I've been a bit absent from RollingDoughnut over the last week or so, all for good reason. I'll have a little time over the rest of March to explain, but unfortunately, tonight is not the time. I'm preparing for Spring Training 2004, so I have little time to detail the happenings in my life. Not to leave you hanging while I'm gone over the next few days, I'd like to offer a highlight from my recent trip to Buffalo.

While visiting Niagara Falls, Danielle, Melissa, and I explored Clifton Hill. This is Canada's response to Las Vegas. Las Vegas is tremendous, but it's no Clifton Hill. In my four days in Vegas, I never found a great arcade to rival Great Canadian Midway. The best part of this entertainment extravaganza is this from the Great Canadian Midway website: "With over 250 games that give out tickets to win fabulous prizes."

We enjoyed these games and won our tickets. 595 tickets, to be exact. Because the people of Canada are so quaint and nice, they let us walk out with 600-tickets-worth of fabulous prizes.

Included in this bounty was the skull candle holder I selected. This is a real beaut compared to the normal spider ring selection of fabulous prizes, so I couldn't wait to get home and fire up the candles.

Yesterday, I undertook this adventure with much excitement bubbling below the surface of my 4-year-old mind. Fire! Fire! The candle was lit. Spooky!

Then I realized that there may be a flaw in the plan. Have a look at the reality of my fabulous prize. I still heart my fabulous prize.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

What a concept... The National Cable Television Association announced that it will "provide free equipment to allow subscribers to block unwanted channels". Here are some details:

The offer is directed to about half the nation's 70.5 million cable subscribers who don't have cable boxes that can be programmed to block certain channels or programs. The companies agreeing to the plan include the 10 largest in the country and reach 85 percent of all cable subscribers.

Self-regulation can work. As I've suggested, if someone doesn't like what their children are watching, turn it off. I should've gone the extra step and instructed people to block "offending" channels through their cable box. If someone has digital cable, their cable box has the capability to block channels. It's not hard and everyone's rights are protected.

Along those lines, consider this:

"No one wants policy-makers to have to choose between protecting children or preserving the First Amendment," [NCTA president Robert] Sachs told the Cable Television Public Affairs Association. "So if we, as an industry, actively promote the choices and controls available to consumers, there will be no need for anyone to do so."

Addressing such an idea, consider this:

The cable industry also launched a new Web site, www.controlyourtv.org, which includes instructions on how parents can use the V-chip in televisions built in 2000 and later to block both broadcast and cable programs. The V-chip works with a voluntary industry ratings system.

"This is what we think is the best method of addressing all those concerns," [Cable association spokesman Rob] Stoddard said. "It leaves the power in the hands of the cable subscriber."

Naturally, even if the cable industry didn't do this, there is little that Congress can do. The cable industry is a private broadcast network, so the "protecting the public airwaves" nonsense spewed by Congress is irrelevant. Any attempt to regulate it is a clear violation of the First Amendment, not supported by court rulings.

Self-regulation instead of illegal government intervention is an amazing concept.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Being born in the early 70's, my childhood memories begin around 1980. I have vague memories of Jimmy Carter's presidency, but I can vividly remember the assassination attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II. With those events, I had the events that mark the beginning of my coherent, linear memories, my first "I remember where I was when I heard the news" moments. But they didn't define my childhood.

That distinction belongs to the genesis of MTV. Loving every minute of which video MTV might show next, I watched every free minute I had. Videos could duke it out every Friday night, and no one got hurt. Bryan Adams told me that "It" cuts like a knife. I didn't know what that meant, but I knew I wanted to get me some. Boy George verified that my dreams were red, gold, and green, even when I didn't remember them. Cyndi Lauper told my 10-year-old mind something I didn't learn from hanging out with all the other nitwit boys: girls like to have fun, too. Who knew? And one of the best parts of the MTV experience was that J.J. Jackson, Martha Quinn, Alan Hunter, Nina Blackwood, and Mark Goodman were like brilliant older siblings showing me the way through the glorious explosion of 80's pop music.

So I was saddened to learn that J.J. Jackson passed away on Wednesday night from an apparent heart attack.

Jackson helped define the term "VJ" as one of the first on-air personalities on MTV when the channel launched in 1981. During his five-year tenure with the network, Jackson interviewed some of the top names of the day and was part of some key music milestones. Jackson covered the 1985 Live Aid benefit concert in London and helped to "unmask" Kiss during a 1982 interview. He also hosted the debut episode of MTV's long-running "120 Minutes" in 1986, and brought music titans like Robert Plant and Pete Townshend to the then-fledgling channel.
...
Besides his endeavors in television, Jackson also logged a thick résumé in radio. Prior to his MTV days, Jackson was a rock-radio staple, first at WBCN-FM in Boston, and later at a few stations in Los Angeles. His voice even made it to the big screen, as a DJ in the 1976 movie "Car Wash." After his VJ days, Jackson returned to radio in the Los Angeles area.

Here is MTV's statement, released yesterday:

"J.J. Jackson's deep passion for music, his ease and good humor on air, and his welcoming style really set the tone for the early days of MTV. He was a big part of the channel's success and we are sure he is in the music section of heaven, with lots of his friends and heroes. We are fortunate to have had him as a part of the MTV family. He will be greatly missed."

J.J. Jackson's enthusiasm is what I remember most from the early days of MTV. He seemed to be having fun all the time. On camera, he never seemed annoyed having to interview bands, unlike so many current VJs on MTV. His attitude was always focused on how great it was to be at the center of creativity and fashion and culture that was growing out of the new artistic medium MTV created. Hit or miss, music was supposed to be fun. He showed that every time he was on camera.

Here's a quote from Mark Goodman that explains this well:

"J.J. was really a gentle man," he remembered. "He was smart. As I think of him, I think of him laughing. The guy had this huge laugh. He was a rabid music fan. Rod Stewart was a friend of his, guys in Led Zeppelin were friends of his. He championed these bands early on when they were kind of just getting going. He did Bruce Springsteen's first television interview. J.J. was a great guy. For the five of us, he was the wise DJ. He was the guy who had been through it all and was able to always put a mature perspective to things. He wound up handling the spotlight that was thrust on us better than any of us."

Most of the time, it's the crimson-tainted sheen of nostalgia through which we remember the "good old days". Remembering J.J. Jackson, I know those days really were good.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

In an update to yesterday's news that Rhea County, Tennessee wanted to ban homosexuals, the county commissioners met again today to rescind their motion. The new motion passed 8-0. The money quote comes from the County Attorney, Gary Fritts:

"They wanted to send a message to our (state) representative and senator that Rhea County supports the ban on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is what it was all about," Fritts said. "There has just been so much misunderstanding about this. It was to stop people from coming here and getting married and living in Rhea County."

I'm assuming that the county commissioners aren't stupid, so I can only believe that they knew that approving a motion seeking a way to prosecute homosexuals for "crimes against nature" isn't the same as passing a motion supporting a ban on same-sex marriage. I'm sorry to tell you, Mr. Fritts, but there has been no misunderstanding.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sometimes, it's possible to beat The Man. I'm sure everyone remembers my little tirade against my county government regarding their botch of my tax payment. They caved and fixed their mistake. Technically, the government accepted the appeal on my motorcycle, but not the appeal on my car. I convinced them that was stupid since I paid them as one payment.

I'm surprised, but pleased. I dealt with an injustice by challenging it and I succeeded. This is the type of situation that reminds me why I continue to challenge stupidity, even when it would be easier to acquiesce. It can be corrected. I shouldn't have to fight the government to get it to do what it's supposed to do, but this isn't a perfect world. They didn't admit their mistake, just pretended it didn't happen.

The consolation is that, at least for today, the tally is: Tony 1, The Man 0. That's a great score.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Uplifting news from Tennessee... Yesterday, Rhea County commissioners voted 8-0 to request state-wide legislation that would allow the county to charge homosexuals with "crimes against nature". The specific money quote is this:

"We need to keep them out of here," said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.

This is definitely an appropriate response to "recent national and state events concerning gay marriages". With that idea, let's consider the intellectual prowess that supported this decision, causing audience members to applaud:

There was little discussion before the 8-0 vote, and commissioners didn't mention that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas sodomy laws last year and ruled there is a constitutionally protected right to adults' private sexual conduct.

The Tennessee state senator for Rhea County is Senator Tommy Kilby. He responded with this:

"Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, they passed out a bill basically saying we will not recognize same-sex partnerships or civil unions from other states or foreign countries. I voted for that, and that's my position on that issue," Kilby said.

Thanks for not answering the question. He knows the citizens of Rhea County are outside the mainstream, not to mention the Constitutional, thought on the privacy of the sexual activity of consenting adults. That's fine, since everyone is entitled to a personal opinion. However, he should state his belief. Or at least acknowledge that no such law will ever pass in the state legislature, but that the message has been effectively sent that homosexuals aren't welcome in Rhea County. There's no need for shouting it from the roof of the state capitol, but don't cower and offer an evasive answer. It makes him look scared. Why are you scared, Senator Kilby?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Yesterday, President Bush spoke to the National Association of Evangelicals Convention. His comments were interesting. Jumping in:

As freedom's home and freedom's defender, we are called to expand the realm of human liberty.

Unless it involves homosexuals or speech. In those cases, it's logical to protect the citizen defenders of freedom's home. Every right-thinking citizen has the right to be free from anything they don't like. Thankfully, President Bush is there to help.

Yet I know that liberty is not America's gift to the world -- liberty and freedom are God's gift to every man and woman who lives in this world.

Unless it involves homosexuals or speech. In those cases, it's logical to protect the citizen defenders of freedom's home. Every right-thinking citizen has the right to be free from anything they don't like. Thankfully, President Bush is there to help.

We're working to build a culture of life.

I have no problem, but why are we ignoring love?

Human life is ... a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man.

I agree, yet I believe that the President is hypocritical on this point. He's speaking in the context of abortion and stem-cell research, but this comment exposes his warped thinking. As governor of Texas, he supported the death penalty. No state executes more prisoners than Texas. Virginia is immediately behind in that energetic race. This is wrong.

Because a person is a criminal, they aren't worthy of respect as "a creation of God". They've become a commodity to be exploited by man. I'm not encouraging leniency on criminals, but I don't believe there's a legitimate purpose for state-sponsored violence. The President's actions aren't congruent with his speech.

I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. And government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. It is for that reason I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Our government gets its powers from the people. President Bush and Congress endorse the belief that it's their responsibility to protect morality among the citizenry because self-regulation will lead to chaos. This has to stop now or no one will be safe from scrutiny for every personal belief.

It is time for some members of the Senate to stop playing politics with American justice.

This brings to mind the words "pot" and "kettle" and a little name-calling between the two.

Together, Americans are moving forward with confidence and faith. We do not know God's plan, but we know His ways are right and just. And we pray He will always watch over this great country of ours.

This scares me. I have no issue with faith and belief in God. The beauty of America is that everyone can believe whatever makes sense to them. But that doesn't give the president the right to impose one faith's agenda on the nation. The separation of church and state exists for a reason, yet it's quickly eroding under this current administration. Until the Bible becomes the supreme law of this land, I will follow the Constitution. Maybe President Bush should consider doing the same.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

The House of Representatives consists of 391 Representatives who have no concept of the Constitution. Today, it approved legislation to increase fines against broadcasters of "indecent" material. The legislation also allows the FCC to fine any individual who violates the indecency standard. The Senate passed similar legislation, so the two chambers need to debate a compromise before the bill reach President Bush's desk for signature.

I've made my views clear on this through various posts, but I'm still going to discuss this. First, I'll highlight the obvious answer to hearing indecency on radio or television:

"I am tired of hearing parents tell me how they have to cover their children's ears," Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., said during debate on the measure. "Today, we're saying enough is enough."

When parents call him, Rep. Joseph Pitts should tell them to remove their hands from their children's ears, put them on the power switch to the radio or television, and click it to "Off". I know what you're thinking. You've just exclaimed to yourself "I can't believe there's a solution that doesn't involve unconstitutional legislation!" It really is a miracle how parental responsibility works. Perhaps we should legislate that.

Since I won't request unnecessary laws, I will quote two right-thinking Americans:

"We're moving in a direction of undermining the First Amendment," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

And...

On Wednesday, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists sent a letter to House members objecting to the provision allowing the FCC to fine individual performers for indecency.

"Such legislation should be rejected on the grounds that it represents an unconstitutional threat to free speech and would have an unnecessary chilling effect on artistic freedom," said the letter from union president John Connolly and national executive director Greg Hessinger.

Those seem to be simple, obvious arguments against the witch hunt overtaking America. However, not everyone has common sense. I present to you this wonderful statement:

But Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said performers should be liable if they violate indecency standards. "You can't tell me that they don't know what the standards are," he said.

Aside from the alarmingly dismissive tone of an elected Representative to a question of constitutionality, I'll offer a note to Representative Upton: they don't know what the standards are. They don't know the standards because they don't exist. There is no rule book, no legislation, and no court ruling that defines indecency.

The only time a court has ruled on a case involving this is the July 3, 1978 Supreme Court ruling in FCC vs. Pacifica Broadcasting Foundation. That case concerned a New York City radio station owned by Pacifica that aired George Carlin's monologue Filthy Words". Justices Stevens, Burger, Rehnquist, Blackmun, and Powell ruled that the following words are indecent: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. While I disagree with that ruling on First Amendment grounds, that is the law of the land. The only law of the land.

Until there is a written standard, the FCC and Congress will continue to harass broadcasters with fines and threats. They enjoy having no written standards because they become the arbiters of what's decent and, by extension, moral. This is unacceptable. The Constitution provides that courts offer final judgement, not the FCC. Infringing upon the right to free speech and the right to due process is only the beginning. This must stop now.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Monday, the editors of The Wall Street Journal proposed that John Kerry choose an unconventional person as his vice-presidential running mate. Allow me to let the editors tell you the "best" candidate, as well as one potential "reason":

If he thinks in conventional political terms, the safe bet is Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. If he wants to make a bold choice, he will offer the job to retiring NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. One prominent Republican says the idea of Mr. Brokaw on the Democratic ticket "worries me a lot."

The prominent Republican is either an idiot or a good poker player. I suspect it's an attempt to encourage stupidity among Democratic campaign strategists.

It's irrational to think of Vice President Brokaw. Tom Brokaw is a comforting figure in the way that an old blanket brings back nostalgic memories of childhood. That doesn't mean that the blanket will keep you warm today. Consider this rationalization:

John Thune, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Mr. Brokaw's home state of South Dakota, agrees. He says Mr. Brokaw has been intrigued by politics ever since his days at the University of South Dakota. "It would be a fascinating out of the box choice," he told me. A South Dakota Democratic state legislator assures me that Mr. Brokaw would be a good ideological fit for Mr. Kerry, with the added advantage that "no one thinks of him as a liberal."

The editors continue by confirming that Mr. Brokaw "introduced Arnold Schwarzenegger to Maria Shriver at a celebrity tennis tournament in 1977". For this, he should pay his penance to the Democratic party:

That introduction changed political history; few people believe that Mr. Schwarzenegger could have become governor of California without Ms. Shriver's savvy support. If Mr. Brokaw resists entreaties to enter politics, perhaps Democrats will remind him he could balance off that unintended gift to the Republican Party by joining their own ticket this year.

That's a stupid argument. At least this next speculation makes sense:

Mr. Kerry may decide the way to shake up the race is to make a truly unconventional choice, as Walter Mondale tried to do when he picked Ms. Ferraro, the first-ever woman on a national ticket, in 1984.

Tom Brokaw is the highest-paid reader in history. This does not qualify him to be Vice President of the United States. If Senator Kerry really wants to make a bold statement, he'll accept the challenge presented by Senator John McCain:

"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."

"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the Arizona senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."

That's a brilliant move. Like most politicians, Senator McCain has his drawbacks. However, I voted for him in the Virginia Republican Primary in 2000. I probably would've voted for him in the presidential election if he'd beaten Bush. I like his public persona as a fighter and anti-politician. For example:

Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn't railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest "the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen" and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.

Unfortunately, it seems that it's not meant to be. The Associated Press recently added to the article:

Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.

Why is it such an accepted concept that the President and Vice President must be from the same party? Virginia's citizens elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately. (We also elect the Virginia Attorney General. Do you think John Ashcroft would be the United States Attorney General if the citizenry were allowed to vote on that?)

I would welcome a bi-partisan ticket for President. For the clarity, though, this is why I think it's a brilliant idea: Why not nominate the best two candidates possible? This election is dividing along ideological lines, but most elections focus on differences in implementation rather than differences in ideas. If something happens to the President, I'd rather have the most qualified person to step in instead of the most politically acceptable party member.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

I hate lazy grammar and pronunciation. Words like supposably and prolly/probly irritate me. Or the fifty variations of "judiciary" that I've heard. Blah, blah, blah. Today, I found an example I hate more. Since I was tired of getting work calls on my cell phone, I called my voicemail to cut off the call-forwarding.

I journeyed through the automated menu options, finally arriving at the correct choice. It repeated my cell phone as my call-forwarding number. I have some zeros in my number, but saying zero was too hard.

Assuming the number is 321-555-9004, the voice said "three-two-one, five-five-five, nine-Oh-Oh-four".

"O" is not a number. If I dial "O" on my phone, I'd be dialing the number 6. 321-555-9664 is not 321-555-9004.

It's an automated system. They put a woman in a recording booth, had her speak these messages and numbers into the microphone, and set the sounds on the phone system computer. At any time in the writing and recording process, did anyone think "Perhaps the script should say 'zero' since 'zero' is a number and 'O' is a letter"? These are the same people who need to be told not to dial all the numbers if they call a bank and the phone number is 1-800-BORROW MONEY.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

On Sunday, Matt Drudge filed a "news" item about John Kerry's website. The headline is "OFFICIAL 'KERRY FOR PRESIDENT' WEBSITE RIDDLED WITH OBSCENITIES". Matt Drudge searched John Kerry's website for "fuck" and "shit". Based on the search results, he wrote the following:

Sen. John Kerry's official election website is riddled with obscenities, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

The Democrat nominee-in-waiting recently said radio stations are within their right to pull Howard Stern off the air if they object to the shock jock's racy show.

But an investigation reveals Kerry's own website is filled expletives, setting the standard for a new wave of 21st Century campaigning!

How is John Kerry contradicting himself, as Mr. Drudge implies? He said Clear Channel has the right to not broadcast Howard Stern. He didn't say anything about obscenities. When making a point, it should be logical.

Mr. Drudge continues with the following:

A sampling of web pages featured on Kerry's official site reveal:

"Bush f**ked up Afghanistan... Did I expect George Bush to f**k it up as badly as he did... cutting all your f**king legs off at the knees... Where the f**k is he?... scare the living s**t out of me... He has a pig-in-s**t grin on his face, he wanted to get into the s**t... doesn’t play s**t in my book..."

Allow me to shed some light on this section by providing the actual words instead of taking it out of context. I'll start with this response to a question about Howard Dean's early campaign success:

Well, not blindsided. I mean, when I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, "I'm against everything"? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.

And this paragraph about Kerry's decision to run for president:

So Kerry is clearly betting the farm on the fact that Bush's popularity is as artificially inflated as Enron stock was just months ago. And if you hang around long enough in the circles that Kerry travels in, you begin to pick up on some of the reasons he feels this way: that, maybe, the economy is in for a long hibernation; that there may be many other major American corporations whose assets are hyperinflated; that maybe the people making the decisions about the war in Afghanistan were too cautious and let the bad guys get away. You might even hear powerful people say in closed-door meetings that Bush fucked up Afghanistan. Of course, you hear a lot of things in Washington, but if you're John Kerry and you hear these things, you decide that you've actually got a good chance of winning.

And this statement from Del Sandusky, the senior enlisted man on Kerry's boat in Vietnam:

Kerry turned the boat back upriver, straight into enemy fire, and with a bleeding arm he pulled his man back aboard. "It didn't matter to us that he wanted to get into the shit," Sandusky says. "We knew that he would always get us out of it."

And this thought from the author of the article:

I wanted to ask the guy what he meant, if it was just bluster and bullshit, the stuff a big guy with a beer says to a public figure in a bar, or if he really did know Kerry, and, if he did know Kerry, what the difference was between the Kerry he knew and the Kerry who'd just danced with a toddler in a dark hotel lounge.

And this analysis of John Kerry:

John Kerry, in essence, is "not about bullshitting you."

And this description of John Kerry's appearance:

He has a pig-in-shit grin on his face, which makes the laugh lines around his eyes deepen into furrows.

And this statement by a writer about the anticipation of seeing Bill Clinton:

I am told that Bill Clinton is inside the building. I join the back of the crowd, which is perhaps seven or eight deep. We wait for 10 minutes. Nothing. Fifteen minutes, still nothing. The crowd grumbles. Where the fuck is he? Is this worth it? A handful leave, but far more join.

And this response from someone interviewed about Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Out on Manchester’s Beech Street, however, Kerry’s decorated service in Vietnam carried less weight with Roger A. Provencher.

"I’m a Vietnam veteran and that doesn’t play shit in my book," he said.

And this description by John Kerry of his Vietnam experience:

The Americans walked on gingerly to avoid triggering another booby trap. "I was almost fearing that Bac She De might suddenly appear and scare the living shit out of me," Kerry wrote in his war notes. "There is nothing worse than approaching a dead body when you don't know exactly what you're going to find."

Unlike Matt Drudge, I've presented the nine obscenities found on John Kerry's website in the context they're used. John Kerry said two of the obscenities. That's a shame, since he's the only presidential candidate to ever utter the words "fuck" and "shit".

I'll close with Mr. Drudge's final analysis of this "scandal":

A campaign source tells the DRUDGE REPORT that "John Kerry For President" online simply contains published material, and the senator was simply unaware on Sunday that the expletives were being carried on his own Internet server. [A search on the official Bush/Cheney re-election revealed no such curse words.]

"I think you'll see the offensive words removed," the top campaign source said.

Unlike over the air broadcast, there are no known foul language rules for official campaign websites.

John Kerry's campaign shouldn't remove these. He has nothing to be ashamed of from these statements. Even if he took them down, the source is published material. The words aren't going away, so the only move is to ignore Matt Drudge. He's clearly stirring up something that isn't a real story. Removing the words would be cowardly.

In conclusion, John Kerry's website contains three fucks and six shits. That's one unforgettable drunken night in Tijuana. You don't want it to happen all the time, but it isn't a sign that you lack character. And doesn't everyone have one of those nights in their past?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Listening to Don & Mike recently, I heard an interview with vocal coach Roger Love. Since I don't sing well, I'm fascinated to listen to a vocal coach talk about how anyone can learn to sing. I'd like to believe that, even though I know I couldn't be a professional. Unless, of course, John Stevens doesn't win American Idol. Then I could be professional because I can sing better than the rest of those hacks.

I'm smart enough to know that part of Mr. Love's claim is pure marketing. He's selling a DVD called Love to Sing, after all. So after hearing the interview, I was curious to know more. Browsing his site, I found the description for his DVD:

Many of the most popular recording artists in the world have called upon Roger to learn his unique methods including Matchbox 20, Eminem, Mandy Moore, Papa Roach, and many more. There is a long waiting list for Rogers voice classes, and now you can learn Roger's secrets to developing and strengthening your voice through private instruction right at home!

Whether you are an aspiring singer or just someone who wants to improve the quality of your voice, Love To Sing can show you how easy it is to sing like you've always wanted!

You'll learn:
Breathing Secrets
Proper Vocal Technique

And how to:
Unleash your vocal power
Control your stage fright

Plus, tune up your voice with:
Vocal Exercises
Full practice songs

For male and female voices of any age!

Let vocal coach Roger Love take you from the shower to the stage!

Reading that info, I clicked the promo video. The DVD looks as cheesy as I expected. However, I was unprepared for the vocal prowess of the narrator. Only in America can a vocal lesson dvd be narrated by a man imitating Bob Dylan. You must listen to the promo video.

For only $19.99, I need this DVD. I suspect Roger Love is a talented teacher. There's only one other person who can do that...and that's William Hung.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

Citizens United is airing an ad that mocks John Kerry. I'll allow Mr. Bossie to explain why this is necessary:

The vitriol that's being used by the left in their hatred of the president - and the man himself - seems to come through in their ads," Bossie said. "We wanted to counter that."

"Seems" to come through? His best argument is that hatred seems to come through. Based on that, Citizens United raised the civility of campaign debate. Here is the text of the ad:

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
Hairstyle by Christophe's: $75
Designer shirts: $250
Forty-two foot luxury yacht: $1 million
Four lavish mansions and beachfront estate: Over $30 million
Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people: Priceless.

Rich and liberal and elitist. That's spectacular. It's amazing how this nation encourages people to acquire as much wealth as possible, then cuts them down when achieve it. And I'm amused that conservatives are using "rich" as a derogatory term.

Thanks Citizens United. I'm glad you've cleared up that John Kerry is rich, which makes him unfit to be president. Because George W. Bush is poor.

Not to be outdone in adding to the Political Hate Speech Drinking Game&trade, here's an article from the In Politics column in The Washington Times, Conservative actor-director Vincent Gallo threw in his addition to the game. Interviewed by Steve Miller of The Washington Times, Mr. Gallo offered his discourse:

"I went to the Oscars this year and there were groups of actors showing up in these hybrid vehicles," said Mr. Gallo, who also has released an album and scored several films. "I'm not going to name names. But not one of these clowns has been on a private plane less than 25 times. It's one of those great radical cliches of good will that they have in Hollywood. It is a pathology. They want to feel good about something."

"I've seen more pictures of [President Bill Clinton], you know, the autographed photos, with like these sleazy babes," Mr. Gallo said. "I mean pictures of a former president with two of these babes hanging on him. Can you imagine going to someone's home and seeing a picture of Nixon with two hookers?"

Clowns and hookers. I didn't see those two coming, but I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gallo for these names.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm compelled to comment after reading this statement from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist calling for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage:

"We simply will not let activist judges redefine that definition of marriage," the Tennessee Republican said a gathering of anti-gay marriage activists. "We will not let activist judges redefine - I would say radically redefine - what marriage is, and that is a union between a man and a woman."

"Activist judges". "Radically redefine". Blah, blah, blah. It's the same rhetoric. However, this isn't about same-sex marriage. It's about rights. I believe, on a scale of lesser evils, redefining marriage is less troublesome than redefining the Constitution.

"This is not to say that conservatives such as myself necessarily favor gay marriages, but that we strongly oppose the notion of addressing this issue of social policy in our nation's governing document," said Chuck Muth, president of Citizen Outreach.

Yet, we have a Congressman like Senator John Cornyn.

"Millions of Americans who support the traditional institution of marriage should not be slandered as intolerant," Cornyn said at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. "The institution of marriage was not created to discriminate or oppress, it was established to protect and nurture children."

Of course, there's always the tactic of framing the issue with friendly adjectives to support a personal viewpoint. Pastor Daniel de Leon Sr. of Santa Ana, California said:

"Laws forbidding interracial marriage are about racism," he said. "Laws protecting traditional marriage are about children."

Perhaps at this point, it's appropriate to mention the Constitutional amendment proposed on December 12, 1912 by Representative Seaborn Roddenberry.

"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."

I don't pretend to directly compare interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is more nuanced, with issues beyond throwing around blunt words like "protecting marriage", "discrimination" and "bigot". However, the idea that an amendment should pass because a majority of Americans agree with it isn't the best argument.

Allow me to quote Liz Borkowski, who wrote to The Washington Post:

It's strange that President Bush would invoke "millennia of human experience" in support of his efforts to legislate a narrow definition of marriage.

For centuries, marriage functioned as an avenue for the acquisition of property, with women being considered part of that property. In some cultures, marriage is not the union of one man and one woman but the alliance of one man and multiple women.

The only explanation for the American version is that we've adopted modernized Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. I believe that the rationale offered for this amendment violates this ideal.

Beyond the obvious flaws, I want to clarify my fundamental opposition to any such amendment. Expressing it as well as I could hope to, I'll quote an e-mail that Andrew Sullivan received from a Republican attorney. The e-mail is under the title "THE FMA AS TROJAN HORSE".

Now that opponents and proponents of gay marriage are all riled about the FMA its time to talk about the true impact of including a definition of marriage in the Constitution. The potential impact of inclusion of the FMA will effect every American straight or gay because the FMA is not about gay marriage, it is a dangerous Trojan Horse that could completely redefine the powers of the federal government. As an attorney who is researching this issue, let me explain to the best of my ability, why I haven’t been sleeping well since Tuesday.

Under the Constitution of the United States there is no express right to privacy, rather this right to be free from excessive government interference in our personal lives has arisen from Supreme Court precedent that cites the lack of regulation of intimate relationships and the protections of the bill of rights as the basis for an inference of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, according the Supreme Court is found in the penumbras and emanations of these two factors. A shadow of a right, very delicate and now threatened.

By including a provision regulating the most intimate of relationships into the Constitution, the traditional analysis that the court has used to limit government power will be fundamentally changed and the right to privacy, if it is not destroyed completely, will be severely curtailed. As a result, decisions like Roe v. Wade, (Abortion), Griswold v. Connecticut (Birth Control), Lawrence v. Texas (Private Sexual Acts), will all be fair game for re-analysis under this new jurisprudential regime as the Constitutional foundation for those decisions will have been altered. A brilliant strategy really, with one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do).

This debate isn’t only about federalism, it’s about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals. So why isn’t anyone talking about this aspect of it?

Andrew Sullivan closes with this: "Memo to straights: you're next." I agree, but I'll expand it. It won't be about straights vs. gays. It'll be about God-fearing vs. heathens. That isn't a cultural/religious debate we want in a free society.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

New York Yankees at Philadelphia Phillies - Game on.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've already discussed the incompetence of the folks at Yahoo!. I laughed when I read their news headlines this morning.

Who are going to get choosed as John Kerrys running comrade? Please to wonder.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Reading this story in USA Today, I laughed because there is humor and stupidity beyond belief. Volvo organized women within the company to design a car focused on the needs of women. They came up with the Volvo YCC (Your Concept Car).

Initially, I was amused by this:

Hans-Olov Olsson, president and chief executive of the Swedish carmaker, said the endeavor seemed logical given that the male-dominated industry is constantly trying to attract more female buyers.

Through customer research, Olsson said, the company discovered that women want everything in a car that men want in terms of performance and styling, "plus a lot more that male car buyers have never thought to ask for."

"We learned that if you meet women's expectations, you exceed those for men," he said.

My favorite part of that is the male-dominated industry trying to attract more female buyers. That's logical, because women don't buy cars or influence car-buying decisions.

The idea of catering more to women's needs makes perfect business sense, said Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore. Spinella said women either will act alone or have a say in roughly 80% of all vehicle purchases in the United States this year.

Duh.

Butovitsch acknowledged the $3.5 million project had some skeptics at first, but she said the resistance ended when it became clear "this was not going to be a pink, cute-looking car but rather a very smart-looking vehicle."

Stereotypes kick ass.

The result: A car that's designed to be nearly maintenance free, requiring an oil change every 31,000 miles. When it's time for an engine inspection, the car sends a wireless message to a local service center, which notifies the driver. The vehicle has no hood, only a large front end primarily suited for opening by a mechanic. It also features a race-car-like fueling system with a roller-ball valve opening for the nozzle but no gas cap.

That's a brilliant design because women aren't smart enough to change the oil every 5,000 miles. And they're certainly not qualified to have a wireless message sent to them instead of a local service center. There's no chance they remember to get the engine inspected if someone doesn't remind them. And the hood? Please. We all know that only a mechanic, presumed to be a man, is qualified to look at the engine. And whenever I see a gas cap at the Mobil, I think "Wow, another woman who didn't have a man with her. What a shame."

Continuing the brilliance, consider this:

Gull-wing doors allow easy access to space behind the driver's seat. The bottom of the rear seats fold up, similar to theater seating, providing more storage space. The car also has dirt-repellant paint and glass, exchangeable seat covers with matching carpet and sensors that allow for easier parking.

Parking sensors are seriously necessary. There are dented bumpers all over America because women don't have eyes capable of seeing objects other than shoes and cosmetics.

Seriously, all of these features are useful and cool. I also like the design of the car. Perhaps they could sell that rather than implying that women are incompetent drivers and incapable of dealing with cars. Good marketing, Hans-Olov.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Given the dangers presented to society by Janet Jackson's right breast, I'm calling upon the Virginia General Assembly to fix an indecency forced upon the God-fearing, gun-loving citizenry of this fine state. Please modify the official state seal of Virginia.

Maybe John Ashcroft can offer some ideas.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Chick-Fil-A has a breakfast combo that amuses me.

I eat non-traditional foods for breakfast, such as salads, but I can't fathom the idea of drinking a medium Coke at 6:30 in the morning. This might explain why I now buy large t-shirts instead of the extra-large t-shirts I used to buy, even though I've only gained a few pounds since college. I guess clothing sizes are expanding with America.

Since encouraging soda consumption for breakfast isn't enough, Chick-Fil-A puts beef fat in their waffle fries. Perhaps it's a bit hypocritical to use "Cow Superheroes" with the tag line "United they stand! Divided they're steak!". I wonder how well the campaign would work if the tag line was "United they're waffle fries! Divided they're waffle fries!"

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I won't write 8,700 words about my weekend ski trip, but I'll give this summary.

I loved every minute of Saturday, including falling down less than 15 feet into my first slope of the day. That was down Candy Cane, but I overlooked that. "Encouraged" by Danielle, my brother, and my brother's girlfriend, I skied a blue square slope. That was a wonderful adventure, even though I fell on my second trip down Hemlock Branch thanks to an accumulation of ice. I ended the day with a great run down Twinkle, through the Lower Shuttle, and onto Mistletoe.

Loads of fun and no broken bones. I couldn't ask for anything more.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)