Air America's Ratings Suck!

With all the talk and hype surrounding Air America Radio, I thought they’d at least have decent ratings. So I did some googleing today. I was wrong. So very very wrong. I’ve compiled a fairly rough list from 3 websites that rank radio shows by popularity. Here’s the websites:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/373426p-317475c.html
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/05/annual-talk-host-rankings-revealed.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/1/14399/2475

Here’s a list that I kinda slapped together based on the above links:

Rank Talkshow Host Listeners (In Millions)
1 Rush Limbaugh 14.75
2 Sean Hannity 13
3 Michael Savage 8.75
4 Dr. Laura Schlessinger 7.5
4 Howard Stern 8.5
6 Laura Ingraham 5
7 Neal Boortz 3.5
8 Mike Gallagher 3.5
8 Jim Bohannon 3.75
10 Clark Howard 3.25
10 Bill O’Reilly 3.25
10 Doug Stephen 3.25
13 Glenn Beck 3
14 Dr. Joy Browne 2.75
14 Don Imus 2.75
14 George Noory 2.75
17 Jerry Doyle 1.5
18 Kim Komando 2
18 Michael Medved 2
18 Dave Ramsey 2
21 Bill Bennett 1.25
21 Jim Rome 2
23 Bob Brinker 1.75
23 Ed Schultz 1.5
25 Tom Leykis 1.25
26 G. Gordon Liddy 1
26 Jim Cramer 1
28 Al Franken 1
28 Tony Snow 1
30 Alan Colmes 1
31 Dr. Dean Edell 1
31 Phil Hendrie 1
31 Rusty Humphreys 1
31 Stephanie Miller 1

The ONLY two Air America pundits (out of 16) to crack the top 34 are Al Franken and Ed Schultz. They’re 2 for 34! Put another way, they’re batting .059. The Houston Texans have a better record. That’s terrible. What’s worse, if you factor the total percentage of listeners at Air America to the number of listeners on the above list, AAR listeners make up between 2 and 3% of the total. My gosh! Let there be no more doubt of AAR’s financial status.

UPDATE: I made a mistake. It turns out that Ed Schultz isn't actually an Air America Radio host. So even though I painted a dismal picture for the liberal station, it wasn't bad enough. Just one of the top 34 radio stations in the country is an Air America program -roughly 1% or the listeners in the top 34.

Howard Dean doesn't know what he's talking about

Meet the press 11-13-05:

MR. RUSSERT: Should Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others say, "Based on what I know today, I would not have voted for the war"?

DR. DEAN: John--my impression was that John Kerry did say that.

Washington Post 8-10-04:

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Maybe Dean is right and Kerry just flip-flopped again. But could Dean be any more of an annoying blowhard? It would appear the answer is yes:

DR. DEAN: [Judge Alito] condones a strip-search of a 10-year-old when the police had no such warrant or indication to do so. He condoned the crafting of an all-white jury to hear a black defendant's case by a prosecutor. He condoned the states not having to listen to the Family Medical Leave Act. He condoned government interference in private family matters and family decision- making. This is well outside the mainstream of where Americans are. I think the Democrats are going to have to think long and hard as the hearings progress about whether we should support him. There's some grave questions about him, and I do hope that they will stick together.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were a senator, you would vote no?

DR. DEAN: I'm not going to make that--if I were a senator, I would not tell you that now, because I believe in listening to all the evidence first.

Can you say blowhard? Dean attacks Alito by grossly misrepresenting him, but is too afraid to speculate how he'd vote on Alito.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

Dean, did I hear this right? The Democrats don't know how to deal with Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

So if I get this straight, Dean admits the Democrats don't have a solution on getting Iraq under control, AND the American public will have to wait at least 1 and a half months to hear what their plan is?

How can people stand this guy?

California Removes its Feeding Tube

I can't believe it. California has chosen to void their Constitutional right to bear arms and bow down to far left special interest groups and blatant pro-choice ideology.

I'm not a fan of special interest groups --any of them. In the past I've never felt the need to join one, and the NRA is no exception. I've never seen the NRA be against ownership or promotion of any type of "arm" be it automatic or even nuclear. That's how special interest groups work -know no limits, know no compromise (just ask Peter Drucker). Today however, when I see San Francisco waive their Constitutional right to bear arms, it angered me so much I actually decided to join the organization. An organizatioin I don't even care for.

So anyway, I just signed up as a member of the NRA. It took two minutes and was only $35 dollars. I'm going to get a subscription to America's First Freedom --hopefully it doesn't suck. Words cannot express how much I want the NRA to overturn this measure made by idiots in San Fran. I'll try to keep an eye on the NRA's site to see if they'll get a bump in traffic after today.

In other bone-headed moves in California, they've chosen to let minors have an abortion without requiring them to tell their parents. Never mind the fact that kids can't even go on a field trip without parental permission. California has forsaken parental guardianship for the freedom to have access to an abortion. To all who voted against Proposition 73, never again do I want to hear you claim to have a legal, parental right to authorize --or even know about-- anything your child does, especially if it's health related.

The media is wondering if Arnold Schwarzenegger is the big loser in California since none of his propositions passed. I can only pray that public outrage across the country is so intense that the losers will undeniably be the voters that outlawed a piece of parental authority and the constitution.

The French Riots - President Jacques Chirac Fiddles while Paris burns

France has been rioting for a whopping 11 days (from October 27 until November 6). I'm not saying that riots generally have a good reason to start, but these rioters are especially dumb. A couple of kids ran from cops and ended up killing themselves. How devoid of civil behavior does a society have to be to allow this to happen?!

So President Chirac tries to save the day by promising France that his government will get everything under control --on the 11th day! Keep in mind these riots should have never happened if the country had any control over it's people.

Words cannot express how glad I am that things operate a little differently in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just three days after 9-11, President Bush stood on Ground Zero and said the US was going to kick some terrorist ass. And just hours after hurricane Katrina, the American public was demanding more accountability and action from the Federal and state governments.

Next time Chirac criticizes how the United States operates, I've got a message for him. GET YOUR OWN SUPERPOWER.

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and all the other left-wing asshole pundits

www.urbandictionary.com:

2. Asshole
someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....Sean is the biggest f*cking asshole I've ever met in my life!
Source: Jenna Tools, Nov 30, 2002

That's what Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and some of the other far-left wing nuts out there are. They piss me off.

We all know the analogy of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the elephant's trunk and says it's a snake, another feels its leg and says an elephant is a tree trunk. Still another feels its ear and says an elephant is a leathery fan. The moral is that they're all right from their own limited point of view.

When Rush Limbaugh pioneered nationally syndicated talk radio in the 90's, different groups reacted in different ways. Some saw Rush as the sole voice of America that had been stifled by a left-wing media. Others saw Rush as a flash in the pan. Still others saw him as an off the chart right-winger who merely speaks to his ideological choir. But what did the left wing nuts think?

Enter Al Franken and Randi Rhodes... When these people examined Rush in their phenomenally limited perspective, they did so by sticking their arms up the proverbial elephant's butt. Instantly they "realized" Rush was nothing more than a giant asshole. But they didn't stop there. With their narrow view or Rush and their pathetic ignorance of the America's public opinion, they inadvertently epitomized two clichés: 1) the person they hated controlled them, and 2) they became the person they hated. This is evidenced by their respective talk radio programs: The Al Franken Show, and the Randi Rhodes Show.

But since they mistook Rush for the asshole instead of the entire elephant, their syndication service, Air America Radio, is a financial disaster. The free market allowed Rush to sign a $285 million contract. In contrast, Air America bounces checks even though they are funded by billionaire George Soros. To make matters oh-so-much more worse, they're actually asking for donations from listeners. If they weren't oozing with so much vitriol, I might actually feel sorry for them.

Al Franken and Randi Rhodes haven't got a clue what drives talk radio. That's because they're one-dimensional assholes.

Should the US cut and run from Iraq?

Lots of people out here think so. They should be informed that that's exactly what al-Zawahri, Al-Qaeda's number two guy, wants. Here's the script.
link

The Harried Miers Precedence

I think Bush did a disservice to the United States by nominating Harried Miers for the Supreme Court. Bush basically told the country that he knows her well enough to say she’ll uphold the constitution and that she’ll be a good conservative.

Sorry dubya, that’s not enough. Even if you’re right about her, you’re setting some pretty shameful precedence.

The first bad precedence being set is that Miers is a very private person with no judicial experience. Perhaps the best indicator of what kind of judge she’ll be is when Bush flippantly said “trust me.” Maybe that’s enough for some nearsighted conservatives out there. What happens though if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 and nominates her personal Whitewater attorney using the same “trust me” argument? Isn’t a certain level of trust already vested into a nominee? Should we trust a nominee more just because a President asks us to? Should public cheerleading by a President substitute for a severe lack of a transparent, public work history? The hearings will probably gain no valuable insight to where Miers stands. Years ago, another unfortunate precedence there has already been set for judicial nominees: Don’t comment on controversial issues.

The second precedence Bush set is that he’s nominated someone with probably the worst credentials in the history of the Supreme Court. She didn’t go to an outstanding college, she didn’t graduate with honors (that I know of), she doesn’t have any judicial experience, she hasn’t done pro bono, and she has done very little in the public arena. Believe it or not, some people actually criticized Bush for nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court because some women were supposedly as qualified. Roberts was easily one of the most qualified human beings for the Supreme Court –male of female. Imagine the outcry if Bush nominated a man of Miers’ credentials. The second precedence Bush is setting here is that if you’re a woman, your qualifications can be far below the average Supreme Court Justice.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert

"It doesn't make sense to me," [to spend Federal money to rebuild New Orleans], said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. "And it's a question that certainly we should ask. link

I'm sure that statement will require an apology. I'm hopeful it will cost him his seat as House Speaker. And I'm thinking his statement should cost him his political career.

Amnesty International Receives the first ever headline poacher award!

“Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time.” Eight words; that’s all it takes to see right through Amnesty International’s report.

Putting things into perspective, Gulag was a series of Russian concentration camps. An estimated 1.4 to 2.8 million people died there. 800,000 were executed there. More people died at Gulag than at Auschwitz.

In contrast, Guantanamo is only holding 540.

Enter Camp 22, North Korea. According to The Guardian: Now, it is claimed, it is also where thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them… [C]hilling evidence has emerged that the walls of Camp 22 hide an even more evil secret: gas chambers where horrific chemical experiments are conducted on human beings. Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes.

Now, the obvious angle to take is to ask Amnesty International why they seem bent on blaming the United States when there’s worse stuff going on over in North Korea.

But I won’t go there. Connect the dots; Amnesty International just called Guamtanamo the worst violation of human rights today, and equated it with one of the biggest violations of human rights ever. Meanwhile over in North Korea’s Camp 22, stomping on a babies neck is merely a political dispute.

Amnesty International, feel free to excuse yourself from the table of rational dialogue.

Dean Meets the Press Tomorrow

In an email, I asked Tim Russert to ask Howard Dean why the country should trust the Democratic party whenever they tout fiscal responsibility.

Hey Dean!

Is running for President the only reason to conduct yourself with dignity?

John R. Bolton

Granted, I had never heard the name before Bush nominated him as ambassador to the U.N. So everything bad I've heard about him is from people who are preventing him from getting the job. I don't think that's a good way to judge a person, but still, I hope Bolton doesn't get the blessing of congress.

Only the blind can't see the anti-American sentiments that have consumed a massive portion of the globe. Only the retarded can't tell that it's yahoos like this that fan those flames. People like Bolton have their places in the United States, but a seat at the U.N. is not one of them. We need to send the U.N. a dove, not a hawk.

I hope the Democrats are able to stop Bolton from getting the job. If they don't, it's because they cried, "Wolf!" one too many times.

Terri Schiavo: The good, the bad, and the ugly

The media: They've been extremely hard on the the Legislature and the President because they're basically wasting time by micromanaging the country, be it with Terri or Major League Baseball. Maybe it's a valid point, but where were these people when Barbara Boxer started her little cat fight against Condoleezza Rice. Even Rice's most vocal opponents to her being Secretary of State readily admitted that Rice would easily get the Senate's blessing. Yet all legislative progress was put on hold so people like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer throw little hissey fits. What the heck was that?!

Senator John McCain, do you have any insight into this nonsense?
Dr. Rice has the confidence of the President of the United States. Dr. Rice has the confidence of the majority of this Senate. We know, as many of her critics have admitted on this floor, she will be easily confirmed.

So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a debate about a foregone conclusion. It cannot be for a lack of priorities because we surely have enough on our legislative plate this year. It can't be because Dr. Rice has suggested she has some flaw so fundamental that the Senate must block the President's choice. I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections.

McCain 2008. Woot! Woot!

Ehem, anyway, what McCain is trying to say (or what I'd like to pretend to say on behalf of him) is that you should pay no attention to anyone that is criticizing the Federal Government for getting involved in the Schiavo case if they also weren't critical of the delay tactics the Democrats employed because of their "lingering bitterness".

Yes, Jon Stewart, that goes for you. Now knock it off!

Ok, now the media rant is over with. Now onto congress. I can't but feel pandered to by Bill Frist who says the following: ONCE AGAIN IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEASON (sic?) A WEB SITE TODAY, BUT IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, SHE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO RESPOND TO VISUAL STIMULI. THAT THE NEUROLOGIST PUTS FORTH.

Maybe a layman can make these claims, but Frist is a medical doctor. And not just "any" medical doctor, a freggin cardiac surgeon! What doctor makes a diagnosis based on a videotape? What doctor would neglect their knowledge of medicine to engage in shameless pandering? What Bill Frist did is simply inexcusable.

Last year, when Frist was asked if AIDS can be spread by tears and sweat he said "I don't know." Connect the dots. Frist is an ideologue first and a doctor second -a very distant second. Americans deserve politicians that level straight with them. Frist has shown he's a guy that will contort his own vast knowledge of medicine so egregiously that even a layman can easily recognize it.

Now onto the Schiavo family: Whether it's fair or not, Terri's husband Michael looks like an ass. Check out this timeline:

1990 - Terri falls and is brain damaged

1993 - Terri is awarded $750,000 in a malpractice suit (also $300,000 is awarded to Michael)

1998 - 8 YEARS after she was injured, Michael starts lobbying to have his wife's feeding tube removed. Presumably because he remembered some 13 years ago that Terri told him she wanted to die if she was ever in a vegetative state. Apparently, Michael's memory gets better when two things happen. 1) Time goes by, and 2) as things become more financially beneficial for him.

1990 to Now - Terri's family has tenaciously fought to have Terri live. It's pretty clear they would have no objections if Michael wanted to completely turn Terri over to the rest of her family. Yet in spite of the admirable efforts of Terri's family, Michael still wants to pull the plug on her.

I'm sorry Michael, that makes you look like an ass. Tough luck. Circumstantial evidence made Scott Peterson look like an ass and that greatly contributed to him getting the death penalty. I didn't shed a tear over him, and I'm not going to over you.

My take: Anyway you look at this story, it's inevitably tragic. What makes it worse people like Bill Frist who forsake any kind of medical logic for pandering, and liberals who have no problems saying Michael should exercise his right to kill his wife, like a farmer would shoot his horse. I find both extremes completely unnecessary and offensive.

On the MACRO level, this is what I think needs to happen is this: Congress should stop micromanaging these types of cases and they should somehow tie in patients with vegetative conditions to missing persons. In the eyes of the law, after seven(?) years a missing is as dead as George Washington. After that time, the spouse is widowed, even if they're the healthiest person on earth. Congress should pass a law allowing for the spouse of a vegetative patient to be widowed after a certain period of time. A year? I don't know.

Is there a legal can of worms there? Yes, but not anywhere as big as the following scenario: A husband disappears for seven years, then he meets up with his wife who's married to someone else. In the eyes of the law, the husband is dead, and his widowed wife simply remarries. In actuality, his wife is now a polygamist. Now THAT'S a can of worms.

If congress can take a shotgun approach to solving the missing persons problem, surely they can do the same for people with a vegetative spouse. Unfortunately, Frist lowered the congressional dialogue to calling his critics pooh-pooh heads, so expecting them to adopt my plan is just a waste of time.

On the MICRO level here's what I think should happen: Michael should give his wife over to the rest of her family. I'm not sure I'd want to claim the responsibility to care for someone in Terri's condition, and the fact that they are willing to 1) care for her and 2) fight this fierce legal battle, is a testament to Terri's family's generosity and character.

Here's what I think should NOT happen: I find it very disturbing that someone would "pull the plug" on any human being who, 1) Is not in pain, 2) has survived 15 years after their injury, and 3) has not made it emphatically clear they wish to die. How people can "just pull the plug" on such a person is beyond me. If people who side with Michael are so gung-ho to have Terri killed, then why don't they put her to sleep like they would a dog? As sick as that sounds, it's unequivocally more humane. Should dogs get more humane treatment than human beings? Of course not! Then why does Terri have to suffer a worse death than a dog being put to sleep? Because all those willing to let her starve to death are too cowardly to put Terri to sleep.

Now I'm all pissed.

P.S. If I find the the name of the guy that actually pulled the plug on Schiavo to kill her, I will post it. If I find trash on that person, I may actually relish it.

Cronkite

So the drudgereport.com says "Cronkite: Dan should have stepped down long time ago."

I feel sorry for people who get all their news from Matt. That's just a flat out lie. Go to the source people!

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's going to be hard to find anybody who is going to be as much liked and appreciated and does such a job as Bob Schieffer. I think he's one of the great television journalists of our time. And he was a good journalist when he came to television from Fort Worth [Texas].

He is, to my mind, the man who, quite frankly -- although Dan did a fine job -- I would like to have seen him there a long time ago. He would have given the others a real run for their money.

BLITZER: Better than Dan Rather would have done? Because he was perennially in third place in the ratings behind Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

CRONKITE: Well, that's certainly true. And it's quite a tribute to him that he -- that CBS held on to him so long under those circumstances. It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long.

BLITZER: So, you would have been happier if Bob Schieffer would have replaced Dan Rather a while ago?

CRONKITE: I would have thought so, certainly -- if not Bob, someone else.

...later...

BLITZER: Do you sense right now that being the anchor of a major broadcast network is the same as it was when you were the chief anchor at CBS News? In other words, has the situation changed now given the Internet, cable news, all the various ways that people are getting their information?

CRONKITE: Yes, Wolf. It's turned -- it's over on its head. It is vastly different.

When I was there, we -- the three traditional networks, NBC, ABC and CBS -- we shared 100 percent, practically, of the audience. There were just maybe 98 percent or 99 percent of the audience, we had every night. That other half a percentage or 1 percent were the few independent stations in the country. We had no other competition.

Today, of course, we've got all of these other channels that are competing. And, actually, the traditional networks are sharing down around 50 percent of the audience, which is still remarkably high, considering all of the excellent competition they have with such networks as yours.

Maybe it's just me, but why do I feel like Cronkite is making it sound like a bad thing that 3 people no longer control what news everyone in the country sees?

...finally...

BLITZER: What would you do if you had your way? What would you advise all the broadcast news organizations to do right now?

CRONKITE: Give news a little more time and don't request that they also, in their news time, entertain. We're not entertainers. We're journalists. And we need more time to do our job well.

I think he took a shot at Fox News. But even if he didn't, he certainly took a shot at the Daily Show. Funny too because I feel like i can watch 20 minutes of the Daily Show and know more of what's going on in the world than if I watch an hour of Larry King. So I guess you can come to two conclusions: A) Cronkite is wrong --entertainment and news DO go together, or B) the news media is so bad that they actually make Comedy Central's Daily Show look good.

My money is on A).

Bono to head world bank?

There's something different about Bono that separates him from all the other activists out there. Recently it hit me, Bono is one of the precious few activists that doesn't hate people. I guess it's easy to start thinking that hating is a prerequisite to activist-ing, but Bono is living proof that it's unnecessary. How refreshing. I'm not sure of he's cut out for the job, but I think it would serve as a great example for those activists out there that should be spending their energy helping people rather than hating people --who they perceive-- to be standing in their way.

Ward Churchill

I realize this post is late in the game. There's always nuts out there that hate their own, and in the US, some of them even thrive. What makes his case so special?

I think in retrospect, a few things stand out.

1.) People jump to his defense saying he shouldn't be fired because of his right to freedom of speech. I think that's crazy. I could lose my job by saying 2 words. That's the world we live in, deal with it.

2.) I think there's a striking resemblence beteween Ward Churchill and Timothy Mcveigh. One of Ward's initial reactions was to write about how the United States had it coming. Mcveigh also was defiant even after he was captured. Years later, Chrurchill expressed grief for some of the people killed on September 11: bystanders, firefighters, and janitors. Timothy Mcveigh did all he could to remain defiant until his execution, but his lawyers have hinted that Mcveigh had expressed grief for the 19 children that he killed in the Oaklahoma City bombing. Interesting indeed.

If I was to ask Ward Churchill one thing it would be this:
Can you name a single Iraqi that was as as outpoken against Saddam as you are outspoken against the US Government. Did he flourish in his own country like you currently are? Why or why not.

Pandering

So I'm reading this editorial. What a bunch of shameless, blatant pandering. Whoever wrote it took it upon himself to pander no less than 7 times!

Pander Count:
=============
Blacks - 4
South L.A. - 2
African Americans - 1

Total:7

But it doesn't stop there:
Different circumstances, different police agencies, different culprits. But to many, the incidents delivered a single message: Society says that you don't count. The rules of fair treatment by police don't apply to young black males.

-and then-

Now the peacemakers are at it again. Ministers, gang workers, community activists and elected officials are trying to channel anger into activism, to push for better youth services, more cooperation among neighbors and a continuing dialogue with police. Their efforts should be encouraged, not feared or disparaged.

So I guess this means we can derive the formula:
Social injustice -> Anger -> Leaders -> Activism that we should all encourage.

At the risk of oversimplifying things every bit as much as the editorial I'd like to suggest the my formula:
Pandering to specific groups -> perceived injustice -> Angry mobs that are controlled by powerful people and groups. That's hardly something that should be encouraged.

So which formula is right? I don't know, but if the second one is, the editorial is unquestionably part of the problem.

Homo Sapians

A couple archaeologists discover that the human species is several thousand years older than previously thought. According to them, humans are 195,000 years old. Hmm, interesting.

So here it is, the history of the world. 189,000 years go by (that's 97% of the lifespan of the human race), and humans live like a bunch of animals. After almost 189 milleniums go by, a bunch of groups get together on new year's day and say, "Enough of this, let's resolve to make millennium 190 a good one!." So a bunch of PARALLEL societies get together and build some of the most awesome architectural achievements ever: the pyramids of Egypt, the pyramids South America, and Stonehenge. Another thing they decided to do overnight was to invent writing. Then they invent forms of governments that were able to rule over tens of thousands of people. It's these same people that were previously running around touting fire as the pinnacle of human achievement that, almost overnight, were able to buil the pyramids! How the heck could that possibly happen? If humans were able to flaunt these magnificent achievements 6,000 years ago what was preventing them from doing the same thing 50,000, 100,000, or 175,000 years ago? What magically made them decide to make these shocking breakthroughs in architecture, literature, and government, and why did so many societies that were not even in contact with other developing societies somehow do it all at the same time?

Am I the only one who finds this new discovery to be odd?

If a bunch of people were simply dumped in an earth-like lab, how long would it take for them to produce a historically surviving culture? A few generations maybe? Certinaly not 200,000 years! Yet that's supposedly how long it took earth to produce one.

Transsexuals can play in the LPGA?

Are you kidding me?! This is crazy!

I thought transformers were making a come back, but this is just dumb.

Chalk this one up as blogger against transformers in the LPGA.

More on Steam

A couple weeks ago googleing "Steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers", returned 16 hits, now it's 177. Quite an increase. There's a whole lot more to the controversy over here. Interesting...

Among other things is the question of whether or not the EULA (End User License Agreement) that is required to play Half-Life2 is legal or not.

Gosh, I hope not.

Dean?!

Are you kidding me? Dean makes the short list for DNC head?

Dean is actually one of the person that inspired me start this blog. Why? Because because I think the general public has grossly confused Dean's divisive popularity with his actual popularity.

If you start splitting the population just a couple of times, you can end up with an extremely dangerous sect. If that same sect starts touting someone's popularity, beware.

Dean is the poster child of that. Here's how he divides the population, 1) Are you a Democrat, and 2) Will you vote for the most anti-war candidate on the Democratic ballot? Dean is a hit among the crowd that answers yes to both questions, the only catch is this crowd speaks for about 15% of the American population. Why's that so bad? Well, considering about that many people think Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, quite a bit.

So anyhoo, this nut has the unwavering support of a generous 1-in-6 American. However, the majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the guy.

Is this a person that should head a party that has lost control of the White House and has actually decreased it's presence in the House, and the Senate? If the Republicans had lost control of all three sects of D.C. would they be trying to get Pat Buchanan to head their party? Only if they were suicidal.

Steam sucks.

So I'm trying to play half-life 2 but I can't because the online Steam server is down. Don't ask me why I even need to actually log in to the server as it makes as much sense as logging in to nintendo.com to play tetris on my gameboy. What's more, if you go to steam's webpage it doesn't even make mention of their colossal screwup. Good job boys.

How do I know it's down then? I had to go the slashdot and usenet to find out it was down.

The error message I get when I try to login is "steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers." At present, googleing that returns exactly 16 hits. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot more than that in a very short amount of time.


I want my money back.

Microsoft Windows

So I'm trying to associate movie files on any program BUT Windows Media Player. Why? Because Media Player is bloatware, none of the buttons make any sense, and I can't even use the hotkeys. What's the point of having hotkeys for media if your.. er. media player doesn't even use them.

Anyway, I do some googleing and find that you flat out CAN'T change the associations of media files to another media player (even mplayer2.exe -which is actually decent). So I think to myself, how on earth can Microsoft get away with this? Wouldn't the makers of Quicktime and Real Player have a good lawsuit on their hands?

Then I install Real Player, another player high on bloat and low on ware. During installation, I'm amused when it asks me if I want to associate movie files with Real Player. I choose yes. Low and behold, It actually worked. Then I wonder if Media Player somehow hacked media files so that I can play them with a different player, but it wasn't. File associations are locked to Real Player.

So then I decide to use the old right click, "open with" function and then check the "always use this program" button and with that, I just associated my movie files with VLC player. (Previously, the "open with" feature would not allow me to de-associate programs with Media Player.)

What did I learn from all this? Microsoft knows they'll run into legal trouble if they stick it to competing companies like they are currently sticking it to their customers. Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

Titan

Maybe I'm just a complete nerd, but for whatever reason, I was really looking forward to the Cassini/Huygens probe landing on Titan. I think I can remember when they launched the mission in the mid to late 90's, but I've definitely been counting the days since the media talked it up last summer. Scientists talked it up like saying stuff like:

We can find out where where we came from. (As if there will be a sign when we get there that reads: "Earthlings came from aliens on planet X").

Maybe we'll see lakes of flowing liquids, not seen on any other body in the solar system. (That would be cool to see.)

Artists rendered these really cool looking images of what they thought me might see:
.




Now I don't want to ruin it for you if you don't already know, but here's what we got:
.

Now, I realize the differences are subtle, but if you'll look closely, you'll notice we've got better quality of pictures of bigfoot. And even if the pics were of better quality, they'd just be clearer pictures of rocks and dust --Hardly something to write home about. Much less travel 2 billion miles for and then transmit messages half way across the solar system.

I guess I'm a bit disappointed. I think some have called Titan the last great mystery of the solar system. Well, if that's the case, the solar system must be pretty boring other than what's here on Earth.