Morning radio is awful. I wish they would just play music, do traffic, news and gossip, then play more music. This is all I want from morning radio. No games. No silly bits. No fake advertisements.
This morning wasn't much different. A radio station did a horrible bit this morning about Jack Bauer's "personnel file." I hated all except this one...
"Superman wears Jack Bauer pajamas."
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
the.best.24.EVER
You read my file, the first thing I'm going to do is take out your right eye ...
After tonight, it's a toss-up.
Aaron
Jack
Aaron
Jack
Aaron's quiet, unflinching obedience to his duty, and willingness to sacrifice his job in order to do the right thing may have won out for me this time.
But then there's Jack's violent, unflinching obedience to his duty, and willingness to sacrifice his freedom in order to do the right thing.
See why I'm conflicted?
After tonight, it's a toss-up.
Aaron
Jack
Aaron
Jack
Aaron's quiet, unflinching obedience to his duty, and willingness to sacrifice his job in order to do the right thing may have won out for me this time.
But then there's Jack's violent, unflinching obedience to his duty, and willingness to sacrifice his freedom in order to do the right thing.
See why I'm conflicted?
I'm it
i've been tagged...
4 Jobs I've had
1. Waitress
2. Video Store Clerk
3. Events Photographer
4. "strategic alliances manager" - sounds cool, huh?
Four movies I can watch over and over:
1. Sixteen Candles
2. Casablanca
3. Lost Boys
4. Gladiator
Four places I've lived (in chronological order):
1. Alpharetta, GA
2. Dunwoody, GA
3. Athens, GA
4. Roswell, GA
Four TV shows I love:
1. 24 aka The Jack Bauer Power Hour
2. House
3. Arrested Development
4. Mad About You
Ten highly regarded and recommended TV shows that I've never watched a single minute of:
1. My Name is Earl
2. Carnivale
3. Entourage
4. The West Wing
5. Boston Legal
6. The Shield
7. Aqua Teen Hunger Force
8. The L Word
9. Prison Break
10. Commander-In-Chief
Four places I've vacationed:
1. Australia
2. New Zealand
3. Hilton Head Island
4. Key West
Four of my favorite dishes:
1. pasta
2. fresh grilled fish
3. fried catfish from Riverbend in Thomaston, GA
4. sushi
Four sites I visit daily:
1. Blogs
2. Bank Account
3. my company's intranet
4. News
Four places I would rather be right now:
1. Maloolooba Beach
2. Charleston
3. Any beach that's warm and sunny
4. On a boat
Four bloggers I am tagging:
1. Dave
2. I think everyone else has been tagged
4 Jobs I've had
1. Waitress
2. Video Store Clerk
3. Events Photographer
4. "strategic alliances manager" - sounds cool, huh?
Four movies I can watch over and over:
1. Sixteen Candles
2. Casablanca
3. Lost Boys
4. Gladiator
Four places I've lived (in chronological order):
1. Alpharetta, GA
2. Dunwoody, GA
3. Athens, GA
4. Roswell, GA
Four TV shows I love:
1. 24 aka The Jack Bauer Power Hour
2. House
3. Arrested Development
4. Mad About You
Ten highly regarded and recommended TV shows that I've never watched a single minute of:
1. My Name is Earl
2. Carnivale
3. Entourage
4. The West Wing
5. Boston Legal
6. The Shield
7. Aqua Teen Hunger Force
8. The L Word
9. Prison Break
10. Commander-In-Chief
Four places I've vacationed:
1. Australia
2. New Zealand
3. Hilton Head Island
4. Key West
Four of my favorite dishes:
1. pasta
2. fresh grilled fish
3. fried catfish from Riverbend in Thomaston, GA
4. sushi
Four sites I visit daily:
1. Blogs
2. Bank Account
3. my company's intranet
4. News
Four places I would rather be right now:
1. Maloolooba Beach
2. Charleston
3. Any beach that's warm and sunny
4. On a boat
Four bloggers I am tagging:
1. Dave
2. I think everyone else has been tagged
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Unbridled anger resulting in tears
So I'm a girl. When frustrated, I cry.
This Agitator post caused spontaneous tears. After everything I just posted, I don't know why I went there. It always angers and frustrates me. I was asking for it.
This is what did it:
Are any of you angry, yet?
This Agitator post caused spontaneous tears. After everything I just posted, I don't know why I went there. It always angers and frustrates me. I was asking for it.
This is what did it:
This isn't the first time this has happened in Virginia. A few years ago, the Virginia Beach police department sent a SWAT team to break up a suspected gambling operation at a country club. The sting ended with the death of a security guard, who by all indications thought the place was being robbed (it had been robbed just a few months earlier). The SWAT team knocked on the window to the car where he was stationed, then shot him when they thought he was reaching for a gun. His last words were, "I was reading a book. Why did you shoot me?"
Are any of you angry, yet?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Where to go ...
If we leave the US in disgust, are we abandoning the fight? Yeah, I guess we are. And, looking at this Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, there are countries above the US, but those all limit social and personal freedoms on a greater scale that we do - today. And except for Hong Kong and Singapore, they're all damn cold places to live.
I think I'll write a letter to my congressman - like it will help. Maybe I'll have a conversation with Jack tonight.
I think I'll write a letter to my congressman - like it will help. Maybe I'll have a conversation with Jack tonight.
Congress shall make no law ...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From Websters online dictionary...
Main Entry: abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH (attempts to abridge the right of free speech)
2 : to shorten in duration or extent (modern transportation that abridges distance)
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense
Do you see that? Websters uses the First Amendment as a reference point for the definition of "abridge." Doesn't that say something about how plain this should be, especially those who are tasked with supporting, upholding, and protecting the Constitution?
I have rarely read anything that has made me so angry as this editorial today on the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal online.
George Will has been banging this drum from day one of McCain-Feingold. And while I understood what he was saying, it never quite hit me like this piece did today.
The piece by Brian C. Anderson (author of South Park Conservatives) is long, but well worth the read. It's information that everyone needs to know and understand.
Most of the column is about the push McCain-Feingold gets from the left. While that is infuriating to me, I understand it. They can't win elections lately with their ideas, so they want to stifle the information going to voters. Fine, dirty play, but that's politics. I think the worst part of all this is that George Bush didn't veto this damn bill when he had the chance. Apparently he expected the Supreme Court to overturn it and wanted to avoid a fight with John McCain. Are you freakin' serious? I go back to the FIRST Amendment. First First First! They didn't say "here are the amendments to the Constitution, in no particular order." They put it first for a reason. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... I'm sorry, do I not understand what the McCain-Feingold Bill is. Isn't it a law made by Congress, and doesn't it abridge the freedom of speech? And, when the founding fathers wrote this, they were talking specifically about political speech, which is exactly what this bill outlaws. That is worth fighting for, even if there are supporters in your own damn political party. And not only did our president sign it after admitting it is unconstitutional (no really, he did), but then the Supreme Court - defenders of the Constitution in the face of assaults by Congress - upheld it, too.
Clarence Thomas and the three other justices who voted along with him in the first challenge to McCain-Feingold had it right.
But there were only four of them. There should have been nine. And so far, there's no telling how the new court will look upon this. I'm not holding out hope, based on what I've heard so far.
Just like I don't want to hear that the Republicans are the party of small government until they actually act like it, I do not ever again want to hear that Democrats are the party of freedom. That's just absolute BS. They are for freedom to express their own ideas, but not those of anyone with whom they disagree. Simply look at the speech codes on any college campus. Simply try to say that you do not approve of someone's choices (not that they don't have a right to make those choices, but only that you disagree), and you are engaged in hate speech - which is a punishable offense.
But, this is all about avoiding corruption in politics, not free speech? Well, if avoiding corruption (perceived corruption, mind you) means voiding the very first amendment to our Constitution, then the method they've chosen to use to avoid corruption is unconstitutional. But that doesn't matter, really, since they don't agree with the speech, and someone may have more influence than another by virtue of their ability to communicate their ideas. In their eyes are all equal and should have absolutely equal influence on the political process. Nevermind that it's an impossibility, we'll do everything we can to make it happen. It's their Utopia. That already didn't work, but they'll keep trying.
Again, please read Amendment I.
Now they want to include the internet as an avenue of political speech to be regulated by the Federal Election Commission (bloggers beware).
Political radio is also a target. As usual, not able to win with their ideas, they'll just change the rules of the game like a seven year-old brat at recess.
What's scary about this is there seems to be no stopping it. Not only will the president sign an unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court uphold it, these rules they have imposed, and seek to expand, make it more and more difficult for political upstarts to get their ideas out and, therefore, get elected. This ensures that the sleazy politicians who voted for these regulations will stay in office. They are gerrymandering the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From Websters online dictionary...
Main Entry: abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH (attempts to abridge the right of free speech)
2 : to shorten in duration or extent (modern transportation that abridges distance)
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense
Do you see that? Websters uses the First Amendment as a reference point for the definition of "abridge." Doesn't that say something about how plain this should be, especially those who are tasked with supporting, upholding, and protecting the Constitution?
I have rarely read anything that has made me so angry as this editorial today on the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal online.
George Will has been banging this drum from day one of McCain-Feingold. And while I understood what he was saying, it never quite hit me like this piece did today.
The piece by Brian C. Anderson (author of South Park Conservatives) is long, but well worth the read. It's information that everyone needs to know and understand.
Most of the column is about the push McCain-Feingold gets from the left. While that is infuriating to me, I understand it. They can't win elections lately with their ideas, so they want to stifle the information going to voters. Fine, dirty play, but that's politics. I think the worst part of all this is that George Bush didn't veto this damn bill when he had the chance. Apparently he expected the Supreme Court to overturn it and wanted to avoid a fight with John McCain. Are you freakin' serious? I go back to the FIRST Amendment. First First First! They didn't say "here are the amendments to the Constitution, in no particular order." They put it first for a reason. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... I'm sorry, do I not understand what the McCain-Feingold Bill is. Isn't it a law made by Congress, and doesn't it abridge the freedom of speech? And, when the founding fathers wrote this, they were talking specifically about political speech, which is exactly what this bill outlaws. That is worth fighting for, even if there are supporters in your own damn political party. And not only did our president sign it after admitting it is unconstitutional (no really, he did), but then the Supreme Court - defenders of the Constitution in the face of assaults by Congress - upheld it, too.
Clarence Thomas and the three other justices who voted along with him in the first challenge to McCain-Feingold had it right.
In his powerful McConnell dissent, Justice Thomas spelled out "the chilling endpoint" of the court's reasoning: "outright regulation of the press"--exactly what the campaign-reform theorists ultimately seek. "Media companies can run pro-candidate editorials as easily as nonmedia corporations can pay for advertisements," Justice Thomas explained. "Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections." The Supreme Court has found little to distinguish media and nonmedia corporations. Asked Justice Thomas: "What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is 'too influential,' and that the 'appearance of corruption' is significant when media organizations endorse candidates or run 'slanted' or 'biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?" Answer: Nothing. "Although today's opinion does not expressly strip the press of First Amendment protection," Justice Thomas warned, "there is no principle of law or logic that would prevent the application of the Court's reasoning in that setting. The press now operates at the whim of Congress."
But there were only four of them. There should have been nine. And so far, there's no telling how the new court will look upon this. I'm not holding out hope, based on what I've heard so far.
Just like I don't want to hear that the Republicans are the party of small government until they actually act like it, I do not ever again want to hear that Democrats are the party of freedom. That's just absolute BS. They are for freedom to express their own ideas, but not those of anyone with whom they disagree. Simply look at the speech codes on any college campus. Simply try to say that you do not approve of someone's choices (not that they don't have a right to make those choices, but only that you disagree), and you are engaged in hate speech - which is a punishable offense.
But, this is all about avoiding corruption in politics, not free speech? Well, if avoiding corruption (perceived corruption, mind you) means voiding the very first amendment to our Constitution, then the method they've chosen to use to avoid corruption is unconstitutional. But that doesn't matter, really, since they don't agree with the speech, and someone may have more influence than another by virtue of their ability to communicate their ideas. In their eyes are all equal and should have absolutely equal influence on the political process. Nevermind that it's an impossibility, we'll do everything we can to make it happen. It's their Utopia. That already didn't work, but they'll keep trying.
To eradicate "corruption," leading theorists of campaign-finance reform, such as Ohio State University law professor (and former Ohio state solicitor) Edward Foley, Loyola law prof Richard Hasen, and radical redistributionist philosopher Ronald Dworkin, want to replace privately financed campaigns with a system in which government would guarantee "equal dollars per voter," as Foley puts it, perhaps by giving all Americans the same number of political "coupons," which they could then redeem on the political activities of their choice. This superpowerful government would ban all other political expenditures and require all political groups to get operating licenses from it, with stiff criminal penalties for violators. The experts have even started calling for draconian media restrictions to achieve their egalitarian aims. In Foley's view, the chilling of speech is "the necessary price we must pay in order to have an electoral system that guarantees equal opportunity for all." But when these experts pen law-review articles with titles like "Campaign Finance Laws and the Rupert Murdoch Problem," you know it isn't the New York Times or CBS News that they have in mind.
Again, please read Amendment I.
Now they want to include the internet as an avenue of political speech to be regulated by the Federal Election Commission (bloggers beware).
Liberal reform groups like Democracy 21 say no. "We do not believe anyone described as a 'blogger' is by definition entitled to the benefit of the press exemption," they collectively sniffed in a brief to the FEC. "While some bloggers may provide a function very similar to more classical media activities, and thus could reasonably be said to fall within the exemption, others surely do not." The key test, the groups claimed, should be whether the blogger is performing a "legitimate press function." But who decides what is legitimate? And what in the Constitution gives him the authority to do so?
Political radio is also a target. As usual, not able to win with their ideas, they'll just change the rules of the game like a seven year-old brat at recess.
What's scary about this is there seems to be no stopping it. Not only will the president sign an unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court uphold it, these rules they have imposed, and seek to expand, make it more and more difficult for political upstarts to get their ideas out and, therefore, get elected. This ensures that the sleazy politicians who voted for these regulations will stay in office. They are gerrymandering the Constitution.
Zero Tolerance
Zero tolerance policies have invaded our schools with the purpose of eliminating administrators' need to actually think and reason when determining punishment, or even whether to punish at all.
Now it seems that zero tolerance policies have invaded the college sports world, as well. To summarize: basketball coaches cannot enter the court for ANY reason whatsoever. If they do, they will receive a technical foul. They will even receive said technical foul if they collapse from a heart condition and are carried off the court on a stretcher. Seriously.
At least these refs have been reprimanded.
Now it seems that zero tolerance policies have invaded the college sports world, as well. To summarize: basketball coaches cannot enter the court for ANY reason whatsoever. If they do, they will receive a technical foul. They will even receive said technical foul if they collapse from a heart condition and are carried off the court on a stretcher. Seriously.
At least these refs have been reprimanded.
Magical Firearms
This story about the boy who accidentally shot a little girl in daycare is horribly tragic. The fact that she was shot in the arm will certainly help. I hope that he's young enough that this will not ruin the rest of his life. But, from what I've read about his father, whose gun this was, there's not much hope for this kid. It's sad that at such a young age, there's so little ahead of him. That, I think, because the girl was not killed or more badly wounded, is the biggest tragedy of this whole thing.
That dismal view, however, is not what this post is about. This post is about the way the Associated Press writer decided to phrase certain parts of this story.
"The boy had the weapon in a backpack and was playing with it when it went off, said Montgomery County police spokesman Derek Baliles."
Notice my quotation marks are around the entire sentence, with no single quotes around what the police spokesman said, according to the writer. That means that the writer isn't quoting the spokesman, but paraphrasing him. I would like to know what the actual quote is, but without being able to find that, I will assume that the words "it went off" are the writer's.
Did you know that guns are magical and go off all by themselves when children are playing with them? No, of course they're not. That poor child may have accidentally pulled the trigger, but the gun didn't just go off. I know they may be trying to spare him the responsibility of shooting the girl by saying the gun went off, instead of that he accidentally pulled the trigger while playing with the gun - or that he accidentally shot the girl or he accidentally pulled the trigger. But since reporters are supposed to report facts, that's exactly what this reporter should have said.
People are understandably afraid of guns, but why do they need to instill these objects with special powers like going off by themselves? Guns can be intimidating; they are powerful and dangerous in the wrong or in careless hands. People should treat them with great respect and focus. But don't be afraid of the gun, be afraid of the felon who owns guns illegally and leaves those loaded guns out where his eight year-old son can find them and take one to school. I guess it's just easier to be scared of the gun.
That dismal view, however, is not what this post is about. This post is about the way the Associated Press writer decided to phrase certain parts of this story.
"The boy had the weapon in a backpack and was playing with it when it went off, said Montgomery County police spokesman Derek Baliles."
Notice my quotation marks are around the entire sentence, with no single quotes around what the police spokesman said, according to the writer. That means that the writer isn't quoting the spokesman, but paraphrasing him. I would like to know what the actual quote is, but without being able to find that, I will assume that the words "it went off" are the writer's.
Did you know that guns are magical and go off all by themselves when children are playing with them? No, of course they're not. That poor child may have accidentally pulled the trigger, but the gun didn't just go off. I know they may be trying to spare him the responsibility of shooting the girl by saying the gun went off, instead of that he accidentally pulled the trigger while playing with the gun - or that he accidentally shot the girl or he accidentally pulled the trigger. But since reporters are supposed to report facts, that's exactly what this reporter should have said.
People are understandably afraid of guns, but why do they need to instill these objects with special powers like going off by themselves? Guns can be intimidating; they are powerful and dangerous in the wrong or in careless hands. People should treat them with great respect and focus. But don't be afraid of the gun, be afraid of the felon who owns guns illegally and leaves those loaded guns out where his eight year-old son can find them and take one to school. I guess it's just easier to be scared of the gun.
Learning to dance
Footloose has been on HBO lately, and, well, I can't help but watch it. While watching last week, I wondered out loud what had happened to Chris Penn. I mean, I know he'd still been acting, but I had forgotten how slim and cute he was back in the day. Lately, he's been bloated and not so cute.
I was sad to hear that he was found dead in his condo yesterday.
I was sad to hear that he was found dead in his condo yesterday.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Ah, immigration
I have to say I admittedly know very little about the immigration issue from an academic sense. And I can also tell you that, after this weekend, I have learned that I have very different views on it from my grandparents. I guess there's really no surprise there.
I simply go with my gut on this one, and I say up front that I back this with very little fact and have no way on knowing where to begin in implementing such a turnaround in policy. That being said, I do believe that making everyone who's here illegally now a legal resident of the US is a terrible idea. I do think, though, that it should be much more difficult to get here both legally and illegally. I think immigration to the US is fantastic. I think there should be more of it in a legal and documented way. I also think that along with that, we should make it virtually impossible to get here illegally, and if discovered, illegal immigrants should be sent home immediately, and legal immigrants that are convicted of a crime should also be deported.
I say all of this, just so I can link to a post by The Agitator. I might as well just make my blog one big link to his. Anyway, the net of his post is that immigration is showing to be good for the US - even if it taxes our infrastructure. Yeah yeah, bad pun. I'll stop now.
I simply go with my gut on this one, and I say up front that I back this with very little fact and have no way on knowing where to begin in implementing such a turnaround in policy. That being said, I do believe that making everyone who's here illegally now a legal resident of the US is a terrible idea. I do think, though, that it should be much more difficult to get here both legally and illegally. I think immigration to the US is fantastic. I think there should be more of it in a legal and documented way. I also think that along with that, we should make it virtually impossible to get here illegally, and if discovered, illegal immigrants should be sent home immediately, and legal immigrants that are convicted of a crime should also be deported.
I say all of this, just so I can link to a post by The Agitator. I might as well just make my blog one big link to his. Anyway, the net of his post is that immigration is showing to be good for the US - even if it taxes our infrastructure. Yeah yeah, bad pun. I'll stop now.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Yay!
Golden Globes
Actor, Drama: Hugh Laurie, "House," Fox
I would have loved to have seen that speech, but, well, Jack Bauer was on. That's a tough choice. It'd be like Dave trying to choose between two different Kate Beckinsale movies.
Actor, Drama: Hugh Laurie, "House," Fox
I would have loved to have seen that speech, but, well, Jack Bauer was on. That's a tough choice. It'd be like Dave trying to choose between two different Kate Beckinsale movies.
Monday, January 16, 2006
24
My favorite from Television Without Pity for the first episode of 24 this season...
"It's 7:11:22 as she invites him to breakfast and walks away from his door. Kiefer says he'll be right there, and closes the door so he can hide his gun before joining her. His handgun, I mean. It's not really clear whether he's been hiding his other gun in the landlady."
"It's 7:11:22 as she invites him to breakfast and walks away from his door. Kiefer says he'll be right there, and closes the door so he can hide his gun before joining her. His handgun, I mean. It's not really clear whether he's been hiding his other gun in the landlady."
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
It's a good thing that Funkle Ester
covers 70's songs. Because I just heard Hurdy Gurdy Man by Donovan for the first time. If they covered 60's music, I would be a very bad wife and never ever go to shows.
Drugs really are a bad thing. The end of this song is proof ...
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Here comes the roly-poly man
He's singing songs of love
Roly poly, roly poly, roly poly poly he sang
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Roly poly, roly poly, roly poly poly he sang
Drugs really are a bad thing. The end of this song is proof ...
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Here comes the roly-poly man
He's singing songs of love
Roly poly, roly poly, roly poly poly he sang
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy gurdy he sang
Roly poly, roly poly, roly poly poly he sang
Monday, January 09, 2006
I take requests ...
and happen to have a scanner. So, per a request at dinner this evening, I present to you in alphabetical order: Jennifer F., Stacy G., and Whitney H. as high school seniors.
Cool for me, I guess
I'm not the only one who fell on NYE, and at least mine didn't get photographed. Well, I haven't seen all the pictures, so maybe it did. Here are the shots of the incredibly crowded New Year's Eve event that Funkle Ester played.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Damn
I feel bad for USC, but they've got two already. And I'm really happy for Texas. Incredible game on both sides, but Vince Young and Texas really stepped up.
Maybe not...
19 seconds left. Texas just went up by one, and they're going for two after this timeout.
The Game
I'm writing this as Vince Young is running for a long stand-up touchdown to bring the score within 6 points. The PAT now brings it within five after .
But, saying that, USC has finally faced a team with a great defense, and they are (barring a miracle for/by Texas) about to prove once again that they are the best team in the country. At least it's been a good game.
3rd and 7 with 2:22 left. Texas can still get the ball. This is fun stuff.
I still don't think the Pac 10 is the toughest conference in the country, though.
But, saying that, USC has finally faced a team with a great defense, and they are (barring a miracle for/by Texas) about to prove once again that they are the best team in the country. At least it's been a good game.
3rd and 7 with 2:22 left. Texas can still get the ball. This is fun stuff.
I still don't think the Pac 10 is the toughest conference in the country, though.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Sugar Bowl
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year ... OUCH
Well, New Year's Eve was fun. Today wasn't so much, though. There was supposed to be food at the bash, but I never saw it. I had a bowl of chicken soup at about 7 before leaving, and then got to the party and started drinking. And drinking. And dancing. Lots of dancing.
Boy, did I hurt today. One of the top five hangovers in my life. So that sucked. That's not so bad. The worst part is that I was that person last night. I fell on my ass. Then a little while later, I fell flat on my back. I'm lucky I didn't crack my head open, because I was close to the stairs. Seriously, I fell twice. How embarassing. Oh well. Nothing to do about it now.
Some pictures ...
The place was packed
And everyone was having tons of fun.
Brett, Bryan, and Russ
The Boys
Stace and I
Boy, did I hurt today. One of the top five hangovers in my life. So that sucked. That's not so bad. The worst part is that I was that person last night. I fell on my ass. Then a little while later, I fell flat on my back. I'm lucky I didn't crack my head open, because I was close to the stairs. Seriously, I fell twice. How embarassing. Oh well. Nothing to do about it now.
Some pictures ...
The place was packed
And everyone was having tons of fun.
Brett, Bryan, and Russ
The Boys
Stace and I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
