Many people have been to a sporting event and felt that the team underperformed and that their ticket money was wasted. One fan took action:
Tony Seminary traveled to Boise for Oregon's opening game against Boise State. He was apparently so disappointed in Oregon's performance that he e-mailed this to the coach of the Ducks, Chip Kelly:
"I was so angry with the game (even before the post-game melee) I am sending you an invoice for my trip to Boise. The product on the field Thursday night is not something I was at all proud of, and I feel as though I’m entitled to my money back for the trip. Please see my invoice attached in this email. I will happily send along receipts if need be." (from everydayshouldbesaturday.com)
So what does Coach Kelly do when he gets this e-mail? He responds with a request for his address, and then sends a personal check (click on the quote above to see) to Seminary for the amount of his expenses, $439. Well, this apparently caused quite an impression on Seminary, because he not only returned the check but is now Kelly's biggest fan.
Sure, you want to say that Kelly is a great man for actually sending a check to Seminary, but clearly the problem is that Seminary is a real idiot. For one, it's college sports. No matter how much you complain about Oregon's effort, none of the students are getting paid for their performance. No, the scholarship doesn't count, because the scholarship is a rouse to get the players on the team and the colleges don't graduate the players. The players play because they love football and because they would love to play in the NFL, as unlikely as it may be. College sports, great as they are, shouldn't be taken so seriously by idiots like Seminary.
As Seminary is happy to say "it's really hard to shut me up." He clearly should learn how, and quit taking college sports so seriously. Just because college athletes playing for zero money had a bad game doesn't mean you need to whine so much that you feel as if you deserve a refund from the exorbitant amount of money he likely can't afford following a bunch of college kids around the Pacific Northwest.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Woot-Off
Woot.com, the one item a day internet superstore, is having a Woot-Off, where instead of selling one thing a day, they sell one thing until it sells out, and then another.
The big hit of the Woot-Off is "Random Crap", where for $3 + $5 shipping, you agree to buy any three items Woot will sell you. Sometimes it's screws, sometimes it's an LCD television.
Bargain hunters flock to Woot during Woot-Offs, and their servers crash when they offer Random Crap, so the chances of actually getting to buy crap are not so good. But it's a mindless diversion to see what items are up for sale during the Woot-Off, and there's always a chance.
The big hit of the Woot-Off is "Random Crap", where for $3 + $5 shipping, you agree to buy any three items Woot will sell you. Sometimes it's screws, sometimes it's an LCD television.
Bargain hunters flock to Woot during Woot-Offs, and their servers crash when they offer Random Crap, so the chances of actually getting to buy crap are not so good. But it's a mindless diversion to see what items are up for sale during the Woot-Off, and there's always a chance.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Funny the Way Edwards Is
Most likely the funniest part of this New York Times story on Sunday detailing John Edwards' affair with Riele Hunter is this:
"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
Who knew John Edwards and/or Riele Hunter loved the Dave Matthews Band? While I can say with extreme certainty that I don't stand for anything that Edwards does, I do love DMB. However, given that Edwards was trying to convince Hunter that after his current wife kicked the bucket he would marry her, it's likely that Hunter really likes DMB and Edwards is a sleazebag.
Edwards, the king of plaintiffs lawyers, purportedly planned his second wedding while his first wife was recovering from cancer. Nevermind that his presidential campaign spent over $100K on "video services" that Hunter supposedly provided, that he convinced a long-time friend to take the fall for Edwards' love child, or that he has refused to admit that he fathered the kid even after the National Enquirer caught Edwards in a hotel that Hunter was staying it. Telling your mistress that you'll marry her while your wife dies from cancer is truly despicable.
But hey, he might like DMB. Unfortunately, the bass player for DMB, Stefan Lessard, had this to say on his Twitter page:
"We don't play weddings. Period. Ridiculous and wrong."
Tough break for Edwards. Edwards probably shouldn't have been a Gravedigger Digging a Ditch for his first wife prematurely, instead waiting until she was Lying in the Hands of God. Cause when you do that stuff, You Might Die Trying. Definitely not a Typical Situation. His plan clearly wasn't the Best of What's Around.
That said, any world where Edwards is getting exposed for being a sleazebag is One Sweet World. Everyday.
"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
Who knew John Edwards and/or Riele Hunter loved the Dave Matthews Band? While I can say with extreme certainty that I don't stand for anything that Edwards does, I do love DMB. However, given that Edwards was trying to convince Hunter that after his current wife kicked the bucket he would marry her, it's likely that Hunter really likes DMB and Edwards is a sleazebag.
Edwards, the king of plaintiffs lawyers, purportedly planned his second wedding while his first wife was recovering from cancer. Nevermind that his presidential campaign spent over $100K on "video services" that Hunter supposedly provided, that he convinced a long-time friend to take the fall for Edwards' love child, or that he has refused to admit that he fathered the kid even after the National Enquirer caught Edwards in a hotel that Hunter was staying it. Telling your mistress that you'll marry her while your wife dies from cancer is truly despicable.
But hey, he might like DMB. Unfortunately, the bass player for DMB, Stefan Lessard, had this to say on his Twitter page:
"We don't play weddings. Period. Ridiculous and wrong."
Tough break for Edwards. Edwards probably shouldn't have been a Gravedigger Digging a Ditch for his first wife prematurely, instead waiting until she was Lying in the Hands of God. Cause when you do that stuff, You Might Die Trying. Definitely not a Typical Situation. His plan clearly wasn't the Best of What's Around.
That said, any world where Edwards is getting exposed for being a sleazebag is One Sweet World. Everyday.
Monday, September 21, 2009
One Man = One Vote?
One of the tenets of our political system is the (inaccurate) concept that one person in Illinois has the same vote as one person in Mississippi. Of course, the Electoral College and the Senate make this a complete facade, but the concept is still one of the great myths of our democracy.
Now a group is trying to attack it based on unequal voter distribution by Congressional district. A group called Apportionment.US has found filed a lawsuit on behalf of a voter in five states, Mississippi, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota and Utah, claiming that these states have a Congressional apportionment that is inferior to other states, specifically Wyoming, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Iowa and West Virginia. They state that while a US House district in Rhode Island has 525K or so people in it, a district in Mississippi has 713K or so.
Apportionment.US argues that the deviation in populations between US House seats is much wider than deviations that the Supreme Court have found unconstitutional in local elections. They cite Karcher v. Daggett, and argue that if the Supreme Court in Karcher found a deviation in district populations of 0.6984% unconstitutional, the deviation currently in US House seats of 5.75% is also unconstitutional.
To remedy this, Apportionment.US would like to vastly increase the size of the US House. They offer two plans, either making the House have 932 members or 1,761 members and claim that this could cut the deviation in House seats from 5.75% to 1.48% if there were 1,761 members of the House.
Adding members of the US House is a great idea. 600K+ residents per US House District is much too high. Great Britain, a country of about 61 million people, has a House of Commons with 646 members, and they will add 4 members to the Commons by the next election. If Britain can have a legislature of 650 members for a country that size, the US House could easily double or triple its membership. Adding members to the US House would not only fix this apparent discrepancy between state populations and representation, but it would also cut the costs of elections. With fewer constituents, US House members could do more retail politicking and have less of a need to spend money on television, particularly when any television campaign will be directed at more people who are not in their district than in their district. It will make national politics more local, and cut the entry cost for new candidates. Here's hoping Apportionment.US succeeds.
Now a group is trying to attack it based on unequal voter distribution by Congressional district. A group called Apportionment.US has found filed a lawsuit on behalf of a voter in five states, Mississippi, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota and Utah, claiming that these states have a Congressional apportionment that is inferior to other states, specifically Wyoming, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Iowa and West Virginia. They state that while a US House district in Rhode Island has 525K or so people in it, a district in Mississippi has 713K or so.
Apportionment.US argues that the deviation in populations between US House seats is much wider than deviations that the Supreme Court have found unconstitutional in local elections. They cite Karcher v. Daggett, and argue that if the Supreme Court in Karcher found a deviation in district populations of 0.6984% unconstitutional, the deviation currently in US House seats of 5.75% is also unconstitutional.
To remedy this, Apportionment.US would like to vastly increase the size of the US House. They offer two plans, either making the House have 932 members or 1,761 members and claim that this could cut the deviation in House seats from 5.75% to 1.48% if there were 1,761 members of the House.
Adding members of the US House is a great idea. 600K+ residents per US House District is much too high. Great Britain, a country of about 61 million people, has a House of Commons with 646 members, and they will add 4 members to the Commons by the next election. If Britain can have a legislature of 650 members for a country that size, the US House could easily double or triple its membership. Adding members to the US House would not only fix this apparent discrepancy between state populations and representation, but it would also cut the costs of elections. With fewer constituents, US House members could do more retail politicking and have less of a need to spend money on television, particularly when any television campaign will be directed at more people who are not in their district than in their district. It will make national politics more local, and cut the entry cost for new candidates. Here's hoping Apportionment.US succeeds.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Twitter: My New Favorite Thing
For the longest time I thought Twitter was pointless. In my head it was people spouting gibberish in 160 characters or less. Since most people on Twitter lack followers, I assumed they were all just wasting their own time, talking to no one in particular. Compound all of this with the fact that most Twitter users are fairly old, and I just figured that it was a user-friendly social network for people who didn't want to set up the time to sign onto another social network.
Then I discovered a few things:
1) Twitter is an incredibly useful device for media personalities and celebrities to connect with fans in an interesting way. For instance, if you are a follower of football, you probably read Peter King on SI.com or watch Adam Schefter on ESPN. However, they also maintain Twitter accounts and send out numerous messages, particularly when events are going on. I watched the Thursday night opening season kickoff between Pittsburgh and Tennessee, and both King and Schefter were sending out messages full of analysis and injury updates. It sounds cliche, but it really did add to the game experience. I also like the Dave Matthews band, and a fan group called Ants Marching sends out a message every time they play a song on their tour, so people can see what they are playing.
2) I am one of those people with too much time on my hands.
3) I enjoy talking to myself, and broadcasting my useless thoughts to no one in particular. Otherwise, what am I doing with this blog?
The twittering may even be good practice for when I have a job and a career and may have something worth saying. As for now, it kills time and makes me feel less worthless.
Now I just need to get people to follow my worthless comments.
Then I discovered a few things:
1) Twitter is an incredibly useful device for media personalities and celebrities to connect with fans in an interesting way. For instance, if you are a follower of football, you probably read Peter King on SI.com or watch Adam Schefter on ESPN. However, they also maintain Twitter accounts and send out numerous messages, particularly when events are going on. I watched the Thursday night opening season kickoff between Pittsburgh and Tennessee, and both King and Schefter were sending out messages full of analysis and injury updates. It sounds cliche, but it really did add to the game experience. I also like the Dave Matthews band, and a fan group called Ants Marching sends out a message every time they play a song on their tour, so people can see what they are playing.
2) I am one of those people with too much time on my hands.
3) I enjoy talking to myself, and broadcasting my useless thoughts to no one in particular. Otherwise, what am I doing with this blog?
The twittering may even be good practice for when I have a job and a career and may have something worth saying. As for now, it kills time and makes me feel less worthless.
Now I just need to get people to follow my worthless comments.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Shout-Out
If anyone needs jewelry or other wonderful gifts out in Colorado, check out Princess Penguin Studios.
Check out my friend Diana's blog about what she's up to at princesspenguin.wordpress.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Rapture Insurance - Eternal Earthbound Pets
I fear the rapture like anyone else (but likely for different reasons than all the born agains...), and it's nice to know that if Biscuit doesn't get called to Heaven, there's a heathen to take care of her.
Eternal Earthbound Pets
$110 for ten years of rapture protection for the cat? A steal!
Eternal Earthbound Pets
$110 for ten years of rapture protection for the cat? A steal!
Banana Republic
In 2004, the MA legislature changed the law that had previously allowed the governor to appoint an interim senator because they were worried that Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican if John Kerry won. Thankfully, John Kerry didn't win, but his run for President is still causing trouble five years later.
The MA legislature's law allows for a special election between 145-160 days after the resignation/death of a Senator. There is no provision for an interim Senator because the legislature was worried Romney would have appointed a Republican. Now the Democrats have decided that laws are to be changed depending on who will best benefit from them. If the Republicans are going to benefit, they change the law. If they want to benefit, they'll make sure they do. Like most acts of the MA legislature, this sets a horrible precedent; why have rules and laws on what to do in certain situations when the legislature can just decide to change the law because it will advantage the majority.
The Democrats do this under the guise of "needing full representation". Garbage. When Kerry ran for President in 2004, he missed almost every vote. From the time Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer to his death, he missed almost every vote. If the Democrats were serious about this, they could have convinced Kennedy to resign upon his diagnosis, and they almost certainly would have won a special election that would have been held over a year ago. MA needs two Senators because of Obama's "historical change agenda?" Garbage.
Acts like this make it clear that Massachusetts needs a second political party. Even though I'd like it to be a conservative party, even if it were the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or any other group that became viable, the majority party would be held in check. If there is a substantial opposition, the Democrats would be more likely to play by rules that they would want used if the Democrats were a minority party. Right now, that's impossible, and they can change the laws at their whim.
When a US Representative resigns or dies, they hold a special election. One vote in the Senate isn't much more important, even if there are one-fourth the Senators as Representatives. Hopefully the MA legislature shows some ethics that aren't in the mold of Wilkerson or DiMasi and leaves the law the way it is. But we know they won't.
The MA legislature's law allows for a special election between 145-160 days after the resignation/death of a Senator. There is no provision for an interim Senator because the legislature was worried Romney would have appointed a Republican. Now the Democrats have decided that laws are to be changed depending on who will best benefit from them. If the Republicans are going to benefit, they change the law. If they want to benefit, they'll make sure they do. Like most acts of the MA legislature, this sets a horrible precedent; why have rules and laws on what to do in certain situations when the legislature can just decide to change the law because it will advantage the majority.
The Democrats do this under the guise of "needing full representation". Garbage. When Kerry ran for President in 2004, he missed almost every vote. From the time Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer to his death, he missed almost every vote. If the Democrats were serious about this, they could have convinced Kennedy to resign upon his diagnosis, and they almost certainly would have won a special election that would have been held over a year ago. MA needs two Senators because of Obama's "historical change agenda?" Garbage.
Acts like this make it clear that Massachusetts needs a second political party. Even though I'd like it to be a conservative party, even if it were the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or any other group that became viable, the majority party would be held in check. If there is a substantial opposition, the Democrats would be more likely to play by rules that they would want used if the Democrats were a minority party. Right now, that's impossible, and they can change the laws at their whim.
When a US Representative resigns or dies, they hold a special election. One vote in the Senate isn't much more important, even if there are one-fourth the Senators as Representatives. Hopefully the MA legislature shows some ethics that aren't in the mold of Wilkerson or DiMasi and leaves the law the way it is. But we know they won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
