Random TV Thoughts

Do you suppose Iron Chef Morimoto wanted to slug that smug woman on Iron Chef America who just complained that his sashimi wasn't "traditional" enough? "I had to hear that carp every week on the old show, which by the way was tons better than this one, and now I have to hear it from you Ms. Whitebread? Asshat."

Lee Iacocca? Does Chrysler really think the answer to their flagging car sales is reanimating his corpse and throwing it on TV? Who the fuck is their target audience - folks jonesing for a "Murder She Wrote-Matlock" reunion special?

And while we're at it, did Jason Alexander lose a bet with someone? I can't believe he's co-starring with Lee in one of those Chrysler commercials for the money - his grandkids' grandkids will be living off the Seinfeld cash. No, there's either a wager or photos involved.

Finally, are car manufacturer's really incapable of getting one idea out of the industry at a time? First it was zero financing, now it's the "employee discount for everyone". And no, adding special bonus cash back to the employee discount for everyone does not radically alter the sameness of the deal. Maybe we need to spend a little more on the promotions budget so we are leading, not following, Mmmkay?

Well, that's all for now - back to playing poker.

Live Tourney Blogging

So I'm playing in the 2,500-150 chip tourney at Full-Tilt and I says to myself, "Self, let's live blog!" So I am.

I'm sitting pretty nicely at the moment - we're 20 minutesinto the tourney and I'm at number 21 out of the original 900 (350 of whom have already exited). How did I get here you ask?

The first big move for me came on the eighth hand - I was dealt As-3s. I called the big blind, as did two other people. The flop went 4s-5s-Ac. The first person to act went all in. The next person folded, and I called. The first person showed 2c-3h for a straight. I figure odds aren't bad of me hitting the fifth spade for the flush. The turn is 9s, giving me the flush and the win. To add insult to injury, the flop is 2s, giving me the straight flush.

The next big hand for me is hand 17. For some reason, I call the big blind on a 9d-7d. Three of us stay to see the flop. One of the other two is the chip leader. The flop comes up 7s-8h-8c. Someone bets 100, two of us call. The turn comes up 7c. I've now got a full boat. The first person checks. I go all in. The third person mucks, the first person calls. I show my 9d-7d, he shows 8d-Qs. I'm dead. The only card that can help me is the fourth seven, the seven of hearts. Guess what comes up? The seven of hearts. In the course of eleven hands I've had four of a kind and a straight flush. As for the chip leader? He went on tilt and was out of the tourney in three more hands.

Okay, we're now just 20 minutes before the first break. I've still go about 5k in chips, but I've dropped to 79th overall. Haven't won a hand since the four of a kind. I knew that the straight flush and the four of a kind would cut into my available luck, didn't know it would be this soon. And now pocket eights. Some idiot goes 250 as an opening bet. I call, but then much after the flop when he goes all in. He gets called, and shows only an A-J. Beat me, I guess, but still. Pretty stupid. I hate low to medium pocket pairs. My next hand is 4-4, I bet to the flop, then muck again.

Finally, another winner! I'm in the big blind and get dealt 2h-3h. Five people call the blind, but no one raises. The flop goes 3-4-3. I bet the pot, everyone drops. Whoo Hoo! But another few hands later I'm down to 2k in chips when I go all in with two pair, Qs and 3s. I get called, win, and now I'm at 4k. I win two of the next three, winning about 8k in chips, and at the first break I am at 11,827 chips.

Time for a snack!

A total of 628 people went out before the first break. There are 272 remaining. The top 90 will get paid back. The overall chip leader has 19,890 chips. I am in 20th place as we resume play.

Dullness.

Misfortune - went from 12k to 2k in two hands. Don't really want to talk about it, but let's say my two pair, Ks and Qs, looked damn good. Not sure why the guy I lost to hung in with pocket threes, but he caught a set on the river. That was the biggie.

I'm back up to 3k now. Trying to hold on to make the bubble. Now up to 4k. Can I get back to the top? No, I'm sure not. But I'm going down trying.

Going to post this now. I'll update later.

UPDATE

Okay, I'll admit. The blogging weenied out because I was doing poorly. But I just quadripled up back to 9k, 50th place, and I'm feeling good again. I was worried after so many called my all in on Ad-Jd, and really worried when three hearts flopped, but I took the hand anyway. Yay me!

Just got sent to a new table. Been at my original table for almost 110 minutes. Longest I've gone without getting shuffled. My first hand there I call the blinds with a 6-10 suited. The short stack goes all in, two of us call, and I flop a straight. Back over 10k in chips again. Seven minutes to the next break, and ten more people to go until we hit the top 90. If past tourneys are any indication, the pace will slow now as people don't want to go out this close to the bubble. Once the bubble hits, people will drop like flies. They made the money, and they don't care. But right now, everyone is playing tight. If I make the money, and I should, it will be the third time this week.

Second break. I'm at just under 7k, in 61st place. There are 91 people left. Going to post and update later.

UPDATE

Finished 39th. I got back up around 14k, but then made a couple of bad decisions. I was hovering near the bottom of the remaining players for a long time, waiting for a good spot. On the other hand, I didn't want to wait til my stack was so small that even if I doubled up I would still be in last place, so I finally went all in on a Ad-Jd with about 5k left. Got called by a guy with pocket 5s. An A come out on the flop, and I was sitting good. Unfortunately, the river was the third 5, and I was done. Oh well. Picked a good spot, had a good chance, lost.

UPDATE

Looked at my hand history when I went home at lunch to let the dog out. Kicked myself for what I saw. The hand that did me in (not the all in hand - don't feel bad about that) but the one that took me from 14k to under 7k was calling a 4,000 chip bet with nothing more than Qs and an A kicker when there were already three diamonds on the board. Result? I lost to the diamond flush. No idea why I did it - no sign from the hand history that the guy had been doing a lot of bluffing. I'm betting (ha - betting) I felt pot committed.

Sometimes we need to look in the mirror to see the fuckwit.

Testing One, Two, Three

I don't usually do these, because I have problems with the whole concept - the tests are not usually complex enough to measure anything. That being said, I've seen this one a number of places (starting with Matt) so I thought I would jump in.

The Provocateur (56% dark, 34% spontaneous, 44% vulgar)

your humor style: VULGAR COMPLEX DARK You'll crack on anything, and you're often witty, even caustic, about it. Therefore, your sense of humor is polarizing. You're transgressive, and you've got a seriously sharp 'edge'--maybe too much for some folks. If they get you, people think you're one of the funniest (and smartest) people in the world. If they don't, they think you're an ass. Whatever, right? While some might question your judgment, your comic intellect is unquestionably respected. PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Chris Rock - Lenny Bruce - George Carlin

Link: The 3 Variable Funny Test written by jason_bateman on OkCupid Free Online DatingI can handle these results.

(NOTE THE FIRST: Yes, the title is a Wiggles reference. I have an almost three-year old son [I'll let Matt tell the "getting the stroller" story]. I know more about the music of the Wiggles than I ever cared to know.)

(NOTE THE SECOND: In case you are wondering about the number breakdowns, I scored 99%higher on the vulgar scale than most people my age and gender. I'm sure this comes as a surprise to no one.)

Just For Comparison's Sake

Comparing temperatures straight up, it's 25 degrees cooler today than it was at this time yesterday. Comparing heat indices, it's 36 degrees cooler.

Thank God for cold fronts.

And The Beats Go On

Pokerblogen seems to be on life-support, so I’ll post this here.

I was playing in the 9:00 Full-Tilt 2,500-250 chip tourney last night. It was third hand, I was on the button, and I had just lost about 100 in chips from the small blind. The deal comes out, and I’m looking at K-K.

Now, generally speaking I’m a slow player. And a lot is going to depend on what the betting goes like before it gets to me. But I’m still thinking a bet of 60, or double the big blind, is in order. I don’t want to overbet and chase off all the possible action.

The betting goes fold, fold, call, call, fold. Now the action is to the player to my right. He bets 200. I raise it to 400, not worried anymore about betting too high and chasing people off. Chasing people off is desirable at this point - it’s far better to be in a two-player battle than a multi-player batter. The blinds both fold, and we’re back to the first player who called.

He goes all in.

Now, I assume he has a playable hand and isn’t just trying to steal a pot, but it still seems a little curious. After all, why limp in?

The next player folds, and we’re back to the guy who started the betting.

He calls the all in.

Now I’m really thinking. I’m certain he’s got a good hand, based on his original bet. But I’m looking at pocket Kings – pocket Kings! – and there is only one starting hand better.

So I call the all in.

The cards are revealed, and the first player to go all in shows Q-Q. The guy to my right shows A-A. And I show my K-K.

Now, I know I’m an underdog. And I know I’m all in, and if the odds hold up, I’m going out. But still. Q-Q, A-A, K-K? That’s pretty cool. That’s pretty damn cool.

And if you think about it, at least I’m not the Q-Q guy. I mean, he’s got Q-Q and it’s still just the third best hand showing.

Until the flop goes J-7-Q rainbow, that is. Then he’s sitting with a set of Qs, in a pretty commanding position.

But then the turn comes up a 10, giving me an open-ended straight draw. An A or a 9 on the river gives me the win. The odds improve for me, albeit very slightly. And they shrink even more, albeit slightly, for the guy with A-A. The only card that gives him a win now is a K, for an Ace-high straight. Anything other than a A, K, or 9, and the guy with Q-Q wins.

The river comes up a 3, and both A-A and I are gone.

But still, I really didn’t feel badly about it. I was in second position after the deal, and I lost. That is how it should be.

I’m sure the guy with A-A didn’t feel the same way, though.

Mowits

Kris at Random Mentality links to this Press Citizen piece. I commented over at Kris', a short one act play involving future divorce proceedings between the author and his wife, but I've been thinking about this a lot. Thinking about it and getting madder.

See, I'm willing to bet that my politics are a lot closer to Mr. Rediger's politics than they are different from Mr. Rediger's politics. And that's what makes me so mad. Cause it's shit like this that gives politics like mine a bad name. Shit like this gives right-wing fuckwits a chance to say things like

I suppose I need look no farther than the tag "School of Social Work" to see this guy coming for a mile. (NOTE: Actual blog comment from an actual right-wing fuckwit.)

Yeah, because anyone in the "School of Social Work" is automatically suspect as a slack-brained commie pinko weanie sympathizer who can never say anything or contribute anything of value to society. Typecast much? Here's hoping Mr. Fuckwit and his never need the services of anyone who ever graduated from a "School of Social Work" someplace.

Oh, and what's with the quotation marks around School of Social Work? Does Mr. Fuckwit not believe in the existence of Schools of Social Work and thus has to show his nonbelief with quotation marks? Or, as is more likely, is it just another dig at Schools of Social Work? Fuckwit.

Speaking of fuckwits, I think the thing that pisses me off the most here, the thing that most plays into right-wing stereotypes of liberal behavior, is the mealy-mouthed passive-aggressive behavior Mr. Rediger exhibits throughout the entire incident. He can't just out and out ask "Can we stand here and watch for free?" No, he has to come up with various lame excuses. You know, I've worked the gate at various artistic events. If someone came up, loitered around like they were trying to watch for free without paying all the while trying to act like they weren't trying to watch the show for free, I would probably skip the acting contemptuous towards them part and jump straight to the openly mocking part. "Concessions? Yeah, right. Concessions." Geez. Spongebob showed more cajones when he was trying to get into the Salty Spittoon.

But this embarassment isn't enough. To top the passive aggression off, after leaving Mr. Rediger considers coming back, driving his car through the park, and honking his horn to punish the patrons who actually did pay, as if paying to see a Riverside show isn't already punishment enough. But of course he doesn't, because that would cross the line from passive-aggression to aggression, and we certainly can't have that. Instead, he sits at home, stewing over the "economic segregation". (WTF? Charging people for something is a form of segregation? News to everyone who ever went to law school, or, for that matter, lives in the real world.) No, he doesn't go back, because he doesn't want to shame his wife. Instead he writes, and submits, an op-ed piece so he can be openly mocked not only in Iowa City, but throughout the world. This, presumably, won't shame his wife.

Moron. Fuckwit. Fuckron. Mowit.

The Pause That Refreshes

Is there a company that strives as hard to offend one of its most important target audiences as Coke? First the series of commercials featuring the young documentary team searching the country to tell the tales of the people their age and how they live their lives. I've heard this hooted by an audience of primarily college-aged filmgoers. And before you say they were just complaining about commercials, none of the other ads got the same reaction. And now the whole "I'd like to teach the world to chill" commercials, a homage (pastiche? remake? sequel?) to the classic "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial of the 70s, except substituting the word "chill" for "sings". Cause, you know, it's what the kids say. It's the word on the street. And the good folks at Coke are nothing if not "down" with the street.

I can't imagine those ads are hitting the target any better than the psuedo-documentary ads. I momentarily wondered if Coke wasn't really trying to reach the "older folks pretending to be hip" market with these, but figured even that market wouldn't be buying these ads. It's certainly the case that the "older folks who actually are cool" market, of which I am one, doesn't think these ads work.

No Kumbaya For You!

Via Matt, I find that I've been linked at IowaPolitics.com. It's been a while since I've done anything all that political, so for the benefit of anyone who may have found me from there, I give you the following.

There's a problem with making statements like "Republicans do this" and "Democrats do that" because, quite obviously, in the real world neither party is a monolithic entity. Oh, they try to appear that way, and I think it's a fair observation that the Republican party pulls it off much better than the Democratic party, but at the end of the day as soon as you say something like that someone will come along and point to something that contradicts it. Writing in those terms only courts trouble, and, in a fair and just and honest world, should be avoided.

But we don't live in a fair and just and honest world, do we? No, we don't, and so sometimes we have to make general statements in order to try to make our points. We can add caveats, say that when we say "x" we mean the "x" leadership in the White House, the "x" leadership in the Senate, the "x' leadership in the House of Representatives, and the "x" national party leadership, but eventually those caveats become cumbersome and we need to go on. An appearance of a caveat once or twice should be sufficient to drive your point home, but even if you do that, someone will still seize upon a general statement and try to throw it back at you. These are the risks. With them in mind, on with the show.

You see a lot of the following everywhere:

I'd like to see the executive branch and Congress get down to serious legislative work to resolve some urgent global and national problems now, rather than continuously engage in games of partisan rhetoric. We elected them and pay them their salaries to work constructively on critically important national issues. (NOTE: Actual comments from an actual human being on an actual Internet message board.)

The press parrots this sort of thing a lot as well. The problem is, one side is not interested in working constructively on critically important national issues. One side is not interested in putting aside games of partisan rhetoric. Those things, putting aside partisan games in order to work constructively together, are part of a process called "governing" that one side has no interest in taking part in. And, unfortunately for all of us, that side currently controls the legislative branch and the executive branch. That side is also bound and determined to completely control the judicial branch.

There. I've said it. Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, has no interest in governing. The Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, is only interested in ruling.

Now you might say to yourself, "Self, I don't see a difference between ruling and governing." If your self is smart, it will respond with "Well, there's a huge difference. Governing involves compromise, it involves engaging different viewpoints and opinions and attempting to use all of these in formulating the most effective and efficient responses to problems. Ruling, on the other hand, involves none of that. Ruling involves telling people what you want and having them do it."

We are a nation founded on a strong belief in governing. We are a nation founded on the notion that rulers are not desirable. We are nation founded on the notion of compromise, of all participants having input. We are a nation founded on the notion of working together constructively and ignoring partisan games.

The problem is, that only works if all participants do it. In the structure of a two-
party system, that only works if both parties do it.

And both parties don't do it.

Oh they once did. It was once the case that the leadership in both parties strived to find solutions, not to score political points. Yes, there was partisan sniping. There has always been partisan sniping. But clearly it has never been as bad as it is now. Clearly it has never been the case that one party was so hell-bent on single party rule as one party is now.

As with most things, I blame Reagan.

Reagan is famous for saying "Government is part of the problem, not part of the solution." Can you imagine a more horrible statement for a man running for President to make? Can you imagine a stupider one? Why would anyone who says something like that want to be President? Why would anyone elect someone who says something like that? I mean, if you are conducting interviews for Hy-Vee, and a candidate for a position says "Grocery stores are part of the problem, not part of the solution", are you going to hire that guy? No, no, a thousand times no. You'll send him on his way with a "We'll be in touch" or a "I don't think we have anything appropriate for you at this time."

See, government is neither problem nor solution. Government is what the people in government make it. If the people in government try to make it a force for good, if the interest is acheiving answers that take into account everyone, government can be an effective part of the solution. If the people in government have no interest in doing good works, if the interest is in getting your way and ignoring everyone else, government can be an impediment to success. If you want to rule instead of govern, government is by definition a bad thing. And as I said, Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, want to rule. And so, they disregard anyone who disagrees with them.

Don't believe me? You need look no further than the discussion about judicial appointments. After eight years of using every trick in the book to block Clinton's appointments, after years of saying that Democratic presidents need to consult Republicans on judicial appointments, the mantra became "Everyone of the President's choices should get an up or down vote. The Constitution doesn't give the Senate a role in who becomes an appointment." This despite the fact that the Constitution has long been interpreted as giving the Senate such a role. Rush Limbaugh, one of the leading spokesmen of the right (and really folks, when Rush Limbaugh is one of your leading spokespeople, shouldn't you be indulging in a little soul searching?) has sent frequently in the past few months "You want input on judges? Win elections." As if the President won re-election (or, to be more factually correct, election) by more than 51%. As if the President weren't President of all Americans. As if a Senator from Iowa isn't Senator for all Iowans. As if only the people who vote for you count.

And let's be honest, shall we? Let's cast aside the caveat. This attitude, this "You aren't one of us so you don't exist" attitude has filtered down to all levels of society. The folks behind Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday 2: Eclectic Boogaloo, folks with strong ties to this administration, have basically said that you can't be a Christian if you are a Democrat. And no one in the administration could be bothered to say "Anyone can be a Christian." And it goes beyond that, as we found out this week when it became a national news story that a so-called Christian adoption agency in the south, an agency that received state tax proceeds, refused to provide services to Catholics because they don't believe the right things. Hmmm. Refusing to deal with someone because they don't believe the right things. Sound familiar?

Or take the right-wing blogs. Except for a couple of very notable exceptions, all the major right-wing blogs parrot everything the Bush Administration says. When they aren't parroting, they are carrying water by trying to discredit anyone who dares to question the wisdom and statements of the administration. What makes this remarkable is the extent to which it carries down to even the smallest right-wing blogs. All the Powerline and Instapundit wannabes fall in line repeating everything their mentors say, and the end result is that the entire right-wing blogosphere generally speaks not just with the same voice, but with the same thoughts. There are exceptions, true, but those exceptions end up getting attacked and smeared just as relentlessly as the right-wing blogosphere attacks and smears anyone who dares criticize Bush.

(There is no similar phenomenon on the left-side of the blogosphere or in Democratic politics in general. Indeed, this is a difficult thing for Democrats to do. For one thing, as Will Rogers said years ago, "I don't belong to an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." For another, Democrats have traditionally enjoyed attacking other Democrats as much, if not more than attacking Republicans.)

But it's not just people who disagree with this administration who are not wanted. It's information as well. Here's this from a June 15th, 2003 piece in the Washington Post. Keep in mind that this was written BEFORE Joe Wilson's New York Times op-ed piece.

A key component of President Bush's claim that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said. The CIA's failure to share what it knew was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

Leaving aside what that bit implies about Plamegate, think about that last sentence again.

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

Can there be a greater damning statement about this, or any, Presidential administration?

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

Isn't information that is not consistent with the administration's agenda the information to which the administration should be paying most attention? Isn't information consistent with the viewpoint the information that should be most seriously scrutinized? I mean, we aren't talking about whether or not to have spaghetti or pizza for supper. We aren't talking what movie to see. We are talking about the decision to go to war, to send troops to their death. We are talking the most important decision a President can ever make. And in making that decision, this administration ignored anything that didn't support their agenda and didn't question anything that did support it. Post-war planning? Prepare for an occupation? Put sufficient troops on the ground to hold down an insurrection? No need. The people of Iraq will welcome us with open arms. Given this statement

"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was consistent was not seriously scrutinized"

is it any wonder that we are now bogged down in a situation where there are no good options?

So I ask again? Can there be a greater damning statement about this, or any Presidential administration?

Why yes there can, thanks for asking. And it's this: the highest ranking members of this administration were willing to out an undercover CIA operative to discredit someone who dared to have the temerity to question the administration's lies about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

And that's why we can't just hold hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya and all just get along right now. Because if one side is willing to out undercover CIA operatives and their operations in the name of attacking enemies, if one side is willing to do that, there is nothing that side is not going to be willing to do.

Which is why now, more than ever, it is important for the Democrats to fight back. Because one of the two or three most fundamental rules of life is that the bully will not quit punching you until you start punching the bully back. Howard Dean understands this, and as a result has come out of the gate swinging. This scares a lot of the establishment Dems, who are fearful of losing power within the party. But it delights the party faithful, it fires them up, and it shows in the increased volunteerism and the record fund-raising the Democratic party is experiencing.

More importantly, it scares the Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership). The last thing they want are Democrats who fight back. They want Democrats who let themselves get walked all over (see Kerry, John). They want Democrats who believe their extensive resume is the reason they should be President (see Kerry, John). They want Democrats who want to be elected on that resume, not be forced to actually run a decent campaign (see Kerry, John). The more the Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership) squawk about bipartisanship and needing the play nice and blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, the more it shows how scared they are of Democrats fighting back.

Because they have reason to be scared. All signs point to a historic blow-up on the Republican side of things, a blow-up that could result in a total revamping of the Republican party as we know it. And Republicans (or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership) are starting to realize it. They have pressed down on all opposition for so long, both within and without of the party, and they can't hold it down much longer. And the more Democrats are willing to fight back, to no longer take it, the harder it will be for the Republicans to hold the opposition down. But that won't stop them from trying, and the harder they push down, the more explosive the eventual blow-up will be.

Considering the amount of time, money, and energy the Republicans, or, out of respect for the caveat that opened this piece, the Republican leadership in the White House, the Republican leadership in the Senate, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and the Republican national party leadership, are spending to keep a lid on things right now in the face of all the dissent and scandals, it will probably happen during the 2006 mid-terms. After all, mid-term elections are traditionally the time when steam gets vented from the boiler of American politics. But if it doesn't happen then, if by some chance they can keep it together and not have it blow up in their faces in 2006, it will happen in 2008.

And afterwards we can hold hands around the campfire and sing Kumbaya and all just get along.

Huzzah!

As with any move, there are casualties. For us, it was my stereo speakers. (Old floor speakers, the kind that weigh a ton and put out a ton of sound.) When I hooked them up after moving, one speaker didn't work and the other was slightly garbled. After two weeks of nearly buying a cheap home-theatre speaker system, I gave one last chance towards getting the old speakers to work today. And guess what? They did! Huzzah! Now I don't have to devote the rest of my life to Inigo Montoya-ing the man who killed my speakers (actual paraphrase of an actual quote from an actual online friend). Which is good, because as I pointed out to him, the man who killed my speakers (or at least appeared to kill my speakers) was most likely me.

The Blog Motto

Don't ask. If you aren't already in on the joke, I can't explain it.

Catching Up

Moving bites. It sucks. It’s a bitch. It’s hell. The best part of moving is when it’s over, which, fortunately, it almost is. The garage needs to be put in order. There is a stack of boxes in the basement that need to be organized in the spare bedroom down there. The boys’ room, while having all the furniture set up, has boxes of clothes and toys that need to be put away. But for the most part, the place is set up. And, as the folks who came out to play poker last Friday can attest, it’s a beautiful house. The outside needs new siding, or at least new paint, but the inside is wonderful and the pool area very nice. Likewise the bar downstairs where we will put the tournament-type poker table once we get one. (Something like this. Note the reasonable price and the unreasonable shipping charge.) I need to shock the pool and then clean the bottom, but it’s almost ready to go too. And trust me, unless you’ve dealt with one, you wouldn’t believe the crap that goes in an outdoor pool on a daily basis. I’m not talking debris – I’m talking the chemicals to keep it usable.

So that’s been the bulk of my time. I was also in somewhat of a writing funk for a variety of reasons. It happens every now and then; nothing to worry about. But there is plenty to talk about. And with luck, I’ll start talking about it again.

Wheezy Says

I have 24 hours to post something new or she will never come back.

So, this is it! See my shiny new post!