Thursday, October 29, 2009

Best Scary/Horror Movie List


In no particular order:

1. Rocky Horror Picture Show
2. Scream
3. Psycho
4. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
5. The Birds
6. The Exorcist
7. The Shining
8. Misery
9. Children of the Corn
10. The Ring
11. Blair Witch Project

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Dobama-standard?


Guest Posting by Casey

An excerpt from a Politico article:

"What if Bush had done that?

- A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.
- Snubbing the Dalai Lama.
- Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.
- Freezing out a TV network.
- Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more. What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda. It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything. Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?
And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?
“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. ... There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.
Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.
“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

Monday, October 26, 2009

Happy, but Fair Halloween


Hambone, Cole, Gorgayga, and all you other liberals out there, this is for you from me and Eric. I hope you have a happy, but fair Halloween.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Riddle Time

You don't have to answer them all to submit an answer, just pick one and go for it.

1. In cubic feet, how much dirt is in a hole 3 feet long, 3 feet deep, and 3 feet wide?

2. A dead man is found in a locked room, hanging from the ceiling 4 ft. above the floor. The room is completely empty, except for a puddle of water below him. How did he die?

3. Two brothers were talking. One said, "I am fed up with living in Birmingham because I have to drive all the time. Why don't we move to London?" His brother replied, "But that would mean that I would have to drive all the time."

4. There is a clothing store in Bartlesville. The owner has devised his own method of pricing items. A vest costs $20, socks cost $25, a tie costs $15 and a blouse costs $30. Using the method, how much would a pair of underwear cost?

5. Dave and Brad, two popular politicians, met at a club to discuss the overthrow of their party leader. They each ordered a vodka on the rocks. Brad downed his and ordered another. He then drank his second in a gulp and decided to wait before he ordered a third. Meanwhile, Dave, who was sipping his drink, suddenly fell forward dead. Both men were setup for an assassination. Why did Dave die and Brad live?

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Freedom of Speech has to be Fair


"Gibbs weighed in on the controversy after several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station. " Gibbs is the WH press secretary.

Fox News is the only media outlet that has conservative shows that openly criticize the Obama administration and their actions. They are obviously only concerned with blocking progress and trying to keep everything the way it has always been.

Right-wingers say that MSNBC, ABC, and some of the other networks are "in love with Obama" or always support him and never criticize him. Well thats because he hasn't done anything justifying criticism. People on Fox only criticize him because either A) he is black, B) he is liberal, or C) he wants to help poor and destitute people which is in direct contradiction with the goals and objectives of the Republican party. While there might be some conservatives with a heart out there, the majority of Republicans only care about one thing, money.

Its time for the government to take a stand. Our government cannot allow organizations like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to get on air and openly lie about what is going on. They have to be censured in some way so that people don't interpret what they are saying as the facts. Things like the Fairness Doctrine will ensure that both liberal and conservative voices get the exact same air time on the radio and people not in compliance will be punished. This can also oave the way for more fairness on the internet and TV. The only way to have true fairness is for the government to enforce it through controlling who is saying what in the media and on the air.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Jon, Kate, 8, and the people that write about them


I was going to write a blog about Jon and Kate + 8 but while doing some research on Wikipedia I came across the following conversation by a few of the people posting information on Wikipedia, which I found to be more entertaining. I can't believe how obsessed people are over a reality show. Wait, I can't belive how obsessed people are over the wording of a Wikipedia definition about something that happened to the people from a reality show. What is this world coming to?

Also, I think every topic on Wikipedia has the same type of discussion and debate over what should be included. Who are these people and how do they have the time to sit online all day and write definitions and explanations to things. Search for anything on that site, and then click on the dicsussion tab and you will see, oh you will see.

"[edit] Proposed wording for information on Jon's affair
I would like to delete this line: "The couple has denied these allegations, saying the woman Jon left with was a long-time friend.[8][9] " I can't recall Kate ever claiming the woman was a friend of the family. Though I'm sure Jon may have said it. But the line should be removed because both links do not talk about it. One is down and the other has nothing to do with the couple claiming she is a friend. I'll delete unless there is an argument about it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Do NOT remove that line. The link that is no longer working is the one that said this. We don't remove information just because the source is defunct (which happens often on internet articles). Instead, we try to find another source that says the same thing. Since it is very clear you have not tried to do so, I will just assume you are trying to put a slant to the section (and, it is clear, the entire article given the other messages you've left). In the meantime, I will begin looking for a new source for that statement. --132 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you need a refresher on assuming good faith? Just a suggestion. I didn't know it was "very clear" I hadn't attempted. Didn't know you were sitting behind me while I was on the computer today. And from what I can remember, (my memory is terrible btw) the only few comments I made was that having a picture of Jon with a woman is not proof of an affair. And just so we are clear, I despise Kate and think she is exploiting the children. I feel so much better explaining myself to you now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I see why you are so upset now. My comments about not needing a PHd to determine if hitting someone is abuse/assault. I apologize. My wording was overly harsh.
I am no wiki expert, but would assume that if the link is bad (one is bad and the other does not talk about the "couple" admitting she is a friend) and we have no other links to verify it, it should be removed. By all means, add it back when you do find the source. That's what wiki is all about and why it changes every split second to reflect the most accurate information. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a little blunt or assuming in my message. It has nothing to do with not assuming good faith and everything to do with the fact that this page gets spammed like nobody's business by dozens of anon editors trying to put their particular slant on things. When you came in, noted a defunct link within a stale topic, didn't bother to find a replacement, suggested full-scale removal instead of rewording or finding a new source, and brought up irrelevant issues in other stale topics, it's pretty much the only logical conclusion to come to.
No, if you find a statement that is sourced, but may be iffy due to the source being defunct or what-have-you, you should add a {{fact}} tag and/or try to find a replacement source. If you add the tag and, after a few days, a new source isn't found, then you remove it, noting in the edit summary that a new source hadn't been found. Since you can't edit the article due to its protection and did neither, but brought it up here and caught my attention, I went to find a replacement. It took me, quite literally, five seconds to find a replacement source. --132 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I still do not see in either of those sources where Kate claims it was a family friend. I see Jon says that (of course) but not Kate. And certainly not as a "couple" denouncing it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello? Is this thing on? Your sources DO NOT state the affair was denounced as a couple. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I believe there is now a general consensus, with wikiwikid, KASchmidt, myself, VegaDark, Honeymane, and several other editors moving for inclusion, having stated their grounds, in accordance with the common interpretation of the rules, and having listed a number of reliable sources, and with only SCjessey still being flatly against inclusion of the information, with 13 seeming to have objected mainly to wording and citation issues and WP:Crystal, it should come in."

This is only part of it (yes there is more), the whole conversation is posted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jon_&_Kate_Plus_8

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Poll

sorry, forgot to add the poll

Peace Prize



I don't think its right how people have been criticizing Obama for winning the Peace Prize. Contrary to what the Obama-haters say, Obama wining the Nobel Peace Prize is a good thing.

Positive
1. It brings positive attention to our country after many years of failed foreign diplomacy during the Bush years.
2. It rewards the kinds of peaceful thoughts and intentions that Obama has started and encourages our country to continue moving forward with the same types of actions.
3. It also gives our country more leverage when we try and negotiate with the Iranians and N. Koreans over their nuclear weapons. If the world assumes we are doing this to help encourage a nuclear-free world instead of just trying to maintain our status as the only super-power then they are more likely to support our efforts.

Negative
1. I do agree it was a little early. And perhaps next year would have been more appropriate. But Obama did a good job of being humble when accepting it.
2. The people who give the awards have their own political motives for giving it to Obama but what do we care?
3. We look kind of hypocritical getting a peace award while we are fighting wars in 2 different countries. And on the brink of war with a few more.


test post

test
is this hting on?

Blog

Since I flaked out and don't have time to satisfy the masses, someone has stepped forward and volunteered to do posts on a regular basis. Their only requirement is that they remain anonymous.

I can still post your guest posts that you send me and will even try and post a few of my own. Don't bother asking me who this person is, they don't want you to know.