I'm on CO 282 headed for Boston. We're 30 min late leaving the gate because of some problem in the cargo hold. The issue is resolved, but we have to wait for the paperwork to clear. (Shouldn't that be electronic?)
anyhow, a salesman is shot-gunning cell calls and I've heard a new 70's style word - "Fantabulistic."The guy's not old enough to have a vocabulary from 35 years ago. He might be 40-45.
This flight is packed- let's get rolling!
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Fantabulistic?
Saturday, June 18, 2005
The "Vomit Comet"
This KC-135 is on display at Ellingtion Field in Houston, Tx. It was, and it's sisters are used to simulate zero-gravity. Click on the image below to read about it.
Cape Cod, Texas
If PajamaGal could be anywhere, she would be at Cape Cod. When she can’t be there, the Kemah Boardwalk in Texas serves as a adequate substitute. During one of our visits, I saw this fishing boat returning and thought the swarming gulls created a nice shot.
Swing Junction Find
It's 93° in the shade and PajamaGal is tramping through the brush. The walking stick moves branches, clears cobwebs (there are plenty), and is protection from snakes!
...and there it is!
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Naked Rib Smokehouse - Manvel, TX
Bobby Flay promoted Thelma's in downtown Houston on a recent FoodTv broadcast. Reading the customer reviews at B4-U-EAT.COM revealed that unless you want to wait at least 30 minutes for your meal and have it served by "persons with attitude," don't go to Thelma's. One review emphatically suggested The Naked Rib in Manvel for not only great BBQ, but also polite service.
PajamaGal & I were GeoCaching (unsuccessfully) when lunchtime came so I punched "The Naked Rib" into the GPS and 20 miles (and a lot of cross-lots turns) later, we arrived.
One of the Mary's (not Hart) was behind the counter and most helpfully explained the choices. I had the 2-meat platter (sausage & brisket), while PajamaGal opted for ½ pound of pork ribs and a side of coleslaw. Two sides came with the platter so I chose the slaw and the pinto beans. Adding a lite beer, a diet coke, and two bucks tip totally ruined a $20 bill. From the time we pulled into the parking lot to the first bite took all of 12 minutes.
It was all great! Mary came over to our table 5 minutes after we sat down and advised me not to eat the beans - she'd tasted them and found them a bit too salty and had a fresh batch heating up which were delivered them a few minutes later.
Yes we'll go back; yes we'll recommend it. And on the 1st Saturday of each month, they host a car show and have a live band (6:00 pm).
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Mud Volleyball
"The court shall consist of a net and genuine Pasadena mud, 60’ x 30’."
It was 94° - and PajamaGal begged me to let her play. I would have, but this wasn't open-play, these teams had spent $145 each to enter - this was a real competition!
Strawberry Shortcake .......... NOT!
.I should have taken a picture but my $2.00 purchase hit the garbage can faster than I could say "Click!"
Right inside the Crafts building they were selling samples of Strawberry Shortcake for 2 bucks each. Looking through the clear plastic snap-top tubs, I thought the color of the strawberry topping was just a tad too pink - not the deep red of a ripe strawberry. I bought it anyway - I mean this WAS the official 32nd Annual Pasadena Strawberry Festival!
Once we got the temperature inside the car below 100° (it was 94° on the midway), PajamaGal couldn't wait any longer. We're doing the South Beach/Atkins thing and don't eat any cake, cookies, etc.
She almost threw-up. It was the candy-like goo that could be classified only as something for the under-10 age group. And it wasn't shortcake - it was store-bought pound cake. YUK!
Friday, May 20, 2005
Poor Saddam
If the American military is found to have any part in the Sun obtaining and printing the Saddam pictures, the MSM will be all over it! MSM is going to be outraged more to a few snapshots of poor Saddam in his Jockey shorts than they were to the videos he made of his friends raping, torturing, and murdering innocent civilians.
And that’s a sad thing.
And that’s a sad thing.
Filibuster – or – “It’s my baseball and I’m taking it home!”
The word "filibuster" comes from the Dutch word meaning "pirate.” Members of the U.S. Senate have pirated debate for as long as the institution has existed. Initially, House members were permitted to filibuster as well, but their growing numbers soon made the practice inadvisable. In 1872, Vice President Schuyler Colfax struck a blow against the expeditious handling of Senate business with his ruling that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue.”
In the Senate, unlimited debate was permitted until 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson suggested the Senate adopt a new rule: a two-thirds vote (67 members) would close down ("cloture") a filibuster. In 1975, the required vote count was reduced to three-fifths (or 60 members).
Republicans also have threatened to request a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that Senate rules make filibusters on judicial nominations illegal. A parliamentarian's ruling can be upheld by a simple majority of senators.
Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down majority vote by the full senate.
That plan is referred to by both parties as a "nuclear option.” Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt. They also say that reasoning is bullshit and no one believes it, including Vice President Cheney.
“Collegiality” - A term used to represent a situation in which colleagues share equally in power and authority. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it.
O.k., the filibuster was started so that each colleague would have his chance to voice his thoughts, pertinent to the pending issue. Both sides are guilty of not following the intent of the action. But will anyone deny that stalling an action indefinitely by talking about any subject ad infinitum was not the intent Vice President Colfax had in 1872. (During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers.")
All senators have an equal vote when there’s a floor vote and the majority tally of the votes cast decides the issue. There are exactly 100 senators for a reason. In the Senate, each state gets equal representation. The system was designed to reflect the will of the majority of the senators; not the states, not the population, and not the political parties. MAJORITY – one more than 50% of the votes cast. And it was intended there be 3 “classes,” one-third of the population to be elected to 6-year terms every 2 years.
Although I’d employ every legal means available to me to win my point, I’d just not feel right about reading Shakespeare for hours on end so I could prevent 99 other colleagues from doing their job. Their job is to decide issues by voting isn’t it? So, I really wouldn’t feel too bad if there was a time limit placed upon my orations, or if 1-more-than-50% of my colleagues in attendance told me to sit down and shut up after I’d been given a reasonable amount of time to say my piece.
The guys who wrote our Constitution were a pretty smart group; we haven’t had to make too many changes. I accept that the rules say our President appoints folks to different jobs and the Senate is supposed to agree or disagree. They’re not supposed to hide behind a rule that was created for an altogether different, and legitimate purpose and using it as a loophole, refuse to do their jobs. And I really bristle when the minority throws a tantrum and threatens to “bring all action to a halt” if they don’t get their way. Kind of like the brat who takes home the only baseball because his team is losing.
In the Senate, unlimited debate was permitted until 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson suggested the Senate adopt a new rule: a two-thirds vote (67 members) would close down ("cloture") a filibuster. In 1975, the required vote count was reduced to three-fifths (or 60 members).
Republicans also have threatened to request a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that Senate rules make filibusters on judicial nominations illegal. A parliamentarian's ruling can be upheld by a simple majority of senators.
Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down majority vote by the full senate.
That plan is referred to by both parties as a "nuclear option.” Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt. They also say that reasoning is bullshit and no one believes it, including Vice President Cheney.
“Collegiality” - A term used to represent a situation in which colleagues share equally in power and authority. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it.
O.k., the filibuster was started so that each colleague would have his chance to voice his thoughts, pertinent to the pending issue. Both sides are guilty of not following the intent of the action. But will anyone deny that stalling an action indefinitely by talking about any subject ad infinitum was not the intent Vice President Colfax had in 1872. (During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers.")
All senators have an equal vote when there’s a floor vote and the majority tally of the votes cast decides the issue. There are exactly 100 senators for a reason. In the Senate, each state gets equal representation. The system was designed to reflect the will of the majority of the senators; not the states, not the population, and not the political parties. MAJORITY – one more than 50% of the votes cast. And it was intended there be 3 “classes,” one-third of the population to be elected to 6-year terms every 2 years.
Although I’d employ every legal means available to me to win my point, I’d just not feel right about reading Shakespeare for hours on end so I could prevent 99 other colleagues from doing their job. Their job is to decide issues by voting isn’t it? So, I really wouldn’t feel too bad if there was a time limit placed upon my orations, or if 1-more-than-50% of my colleagues in attendance told me to sit down and shut up after I’d been given a reasonable amount of time to say my piece.
The guys who wrote our Constitution were a pretty smart group; we haven’t had to make too many changes. I accept that the rules say our President appoints folks to different jobs and the Senate is supposed to agree or disagree. They’re not supposed to hide behind a rule that was created for an altogether different, and legitimate purpose and using it as a loophole, refuse to do their jobs. And I really bristle when the minority throws a tantrum and threatens to “bring all action to a halt” if they don’t get their way. Kind of like the brat who takes home the only baseball because his team is losing.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
The public has a right to know! Sez who?
I have to ask a question ...
Suppose:
- It was/is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some American military personnel did, in fact, flush a copy of the Koran down a toilet.
- and - - It was also known for sure that if that fact was to come out, in a public light, that there would be anti-American rioting and that 16 people would die.
Knowing the above, would Newsweek publish the story? Should they publish? What would the American people say?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Atlanta Airport Still Sucks
.......... but it's better than I remember! And Delta is a pretty good replacement for Continental. Since Ellington Field (one of Houston's 3 airports) closed, flying Continental requires a 1-hour drive to the north side of town, and Bush Intercontinental. Flying Delta, American, or SouthWest involves only a 30 minute trip to Hobby airport.
PajamaGal still flies Continental because she has a shot at retaining Elite status (upgrades and bonus miles), but I think I'm going to switch her to Delta if the HOU-BOS trip is close on $'s.
The Bloody-Marys in the Crown Room aren't to bad. The inter-concourse trains are fast, and the place is impressively clean. I haven't asked for help yet (signs are plentiful and easy to read), but I've gotten several smiling nods from employees as I walked along.
Did I mention the Bloody-Marys?
Boarding my 1st 777 in 10 minutes!
PajamaGuy (b²)
Monday, April 25, 2005
Mean Media - From MIT's Technology Review
I'm just putting this here so I can reference it. They're from Kerry Country!
--------------------------------------------------
Mean Media By TR Staff and Freelance Writers April 2005
Bloggers like to deride MSM (the mainstream media, in their lingo) for not “getting it.” To avoid some of the sarcasm endemic to the new medium, we declare up front: Technology Review gets it. In fact, we love blogs so much that technologyreview.com is in part a blog site: we publish some of our most popular writers on blogs.
Thirty-two million Americans read blogs in 2004, according to the Pew Research Center. That is because blogs have great powers: they can spread the ideas of individuals faster, farther, and more cheaply than anything seen before. At their best, blogs are subversive, provocative, and fearless. Most fascinatingly, the ideas proposed on blogs have some of the characteristics of commodities in a free market. New postings are quickly valued by the blogosphere’s economy: reliably stupid bloggers are not linked to by their peers, and no one visits their websites.
Blogging is good for commerce. Corporations like Sun Microsystems are discovering that blogging’s transparency can help them reach customers in new ways. More than 1,000 of Sun’s 32,000 employees—including the company president—write public blogs, many of which freely divulge the latest news about Sun projects. As our case study “Sun Microsystems: Blog Heaven” (p. 38) reports, Sun’s executives have learned that bloggers connect with customers on a more authentic and human level than any marketing or public-relations expert.
Blogging is good for the media, too. Political bloggers sometimes describe their movement as a kind of insurgency against MSM, and the emergence of a new cloud of media critics is, in fact, a welcome development. Various business and social pressures have made it harder for many journalists to report the news objectively. Bloggers can quickly call traditional journalists to task for their errors and biases.So much for the good. But blogs also have the power to focus writers’ ire in ways that can destroy their targets.
Recently, we’ve seen the blogosphere’s vindictive side. Conservative bloggers, offended by what they see as the arrogance and liberal bias of MSM, have hounded two prominent newsmen from their jobs. First, bloggers hastened the retirement of CBS news anchor Dan Rather for his preëlection coverage of what turned out to be dubious memos relating to President Bush’s national-guard service. Then, in February, CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan, resigned “to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished” by bloggers’ outrage at an incautious remark Eason made at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland (see “Letter from Davos,” p. 78).
This relentlessness is in no way limited to conservative bloggers. In February, reporter Jeff Gannon was barred from attending White House press conferences after liberal bloggers picked up on a question Gannon asked President Bush in which he took a swing at Senate Democrats. The bloggers revealed Gannon’s real name (James Dale Guckert) and that he had obtained press credentials as a representative of Talon News, a website sharing an owner with the conservative activist organization GOPUSA—not the kind of independent news organizations usually extended White House press privileges. While Gannon hardly had the stature of Rather or Jordan, the episode was a reminder that bloodthirsty bloggers can be found on both sides of the nation’s political divide.
Perhaps all three men deserved their fates; maybe the blogosphere is to be applauded. But in each case, bloggers expressed an unseemly triumph after they got their man. It’s hard to feel happy when bloggers turn into a digital mob. Blogs are powerful, but bloggers are rewarded for expressing extravagant opinions. And at least for now, their postings are not subject to the processes common for most stories produced by MSM: sober debate among colleagues, followed by reporting, line editing, copyediting, legal vetting, and fact checking.
Blogging and the Internet must be credited for transforming the lofty castle of publishing into something like a public utility. But blogs can also be destructive and unaccountable. Readers would do best to enjoy blogs for what they are—reactive, unmediated, immediate opinion—and not mistake them for journalism.
Mean Media By TR Staff and Freelance Writers April 2005
Bloggers like to deride MSM (the mainstream media, in their lingo) for not “getting it.” To avoid some of the sarcasm endemic to the new medium, we declare up front: Technology Review gets it. In fact, we love blogs so much that technologyreview.com is in part a blog site: we publish some of our most popular writers on blogs.
Thirty-two million Americans read blogs in 2004, according to the Pew Research Center. That is because blogs have great powers: they can spread the ideas of individuals faster, farther, and more cheaply than anything seen before. At their best, blogs are subversive, provocative, and fearless. Most fascinatingly, the ideas proposed on blogs have some of the characteristics of commodities in a free market. New postings are quickly valued by the blogosphere’s economy: reliably stupid bloggers are not linked to by their peers, and no one visits their websites.
Blogging is good for commerce. Corporations like Sun Microsystems are discovering that blogging’s transparency can help them reach customers in new ways. More than 1,000 of Sun’s 32,000 employees—including the company president—write public blogs, many of which freely divulge the latest news about Sun projects. As our case study “Sun Microsystems: Blog Heaven” (p. 38) reports, Sun’s executives have learned that bloggers connect with customers on a more authentic and human level than any marketing or public-relations expert.
Blogging is good for the media, too. Political bloggers sometimes describe their movement as a kind of insurgency against MSM, and the emergence of a new cloud of media critics is, in fact, a welcome development. Various business and social pressures have made it harder for many journalists to report the news objectively. Bloggers can quickly call traditional journalists to task for their errors and biases.So much for the good. But blogs also have the power to focus writers’ ire in ways that can destroy their targets.
Recently, we’ve seen the blogosphere’s vindictive side. Conservative bloggers, offended by what they see as the arrogance and liberal bias of MSM, have hounded two prominent newsmen from their jobs. First, bloggers hastened the retirement of CBS news anchor Dan Rather for his preëlection coverage of what turned out to be dubious memos relating to President Bush’s national-guard service. Then, in February, CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan, resigned “to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished” by bloggers’ outrage at an incautious remark Eason made at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland (see “Letter from Davos,” p. 78).
This relentlessness is in no way limited to conservative bloggers. In February, reporter Jeff Gannon was barred from attending White House press conferences after liberal bloggers picked up on a question Gannon asked President Bush in which he took a swing at Senate Democrats. The bloggers revealed Gannon’s real name (James Dale Guckert) and that he had obtained press credentials as a representative of Talon News, a website sharing an owner with the conservative activist organization GOPUSA—not the kind of independent news organizations usually extended White House press privileges. While Gannon hardly had the stature of Rather or Jordan, the episode was a reminder that bloodthirsty bloggers can be found on both sides of the nation’s political divide.
Perhaps all three men deserved their fates; maybe the blogosphere is to be applauded. But in each case, bloggers expressed an unseemly triumph after they got their man. It’s hard to feel happy when bloggers turn into a digital mob. Blogs are powerful, but bloggers are rewarded for expressing extravagant opinions. And at least for now, their postings are not subject to the processes common for most stories produced by MSM: sober debate among colleagues, followed by reporting, line editing, copyediting, legal vetting, and fact checking.
Blogging and the Internet must be credited for transforming the lofty castle of publishing into something like a public utility. But blogs can also be destructive and unaccountable. Readers would do best to enjoy blogs for what they are—reactive, unmediated, immediate opinion—and not mistake them for journalism.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
David's Bridal - Again
So her dress came in an she had it pinned yesterday. All last evening and even at 1:00 this morning, she's now "just sure" that they pinned the bodice too tight and should have shortened the hem "just a tad".
I let her sleep-in this morning, timing our grocery excursion to end just as David's opens. We're waiting for "the right person" to re-pin her dress. I hope the Carb-Smart ice cream sandwiches (Bryers, 5 carbs ea.) don't melt!
PajamaGuy (b²)
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
32,000,000 Blog Readers!
Pew Research Center states that thirty-two million AMERICANS read blogs in 2004.
Check out MIT's Technology Review for April 2005 - page 17 - "Blogs - Mean Media"
PajamaGuy (b²)
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Sandy Berger's Crime
Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators. But for lying after stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives -- in an apparent attempt to alter the historical record on terrorism, no less -- former Clinton national security adviser and Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger will get a small fine and slap on the wrist.
He will pay $10,000 and get no jail time.
His security clearance will be suspended until around the end of the Bush administration -- meaningless for a career Democrat like Mr. Berger. It makes us wonder who at the Department of Justice is responsible for letting such a serious offense go virtually unpunished.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Houston Rodeo
We're in our seats for the rodeo and subsequent Clint Black concert! Our feet are dead. Next year it's sneakers.
This is a pretty good show, and the staff bend over backwards to be both helpful AND curteous. It rubs off; the crowds become much more polite and forgiving.
This our 1st year at the rodeo finals. It promises to be a great show!
Friday, March 18, 2005
Another Trip To David's Bridal
We started by going to a different shop. PajamaGal had tried finding it yesterday, but didn't locate the right strip mall. I need to have the car detailed, so I figured I'd drop her off, get the car done, then pick her up. One hour max!
Wrong, you stupid dreamer.
Driving by the car wash made me realize that noon Saturday was NOT a "slack" time- there were 22 cars in line, and the detailing area was stacked 2-deep.
I figured, "What the hell, I'll get it done 1st thing tomorrow morning!"
We were immediately attacked by a 75 year old, blue-haired, wicked witch of the south. This place was NOT like David's! The dresses looked cheap (not inexpensive, cheap) and not much to choose from.
Southwitch informed us they had no "Mother-of-the-Bride" dresses per se, but had a small selection of strapless and spaghetti-strapped dresses. (What in hell did that mean?)
They never have PajamaGal's size (12) in stock; the racks are full of 16+ and are for trying-on, then you order the size you want. She found one that was OK, then Ms. Southwitch informed us it would take 3 months to order one.
.... and the broom you rode I on, too!
So that's how come I'm here at David's again.
Still no sports TV, still no scotch. At least I'm scoring points!
------------
PajamaGuy (b²)