Where Could Chuck Norris Be?

If you happen to be bored at work today, go to Google and type in "find Chuck Norris." Then click I'm Feeling Lucky instead of Google Search. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

One of the biggest hurdles for most websites, magazines, newspapers, and other media is to really know their user. For ESPN, for example, it's likely largely middle-class males. For Martha Stewart, it's upper-middle-class, middle-aged, white women. For Tiger Beat, it's mostly tween girls and closeted Republican Congressmen.

But what does that really mean? How much can you really know about a person -- about each individual user -- if you know approximately how much money they make each year, or how old they are, or what their race is, or that they're secretly gay? Not much, really.

But when I was inadvertently alerted to this website by Marti, a longtime friend of the blog, it struck me that fastfood.com knows exactly who its users is.

First, its users are lazy. Not only are they too lazy to drive all the way from Wendy's to Carl's Jr., but they're also too lazy to use apostrophes. "McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and many more," says the website. "Why spend all that time running all over town filling out applications which may never reach the person who actually does the hiring?" Good point, fastfood.com! Sonic is almost always on the opposite side of town from Long John Silver's. Plus, most of your readership is auditioning for an Iron Maiden Tribute band in, like, a half hour!

Second, they're drifters not likely to respond well to authority (especially when that authority is in the form of a smug 16-year-old named Thad, who constantly holds it over their heads that he gets to wear the denim shirt and restaurant-themed tie, when they're stuck wearing the too-big polo shirt and visor). On most job applications, when asked about experience, one would answer in increments of years. The choices would likely be something to the effect of: less than a year, one to three years, three to five years, five to 10 years, more than 10 years. But not at fastfood.com -- they know you better than that. They list their choices in three- and six-month increments, because for their users it's almost certain that before they reach the six-month mark at a new job they'll either a) get caught stealing and get fired, b) get fired for skipping work one day to go to a Metallica concert and then again the next day because they were too hungover to come to work, or c) quit because (and this is always the reason) "they don't need this fuckin' place." Plus, if you last for a year, you're upper management and probably wouldn't use their site.

Fastfood.com doesn't need demographics and psychographics and focus groups and case studies. It knows who its users are: It's that guy you went to high school with -- and you know exactly who I'm talking about.

So I thought this post on Craigslist was vaguely humorous. It's your typical vague, say-nothing apartment post that has no pictures of the actual apartment -- but it has a random picture of a seal (it turns out it's actually a sea lion). Yeah, it's not really very funny but at the time I thought it was and I thought the guy who posted may be a little crazy (most brokers are) -- until I saw this, and his craziness was dwarfed like Billy Crystal in "My Giant."

"I am an elderly lady, in my 70's. I am looking for someone lovely to live in the second bedroom(lovely people only). I am not thrilled about living with someone but I could use the extra cash. I have only one rule. You must wear a belt I designed that has bells all over it. I do this so I know when you are in the appartment and where in the appartment you are.

If you have friends over, they must wear the device as well. I only have 2, so no more than 1 friend over."

I can't decide if this is a real post or just a misplaced pitch for an episode of "Law and Order: Criminal Intent."

Gategate Sweeps the Nation

When, oh when, will people stop slapping "gate" at the end of every mini-scandal that happens. Gate is not a suffix that means "scandal" or "controversy." Watergate was not a scandal involving water -- it was the name of the hotel.

This year alone, there has been spygate, NAFTAGate, and now, apparently, Monstergate. Then there's Skategate, Marthagate, Kobegate, Nipplegate, Camillagate, Fajitagate (huh?), Rathergate, and Monicagate.

So please, media, I beg of you. Just stop it. It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not cute. It's a cheap way to coin a phrase, and it jumped the shark 35 years ago.

Update: Spitzergate!

Should Obama Go Negative?

Should Barack Obama resort to a mud-slinging campaign? The short answer is, simply, no. The longer answer is this: After the Nafta debacle (which, by the way, is possibly the least scandalous scandal ever) and the Anthony Rezko trial, Obama can't afford to lose any more face with voters. If he goes negative, it could destroy his image as the face of hope and change in Washington. He will come across as just another politician conducting shady business and slinging mud at opponents. Because his appeal to most voters is his ability to transcend politics as usual and unite the country, engaging in the campaign tactics employed by Clinton and Bush negates his single greatest weapon.

He needs to stick to his guns -- politely but firmly deflecting Clinton's attacks but not fighting fire with fire (lots of metaphors in this sentence!). If he does fight back, it should be only to criticize her for resorting to these kinds of attacks -- and even then in a manner that doesn't sound hostile or defensive. He needs to focus on his message of hope and maybe the millions of Americans who are begging for change will see that they're not going to get it from Clinton. Maybe I'm being a little idealistic, but, then again, so is Obama. And that's why I like him so much.

Rochelle, Rochelle: The TV Show?

According to the New York Post (which apparently thinks it's fine to use itself as the only source in an article), Jerry Seinfeld is in talks with NBC to create a show that is, more or less, just like his first one. Instead of being compared to "Seinfeld," however, it's being likened to "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which is, more or less, just like "Seinfeld," but with swearing and (gah!) Wanda Sykes.

The concept is two for two so far, so let's hope they can get the hat trick!

Get Set for "Seinfeld 2"

Finally, an Example of Intelligent Political Discourse

From commenter Blondie_4414 on nymag.com comes the most coherent, well-thought-out, rational argument against Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. Take note, Clinton and/or McCain!

"Obama the new ice cream of the month for some really stupid people.
What do these people need a roadmap to hell that this Obama will cause?
Read My Post Obama is a hack ( yes a hack) omg yes he is a phoney know nothing thats in the pocket of anyone that will let him.
Who pays his bills? Michelle Obama that wanta be bigger phoney?
She is no one you want deciding our fate and she is in the pocket of Oprah.
Follow the dots where he is concerned and they will lead to nowhere you want to go.
This is funny this no nothing no body has money of a few behind him like omg OPHAH Ring a bell? Oprah is just a lucky mental case thats trying to make herself out to be something she isn't. She isn't a nice person in person. She is a control freak."

Also, besides being stupid (a word she oh-so-ironically uses to describe Obama's supporters), Blondie_4414 is a total bitch, too!

Obama's Troubles Mount

Fenced In

This is probably the most well-put, succinct argument against a border fence I've read. Maybe that's because I agree with pretty much every word of it.

Border Insecurity

Are You Experienced?

The day is upon us -- Hillary Clinton's last-ditch effort to save her presidential campaign in Ohio and Texas (and Vermont and Rhode Island, but no one seems to care about them even though an Obama victory by a large margin in Vermont, where he has a significant lead in polls, would create a bigger gap in delegates than the virtual dead-heats in Ohio and Texas).

For the past few weeks -- and, actually, the majority of the campaign -- Clinton's main criticism of Obama has been his lack of experience. She was first lady for eight years and has been a U.S. senator for seven years, and Obama has been a state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for only three years. Advantage Clinton. Clinton is all action and Obama is all talk. Clinton is realistic and practical and Obama is hopelessly hopeful and naive. And the beat goes on.

But what does this mean? Does experience in national politics automatically qualify a candidate as a better leader? Or is experience completely irrelevant, having no direct bearing on the quality and effectiveness of one's tenure in the Oval Office? Below is a resume of sorts for a selection of presidents from the past 75 years and an extremely subjective verdict for each -- let's see how much experience actually matters.

Franklin Roosevelt

Experience: Two years in the New York state senate, seven years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, four years as governor of New York.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Carried the United States out of the Great Depression, led the country through World War II, only president to be elected to four terms (or three, for that matter), widely regarded as one of the best presidents in the nation's history by academic historians.

Verdict: Little experience, great president. (Yep, my verdicts are that simple.)

Harry Truman
Experience: 10 years as a U.S. senator, 82 days as vice president.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Was president when Allied forces achieved victory in Europe; kinda, ya know, dropped those atomic bombs on Japan; integral in the formation of NATO and the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe after World War II; hastily and without Congressional approval entered the Korean War; had a 22 percent approval rating when he left office, lower than Nixon's when he resigned. Also, a pretty big racist.

Verdict: Moderate experience, probably a sub-par presidency.

Dwight Eisenhower
Experience: Umm...none? He was pretty old, I guess, and he was a five-star general in World War II. But, yeah, that's pretty much it.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The Interstate Highway System (!); Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960; deployed the first American soldiers to Vietnam (oops!); carried on what FDR started in making the United States a global (nuclear) superpower; instituted an anti-immigration policy called, umm, Operation Wetback.

Verdict: Less experience than me (I was student council and senior class vice president!), pretty solid presidency.

John F. Kennedy
Experience: Six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, eight years in the U.S. Senate.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: His assassination and sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, mainly, but he did other stuff. The Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the run-up to the Vietnam War (keep reading -- it actually gets better), the formation of the Peace Corps, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the space program, and a lot of victories for civil rights.

Verdict: A decent amount of experience, a very good presidency (maybe not as good as people remember, though).

Richard Nixon
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years in the U.S. Senate, and eight years as Eisenhower's vice president (during which time he was acting president three times when Eisenhower was sick).

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Not an easy one to boil down. Other than continuing in Vietnam, he was actually quite brilliant with foreign policy (Kissinger helped), particularly regarding China and the Soviet Union. But his domestic policy was an absolute joke and he was a tad on the corrupt side. His paranoia and general distrust and contempt for the people he was supposed to be leading eventually got the best of him and resigned from office having tarnished and disgraced himself and the office of the president.

Verdict: You don't get much more experience than he had, and you don't get a president who is more widely thought of as a horrible president than he was (George W. Bush being the exception, mainly because people forget about Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan).

George H.W. Bush
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA for a year, vice president for eight years under Ronald Reagan.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The fall of the Berlin Wall, the beginning of NAFTA negotiations, the Gulf War, military action in Panama, economic recession, breaking his "no new taxes" promise.

Verdict: About equal experience to Nixon, but with better results. Not great results, but better than Nixon and much better than his son would do in the next decade.

George W. Bush
Experience: Governor of Texas for six years.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Wow. Yeah. I think we know how this one turned out.

Verdict: Not much experience; in the upper echelon of worst presidents ever, sandwiched between Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.


So let's see: We have a great president with little experience (Roosevelt), a not-great president with moderate experience (Truman), a quite good president with absolutely no experience (Eisenhower), a very good president with a decent amount of experience (Kennedy), the most dichotomous and widely mistrusted president ever with a ton of experience (Nixon), an okay president with all the experience you could ask for (Bush I), and one of the worst presidents in the nation's history with very little experience (Bush II). And what does this all mean? That experience means nothing.

If Lauren and Frank Can't Make It Work, Is There Hope for Any of Us?

Few things give me greater pleasure than watching idiots be idiots. And that's why this woman on "The Moment of Truth," who stole money from work, cheated on her husband, and wants to get back together with her ex-boyfriend -- all of which she admitted in front of her sister, parents, and Ryan-Phillipe-meets-Andy-Samberg husband for, ultimately, no reason whatsoever -- brings a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

Copy and Paste

Plagiarism happens all the time. That doesn't make it excusable, though. (More than four million people bought the "High School Musical" soundtrack. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's acceptable.) After the Obama plagiarism story broke last week, I couldn't help but wonder if using someone else's idea as your own is ever OK. (I also apparently couldn't help but steal an oft-used line from "Sex and the City.")

In journalism and academia, plagiarism obviously is universally, undeniably, without fail unacceptable. Jayson Blair, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and many other journalists have ruined their careers and undermined both their respective publications and an already widely distrusted journalism institution when they were found to have plagiarized and fabricated stories. I do, however, think these are isolated incidents that are not representative of journalism as a whole. This does not happen often.

It does, however, happen all the time in music. Every aspect of Noel and Liam Gallagher's existence is copied from the Beatles; specifically, the melody to Oasis's "Don't Look Back in Anger" is copied directly from "Imagine" by John Lennon (as is a line in the chorus of the song). "You Were Meant for Me" by Jewel sounds a little too similar to Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done." The guitar riff from dreadful band Papa Roach's even more dreadful song "Last Resort" is a rip off of Green Day's "Brain Stew," which is a rip off of Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4." Even George Harrison has done it; he was sued (successfully) for stealing the melody for "My Sweet Lord" from the Chiffons' "He's So Fine." And, of course, Vanilla Ice's (vehemently denied) theft from "Under Pressure." A lot of "borrowing" of riffs, melodies, and lyrics can easily be cast as an homage (especially in the case of Hootie and the Blowfish's lifting of a lyric from Bob Dylan's "Idiot Wind" -- they actually attribute it to him, thus avoiding the plagiarism label), but the line between theft and tribute has become extremely blurred.

It seems to be frowned upon to pilfer designs in the fashion industry. According to an article in Radar, Forever 21 has had more than two dozen lawsuits filed against it in the past year alone for stealing designs. Apparently, though, it's fine when high fashion rips off the pattern on my grandma's couch or the collective look of Herman Munster and Joey Ramone.

What about in Hollywood, that bastion of faux-creativity, where burgling someone else's hard work is lovingly referred to as a "reimagination" or a "remake"? The 1998 remake of "Psycho," for example, was a shot-by-shot reproduction of the original -- not an ounce of original thought went in to the movie. Even Daniel Day-Lewis's mustache in "Gangs of New York" is a rip off -- it looks strikingly similar to former Oakland A's pitcher Rollie Fingers's. Well, James Marder, a lawyer in L.A., is mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore*. He has devoted his entire career to representing writers who have had their ideas stolen by movie studios.

And in politics: Obama steals from Patrick, Clinton steals from Edwards, Edwards steals from Clinton, Clinton steals from Obama, McCain steals from Obama, Clinton steals from Clinton. I think in this most recent instance of rhetorical philandering, it's not the actual theft of the line that matters (although Obama definitely should have cited the source in his speech, despite having Patrick's permission to use it). What stands out is both Clinton's obvious desperation to find something on which to attack Obama (other than the extremely weak experience argument) and her hypocrisy. In last Thursday's debate, Clinton attacked Obama for the indiscretion with the obviously spontaneous big-time burn, "It’s not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox" (which, by the way, makes no sense -- don't you typically Xerox an original copy of something, meaning Obama's original ideas will be copied by other politicians? Does she mean "It's not change you can believe in, it's change that has been Xeroxed"?). Then, a few minutes later in a transparent emotional appeal, she stole a line from a speech John Edwards gave in December (which, it should be noted, was stolen from a 1992 Bill Clinton speech).

So Obama gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and then has the good fortune to find out that the person who caught him had just drunk all their parents' vodka and filled the bottle back up with water. How lucky is this guy? This is like if, after being persecuted for having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton released a videotape of Kenneth Starr and the entire U.S. Congress having sex with RuPaul.

*Network. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1977. (See, citing sources isn't that hard!)

Patriots Offer Thomas Millions of Dollars, Lifetime Subscription to Reader's Digest

In the least surprising free-agency move thus far this NFL off-season, the New England Patriots today offered a contract to recently released Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas, ostensibly to break yet another NFL record -- oldest defensive roster in history. If Thomas accepts the offer (he's meeting with the Saints and Cowboys this week), he'll join a linebacking corps most of which could soon be appearing in commercials for Polydent and Life Alert during TNT's Primetime in the Daytime. The Patriots inside linebackers would then include 34-year-old Thomas (who will be 35 by the time the season starts), 39-year-old Junior Seau, and 34-year-old Tedy Bruschi (who will be 35 before training camp).

The Patriots have a long history of picking up players who appear to be past their prime and getting a couple more good years out of them, and that could very well happen this year. After sitting out almost all of last season because of a concussion and a car accident from which he got whiplash, Thomas has to be a favorite for Comeback Player of the Year in 2008 (unless Kevin Everett plays again).

But it is widely assumed that both Seau and Bruschi will retire (probably to Miami, ironically, at least for the winters), leaving Thomas to fill the void inside with Adalius Thomas, who teetered on the edge of underperformance in 2007.

So this begs the question(s): Did the Patriots offer Zach Thomas a contract because they think he can be productive in the long run, or will they draft a linebacker in April and have Thomas in a split roll, largely there to mentor the rookie? And if the latter is true, who will that rookie be?

Provided all the personnel assumptions about the Patriots' off-season are true (Randy Moss will re-sign, Donte Stallworth will be gone, Asante Samuel will get a huge deal elsewhere not be nearly as good as he was with the Pats, Bruschi and Seau will retire, etc.) they have to draft defense. Clearly that was the weak spot on last year's team (well, the specific weak spot was the deep middle, but we'll get to that). So do they go with a linebacker to replace Bruschi and Seau, a cornerback to replace Samuel, or a safety to cover the deep middle since James Sanders and Eugene Wilson aren't getting it done.

The safe bet is cornerback, but there aren't really any CBs that warrant the seventh overall pick. My money is on Vernon Gholston from Ohio State, who can play outside in the Pats 3-4 scheme if Rosie Colvin or Mike Vrabel move inside to fill the void left by Seau and Bruschi. It could be anyone, though, since Bill Belichick almost always drafts the best available player instead of position by position to fill his team's needs. The thing is, however, Belichick isn't used to having the seventh overall pick, where the best available player at most positions is still available.

Or maybe they'll just trade their pick to the Bengals for Chad Johnson. Who knows? Stranger things happened this year.

Report: Patriots Make Offer to Former Dolphins Linebacker Thomas

I won't comment too extensively on this New York Times editorial, except to say that the Bush Administration's utter disregard for -- and arrogance in the face of -- the Constitution is absolutely infuriating. Its nepotism and, more importantly, defiance of this country's basic laws and principles (our system of checks and balances, first and foremost) is nothing more than consequence-blind imperialism and is tantamount to wiping one's ass with the Constitution and more than 230 years of American history. But we already knew that.

Please, read the editorial while I climb down off of my high horse.

The New Indiana Jones Trailer

Umm...it looks good. Despite both Shia LeBoeuf and George Lucas being involved (come on, the three newest "Star Wars" movies were revolting and, actually, the first three weren't that great. Why he is highly regarded is beyond me), this movie should be awesome.

You can download the trailer here, but I couldn't get it to work. Or you can get it here, but it takes forever to play. Totally worth it, though!

This is from last week, but after analyzing some reader feedback last night (i.e. talking to longtime friends of the blog Joanna and Justin), I came to the conclusion that some of you loyal readers have not yet seen this. So here it is: Conan O'Brien, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart beating the hell out of each other (to the Arctic Monkeys, no less!). Is it just me or does Jon Stewart kinda look digitally superimposed standing next to Conan? He's so wee!

What I Learned from the Writers' Strike

The writers' strike is over! Woot! Seems like the writers probably won. Or maybe they didn't. Or maybe they kinda did and kinda didn't. It doesn't matter, though. It's over now, which means I can stop reading books and learning and interacting with people on even the most basic levels, and go back to watching TV. Here are some highlights (ripped from the e-pages of New York mag) of what's coming back and when for the most important shows (i.e. the ones I like).

30 Rock
Latest news: 2/13: "Mr. Silverman said that NBC hoped to have five additional episodes of the comedy, depending on the availability of the star Alec Baldwin, who is scheduled to start work on a movie."
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: 5.
Next episode airs: TBD.

The Office
Latest news: 2/13: Must move at a slower pace than traditional three-camera sitcoms; first new episode to air April 10.
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: 6–7.
Next episode airs: April 10.

Lost
Latest news: 2/12: According to Variety, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof will meet with ABC today to plan the rest of the season.
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: About 11.
Next episode airs: Currently running weekly.

Entourage
Latest news: 2/10: "Back in the fall instead of the summer." [MN]
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: Zero.
Next episode airs: Fall 2008.

Dirty Sexy Money (Shut up, it's a good show. Or, at least, it was. It gets crappier with each new episode.)
Latest news: 2/8: "One line of thinking goes that new shows would benefit from a relaunch in September rather than returning for a measly three- or four-episode run." [EW]
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: TBD.
Next episode airs: TBD.

Cavemen (I don't actually watch this show. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that, when the strike began, this show had not yet been canceled. It had a run twice as long as that of "Love Monkey," which was actually an OK show. Insanity!)
Latest news: Sadly, none. Join the crusade!
Episodes remaining in 2007–2008 season: 6.
Next episode airs: TBD.


Complete list of show info

WWJVF

In this (quite good) analysis of who is more electable in a general election, Obama comes out ahead of Clinton among evangelicals. This is in part based on his 27-point victory in a survey done by the evangelical magazine Relevant (what a fantastically ironic name for a magazine targeted at the fading-in-importance religious right!), which asked (I shit you not): “Who would Jesus vote for?”

Seems like Jesus would vote for Bloomberg. Hebrews unite!


Who Is More Electable?

Facebook Wishes It Knew How to Quit You

So, Facebook. Ya know, that social-networking website that seemingly every man, woman, and child (but no pedophiles!) is a member of? The one that's inexplicably worth $15 billion, even though it brings in only about $60 million a year, none of which is real profit? The one whose ad-sales practices are kinda creepy (OK, let's be fair -- really, really creepy)? The one whose founder (who may have stolen the idea for the site anyway), in a delightful twist of irony, sued a magazine for violating his privacy?

Well, it keeps getting better and better! It turns out that once you join, you can't really un-join. Sure, you can deactivate your profile, but all the information from it is stored indefinitely on Facebook's servers (and can still be accessed). And deactivation is a far cry from deletion. Even after Nipon Das supposedly got his profile deleted, which took two months and the threat of legal action, people were still able to find his mostly blank profile and email him through it. As Das, a director at a Manhattan biotechnology firm who is apparently much more clever and witty than one would expect the director of a biotechnology firm to be, says: "It's like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

So remember that time you got really drunk and joined the group "I've secretly watched my mom shower"? You can try to hide that, but it's never really going away (partially because it seems like maybe you have deeper issues, and partially because Facebook won't let it). And when you graduated from college and deactivated your profile so prospective employers wouldn't see the pictures of you passed out under a table at Denny's with a vagina drawn on your face? Guess what -- it's still there!

Everything you've ever done on Facebook -- every Wall post, every group you've joined, every friend you've poked -- will never go away. How long until the Patriot Act requires that all Americans must sign up for Facebook? I'll put the over/under at five years. Let the betting begin.


How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free

A White-Trash Valentine

Can't get a reservation at Cipriani? Can't afford jewelry? Fret not. For an even more romantic Valentine's Day surprise, take that special someone to White Castle and give them food poisoning.

Models Are Skinny, Says the Times

Also, you need to drink water to live. And atheists don't dig Jesus as much as Christians. Thanks, Times!

The Vanishing Point

Wrong Again!

Jerry Lee Lewis keeps proving me wrong. I once thought it wasn't cool to marry your 15-year-old cousin, then Jerry did it and proved me wrong. I was also pretty sure he was dead, and then I find out today that he's performing at the Grammys on Sunday.

Me Write Blog Post: It About Bigfoot Memoir

I know nothing about these books other than that "Me Write Book: It Bigfoot Memoir" is one of the best book titles I've ever heard.

Could a Guy Named After Baseball Equipment Ever Have Been President Anyway?

When Mitt Romney officially exited the presidential race (before Huckabee! crazy!), two things immediately popped into my mind grapes. First, how will this affect McCain? And second, well, how will this affect McCain (but for different reasons)?

Now that there is only one borderline insane candidate to soak up the social conservative vote instead of splitting it between two bat-shit crazies, can Huckabee actually beat McCain? My guess is, in some states, yes. Overall, no. Next up on the primary schedule is Louisiana and Kansas. Kansas is a bit of an anomaly: It is so conservative that it has a constitutional ban on gay marriage and in 1999 stripped its public-school curriculum of nearly all mention of evolution (the fight over evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design is still raging), yet it elected a Democratic governor in 2002 and re-elected her in 2006. WTF, Kansas? Anyway, Huckabee has a shot at pulling the upset here like he did in Iowa. If he can win both of these states and ride that momentum into Virginia (a typically conservative state that went heavily for Bush in '04) on Tuesday, he has a shot. Unlikely, but still scary. McCain, however, has a huge lead and still has more moderate states like Maryland, Wisconsin, and Ohio in the next few weeks, as well as uber-liberal Vermont.

If McCain does get the nomination (he will), will the Republican Party turn out to vote for him in November? I just talked to Alison, a longtime friend of the blog, about this: two relatively influential conservatives (and two more bat-shit crazies! wahoo!), James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Ann Coulter, satan, have already said they will not under any circumstances vote for McCain. What's their plan? Not to vote at all, which would quite possibly hand the election to the Democratic candidate? Or will they do what Dems did in '04 and turn out to vote for ABB (or ABC in their case -- which, I might add, is much catchier). McCain's independent draw could be completely negated by the conservative Republicans who choose not to vote.

Breaking: McCain Gets Republican Nomination

Well, pretty much. Romney dropped out.

The New AP?

Berkeley J-school student Sindya Bhanoo and her computer engineer husband, Hemant, have launched a website to connect freelance reporters and writers with magazine and newspaper editors. The system generally works like this: freelancers upload stories and/or story ideas to the website; editors peruse the site for stories from the specific region or subject they cover; editors buy the stories, and electronic payment goes to the writer immediately (with 10 percent going to the site).

Bhanoo hopes her site, reporterist.com, can eventually compete with news wires like the Associated Press and Reuters. "Our larger vision is that it's the next generation wire service," she said. "Most of the editors we spoke to say they're relying too much on AP or Reuters content. At Reporterist, they will be able to look at all these stories and sort them by region or topic. Our vision is to be a wire service for local, topical news."

That's all well and good, but what was wrong with the old system: write a story, pitch it to a magazine, wait two weeks for the editor to email you back, reply to their email asking about rates, wait two more weeks to hear back, finally settle on a price, get the story published, wait to get paid, wait to get paid, wait to get paid, wait to get paid...

What If There Were An eBay for News?

It's Good Motherf*ckin' Beer!

This Bud Light commercial is better than anything during the Super Bowl. Thanks, Justin.

Today, as Told by a Bunch of Links

Graydon Carter has decided to cancel his annual celebration of his own inexplicable popularity and tremendous ego the actors, directors, and producers who were honored at the Academy Awards.
Vanity Fair Cancels Its Oscar Party

Workers at a Minnesota meat-packing plant are getting sick after swallowing and inhaling gaseous pig brains. People seemed surprised by this. I don't know why.
A Medical Mystery Unfolds in Minnesota

Could the Buffalo Bills be moving to Toronto? Scott Norwood says no, but then again, he's always way off. Hi-oh!
Amid Talk of Toronto, Owner Won't Predict Bills' Future in Buffalo

The human catchphrase that is Dick Vitale will be broadcasting the Duke-North Carolina game tonight -- the first game he's called since December 4 -- after having surgery for lesions on his vocal chords.
"It's Awesome, Baby!" Vitale Has His Voice Back

They figured out why Heath Ledger died. It was lots and lots of prescription drugs. I've made a lot of really horrible jokes about this in the past two weeks, so I'm not gonna do it here.
Heath Ledger's Death: Prescription Drug Overdose

Tonight's episode of "Inside the NFL" will be its last. I'm actually kind of sad about this for three reasons: 1) I really liked this show; it does by far the best game recaps of any NFL program, 2) I love Bob Costas, and 3) Cris Collinsworth has so many other jobs that this won't even affect him that much; he'll still get paid a ton of money to know nothing about football, and that makes me sad.
After 31 Years, "Inside the NFL" Ceases Production on HBO

Former Houston Oilers and Minnesota Vikings quarterback Warren Moon, who looks like the dad from "Sister, Sister," pleaded not guilty to a DUI after he was arrested in Seattle in late December.
Pro Football Hall of Famer Moon Pleads Not Guilty to DUI

This is actually from last week, but it's still pretty cool. A bunch of people suddenly freeze while walking through Grand Central, pretend to be mannequins for a couple minutes and move on. If you look closely, you can see Kim Cattrall in the background.
When Grand Central Stood Still

Is Matthew Fox a Rapist?

Probably not. But this rapist from Australia sure looks like him! (Also, this story is really messed up.)

Random Observations from Super Tuesday

I have a lot to say about Super Tuesday. But instead of recapping all the races and results, I’m just going to share a few observations I had.

1. Huckabee staying in the race after a poor showing in Florida (and everywhere else except Iowa) was the best thing that could have happened for McCain. Huckabee took very few votes from McCain, but split a lot of the conservative/religious vote with Romney, allowing McCain to grab states and delegates he would have lost had he been running against only Romney. This was especially important in conservative, winner-take-all states like Missouri.

2. Hillary Clinton won New York (as expected) and California, and Barack Obama won Illinois (as expected). But what about those all-important swing states? No matter who the Democratic candidate is, they’ll carry California, New York, and Illinois in November. Perhaps what we should be focusing on, however, is which candidate is taking states like Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, and Ohio. And the picture is perfectly unclear, just like everything else so far on the Dems' side.

   There were 20 states that were considered swing states by various media outlets in the 2004 election (although it was a lot fewer than that that were truly up for grabs). So far, Clinton has won six of those states (Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, and New Hampshire, although Florida and Michigan don’t get any delegates at the DNC) and Obama has won five (Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Delaware). Maine, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Louisiana are still to come, and the results for New Mexico haven’t yet been announced. Both Obama and Clinton performed well in Democratic base states, and each won swing states, deciding once and for all that nothing has been decided yet.
   

   Not so much for McCain, though. He won a lot of delegates in states that he has no chance of winning in November (namely, California, New York, and Illinois). In Republican base states, such as Alabama and Georgia, however, he lost to Huckabee. This is summed up really well in this New York Times blog, which also touches on turnout, so I’ll just let them do my work for me.

3. McCain has more or less sewn up the Republican nomination. Clinton and Obama, however, will be campaigning for weeks to come. This could give McCain a slight advantage since he'll have extra time to rest and fund-raise instead of constantly campaigning, and he'll be able to try to get his party's conservative base not to hate him before campaigning against the Democratic nominee. Or. It could kill his momentum, allowing Clinton or Obama to ride the wave after their nomination all the way to November.

   I can see it happening like the New York Giants postseason run. Instead of resting their starters after they locked up their playoff spot with two games to go in the regular season like a lot of teams do (I'm looking at you, Colts!), they played everyone against the Patriots in Week 17. They took the game down to the wire (foreshadowing! Yay!) and rode that momentum to the Super Bowl, taking down the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the wild-card round (after the Bucs sat most of their starters in the last two weeks of the regular season) and the Dallas Cowboys in the divisional round (after the Cowboys' starters barely played in Week 17). And after a fantastic NFC Championship game against the Packers in -195 degree weather, they got another shot at the Pats and, despite being statistically one of the worst teams ever to play in a Super Bowl, took home the Lombardi (big news, I know, but I had to take the analogy all the way to the end).

   So who will be who in this race? Will McCain be the Bucs, getting trounced by the Dems' candidate after taking a little post-victory vacation from campaigning? Will Obama or Clinton be the Giants and ride their momentum all the way to the White House? Will McCain be the G-Men? Will I ever stop asking questions that I can't answer?

Related
Two Parties, Two Distinct Paths to the Nomination
Support Divided, Democrats Trade Victories
McCain Surges; Huckabee Strong in the South
Burned by Bad Polls, Networks Try Restraint
Divided They Run

Die Hard 5: Seriously, Man -- Just Die

If John McCain's name were John McClane, I'd be more inclined to  vote for him.

An Apology

I feel like I owe you an apology. Yes, you. As the results of the Superterrific primaries rolled in last night, I was sweating bullets. I thought I had inadvertently done something horrible, and possibly changed the course of history forever. Some call it the Butterfly Effect -- in this case, I'll refer to it as the Cornhole Effect.

First, a little explanation. As some of you know, I'm in a skeeball league. In celebration of the Super Bowl, the organizers of said league got people together for a cornhole tournament (many of you probably know this game simply as "bags"). The cornhole skills I apparently acquired while at Iowa State, combined with the much more amazing 'hole skills of my teammate, Alison, a fellow Cyclone, carried us to victory. We took down a seemingly unbeatable duo in the championship match, 22-13. (I think they seemed unbeatable because one of their team members had a kick-ass mustache, which I think he should put some wax in and curl it up like a railroad tycoon.)

About now (or a while ago), you're probably asking yourself what a victory in a tailgating game has to do with Super Tuesday. And now I will tell you: Our team name was Mike Shuckabee. After we won the tournament on Sunday, I jokingly said that we probably had just boosted Huckabee's poll numbers by at least five or six points, and he'd be leading the Republican race come Wednesday morning. As I watched the numbers come in last night, I feared I may have predicted the future.

At a little before 11 p.m., John McCain had a solid lead. But, surprisingly, Huckabee was in second, leading Mitt Romney. (In case you don't know my feelings about Huckabee and Romney, I think they both have excellent potential to be a worse president than Bush, making them the worst president in the nation's history.) Huckabee had won West Virginia (albeit shadily), Tennessee, Georgia, and Arkansas, and was leading in Alabama and Missouri. I immediately got on the horn to Alison (and by "got on the horn," I mean that I texted her). "I fear we may have boosted [Huckabee's] numbers with our stunning cornhole victory," quoth I, only nine-tenths joking. "We did set the stage for his comeback," quoth she in return. "Nevermore," quoth the raven.

I was never actually nervous that Huckabee would come away from last night with a lead in the Party Nomination Race That Scares the Living Hell Out of Me, but I thought I may have inadvertently kept him in the race longer and moved him one step closer to the White House -- which is about eight steps too many.

And for that, I'm sorry.

Related
Primary Election Results

Let Her Cry

When Hillary Clinton nearly cried (did cry? sort of cried? welled up? broke down and sobbed?) just before the New Hampshire primary, pretty much every news outlet picked it up and ran with it -- then immediately blew it way out of proportion. I thought it was a silly nonstory that was being reported on just because there wasn't a ton else to report about that day (much like this year's Super Bowl coverage). But then I read that somehow, this tiny show of emotion actually swayed some people's votes. After reading all about it, I wrote this:

"I don't really understand all this hoopla surrounding Hillary almost crying the other day. Apparently, it swayed in her favor a lot of undecided voters. I don't understand it. Does her crying change that she voted for the war in Iraq? No. Does the fact that she cried take away from her plans for the health-care and education systems? No. Does it make her a better candidate or a better person? No. Does it make her a worse candidate or worse person? No. Does it mean she would be weak on terrorism as president? No. It doesn't mean anything! I do not -- and never will -- understand why people get hung up on stupid, miniscule things like this and let candidates' speeches, voting records, beliefs, stances on issues, ideas and/or debate performances fall by the wayside. People vote for Bush because he seemed like a good ol' boy -- a guy they wanted to drink a beer with. And people are voting for and against Hillary because she cried. It doesn't make sense!"

Now Hillary has cried in public again. It's getting a lot less coverage this time, thankfully. I stand by what I said after the first time she cried: This should have no effect whatsoever on people's decision to vote for or against her. But the timing of each tear-shed now makes me think a little harder: the night before the all-important New Hampshire primary and the morning before Super Tuesday. Were those pessimists and cynics who said that every tear was a calculated political move actually right? Who knows and, actually, who cares?

Bloomberg '08?

The journalistic powerhouse that is Page 6 is reporting that John McCain may be considering Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. McCain, who could all but wrap up the Republican nomination today with friendly winner-take-all states like New York, Connecticut, and his home state of Arizona casting votes (he leads the polls in almost every state voting today), didn't comment for the story.

Bloomberg's reps are denying that the mayor is interested and, although they have kept his presidential (and, apparently, vice presidential) aspirations under tighter wraps than the identity of J.R.'s shooter, I tend to believe them on this one. I have a couple reasons for thinking this:

1. Bloomberg's ego is too big to accept the vice presidency. To be extremely cliche, he goes big or goes home. He thinks second place is the first loser. To him, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush (wait, I don't think that one applies. I'm not sure, though, since I have no idea what the hell it means.) “There’s a reason his name is on the company, on the terminals, and on the foundation,” a Bloomberg insider was quoted as saying in this New York Magazine article. “Don’t underestimate the ego involved.”
2. McCain/Bloomberg = political suicide for McCain. Bloomberg is liberal. Actually, as far as would-be national politicians go, he's extremely liberal. He's pro-choice; he supports gay marriage, stem-cell research, gun control, environmental issues, and offering citizenship to illegal immigrants; and is opposed to the death penalty. McCain is already distrusted by many Republicans, viewed by his party's base as too liberal and too frequently splitting with Republican ideals (a maverick, I think they call him. Or maybe Iceman). Joining forces with Bloomberg would be like Clinton choosing Pat Buchanan as a running mate to appease the Democratic Party's liberal base.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Bloomberg was willing to be vice president. For the reason stated in bullet No. 2, he couldn't pair with McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee (or any other Republican, for that matter). But let's say he was on a ticket with Obama or Clinton -- it could work out famously.

With Clinton, you get her experience and moderate social politics mixed with Bloomberg's liberal social ideals and business and economic experience, a perfect storm to grab the whole Democratic base and a lot of independents. It may not work, however, since they're both from New York and that's too many eggs in one basket.

Since Obama and Clinton are, by and large, the same politically, you have a very similar situation if Obama were to get the nomination and choose Bloomberg as a running mate. Obama, however, already has vast appeal among independents. Combine his independent supporters with those fiscally-conservative-yet-socially-moderate voters who feel betrayed by the Republican Party and would be very drawn to Bloomberg's economic experience, and you have a recipe for victory. The only drawback here is that they both lack the experience of McCain and Clinton (more to come on the importance of experience later).

And what if Bloomberg's ego gets the best of him and he does decide to run for president? He could actually win, but he would need the perfect circumstances (i.e. the right opponents) and a lot of luck to pull it off. Ideally, he would run against Clinton and Romney (or, better yet, Huckabee). Clinton and Romney would get somewhere in the neighborhood of four independent voters each; they would each get their parties' base -- approximately 35 percent each -- allowing Bloomberg to steal the election with the independent vote and just two or three percent from each party (this is assuming the a-lot-of-luck thing pans out really well). If, however, it's McCain and/or Obama, that puts Bloomberg in a much tougher spot -- actually competing for independent votes.

But the issue most likely isn't if he could win, but which other candidate he would deliver the election for if he did. The U.S. is a two-party country; we all know that. In 1992, Ross Perot came the closest any independent candidate has come to the presidency by nabbing 19 percent of the vote -- and essentially handed the presidency to Bill Clinton by doing so. In 2000, Ralph Nader placed a big bow on the White House and gave it to George W. Bush by pulling a measly 2.7 percent.

But does it even matter? Will Bloomberg even run? My guess is no. He may have a huge ego, but he's not stupid -- it's an uphill battle for any independent candidate (even one with eleventy-twelve bazillion dollars). Taking down Clinton, Obama, or McCain is a hell of a feat, let alone taking down all three -- especially without the backing of a national party. The sad thing is, he just might be the best candidate out there.

Related
Bloomberg's Enabler
Could an Independent Candidate Win the Presidency of the U.S.?

Stilettos Improve Sex Life (This Is News?)

According to a recent study done by an Italian urologist, wearing high heels can improve your sex life. (And at some point, apparently, wearing heels was linked to schizophrenia. Maybe something that should have been brought to the public's attention. Just sayin'.)

"Her study of 66 women under 50 found that those who held their foot at a 15-degree angle to the ground -- the equivalent of a 2-inch heel -- had as good posture as those who wore flat shoes, and crucially showed less electrical activity in their pelvic muscles," reported the BBC. "This suggested the muscles were at an optimum position, which could well improve their strength and ability to contract."

So wearing high heels makes sex better. OK. Now let's prove that size doesn't matter -- that's useful science.

The New York Giants, despite just winning the Super Bowl, are apparently for sale for only $2,295.

In Defense of Iowa (Huh? Really?)

I'm from Iowa. I wouldn't say I typed that sentence proudly, but I also didn't type it in shame. My relationship with the Hawkeye (or, rather, Cyclone) State is much like that of siblings. When I was growing up and I had to see it and put up with its shit every day, I hated it -- I wished I had a whole new state, and I wished it was never accepted into the Union. But then I left, fled to New York -- and I gained a little perspective, which came with a newfound soft spot for Iowa (although it pales in comparison to my love/lust for my adopted home). All I needed to appreciate it was a little distance. Sure, I still mock it (I have a shirt that says "Come to Iowa and lose your will to live" that I wear proudly) -- after all, it has a lot of flaws. But it's OK when I do it, because it's my state. When someone else does it, though, I feel a slight tinge of anger. And that's why this article in the New York Daily News (All the News That's Fit to Print, but Then Be Retracted Later Because of Irresponsible Reporting and Factual Errors) kinda pissed me off. 

Iowa senator Chuck Grassley recently said that Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid may have come crashing down around him in a giant ball of flaming shit because of his "New York personality" and not, ya know, because he's a power-hungry, vindictive, opportunistic lunatic. "The New York lifestyle hasn't gone over [in] some places," he said. "It seemed like the more people that got acquainted with him, the less they liked him."

These comments seem off-base, if not altogether untrue. But two out of the three statements are at least partially accurate.

1. It's Rudy's "New York" personality that got him in trouble. Wrong. There is no "New York personality." Or, more accurately, there are 9 million New York personalities. What got Rudy in trouble is his own personality: that of a smug, vile ass.
2. "The New York lifestyle hasn't gone over [in] some places." This is kind of true. It's not the "New York lifestyle" that hasn't gone over so well, but the perception of that lifestyle by people who haven't experienced it. The perception among a lot of people who don't live here or in many cases have never been here, is that everyone in New York is the stereotypical city slicker: the smooth-talking, pretentious, self-absorbed power player who looks down his nose at everyone. At our worst, they think, we're Gordon Gekko. At our best, we're Mr. Big. So, in a way, Grassley is right: the New York lifestyle doesn't go over very well in a lot of places (including Iowa). The problem is, however, that many of the people in these places have no idea (or an idea very skewed and tainted by pop culture) what the New York lifestyle actually is. Trust me -- I spent 22 years in Iowa surrounded by this line of reasoning.
3. "It seemed like the more people that got acquainted with him, the less they liked him." There is no way this statement cannot be true and, therefore, I will not hold this against Grassley. If anyone likes Giuliani more after finding out more about him, there is something seriously wrong with that person.

I won't get into the quite extensive and scathing remarks in the Comments sections from the Daily News's obviously intelligent, well-read, well-traveled readership, but I will address two points made on the second page. The first is from Curtis Sliwa, a native New Yorker and community activist of sorts. "What does he know?" he says. "There are more pigs than people [in Iowa]." There are more rats than people in New York, Curtis. That doesn't diminish your knowledge, just as the amount of bacon in Iowa doesn't decrease Iowan's knowledge. It just makes them fatter.

The second point: "Quintessential New Yorker Jimmy Breslin...dismissed Grassley as 'another one of those low-IQ loudmouths.' 'Grassley is a moron,' he growled. 'I don't believe it. There's an awful lot of people here. Millions and millions. Classify them? You can't. You just live with them and shut up. Calling names? It's childish.'" Let me repeat that last part: "Calling names? It's childish." But...you...umm...Jimmy...you...you just called him "a low-IQ loudmouth" and a "moron."

I'll give Breslin the benefit of the doubt since he won a Pulitzer and David Berkowitz addressed the Son of Sam letters to him (that's just cool). But the point is, there are idiots everywhere. It's not exclusive to Iowa, or New York, or Washington D.C. or anywhere else. They. Are. Everywhere.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of its first space mission, NASA is blasting the Beatles into space. Using those huge satellites from "Contact," those NASA folk will be transmitting the Beatles' "Across the Universe," a song recorded only a year before NASA was last relevant, in the general direction of the North Star. This is either the coolest thing NASA has done since it faked the moon landing, or the single greatest marketing campaign for a DVD release I've ever seen ("Across the Universe" comes out on Tuesday -- oh, and I heard it sucks, but whatevs). 

And Boomer Goes the Dynamite

Watch Chris Berman angrily wonder why everyone is rumblin', bumblin', stumblin' around the studio while he's trying to concentrate. It kinda makes me love him more than I already did.  Anyway, back, back, back, back, back to the blogging.

Carlton Chooses Gloria Estefan in '92

How you know when Super Bowl coverage has gotten out of hand: A story about Gisele's dad's grasp on football is linked on espn.com's NFL page. Really? If Alfonso Ribeiro's five favorite halftime shows are posted tomorrow, that's it -- I'm done with ESPN. No! I didn't mean it! Oh, ESPN...I can't stay mad at you. By the way, Patriots 31, Giants 16.

You won't be "lost" anymore. Count it!

"Lost" is back tonight. Yay! In case you've never seen the show and want to start watching now (or you gave up during the first half of last season when the biggest secret they uncovered was what Jack's tattoos mean), here's a pretty solid, very condensed recap (click on the second video below the player). The clip sounds like it's being narrated by Daria, by the way.

You chose your blog...wisely

I'm so far behind. It's 2008 now, I work in media, and I'm just now starting a blog. Maybe I'm lazy, maybe I'm old-fashioned, maybe I'm stubborn. Maybe I'm all three. And maybe -- just maybe -- some of my friends will get off my back for not being on Facebook or MySpace now that I have a blog. I promise to send out email alerts every time I take a piss to appease you loyal Facebookers, and I promise to make this blog the ugliest, most jumbled-up mess of a page possible to satisfy those of you on MySpace. I may even sell this blog for $10 billion. Well, probably not -- I'd hold out for way more than that.

"So what will you blog about?" you may be asking yourself, only because you feel like you should. And the short answer is, "umm...ya know...stuff." And the even shorter answer (but with a longer explanation) is, "a lot."

I'll try not to bore my readers (all one of you -- thanks, Joey!) with details of my life as much as possible. My life isn't that interesting to me, so why would it be interesting to other people? What I will do is share with you my opinions, insight, and comments on current events. I'll write about hard news, sports, pop culture -- all the stuff no one else writes about. I may review albums or movies. I may rank some stuff ("High Fidelity" is one of my favorite books -- why not?). I may link to articles from other sites that I really enjoyed. I may post a video here and there. But I most definitely will make you hate me more than you already do.