responded with a confused affirmative. She asks me if there's anything in my metal cabinet that is attached to the wall, to which I repond, "just some papers." She nods and leaves.

Thirty seconds later a bald guy with a goatee and a dirty Cardinals jersey comes over and starts disassembling my cabinet, reaches underneath and takes the whole thing off. Previous lady comes over and unplugs the light that attached underneath and takes it. My only reaction is a stunned, "huh?" look. So just like that my cubicle has been pillaged and I'm left with no place to store my porno mags and boxes of Snickers.

Can I change my major?

I always wonder what will be the next big thing. In the past 10 years or so we've seen Google, Youtube, Myspace, Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo!, and the like, spring up out of pretty much nowhere. What's more is that these projects are now worth billions of dollars. I often think to myself, "maybe I'll have that one idea that leads to something as big as Youtube, sell it (or not), and be worth a hundred million dollars. But all the cool ideas have already been thought of." This reasoning is, of course, flawed. Look at the beginnings of each of my examples:

Google: "Google was co-founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were students at Stanford University." (emphasis added). Value: $160+ billion.

Youtube: "YouTube was founded by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim, who were all early employees of PayPal." Three guys all under 30. Sold for $1.65 billion.

Myspace: This story is a little different since it was a corporate side-project to begin with, but its rise to the top of the internet is no less impressive. Sold for $580 million.

Facebook: "Harvard University and Phillips Exeter Academy graduate Mark Zuckerberg [who just turned 23] founded 'The Facebook' in February 2004 with support from Andrew McCollum and Eduardo Saverin" (both later returned to Harvard). Value: between $2 and $8 billion.

Yahoo!: "Founded by Stanford University graduate students Jerry Yang and David Filo." Value: $35 billion.

Amazon: Founded by Jeff Bezos in 1995 after quitting a lucrative job at a NYC investment firm. He just wanted to sell books online and now he's worth $4.4 billion. Amazon reported annual sales of $10.7 billion in 2006.

Almost all of these sites (now companies) were started by non-professionals with very little financial backing. They had a good idea that they were committed to and can now spend their summers golfing in Hawaii or cruising the autobahn. Obviously this list is limited to INTERNET success, but lately that's where all the money's been.

Google really is quite mind-boggling. 2 guys who just wanted to see if their hypothesis about search results was correct, basically changed the entire internet. "Google" is now in the dictionary as a verb. Page and Brin are now worth $14 billion a piece. I can't even fathom this, it's like saying they're worth a gagillion dollars. 14 billion is 14,000 million, they could each give $700,000 dollars to everyone who went to the last Jazz game in Salt Lake and STILL have $63 million left over.

I should have gone into computer programming...

July 19, 2007

Don't tell Al

A Japanese study claims that "producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours." Looks like skipping Wendy's this week is better for the environment than parking my car for a week.

The crappy thing about this is that it will turn into another way for the Greenies to make the rest of us feel guilty. "I can't believe you're eating that steak, don't you know what that does to the environment!?"

July 18, 2007

My bad

Sorry to anyone who has been trying to comment lately, I changed the settings to allow moderation but mistakenly changed WHO can comment to members of the blog only (just me...)

Problem fixed, my bad

Free Stuff Good

I am not one to turn down free anything, especially concert tickets. So when my friend tells me (3 days before) that we're going to the Incubus concert, I simply said, "uh....ok."

So we show up last night around 7:35 and listen to the last 3 or 4 songs by the opener. While the crew is changing sets the dark clouds that were on the other end of the valley were creeping up on us. After about 10 minutes the rain started to fall. This was not your ordinary rain. It was like cups of water being dumped on you, it was K-RAZY! It rained (and thundered) like this for about 10 minutes. At this point I should mention that I don't even like Incubus and I was considering leaving. All 4 tickets that we had were free so this wasn't costing us anything. The rain drenched everyone and then cleared up as fast as it came, leaving a wicked cool cloud arrangement that made for a spectacular sunset.


The 4 of us left after about 6 songs and beat the traffic (by about 90 minutes). Needless to say it was a very fun night, although I think Cox said it best, "that concert was wasted on you." Indeed.


July 17, 2007

Summer fun

Just got my Evidence E&E in the mail today. It's actually quite short, just under 300 pages. I'd like to read it before class starts, odds of this actually happening: 8:1. Any takers?

July 16, 2007

Umm.....ok......

Pardon me...

FINALLY, something actually worth reading about Scooter Libby.


On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.


Want more hypocrisy? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney praised the commutation for Libby, quite a departure for a guy who brags that he was the first Massachusetts governor to deny every request for a pardon or commutation. Romney even refused a pardon for an Iraq war veteran who, at age 13, was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun.

What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.

Everyone just needs to shut up.

July 12, 2007

Lost your eyesight? Work at Target!


So I got this shirt at Target on Monday, and that weird looking brown thing is the spare button....yeah....WTF?

July 10, 2007

Luckyyyyyyyyy

Where were these teachers when I was in school?

Hypocrisy Rules

You mess with the bull, you get the horns. And by bull I mean prostitute, and by horns I mean a kick in the nuts and no sex for 6 months

July 9, 2007

Arguing on the internet is like....well, you know how it goes

I should have known better, I really should have. I found an article on a blog (that I will NOT link to, I'd rather not give them the hits) that was claiming a Miami nightclub was using a double standard against, of all people, LeBron James. Now, I know that not all of my 7 readers are big sports fans, but I KNOW you know who this guy is. The article was citing (well, not really CITING since there was no link) the Miami Herald, this is what the Herald said: "Sightings: LeBron James refused entrance at Mansion for wearing shorts, forcing him to rush off to find long pants." If it takes you a minute to find it, I understand. It's one line in a longer article. So to claim that this nightclub is enforcing some double standard might be a bit of a stretch at this point. That didn't stop the article from "digging" into the story to see if there were any pictures of people in shorts at this club. SURPRISE, there was a picture posted on the article of some guy in shorts and ugly argyle socks at what looks like an art gallery, CLEARLY not a night club. So I put on my detective's hat and snoop around a little. Lo and behold I find the picture! It is from some dude's blog about men's fashion. Imagine my surprise. It had NO bearing whatsoever to the Miami nightclub. Did that stop the article from posting it? Nope. It even had "There's nothing more to say" written above it. Now I take off my detective hat and put on my lawyer hat...whatever that looks like. I respond with this:

Do you really believe that any hot Miami nightclub would turn away a celebrity of James' status because he is black? These places thrive on celebrity name-dropping. Could it be at all possible that there are different dress codes depending on the sponsored event? Immediately claiming some kind of racial bias is not only irresponsible, but makes you seem ignorant.
PS I ran the same search and found the same picture. If your assistant bothered to do ANY research of the image, he/she would have discovered that the picture is from a men's style blog and the caption states: "This cat checking out the NADA show looked cool in long shorts and two different argyle socks." It has nothing to do with the Mansion Night Club.

I don't think it sounds TOO mean, I don't call anyone names. Here's what ensued:
[blogger] said...

"but makes you seem ignorant."

Sir, indeed.

At times, ignorance is all in the perception.

How do you think you are being perceived....right now?

It isn't as bad to seem ignorant, as it is to be ignorant.

Ya feel us, bay bay?

[blogger] said...

"It has nothing to do with the Mansion Night Club."

Sir, your desire to support these establishments in their clear mission to segregate themselves from young, Negro athletes is downright ridiculous.

You yourself ran the very search we did. And google returned the same image.

'mansion nightclub shorts' = proof of divergent standards.

And we don't appreciate you trying to lay waste to our humble staff.

Scrumtrulescent said...

Please, enlighten me oh wisest of all. How am I being ignorant? I can provide the link to the page that the image was pulled from if you'd like


Scrumtrulescent said...

I don't support night clubs, in fact, I despise them. The picture is being used entirely out of context and provides no proof of any double standard

[blogger] said...

"How am I being ignorant? "

Sir, exactly.

[blogger] said...

"The picture is being used entirely out of context "

Sir, the picture is being used precisely in the context we are using it.

How can you argue this?

Scrumtrulescent said...

The picture is not of anyone attending the Mansion Night Club, so I ask you why you posted it, what does it prove?

[blogger] said...

"so I ask you why you posted it, what does it prove? "

Sir, did you or did you not run a google search of 'mansion nightclub shorts'?

Did you or did you not receive the offered image in the results?

What more proof do you need?

Scrumtrulescent said...

the reason that image appears in the search results is because the article mentions a particular mansion, not the Mansion Nightclub. I'm surprised that you didn't check your facts before posting it. It's apparent that you enjoy listening to yourself talk, or type, as it were, more than engaging in any meaningful discussion. Additionally, you are quite adept at ignoring questions and dodging any attempts to rightfully question your righteous indignation, perhaps you should get into politics.

[blogger] said...

"I'm surprised that you didn't check your facts before posting it. "

Sir, our facts are 100% in order.

We said that we ran a google search of 'mansion nightclub' shorts and that that photo was returned to us.

Those are the facts.

Prove them wrong.

And, if you can't, apologize and plead ignorance.

Scrumtrulescent said...

Fair enough. And I suppose it's possible that the posting of the picture is simply an attempt to point out how ridiculous that guy looks and I misinterpreted the tone of the post and the blog in general. But if your intent was to use that picture to prove that men in shorts DO, in fact, get into the Mansion Nightclub (which it cannot do), then perhaps you should apologize to the owner of the photograph for using it and not crediting him.

[blogger] said...

"Fair enough."

Sir, your attempts to mitigate your ignorance and inability to prove our fact finding wrong by deflecting attention to the picture are sorry at best, and shiteous at worst.

You were instructed to either prove the fact wrong, or to apologize.

Apologize to our research assistant, or slink away with your ignorant tail thoroughly tucked away under your spanked backside.

Scrumtrulescent said...

The journalistic integrity of this website is astoundingly bad. Although I suppose integrity is meaningless to those who won't admit the simplest of errors and will not tolerate any kind of criticism. When you only answer to yourself, you don't ever have to be wrong, do you?


I didn't go back after that because, well, we know what happens when you argue on the internet. Using this guy's reasoning I could post a picture of Justin Timberlake and say this was the result of a search for "smart black man" (do it yourself, you'll find it). That blog was not big enough for both of our egos. I should have expected that considering the title of the blog, as it referenced a particular religion (some might say it's prone to fanaticism). Thankfully, being called names on an obscure blog doesn't affect my self-esteem.

July 4, 2007

Thanks to writing prof...

I'll be interested in stories like this for the next couple years. Those of you who had the same writing prof will understand.

"I believe in America"

This is the first line of The Godfather, spoken by an Italian immigrant.

As long as I can remember, the 4th of July has been accompanied by family, food, and festivities. I suspect, though, that this is not uncommon thing in America; still, I think my connection with Independence Day goes a little bit deeper.

My mom's dad was born on the 4th of July in 1923, so my mom always associates the 4th with her dad. All her life she would sing "America, the Beautiful" right after "Happy Birthday." Grandpa spent most of his life working for or with the government and the military developing over a dozen patents and creating a bomb that was used in Vietnam to clear landing zones for helicopters (which, until recently, was the biggest non-nuclear device ever used in combat). This association with birthdays and America, which is entirely appropriate since it was also the birth of the Nation, seemed to inspire a love for America that mirrored the love for her dad. It was this love for America that she instilled in me throughout my life, that's what this blog is about.

I find it bewildering and infinitely frustrating that so many people have so little knowledge of and appreciation for the Constitution. There are dozens of quotes and platitudes that people use to describe the various freedoms entailed in the Constitution and the number of politicians that claim to fight for it while claiming the other guys are destroying it comes frighteningly close to about 535.

Every time I read it I am amazed at how forward thinking and truly revolutionary it was at the time. Spreading out the power of the government to three different bodies, reserving power to the states and only allowing specific powers to the federal government, veto power, veto override power, the bicameral legislature, and, most importantly, the power of the Congress to amend it.

The addition of the Bill of Rights in 1789 added more protection for the citizens from the government. While I'm sure that life under King George was quite unpleasant, his somewhat tyrannical rule was the motivation for the the colonies' succession from England. The Bill of Rights was so important that several states were unwilling to ratify the Constitution without them. The modern-day impact of the Bill of Rights is commonly taken for granted. This addition to the Constitution protects all citizens, even those who speak out against it. Ask citizens of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq 5 years ago, and at least a half-dozen other countries how important it is to be able to criticize the government. This protection also extends to freedom of religion, and while I myself am not religious, I can still fight to protect everyone else's right to worship how they choose because I respect the right that the Bill of Rights provides.

Another oft overlooked section of the Bill of Rights (we all immediately think of freedom of speech, press, and religion) is "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This is more commonly known as the right to privacy. In a more tyrannical society, a la Orwell's 1984, the government could walk in your front door and look through all your personal belongings for no earthly reason. This sounds absurd to us now but it is a reality to citizens of the countries I mentioned previously.

Obviously there are scenarios where the Bill of Rights may be ignored (for lack of a better word) but these scenarios commonly involve protection of the public health and safety. Clearly this is a controversial issue after September 11th, but I won't get into that except to say that I don't feel that my own personal liberties have been diminished at all.

We really are lucky to have had men like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, etc, committed to such a lofty endeavor. They literally created a country. Think for a moment on how monumental this is. We live in the most free country in the world because these men dared to challenge a dictatorial government and literally fought to protect the freedoms that we enjoy and mostly forget about 364 days of the year. So take a few moments today to really appreciate the fact that you and I can freely exchange ideas through blogs, emails, letters, phone calls and conversations without fear of government retribution, that you and I can go to any church we want, or not go at all, that you and I can feel safe in our homes without fear of intrusion. These unalterable freedoms and the additional protections and powers granted to the citizens in the Constitution are a comforting reminder that this country will not and cannot be destroyed from within. I think Grandpa would agree with me.

I know there are some people that are annoyed, frustrated, even angry at the current state of affairs in America. But today, on the 231st anniversary of our independence, let's forget about what you don't like about America and celebrate what we all love about it. Tomorrow we can go back to exercising our rights to criticize the government at all levels. Thanks for reading and have a happy and safe 4th!

July 3, 2007

Worth talking about...

Q & A with Steven Landsburg, author of More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics.

Q: You argue that jurors should be charged a penalty if they convict a defendant who is later exonerated. By that logic, do you think defense attorneys should refund some of the fees they collect from a defendant who is convicted?

A: Defendants and their attorneys are perfectly capable of negotiating any fee arrangements they want to, including refunds in the case of a conviction. It’s interesting to ask why we don’t often see that kind of contract, but if it’s not arising naturally I don’t see any reason to mandate it.

Jurors, by contrast, are in a very different position. Their compensation isn’t negotiated, and all of society depends on their doing a good job. Yet, as I point out in the book, jury service is almost the only activity I can think of where rewards are 100% divorced from performance. That’s got to be a recipe for disaster.

In the book, I talk about various ways we might spot jurors who are doing a bad job and punish them for it. Along the way, we’ll make the mistake of punishing a lot of jurors who don’t deserve it. That’s unfair, but it’s also okay. Nothing is more unfair than to send an innocent person to jail, or to acquit a guilty murderer who goes out and kills again. If we can make a dent in that kind of unfairness by being occasionally unfair to jurors, that’s a trade-off I can live with.

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings

Just got back from Transformers. LOVED IT. It was funny and exhilarating. The special effects were astounding and the fact that Optimus Prime's voice is the same from the cartoons was just icing on the cake. This was an absolute dream come true, every kid's dream. And add to all this is the SMOKIN' hot Megan Fox and you have a movie that adolescent boys will watch for TWO reasons.

Before the movie was a freakin weird trailer that I had to do a little research on. It looks like it might be a Godzilla-esque movie but I guess it's all done from the perspective of hand-held cameras shot by the people experiencing the giant monster attack. Cool.

See Transformers, it's a great way to kill 3 hrs and it's a fun date movie ("My sensors show that the boy's pheromone levels indicate he wants to mate with the female." Romantic isn't it?)

PS Saw it on a digital screen. I am not a TOTAL movie snob, but combine the digital screen with THX and you have a near-perfect movie experience. From now on I doubt I'll see anything else on a "regular" screen.

July 1, 2007

Summer movie reviews

Live Free or Die Hard: Awesome. Lots of jumps and fights and explosions. Plus, John McClane takes on a fighter jet. See this movie.

Shrek 3: Take your nieces and nephews then never speak of it again.

Sicko: Haven't seen it but I imagine it goes something like this... Health care in the U.S. is a problem, the poor folks get screwed, the rich folks and insurance companies just get richer, America is doomed....and it's all the conservatives' fault.

Transformers: Seeing it tomorrow, I don't envision any scenario where I do not enjoy this movie.
[update: just saw it, and I was right.]

Spiderman 3: Worth seeing once, but doesn't satisfy the superhero cravings.

Do not mock me

[I was ready to post this when the DVD was over, but my recent computer problems prevented me]

I popped in disc 5 of the West Wing season 7 last night around 130 AM, I had just gotten home from a buddy's cabin and thought I'd fall asleep to it. Not the case. After FINALLY seeing some hot Donna action, and waiting to see what happened with the campaign after Leo died (even though I already knew the outcome of the election), I had watched all 4 episodes and it was almost 5 AM. I'd also like to mention that I got goosebumps when they re-introduced Mr. Sam Seaborn. I was ready to text Carla after I saw Sam again, but realized that it was 5 AM where she was.

My nerdiness knows no bounds.

 
--------------- ---------------