As someone who is extremely dissatisfied with Bush’s presidency, I should be thoroughly delighted by his declining poll numbers. However, while I’m happy that America is finally catching on to his dangerous incompetence, the continuous polling concerns me for a couple of reasons.
First, because Bush is failing so miserably, new polls every week show that his numbers have reached new lows. The news reports come out so frequently, that I’m afraid that American’s will stop paying attention. They seem to have done that with the daily reports of soldiers killed in Iraq, so it’s certainly possible.
Second, mathematics dictates that there is going to be a point where Bush’s poll numbers have to stop falling. When they reach zero, they will only have one way to go. Then Fox News might have the opportunity to state that Bush’s ratings have increased 100 percent in one week. Of course, they’ll fail to mention that his approval numbers only went from 1% to 2%.
Luckily/tragically, the ultra-conservative right will likely keep his numbers from falling too low. Bush could nuke California, and they would find a way to justify his actions – especially if it came down to keeping California or raising taxes.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
BBC Takes Everyman Interview Concept Too Far
When it comes to news reporting, it’s not uncommon to get varying perspectives by interviewing subject-matter experts as well as members of the general public. However, it’s important to know which one is which.
The BBC recently ran a report on The Beatles’ Apple Corp. lawsuit against Apple Computer, and sought to gain perspective from an editor of a technology Web site. However, the person they interviewed on camera was not exactly prepared to comment. That unpreparedness likely stems from that fact that the only thing he had in common with the technology Web site was sharing the same first name as the editor.
Yes, the BBC accidentally grabbed the wrong guy from its reception area and put the bewildered man on camera. This case of mistaken identify is funny enough, but the story gets even better. The man went along with the interview and answered all the questions. Not bad for someone who came in to interview for a low-level IT position. Apparently, the intended interviewee shared the same bewilderment as he watched the interview from the reception area.
The BBC recently ran a report on The Beatles’ Apple Corp. lawsuit against Apple Computer, and sought to gain perspective from an editor of a technology Web site. However, the person they interviewed on camera was not exactly prepared to comment. That unpreparedness likely stems from that fact that the only thing he had in common with the technology Web site was sharing the same first name as the editor.
Yes, the BBC accidentally grabbed the wrong guy from its reception area and put the bewildered man on camera. This case of mistaken identify is funny enough, but the story gets even better. The man went along with the interview and answered all the questions. Not bad for someone who came in to interview for a low-level IT position. Apparently, the intended interviewee shared the same bewilderment as he watched the interview from the reception area.
Friday, May 12, 2006
OJ is Funny
When I say that OJ Simpson is funny, I don’t mean funny in the ‘ha ‘ha’ sense of the word. I mean it in the funny-peculiar/funny-murderer type of way. If you don’t agree, consider OJs latest attempt to show the world that he’s not just good at killing people – he’s got a great sense of humor too! He’s doing this by drawing from these two skills to create a comedy pay-per-view special.
Yes, OJ is going to be the star of his own candid-camera show. I’m not sure what his catchphrase will be, but I’ve heard that he’s drawing inspiration from Jamie Kennedy and going with something like “You’ve just been off-ed.”
Apparently, OJ has a killer sense of humor. One hilarious gag has to do with trying to sell the white Bronco at a used car lot. So funny! He’s taking an icon associated with a grisly murder and turning it into pure comedy.
Of course, some might argue that such a gag is in poor taste. Regardless of whether OJ is guilty (which he is), his use of the infamous Bronco for a few laughs certainly smacks of being insensitive. Plus, I’m surprised that he’s got time for a pay-per-view special when all of his free time is surely being spent on looking for Nicole’s real killer.
For shame, OJ, for shame.
Yes, OJ is going to be the star of his own candid-camera show. I’m not sure what his catchphrase will be, but I’ve heard that he’s drawing inspiration from Jamie Kennedy and going with something like “You’ve just been off-ed.”
Apparently, OJ has a killer sense of humor. One hilarious gag has to do with trying to sell the white Bronco at a used car lot. So funny! He’s taking an icon associated with a grisly murder and turning it into pure comedy.
Of course, some might argue that such a gag is in poor taste. Regardless of whether OJ is guilty (which he is), his use of the infamous Bronco for a few laughs certainly smacks of being insensitive. Plus, I’m surprised that he’s got time for a pay-per-view special when all of his free time is surely being spent on looking for Nicole’s real killer.
For shame, OJ, for shame.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Keith Richards is Poster Child for Brain Damage
Apparently, according to a headline from Reuters, the Rolling Stones deny that Keith Richards suffered brain damage. How stupid do they think we are? Are you telling me that after all the drugs (and God knows what else Keith has done over the past 50 years) that his brain remains perfectly healthy? I’d sooner believe the positive hype surrounding their latest album.
I know that you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but there are some instances where you can. If, for example, the cover is soaking wet, it’s pretty safe to assume that the book is also a bit damp. Judging from the vessel that holds Keith’s brain, I’m guessing that his brain is all wrinkly and cigarette-stained too.
Some might argue that the Reuters article was referring to a specific recent event, but that’s only because those people read more than just headlines. These traitors don’t understand that America is the land of headlines and sound bites. You start reading more than that, and then things get depressing and complicated and way too much to think about.
I know that you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but there are some instances where you can. If, for example, the cover is soaking wet, it’s pretty safe to assume that the book is also a bit damp. Judging from the vessel that holds Keith’s brain, I’m guessing that his brain is all wrinkly and cigarette-stained too.
Some might argue that the Reuters article was referring to a specific recent event, but that’s only because those people read more than just headlines. These traitors don’t understand that America is the land of headlines and sound bites. You start reading more than that, and then things get depressing and complicated and way too much to think about.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Video Games Are Way More Cool Than College
A recent poll by AP-AOL Games found that 40% of Americans play video games. That’s a million times infinity percent increase from 100 years ago. A shocking statistic, to be sure. To put that in perspective, that increase is even greater than Tom Cruise’s recent decrease in popularity polls.
Ok, I get that American’s like to play video games. Even I like to indulge in some Ms. Pacman from time to time. What’s most interesting is that the poll found that “men, younger adults and minorities were most likely to play those games.” Something about the group sounded familiar, and then it hit me. Aren’t men, younger adults and minorities also less likely to go to college? Can there be a correlation?
Not one to waste time on scientific research when vague generalizations will do, I offer the following indisputable truism: while there may not be a direct cause-and-effect event here, video games are the sole reason that less men and minorities are going to college.
As for younger adults, I don’t think there’s much we can do there. My guess is that no matter what kind of age progression genetic tampering we do, most of the people who decide not to go to college will be young adults. It’s the men and minorities that I’m worried about.
Here’s my solution for these at-risk groups – incorporate college attendance as a requirement to proceed to level 5, or to upgrade to the atomic disintegrator ray. Only then can we hope to get these people in college. Or we could trick them with online degrees that they unwittingly earn by playing Grand Theft Auto: Diploma Edition.
Ok, I get that American’s like to play video games. Even I like to indulge in some Ms. Pacman from time to time. What’s most interesting is that the poll found that “men, younger adults and minorities were most likely to play those games.” Something about the group sounded familiar, and then it hit me. Aren’t men, younger adults and minorities also less likely to go to college? Can there be a correlation?
Not one to waste time on scientific research when vague generalizations will do, I offer the following indisputable truism: while there may not be a direct cause-and-effect event here, video games are the sole reason that less men and minorities are going to college.
As for younger adults, I don’t think there’s much we can do there. My guess is that no matter what kind of age progression genetic tampering we do, most of the people who decide not to go to college will be young adults. It’s the men and minorities that I’m worried about.
Here’s my solution for these at-risk groups – incorporate college attendance as a requirement to proceed to level 5, or to upgrade to the atomic disintegrator ray. Only then can we hope to get these people in college. Or we could trick them with online degrees that they unwittingly earn by playing Grand Theft Auto: Diploma Edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)