USAToday.com is reporting that the luxury condo's and other projects are getting canceled and cut back as sales take a nose dive. Doesn't seem like a big deal until you realize that the linchpin of the United States continuing strong economy has been in a large part due to the stability and growth of the real estate industry. The idea is there is a finite amount of worthwhile land and so it value can only increase. This idea has been true to for several decades of growth.
Its too early to make noises and alarms about this, but its definitely something to keep an eye out on as it could be the first sign of a destabilize economy where high oil prices are hitting everyone in the wallet (except oil executives of course). The constant attempt by Republicans to spend like no tomorrow (to a 8 trillion dollar deficit) along with virtually no increase in wages while a strong increase in cost of living, as resulted in a squeeze on the middle class. A class that historically loved to spend their disposable income to excess but hasn't been able to in recent years.
Hopefully this is just a blip on the economic radar but a little concern is not a bad thing.
(source)
Monday, July 31, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
Minimum Wage Increase as a Cost
Republicans have indicated they are willing to pass a 3 year phased on plan to boost minimum wage to $7.25 an hours. The cost though is to make GOP passed tax cuts permanent. This includes tax cut on multimillion-dollar estates, R&D credit for business and deductions for college tuition.
For a 8 trillion dollar deficit and supposedly being the party of fiscal responsibility, the Republicans are doing an outstanding job of not seeming to give a crap. If you want tax cuts, cut spending. Iraq and Haliburton contracts seem like a good place to start. I don't really understand what is complicated about the equation.
Also, can republicans actually pass laws that don't give tax cuts for their wealthy benefactors? Is there some oath that they are taking that prevents them from doing that?
Do have to admit the plan is devious and smart. The democrats try to vote against the bill they will have to deal with "flip flop" comments of the "I was for it before I was against variety." They can speak to Kerry about how easy it is to explain that to the public.
However, if the Democrats make enough show of passing the law, how they are doing it "for the people", "for the poor" and so on and so forth, they can use the tax cut riders combined with the deficit to rake the republicans over the coals with the bill. I guess time will tell how this will play out but it sounds like its going to be a Republican victory.
(source)
For a 8 trillion dollar deficit and supposedly being the party of fiscal responsibility, the Republicans are doing an outstanding job of not seeming to give a crap. If you want tax cuts, cut spending. Iraq and Haliburton contracts seem like a good place to start. I don't really understand what is complicated about the equation.
Also, can republicans actually pass laws that don't give tax cuts for their wealthy benefactors? Is there some oath that they are taking that prevents them from doing that?
Do have to admit the plan is devious and smart. The democrats try to vote against the bill they will have to deal with "flip flop" comments of the "I was for it before I was against variety." They can speak to Kerry about how easy it is to explain that to the public.
However, if the Democrats make enough show of passing the law, how they are doing it "for the people", "for the poor" and so on and so forth, they can use the tax cut riders combined with the deficit to rake the republicans over the coals with the bill. I guess time will tell how this will play out but it sounds like its going to be a Republican victory.
(source)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Exxon Record Profits Continue
Exxon Mobil reported another near record breaking 2nd quarter profit today. According to cnn.com, that makes the earnings $1318.00 a second in profit. Now remember, profit is money made after expenses such as repairs, R&D, payroll, compensation, all that stuff. This is pure, in the bank, swim in like Scrooge McDuck profit. This is despite the claims of instability in the Middle East disrupting supply and other supposed increases in cost. Again profit is money made after those costs.
Gas sits at $3.00 plus a gallon, the search for new energy sources has been lackluster at best in part because of the oil lobby, yet they are not price gouging? Does any of it make sense to you because it doesn't to me. All I can say is elections are coming up, send the message to your rep that if you support big oil, you don't vote for them.
(source)
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Signing Statements Violate Constitution
According to a task force from the American Bar Associations, President Bush's tendency to add "signing statements" to every law he signed (in lieu of a veto), where he typically would make the statement that the law didn't apply the executive branch as Bush "reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds."
Presidents in the pass have also issued signing statements but whether of the nature of Bush's is unclear. However have never issued them with the frequency of Bush. At most, Presidents have used the ability rarely and in most cases don't try to enforce it. Bush has added 800+ signing statements in his 5 and a half years of office, compared to 600 statements by all previous presidents in the past 225 years.
Considering the legislative branch (Congress) was designed to create the laws and the executive branch (the President) is meant to enforce the law, while the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) is meant to interpret the law, this seems like a no brainer to me since his states basically reserved the right for Bush to act as Congress or the Supreme Court when he saw fit to do so.
Even though Congress has claimed concern over this proactive, in reality they have done very little to counter it and don't seem to really care about the attempts on the part of the Bush Administration to grow and gather power. Naive thinking by the Republican Congress considering that a Republican may not always remain in office.
More discouraging, the ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.
(source)
Presidents in the pass have also issued signing statements but whether of the nature of Bush's is unclear. However have never issued them with the frequency of Bush. At most, Presidents have used the ability rarely and in most cases don't try to enforce it. Bush has added 800+ signing statements in his 5 and a half years of office, compared to 600 statements by all previous presidents in the past 225 years.
Considering the legislative branch (Congress) was designed to create the laws and the executive branch (the President) is meant to enforce the law, while the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) is meant to interpret the law, this seems like a no brainer to me since his states basically reserved the right for Bush to act as Congress or the Supreme Court when he saw fit to do so.
Even though Congress has claimed concern over this proactive, in reality they have done very little to counter it and don't seem to really care about the attempts on the part of the Bush Administration to grow and gather power. Naive thinking by the Republican Congress considering that a Republican may not always remain in office.
More discouraging, the ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.
(source)
Monopoly Says Hello To Plastic
Parker Bros has decided to update that old boardgame workhorse, Monopoly, using a little tech voodoo and an agreement with Visa, to do away with the brightly colored money and replace it with plastic starting sometime this fall.
Apparently the change is a result of surveys that show that most adults no longer carry cash and simply use plastic for most transactions. The cost of the new money method will set you back around $30 US versus the old style which use to cost around $15.
(source)
Friday, July 21, 2006
More The Daily Show Fun
The Daily Show has had a great week of really giving it to the hypocrite and stupids that is our leadership and press corps. Wednesday night, they provide a nice, easy to understand explanation on the Net Neutrality issue in their usual hilarious way. Thursday was TDS highlighting the Bush Administration hypocrisy on life as illustrated by his veto of the stem cell bill and the Iraq War.
Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data is to be treated neutrally by networks regardless of who its coming from and who its going to. It can be a trillion dollar company or some little girl selling pictures, its data, so its all the same.
The phone companies and ISPs want to create a second tier to the internet that provides a "higher" class of service. Now, this doesn't mean the service is actually better, it just means that they can charge all the companies out there to not do anything or give preference to their sites over others. The idea is say google, would pay a fee to insure traffic gets to and from them successfully. The fee could also has an effect of encouraging you to go to the site, or forcing you to. The end result is the "mom and pop" sites would be left out as only the big businesses could handle all the associated fees, which of course would be passed on the to consumer. This also has the effect of having these companies deciding what websites you can go to (based on who pays and who doesn't) rather then you deciding.
The whore for this bill is, of course, Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens. There isn't an idea he will not support if the money isn't right. As TDS illustrates, the man doesn't even know, much less understand, the internet, yet he is trying to pass a bill that would have massive consequences for its daily use. Its horrible horrible leadership, but then its Ted Stevens so what do expect?
Click here to get to the video and here to show support for Net Neutrality.
Thursday, Jon Stewart uses Bush's and Tony Snow's on words and actions to illustrate that for a man who values life, as he sure can be cavalier about it. Bush claimed he valued life when he vetoed the Stem Cell bill, a bill he obviously didn't bother to actually read since it proposed making use of cells that where going to be destroyed anyway. He was under some delusion that it would interfere with women who wanted to get pregnant. How that is has yet to be explained. Now compared to that you have Iraq where stats such as 30000 dead is not such a big deal.
Bush: I think it's important to promote a culture of life... A society where every being counts, every person matters.
Stewart: Every. Being. Counts. Every. Person. Matters.
Bush:: How many Iraq citizens have died in this war? Umm. I would say 30,000 more or less...
Stewart: Each one precious...
Click here to watch the video. Its worth the time.
Kevin Smith Rips Joel Siegel
Kevin Smith tossed up a post on his myspace blog that tears into Joel Siegel for his rude behavior during a screening of Clerks II. Apparently Joel just didn't like the movie, and rather then choosing to walk out quietly, he decided that everyone in the room needed to know why he was leaving. Suffice it to say, Kevin didn't appreciate that. Don't blame him.
Read the post here.
RIP PSP?
In an article from Gamworld Network, they suggest that the PSP is done. The attempt at creating the next gen videogame handheld has failed, and not because of the Nintendo DS but more because its a reflection of what Sony didn't do right.
The trigger of this argument seems to be Target no longer selling UMD format for movies with rumors that Best Buy and Wal-Mart will do the same. Once that happens, all studio will bow out too. This is a gimme to me. I don't know what genius business exec though people would be willing to pay as much if not more, for a UMD movie that can't hold all the features of a DVD, only plays on the small screen of the PSP, and just doesn't look as good. If they couldn't price it right, they shouldn't have introduced it.
The biggest problem with the system is the games. The system is more Playstation 1.5 then its own brand and identity. It seems designers decided it was just easier to port games then create unique experiences for the handheld market. If I wanted a PS1 or 2 game, I wouldn't need the handheld afterall.
Another issue is price. The PSP isn't worth the $200 price tag, especially in light that the much funner and better Wii is going to be that price too. Nevermind the more competitivily price Nintendo DS. On top of that, you have $40-$50 games that are not worth that price point. The cause of that price is that making the games is nearly as expensive as the console games, but that seems like a problem that should be taken up with Sony, not with the consumer.
Theatrically, the PSP can survive, but that requires a whole new approach to the system, with a new approach on how its sold and its prices. I doubt that will happen with the focus Sony currently has on the PS3. Long story short, if you are thinking of buying the system, give it a pass.
Article is here.
The trigger of this argument seems to be Target no longer selling UMD format for movies with rumors that Best Buy and Wal-Mart will do the same. Once that happens, all studio will bow out too. This is a gimme to me. I don't know what genius business exec though people would be willing to pay as much if not more, for a UMD movie that can't hold all the features of a DVD, only plays on the small screen of the PSP, and just doesn't look as good. If they couldn't price it right, they shouldn't have introduced it.
The biggest problem with the system is the games. The system is more Playstation 1.5 then its own brand and identity. It seems designers decided it was just easier to port games then create unique experiences for the handheld market. If I wanted a PS1 or 2 game, I wouldn't need the handheld afterall.
Another issue is price. The PSP isn't worth the $200 price tag, especially in light that the much funner and better Wii is going to be that price too. Nevermind the more competitivily price Nintendo DS. On top of that, you have $40-$50 games that are not worth that price point. The cause of that price is that making the games is nearly as expensive as the console games, but that seems like a problem that should be taken up with Sony, not with the consumer.
Theatrically, the PSP can survive, but that requires a whole new approach to the system, with a new approach on how its sold and its prices. I doubt that will happen with the focus Sony currently has on the PS3. Long story short, if you are thinking of buying the system, give it a pass.
Article is here.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Don't You Just Want To Smack Nancy Grace?
The more I hear about Nancy Grace, the more she becomes a stain on humanity. She is a television shill in all ways that are horrendous. She pretends to care about people, want to know, inform, and learn, but really she is a selfish b$@#% that just cares about how many people think about what a wonderful person she is. Of course if you even watch her program for 10 minutes you know she is not a great person. She is a horrible person. A person that few people should allow in their lives as she would probably stab you in the back at the first chance if it will create a television "moment."
Case in point was a recent interview with Elizabeth Smart. Smart appeared on the show to help push a new sex offender bill. Grace chose to ignore this and tried to get at the dirty and nasty details of her kidnapping. I hate to think what questions she was restricted from asking but I get the feeling they where R-rated. The women is sick and she tarnishes the CNN brand.
Credit to the lovely Elizabeth Smart for not putting up with Grace. Wish more people did that instead of taking her s#$t.
Click here to get to the video clip.
(source)
Case in point was a recent interview with Elizabeth Smart. Smart appeared on the show to help push a new sex offender bill. Grace chose to ignore this and tried to get at the dirty and nasty details of her kidnapping. I hate to think what questions she was restricted from asking but I get the feeling they where R-rated. The women is sick and she tarnishes the CNN brand.
Credit to the lovely Elizabeth Smart for not putting up with Grace. Wish more people did that instead of taking her s#$t.
Click here to get to the video clip.
(source)
Jon Stewart Has Fun with "War?"
Jon Stewart has some fun with the CNN and a little with Fox over there hesitation to define the conflict between Israel and Lebanon as a war. They spent most of Thursday of last week making heavy use of the word "War?", to avoid coverage fatigue. You want to word, but why commit to anything if can save it for the next day right?
Jon Stewart: Welcome back to the program! Returning to the Middle East because, if we don't, really who will? The crisis began Thursday morning. I learned about it from the TV. As the bombs began to rain on Israel and Lebanon, at 4PM Thursday CNN asked the question, "Brink of war?" Huh? CNN's not sure. Is it war? The brink of war? The brink of brink of war? A precipice leading to a slope ending on a brink with war?
Click here for the YouTube video. Worth the watch.
(source)
Bush Loses His Veto Virginity
President Bush yesterday lost his veto virginity when he employed his veto power on a stem cell research bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others." The bill would have allowed research on frozen embryos at fertility clinics.
Now before you get all shocked and go "but they could become children!!!", please keep in mind that these embryos are not ever going to become life. They are in storage to help the ladies that put them there become pregnant. "Officials say that about 400,000 frozen embryos are stored at U.S. fertility clinics. The vast majority await disposal because the couples that produced them have completed their pursuit of children and do not want another person to raise their biological child."
Its not like a sperm bank where anyone can make deposits and withdrawal when they want to. The embryos are there for a particular person to use and only that person. If they change their minds, get pregnant, whatever, those embryos get destroyed. The bill proposed doing something useful that will benefit all of humanity and because of the ignorance of the President and a few others, he chose to use his veto power for the first time. Ironically this might the be very first time that Bush stopped something that would have helped his big business interests. Silver lining somewhere right?
Now before you get all shocked and go "but they could become children!!!", please keep in mind that these embryos are not ever going to become life. They are in storage to help the ladies that put them there become pregnant. "Officials say that about 400,000 frozen embryos are stored at U.S. fertility clinics. The vast majority await disposal because the couples that produced them have completed their pursuit of children and do not want another person to raise their biological child."
Its not like a sperm bank where anyone can make deposits and withdrawal when they want to. The embryos are there for a particular person to use and only that person. If they change their minds, get pregnant, whatever, those embryos get destroyed. The bill proposed doing something useful that will benefit all of humanity and because of the ignorance of the President and a few others, he chose to use his veto power for the first time. Ironically this might the be very first time that Bush stopped something that would have helped his big business interests. Silver lining somewhere right?
YouTube "War"
Ana Marie Cox (ex-Wonkette) posted an interesting article on time.com about the home movies/documentaries that US soldier's in Iraq have begun making and compiled for a documentary called "The War Tapes." Some of these videos are apparently on YouTube if you can find them. She describes how the videos provide an "untarnished" view of the war and the attitudes of the soldiers over there.
The article is interesting but sadly Ana felt compelled to add her uninformed two cents by saying "raised on Nintendo and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, the troops fighting this war want to experience the kind of battle promised to them by Splinter Cell and Total Recall. The videos they make are an attempt to salvage a war whose coherence crumbled soon after Saddam's statue fell. However, while they offer the credibility of an unvarnished image, they lack any meaningful context of what came before and after the clip, or what's happening outside the frame."
The result of this is she undermined the whole point of the article. In all the gibberish, she is dismissing the soldiers viewpoint because the videos have an amateur vibe (no shit Sherlock) and inserts the idea that the soldiers thought war was all fun and games (I call bullshit on that one). I doubt any soldier thinks that, more likely they are just disenfranchised with why they are there and the direction. This occurs in any circumstance, war or just paper pushing, when there is no end in sight, the shit keeps piling up, and the powers that be clearly don't have a clue what they are doing. I guess then the point of the article is if the soldier is not a professional film maker with a "thank god I am here rather then with my wife and kids" viewpoint, then really, no one should hear from them all.
Click here to see what she is referring to.
The article is interesting but sadly Ana felt compelled to add her uninformed two cents by saying "raised on Nintendo and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, the troops fighting this war want to experience the kind of battle promised to them by Splinter Cell and Total Recall. The videos they make are an attempt to salvage a war whose coherence crumbled soon after Saddam's statue fell. However, while they offer the credibility of an unvarnished image, they lack any meaningful context of what came before and after the clip, or what's happening outside the frame."
The result of this is she undermined the whole point of the article. In all the gibberish, she is dismissing the soldiers viewpoint because the videos have an amateur vibe (no shit Sherlock) and inserts the idea that the soldiers thought war was all fun and games (I call bullshit on that one). I doubt any soldier thinks that, more likely they are just disenfranchised with why they are there and the direction. This occurs in any circumstance, war or just paper pushing, when there is no end in sight, the shit keeps piling up, and the powers that be clearly don't have a clue what they are doing. I guess then the point of the article is if the soldier is not a professional film maker with a "thank god I am here rather then with my wife and kids" viewpoint, then really, no one should hear from them all.
Click here to see what she is referring to.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Same-Sex Amendment Tabled Till 2008
The House voted 236-187 against an amendment banning same sex marriage for the Constititution of the United States. This follows after the Senate did the same thing several weeks ago.
So there you go, the parties have their re-election fodder for the rest of the '06 campaign and the Republican's have this issue to bring back up in 2008 to tap the sheep...oops meant "the base", again for the '08 election cycle. All in all, my compliments to the planners. They get their cake and get to eat it too whenever need the boost.
So there you go, the parties have their re-election fodder for the rest of the '06 campaign and the Republican's have this issue to bring back up in 2008 to tap the sheep...oops meant "the base", again for the '08 election cycle. All in all, my compliments to the planners. They get their cake and get to eat it too whenever need the boost.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Daily Show and Colbert Report Amusement
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has some fun with hypocrisy and irony last night on their shows in regards to our fearful leaders and their apostles.
The Daily show had fun with their old nemesis, ex-CNN host and "reporter" Novak and Hannity. In one clip Hannity talk about how wrong it is to leak information, but then in the next clip he compliments Novak for his integrity in leaking Plame's employer. From Stewart: "They don't understand why it's such a big deal and that's why they've been covering it up for the past two years."
Click here to download the video.
Over on Colbert Report, he pokes fun at Lieberman and his campaign to run as an Independent if he doesn't make it in the primary as a Democrat, even though his beliefs, votes and policies almost match up 1 to 1 with Bush's. He finally poked one more pointed finger at Liebererman using his section The Word, an Inconvenient Truth. Worth the watch.
The video is here.
The Daily show had fun with their old nemesis, ex-CNN host and "reporter" Novak and Hannity. In one clip Hannity talk about how wrong it is to leak information, but then in the next clip he compliments Novak for his integrity in leaking Plame's employer. From Stewart: "They don't understand why it's such a big deal and that's why they've been covering it up for the past two years."
Click here to download the video.
Over on Colbert Report, he pokes fun at Lieberman and his campaign to run as an Independent if he doesn't make it in the primary as a Democrat, even though his beliefs, votes and policies almost match up 1 to 1 with Bush's. He finally poked one more pointed finger at Liebererman using his section The Word, an Inconvenient Truth. Worth the watch.
The video is here.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Rocketboom 2.0 and Amanda Congdon
Rocketboom 2.0 began yesterday with new host (ex MTV Europe News VJ) Joanne Colan. Rocketboom was one of the first video blogs on the internet that started last year with long time host Amanda Congdon at the helm. She, however, was fired or quit. That part is under debate depending on who you ask.
Amanda posted that she was fired by Rocketboom creator Andrew Baron on July 4th. Apparently he wanted her as host or as part owner, but not both. He claims she quit to explore furthering her acting career in Los Angeles. Based on how she tells it in a post on blog, AmandaUnBoomed, it sounds like she was trying to have her cake and eat it to. Her goal was move to Las Angeles to help with a new project "The Jet Set Show" and for "Rocketboom" business.
Considering that Rocketboom was largely a news of the weird/stream of consciousness/celebrity this and that, it fits with what the show was going for. Can't beat LA for all that. However, as her imdb.com profile shows, and she admits, she clearly has a desire to be an actress and has goals that go way beyond Rocketboom. Its sounds like, at least briefly, the plans of Rocketboom and her plans reached a consensus which then seemed to fall apart as Rocketboom never went forward with the LA plans. I have a feeling this is the core of the rift between the two.
So where does this leave Rocketboom and Amanda Congdon? Rocketboom 2.0 has launched, new host took a few tomatoes for giggles, and its course is already looking steady. Basically, Amanda was easily replaced and the ADD that is the internet audience will begin to move on.
Not trying to be rude on that, but the simple fact is most programs, even vlogs, survive as much on the behind the scenes talent as it does the on-camera talent. Considering what I have seen of Rocketboom, it was the former that allowed the latter to look better. I am biased though as while both woman are very attractive and personable, I am a sucker for a British accent. Just as many daily programs survive host changes, so too shall this one.
This doesn't leave Amanda out in the pasture though. She has gotten more press in the last week then ever received in the year plus she has been plugging away on Rocketboom. Articles are everywhere about her, she even compiled some. Long story short, she has about a 90 day window to cash in on the opportunity that getting fired in a public fashion (thanks to blogs) has provided her.
Oh and little advice to the new host, producers, etc, make version 2.0 your own. Don't copy what came before, chart a new direction. Start by dropping the maps and the "good" day of the week bit. Those where Amanda's. Just as Jon Stewart made the Daily Show his own, make this show yours.
Amanda posted that she was fired by Rocketboom creator Andrew Baron on July 4th. Apparently he wanted her as host or as part owner, but not both. He claims she quit to explore furthering her acting career in Los Angeles. Based on how she tells it in a post on blog, AmandaUnBoomed, it sounds like she was trying to have her cake and eat it to. Her goal was move to Las Angeles to help with a new project "The Jet Set Show" and for "Rocketboom" business.
Considering that Rocketboom was largely a news of the weird/stream of consciousness/celebrity this and that, it fits with what the show was going for. Can't beat LA for all that. However, as her imdb.com profile shows, and she admits, she clearly has a desire to be an actress and has goals that go way beyond Rocketboom. Its sounds like, at least briefly, the plans of Rocketboom and her plans reached a consensus which then seemed to fall apart as Rocketboom never went forward with the LA plans. I have a feeling this is the core of the rift between the two.
So where does this leave Rocketboom and Amanda Congdon? Rocketboom 2.0 has launched, new host took a few tomatoes for giggles, and its course is already looking steady. Basically, Amanda was easily replaced and the ADD that is the internet audience will begin to move on.
Not trying to be rude on that, but the simple fact is most programs, even vlogs, survive as much on the behind the scenes talent as it does the on-camera talent. Considering what I have seen of Rocketboom, it was the former that allowed the latter to look better. I am biased though as while both woman are very attractive and personable, I am a sucker for a British accent. Just as many daily programs survive host changes, so too shall this one.
This doesn't leave Amanda out in the pasture though. She has gotten more press in the last week then ever received in the year plus she has been plugging away on Rocketboom. Articles are everywhere about her, she even compiled some. Long story short, she has about a 90 day window to cash in on the opportunity that getting fired in a public fashion (thanks to blogs) has provided her.
Oh and little advice to the new host, producers, etc, make version 2.0 your own. Don't copy what came before, chart a new direction. Start by dropping the maps and the "good" day of the week bit. Those where Amanda's. Just as Jon Stewart made the Daily Show his own, make this show yours.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Emmy Nominations Announced
The Emmy Nominations where announced yesterday. Sure much talk is occurring on the entertainment channels about it. The noms where both good and bad. A switch to panels hoping to give a better range of noms seems to have mostly failed as they continues to go with the safe selections of the past. There where some suprises noms such as Kyra Sedwick as best actress for the Closer, Lost almost getting ignored, and Desperate Housewives getting some votes but not nearly the total it got last year, but then again those surprises where only one and those shows seconds seasons where not nearly as good as their first.
Sadly some favorites of mine where left out as the WB and UPN continue to get completely ignored by the voters. That means my favorites of Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls got big goose eggs.
The major nom categories:
DRAMA SERIES
"Grey's Anatomy" (will win)
"House"
"The Sopranos"
"24" (should win)
"The West Wing"
I love House, the show is an absolute pleasure to watch, but it is formulaic and there was no outstanding episode or character arc that really stands out. 24 deserves the win for continue to push the envelope in drama, both human and political. However, at the end of the day, safe and comfortable is what the Emmy voters go for which Grey's Anatomy fits nicely.
COMEDY SERIES
"Arrested Development"
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" (will win)
"The Office"
"Scrubs" (should win)
"Two and a Half Men"
No idea what Two and a Half Men are doing in this category. Arrested Development is gone and already had a win so its out. The Office is ok but still not up there and while cute, not particularity funny. Scrubs should win because its consistently the best comedy on television, but sadly it doesn't get the attention and ratings it deserves. That leaves Emmy vote favorite Curb Your Enthusiasm. I don't thing the show is funny at all but insiders like it and since insiders vote, that's all that really matters.
MINISERIES
"Bleak House: Masterpiece Theater"
"Elizabeth I"
"Into the West" (will win)
"Sleeper Cell"
Uh beats me. I watched Elizabeth I but none of the rest. So I shall guess at random and say "Into the West" for it was the traditional multi-part epic that was the way of mini-series.
REALITY COMPETITION
"Amazing Race" (should win)
"American Idol" (will win)
"Dancing with the Stars"
"Project Runway"
"Survivor"
Amazing Race continues to be the best reality show in television. Great casting and fantastic scope, none compare. However, this year you had all of American, including Hollywood routing for whathisname to win so I expect America Idol to ride that coattail to victory.
MADE FOR TELEVISION MOVIE
"Flight 93" (will win)
"The Girl in a Cafe"
"Yesterday"
"Mrs. Harris"
Once again I have watched none of these. Since Flight 93 is the television movie version of the later theatrical released film I think voters will give it the win just to say "we can do great movies too"
ACTOR IN A DRAMA
Peter Krause - "Six Feet Under"
Dennis Leary - "Rescue Me" (should win)
Christopher Meloni - "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit"
Martin Sheen - "The West Wing"
Keifer Sutherland - "24" (will win)
This is a tough category to call. Really just guessing. Except for Six Feet Under, all of them are outstanding shows with outstanding acting. My preference is Dennis Leary for his acting on Rescue Me which is simply riveting. I think recent changes to the character will hurt em as the current season is airing while voters are deciding. For whatever reason SVU gets raves but little rewards even though Meloni continues to rock. The West Wing is over and besides he will get another Emmy for get guess appearance nod so why offer him two. That leaves Kiefer for 24.
ACTOR IN A COMEDY
Steve Carrell - "The Office" (will win)(should win)
Larry David - "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
Kevin James - "King of Queens"
Tony Shaloub - "Monk"
Charlie Sheen - "Two and a Half Men"
Emmy voters love to reward movie actors. While Steve is started in television, he has gained much recognition for his movies so he almost gets it for that alone. However, having said that, of the group, he has probably done the best job. Nothing against my fav of the bunch, Tony Shaloub for "Monk" but Steve's is just the more better performance, but only by a sliver. Kevin James and Charlie Sheen? WTF?
ACTRESS IN A DRAMA
Francis Conroy - "Six Feet Under"
Geena Davis - "Commander in Chief" (will win)
Mariska Hargitay - "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (should win)
Allison Janney - "The West Wing"
Kyra Sedgwick - "The Closer"
I have never understood why people like Six Feet Under. Its was a depressing show that moved at a depressing pace about depressing people, yet the Emmy folks love it. I am at a loss. Regardless, Francis will get nothing. I would love to see an SVU sweet of the main drama categories but Mariska already one once and her show is never the "safe" chose voters love. Allison was almost gone from the last season of the West Wing and didn't have any outstanding moments in the season. I don't even know why she was nominated. Kyra does a great job on the Closer but really the performance is highly entertaining but doesn't deserve rewards for it. Neither is Geena Davis performance in Commander in Chief. However, she use to be a movie star and that all the voters need to know.
This is one category that could have used a little shaking up. Less West Wing and Six Feet, more Veronica Mars and the like. Range people!! Reward range!
ACTRESS IN A COMEDY
Stockard Channing - "Out of Practice"
Jane Kaczmarek - "Malcolm in the Middle" (should win)
Lisa Kudrow - "The Comeback"
Debra Messing - "Will & Grace"
Julia Louise-Dreyfuss - "The New Adventures of Old Christine" (will win)
Jane Kaczmarek should have been nominated and won many times for many years for her performance on Malcolm in the Middle. She deserves it for the last season but sadly that show was always ignored by the voters and will be this year too. No clue why Lisa Kudrow got nominated for she stunk in a show that stunk. There was a reason HBO cancelled it so quickly. Debra Messing should get passed to just because she didn't exactly break new ground. She was coasting through the final season not because she was being lazy but because she has been there and done that so many times with that character. Not something you reward people for. Julia Louise-Dreyfuss will get the win..but not for her current series. This will be more of a win for her still lauded but rarely rewarded work on Seinfeld.
So there you go. The major categories. See on August 27th on NBC with host Conan O'Brian. Sadly the show is probably going to continue to be "safe" and really with these list of nods, its going to be mostly just boring. Personally I could care less who wins (besides Scrubs).
(source)
Sadly some favorites of mine where left out as the WB and UPN continue to get completely ignored by the voters. That means my favorites of Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls got big goose eggs.
The major nom categories:
DRAMA SERIES
"Grey's Anatomy" (will win)
"House"
"The Sopranos"
"24" (should win)
"The West Wing"
I love House, the show is an absolute pleasure to watch, but it is formulaic and there was no outstanding episode or character arc that really stands out. 24 deserves the win for continue to push the envelope in drama, both human and political. However, at the end of the day, safe and comfortable is what the Emmy voters go for which Grey's Anatomy fits nicely.
COMEDY SERIES
"Arrested Development"
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" (will win)
"The Office"
"Scrubs" (should win)
"Two and a Half Men"
No idea what Two and a Half Men are doing in this category. Arrested Development is gone and already had a win so its out. The Office is ok but still not up there and while cute, not particularity funny. Scrubs should win because its consistently the best comedy on television, but sadly it doesn't get the attention and ratings it deserves. That leaves Emmy vote favorite Curb Your Enthusiasm. I don't thing the show is funny at all but insiders like it and since insiders vote, that's all that really matters.
MINISERIES
"Bleak House: Masterpiece Theater"
"Elizabeth I"
"Into the West" (will win)
"Sleeper Cell"
Uh beats me. I watched Elizabeth I but none of the rest. So I shall guess at random and say "Into the West" for it was the traditional multi-part epic that was the way of mini-series.
REALITY COMPETITION
"Amazing Race" (should win)
"American Idol" (will win)
"Dancing with the Stars"
"Project Runway"
"Survivor"
Amazing Race continues to be the best reality show in television. Great casting and fantastic scope, none compare. However, this year you had all of American, including Hollywood routing for whathisname to win so I expect America Idol to ride that coattail to victory.
MADE FOR TELEVISION MOVIE
"Flight 93" (will win)
"The Girl in a Cafe"
"Yesterday"
"Mrs. Harris"
Once again I have watched none of these. Since Flight 93 is the television movie version of the later theatrical released film I think voters will give it the win just to say "we can do great movies too"
ACTOR IN A DRAMA
Peter Krause - "Six Feet Under"
Dennis Leary - "Rescue Me" (should win)
Christopher Meloni - "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit"
Martin Sheen - "The West Wing"
Keifer Sutherland - "24" (will win)
This is a tough category to call. Really just guessing. Except for Six Feet Under, all of them are outstanding shows with outstanding acting. My preference is Dennis Leary for his acting on Rescue Me which is simply riveting. I think recent changes to the character will hurt em as the current season is airing while voters are deciding. For whatever reason SVU gets raves but little rewards even though Meloni continues to rock. The West Wing is over and besides he will get another Emmy for get guess appearance nod so why offer him two. That leaves Kiefer for 24.
ACTOR IN A COMEDY
Steve Carrell - "The Office" (will win)(should win)
Larry David - "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
Kevin James - "King of Queens"
Tony Shaloub - "Monk"
Charlie Sheen - "Two and a Half Men"
Emmy voters love to reward movie actors. While Steve is started in television, he has gained much recognition for his movies so he almost gets it for that alone. However, having said that, of the group, he has probably done the best job. Nothing against my fav of the bunch, Tony Shaloub for "Monk" but Steve's is just the more better performance, but only by a sliver. Kevin James and Charlie Sheen? WTF?
ACTRESS IN A DRAMA
Francis Conroy - "Six Feet Under"
Geena Davis - "Commander in Chief" (will win)
Mariska Hargitay - "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (should win)
Allison Janney - "The West Wing"
Kyra Sedgwick - "The Closer"
I have never understood why people like Six Feet Under. Its was a depressing show that moved at a depressing pace about depressing people, yet the Emmy folks love it. I am at a loss. Regardless, Francis will get nothing. I would love to see an SVU sweet of the main drama categories but Mariska already one once and her show is never the "safe" chose voters love. Allison was almost gone from the last season of the West Wing and didn't have any outstanding moments in the season. I don't even know why she was nominated. Kyra does a great job on the Closer but really the performance is highly entertaining but doesn't deserve rewards for it. Neither is Geena Davis performance in Commander in Chief. However, she use to be a movie star and that all the voters need to know.
This is one category that could have used a little shaking up. Less West Wing and Six Feet, more Veronica Mars and the like. Range people!! Reward range!
ACTRESS IN A COMEDY
Stockard Channing - "Out of Practice"
Jane Kaczmarek - "Malcolm in the Middle" (should win)
Lisa Kudrow - "The Comeback"
Debra Messing - "Will & Grace"
Julia Louise-Dreyfuss - "The New Adventures of Old Christine" (will win)
Jane Kaczmarek should have been nominated and won many times for many years for her performance on Malcolm in the Middle. She deserves it for the last season but sadly that show was always ignored by the voters and will be this year too. No clue why Lisa Kudrow got nominated for she stunk in a show that stunk. There was a reason HBO cancelled it so quickly. Debra Messing should get passed to just because she didn't exactly break new ground. She was coasting through the final season not because she was being lazy but because she has been there and done that so many times with that character. Not something you reward people for. Julia Louise-Dreyfuss will get the win..but not for her current series. This will be more of a win for her still lauded but rarely rewarded work on Seinfeld.
So there you go. The major categories. See on August 27th on NBC with host Conan O'Brian. Sadly the show is probably going to continue to be "safe" and really with these list of nods, its going to be mostly just boring. Personally I could care less who wins (besides Scrubs).
(source)
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Coulter's Response to plagiarism Article
Ann Coulter got around to commenting on the plagiarism charges from the NY Post that I posted about before. In her July 5th column, she responded "How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper."
Not exactly a mature response and more telling, not a denial either. It seems like she couldn't help herself and had to same something, even if just a dismissive note, but I get the feeling she is just hoping the whole thing will blow over. It probably will but I hope not.
Even more ironic, Ann Coulter derided ex-New York Times reporter Jayson Blair for this very same behavior. She can't even claim she wasn't aware or doesn't know how the rules of sourcing works as she used much ink showing how she feels the behavior is wrong.
About Blair in her 5/15/03 column "The New York Times is to be commended for ferreting out Jayson Blair, the reporter recently discovered making up facts, plagiarism other news organizations and lying about nonexistent trips and interviews. A newspaper that employs Maureen Dowd can't have had an easy time settling on Blair as the scapegoat. Blair's record of inaccuracies, lies and distortions made him a candidate for either immediate dismissal or his own regular column on the op-ed page."
Click here for an interview Keith Olbermann had about this issue.
Here is hoping this issue starts to get into the mainstream press. FoxNews is unlikely to comment on it as she is their golden girl but nothing is stopping the other channels and newspapers from going to town on this issue. It shouldn't be ignored. She is a prominent political commentator who has condemned others for the very act she herself commits regularly. That behavior would not be tolerated from anyone else and it shouldn't be from her.
(source)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
North Korea Missile Crisis?
North Korea is working on having long range nuclear weapons and are very close to be successful as they showed the world with a test firing today. Once successful, North Korea gets to sit to force it ways with the big boys joining the US, Japan, Britain, Russia and several other past "super powers."
Basically the fears the US has had for the past 50+ years are about to realized. Many presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have had to spend a great deal of effort to keep North Korea under control and have had mostly been able to do that successfully as we have had the greater bargaining position in both military might and economic strength. With these tests, North Korea has made it clear it wants to be treated as equal to all the other big boys and is not afraid to force the issue.
The news reports have mostly focused on the military threat these tests represent. What they are largely ignoring is the diplomatic, economic and political strength it gives North Korea. Like all other countries that developed nuclear weapons, we can no longer hammer then into submission. We are now going to be forced to compromise with them often and regularly. To make concessions we normally would not have to. Basically they have become our "equals" whether we like it or not. We are no longer in a position of strength.
For this, let us all collectively thank Bush. While previous Presidents have been able to multi-task and make sure the nuclear gate remained closed while keeping an eye on other issues, Bush just couldn't seem to. He was so occupied with his legacy of Iraq that he forgot to keep an eye out for our other enemies such as North Korea. Probably because his advisors told him not worry as they seem to fear giving him bad news. Especially news that isn't clear and neat that can be cleared up with a slogan or a sound bite. Dealing with North Korea politically and diplomatically was never going to be simple so why confuse Bush with it.
So now, where were the administration has drilled into us that security is king over even our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as the evil terrorists will get us with their bombs. He instead allowed our most dangerous enemy to get the means to get the biggest bomb of all. I guess someone somewhere will get another medal for this screwup.
All this is so that Bush can secure what he feels will be his legacy - democracy in the Middle East. He believes he will be the man that secures peace in a land that has had it for thousands of years and he is willing to sacrifice anything, including our rights, our financial and political security to do it. He has now sacrificed our safety. Even more pathetic, he also sacrificed his legacy even though he doesn't realize it yet.
Even if Iraq turns into the peaceful land of democracy and freedom he envisions, he will always have North Korea as the asterisk on his legacy.
Basically the fears the US has had for the past 50+ years are about to realized. Many presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have had to spend a great deal of effort to keep North Korea under control and have had mostly been able to do that successfully as we have had the greater bargaining position in both military might and economic strength. With these tests, North Korea has made it clear it wants to be treated as equal to all the other big boys and is not afraid to force the issue.
The news reports have mostly focused on the military threat these tests represent. What they are largely ignoring is the diplomatic, economic and political strength it gives North Korea. Like all other countries that developed nuclear weapons, we can no longer hammer then into submission. We are now going to be forced to compromise with them often and regularly. To make concessions we normally would not have to. Basically they have become our "equals" whether we like it or not. We are no longer in a position of strength.
For this, let us all collectively thank Bush. While previous Presidents have been able to multi-task and make sure the nuclear gate remained closed while keeping an eye on other issues, Bush just couldn't seem to. He was so occupied with his legacy of Iraq that he forgot to keep an eye out for our other enemies such as North Korea. Probably because his advisors told him not worry as they seem to fear giving him bad news. Especially news that isn't clear and neat that can be cleared up with a slogan or a sound bite. Dealing with North Korea politically and diplomatically was never going to be simple so why confuse Bush with it.
So now, where were the administration has drilled into us that security is king over even our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as the evil terrorists will get us with their bombs. He instead allowed our most dangerous enemy to get the means to get the biggest bomb of all. I guess someone somewhere will get another medal for this screwup.
All this is so that Bush can secure what he feels will be his legacy - democracy in the Middle East. He believes he will be the man that secures peace in a land that has had it for thousands of years and he is willing to sacrifice anything, including our rights, our financial and political security to do it. He has now sacrificed our safety. Even more pathetic, he also sacrificed his legacy even though he doesn't realize it yet.
Even if Iraq turns into the peaceful land of democracy and freedom he envisions, he will always have North Korea as the asterisk on his legacy.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Ann Coulter - plagiarist?
Various blogs on the web has spoken about it for many months but the The New York Post finally reported Sunday that Ann Coulter, republican talking points pundit, might has a fondness for plagiarism in both her books and her columns.
John Barrie used his own program, iThenticate, to search against her recent book "Godless" and several of her columns.
Her Aug. 3, 2005, column, 'Read My Lips: No New Liberals,' about U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, includes six passages, ranging from 10 to 48 words each, that appeared 15 years earlier in the same order in an L.A. Times article, headlined 'Liberals Leery as New Clues Surface on Souter's Views.' But nowhere in that column does she mention the L.A. Times or the story's writer, David G. Savage.
"Her June 29, 2005, column, 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion,' incorporates 10 facts on National Endowment for the Arts-funded work that originally appeared in the same order in a 1991 Heritage Foundation report, 'The National Endowment for the Arts: Misusing Taxpayers' Money.' But again, the Heritage Foundation isn't credited."
- source: editorandpublisher.com
Its highly likely that Ann Coulter plagarizes. This opinion is based on nothing further then the fact her entire career is based on blowing smoke and making stuff up on the fly. Actually research and learning the issues are not a strength she bothers to display.
Now normally this is a grave sin in the publishing world that often results in the lost of jobs both for the one that commits the act and the editor that didn't catch it. I wonder if anything will come of this case considering that Ann is the darling of the Republican world currently? I think not likely.
(source)
John Barrie used his own program, iThenticate, to search against her recent book "Godless" and several of her columns.
Her Aug. 3, 2005, column, 'Read My Lips: No New Liberals,' about U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, includes six passages, ranging from 10 to 48 words each, that appeared 15 years earlier in the same order in an L.A. Times article, headlined 'Liberals Leery as New Clues Surface on Souter's Views.' But nowhere in that column does she mention the L.A. Times or the story's writer, David G. Savage.
"Her June 29, 2005, column, 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion,' incorporates 10 facts on National Endowment for the Arts-funded work that originally appeared in the same order in a 1991 Heritage Foundation report, 'The National Endowment for the Arts: Misusing Taxpayers' Money.' But again, the Heritage Foundation isn't credited."
- source: editorandpublisher.com
Its highly likely that Ann Coulter plagarizes. This opinion is based on nothing further then the fact her entire career is based on blowing smoke and making stuff up on the fly. Actually research and learning the issues are not a strength she bothers to display.
Now normally this is a grave sin in the publishing world that often results in the lost of jobs both for the one that commits the act and the editor that didn't catch it. I wonder if anything will come of this case considering that Ann is the darling of the Republican world currently? I think not likely.
(source)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)