At least Heath Ledger's final performance appears to be his best...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Simon's latest victim: aspiring American Idol Alberto Hurtado
This is a rare gem... Please, please watch it. I promise it's worth it.
"You are the equivalent of a storm cloud on a sunny day..."
"You are the equivalent of a storm cloud on a sunny day..."
Monday, January 21, 2008
No good deed goes unpunished
I'm not an idiot (well, not completely at least), and I realize that non-profit, not-for profit, etc. organizations, causes and charities rely on repeat donors in order to sustain themselves. It makes sense and I don't knock them for it.
However... there is a constructive way and a counterproductive way of doing this. For instance:
I give blood or platelets 3-4 times a year and have done so for the past 8 or so years. This is because I am the ideal image of philanthropy and a stalwart for humanitarianism. So when the Red Cross started calling me four times a week I tolerated it for a few months. But even Ghandi had his limits. I finally had to call and explain to them that as much as I support the cause, I don't particularly enjoy having my veins prodded and jabbed at and (eventually) opened by your undertrained and oft-incompetent blood collectors, and I think once every three months is generous enough and that moreover, I am nearly certain that Dracula himself would be less pushy about such collections. I felt somewhat bad about laying down my fist on blood solicitation but the Red Cross's guerrilla campaign left me with little recourse.
Another thing that really chaps my ass is when you open your checkbook to an organization (such as the Human Rights Campaign), and as a token of their appreciation they sell your info to other folks. I cannot even begin to scrape the surface of how unbelievably slimy this is. The most evil aspect of this scenario is that groups to whom you have "voluntary" disclosed your info are exempt from the no-call and no-mail lists.
However... there is a constructive way and a counterproductive way of doing this. For instance:
I give blood or platelets 3-4 times a year and have done so for the past 8 or so years. This is because I am the ideal image of philanthropy and a stalwart for humanitarianism. So when the Red Cross started calling me four times a week I tolerated it for a few months. But even Ghandi had his limits. I finally had to call and explain to them that as much as I support the cause, I don't particularly enjoy having my veins prodded and jabbed at and (eventually) opened by your undertrained and oft-incompetent blood collectors, and I think once every three months is generous enough and that moreover, I am nearly certain that Dracula himself would be less pushy about such collections. I felt somewhat bad about laying down my fist on blood solicitation but the Red Cross's guerrilla campaign left me with little recourse.
Another thing that really chaps my ass is when you open your checkbook to an organization (such as the Human Rights Campaign), and as a token of their appreciation they sell your info to other folks. I cannot even begin to scrape the surface of how unbelievably slimy this is. The most evil aspect of this scenario is that groups to whom you have "voluntary" disclosed your info are exempt from the no-call and no-mail lists.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Paging Dr. Phil to the Moron of the Week podium
As much as it pains me to give even more attention to the awe-inspiring nuclear meltdown that is Britney Spears, it also gives me an opportunity to trash the ridiculously self-serving and
obnoxious goober- ishness of Dr. Phil. Howard Stern had some choice words about the good doctor on Letterman the other night, not the least of which was his pointing out the fact that a Ph.D. from North Texas (with a dissertation on arthritis) hardly qualifies the man as an expert on everybody else's personal business.
In any event, Phil blamed the media for exaggerating the story and implied that it's this kind of trashy journalism that made the washed-up star into what she is. Fair enough, but should Dr. Phil really be calling out anyone else for "trashy journalism?"
And FYI, Doc--while I'm sure your trip to the psychotic ex-star's hospital room was made out of sheer compassion for your fellow human being--the girl was already in a real medical facility, surrounded by real medical doctors... I think they had things about as under control as
it was gonna get. If anybody should be on the case, it's the magnificent Jeff Van Vonderen from Intervention (who ironically looks frighteningly like you).
But then again, what the hell do those guys know anyways? After all, you are the almighty, all-knowing guru wielding a Ph.D. from North Texas. Who are we to doubt your greatness?
obnoxious goober- ishness of Dr. Phil. Howard Stern had some choice words about the good doctor on Letterman the other night, not the least of which was his pointing out the fact that a Ph.D. from North Texas (with a dissertation on arthritis) hardly qualifies the man as an expert on everybody else's personal business.In any event, Phil blamed the media for exaggerating the story and implied that it's this kind of trashy journalism that made the washed-up star into what she is. Fair enough, but should Dr. Phil really be calling out anyone else for "trashy journalism?"
And FYI, Doc--while I'm sure your trip to the psychotic ex-star's hospital room was made out of sheer compassion for your fellow human being--the girl was already in a real medical facility, surrounded by real medical doctors... I think they had things about as under control as
it was gonna get. If anybody should be on the case, it's the magnificent Jeff Van Vonderen from Intervention (who ironically looks frighteningly like you).But then again, what the hell do those guys know anyways? After all, you are the almighty, all-knowing guru wielding a Ph.D. from North Texas. Who are we to doubt your greatness?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My Fellow Americans,
This is called a "roundabout:"
It is a very simple traffic tool that promotes efficient travel by auto-mo-bile. It has had great success in virtually every other country in the Western world, so I assure you they do in fact work when used properly. However, since some of you more brain-dead amoebas cannot seem to master the intricacies of this simple engineering device (e.g. the circle), I have laid out a few brief guidelines that will surely aid you the next time you approach one.
1) "Yield" is not the same as "Stop." You should have failed your driver's test for not knowing the difference. If no cars are coming, DON'T STOP AND WAIT FOR ONE TO ARRIVE. Instead, just proceed into the roundabout.
2) Once inside the roundabout, DON'T EVER STOP. The beauty of this concept is that those inside the circle keep moving, thus allowing them to swiftly reach their exit while also allowing those approaching it to enter safely and quickly. They will yield to you (for more details on this, please refer to point no. 1). If you stop, you are an idiot and you will cause a wreck in which you may suffer head trauma and, against all odds, actually become more of an idiot.
3) Never use a roundabout as a means for turning completely around and heading back from whence you came. Once an entering motorist sees you pass two exits, he will assume (and quite reasonably so) that you are exiting at the third, and he will pull into the roundabout. If you collide, he may be liable for failing to yield, but you're still the idiot and everybody will know so, including God.
It is a very simple traffic tool that promotes efficient travel by auto-mo-bile. It has had great success in virtually every other country in the Western world, so I assure you they do in fact work when used properly. However, since some of you more brain-dead amoebas cannot seem to master the intricacies of this simple engineering device (e.g. the circle), I have laid out a few brief guidelines that will surely aid you the next time you approach one.
1) "Yield" is not the same as "Stop." You should have failed your driver's test for not knowing the difference. If no cars are coming, DON'T STOP AND WAIT FOR ONE TO ARRIVE. Instead, just proceed into the roundabout.
2) Once inside the roundabout, DON'T EVER STOP. The beauty of this concept is that those inside the circle keep moving, thus allowing them to swiftly reach their exit while also allowing those approaching it to enter safely and quickly. They will yield to you (for more details on this, please refer to point no. 1). If you stop, you are an idiot and you will cause a wreck in which you may suffer head trauma and, against all odds, actually become more of an idiot.
3) Never use a roundabout as a means for turning completely around and heading back from whence you came. Once an entering motorist sees you pass two exits, he will assume (and quite reasonably so) that you are exiting at the third, and he will pull into the roundabout. If you collide, he may be liable for failing to yield, but you're still the idiot and everybody will know so, including God.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
A Glimmer of Hope for you Disgruntled 1Ls
Most of my grades are now in, and things are looking quite a bit brighter than they did at this time last year, to say the least. The main differences:
I learned how to study.
I learned how to write exams.
I'm no longer being graded against my 1L section (which, unlike the rest of the sections, was half composed of law review members).
Two of my classes had 3Ls as well, who apparently no longer care about exams.
I would like to point out to some of you 1Ls who may be disappointed with your grades that the first ever law school grade I received was a (and thankfully my only) C, at which point I began contemplating downing a large antifreeze martini. However, the grades got better as more came in, and second semester I raised my overall GPA two full points (on a scale of 99, not 4.0) to a respectable level. This semester I raised it even more and my class ranking is absurdly higher from the frustrating level at which I started out.
The point is that all the people who tell you your first semester grades "lock you in" to your class ranking for the remainder of law school are WRONG. That's ludicrous--it's ONE semester out of six--you do the math. I raised my ranking nearly 40% (and no more Cs). Law school exams are a learning experience, and it takes a round or two for some folks to get in their groove. Keep your head up!!
I learned how to study.
I learned how to write exams.
I'm no longer being graded against my 1L section (which, unlike the rest of the sections, was half composed of law review members).
Two of my classes had 3Ls as well, who apparently no longer care about exams.
I would like to point out to some of you 1Ls who may be disappointed with your grades that the first ever law school grade I received was a (and thankfully my only) C, at which point I began contemplating downing a large antifreeze martini. However, the grades got better as more came in, and second semester I raised my overall GPA two full points (on a scale of 99, not 4.0) to a respectable level. This semester I raised it even more and my class ranking is absurdly higher from the frustrating level at which I started out.
The point is that all the people who tell you your first semester grades "lock you in" to your class ranking for the remainder of law school are WRONG. That's ludicrous--it's ONE semester out of six--you do the math. I raised my ranking nearly 40% (and no more Cs). Law school exams are a learning experience, and it takes a round or two for some folks to get in their groove. Keep your head up!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
