EverythingSteve.com

Want to Know What's Funny? #5

I've been streaming radio stations through my car's audio system, thanks to my new iPhone and Wunderradio. This morning, while listening to the "Hill Man" Morning Show on WAAF in Worcester, Massachusetts, I unwittingly heard most of the following before realizing it was a spoof...and a good one! This one is in honor of the infamous Beer Summit.

UPDATE: The Onion gets in on the fun.

Where Were You...

...when you found out that Walter Cronkite died? R.I.P. Walter Cronkite.

The Will of the People?

As frustrating as it may seem, it looks like "the will of the people" vis a vis Proposition 8 is here to stay for now. I voted against Proposition 8, but regardless of how much money was behind passing it, or where that money came from, it did indeed pass. So I think the decision made today was the right one. Bad proposition, bad outcome, but if we go about this business of overturning "the will of the people" through the courts, the results will be suboptimal.

That said, California is clearly mired in proposition-itis. Perhaps when we rewrite our state constitution, we can set more effective limits on how propositions are introduced and submitted to voters.

Is California 'Ungovernable?'

It certainly appears to be. The state is fighting for the victory prize of worst run in the country. Many would claim it has already won this award. As we go further and further into financial ruin and are asked every six to 12 months by legislators at the state and municipal levels to cough up more tax dollars to receive fewer and poorer quality services, one has to conclude that many things are very wrong. But all hope is not lost, as this excellent article from The Economist points out. I'd strongly suggest that if you live in California, you give this a read and consider supporting the cause of a brand new constitution. Thanks to Steve W. for pointing it out to me.

The Week In Review: What Does Facebook Think It Is?

Does it really think it's a microcosm of the Web, or is it a 'walled garden' community? If it really think it is the former, I'd question that judgment. If it rightfully considers itself to be the latter, I cannot see any rationale for its posture in the last several days. So what do I think Facebook is? Naive and misguided at best.

100 Days? Already?!

Wow...time sure does fly when you're having fun. Well, I don't know about you, but I'll probably forget the magic of Inauguration Day 2009 fairly soon. Before I do, I'm going to flash back and remember this very special moment.

San Carlos, California USED to be Known as 'The City of Good Living'

But the killjoys at the police department are seeing fit to bury that reputation once and for all. That said, we're drowning in nail salons, so hats off to Sgt. Robbins and the gang for shutting at least one of them down. Now if we could only get a Peet's Coffee. Finally, lest you think I was a customer, my wife will gladly attest that my feet have never heard the term "pedicure."

3/30/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE #033009

Prostitution Business Shut Down
Suspect Arrested for Prostitution & Possession of Cocaine

Contact :
Mark Robbins, Police Sergeant, Police Department   
(650) 802-4234
mrobbins@cityofsancarlos.org

On March 30, 2009, San Carlos Police concluded a prostitution investigation by arresting Jenny Tran, age 49, of San Jose, for prostitution and possession of cocaine.

The arrest was made at Tran's place of employment, Jessica Paris Professional Nail Care, located at 1575 Laurel St, after San Carlos Police received information that massages were being offered at the nail salon, a violation of their use permit. 

An undercover officer entered the business as part of the investigation and was offered a sex act in exchange for money. 

Tran was arrested for prostitution, and was then found to be in possession of a significant amount of cocaine. 

Tran was booked into the San Mateo County Jail and is currently being held on $10,000 bail.     

###

And Continuing Yesterday's Topic...

OK, perhaps I went too far. Maybe there are still some redeeming, even-handed perspectives one can find in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal. For example, this is a pretty fair point of view:

In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign...He’s been lecturing us on the need to prune away frills while the economy fizzles. He was slated to make a speech on “wasteful spending” on Wednesday...Team Obama sounds hollow, chanting that “the status quo is not acceptable,” even while conceding that the president is accepting the status quo by signing a budget festooned with pork. Obama spinners insist it was “a leftover budget.” But Iraq was leftover, too, and the president’s trying to end that. This is the first pork-filled budget from a new president who promised to go through the budget “line by line” and cut pork.

Wow. A bit harsh, but arguably fair. Now, I know I played this reindeer game a few weeks ago, and I won't do it ever again, but one more time, this appeared in today's New York Times and not the Wall Street Journal. By the way, when you say New York Times, you need to use that annoying redneck accent intoned in the old Pace Salsa TV commercials...as in NEW YORK CITY??? But it gets even better. Which columnist from the Times wrote this stuff? Click here. Thass right...O.M. freakin' G!

So what's my point? It's that I'm seeing the Times call it as individual columnists see it, while I see the Journal call it as Rupert sees it. The Times has an ombudsman. The Journal doesn't. Now in ordinary times I'd say the two papers are apples and oranges. One is a stellar business daily and the other a stellar general purpose newspaper. But these are clearly not ordinary times and one has to wonder who the hell wants to read a business daily right about now anyway. I used to dismiss the Times. I was wrong. Now I'm dismissing the Journal. I hope I'm proven wrong but don't believe the forcing function exists that will make me wrong.

The Rupertization of the Wall Street Journal is Nearly Complete

I've been shuddering during the last few months to see repeated op-ed pieces from Karl Rove in the Journal. A few weeks ago I shuttered anew when I saw an op-ed piece from Rush Limbaugh. It seems to me that in the past one would not see Republican mouthpieces but intelligent and balanced commentators on the editorial pages.

And it seems to me that in the editorials themselves one would not see ignorant slandering. But this appears to have changed, as many long-term Journal readers expected it would, given the track record of other Murdoch-owned publications. For example, Last Summer I saw an editorial that, at the time, blamed the rapidly falling stock market on the FUTURE planned policies of Barack Obama. The thinking went that Obama was beginning to lead in the polls and so the market was heading south because of concern over the prospects should he win the election. Fairly illogical, in my opinion.

And today I read the following snippet in the editorial section in a piece called The Obama Economy:

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

So now we're blaming a guy who has been in office for five weeks for the stock market ills. His popularity continues to soar, and yet he is cited as "creating more uncertainty and less confidence." Hogwash! What about the tens of billions of additional dollars being thrown AIG's way? What about auto sales that continue to plummet? Home prices that continue to plummet? Bank fundamentals that continue to deteriorate?

Has Obama been putting his best foot forward these past five weeks? I don't think so. And the Journal is certainly entitled to disagree with the President's policies, including the stimulus package just passed. There are many intelligent arguments for doing so. But this ignorant, slandering style of editorial writing is frustrating. I used to expect more and we used to get a whole lot more from this paper. We used to get intelligence...an intelligent perspective that, even if we didn't agree with it, would be sound.

I'm disappointed. I used to regard the Journal as perhaps the single intelligent voice espousing a conservative (some would say moderate) perspective. This intelligence is waning. Thanks alot, Bancroft family. You really screwed this one up.

I. Told. You. So.