It's A Great Day (Continued)

I said earlier that this was a great day because I get to wake up tomorrow morning knowing that (a) Tom DeLay is in a world of shit right now, and (b) the greatest rivalry in all of sports is about to occur the following day with the winner taking the AL East.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here are the current standings in the AL East with the baseball season 97% over:

Teams / W / L / Playoff Odds*
Red Sox 92 / 65 / 66.16490
Yankees 92 / 65 / 55.95053

* As calculated by Baseball Prospectus

The AL East race is headed down to the wire and should get a lot more exciting this weekend when the New York Yankees (cue hissing noises) travel to Beantown to play my beloved Boston Red Sox. As noted above, the Sox are a slight favorite to win the East, mostly due to the fact that the Yankees are faced with playing all of their remaining 7 games on the road. The 3 game series should be epic. Game 1 looks to be a match up between the rookie Chien-Ming Wang and the veteran David Wells, winner gets to be first in the buffet line. Game 2 will be a matchup between the ugliest pitcher in baseball - Randy Johnson - and Tim Wakefield, who's been the Red Sox best starter all season. Game 3 looks like another classic game between two pitchers who are both named "TBD." In any event, it should be a fantastic series. Final prediction: Sox win 96 games, Yankees win 95 games, and George Steinbrenner's head implodes.

Of course, if the Sox stumble in their 2 games before their Friday matchup and end up losing to the infidel Yankees, you can be sure that I will be drowning my sorrows. Given that I'm attending a wedding this weekend it remains highly likely that I'll be drinking regardless of the outcome of the series. Go Sox!

Today is a Great Day

I promised myself no political rants today, but I couldn't resist myself when I read that Tom DeLay was indicted today. I honestly couldn't be happier than to see this happen to him. To quote Office Space, "Watch your cornhole, Tom."

More detailed blog to follow later today. This stupid work gig is getting in the way again.

Senator Affleck

I really hadn’t intended for this to turn into a political blog, but it seems to be working out that way. It seems that every other day there's an amazing (i.e., awful) story emanating from Washington DC that causes me to rant. The stories usually revolve around conservatives that seek to undermine science by teaching "intelligent design" in schools or which work every possible angle in order to get prayer back in school (let's just refer to it as a moment of silence).

So today's political gem comes from a Washington Post article which states that Democrats may convince Ben Affleck to run for the Senate from Virginia.

That would be Ben Affleck, the actor. The same one that did an entire semester at University of Vermont before dropping out. The one that makes his brother Casey look like the reputable actor in the family.

Uhhh, did I get conked on the head at a rugby game and totally miss something here? When did Ben Affleck become a valuable commodity for the Democrats? Have you seen this guy's resume? Is this some backwards way of pumping up Warren Beatty in a potential run for Governor of California? Or did I miss the work Ben did in the State Legislature between his roles in "Pearl Harbor" and "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back?"

Yes, his life is less of a total train wreck now that he replaced the crazy-diva Jennifer for the girl-next-door Jennifer. But just because he was successful at knocking her does not mean he would be successful as a Senator. Please, tell me what skill set did he learn on the set of "Daredevil" which could possibly translate into public service? Oh wait, he was an attorney as well as a crime-fighting superhero, so that makes sense.

I appreciate that he's a staunch Democrat, as well as a big supporter of John Kerry's failed 2004 campaign. Big shit, so am I. You don't see me running for governor. I admit that being a big fundraiser is a significant talent, but it should not be sufficient to curry favor with Dems in order to get a Senator gig out of it. If the Democrats really want to see Sen. George Allen rousted in 2006, they should focus on a candidate that's more likely to do that than star in "Surviving Christmas 2."

I Love Bill Maher

I'm sure it's some sort of blogging faux pas to simply regurgitate another person's work (at least I am not passing it off as my own), but Bill Maher's closing monologue from a few nights ago really summed up the state of the nation well:

"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.'"

Amen.

Forbes Is Retarded

Forbes recently published its annual report on the “Best Cities For Singles’” which ranks the top 40 U.S. cities based on Culture, Nightlife, Singles, Job Growth, Living Cost and Coolness (whatever that means) and then comes up with a composite ranking given each city’s score (1 being the highest, 40 being the lowest). From Forbes:

“Feel as if you're looking for love in all of the wrong places? Look no further--the Denver-Boulder metro area is America's best city for singles. Topping our list for the second consecutive year, the Mile High City edged out larger metros like Boston and San Francisco, thanks to its booming job market, relatively low cost of living and large university population.”

Here’s the complete report : http://www.forbes.com/2005/07/25/singles-best-cities_cx_05sing_0725land.html.

Now I’m sure Denver-Boulder’s #1 overall ranking will come as a huge surprise to all my friends and readers that live in, and complain about, the sleepy, Midwest cow town. Hell, you can’t even get Bloc Party to tour there.

Having lived in several of the cities mentioned (Denver, SF-Bay Area, DC and San Diego), I’m not sure that I entirely agree with Forbes’ findings. There were some aspects of the ranking which I found particularly enlightening (i.e., absurd):

* Culture - How the hell can anyone in their right minds rank Denver (3) ahead of NY (4), Chicago (7) and San Francisco (8.) in terms of culture? Are we talking about Denver, Colorado? Or is there a Denver, Italy or a Denver, France that I am unaware of? Or by “Culture,” do they really mean “Homogenous Sports Town”? Because if that’s the case, that makes all the sense in the world. And don’t ask me how Minnesota-St. Paul ranks at #6. Ridiculous.

* Nightlife- There is no way that Denver (11) has a better nightlife than Miami (14), Atlanta or New Orleans (20, pre-Hurricane Katrina). Jesus, you can’t even find a place to get a decent dinner after 10:00. And if anyone is thinking of Pete’s Kitchen, they must be confusing “decent dinner” with “salmonella poisoning.”

* Singles - What does this category mean? And how the fuck does Denver rank as the #1 city in the US? Despite it’s reputation as “Menver,” both single men and women alike complain about their inability to find a suitable mate in the city. If Denver is #1, I’d better prepare myself for a number of long, lonely nights in the SF-Bay Area.

* Cost Of Living - Having seen cardboard shanties for sale in SF for $500K+, I have a hard time believing that there’s any city where the cost of living is higher than San Francisco (24). Where could it possibly be more expensive to live? The moon? Inside J-Lo’s vagina? WTF?

* Job Growth - Las Vegas (“Vegas Baby, Vegas!”) was #1, followed by Austin (2), Orlando (3), Phoenix (4), Salt Lake City (5) and Sacramento (6) in terms of burgeoning cities. Uhh, thanks, but I’ll pass. I would rather have an incurable STD than live in any of those cities. Why can’t any “cool” cities have “job growth”? Or are the 2 categories mutually in compatible, like oil and water?

There’s a lot of things I like (and miss) about Denver, but Culture and Nightlife aren’t two of them. Unless by “Culture” and “Nightlife” you really mean “friends” and “wings at the Cherry Cricket.”

Here Come The Judge!

John Roberts is on his way to being confirmed to the US Supreme Court today and will serve as its next Chief Justice. Hooray. I can't wait. Do you suppose that he’ll face resentment from other Associate Justices, all of whom were passed over for promotion? For the love of God, Stevens has been an Associate Justice for 30 years! Where’s the love? Oh well, I guess it could have been Scalia.

Now I would rather eat a popsicle covered with fire ants than see this asshole confirmed to the Supreme Court -- let alone Chief Justice. I don’t have any issues with Roberts’ legal qualifications. God knows he’s a far better attorney than me (of course that’s like winning the “Tallest Midget” contest).

The Washington Post -- which supports Roberts’ confirmation -- praised him by stating:

“Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy. Before his nomination, we suggested several criteria that Mr. Bush should adopt to garner broad bipartisan support: professional qualifications of the highest caliber, a modest conception of the judicial function, a strong belief in the stability of precedent, adherence to judicial philosophy, even where the results are not politically comfortable, and an appreciation that fidelity to the text of the Constitution need not mean cramped interpretations of language that was written for a changing society. Judge Roberts possesses the personal qualities we hoped for and testified impressively as to his belief in the judicial values. While he almost certainly won't surprise America with generally liberal rulings, he appears almost as unlikely to willfully use the law to advance his conservative politics.”

That sounds like wishful thinking to me and misses the point of the Roberts confirmation process. The issue has to do with his views and how he would respond if he were faced with certain legal issues. I think that the NY Times got it correctly when it stated:

“It has been difficult for senators to extricate his views. During his brief term as a judge, he has written few notable opinions. The White House has refused to release the memorandums he wrote in the solicitor general's office, which could have been revealing. Memos from earlier in his career raise red flags on issues like civil rights, women's rights and the right to privacy - which he dismissed, at one point, as the "so-called 'right to privacy.' " When confronted with this record, he often gave the impression of having moderated his views, but stopped well short. Over days of testimony, he dodged and weaved around many other critical legal issues. On abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and the right of illegal immigrants' children to attend public school - all currently recognized by the court - he asks to be accepted on faith.”

Accept on faith? Are you kidding me? The only thing I accept on faith is the fact that there will hot coffee at Peet’s when I go there in order to caffeinate after my ridiculously early 8:30 staff call. But that’s about it. Roberts represents a huge unknown risk, especially since he’s likely to serve 30+ years on the court. I recall that we did this same song and dance with Clarence Thomas when he was confirmed, where he refused to state a position on Roe v. Wade and trumped the confirmation hearings by throwing out the race card by referencing his high tech “lynching.” In fact, the only think I know about Roberts is that he looks like a right-wing freak and, evidently, he’s never sexually harassed Anita Hill. Big deal, neither have I.

First Amendment Repealed?

When it comes to free expression, I am as libertarian as they come. I am a big believer in the First Amendment. I strongly endorse freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the free exercise of one’s religion (just don’t teach that “intelligent design” crap in public school). So I believe in free expression, I really do.

And this extends to expressing one’s self via clothing and choice of dress. As you could guess, I’m not a big fan of mandatory school dress or clothing conformity. However, my endorsement of the First Amendment extends only to the door of the 24 Hour Fitness where I work out, within which I have seen an amazing array of entirely unacceptable workout attire. To wit:

* Wool caps - you live in Northern California and it’s 70+ degrees outside. Why the hell do you think you need a wool cap in the gym? To keep warm? Try being homeless in Washington DC for a weekend and then see if you really need it.

* Do-rags - I like to think I’m hip, but I honestly don’t understand this fashion trend. Slightly less acceptable than the wool cap.

* Spandex - I can envision certain limited instances where a minimal amount of spandex is acceptable. However, to the women at the 24 Hour Fitness in Oakland who wears the same goddamned spandex outfit (black leggings with fluorescent pink “bathing suit/thong” top) every night -- please, for the love of god. STOP IT! I would rather watch Courtney Love get a pap smear than watch you prance around the gym in that ridiculous outfit, pausing in front of every mirror so you can admire your “double bicep” pose. Enough is enough.

* Baggy Parachute Pants - these went out around the time MC Hammer dropped the “MC” from his name. Please stop.

* Loafers - for the love of god, invest in some form of athletic shoe. There is no justification for doing leg presses in a tasseled loafer. Fucking ridiculous.

* Ninja outfits - this is a new entry and was actually spotted today at the gym. Jaw dropping.

* Work clothes - there is no reason to work out in khakis. Ever.

* Shoes without socks - disgusting. Why don’t you just wear a skunk on your feet instead?

* Headbands - hey Olivia Newton John -- are you really sweating that profusely? Can’t you just bring a towel to mop your sopping brow?

* Jean cutoffs - unless you’re Daisy Duke or an 8-year old on a camping trip, this is never acceptable attire.

I won’t even get started with the appalling mix of music, which included songs by each of the talentless Simpson sisters and, I think, the Pointer Sisters. Would it really cut into the gym’s profit margin to invest in XM Radio or Sirius satellite radio service?

Monkey No Like GW

I've uncovered a previously-unpublished photo which is either:

(a) GW working on his memoirs while in the Oval Office, or
(b) Current Supreme Court-nominee John Roberts typing up potential non-answers to questions he faces during the Senate confirmation hearings.

If you chose (a), I'm sorry but you guessed wrong. I admit that there is a stunning resemblance between GW and this chimpanzee, not to mention the fact that they both possess opposable thumbs. However, I have to put the monkey higher up on the evolutionary/intelligence scale than GW. Plus, I am pretty confident that GW lacks the mental capacity to type. I do believe, though, that if we got 99 more monkeys and 99 more typewriters, they could, in fact, type Shakespeare. Or perhaps GW's White House memoirs.

*** Disclaimer ***

If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don't you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can't think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all who claim it? Do you read everything you're supposed to read? Do you think everything you're supposed to think? Buy what you're told you should want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you're alive. If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned ....... Tyler Durden