According to this report, boiled peanuts (those wonderful little snacks that come in small brown paper bags, are necessary eats at any football game, and are best when purchased from a road side stand) actually have health benefits that can help fight diseases.
Evidently the boiling process preserves phytochemicals within the peanuts; these phytochemicals "have antioxidant qualities that protect cells against the risk of degenerative diseases, including cancers, diabetes and heart disease."
This is probably a good thing, since our Gamecocks are often the source of our high blood pressure and severe cardiac stress.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Life Imitates The Onion
"8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights"--headline, Onion, May 26, 1999
"No Charges Filed Against 8-Year-Old Who Had a Handgun on School Bus"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 12, 2007
- From today's WSJ Opinion Journal
Monday, October 22, 2007
Let's not Rush to conclusions
As we anticipated, people have strong and differing views on Rush Limbaugh. That’s why we began the title of our post with “Say what you will.” Our point was not to defend or demolish Rush Limbaugh’s political theories or cultural critiques, but to point out that regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at his job. Our opinion on this point remains unchanged.
What is his job? As we alluded to, and as he often states on his show (which I have listened to for more than 5 minutes), his job is:
“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.”
What’s absurd? That an elected official would purposely misrepresent the words of a private individual with whom he knowingly and consistently disagrees, in order to smear that individual’s reputation, and then attempt to use his political clout to force that private individual to shut up. How did Rush illustrate this? By being equally absurd and auctioning off the written “threat” on eBay. What’s more, he gave the ridiculous proceeds to a support the very people he was alleged to have criticized.
That’s clever, if not brilliant.
Georgie and Married Man raised some interesting points:
Second, we don’t happen to think that Rush is a hypocrite. If Rush argued for stricter drug punishments, and then was convicted of drug usage and said those stronger sentences didn’t apply to him, that would be hypocritical. As far as we know, he hasn’t done that. If Rush condemned drug usage, and denied that he had a problem (in the face of counter evidence), that would be hypocritical. He hasn’t done that, either. But to advocate for a certain standard, even if that person fails to live up to the standard, is not necessarily hypocritical. I once read a good definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is best understood as saying something while intending to do something else. For example: if a person has a tendency toward alcoholism, and advocates for sobriety (himself abstaining from drink), but while at a party is given a drink and gives in to the temptation, we would say that person is weak. But not an hypocrite.
Contrast that with Reid who, faced with Rush’s clever idea of raising money for a veteran’s children charity organization, attempted to take credit for the idea (which was not his), encouraged people to support the cause and give money to the charity, but then refused to support the charity himself. I’m not sure if that qualifies as hypocrisy, but sure as heck walks the line.
It’s not our position to offer an apology for Rush. We happen to think he’s generally an intelligent voice in the midst of increasingly noisy political discourse. We don’t always agree with him, but we generally do. More importantly, however, we recognize that Rush is a constant target of attack by those who disagree with him, and (like this recent instance) they generally choose to attack the person, rather than analyze the merits of what he has to say. Rush has often jumped to the defense of others when they have been attacked unfairly.
For once, we thought we’d do the same.
What is his job? As we alluded to, and as he often states on his show (which I have listened to for more than 5 minutes), his job is:
“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.”
What’s absurd? That an elected official would purposely misrepresent the words of a private individual with whom he knowingly and consistently disagrees, in order to smear that individual’s reputation, and then attempt to use his political clout to force that private individual to shut up. How did Rush illustrate this? By being equally absurd and auctioning off the written “threat” on eBay. What’s more, he gave the ridiculous proceeds to a support the very people he was alleged to have criticized.
That’s clever, if not brilliant.
Georgie and Married Man raised some interesting points:
"you don't think rush limbaugh is a hypocrite for calling for tougher sentences for drug felons and then developing a drug habit of his own?”First, that’s a straw man that has little to do with the current topic. Perhaps that was Married Man’s point. Whether Rush is a hypocrite (in terms of drug use/punishment) is of no consequence when it comes to what he said about soldiers, how it was portrayed by Reid and the Drive By Media, and how Rush responded with one of the more clever things I’ve seen.
Second, we don’t happen to think that Rush is a hypocrite. If Rush argued for stricter drug punishments, and then was convicted of drug usage and said those stronger sentences didn’t apply to him, that would be hypocritical. As far as we know, he hasn’t done that. If Rush condemned drug usage, and denied that he had a problem (in the face of counter evidence), that would be hypocritical. He hasn’t done that, either. But to advocate for a certain standard, even if that person fails to live up to the standard, is not necessarily hypocritical. I once read a good definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is best understood as saying something while intending to do something else. For example: if a person has a tendency toward alcoholism, and advocates for sobriety (himself abstaining from drink), but while at a party is given a drink and gives in to the temptation, we would say that person is weak. But not an hypocrite.
Contrast that with Reid who, faced with Rush’s clever idea of raising money for a veteran’s children charity organization, attempted to take credit for the idea (which was not his), encouraged people to support the cause and give money to the charity, but then refused to support the charity himself. I’m not sure if that qualifies as hypocrisy, but sure as heck walks the line.
“however, your STRONG defense of rush limbaugh really bothers me. i'm not calling for him to be taken off the air and am mindful of your free speech argument. if you actually listen to this man for 5 minutes, however, it's really hard not to feel yourself enraged with anger. either at the people he's talking about or at himself for his hatred.”Hatred is a strong word. We’ve listened to Rush off an on since we were in high school. He is not a man of hate. We’re not sure what exactly you’ve heard that makes you “enraged with anger”, so we’ll refrain from attempting to defend something we know nothing about.
this show, and shows like this, are harmful b/c they are so freakin' divisive.”We’re not sure what you mean by “shows like this.” Since you admitted that you are mindful of free speech arguments, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t mean conservative talk shows in general. If you did, then the sole “divisive” feature of the show would be its political leaning. This leaves us with either talk shows in general, which we doubt you meant, or else this is a reference to similar shows of hatred. We know of no such shows.
It’s not our position to offer an apology for Rush. We happen to think he’s generally an intelligent voice in the midst of increasingly noisy political discourse. We don’t always agree with him, but we generally do. More importantly, however, we recognize that Rush is a constant target of attack by those who disagree with him, and (like this recent instance) they generally choose to attack the person, rather than analyze the merits of what he has to say. Rush has often jumped to the defense of others when they have been attacked unfairly.
For once, we thought we’d do the same.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Say what you will, Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does
Harry Reid's latest political maneuver is absolutely disgusting, despicable, and contemptible. He does not deserve the title of Senator, he has no business representing our government, and even a place as corrupt as Las Vegas does not deserve such a dirty politician.
Most of you have probably heard the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. As usual, Rush said nothing wrong. As usual, he was right. And as usual, those who oppose free speech and the free exchange of ideas intentionally, purposely, and maliciously twisted Rush's words. The goal? Make a self-proclaimed and outspoken American Patriot look like a hypocrite (Rush), while making these America hating "americans" look like actual patriots. Not only did multiple Senators use the floor of the U.S. Senate as a soapbox for defaming Limbaugh (see also the torts of slander and libel), but 40 Democrats signed a letter to the President of Clear Channel (radio syndicate that hosts Limbaugh) strongly encouraging him to confer with Limbaugh about Limbaugh's commetns. Translation: Make him stop staying stuff we don't like...or else. These weren't just any Democrats - these were the big dogs.
As the saying goes, never kid a kidder. Rush Limbaugh makes a living off of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Which is why he put the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to help the children of soldiers killed in the war. Rush promised personally to match the auction proceeds. It sold for $2.1 million. Rush kept his word. The Dems looked stupid. Brilliant.
This is where Reid gets disgusting. At 12pm today -- no coincidence, one hour before the auction ends and the start of Rush's daily radio show -- Reid went on the Senate floor and ATTEMPTED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR RAISING THE MONEY FOR the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Absolutely incomprehensible. The clip is here - Breitbart mislabels it as Reid's thank you to Limbaugh. It was no such thing. It was a blatant attempt by Reid to credit himself and the other 39 nutjob Democrats for the idea of putting the letter on eBay and giving the money to the kids.
This blatant lie and outright thievery makes me want to puke.
Reid criticized an American general. When that backfired, he chose to misrepresent a patriotic American and abuse his position as Senator by leveling personal attacks on a private citizen.
He further abused his power by threatening a radio syndicate to censure the speech of one of its shows, and when the historic letter documenting his and his hooligan cohorts' abuse of power was flipped around and used as a vehicle for good, Reid tried to take credit for the fruit of that creativity. Not only did he take credit, but he encouraged the members of teh Senate (and presumably the American people) to support the cause by bidding and/or contributing to the charity, but simultaneously refused to give a single dollar from his own pocket.
But that shouldn't surprise us. After all, Reid illegally uses campaign funds (i.e. other people's money) to tip the doormen at the Ritz Carlton (i.e. for his personal expenses).
Of course, who are we to talk? The only thing we've ever given the Ritz Carlton are $150,000 of stolen jewels.
Most of you have probably heard the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. As usual, Rush said nothing wrong. As usual, he was right. And as usual, those who oppose free speech and the free exchange of ideas intentionally, purposely, and maliciously twisted Rush's words. The goal? Make a self-proclaimed and outspoken American Patriot look like a hypocrite (Rush), while making these America hating "americans" look like actual patriots. Not only did multiple Senators use the floor of the U.S. Senate as a soapbox for defaming Limbaugh (see also the torts of slander and libel), but 40 Democrats signed a letter to the President of Clear Channel (radio syndicate that hosts Limbaugh) strongly encouraging him to confer with Limbaugh about Limbaugh's commetns. Translation: Make him stop staying stuff we don't like...or else. These weren't just any Democrats - these were the big dogs.
As the saying goes, never kid a kidder. Rush Limbaugh makes a living off of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Which is why he put the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to help the children of soldiers killed in the war. Rush promised personally to match the auction proceeds. It sold for $2.1 million. Rush kept his word. The Dems looked stupid. Brilliant.
This is where Reid gets disgusting. At 12pm today -- no coincidence, one hour before the auction ends and the start of Rush's daily radio show -- Reid went on the Senate floor and ATTEMPTED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR RAISING THE MONEY FOR the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Absolutely incomprehensible. The clip is here - Breitbart mislabels it as Reid's thank you to Limbaugh. It was no such thing. It was a blatant attempt by Reid to credit himself and the other 39 nutjob Democrats for the idea of putting the letter on eBay and giving the money to the kids.
This blatant lie and outright thievery makes me want to puke.
Reid criticized an American general. When that backfired, he chose to misrepresent a patriotic American and abuse his position as Senator by leveling personal attacks on a private citizen.
He further abused his power by threatening a radio syndicate to censure the speech of one of its shows, and when the historic letter documenting his and his hooligan cohorts' abuse of power was flipped around and used as a vehicle for good, Reid tried to take credit for the fruit of that creativity. Not only did he take credit, but he encouraged the members of teh Senate (and presumably the American people) to support the cause by bidding and/or contributing to the charity, but simultaneously refused to give a single dollar from his own pocket.
But that shouldn't surprise us. After all, Reid illegally uses campaign funds (i.e. other people's money) to tip the doormen at the Ritz Carlton (i.e. for his personal expenses).
Of course, who are we to talk? The only thing we've ever given the Ritz Carlton are $150,000 of stolen jewels.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Life Imitates The Office
"I've created an atmosphere where I am friend first, boss second. Probably entertainer third."David Brent, general manager of the Slough branch of Wernham-Hogg paper merchancts in the BBC's television comedy The Office.
“When people say to me: would you rather be thought of as a funny man or a great boss? My answer’s always the same, to me, they’re not mutually exclusive.”
"Everyone Wants a Funny Boss. Survey: Humor is key for Good Managers"Tom Musbach, Yahoo!.com HotJobs Article (October 16, 2007)
Monday, October 08, 2007
USC v. USC
Since it probably won't happen very often, we felt it necessary to point out that the REAL USC is now ranked ahead of that Southern Cal school in the AP Top 25 this week.
And just as a reminder, the last time South Carolina and So Cal played head to head in football, the Gamecocks were the victors of a a 38-14 victory in October of 1983.
And just as a reminder, the last time South Carolina and So Cal played head to head in football, the Gamecocks were the victors of a a 38-14 victory in October of 1983.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
