MNF Pregame debacle...

This is like the story that won't die I have no understanding of why this has become such a big deal. The skit was pretty lame but it wasn't particularly bad. She alluded to having sex and you see her towel drop behind her. There were and are worse moments on Dallas, Days of our Lives and Friends all shows that come on when children are typically awake. The FCC has opened its big mouth on the subject but they're legally not able to do anything. The problem comes from a few, very vocal people who feel that MNF should remain a bastion of purity (cheerleaders and commercials excluded of course). What about the woman who shampoos her head to orgasm? What about the endless Viagra, Enzyte and who knows what else commercials. Britney Spears Pepsi commercials were loaded with sexuality and noone complained. I don't know where this gigantic outrage is suddenly coming from. Did Janet Jackson's boob really create this much "awareness"? Or was it just the straw that broke the camel's back? In the meantime, I'd just like things to go back to the way they were, please. We can stop mentioning moral values, boobies, and the degredation of America for just a little while.

US officially advances to the next round...

Yes, it's soccer news. but I wanted to highlight something. Imagine that the Colts were playing their last game of the regular season. Imagine that hey've already clinched 1st place in the AFC but their opponent's have to win to get into the playoffs. Now imagine that, for whatever reason, the only starters that are playing are Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James. Every other position is filled by a second stringer or a free agent that was just picked up or a rookie who didn't even get to play this season. Now imagine that the game is played in front of a neutral crowd and that the field is rain soaked from 7 and a half hours of pooring rain (and, oh by the way, it's still raining and 45 degrees out).

Well, that's what the US did tonight. With only 2 or 3 players in the squad that have a hope of starting in the next world cup, the US tied a desperate Jamaican squad that had to win. Pretty impressive, huh.

On a side note, for those of you using Firefox, go get the BlogThis! extension... uber handy.

Google News... Not exactly unbiased

Google News items like this aren't exactly the most unbiased things to be posting... It kind of annoys me when "news" organizations don't even bother to look at the articles they post... Really kinda sad... I won't be using Google News for the next 2 days in silent protest ;)

Cronyism or not?

I'm sure that's going to be the debate over the next few days after John Ashcroft stepped down and Alberto Gonzalez was appointed. It's really hard to say as well because you just can't tell as an outsider looking in. Yes, sometimes it is easy. When the first President Bush created a new position as "Drug Czar" and appointed Bob Martinez the ex-governor of Florida to the post it was obviously political cronyism. Martinez had helped to deliver the state of Florida, a key swing state, to Bush in the election and was voted out two years later. I think it doesn't take a leap of faith, even from a Republican, to think that that action wasn't a big "thank you".

But it's tougher with the recent cases. I believe that you should appoint qualified, competent and good people to positions like these. However, I also believe that a good person will probably tend to have qualified, competent and good people as friends. So I would expect a good person to appoint their friends. If I was president 20 years from now, I wouldn't go searching for an AG. I would appoint my friend Mike. If you're the President of the US you can't afford to NOT trust your people.

Frankly, I'm less concerned with the cronyism charge then I am with Gonzalez's record. He appears to support the loosening of interrogation restrictions as well as supporting the indefinite detainment of PoWs. I feel that the very notion of indefinite detainment would have sent chills of horror down the founder's spines. I am not a particularly religious person and so you would expect me to believe that the ends justify the means but I've found that in my life I almost never use that form of justification with myself. It's anathema to me to think that we would ever torture someone for information. I can construct some scenarios in my head in which I believe that it would be right but they are so wildly absurd and hypothetical that a blanket, "no torture" policy would likely never need to be challenged. If a man who I watched murder a woman told me that he knew where another 50 women were being held and that they would die in the next hour I think I could bring myself to rough that guy up. But torture just to prove that a person doesn't know anything is about the most inhumane thing you can do to another human being (outside of rape I suppose). Abu Ghraib was a stain on America. Not for the contents of the pictures (which were, frankly, bizarre) but for the fact that someone somewhere thought that some of these things were good ideas.

Now, how much of that is attributable to Gonzalez? I just don't know.

Tune in next time for meaningful insights ;)

Time to talk politics

While I'm sure many are upset (48% roughly) I think Bush winning is probably a good thing. Admittedly, there are some things I really dislike about President Bush but there are also some things that I didn't like about Kerry. The bottom line for me was that I felt we should have a decisive president. I do not buy into the "Kerry is wishywashy" camp but I also think that he is not decisive. There were several times in the debate where he was unwilling to commit himself to a plan of action (Social Security most notably). I think, in general, Bush is better at making a plan and following through and that's something that is very important...