I'm thinking about adding a category called ITWB (If this was Bush ...)

from Jay Nordlinger

body {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt; margin:0; padding:0; background:#fff; color:#000} td,form {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt;} A {color:#66c; text-decoration: none;} A.black {color:#000; text-decoration: none;} A:hover, A:active {text-decoration: underline;}

The headline in the Washington Post is "Abortion Rights Backers Get Reassurances on Nominee." The article begins, "The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure."   Would the headline "Anti-Abortion Groups Get Reassurances on Nominee," in the event of a pro-life president's selection, be a teeny-weeny bit of a problem?

www.flickchart.com

Rather than rating movies 1-100 or on a 5 star system, this site gives em to you 2 at a time...you pick the better one....and it accumulates your rating.  You can play by "all" movies, withing a genre, decade or even year......and see where movies are rated by all users.  The more you rate the more your rating adds to the overall.  the site is currently dominated by fanboys and techies so the top 20 is heavily skewed to Batman, the Stars (War and Trek), and LOTR.......takes about 5 days to get the response email once you sign up but it's been a TON of fun.......so over the next few days I'll regail you with a few of my select top 10's .....the more movies you rate of course the more accurate your list.....i'm currently just over 700.....sign on and share!

I seem to have accumulated a lot of these over the last few weeks....is it me?  Or someone else?

from the AP, May 21 : President Barack Obama sees his secretary of defense just about every day, but he still flubbed Robert Gates' name on Thursday. Gates was in the crowd for Obama's national security speech. Pointing him out, the president said "William Gates" was on hand. Perhaps Obama was thinking of Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire. Well, that would explain the Pentagon's new "Blue Screen of Death" weapons program.

I'm still getting caught up from May's bizarre schedule and I stumbled across last months Q&A from Newsweek with The One.  A few select quotes:

And the last movie you saw?

Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house … So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good."

The ARROGANCE!  "My house"!!!!??????  It's the PEOPLE'S house.  Had GWB referred to the WH as HIS house the LWM would STILL be screaming.

Then there was this gem:

Did you watch that when you were growing up?

I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole--the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.

The word evocative simply means to provoke emotional response or memories. But by focusing on "philosophy" and "commentary" Obama obviously meant that Star Trek provoked thinking so it was intellectually provocative not emotionally evocative. Additionally, how much evoking can a 10-year-old indulge?

So, why doesn't the smartest man in the world know the difference between provocative and evocative?

I really didn't think it could be this easy, especially since the mainstream media seems unable to do it.  Back in January the Obama Administration warned that if the three trilion dollar stimulus package wasn't passed, tripeling the national debt, inflation wil rise to 8 1/2 or maybe even 9%

It passed.

And here we are 5 months later looking at 9 1/2% unemployment.

By Obama's OWN NUMBERS  things are worse WITH the stimulus package than they would have been without.

Sad, really.

"Lakers Halfway to Title, Top Magic in OT"

There's an 82 game schedule, then 4 best of 7 elimination pairings.  Going up 2-0 in one of those parings, even if it's the LAST one, does NOT mean you're "halfawy to the title."  They were halfway to the title about 40 games ago!  

Look at it ths way: they need to win 2 more games for the title.  IF they win ONE game, are they then "halfway to the title"? becasue they've won half of the games they currently need?

and the media wonders why we're loosing our trust.

Opening Night

One of my worst ever.

1. Pirates first entrance. We've always pushed the tempo....last night we finished about a measure and a half before the orchestra. Hook is to take a tumble from a bier. He fell wrong and wrenched his back. As a result, his lines, timing and lyrics went out the window. Our first funny bit was totally lost and thus failed the other two times it was performed in the show. The tango lyrics were only sung about 1/3 of the time. Nagging feeling that something else is missing.

2. Second entrance: Lost boys built Wendy's House crooked so our dance area was greatly reduced. Dance fine. Lines fine. Lyrics fine. Comedy bits lost – timing off. And costume bits flying apart on stage (only two, but still) Nagging feeling continues....can't put my finger on it.

3. Tiger Lily scene. Starkey got tangled up backstage and missed the entrance. It's his big scene. I'd done the bit before so I grabbed TL and Smee and I went ahead with the scene....about halfway through the initial cross (all Smee lines) Starkey came up behind us. I placed TL in her spot, went back to mine and the scene played out just fine. Nagging feeling lingers. WHAT'S MISSING?

4. Abduction scene: Somebody spilled bubble solution downstage. Seemed to concern the Indians quite a bit but nobody really plays that scene in the DS area so not an issue. Lost Boys have been playing the scene too far up and too far right so the abduction looses it's surprise. Otherwise this scene came off fine

5. Waltz: not bad. Except. Went to grab the lapels of my vest in the middle of the song when I realized what the nagging feeling was and what was missing. My vest! Did the whole show w/o it. And nobody noticed. Although Smee mentioned at one point I looked a little “Luke Skywalker-ish” due to the off white tunic I was wearing. Battle on the ship. Not bad. I Gotta Crow: not bad.

Margret Qwamme wrote the review. More of a rundown. All very “factual.” Cast wasn't happy as we retired to the Jury Room to lick our wounds. BG seemed OK with it all … audience seemed to enjoy it. Tonight we fix it and do it right.

One down four to go.

Sorry about the hiatus. All of our worldly goods have been packed away for storage … and Peter Pan opens tonight. Opening nights are often quite exciting but this one just isn't. The thrill will hit when the curtain goes up....and again when that first laugh comes at some “bit” I've done....and a third at that first ripple of applause. But it's been a tough run, what with all of the distractions. My fellow pirates have been GREAT! No dissension in the ranks. We've all gotten along well. Not so for the other groups. There's been some bickering amongst the Lost Boys/Darlings and some issues among the Indians. And the opportunity to work on the Great Southern Theater stage is AWESOME.

I'll try to resume regular contributions in June ….. not like there hasn't been anything going on.....what with a new Supreme Court nominee, the Norks throwing nukes, Obama closing down all of the Republican Chrysler dealerships and a handful of other fun things!

Obama is now taking:

 the same  position on polar bears as Sarah Palin

the same positon on Gitmo as George Bush

and the same position on Same Sex Marriage as Bush and Chrisitian Miss California Prejean.

Hope and change!

Interesting chat at the (online) poker game last night. Over the months this has become like a home game. We're all getting to know each other, our styles, etc. So last night another “longtimer” decided to hold forth on how he views our styles. He's one of the good guys so his comments were enjoyed and taken in the spirit of good fun which they were intended. Then some of the “newbies” or “occasionals” started to chime in and their observations were, well, just goofy.

Especially about me. Here's a little tip about how I (and many others) play tournament poker. We play small ball early when everybody has chips and blinds are small. After 3-5 levels however the mix is QUITE different. You encounter (or find yourself in) more short stacks. And SS play is VERY different from “normal” play. So I find myself pushing more – either because I wanna steal blinds, force drawing hands out or force SS's into committing when they shouldn't. Nothing radical there. And yet there sits a guy who, over the course of the last six months, has played probably a dozen hands with me. Tops. Telling everybody how I play. It'd be like visiting The Strip at noon then telling everybody there really aren't that many bright shiny lights. Then another noob picks up on one of the longtimer's comments. He'd mentioned how “lucky” I am. I “always” draw/suck out. Three hands later I'm UTG with JJ. I raise 3xbb....two callers. Flop comes 3-5-K rainbow. I bet the pot, everybody folds and he sez “see, you ALWAYS hit.” At which point I showed my cards and advised that I DON'T “always” hit – I just outplay him. Then I catch hell because I got testy about it. Sheesh. Went on to finish 4^th. Here's the deal: the math of cards is immutable. The math IS the math. If I'm getting pot odds, I call. If I'm not, I don't. And since I don't, other players rarely see me in hands when I REALLY suck out (2 outers, etc.) They OFTEN see me in hands where I'm getting the correct odds to make the play and when I win them they remember, but can never recall it when I don't.

Bottom line – the view of the donk is that the other guy ALWAYS wins because he's lucky, and the donk ALWAYS wins because he's skillful. The view of the good player is that 25% of the cards in the deck are spades, 1/13^th are aces, sometimes the donk wins but over time the good player will.