The greediest blog on the net.
Monday, June 30, 2003
I now see why poverty-based affirmative action won't work.
First, there are 14.9M whites in poverty and only 8.6M blacks.
Next, poor whites score better than rich blacks.
What does this mean? Just that everyone tauting disadvantage as a way to "diversity" is incorrect. Such a policy would only make all school significantly whiter.
Posted by Gel 5:19 PM Post a Comment
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Hmm, it stopped after I posted that.
I saw clips that showed some, umm, plans for ways to help people. I don't recall who said what (I saw it very late at night), but it doesn't really matter.
#1: Up to $1,000, the government would match personal savings. This would apparently help poor people save. The questions about this are endless.
First, should the government encourage people to save? Aren't we already encouraging people not to save by providing for retirement with Social Security? Don't we want people to spend to jump-start the economy? Doesn't saving hurt the economy? This would seem to encourage people not to buy food for their kids, since they can double their money by letting kids starve. What about the starving children?
Second, does everyone get this or just the poor? Can Bill Gates get $1,000 as well as Joe Homeless? If only the poor qualify, isn't that pure income redistribution (Robin Hooding)? If everyone qualifies, isn't that still pure income redistribution (poor people don't pay taxes used to give them their $1,000)? Perhaps the argument is that either way, it is income redistribution, so it might as well exclude the rich.
Third, how will it work for families? How does it work with married couples with kids? Can Mormons with 14 kids get up to $16,000?
Fourth, if everyone does qualify (equal protection?), won't that cost $290 BILLION every year? Isn't that $3 TRILLION over the next 10 years?
Fifth, how is "savings" determined? Government bonds? Can I take money out of my E*Trade account and deposit it into Bank of America? Can I sell my couch and deposit the proceeds? Can I ever withdraw the money? When am I vested? If this works like an IRA/401(k), isn't a similar system already in place?
#2: Set up a system to allow illegal more aliens into the US. There are fewer questions, but this is just as questionable.
Does this only apply to Mexicans, or also to Syrians? If the goal is to let everyone in, why have an immigration/border control system at all? If the goal is only to let Mexicans in, isn't that discriminatory (equal protection?)? Rather than saying that people shouldn't die crossing the border, couldn't we just not let them cross the border? If we do decide to let everyone in, do we keep the border patrol to search for drugs and weapons? If found, does the person still come in, but without their contraband?
#3: Executive order mandating bilingual education.
I'm not sure about the constitutionality, most of all. However, is there really a reason for those in Maine and Montana to learn Spanish? Why not French, German, Russian, Chinese? Do Spanish speakers even want others to learn Spanish? I would think that having a more secretive language would be advantageous. I saw Koreans speaking to each other without impugnity, and that seemed to work to their advantage. I'm guessing the same would apply to Mexicans.
If I were an opposing candidate, I would say, "That is the stupidest plan I have ever heard." When asked why, just rattle off the questions.
Posted by Gel 4:04 PM Post a Comment
The new blogger keeps opening a page, which I don't trust, so I'll blog about the Dems in Phx later.
Posted by Gel 3:42 PM Post a Comment
On Friday, I heard one of the dumbest arguments ever on ESPN's Outside the Lines (nothing related/linkable found on their site): By recruiting international players, the NBA is trying to get whiter because it (the owners, sponsors, and league office) is racist. Where do I start?
One of the main pieces of "evidence" is that international players are more fundamentally sound -- they dribble, shoot, pass, move their feet, and don't turn it over. That is apparently a direct slap in the face to current black players, who happen to do few of those things. When asked about Tim Duncan, he doesn't count because he is basically white (?!).
Few answers for the fact that international players tend to stay out of trouble, while their US counterparts have a staggering record of arrests. When it was suggested that it was due to the circumstances in which the players grew up, Akron is basically the same as war-torn Bosnia.
Even less answers for the question of simple talent and/or physical attributes (height). Apparently Dirk is not a star yet, but James is already a superstar. This seems like the exact same as was used to exclude Robinson and Dobie from baseball in the 1950s.
The question I would have asked (but Bob Ley didn't) is that, if the conspiracy is true, why anyone would draft black international players (Pietrus, Ebi, Diaw,...).
Posted by Gel 3:40 PM Post a Comment
I need to blog to take a study break. I've been doing old MPRE questions and doing ok. I just did a stretch where I got 40/50. I hope that translates to tomorrow's final.
Posted by Gel 3:24 PM Post a Comment
Property grades finally came in. A little better than I expected, but not much. I think the key thing is that my GPA improved substantially from the 1st semester to the 2nd. I need to find a way to exploit that in interviews.
Posted by Gel 3:23 PM Post a Comment
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Finally a way to put my plan into action! Earlier, I said Bush should give Kucinish money. Now, we can make liberals do it.
Jeremy Edwards of the DT says people should go here and vote for someone, and the winner will get $10,000,000. Why not make it the craziest non-Sharpton candidate?
Alas, it takes registration and I'm not sure if they flood with junk mail. Well, it's an idea.
Posted by Gel 2:34 PM Post a Comment
Keeping in the spirit of the DT, I think Gretchen Thomas' heart is in the right place, but some of her facts are not.
...the next time your McDonald's bag rips open because it was made from recycled paper and your Big Mac falls to the ground or your H.E.B. bag isn't strong enough to hold all of your groceries because it's made from recycled plastic...
While I agree that the trees aren't disappearing, I disagree on the quality of recycled goods. The data is inconclusive about the relative quality of recycled goods. Rather than blaming the recycling for broken bags, perhaps McDonald's and HEB should get the blame for buying low quality recycled bags. I'm sure these companies buy the cheapest bags they can, and always have. Assuming the cheapest recycled bag is crappier than the cheapest virgin bag, I am skeptical that similarly priced recycled and virgin bags differ much in quality.
In short, if HEB would still spend $0.01/bag like they did when they bought virgin bags instead of $0.005/bag on the cheapest recycled bags, Thomas wouldn't be complaining since $0.01 recycled bags don't rip either or may even be stronger (numbers completely fictionalized to illustrate point). The bag doesn't break because it's made from recycled plastic, it breaks because it's made from cheap recycled plastic.
Also, I'm no environmentalist, but I advocate recycling. The best reason is the alternative -- given a choice between reusing resources or throwing them away, why not reuse? This is the reason people don't throw away their bath towel or bedsheets every morning. I don't care much that this is good for the environment, but I do care if cost savings allows HEB to lower the price of grapes 75% (see a few posts down).
Personally, I don't care if by bags are brown instead of white. I like white computer paper, but you can bleach recycled paper. Basically, you can get almost anything recycled equal in every respect to virgin if you spend enough money. Often, that spending is still less than the costs of fresh raw materials.
Most of all, I think that Mfg companies show the benefits. Often I've seen a company start to recycle something (water, energy, chemicals) internally, which dramatically reduces costs without compromising quality.
I recall a specific 3M presentation where they used their cyanide water for something else (this was like 7 years ago), so they didn't have to pay to have it hauled off as waste any more. Not only did this save the disposal costs, but it saved costs on whatever they were using pre-cyanide that they didn't have to buy any more.
From my design classes, recycling energy is often the only way to make a plant viable.
On a side note, I'm begun recycling my aluminum cans. Well, not personally, but I put them in the receptical next to my dumpster that a bum marked "cans".
Full disclosure: I once worked for the EPA and have an emphasis in environmental engineering.
Posted by Gel 2:30 PM Post a Comment
By the Numbers
The DT gave a rundown of some numbers I found interesting.
First, was the pre-Hopwood Texas Index, used to determine which candidates were automatic admits and automatic rejects.
For whites, automatic reject was 192.
For blacks, automatic accept was 189.
My question is what happened to candidates refusing to provide race information and scoring 190-191.
I also wonder if this conversation ever happened:
UT: "Congratulations, you've been accepted!"
Next is the percentage of students in the top 10% of their high school class that did not score 900 on the SAT. I got this from printed bar charts, but can't find a DT site to link to. I'm not really sure what it means, but I think that those who criticize the top-10% rule might think twice if after seeing these numbers. By letting in the top 10% automatically, UT guarantees itself 1,179 students who couldn't even score 900 on the SAT.
White: 3% (300/10,498)
From the same tables, only half of those "college bound" from all groups took the SAT. ACT?
That is the number of times Chris Kennedy appeared in today's paper. I understand it is the summer, but surely there are enough people around to get more opinions.
He is the third letter of the Firing Line and is quoted as in street TALK (not on web).
I guess the DT is learning from the networks and NYT.
Posted by Gel 2:05 PM Post a Comment
I thought this history of Anti-Americanism was interesting.
Posted by Gel 11:48 AM Post a Comment
Monday, June 23, 2003
This has got to be the best Rube Goldberg I've ever seen. Click on the cog in the lower left, then the star.
Posted by Gel 10:40 PM Post a Comment
I think there is now a war of attrition between Cohen getting in my property grade (final taken 5/9) and UTTM setting up their web page.
I tried to rip the countdown timer off the UT site, but it didn't work.
Posted by Gel 10:24 PM Post a Comment
Note: None of the links on the page are any good, but it at least gives a taste.
Posted by Gel 10:17 PM Post a Comment
Speaking of grocery prices (see a few posts down), grapes at HEB jumped from $0.77 two weeks ago to $3.00! Oranges are pitiful and almost gone, apples are holding steady at $1.29/lb, and I can't find artichokes at all. Randall's is calling for me after a couple month hiatus.
Also, they seemed to be out of almost everything. I had to but HEB mayo (something I always buy name brand).
UPDATE: I just updated my Randall's card number, and put in my AAdvantage number (miles?).
Posted by Gel 10:05 PM Post a Comment
I think that Bush should give a lot of the money he's raising to Kucinich (yeah, I misspell it every time).
Posted by Gel 10:00 PM Post a Comment
Highlight from today's evidence class, where we covered Rock v. Arkansas:
"Why are Arkansas divorces like tornadoes?
Posted by Gel 9:58 PM Post a Comment
This DT column seems to be have flipped the coin twice:
Does that mean President Bush was lying when he said Saddam had WMDs, and Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't?
Posted by Gel 9:54 PM Post a Comment
On tonight's Tonight Show (which I rarely watch), there was a great interview with Cameron Diaz.
Then there was comedian Jimmy Carr. A few jokes I liked:
If we're all God's children, what's so great about Jesus?
I also think it's funny that everyone has their latest project next to their name except Ellen DeGeneres and Ebert & Roeper, although we all know what their latest project is.
Posted by Gel 9:38 PM Post a Comment
South Park Republicans
They believe in liberty, not conformity... They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears... They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness.
Posted by Gel 9:35 PM Post a Comment
I don't really understand today's SCt affirmative action rulings. If anything, I think that the law school should have less leeway in promoting diversity than the undergraduate school.
This line from Thomas' law school dissent shows how constitutional law has little to do with the constitution:
...the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months.
I think it's funny that Sharption inadvertently showed the true colors (so to speak) of affirmative action:
Al Sharpton said Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks.
Posted by Gel 11:24 AM Post a Comment
Friday, June 20, 2003
Today's Firing Line:
I agree with conclusion of Nancy Toelle's letter (first), but not the rationale.
The scientific research documenting the deleterious effects of repeated exposure to second-hand smoke is indisputable.
The effects of second-hand smoke are widely disputed. I would say there is some deleterious effect, but there are studies both ways.
For Gale Hathrock's letter (second), I wonder why she is blaming the governor for holding a special session rather than the representatives whose walkout made it necessary.
I bet some uninsured children and poor elderly people could sure use some of that $1.7 dollars.
Universal health care for all children! Random handouts to the elderly poor! I thought those were called Medicaid and Social Security.
I have an answer for Erik Weatherwax (fourth).
Look at my major [biochemistry and math]! I might be incubating all sorts of nasty things in my apartment right now! At what point, though, is it justified for the government to bust into my apartment and take me out?
As far as I know, once there is probable cause that you are doing that. Probable cause might have been an earlier inspection of your apartment that revealed "nasty things."
...it requires some artistic license to describe a balsa wood, remote-controlled plane as a threat to the United States[.]
If he thinks it couldn't, that says a lot about his position. Hell, one malaria-bearing misquito could be a threat to the US.
Bush's lies have killed 185 (to date) of our brave soldiers, and between 5,500 and 7,200 innocent Iraqi citizens.
Also the lies of Clinton, Lieberman, Kerry, Chirac, Schroeder, Putin,...
Those numbers also seem inflated to me. I guess he had to double the number to make his point.
If there were justice in the world, George Walker Bush would be an "unlawful combatant" incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
Then he might get as fat as a McDonald's customer.
As for the last letter (Jon Olson), I wish he had used 2002 numbers, which were even grosser.
Posted by Gel 4:49 PM Post a Comment
This article talks about a class I would hate to take. Representative excerpts:
"Jefferson believed in majority rule, but what majority was he in?" said historian James O. Horton of George Washington University. "He wasn't in the majority in terms of gender. He wasn't in the majority in terms of class. The only majority he was in was race."
I think it is possible for someone to be in favor of majority rule, even when they are not part of that majority. I think drugs should be legalized, an that puts me in a minority. I accept that most people think the evils outweigh the benefits, and hope that they will eventually see the light. I doubt that this position makes me abandon a belief in majority rule, or that it makes me reshape "the majority" to fit myself inside. Similarly, does this mean that people who dislike Bush no longer believe in majority rule?
I'd also like to point out that Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the constitution, and that Federalists like Hamilton were responsible for the fact that only white males could vote.
I'm not a pure Jeffersonian, and I understand that he owned slaves. However, I don't think that had anything to do with his views on majority rule. I'd like to see some real evidence that Jefferson believed in "whiteness", not just the fact that he wasn't in the majority.
Chen said Avakian's course made her more aware of how the sense of belonging corresponds to skin color. "I would never not choose to be someone's friend because they are white, but I think it's important to have friends of color," she said.
This very much reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George tries to make friends with random black people to prove to his boss that he isn't racist.
I understand the point, but it is fun to dissect the double negative:
never = not ever = not always
=> never not = not always not =
=> "I would always choose to be someone's friend becuase they are white..."
Posted by Gel 11:57 AM Post a Comment
Thursday, June 19, 2003
I figured out the blogspot archive system (a little), so now I can permalink for the last post rather than reposting (just deleted).
BTW, HR 1119 was introduced 3/6/03, not around 6/1/03.
Posted by Gel 1:03 PM Post a Comment
As I always post about her in bursts, Molly Ivins is way behind on this.
In one of those annoying little Republican exercises in cheap misdirection, this particular bill to bilk workers is misleadingly titled the Family Time Flexibility Act. Cute, eh? As though they were doing you a big favor.
This is not what it says AT ALL. Damn permalinks don't work, but if you don't believe me, check for yourself. Ivins must have received a talking points memo late, because she obviously didn't read the bill herself (maybe she just didn't understand it) and it certainly wasn't taken up "last week" (meaning around 6/1).
Posted by Gel 12:58 PM Post a Comment
Molly Ivins continues to amaze me.
Roads, schools, prisons, courthouses, bridges, dams and sewage systems are all necessary, as are health and education. That's why we pay taxes.
I actually agree with the first 7/8 of these (she lists schools and education). The problem is that the national government doesn't have to pay for these. It really baffles me why we even bother to have local governments any more. I know it is to carry on the charade of federalism, but there is no federalism if the federal government has the responsibility for schools, bridges, dams, sewage systems, health, and education. What can't they do?
Even if that is why we do pay taxes, that isn't why we should pay them. We should only pay the federal government to protect us and to do things the states simply cannot do alone, such as regulating trade and coining money. Everything else should be local: schools, education (my little joke), crime, environment... We need to cut about 80% of the federal government, in my opinion. If that means higher local taxes, so be it. Just as long as there is a tradeoff. I always come back to competition, and competition between the states is healthier than an unopposed federal government.
The reason that people hate paying taxes is because they know the system isn't fair. We don't have a progressive tax system in this country anymore, and we certainly don't have one in Texas.
I really don't see how these two sentences can be back to back. The tax system is not fair, but it also is not progressive? When did Forbes get elected? My vote mattered!
I agree that we don't have a purely progressive tax system in TX, but we do in a way. Everyone pays property taxes, either directly or in rent. People usually live according to their means, which means that Michael Dell pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do. Whenever some people pay more than other without getting any extra benefit (does Dell really get anything I don't?), that is progressive.
FWIW, I think that is what separates TX from CA, PA from MA, AZ from NM. People who choose to live in a state that has a bunch of social programs may do so, and those who wish to live in a state with no taxes may do so. The smaller the unit gets, the more likely it is that the people governed have control of the government and accept its policies. That can't happen in a national system when AK is governed by FL. When you add in the fact that everyone re-elects those who bring home pork, the system snowballs (apologies to Jonah Goldberg). I blame FDR and LBJ, the two worst presidents ever (yes, worse than Clinton).
Posted by Gel 12:53 PM Post a Comment
I think this is hilarious, especially since her ailments are different now.
Posted by Gel 12:00 PM Post a Comment
I really want to know what it is about Michigan and rioting. Since the Spurs had two Spartans (Smith and Willis), I thought there was potential for disaster when the Spurs won the title (I wish I had generally blogged about riots in Michigan -- I would have looked like Kreskin).
Posted by Gel 11:55 AM Post a Comment
I don't condone Zizza's actions, but Pam is dumb.
"Nobody agrees with war."
I thought this theory was debunked long ago, even by me [damn blogspot archives don't work].
Posted by Gel 11:41 AM Post a Comment
Matt Bachop, who wrote the last letter in the Firing Line needs to read the 16th Amendment. It took an amendment to create an income tax, which means it was not something the country was founded on. In fact, neither was the Bill of Rights (those were also amendments). Also, I'd like to see some numbers on government spending and how much of it actually does go to corporations.
To Debra Alexander: Hell yeah.
The other letter I found interesting was the third, by Sarah Terry.
I am also not for lumping together groups of people, but I think that her argument is funny for two reasons. First, she is lumping Austin Kinghorn in with conservatives. Isn't it possible to be anti-liberal without being conservative. I hope so because that's me. Second, since when is being called a liberal so offensive? I don't think I'd care what people called me as long as they knew where I stood. Aren't liberals thought to stand for fairness (income redistribution, affirmative action) and kindness (welfare, environment)? Thus, is it really unfair to call those who favor giving a check to people who don't pay taxes a liberal?
The rest of the letter is just, to put it kindly, not well-reasoned.
On the other hand, I am curious about why liking the Soviet Union would have anything to do with the child tax credit? The only reason I can determine is that the communist "ideal" would somewhat agree with this hotly debated child tax credit.
This is income redistribution, plain and simple. Those making less than $26,000 with one child do not pay any federal income taxes. This bill gives them a check for $400. Taking from those who "don't need it" to those who "do need it" is pure Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Communists would not only agree with this "credit", but they are the reason such a thing would ever be considered.
But didn't Russia's communism die with the fall of the "USSR"...
I believe that China, Cuba, and North Korea are still communist, or at least socialist.
...and is not part of the current "Soviet Union"?
I really have no idea what this adds to the sentence or the argument.
USSR, Soviet Union, Russia - whatever! It's all the same, dying-out, numbered liberals anyhow.
I believe that USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is the Soviet Union. I believe grouping the two would be correct. Russia is the same group of people, and is often used in reference to a former communist state struggling with capitalism, having some yearn for the return of communism. Thus, that might even be a correct grouping. However, Kinghorn did not refer to Russia or the USSR in the original piece (first letter), so I'm not sure where this comes from.
On a third reading, I think I see where Ms. Terry got confused. She thinks that Russia is just a state within the Soviet Union, like England is a state within the United Kingdom. At least, that is the thinking that would most logically tie together her arguments.
Posted by Gel 11:36 AM Post a Comment
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
I just traded Mike Sweeney for Adam Dunn and Eric Byrnes in my LS fantasy league. I had to drop Xavier Nady to make room. Here's the stats:
Stats order: average, runs, HR, RBI, SB
Sweeney: .322 40 12 50 2
Nady: .272 32 7 27 3
Totals: 72 19 77 5
Dunn: .202 45 22 45 5
Byrnes: .328 37 8 32 6
Totals: 82 30 77 11
I've got Pujols/Mueller/Nomar, so I can take a hit on average for the HR increase.
Posted by Gel 10:01 PM Post a Comment
I am still under the impression that lawyers are generally cocks (I've met some good and some bad). However, I emailed a guy who I found a 30 page ethics violation case about, and he said he would be happy to answer any questions I had. Granted, the case is still pending on remand, but I don't think too many people in any industry would agree to tell a complete stranger about something that could cost them over $100,000 and even their career. So props to D.W., one of the good ones.
Note: I don't think any of his "violations" were too bad. Hell, he won all of the cases.
Posted by Gel 9:55 PM Post a Comment
I like that "The More You Know" commercial with the guy from Will and Grace where he asks "What has four legs, doesn't talk, and can feed your whole family?"
Without fail, I think a Korean joke is coming.
Without fail, it is followed by David Schwimmer talking about internet porn or something.
Posted by Gel 9:54 PM Post a Comment
I think this is the coolest product I've seen in a long time, and it's not even electronic.
Posted by Gel 9:52 PM Post a Comment
The great thing about baseball is that you might see something you've never seen before. In the first inning of tonight's UT game, the Rice pitcher hit three straight batters. Speaking of three straight, Howell just struck out the side.
On the other hand, you also see mistakes repeated. In the Stanford-CSF game, the Titans put in a reliever who intentionally walked the first batter. I'm no manager, especially in the CWS, but even I know that is a dumb idea. Asked to go throw strikes and get guys out, the reliever has to start off throwing unagressive balls. The strategy is even harder to justify when you consider it would have been a very small burden to make the previous pitcher throw four more pitches.
Posted by Gel 4:52 PM Post a Comment
This article doesn't say whether Samsung will also get bitch-slapped.
Posted by Gel 11:52 AM Post a Comment
By all accounts, UT has the best sports in the nation. The 5 biggest sports:
Football: #7, top 5 most of the year
Basketball: Final 4
Baseball: Final 4 (at least), coach with most wins ever
Women's Basketball: Final 4, coach with 800 wins
Softball: Final 4 (only non-Pac-10 team)
Even other random sports (swimming-national title) are good.
Posted by Gel 11:50 AM Post a Comment
This is just another reason that I am no longer unemployed. No, I don't have a job -- I'm not actively seeking employment.
Posted by Gel 11:47 AM Post a Comment
Bibby's number is going to be retired. What took so long?
At the same time, what about Miles Simon and Michael Dickerson? Both stayed all four years (or more) and have also not done much in the NBA.
Posted by Gel 11:45 AM Post a Comment
Glenn Reynolds wrote an article about what makes a good blog.
There's only one hard-and-fast rule: get rid of the typos. No blog that's full of typos looks good.
I'm pretty sure I don't have too many typos.
(1) a personal voice; and (2) rapid response times.
(1) I'm a person, so I guess I have a personal voice.
(2) I can post when I want and talk about timely issues. At least three times, I've posted about stuff before the pros.
Then, most importantly, there is the link...
I try to link often, but some stuff (e.g., Dog Eat Dog below) doesn't really need a link (especially if I've linked to it before).
I want to have diversity, but people tend to read the same areas of the web and whatnot, so unless you are an Instapundit with people emailing random links, it is luck of the stumbling.
In every case, though, what brings success is knowing something other people don't know, and expressing it well.
Ok, 0/2 pretty much assures I won't be successful.
Posted by Gel 11:32 AM Post a Comment
Last night I watched the question part of Dog Eat Dog between innings. Brooke Burns made a "Hook 'Em" hand signal. I also thought that the questions were significantly more difficult than usual.
Posted by Gel 11:05 AM Post a Comment
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Blogging will still be light as I am working on a different paper due next Monday.
Posted by Gel 3:51 PM Post a Comment
Sunday, June 15, 2003
I thought the funniest thing about tonight's game was when Kittles hit a 3 to quiet the crowd (I think it was 33-31, then 36-31 after the 3). I should have written down the exchange, but it was something like this:
Walton: That is how you shut the crowd up.
Tolbert: Maybe I can learn to do that.
Posted by Gel 9:03 PM Post a Comment
Coincidence? When I was running on Wednesday, the Spurs went on a 16-0 run. Tonight, whilst I was running, they went on a 19-0 run.
Posted by Gel 9:00 PM Post a Comment
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Posting has been light since I have a paper due Monday. I plan on doing the final editing tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm going to Trophy's.
Posted by Gel 8:03 PM Post a Comment
For some reason, I only blog about commercials lately. Anyways, I thought these sponsorships were ironic:
Mormons for Howard Stern
Pfizer for She Spies
Posted by Gel 7:57 PM Post a Comment
Friday, June 13, 2003
Like we didn't see this coming. I thought it might be limited to Heidi after Jenna won, but I guess not.
Posted by Gel 1:01 PM Post a Comment
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
I was looking for Mars rover pictures when I found this. I think it's pretty cool -- Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and Waco (at least) are all visible.
Also, here is Tucson, comparing Phx vegetation to Baltimore, and a strip mine (I'm probably the only one that thinks these look neat).
Posted by Gel 11:13 AM Post a Comment
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
These are web sites that I'm surprised have not been set up (as far as I know):
Site where you can complain about other drivers. Put in their license plate number and what they did. Similarly, I guess you could compliment other drivers. Ads could be sold to car sites (autobytel, carpoint, kbb). Then the information could be sold to insurance companies. People could even see if there were complaints against them, possibly disputing them.
Site where you could watch tv commercials and comment about them. This would be incredibly valuable to the advertisers and marketers, and people love to bitch. You could even find out information (e.g., Bree Turner was in that one Hyundai commercial where the dog gets older and her hair style changes).
Posted by Gel 9:01 PM Post a Comment
I watched a little bit of Doc Hollywood tonight and had some thoughts:
I've had this one for a while -- how did this movie get a PG-13 with that much Julie Warner? Nowadays, nipple=R. How have standards gotten tighter?
I never had these thoughts before law school:
First, I looked into the Constitutional prohibition of indentured servitude. I hadn't read the 13th [note the superscript] Amendment too closely, because it allows for punishment. Still, I think this might be cruel and unusual for whatever he was charged with (property damage?).
Next, couldn't he have done something else with his car? I don't buy the fact that he was "stranded" given his supposed $500,000 salary. Either tow it to the nearest competent mechanic, or fly one in to fix it. Those may be costly. This doesn't tie into school, but I still hadn't thought of it before.
All that being said, the Juile Warner scene is one that I will always remember. Almost as much as the Joan Severance scene from See No Evil, Hear No Evil.
Posted by Gel 8:37 PM Post a Comment
From the Daily Show (paraphrased):
Burr popped a cap in Hamilton's Federalist ass.
Posted by Gel 8:21 PM Post a Comment
Monday, June 09, 2003
Of course this site is crashed since it is on Howard Stern, but I am looking forward to visiting it.
UPDATE: I visited and was surprised with how low the quality is. More sad than anything, I think.
Posted by Gel 8:37 PM Post a Comment
I didn't take it myself, but I watched the results and don't think they were what they appeared.
For one, they somehow had "live" LA results an hour before it showed. Sure, these people took it over the internet and results are possible, but that makes it more likely that those who did take it were those who can be home on the internet at 5:00.
Likewise, those in CST and MST were more likely to be busy with dinner and whatnot.
Moreover, none of the tests were under controlled conditions. There was no way to monitor any kind of cheating, especially for "towns" that averaged 138 (41,000 population, but how many took the test and how many different IP addresses?). The only ones under controlled conditions were those in the studio audience.
Similarly, the only ones under controlled conditions were those in the studio audience. They made little deal about the 6 point difference between scientists and the next higest scorers (teachers and professors). Given the tight distribution (even the lowest group averaged 111, over the "mean"), that is huge. Obviously, they had to limit the groups, but how about doctors or lawyers, or separating teachers and professors? Why not show all the celebrity scores (if Drew got 136, someone got 84)?
Furthermore, does it make sense that no one from 18-35 could get over 135? Perhaps there are age considerations, but the normalization should make it possible for all ages to get the highest scores (no offense to Dr. Drew, who truly is a genius).
Lastly, for all the comparisons they made, there was one glaring omission. I think all of them had little to no validity (see above), but I think that was interesting. Additionally, they could have broken it down by income bracket, education level, etc.
Posted by Gel 8:33 PM Post a Comment
K grades are up, so now I'm only waiting on Property.
Posted by Gel 12:40 PM Post a Comment
I thought Jewel had her teeth fixed, but I guess not. Nonetheless, here is my Britney/Jewel comparison.
Maybe it's the teeth, but I think it's other stuff, too. This is something it's hard to describe in words, but I don't think I would get a lot of argument against Britney having hte better face.
This is where I probably will get an argument. Besides her larger endowment that has never been rumoured fake, she is generally more proportional. Britney works hard to keep from chubbing up, but as a result becomes a little muscley. Jewel, on the other hand, look neither fat nor built, but just right.
First, Jewel can play an instrument. As allegedly musically talented as Britney is, you would think that some time she would have picked up a guitar or a tamborine or something.
Next, Jewel actually sings at her concerts. Granted you can see Britney in person, but there is no difference between the concert and the album. One of the reasons for going to concerts is to see the artist unrestricted by time constraints and to see how good they are at performing. Perhaps Britney is too busy shaking it, err, dancing. Granted, Jewel doesn't jiggle around the stage (a la Shania Twain), but I don't think that suits the music. At any rate, there are a lot of talented "dancers" and I don't want to see them sing.
Finally, Jewel produces good music. Britney writes a few of her unsuccessful songs, but all her hits are purchased. Jewel, on the other hand, writes her own lyrics. I'm not sure if that comes through in the singing (I'm not a talent scout), but I think it does. Also, I like Jewel's music, or at least a lot of it. Every plane flight, that is what I listen to. One word: soothing.
All that being said, there is an undefinable hotness to Britney. Maybe it goes back to the face, but I would rather look at Britney picking up dog crap with a stick than most anything else on tv.
Posted by Gel 11:54 AM Post a Comment
This is a guest editorial from UMN-Duluth. I'm really not sure what it's trying to say.
Option 1: We should not have unilaterally attacked Iraq.
I hope this isn't it. I really do.
Option 2: We should multilaterally pressure North Korea.
This is a good option, but doesn't seem to jive with the general tone of the piece. Recall that it was Bush who vehemently resisted NK's demands for unilateral talks, but Clinton who caved into those demands. I didn't hear many complaints about unilateralism back then.
Option 3: We should not use unilateral action on Syria or Iran.
In my opinion, unilateral action would be more justified against these countries than it may have been against Iraq (where the UN should have been behind enforcing its own resolutions).
Here's my typical crappy analogy: The writer is in an ally with four guys: Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Al Queda. Al Queda shoots him in the leg. North Korea is busy loading his shotgun. Iran is laughing while loading a pistol. Iraq is laughing while cocking his pistol. Writer calls the police since Iraq is a felon and isn't allowed to have a gun. They ignore him, so the writer does a fierce karate chop and disarms Iraq. Now Iran and North Korea are looking at each other, confused. My guess is that the writer advocates giving North Korea his wallet and letting him and Iran run away, only to pull a similar stunt the next day. Alternatively, they might car jack the writer's wife, or maybe blow up his house. "But he cooperated," you say. It doesn't matter. If someone shoots you in the leg, you do whatever you need to do (disarming them, taking the bullets but not hte gun, killing them) to prevent it from happening again. The police are the least of your problems, since they didn't even arrest Iraq when they should have.
Nitpicking: The correct noun is "hegemon" ("But, as the hegemony,..."). I wouldn't care so much if this didn't pass through someone who writes for a living (or at least beer money) and an editor or two.
Something similar really got my goat. Bill Simmons (the Sports Guy) used the wrong form of "then" twice in his last article. This is a guy who is not only trained to write correctly, but has a large journalistic force in the largest online sports site behind him. I went to public school and only took Freshman college English, but even I know my basic homonyms.
Also, Simmons says Shakira is 10x sexier than (he used it right in that sentence) Reese Witherspoon.
Posted by Gel 11:41 AM Post a Comment
The only thing I have to say about today's Firing Line is that Joe Robinson must read my blog.
I guess I'll add that 2nd hand smoke's carcinogenic properties are alleged (although I think common sense says it is at least harmful), and that I would rather see someone snorting coke next to me than smoking.
Posted by Gel 11:21 AM Post a Comment
Saturday, June 07, 2003
I wonder how much press SARS would get if it killed anyone in the US.
Posted by Gel 4:08 PM Post a Comment
I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories, but I think it's pretty interesting that there seems to be a triple crown threat every year. If not for that, would any care at all about horse racing? Keep in mind that NBC shows the Belmont (same network that allegedly fixed the last 3 NBA finals).
The problem with the theory is that there are no refs in horse racing, just horses and midgets.
Posted by Gel 4:05 PM Post a Comment
I'm not going to make any jokes about HS Choi's eyes being closed.
Posted by Gel 11:51 AM Post a Comment
I didn't realize the Texan ran during the summer. As during the school year, the Firing Line isn't too well thought out:
I'm guessing this guy is a lawyer (judging by the citation, although there is no listing on Westlaw) who took ConLaw a while ago (judging by the analysis).
Filburn grew wheat, not corn. This is a small point, but anyone familiar with the case would realize it is important. Home grown wheat comprises 20% of all wheat grown, so the aggregate effect of farmers growing above a certain amount (their alottment) has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
While this decision is indeed silly, it is the law of the land unless the constitution is amended to further restrict the commerce clause.
Using the aggregate test, the premature sale of tons of stock easily has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Along with the power to regulate interstate commerce comes the power to do anything needed to enforce those regulations. Enforcement often comes with the power to punish violators (e.g., the Mann Act and Sherman Act).
Perhaps he was arguing that this shouldn't be the law, but I think that would take a more critical indictment of Wickard.
This is simply someone who hasn't done much research and is bitter about the US's control over TX. Perhaps it should still be part of Mexico, in which case there would be more people in poverty trying to jam into trucks to smuggle themselves into LA or OK.
The BBC's attack on the Lynch story has been widely debunked, thus bunking the original account.
I would say that the previous couple Presidents set the standard for lying to the public ("Read my lips..." and "I did not have..."). By all accounts, everyone agrees there are/were WMD -- that was never even an argument by those against going to war. Even if the alleged lying was imminence, Bush never even said that (see transcripts of State of Union and other speeches and try to find it).
As far as I can tell, international law is usually through UN resolutions, one of which authorized the use of force for non-compliance.
The "'road map' to world dominance" is pretty silly. True, there is about as much chance as Bush bringing peace to the Middle East as any former President, but at least this "road map" has been agreed to in principle and Sharon is talking about their "occupation" instead of "their rightful taking".
Posted by Gel 11:50 AM Post a Comment
Friday, June 06, 2003
Evolution of the greedyblog: I learned how to indent block quotes. It is very complex, since it requires putting "blockquote" in arrows at the beginning and end of the quote.
Next up: color coding and/or a better font.
Posted by Gel 1:46 PM Post a Comment
Hooray!!! The Austin smoking ban passed.
I'm as anti-regulation as it gets, but I really like this. Mostly, my opinion is based on empirical evidence (Tempe, LA, San Diego).
Continuing my string of crappy analogies: Imagine if there was a device that made you fart immediately, but that feels good (relieving tension or whatever). The problem is, it smells like shit. Sure, people have a right to fart, and these devices aren't illegal or anything. However, people should not be subjected to shit-smell in public. Perhaps in the restroom, where it is to be expected, but not next to the dinner table. Now imagine that fart smell lingering on clothing until washed (I haven't found Fabreeze to work very well). Now imagine that the methane, CS2, or whatever gas it contains may cause cancer. Outlawing the Auto-Farter in enclosed places doesn't seem too far-fetched, so neither should banning indoor smoking.
Something I find odd is that people put up with bans on smoking in airplanes, libraries, shopping malls, places of business, etc. I don't think it annoys anyone any less just because it is in a bar.
The anti-banners point to Tempe as a case-study for the dangers of such a ban. However, they ignore the simple fact that this is Austin.
First and foremost, there is no Scottsdale to compete with. Are people really going to flood to smoker-friendly Round Rock bars? Doubtful.
Next, Mill Avenue is pathetic compared to downtown Austin. Imagine 4th Street divided by 2. Now take away any personality whatsoever. That's Tempe bars, and that's why it is so easy to flock to other suburbs, especially when connected by largely uncongested freeways (as opposed to a few congested surface streets).
Third, Austin has unparalleled music venues. A large component of nightlife is seeing live bands. This is somewhat of a repeat of the first argument, but Round Rock (et al.) can't suddenly build 100 venues. Even if they were able to, would anyone go?
Lastly, this ignores the fact that many people may not have gone to bars because of the smoking. If asked whether someone would be more or less likely to go to a place if it smells bad and looks hazy, I'm guessing that most people would say "more". This must be asked to mask the smoking issue. Perhaps using an Auto-Farter analogy.
Posted by Gel 1:25 PM Post a Comment
After I was done blogging last night I saw an interview with the guy selling the Amber Frey pictures. Wow, I haven't seen a guy that sleazy in a while. At the same time, he was remarkably well spoken. Something else I thought was funny was that he plugged the firm helping him with the contract a few times.
As a side note, they showed some "ribboned" pictures. Not so good. Body is nice and tight, but the hair is horrible and the face needs lots of makeup. Which is probably why...
This guy, who bought the rights from the original photographer, offered to burn the pictures if Frey would take new, post-makeover, pictures. He said he wanted her to at least get something for people oogling her goodies (not his words). He's a Samaritan in my book.
Posted by Gel 1:09 PM Post a Comment
Thursday, June 05, 2003
I think Sosa's story is pretty far-fetched, but am swayed by the evidence that 0/81 bats (76 current, 5 in the HOF) were negative.
That being said, what are the odds of accidentally using the corked bat? Shouldn't it be marked in some way to prevent game use? To put on a show during BP, perhaps an aluminum bat would be better.
Also, I fear an MLB coverup for their most marketable player, which would cast doubt on any of their evidence.
Posted by Gel 11:57 PM Post a Comment
This blogging is the result of a 6 hour nap this afternoon.
Posted by Gel 11:52 PM Post a Comment
There aren't any links to Amber Frey's nudie pics yet, but that's what it takes to get me to blog about the Peterson case.
On H&C, Gloria Allred emphatically said that Frey will not license any such photos. That's some pretty careful language when she apparently has already licensed them.
The bad thing is that this may lead to fewer photos of hot women naked. That is, girls may be less likely to license nudie pics if they think there is a chance that they may be seen. At the same time, hos is hos, and they'll do what they need to for scratch.
Posted by Gel 11:50 PM Post a Comment
First, total disclosure: I am currently in the bottom 10% of wage earners.
I am utterly confused by this segment of this article:
President Bush said: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." Except, of course, for the 8.1 million low- and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions a year in income taxes.
I would at least like to see some kind of numbers to support the 8.1M claim. Judging by the Ari quote, I'm guessing it is the bottom 10%. Are they middle-income? They make, on average, significantly less than $16,000 (that is the 50% cutoff, so the 10% cutoff is probably closer to $5,000). [Whoa, I should replace this paragraph after finding this ($5,121), but I'll leave it up to bolster perceptions of my estimation skills.]
The word "billions" may also be incorrect. If these people make $5,121 and pay 10% in taxes, they pay $512 each. To reach $2B ("billions"), there needs to be 4M people in this bracket. There were 131M filers last year. I can't find any population breakdown of the bottom. I'm guessing that is were 8.1M comes from, so maybe they do pay $4B/year, which is a whopping 0.062% of the total amount of taxes paid.
Wow. People often see numbers that say the top 50% pay 96% of taxes, but you rarely see that the bottom 50% pay 4% (and so on).
It has no relevance, but 0.062% of $5,121 is $3 (the IRS allows rounding down).
I guess I have 2.5 questions:
1) Do we indeed get no tax break? If not, what is Ari talking about?
2) How much of our $512 should we get back? I think it would be hard to argue that even 100% of it would help the economy.
I also don't think Ivins should say "us" when she makes more than that (she has to if the DFW ST pays minimum wage). This is offensive to those of us in this bracket.
Posted by Gel 11:35 PM Post a Comment
The Padres let you control a camera to look at the building of Petco.
Posted by Gel 2:29 PM Post a Comment
This just goes to show a woman's place is in the home, cooking and cleaning (just kidding).
Posted by Gel 11:58 AM Post a Comment
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
They'll probably correct it, but right now the Yahoo! box score for tonight's Rangers game has 4 different pitchers named "R. Garcia".
You would think they would use Ro. and Re. to separate the 2 real ones.
Posted by Gel 8:36 PM Post a Comment
They are showing Clemens's 20 K game on Classic. Some Spike Owen teammates who sounded even vaguely familiar:
I've never seen a harpoon up close, but does it have three prongs?
Posted by Gel 2:02 PM Post a Comment
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Despite one of my stocks being up 20%, I only made $20 today. That won't bring home the bacon cheeseburgers (2200 calories!? -- I wish I still lived near one).
Posted by Gel 8:41 PM Post a Comment
I'm glad that the next Auto Zone Jungle tour stop is not in Austin since it would be the Saturday before I have a final on a Monday. Also, school isn't in session and it probably wouldn't be that good. I'm guessing that Rome knows all of this.
Posted by Gel 8:34 PM Post a Comment
After running dozens of time without any incidents, tonight I was attacked by two unleashed dogs and almost run over by a car running a stop sign. Sometimes you have to call it not your night.
Posted by Gel 8:33 PM Post a Comment
I don't think this product is hitting its intended arguements becuase I saw it. Or maybe it is.
Posted by Gel 8:31 PM Post a Comment
Still no new grades, but apparently they don't matter. My favorite sections:
In their article on grade normalization, Downs & Levit observe: "A vast amount of research in educational testing theory suggests that the preferred method of testing in law schools is one least recommended by professional educators. A single examination followed by a course grade prevents professors from giving students repeated feedback, which many theorists say is essential to deep learning. A one-shot examination highlights inaccuracies in evaluation that may result from student illness or personal troubles, or imbalances between student coverage and selective testing."
Since I bolded it, I obviously liked the section about "imbalances between student coverage and selective testing. Some may argue that figuring out what the professor will ask is part of the game. In theory, there shouldn't be any game. Any section of a class should be just as testable as the rest of it. While it is unlikely that any of it will be used in real practice, I would say that everything is equally unlikely. Thus, learning a small portion (e.g., just adverse possession in the entire field of real property) has no value, while learning everything broadly (encouraged by the possibility that it will be on the test) has some value.
I actually like this whole paragraph. I have argued for some kind of feedback since day one.
My analogy is hitting on girls at bars. Imagine if you only get to ask a couple out every six months, and either get rejected or digits. Without any kind of feedback, future attempts will be no more successful, given the time lag, the fact that the girls are different, and especially the fact that there is no real chance to change behavior to increase the chance of success. Sure, some things will always make success more likely (nicer clothes, work out more -- study "harder" or "smarter"), but little will guarantee a given outcome.
In undergrad, there was a neverending stream of homework, quizzes, and exams. By the time the final rolls around, everyone should know how to succeed in that subject for that teacher. When the opposite is true, no one knows and the result is really a shot in the dark.
In his article '"Uncivil Procedure: Ranking Law Students Among Their Peers," Douglas Henderson claims that "[j]udged by the standards of established psychometric theory, the law school essay is neither precise nor accurate -- both of which are necessary foundations of validity." Researchers consider the examination process to be a misrepresentation of legal practice because it ignores more complex forms of thinking...
Adding to the internal flaws of examinations, discrepancies in grading are ubiquitous. As Henderson remarks, "The standards in grading law school essay exams vary between professors and between exams graded by a single professor. Little direct evidence is available to show how law professors evaluate examination answers." Henderson elaborates by suggesting that "Law school policy which permits the standards to vary from teacher to teacher causes its evaluation process to be grossly misleading to the public and arbitrarily discriminatory to its students."
I'm not saying that law school grades mean nothing, for I hope to do well and get a high paying job as a result. Obviously, those that spend endless hours in the library will do better than those who spend endless hours at The Library. However, I think the large majority of people who get into schools like UT have good study habits to begin with. If anyone is a random genius, they probably don't need to study anyways.
Posted by Gel 12:18 PM Post a Comment
Monday, June 02, 2003
Yes, this is what happens when I have no job and summer school is 1/2 the load of real school.
Posted by Gel 1:45 PM Post a Comment
Continuing to pick on Ivins, this article is early or late.
It is early because we are still searching for the WMD. I think we have found enough signs of WMD that we eventually will find some kind of smoking gun.
Saddam was hiding mobile chemical laboratories, drones fitted with poison sprays, 15 to 20 Scud missile launchers, 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas agent and between 100 and 500 tons of other toxins, including botulinun, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin. Also, we said he had over 30,000 illegal munitions.
The problem is, that is just what we know he had in 1991. This is what he was supposed to prove that he disarmed. If, in fact, he did disable (destroy, deplete, ...) these weapons, why not just prove it rather than being kicked out of his own country? Isn't that what the UN resolutions called for?
It is too late because Clinton attacked chem/bio weapons factories in Iraq in 1998. If Saddam didn't have anything to bomb, was that volly really just a destraction from the Lewinsky matter? No one questioned whether or not he had them because he hadn't proven that he destroyed what we knew he had. Further, we didn't even attempt to make sure we hit our intended targets.
My analogy is looking for lost car keys (probably no good since I'm not good at analogies, but hopefully you'll get the point): You want to stall before going out because you know you're about to drop a load, then do so. When you come out after disinfecting, your friend offers to drive. The actual lost nature of the keys is never questioned. A dozen years later, you have really lost your keys. You can't find them and your friend refuses to drive. Apparently, you must be lying about losing your keys for some other devious reason. Although this time, it's not to drop a load, but to annex your neighbor's bathroom. Damn shitter imperialist.
Posted by Gel 1:44 PM Post a Comment
I actually agree with much of this Molly Ivins article, even if she was saying things tongue in cheek.
The government should privatize whatever it can. Plain and simple, two companies competing for the same dollar will have lower costs than one company (or government) that automatically gets that dollar. This is the same reason monopolies are bad (although I don't think they should be regulated, either).
Of course people are in it for the money. This is what drives people, at least more so than anything else. The foundation of capitalism is greed. I just like to throw that in every chance I get.
The Dilbert analogy is misguided. Obviously, there are corporate overruns and idoicy. However, I don't think it even comes close to the summer I worked for the government. I think I did a solid 8 hours of work in a summer and they were begging me to come back (well, pretty much).
I also like how she says CEOs are overpaid, but also notes that TX will lose 144,000 jobs. She doesn't seem to tie the two together like I would expect (e.g., if the CEOs made less, they wouldn't have to fire people). I really hope that is due to the other side of the coin (i.e., CEOs create jobs).
As far as health care and hospitals turning away ambulances, I can't wait until Kusinish (sp?) takes the profit out of health care. That will help, at least according to Ivins' theories.
Posted by Gel 1:28 PM Post a Comment
I wasn't aware of the city in the byline for this roller coaster death.
Posted by Gel 12:55 PM Post a Comment
Comments about the DW's top ten news stories of the year:
10. They have a walk-in freezer? What do they keep in there?
9. The picture doesn't quite match the story. Interesting that only anti-war rallies are mentioned.
8. As far as I recall, the old union also had all that stuff.
7. I have a guess as to what he checked in for.
6. This year is put up or shut up. Tomey at least cracked .500 most years.
5. In my opinion, this is still too little.
4. No comment.
3. There has to be a better way to distribute university sports tickets. For example, UT apparently doesn't sell them.
2. See #5.
1. See previous post.
Posted by Gel 12:44 PM Post a Comment
I realize that the UA nursing school shooting was a trajedy, but it is kind of funny that it was directly above a story about a nursing shortage.
Posted by Gel 12:36 PM Post a Comment
Speaking of UA, the tortilla flinging tradition was stopped this year (I hear by direct email from Likins).
Both Likins and Provost George Davis have said tortilla throwing harbors undertones of racism, and can be offensive to not only some students, but to guests as well.
Racism?!? I think there is a reason that we have (had) this tradition 100 miles from the border as opposed to say, Maine University (if there is such a thing), but that reason is not racism.
I'm not alone:
Members of Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs said they know that the tortillas are not tossed to offend, but rather, as a celebratory representation of the community.
Marisol Diaz, a CHSA retention specialist, said that although the tortillas might seem offensive to the administration, she has heard no complaints about it from any students, faculty or staff.
“They do it everywhere,” she said. “I have gone to a lot of high school graduations where they throw tortillas, and most of the people doing it were Hispanic.”
As far as disrespecting a ceremony, I think graduation is for the students. If they want to throw tortillas (or whatever), they should be able to. The graduates worked for several years and spent a lot of money just to reach that day. To impose restrictions at that point lacks a carrot, stick, and reason.
Posted by Gel 12:34 PM Post a Comment
Glad to see that ASUA members nearly swept UA's outstanding senior awards. There is a chance that they were, in fact, deserving, but I'd be more inclined to guess that they simply had more high-profile experiences.
Posted by Gel 12:25 PM Post a Comment
Still no new grades. I heard (meaning this is pure rumor and conjecture based on the fact that there is definitely some kind of fine after some time period) that Dean Powers instituted a $10,000 fine against professors taking longer than 3 weeks to turn in grades. Well, last Friday was 3 weeks. I could see Rau being an ass and not doing it to make some kind of point (although he was one of the first done last semester), but Cohen seemed very afraid of any fine (she needs to feed her 11, yes eleven, kids).
Posted by Gel 12:21 PM Post a Comment
I'm not a big Ann Coulter fan.
I know she is too arrogant, which makes her a grating speaker.
I also know she doesn't look as good as most people think she does. While she is no Alan Colmes, she is also no Kim Serafin.
I think she probably writes better than she speaks. As far as I've seen, most of her comments are analogies drawn too broadly, name calling, and haughty laughing.
That all being said, I was surprised when she said something I said almost verbatim in one of my first posts ever [4/4, item #6]-- can anyone name another company that does what Halliburton does?
Posted by Gel 12:17 PM Post a Comment
I heard a theory that David Stern should do something about the NBA coaching carousel. I think the opposite is true.
With the exciting Spurs-Nets finals coming up, I think Stern still wanted to keep people interested in the NBA, and it's working. Carlisle and Brown are getting more ink and air time than Kidd and Duncan (no, that doesn't mean tatoos and jumping ability).
Posted by Gel 12:04 PM Post a Comment
Real Friends' Blogs