The Olympics? Yeah, Whatever...
Outside the Beltway has a good roundup of blogger reactions to the Olympics, most of them underwhelming. He points out some really good things that have turned them into just another marketing event, including

o Having Olympics every two years instead of every four - Having an grand Olympiad that stretched across two seasons every four years made them pretty unique. Now that the winter and summer games are staggered every two years it seems to make them less of a big deal.

o Historical changes - Just saying "East German Women's Track and Field Team" used to bring up laughs and hinted at those evil commies that we somehow beat, even though they cheated. The changing of "amateur status" also goes into this category, as watching pros like Roddick compete in some of the events changes the whole nature of the games.

o Soap Opera Versus Sports - The last time I sat down and watched an Olympic event there was more "human interest" footage than the competition itself. The original intent was to get "women" more involved, but I know plenty of women who also find these segments annoying.

o You Call That a Sport? - The Olympics used to be a showcase of athletes who spent a lifetime of intense training to reach the pinnacle of their field. Now, I am sure there is a lot of effort to become an expert in the winter sport of curling, and I sure as hell can't tread water long enough to compete in synchronized swimming, but are these really Olympic sports? Come on. Adding these just cheapened the value of a "gold medal".

There are a few other really good points listed, so just go read the post.

There are certainly those that disagree with this assessment, but for me, if it weren't for the fact that my wife, like 95.8% of all other women, will intensely watch gymnastics, I probably wouldn't watch a minute of the Games this year.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:32 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Contractor Tips for Al-Sadr
Looks like Al-Sadr will be doing some remodeling on the ol' homestead after U.S. troops get done with it.



So I thought I would share some friendly tips on finding and dealing with contractors based on my ongoing experience with my New Back Yard^TM:

1. Start your list of potential contractors by getting recommendations - Chances are that one of the mullahs in the neighborhood has had some work done on his place recently, and personal recommendations are crucial for getting information on a contractor. Ask questions: Was the project on time? On budget? Were there sudden extra charges? How did he deal with changes? Is he an infidel? Does he charge interest, which is against the will of Allah? These sorts of questions give you a list of contractors a lot better than just picking some guy out of the Najaf Yellow Page.

2. Get multiple quotes for the project - This is just necessary to keep the bidders honest, preventing you from having to behead one of them later. Let them know when they are quoting that you are getting multiple bids, and this threat alone should prevent you from having to send your militia out after the guy later.

3. Go with the guy you are the most comfortable with - If you got multiple quotes, your bids should be fairly close, but don't go with the lowest bidder, pick the guy you are the most comfortable with. You are going to spend a lot of time with your contractor communicating on problems that inevitably come up: schedule changes, deliveries for supplies, mass graves of enemies that get unearthed. Having good communication will be important to keep the project focused and on schedule.

4. Do Daily Walk-Throughs - Once you have started work, make sure you walk through the project each day with the contractor so you can each do a visual inspection of the work. It also allows you to come up with and ask his opinion on additions and changes, such as gun turrets and moats, that always seem to come to mind as construction takes shape.

5. Keep the contractor and his crew happy and they'll keep you happy - Make your payments to the contractor on time and make sure the guys out in the sun actually doing the work are happy - offer them water, maybe a beer juice at the end of the day. That way, when the day is ended and they head over to militia HQ to take up arms against the provincial government, they'll be in a good mood.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 3:44 PM (Permalink)
|

 
I Got My Own Blogstamp!
Long time friend Jim Carson made me my own blogstamp. Have to say I am pretty impressed since I was afraid to use multiple images in my own creations, but he pulled it off.



(sniff..) I'm touched.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:42 AM (Permalink)
|

 
The Rule of Law in California?!?
California Gay Marriages Voided
No matter which side of the homosexual marriage debate you are on, the "ceremonies" that were performed were not condoned by the (very liberal) legislature, and, in fact, were against the express vote of the people, who passed a constitutional amendment against this sort of thing (Proposition 22, which passed by a wide margin).

If you are for this sort of thing, go back to the people and overturn the previous amendment, but don't do it by judicial or mayoral fiat. That's not how things are done in this country.

Hat Tip: Poliblogger

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:16 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Can Friendships Overcome Severe Political Differences?
In my 16 years of business, I have witnessed several instances where people have broken down to nearly crying after a meeting where a business "argument" ensued (it happens to men, but I mostly have witnessed it with women). Essentially there was a matter of opinion on what to do, how to budget, or why a schedule was missed, and the discussion became heated.

In my effort to make them feel better I tell them that the discussion was "business, not personal" al la Michael Corlione. I tell them that it wasn't worth getting upset over a difference of business opinion and to move along to other things that are more important, even if they are convinced they are right.

The same can't be said of politics. You never hear "it's politics, not personal". And because politics touches so many aspects of our lives, it is pretty much impossible to "move on to other things".

I have read on blogs about friendships becoming frayed over political discourse and I think I have lost one friend over an argument over F911. Political differences are seen as character flaws and unlike business discussions, it is nearly impossible to move along to other things once an argument has ensued. If there is no political common ground between two people, can a friendship really exist?

That's not to say that I don't have friends that I have political disagreements with, or even political arguments with other bloggers I like. For example I recently posted some differences of opinion on Jim Carson's Media Diversity Quiz. Jim and I have known each other 18 years and Jim drives straight down the center of the road and I am over on the right shoulder. We know we're are going to disagree on a lot of issues, but it doesn't change our long-standing friendship. But as I noted in the comment thread, we do agree on about two-thirds of the issues. Would the friendship be different if we agreed on 0%?

Even in marriages where there is one democrat and one republican, my experience is that both parties have to be fairly moderate if the marriage is going to work. Like the democrat VC (Ed: that's Venture Capitalist, not Viet Cong) I know who is married to a republican, the fact that she is a VC means she is pro-business, anti-regulation, and pro free-trade - not exactly left-wing positions. Essentially she is democrat due to a single issue, which is true of most democrats I know (the single issue might vary, but is seems the democratic party is largely a collection of single-issue voters).

This, of course, assumes that politics matters to both people. There are guys who only care about sports, romantic couples who are only interested in the physical, and people who are oblivious about politics in general, but assuming that both people hold deep political views, can they be friends if they are polar opposites? My experience says no. There has to be some common ground or there is no basis for the friendship.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 7:43 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Commemorative Stamps for My Commenters
With the U.S. post office okaying personalized stamps, Blog stamps are making the rounds, so I thought I would create some for those of you thoughtful enough to comment this week:















If I left anyone off or you would like one, shoot me a line.

Update: I had to create one for the first person to ever leave a poem on one of my comment threads.



posted by Director_Mitch @ 12:01 AM (Permalink)
|

 
The EU's Repatriation Problem
According to the WSJ (no direct link), it looks like EU's has its own "repatriation" problem:

Immediately after World War II, nearly 40,000 square miles of eastern Germany were handed over to Poland. Polish authorities quickly ousted 10 million ethnic Germans, pushing them across the newly redrawn German-Polish border. New Polish settlers took their place.

When Polish communism collapsed in 1989, restitution or repurchase of lost lands became theoretically possible...Many people in Eastern Europe are shocked by the result: a wave of German lawsuits... Over the past few months, lawyers have filed 79 suits at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, with hundreds more being readied by plaintiff groups.

Check out where: "Strasbourg", France. Sounds like that city itself should be repatriated to Germany. Theoretically since it is now one big EU, this all shouldn't matter, but it does. And this is going to go on for some time

At the 1945 Potsdam conference, the U.S. and other victors in World War II agreed to shift Poland's borders more than 100 miles westward. In turn, land that had been eastern Poland was awarded to the Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. Some areas historically part of Germany -- notably East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania -- were given to Poland or the Soviet Union. People in the affected areas were shunted across the new borders with no compensation for lost property.

Seems to me that Europe needs to concentrate on its own repatriation problem before whining about others.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:36 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Amber Not Fit to Mother?
Okay, there is the political race, an upcoming U.S. assault on Najat, the Fed increase in interest rates, high oil prices, and other important stuff to blog on, but I just have to say something again about the Scott Peterson case after reading about Amber Fry's testimony yesterday (at this point dozens of readers click over to another blog).

Now some people may raise their eyebrows over the fact that Amber went into the sack on the first date. This really doesn't bother me since there are lots of fluzies out there. What really set me on edge is that "she gave Peterson a car seat and the key to her house, and asked him to pick up her daughter at day care."

Folks, this is after two dates. She sent a man she has spent no more than, say, six hours with to pick up her daughter. Alone.

Then again, maybe her judgement of character wasn't too bad. He was only a wife murderer (uxoricide) and not a pedophile, so maybe I am being a little harsh.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 6:58 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Movie Bars I Wish I Could Go To
While Tivo surfing recently I have watched portions of movies that took place inside interesting restaurants or bars where I thought "I wish I could really go to that place." So I thought I would compile a quick list from the top of my head, ranked in order:

1. Jackrabbit Slims - This place from Pulp Fiction is what got me thinking about this topic in the first place. Any place where Buddy Holly takes your order and Ed Sullivan introduces the evening dance contest is just way cool. Having Uma Thurman as your date would just add to the evening. (Note: there is apparently a bar named this in NYC, but as far as I can tell it isn't like the one in the movie).

2. Rick's - If I were stuck in Casablanca, this is where I would want to hang, as long as it was before Rick sold it to Ferrari. Even though Rick never shares drinks with customers (or will he), he seems to run a classy joint. (Another Note: I remember reading somewhere that some enterprising Morroccans actually opened a bar of this name in that city to attract tourists.)

3. House of Games - The bar gave the movie its name, but you don't go there for the drinks, you go there for the poker game in the back (or is it a poker game?). If you don't want to play, one of the regulars will be happy to teach you the art of the con.

4. Mos Eisley Cantina - The only one on my list that couldn't really exist, this "wretched hive of scum and villainy" of the Star Wars universe seems like a fun place to go slumming. Just remember to leave your droids at home since their kind aren't allowed in.

5. Club 49 (I think that is the name) - I've mentioned the good, bad movie Blast from the Past before, and this swing club just seems like a fun place to check out. Maybe because it has Humphry Bogart acting as MC.

I'm sure I missed a few. What others should be on the list?

posted by Director_Mitch @ 8:56 AM (Permalink)
|

 
We All Rather Be Dead Than Wrong

The evolutionary history of this species has served to put a premium on the ability to make appropriate decisions...The decision is always reduced to its simplest level: Is this a threat to my survival? This has placed an incredible burden on the mind to be right. Because in the mind's view, the alternative to being right is being dead. The mind (thus) equates rightness with survival and wrongness with dying...We, as individuals, have to be right whatever we do.

- A Rage for Revenge

This book isn't the original source for this idea, I just happened to run into there since I read a lot more pulp SciFi novels than I do texts on sociological evolution. When I read it over a decade ago, this paragraph stuck in my mind for a long time and has recently come back into my thoughts since the blogosphere has proven the best medium to date to track predictions and opinions and point out where people were wrong.

While there are certainly people on both sides of the isle that have this problem (well, according to the theory, all humans have it), it does seem a lot more severe on the left (Ed: because they are wrong more often?). I don't mean matters of opinion where overwhelming facts still don't prove a point (i.e. you can still believe that the Bush tax cuts didn't help the economy) or on issues where the jury is going to be out for a long, long time (whether going into Iraq was the "right thing to do" will probably take over a decade to settle out). I mean things that have already come to pass where you can point out and say "you were wrong here"

The Iraq war didn't produce a refugee catastrophe. It also didn't produce tens of thousands of deaths for American troops. Invading Afghanistan didn't result in a quagmire. Iraq did try to by yellocake in Africa. Arnold won in a landslide. Has anyone who made a prediction or statement opposite one of these facts come out and said "I was really wrong about that."?

"Fisking" has been one method used to point out where others were wrong, using links to point out factual errors or even contradictions in people's opinions, but this has rarely resulted in people admitting they were wrong or issuing a mea culpa.

Maybe as the blogosphere matures we can look forward to the day that Kevin Drum admits to double standards or to The Daily Kos acknowledging distorting facts to support a point of view, but evolution says don't bet on it.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 8:47 AM (Permalink)
|