.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Am I The Only One?

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Does This Mean Michael Richards is a Racist?

I don't think it does.

Should he have pulled out the "n" word? Ah, no... that was stupid. But this *is* a comedy club, for crying out loud. There is terribly offensive stuff hurled at the the audience every single day at these clubs. You gotta check your offended-o-meter at the door.

To the self-important idiot who was yelling at Michael Richards: Suck it up, Alice. If you don't like when your particular diverse group is dis'ed, then drop the double standard and don't scream the word "cracker" at him.

Michael Richards later apologized, which should be enough to put it behind him but I'm sure it won't make any difference:

UPDATE: Upon re-watching the apology on Letterman, I must say that it is almost more awkward than the original meltdown. And Richards loses points in my book for trying to somehow blame his rage on Katrina and Bush. Just say you're sorry and shut up.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Football Numerology

Wanna hear something freaky? The Ohio State Buckeyes beat the Michigan Wolverines 42-39 in the biggest game of the year on Saturday. So naturally, many people went out and played the Pick 4 lottery with those numbers.

And the numbers 4-2-3-9 were drawn as the winner.


Sunday, November 19, 2006

No ID? Give 'em the Taser

America, are you ready for this?

UCLA is tasing students in the library that cannot produce student ID. This video was shot a few days ago, and I'm warning you, it's sick.

The cops have gone completely nuts in LA I guess. I mean, listen to the screams of this poor guy. Whatever happened to just cuffing a suspect and leading him out to a police car?

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

More Senate Math

It turns out I'm not the only one that sees a problem with CNN's graphic. Fox News is displaying a more-sensible graphic, with 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats (now with Montana's results in), and 2 Independents.

Making Sense of Senate Majority Math

Like most of the world, I've been watching the coverage of the U.S. Senate races with fascination. And I suspect I'm not the only one who's a little puzzled by the talk of the Democrats taking control of the senate.

Let's take a look at CNN, a pro-Democrat news company. Their front page a few minutes ago looks like this:

Does that graphic showing the number of Democratic, Republican, and Independant senators in the lower-left look odd? Let's take a closer look:

So CNN thinks that the Democrats have 49? This will come as a surprise to Senators Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who both won as Independents. Without these two, the Democrats only have 47.

The assumption is that Lieberman and Sanders will vote with the Democrats, though that will not be true on issues of the Iraq war (which Lieberman supports), and possibly not true on other issues for Sanders. Regardless, CNN has a yellow bar for "Independents", with a zero beside it. If you're going to count the I's as D's, why show the third progress bar?

Now if you click on one of the articles, CNN gives you a different graphic:

Here they still show the two Independents as Democrats, but at least the Democrat thermometer is noticeably shorter. Are they starting to get it?

This distinction becomes important in deciding the Senate Majority Leader; the Democrats need 51 to control the senate in order to overcome Cheney's tie-breaking vote, and even if the races in Montana and Virgina go the Democrat's way, it's still 49-49-2 -- 2 short of the required 51. According to Senate rules:

"Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties' positions on the issues." Source: Senate.gov

If only members of the "majority party" -- which Lieberman and Sanders are not -- can vote for a majority leader, then I can't see any way that the Democrats can elect one. Any thoughts?