At long last, after an endless string of minor scandals that cast doubt upon his ethics and managerial skills, Scott Maddox has done what I long ago said he should do, and withdrawn from the governor's race.
Good for Scott. Of course, his career in elective politics is at this point pretty much over. Good for Florida.
07 October 2005
Maria's End To End
If you need to get your car detailed and you live in South Tampa, you should go to Maria's End-to-End, at 1101 South Howard: 254.9699. She shampooed and dried the interior, cleaned the floor mats, vacuumed, and sprayed a citrus enzyme to combat the mildew smell from leaving my windows down last weekend, all for only $35. Plus, she washed the car, too, which she didn't charge me for because it was going to rain again that afternoon anyway.
04 October 2005
I'd say I'm lazy, but I don't want to offend lazy people
You'll note that on those days when I'm feeling particularly lazy, I mostly post links to other stuff instead of creating "content" of my own. This is one of those days. Shut up!
Here is a link to a brilliant blogpost by Eugene Volokh that everyone should read about the whole issue of offense and accomodation... that is to say, political correctness. Go read it. Leave me alone!
Here is a link to a brilliant blogpost by Eugene Volokh that everyone should read about the whole issue of offense and accomodation... that is to say, political correctness. Go read it. Leave me alone!
Down with the RIAA
Because it is not possible for news of the RIAA’s bullying tactics to be too widely disseminated, I hereby link to Ars Technica for the first time ever, to a story about a 42-year-old disabled single mother in Oregon who has allegedly been wrongly accused by the RIAA of music piracy (gangsta rap, no less) and then threatened by that shithole organization that if she refused to settle on the claim despite it’s probable falsehood, RIAA would proceed with the lawsuit to “discourage others from attempting to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation.”
And to think, there were CDs out there I wanted to buy. Not anymore, though. The money just goes to fund this racketeering campaign by the RIAA, so forget it.
And to think, there were CDs out there I wanted to buy. Not anymore, though. The money just goes to fund this racketeering campaign by the RIAA, so forget it.
03 October 2005
A Christmas Judge
Well. So, the president nominated his friend Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rather than try to come up with something witty on my own, I’m going to link to a couple of worthwhile articles on the subject. The first is not a very good article. I wouldn’t even bother reading it if I were you. But it has a truly wonderful picture right there at the top. I’d post this picture directly on the blog but I don’t want to scare the children with this picture of Skeletor with a bouffant. More after the Jump.
Here is a much better in-depth article about Ms. Miers (technically, she could still be called Miss Miers) and the various hurdles she has to jump. Mr. Cohen here does a good job of painting a rather bleak picture of the road ahead for our darling Harriet. This reflects the notion I’ve seen repeated several times around the web today that Miers’ nomination is doomed, that she may even withdraw her name at some point (this last seems purely hopeful), and that the nomination is intended solely to pave the way for Bush to nominate Al Gonzales later this year. An interesting idea, but troubling; what is it about Ms. Miers that will cause her nomination to go south? Cronyism? Isn’t AGAG something of a crony of the president’s? Hmm.
Finally, here’s a column by Michelle Malkin about the reaction around the blogosphere today (you can rest assured this post will not make it onto Ms. Malkin’s radar). This is perhaps the most interesting of all, because it shows how early the negative coverage got started, and how much of said coverage is coming from the right. Of course those agencies devoted to pimping Bush nominees for any court are going to support Ms. Miers. But it seems like the rank and file are in a funk and riled (I’ve been waiting for months to use that).
One of the bloggers that Ms. Malkin links to talks about how people on both sides of the political spectrum "overwhelmingly seem to agree that Harriet Miers was an underwhelming selection." This seems unfair. Surely there is at least someone out there in the world who is merely whelmed (that may not be a real word, but it should be), and not actually underwhelmed. I wouldn’t say I’m overwhelmed by Ms. Miers, except in the sense that I am overwhelmingly opposed to her use of eye makeup (she’s been spending too much time with Krazy Kat Harris). I’m sure that she won’t make it through the Senate hearings without a competent makeup artist and hair stylist. Well, I would be sure of that, except that said competent stylist clearly was not roused out of bed for this morning’s announcement, and one would expect that with a person so obscure as Ms. Miers, a good first impression would have been warranted. But this White House apparently doesn’t swing that way.
My first impression, upon hearing of Ms. Miers' nomination this morning on NPR, was, what gall. Twice now Bush has set a friend to the weighty task of finding the best person in the country for a particular role, and the friend has looked no further than his or her own mirror. That Bush sees no problem with this is troubling. Troubling, too, is the fact that, all political considerations aside, there are dozens, probably hundreds, possible thousands, of people in this country better qualified by dint of experience and temperament to the job that Ms. Miers successfully found herself for. This is truly disappointing.
I've never been a defender of this president and there is no chance that I'll start now. But with his selection of Mr. Roberts (a selection Ms. Miers is said to have had a hand in), Bush showed that at times he can put politics and partisanship aside, damn the tides of diversity and tokenism, and simply find the best person for a position. Few people can call Roberts unqualified; none can do so seriously. Roberts was not a Bush friend, and though he is clearly ambitious that is no sin. Roberts' colleagues to a man agreed that he is a brilliant thinker and well-suited to his new position on the Court. Roberts may (or may not) prove more conservative than me, but that is of little consequence when one considers that Bush selected him purely on the basis of his great qualification for the job. I gave Bush much credit for this. What is most disappointing to me, then, is that the nomination of Ms. Miers clearly shows that Bush's striving to find a competent, rather than loyal, appointee was a one-shot deal. He clearly didn't try to find another Roberts. He didn't even try to find someone who could be passed off as another Roberts. And I have no choice but to conclude that we merely got lucky with Roberts, and that competence and qualification are of as little importance to Mr. Bush now as they were when he saddled the taxpayers with a glorified horse-trader as their FEMA director.
But this is merely another in a long string of disappointments from Mr. Bush. And when one looks past the rather disturbing message sent by Ms. Miers' nomination, there are some good things to be found. For example, there is almost no chance whatsoever that there will be cause for a great filibuster showdown in the Senate and a change of the Senate's rules. For that we can be deeply thankful.
The exciting thing about this nomination is that it could go in any of a dozen different directions. With Harry Reid tacitly offering her support immediately after the announcement (and he did so brilliantly, remarking when told of her previous donations to Al Gore that, though he hadn't known of them before, the fact made him feel that much better about Ms. Miers; you could hear the skin crawling on the right), anything could happen. Ms. Miers may not be a shoo-in for the job. She may get filibustered—maybe even by a combined group of both Demos and GOPers. Or, she could sail through the hearings and be confirmed 97-3 (the three being Schumer, Kennedy, and Byrd). None of these are outside the realm of possibility. Regardless of how this nomination turns out, the president has given journalists a big early Christmas present: excitement, slander, strange coalitions, vitriolic conservatives, confused liberals, and the possibility of complete implosion! Just in time for the holidays, and all wrapped up in a big box of too much Dallas hairspray and smeared eyeliner. Hooray for Christmas!
Here is a much better in-depth article about Ms. Miers (technically, she could still be called Miss Miers) and the various hurdles she has to jump. Mr. Cohen here does a good job of painting a rather bleak picture of the road ahead for our darling Harriet. This reflects the notion I’ve seen repeated several times around the web today that Miers’ nomination is doomed, that she may even withdraw her name at some point (this last seems purely hopeful), and that the nomination is intended solely to pave the way for Bush to nominate Al Gonzales later this year. An interesting idea, but troubling; what is it about Ms. Miers that will cause her nomination to go south? Cronyism? Isn’t AGAG something of a crony of the president’s? Hmm.
Finally, here’s a column by Michelle Malkin about the reaction around the blogosphere today (you can rest assured this post will not make it onto Ms. Malkin’s radar). This is perhaps the most interesting of all, because it shows how early the negative coverage got started, and how much of said coverage is coming from the right. Of course those agencies devoted to pimping Bush nominees for any court are going to support Ms. Miers. But it seems like the rank and file are in a funk and riled (I’ve been waiting for months to use that).
One of the bloggers that Ms. Malkin links to talks about how people on both sides of the political spectrum "overwhelmingly seem to agree that Harriet Miers was an underwhelming selection." This seems unfair. Surely there is at least someone out there in the world who is merely whelmed (that may not be a real word, but it should be), and not actually underwhelmed. I wouldn’t say I’m overwhelmed by Ms. Miers, except in the sense that I am overwhelmingly opposed to her use of eye makeup (she’s been spending too much time with Krazy Kat Harris). I’m sure that she won’t make it through the Senate hearings without a competent makeup artist and hair stylist. Well, I would be sure of that, except that said competent stylist clearly was not roused out of bed for this morning’s announcement, and one would expect that with a person so obscure as Ms. Miers, a good first impression would have been warranted. But this White House apparently doesn’t swing that way.
My first impression, upon hearing of Ms. Miers' nomination this morning on NPR, was, what gall. Twice now Bush has set a friend to the weighty task of finding the best person in the country for a particular role, and the friend has looked no further than his or her own mirror. That Bush sees no problem with this is troubling. Troubling, too, is the fact that, all political considerations aside, there are dozens, probably hundreds, possible thousands, of people in this country better qualified by dint of experience and temperament to the job that Ms. Miers successfully found herself for. This is truly disappointing.
I've never been a defender of this president and there is no chance that I'll start now. But with his selection of Mr. Roberts (a selection Ms. Miers is said to have had a hand in), Bush showed that at times he can put politics and partisanship aside, damn the tides of diversity and tokenism, and simply find the best person for a position. Few people can call Roberts unqualified; none can do so seriously. Roberts was not a Bush friend, and though he is clearly ambitious that is no sin. Roberts' colleagues to a man agreed that he is a brilliant thinker and well-suited to his new position on the Court. Roberts may (or may not) prove more conservative than me, but that is of little consequence when one considers that Bush selected him purely on the basis of his great qualification for the job. I gave Bush much credit for this. What is most disappointing to me, then, is that the nomination of Ms. Miers clearly shows that Bush's striving to find a competent, rather than loyal, appointee was a one-shot deal. He clearly didn't try to find another Roberts. He didn't even try to find someone who could be passed off as another Roberts. And I have no choice but to conclude that we merely got lucky with Roberts, and that competence and qualification are of as little importance to Mr. Bush now as they were when he saddled the taxpayers with a glorified horse-trader as their FEMA director.
But this is merely another in a long string of disappointments from Mr. Bush. And when one looks past the rather disturbing message sent by Ms. Miers' nomination, there are some good things to be found. For example, there is almost no chance whatsoever that there will be cause for a great filibuster showdown in the Senate and a change of the Senate's rules. For that we can be deeply thankful.
The exciting thing about this nomination is that it could go in any of a dozen different directions. With Harry Reid tacitly offering her support immediately after the announcement (and he did so brilliantly, remarking when told of her previous donations to Al Gore that, though he hadn't known of them before, the fact made him feel that much better about Ms. Miers; you could hear the skin crawling on the right), anything could happen. Ms. Miers may not be a shoo-in for the job. She may get filibustered—maybe even by a combined group of both Demos and GOPers. Or, she could sail through the hearings and be confirmed 97-3 (the three being Schumer, Kennedy, and Byrd). None of these are outside the realm of possibility. Regardless of how this nomination turns out, the president has given journalists a big early Christmas present: excitement, slander, strange coalitions, vitriolic conservatives, confused liberals, and the possibility of complete implosion! Just in time for the holidays, and all wrapped up in a big box of too much Dallas hairspray and smeared eyeliner. Hooray for Christmas!
02 October 2005
Mmm, Spidery
Am I the only person who thinks that Honda's decision to advertise the new Civic with an image of millions of baby spiders bursting out of their egg sacs was, um, ill-advised? (It's commercial number 6 at that link, "Keyhole". Creepy.)
I like the one with the little cartoon Civic bouncing off the rooftops (though it is exceedingly silly), but this one just sort of creeped me out.
I like the one with the little cartoon Civic bouncing off the rooftops (though it is exceedingly silly), but this one just sort of creeped me out.
Savannah
Lucky for me, the last few books I've received as gifts (of which Savannah is one) have all been very good. Savannah is not the sort of book I probably would have picked up on my own, so I'm doubly glad to have got it (was it for my birthday? Or Christmas?). Thanks, Mom and Dad!I've never read John Jakes, though I've thought about picking up Charleston once or twice. I probably will. This is a very simple little story, a fast read, but rather exciting nonetheless. The cast of characters is wide but ably drawn, and with a handful of exceptions are brought together well at the end. I read most of this book this afternoon; it's not a particularly weighty tome, but it isn't meant to be. It's the sort of thing you could read in a few days at Christmastime, and I think that's what was intended. (More after the Jump.)
The story centers around a young girl named Hattie Lester, and the family cobbled together around her. She and her mother share duties at a dried up old plantation on the outskirts of Savannah. They flee into the city to stay with a friend as Sherman's troops approach the city, and the story plays out around and through those desperate circumstances.
The book takes in over a dozen separate plot lines, which is a lot to manage. This can be a bit confusing in the early going, keeping everyone straight. Once the action moves into Savannah along with the Union army, the book picks up substantially. I'll wager you probably won't want to put it down once Gen. Sherman himself makes his appearance.
Of course, by the time you've got a third of the book left, you have a pretty good idea how it's all going to play out in the end. The question that keeps you reading is, how exactly is Jakes going to get us there? It's well worth the journey.
My main criticism would be that one of the plotlines is deemed so frightfully unimportant as to not warrant resolution at the end of the book. This little plotline seems to stem from a need to allow young Hattie to visibly irritate her relatives early on in the story; Jakes returns to it only two or three times, taking the time to flesh out a backstory on a sympathetic character, but come the end of the book the story is left open. Hopeful, but open. I question the need for it, but this is minor.
Gen. Sherman is almost sympathetic here, which is saying something because of all individuals I've studied from that era, Sherman comes the closest to having a heart of pure evil. I'm not saying I need to reevaluate my impression of him, only that Jakes has done a good job here.
This is a very charming little story, and as the Christmas season is approaching and it's coming out in paperback, it's probably worth picking up.
Savannah
Lucky for me, the last few books I've received as gifts (of which Savannah is one) have all been very good. Savannah is not the sort of book I probably would have picked up on my own, so I'm doubly glad to have got it (was it for my birthday? Or Christmas?). Thanks, Mom and Dad!I've never read John Jakes, though I've thought about picking up Charleston once or twice. I probably will. This is a very simple little story, a fast read, but rather exciting nonetheless. The cast of characters is wide but ably drawn, and with a handful of exceptions are brought together well at the end. I read most of this book this afternoon; it's not a particularly weighty tome, but it isn't meant to be. It's the sort of thing you could read in a few days at Christmastime, and I think that's what was intended. (More after the Jump.)
The story centers around a young girl named Hattie Lester, and the family cobbled together around her. She and her mother share duties at a dried up old plantation on the outskirts of Savannah. They flee into the city to stay with a friend as Sherman's troops approach the city, and the story plays out around and through those desperate circumstances.
The book takes in over a dozen separate plot lines, which is a lot to manage. This can be a bit confusing in the early going, keeping everyone straight. Once the action moves into Savannah along with the Union army, the book picks up substantially. I'll wager you probably won't want to put it down once Gen. Sherman himself makes his appearance.
Of course, by the time you've got a third of the book left, you have a pretty good idea how it's all going to play out in the end. The question that keeps you reading is, how exactly is Jakes going to get us there? It's well worth the journey.
My main criticism would be that one of the plotlines is deemed so frightfully unimportant as to not warrant resolution at the end of the book. This little plotline seems to stem from a need to allow young Hattie to visibly irritate her relatives early on in the story; Jakes returns to it only two or three times, taking the time to flesh out a backstory on a sympathetic character, but come the end of the book the story is left open. Hopeful, but open. I question the need for it, but this is minor.
Gen. Sherman is almost sympathetic here, which is saying something because of all individuals I've studied from that era, Sherman comes the closest to having a heart of pure evil. I'm not saying I need to reevaluate my impression of him, only that Jakes has done a good job here.
This is a very charming little story, and as the Christmas season is approaching and it's coming out in paperback, it's probably worth picking up.
01 October 2005
Stuff 'n Things (Contents)
I must post! I must provide content!
I don't understand that in the slightest, by the way. What, exactly, is content? I looked in the dictionary, and sure enough, it's a perfectly valid word. But it seems odd. When I see the word "content," I'm thinking of the word pronounced kən·tent, meaning "happy or satisfied". That seems most normal to me.
And when I think about the noun form of the word, meaning "stuff 'n things", I usually think of kon·tents, with an 's' on the end. Am I the only person who thinks of it this way?
Dictionary.com will tell you that in fact content is a perfectly normal word, and even provides a quote of some presumably long-deceased individual named Frederick Turner using the word in a sentence (although the sentence itself is nonsense; how can a generalization be either precise or explicit?) in just the way we use it to describe the contents of our blogs. The blog reader seeks content, not contents.
Why then do I still think of the word "content" in this context the way I think of the word "access" when used as a verb? I hate the idea of accessing things. I don't access information on the hard drive; I have access to the information, but I prefer not to access it. I would much rather collect, procure, requisition, or it some other way get my grubby little mitts on it. Access as a verb seems incestuous; we took the concept of "gain access to" and just dropped the words "gain" and "to." I guess that's efficiency for you; no wonder the usage didn't develop until productivity became the great societal mantra.
I'm doomed to lose this battle, but just as there are separate pronunciations of the word "content" for each part of speech, it seems we should do the same for "access." I think the verb form of that word should be pronounced ak·sess. But then I'd rather not use it at all.
Ah, well. So much for today's content(s).
I don't understand that in the slightest, by the way. What, exactly, is content? I looked in the dictionary, and sure enough, it's a perfectly valid word. But it seems odd. When I see the word "content," I'm thinking of the word pronounced kən·tent, meaning "happy or satisfied". That seems most normal to me.
And when I think about the noun form of the word, meaning "stuff 'n things", I usually think of kon·tents, with an 's' on the end. Am I the only person who thinks of it this way?
Dictionary.com will tell you that in fact content is a perfectly normal word, and even provides a quote of some presumably long-deceased individual named Frederick Turner using the word in a sentence (although the sentence itself is nonsense; how can a generalization be either precise or explicit?) in just the way we use it to describe the contents of our blogs. The blog reader seeks content, not contents.
Why then do I still think of the word "content" in this context the way I think of the word "access" when used as a verb? I hate the idea of accessing things. I don't access information on the hard drive; I have access to the information, but I prefer not to access it. I would much rather collect, procure, requisition, or it some other way get my grubby little mitts on it. Access as a verb seems incestuous; we took the concept of "gain access to" and just dropped the words "gain" and "to." I guess that's efficiency for you; no wonder the usage didn't develop until productivity became the great societal mantra.
I'm doomed to lose this battle, but just as there are separate pronunciations of the word "content" for each part of speech, it seems we should do the same for "access." I think the verb form of that word should be pronounced ak·sess. But then I'd rather not use it at all.
Ah, well. So much for today's content(s).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)