Chris Matthews Implies, 'Liberal is anti-American'? What? Did You Hear That Too?

As made clearly apparent within a recent post by Chris Cillizza, apparently Chris Matthews must think that to liberal is to be anti-American! I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard it myself.

During a recent interview with Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann, one I watched myself, Mr. Matthews developed this hypothesis by apparently leveraging the 'ol "2 + 2 equals" mathematics combined with her comments about how some of Barack Obama's associations were with extremely liberal, anti-American types.

Yes, even after Ms. Bachmann repeatedly provided examples of how very specific liberal Americans held anti-American sentiments, Mr. Matthews some how managed to derive the conclusion that all liberal Americans held anti-American sentiments. Besides failing even the most rudimentary test of a sound, logical argument, I think it's unprofessional. Typical; but unprofessional.

With all the ongoing discussions about whether or not bloggers should be considered on some level to be journalists -- for reasons ranging from professionalism to specific education -- it is from many of the card-carrying journalists I tend to see the most unprofessional acts of spin and misinformation.

I like both Senators McCain and Obama, and I am concerned about either becoming our next President -- for some of the same reasons, and for some different reasons.

Regardless, I don't believe either of them would appreciate seeing Ms. Bachmann's words twisted against her, nor would they like to see an otherwise great journalist mistakenly believe all liberals are anti-American.

I'm just say'in.

Great Idea + Poor Execution = A Questionable Future

Have you seen Scribd? Well, once it works, it has the potential to be great.

What can I say about Scribd? It's a really great idea, to start off, as it is a great place to publish ones materials -- poetry, manuals, books, articles, notes, and pretty much whatever you can think of. And it's FREE!

And FREE could get you a lot! The Scribd site contains a vast quantity of materials that you are welcome to read. My first attempt to search for a book title that happened to be on my mind at the time resulted in, what else, the book in its entirety. Now I can't speak to the legality of this specific book being there, but all in all the site appears to be on the up and up.

But that aside, one of its greatest promises is the ability to eMail one or more people, include attachments, & the Scribd service will resend the eMail to everyone replacing the format-dependent attachment with a link to what they call ipaper -- a reproduction of the attachment without its reader being tied to the application that created it. And finally, the attachment is converted and placed inside the Scribd user's documents folder. Sounds too good to be true; yes?

Perhaps, yes.

At least that's what is promised -- but its execution leaves little to be desired. So far, I've not been able to get that part to work -- any part after pressing SEND on the eMail. The eMail recipients get their normal eMail, with the normal attachment included -- no mention of or link to Scribd. And to top it off, the attachment never ends up in the Scribd user's account.

Well, I've sent a message to their Feedback group, and I'll wait to see how well the other significant part of any Web 2.0 offering: service.

Karolina Kurkova: The New 'FAT'? Don't Be Absurd

Alright; I may not be the next, up-and-coming GQ front-pager, and I may not be the runner up, but one has to be as ass to use this goddess-like woman's name and the word 'fat' in the same sentence, paragraph, or article for that matter.

Has she been thinner? Has she looked younger? Has she looked better? Than who? Your wife; your girlfriend; your significant other? Who cares?

Well, when you are willing to lay down $10k a day, or $5k a day, or when women of her amazing beauty and class are willing to give you the time of day, perhaps you can talk.

But for now, just look at what you're snuggling-up next to, or what shines-back at you from a mirror, the next time you want to call this woman fat.

But then, I'm just say'in...

Sarah Larson 'Devastated' But Not Surprised After Getting Dumped by George Clooney

Thoughts: FOXNews.com - Sarah Larson 'Devastated' After Getting Dumped by George Clooney - Celebrity Gossip |

It should have come as no surprise, at least not to Ms. Larson, that George Clooney would made his hallmark "getaway" before things went beyond the point of no return.

Not that there's any real "point of no return," and though there are those who think that Clooney's personality-type would make it difficult for him to just rollover on the $100,000 bet he has with Nicole Kidman on his marital state before he turns 50, that figure pales by comparison with what the divorce courts would due to him this time around.

Married once before to Talia Balsam, Mr. Clooney had little to lose in divorce courts; however, today even a reasonable prenuptial agreement could cost him millions.

But I doubt that losing a bet or the [monetary] price of divorce would scare George away from true love. After all, he's a man -- a man's man, really -- and there's a lot more to him than meets the eye. In his 40's, George has a lot of living to due, a lot of things to experience, and -- should he choose -- a lot of women to help him do just that. Handsome, talented, driven, and wealthy, who could possibly fault him for the choices he makes?

As for Sarah Larson, I'm sure he loves her dearly, just as I'm certain she's had an incredible year of memories to look back upon. And if she plays her cards right, she'll probably have a friend for life in George, and many more opportunities to share in his life -- just not as Mrs. Clooney. Or at least not any time too soon.

George Clooney has the combination of raw talent and nearly incomparable good looks. Though they would never be mistaken as family, one can appreciate the parallels that can be drawn between George Clooney and Sean Connery, as the photographs below suggest. It leaves one asking the obvious question, "George; will you be our next James Bond?"

Has Sony Lost the War? You Bet!

Just as Lance Ulanoff's post in PC Magazine suggests -- though I may be taking it a little farther -- Sony bet the proverbial farm on muscling out HD-DVD, and they both won and lost.

Here it is in short: Blu-Ray units are too expensive, media is too expensive, TV's are not able to take advantage of it, and even when they can, the difference is too little too late.

Even if Sony drops their price to $100/unit, as long as it can play regular DVD's, the buying public will opt for those. If the Blu-Ray unit doesn't upconvert, they will never sell, and if they do, that's what they'll be used for. As far as the media, it needs to max-out at about $10/disc. Price points above this will loose the war.

Maybe Sony can get in and buy HD-DVD before the shine leaves.

IT Organizations Focusing on What Outsourcing Still Can't Provide

A recent Gartner survey apparently shows that IT Organizations are finally starting to "get it" when it comes to the topic of outsourcing.

Once seen for its promise -- albeit failed promise -- of lower cost resources, IT organizations are finally focusing on the golden carrot -- increased productivity and flexibility.

It's unfortunate, but completely understandable, that today's outsourcing doesn't provide the few things that IT organizations should have been striving for from the very beginning -- productivity increases, flexible workforce, and technological centers of excellence. But standing back from the oh-so-pretty PowerPoint presentation developed by some management sycophant that suggests when you take x-number of cut-rate resources, include his or her own Word document making claims of extraordinary expertise, and then there's a puffy cloud, and poof, you have productivity and expense savings! Wow!

But somewhere in the superfluous equation the years of real experience, experience with teeth, experience within one's company and their experience with the customers, and experience that could never be translated to procedural documentation even if exiting employees' remembered it when asked. Yes; that puffy cloud has a lot to live up to.

But at least corporate IT organizations are finally striving for the right thing.

Will You Still Watch?

Writers Vote to End Their Walkout - WSJ.com

I have to admit to being a strong supporter of the writers' decision to strike on their issues, but it was also the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to the networks.

I have been enjoying other viewing options, like Netflicks, Hulu, YouTube, Joost, and several other independent services that provide content, not forgetting the many great sources for podcasts and vidcasts.

I wonder how many other of you have cast, or are in the process of casting the networks aside for independent content? Of course, it's not like I won't watch some network content, but with so little of it is very interesting any more, who has the time to waste on mediocrity?

writers, network, podcasting, YouTube, Hulu, Joost

Hulu : Who Knew? Has It's Quietly Open Doors Made Them Difficult To Walk Through?

Hulu Quietly Opens Its Doors

Since the "Quietly Open Doors" of Hulu began to become a reality, has your quality reduced? Mine has.

Perhaps it's just a fluke -- a series of momentary glitches that I perhaps have just been unfortunate enough to happen upon.

Perhaps it's a bandwidth issue -- where planning for how much throughput is going to be needed to sustain the influx of new customers watching content breaks down. But then this is still a beta site. The purpose of a beta roll out is to minimize these kind of things when you have a go-live date.

Perhaps it's an unexpected spike in content-seeking customers -- when, similar to but unlike the bandwidth issue above, you have appropriately analyzed your median bandwidth needs, but when you still fall short of the mark during those times when customers' needs are for a short time greater than what you are always providing. This is another one of those things that a beta is supposed to root-out, and very likely to occur during changes in service like expanding its beta roll out.

In any of these cases, it's still, unfortunately, results in the same -- I can't watch something when I have time to participate in the beta program. I guess I, and those of you who at the same time take lunch, need to change the time I take lunch.

The things I do for testing.

Liberal Approach to "Global Warming" Could Kill Us All

Once again we see evidence of how tree-hugging liberals are wrong -- wrong enough as proponents of the latest buzz-word not only linked to junk science, but a path to genocide. Strong words? Too strong? I don't know; perhaps; however, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a liberal, tree-hugging hater of carbon-based fuels that would claim anything less of those who happily fill their tanks with 92 Octane.

And even if you believe in the so-called "man's part in global warming," or in global warming at all, you have to laugh when you watch the liberal lemmings march down the path toward their own extinction.

One of their latest forays into junk science -- the fight against fossil fuels -- leads them, and now apparently us, right down such a path. For some time now, the cry has been, "... rid ourselves of this dependence on fossil fuels..." Their answer to this, of course, has been to support the world's switch to bio-fuels. To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with bio-fuels, especially if they can provide me with an inexpensive alternative to paying some radical, Muslims for their dinosaur squeezings. Frankly, if through the use of bio-fuels we could starve them out of existence, I'd be willing to pay more -- a small price to pay for such a large service to humanity.

Shocked; are we? Really? And what was it the tree-huggers have been saying all this time? Oh yes; I remember the slogan, "If you drive and SUV you're supporting terrorism..."

Then today I read a new study -- one that says that the production of these bio-fuel crops will in fact accelerate global warming by decreasing the land cover that, today, is responsible for balancing the production of these greenhouse gasses. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Just Like a Christian to Follow the Literal Meaning Only When It Suits Him

Poor Nathaniel. I'd like to say that very few people who believe they have the right to believe in, and be protected by, the literal translation of some things, but are exempt from the literal meaning of other things -- even when it's the contract they signed.

Like I said, I'd like to say that, but those who count themselves among the many who make up the proliferation of, if not infestation of, perhaps the world's largest religion seem to believe that not only can they dictate to others what doctrine they should follow, but they can conveniently ignore the doctrine they find inconvenient. And Nathaniel is a living example of this.

It appears that Nathaniel accepted a highly-professional position -- prestigious and high-paying -- being fully aware that the nature of the research he would be performing depended upon objective belief in tenets of Evolution. And then once on board, comfortably in his position, he says: No, I don't want anything to do with Evolution, ... and to top it off, it's against my religious rights to make me.

This is classic Christian whining. Let's all watch this one closely, and if he gets his way, all I can say is if we are quiet about it, we'll deserve everything we get.

Eli Lilly Mistakenly/Unfairly Under Fire over ZYPREXA

I can't help but to be continually amazed at man's ability to jump to conclusions. But then my father often reminded me of the cliché, "... you should walk a mile in his shoes before ..;" before what? Before pointing out the most passed over indication that litigation-happy Americans have had staring them in the face? And what is that, you ask? I'll save that for the end.

What I am referring to is best exemplified by an article recently written by a supposed ZYPREXA victim. I say supposed because the argument he points out is an old and tired one: that this guy took "A," and because "B" suggests -- without, I might add, any evidence whatsoever -- that taking "A" causes diabetes, that the big, bad, pharmaceutical company that provided him with "A" is involved in a conspiracy to cover up the fact that "A" causes diabetes. Go ahead, read the article for yourself.

And to add to, if not what makes it, the conspiracy theory, the big, bad pharmaceutical company also make a treatment for diabetes! Oh my! Could it be true? Sure; and Mars could be inhabited by little-green men (and women, I suppose) also.

So where does this argument break down, you might ask? Of course you won't ask, because he never made a good case in the first place, so there really isn't an argument. First of all, let's look at the drug, "A" (psssst! "A" = ZYPREXA). People who take the drug do not take it for the treatment of diabetes, they take it because they hear voices that aren't there, and they develop wild conspiracy theories. In other words, they treat people for a condition that makes them incapable of rendering capable decisions about what is real and what is not. That fact that it's still something he believes when he is under a treatment schedule suggests one of two things, either of which is very plausible: 1) the treatment is not working for him; or, 2) he developed the theory when he was at a "low," and cannot distinguish the correctness of something that developed when he hadn't the wherewithal to assess it.

Option 1 is obvious, so I won't go there, and option 2 is, well, you decide: if you as someone with schizophrenia -- but with his symptoms being successfully suppressed -- if he really heard voices prior to taking medication, he'll tell you yes, because it was very real at the time.

What's disturbing about the writer's comments is that he begins saying that the drug "... was ineffective for my condition ..," but went on to say that in spite of its ineffectiveness, he continued to take it "from 1996 until 2000." I certainly don't fault the writer for following the guidance of his psychiatrist, but what competent medical professional would continue to prescribe something that was ineffective? One can't help but wonder what other drugs may have been improperly prescribed -- drugs that by themselves, or in combination, could have caused the diabetes.

So what was it I was saving for the end? What is it that has been so easily passed-over by a litigious society? It's the link between certain psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and diabetes! That's right! I believe we should be taking a really close look at disorders of the islets of Langerhans and the [greater] possibility that the somatotropin release-inhibiting hormone, once thought to only impact one's growth pattern, could be the root cause of various psychoses.

This could be why so many people with weight problems, so many people with diabetes, develop schizophrenia!

After all, I'm just say'in.