down a level

What is this?
Occasional links & observations from
Steve Bogart


Nearby entries:
9 Feb   
14 Feb  
16 Feb 
> 22 Feb <
 25 Feb
  2 March
   13 March

Support web standards
Support web standards

Associate fees go to

22 February 2000

Fox has at long last found a level it won't sink to:

On the one hand, it's easy enough to believe the guy did what she accused him of; on the other, he denies it and there's been no conviction of any sort so far, so legally he's in the clear, but then again, does anybody think he didn't do any of it? Not to mention the sleaziness of the whole concept in the first place.

The whole thing makes me cringe. Please, no more.

An OK Mr. Blue with a few really good bits:

  • Dear Mr. Blue: The man of my dreams by Garrison Keillor [Salon]
    You know what you should do. ... It isn't a problem of not knowing. It's a question of how much ignorance you can summon up so as to enable you to do what you know not to do. At various times in my life, I've been able to dumb myself down to remarkable depths and I assume you can too, if you put your mind to it.


Fun with Pat (not that Pat, the other one):

  • The Battleground: Evangelist Goes on the Attack to Help Bush [NY Times, free registration required]
    Supporters of Mr. McCain reported receiving automated telephone calls in which the recorded voice of the evangelist Pat Robertson urged them to "protect unborn babies and restore religious freedom" by opposing Mr. McCain. As he has on his cable television program, Mr. Robertson, a supporter of Mr. Bush, accuses Mr. McCain of having chosen as his national chairman [Warren Rudman] "a vicious bigot who wrote that conservative Christians in politics are anti-abortion zealots, homophobes and would-be censors."

What, is Robertson saying they're not? Please, Mr. Robertson, do elaborate on just how homosexual-tolerant and free-speech-defending you and your cronies are. I'd be awfully interested to hear that.

I have nothing to say about this article in itself, I was just struck dumb by one of the phrases in it:

  • Cyber Feature: E-Bombs Away [LA Weekly]
    Ken Bass, an ex-Justice Department lawyer who defended cryptography icon/PGP creator Phil Zimmerman, wants blood. "Whoever did this ought to spend some time in a federal facility," he says. "There were people who lost sizable sums of money here, and that is not socially acceptable vandalism."

His statement sort of assumes the existence of vandalism that is socially acceptable. I'm curious...what does 'socially acceptable vandalism' mean to you? Got examples? Do tell, and I'll post the best ones.

I think it would make an awesome tag line for a web site, except I don't know what website would deserve it... hmmm...

One Swell Foop : Socially Acceptable Vandalism? Maybe.

Fonniks iz hard: Given its pronunciation, why isn't Mattel (proud makers of the special-edition 'Math is Hard' Barbie) spelled Matell? Or, alternately, pronounced MATT-el? Danged English exceptions.

David Letterman's first night back was pretty excellent. Glad he's OK.

My, what a trivial bunch o' stuff I've posted. I guess I'm just trying not to think about the bigger stuff, like today's primaries and such. Oy.

Fine! That's great! That's just great! Real mature. Fine. Just fine.

Ignore him, everybody. Everybody just ignore the baby. Let's just go on with the show.

-- Cowboy Wally, in Chapter Four of The Cowboy Wally Show by Kyle Baker

Previous entry: 16 February 2000 Next entry: 25 February 2000
Other sections of this site:
Home - Log - Services - Writing - Links - About
Last modified on 3/13/00; 11:51:28 AM Central
© 1998-1999 Steve Bogart