Yahoo! News - Elizabeth Taylor Says Michael Jackson Is Innocent

This headline just made me laugh. Who cares? Why does Reuters need to waste time on what this lunatic says? Just go find another husband and shut up.

The Daily Northwestern - Critic discusses liberals, Iraq: "'How about the left's war on poverty?' Coulter asked 'When are we getting an exit strategy on that? When are we getting out of that quagmire?'"

Is there anything better for the liberal mind than Ann Coulter? In this article she is praising the war in Iraq and criticizing anyone who has come down against it. But this quote is pretty funny. When can we win the war on poverty? When there is none. Republican tax cuts for the wealthy really aren't helping matters. It would also help to have funds with which to fight the war on poverty, but those are tied up in Iraq.

Among the other gems:

"Liberals carp about every bombing," Coulter said. "We're not liberating Ohio here. After we won the war in 17 days flat, with amazingly few casualties, they complained about some museum pottery being broken."
If you see the war as against the Saddam Hussein led government, then yes, we did win in 17 days. But if you see the conflict as having the far reaching goal of instituting democracy in Iraq, then we are long from winning. The people don't want us there, but we've committed to bringing democracy. Can we leave without doing it? Yes. Is that a good idea? Not at all.

But with this, Coulter stole the cake:

Another major topic for Coulter was the role of racial profiling in fighting terrorism. She brought up the accusations that Bush had prior knowledge of Sept. 11, 2001, and said if he had prior knowledge, racial profiling of Arab-looking men by the airline industry was the only precaution available. She listed a series of attacks on U.S. citizens and interests perpetrated by Muslims since 1979 and complained about policies that require airlines to search toddlers and elderly women for weapons, while allowing men of Middle Eastern descent to fly unchecked.

"When there's a 100 percent chance, it ceases to be a profile -- it becomes a suspect description," Coulter said. "They all have the same hair color, eye color. They're all males. Half of them have the name Muhammad."

And this woman keeps getting speaking gigs?

Let's Hear it for Massachusetts!

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has lifted the long-accepted discrimination in this country by pointing out a simple fact: keeping same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional. You can read about the decision on nearly every news Web site, so I won't bother with the facts here.

The best part of the decision is that there's nothing anyone can do about it. Sure, they can appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S., but the SJC made it clear in its decision that this is a state's rights issue. This is from the first paragraph:

"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

Thank you John Adams for creating such a rich and lasting document. I may remind my more conservative readers that the Massachusetts Constitution is the model on which the US Constitution is based. So if the Supremes in Washington want to mess with this decision, they have a conundrum. Do you step on state's rights? Or do you let this go through? Do you declare the very model for the US Constitution invalid? I'm enjoying this. I'm going to enjoy the Bush 43 sound bites after this decision is made.

The right is sounding more and more shrill by the minute. This from the New York Times: "'While we are certainly relieved that the court stopped short of granting marriage licenses to the homosexual couples demanding them, it is inexcusable for this court to force the state Legislature to `fix' its state constitution to make it comport with the pro-homosexual agenda of four court justices,' the council's president, Tony Perkins, said in a statement."

Oh please, this has nothing to do with a "homosexual agenda." Who ever heard of such a thing. How stupid do you think we are that you can say that crap and get away with it.

The legislature has 6 months to change the laws. There are those talking about a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that would take until 2006 at the earliest. Which means, gay and lesbian couples have a few years in which to marry. So, what happens then, we declare their marriages illegal? Some people can be married, but others can't? How can you close that barn door?

A woman on the radio today, also speaking for the right, said that this decision would confuse our children because a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even my 4-year-old agreed that it's she who is confused, not the children. They understand that a marriage is about love and respect, not sex.

Those are values I'd rather my children learn.

Yahoo! News - Gates Unveils Junk E-Mail Software: "Gates Unveils Junk E-Mail Software "

Microsoft filtering SPAM is kind of like using cheesecloth to catch water. What a joke!

I opened an MSN Hotmail account a few weeks ago. I had one a while back, but was so bogged down with junkmail that I had to abandon it. I've been using Yahoo! rather happily, but while tooling around on the MSN site one day I decided to give Hotmail another try. I established a name, then didn't do anything. I didn't send an email to anyone, I didn't subscribe to anything, I just let it sit.

And, wouldn't you know, I keep getting email! I can have SuperSex! Great Sex! Keep from balding! You name it, I can do it. (cue the Spam music)

Now this company wants me to trust them to filter Spam from my corporate account? You've got to be kidding.

Right Way to Build a Stadium

BW Online | November 13, 2003 | A New York State of Mind for the Jets: "Under owner Robert Wood 'Woody' Johnson IV, an heir to the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) fortune, the Jets will pay for the bulk of the project, with taxpayers footing a still-undetermined bill for infrastructure, including transportation upgrades. The new stadium, which will also serve as a convention center and arena, will be built on a platform to be constructed over Midtown rail yards between Penn Station and the Hudson River on Manhattan's West Side. The NFL would provide some financing through a special loan program for new stadium construction. "

Football is just better run than baseball. While baseball struggles to figure out how to make small-market teams work, football has no trouble keeping teams like the Packers or the Bucs competitive with the Jets and Giants. In fact, football manages to exist without a team in the nation's number 2 TV market. It doesn't make them happy, but it doesn't slow things down either.

The Jets want a new stadium. As a fan, I can tell you that it's annoying to see your team not have a real "home." Under that green bunting at the Meadowlands are blue walls. The Jets can put up a big banner on the side of the building, but the name in lights still says "Giants Stadium." It's just not pretty.

I like that the Jets will pay for this themselves. It'll probably mean higher ticket prices and in increase in the cost of Jets gear, but I'm willing to pay that price. I don't agree with one thing from the above aritcle: "Nearly 70% of those attending Jets games would use public transportation to get to the stadium, according to economic development officials." Tailgating has become big business for the NFL. Some companies are even selling tricked-out pickup trucks with coolers and grills built in, just for the tailgate season. While some fans will come via public transit for the game, most will probably still opt to spend the day in the parking lot. What does that mean for the stadium? I'm not sure. Maybe it'll mean building a lot in Jersey with a ferry running across before game-time. That way, fans can have the best of both worlds.

The Stove is Already Warm

The Milwaukee Brewers, that storied midwestern franchise, plans to cut its payroll to $30 million next season (see
Brewers told to cut payroll to $30 million ) To put this in perspective, the Florida Marlins spent about $54 million in 2003 to win the World Series, but it may cost $80 to keep the team intact for 2004. The Yankees spent $160 million last season.

Now, we all know that spending big money doesn't guarantee a World Series (just as the Red Sox) but it does help attract top talent to give you a fighting chance. Basically, the Brewers have conceded that they suck and they just want to continue sucking, but don't want to close up shop.

Consider this, from the story linked to above: "The Brewers, who have finished with losing records in 11 straight seasons, pledged higher payrolls and more competitive teams when they sought legislation to finance much of the cost of Miller Park, which opened in 2001. But they have finished last in the NL Central for two straight seasons.

"Attendance has dropped from 2.81 million in 2001 to 1.96 million in 2002 and 1.7 million last season.

"Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said cutting the team's payroll could keep even more fans at home."

The good people of Wisconsin spent about $415 million to build this franchise a ballpark (according to a 2002 article in the Milwaukee Business Journal). The state's cash came in only after the team threatened to leave. The Twins, meanwhile, continue to play in the Metrodome, an aging park, but its fans reward the team with attendance. That attendance leads to revenue which leads to winning seasons.

Of course, Bud Selig talked of eliminating the Twins but not the Brewers. Why? Because he owns the Brewers. Oh, I mean, his DAUGHTER owns the Brewers. Then there's that little element of competition by having another team over in Minnesota.

I'm not going to suggest that Selig lose his job, afterall, he needs the income. Because I suggest he start paying back the people of Wisconsin.

Optimism

I saw the ultimate in optimism this past weekend. On Saturday I found myself behind a mid-70s vintage Ford Falcon. This was a car that no one wanted, not even the people who bought it. Most bought it out of loyalty to Ford and a desire NOT to buy a Japanese car. It was boxy, generic, lacked style and wasn't particularly well built. Yet, Ford made it, so it sold. Most are now rusting in landfills or have had their parts recycled. These were vehicles made to be used, and they were. None are in showroom condition. Frankly, I'm not sure that a it would make a difference.

This one on Saturday had a "For Sale" sign in the window. And I'm sure he believed he could sell it.

In Larry's Own Words: "I totally agree with Steve [Jobs], Microsoft's software is rarely first rate. They never, ever innovate, but —they're pretty good copiers. All those bright people up in Redmond remind me of the guys you see sitting in museums making beautiful copies of great art. Their pictures are beautiful, but they're copies—forgeries. Ever since the guilty verdict in the antitrust case, Bill began chanting Microsoft's new mantra: 'Please, please —don't take away our right to innovate.' Microsoft innovate! Give me a fucking break."

I love Larry Ellison, probably because I never met him. I'm not sure what he's like to work for, I'm not sure what he's like to have at a dinner party, but he's fun to read about. He goes after his competitors like no other.

Microsoft is an interesting company. One built on marketing that it portrays as innovation. Bill Gates knows how to tweak technologies and applications to make them appealing to the masses. He didn't invent DOS, but purchased it and resold it to IBM. His genius was in retaining the licensing. He didn't invent Windows, he stole that from Apple, who stole it from Xerox. His genius was in applying it to the Intel-based PC. Microsoft didn't invent the Web browser, it copied that from Netscape and bundling it with Windows. Even if he'd been open about charging for it instead of burying the price in Windows, people probably would have used it because it's just easier to use what's on Windows than to download new software.

In a way, the attacks on Microsoft are a unfair. It's nearly impossible to satisfy everyone with everything, but Microsoft is the closest anyone has come to this. If it were to truly innovate, it may risk losing the ability to cater to the masses.

My office computer runs on Windows 98 (I know, it's old and unstable) with Word XP, Eudora for e-mail and MeetingMaker for a calendar application. The fact is, running MS Outlook would be much more efficient, as it would make my life easier to use my contact list to track call and e-mail activities, something that is impossible with he hodge-podge of programs we're dealing with. But our IT director won't make the move because of the cost of keeping viruses at bay. The fact is, the Outlook's connectivity is it's biggest strength and its biggest weakness. Sounds like the rest of the company.