Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Wisc
Only because I can't spell. Tell our friend to call me; we've switched home and cell phones and lost the number; I've spent hours trying to find her in WauwatosaMiiniTosagSag that she owes me a few (hours).
Re: LJ
C and I are heading up north to the land of brauts and beer tomorrow for the holiday - get back on the 4th, then on the 6th I'm driving out to Arizona to help my sister-in-law move from Flagstaff to Gunnison, CO. I should be back on the 11th or 12th.
I've never been to Disney World. Only suggestion I would have is hit the most popular rides early (like you haven't figured that out already). On second thought, I do have another...don't go. WAY too crowded, WAY too commercial, WAY too many kids. But then again, that's me and it's a bit late since you're already there.
Have fun :)
I've never been to Disney World. Only suggestion I would have is hit the most popular rides early (like you haven't figured that out already). On second thought, I do have another...don't go. WAY too crowded, WAY too commercial, WAY too many kids. But then again, that's me and it's a bit late since you're already there.
Have fun :)
LJ
1) Where you going? 2) It's "couldn't." 3) In addition to the launch we're spending several days at Disney World. Have you been and if so any suggestions*? Looks like a big complex.
*Behold the power of the Blogger Spellchecker: I typed "suggetions." It gave me about ten possible alternatives, none of them "suggestions."
*Behold the power of the Blogger Spellchecker: I typed "suggetions." It gave me about ten possible alternatives, none of them "suggestions."
RE: Hey
Wow...I thought my eyes were deceiving me. I check the blog a couple of times a day and for what, 2 months, nothing. And this morning, lo-and-behold, MULTIPLE posts!
As for the subject of flag-burning, let me say this: I never know which is the gramatically correct term..."couldn't care less" or "could care less"? Whichever is, that is how I feel about it.
It's too bad that at least one of my SSJ brothers has deciced that now is the time to get back to blogging. For the next 2 weeks, I will be away from any computers or internet, so I will not be able to voice my opinions or even check the blog. Guess that means I'll have some catching up to do when I get back home.
As for the subject of flag-burning, let me say this: I never know which is the gramatically correct term..."couldn't care less" or "could care less"? Whichever is, that is how I feel about it.
It's too bad that at least one of my SSJ brothers has deciced that now is the time to get back to blogging. For the next 2 weeks, I will be away from any computers or internet, so I will not be able to voice my opinions or even check the blog. Guess that means I'll have some catching up to do when I get back home.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
FLASH BUMP
"Flash" I think is a radio term meaning something important is about to be said. "Bump," as I understand the blogsphere, connotes something you wrote recently that has been pushed down on your blog by later posts but which you now believe should be top and center.
I started to type that this is neither, but then I looked at my definitions.
If this small small part of the bsphere is to continue, there has to be a reason why. Did we run out of things to say? We never have before. Are we tired of the constant onslaught of partisanship? I think we'd all say yes. Do we just not care anymore? I say no.
Can we let this noble enterprise die a whimpering death? I say never:
To that end, and keeping with the Flash and not so much the Bump, let's revisit the birth of SSJ:
I'm getting a lot of email along these lines: "Love your site! You guys are great! Only place on the web where a couple of 'nuts and a 'bat can duke it out in a civilized fashion. But what's the deal with your name?"
Well. A considered question deserves a considered answer. Here it is:
One day last year, out of the the blue, I got this email from my good and close friend Scooter:
Scooter: Let's start a blog.
I was thrilled (in the old sense of "terrified" [look it up]) and terrified. What in the world would I be able to blog about? I had not had an original idea in twenty years.
Michael: What? I haven't had an original idea in twenty years.
Scooter: You're right, me neither. Forget it.
Michael: OK.
Scooter: OK.
Michael: OK then.
Scooter: But...
Michael: But what?
Scooter: What if we had a site devoted to esoteric economic theory with an occasional pop culture reference AND some hardcore conservative political commentary?
Michael: Gosh, when you put it that way, count me in!!
Michael: We're going to need a name. Punditguys?
Scooter: I don't think so. Overdone.
Michael: How about "Jacks of Spades," y'know like "Ace of Spades?"
Scooter: meh.
Michael: Ok fine.
Scooter: How about something with pajamas? [Ed. note: this was when jammies were hot.]
Michael: I dunno, seems like everyone's doing jammies.
Scooter:...
Michael:..
Scooter: I've got it. Not pajamas: smoking jackets. Like Astaire and Cary Grant.
Michael: Yeah I like that. But I dunno. It seems a little . . . gay?
Scooter: Yep.
Michael: Instaguys?
Scooter: Please.
Michael: ...
Scooter: OK. Let's go back to first principles. We've got nothing new to say, right?
Michael: Check.
Scooter: We haven't had an original idea in twenty years.
Michael: Check.
Scooter: Anything we say is going to be derivative of something someone else has already said.
Michael: Check.
Scooter: Dig this: Secondhand Smoking Jackets.
Michael: Ah, "secondhand smoke," secondhand = derivative. Not bad, not bad at all.
Scooter: Grazie.
Michael: AND if we go back to my earlier "Jacks of Spades," we could make it "Secondhand Smoking Jackets of Spades." No, that's just stupid. "Secondhand Smoking Jacks of Spades?" Too long. How about "Secondhand Smoking Jacks?" Which doesn't really make much sense.
Scooter: I kind of like it.
Michael: Eh. I guess we can think about.
Scooter: OK. I've got a site on Blogger for "Secondhand Smoking Jacks."
Michael: What?? I thought we we're going to talk about this some more.
Scooter: I guess not.
Michael: Fine.
My blog brothers: We've had our sabbatical. The times, they are a'changing, and we don't want not to be not on record, or at least I don't. E.g., I've waded in [weighed in?] on the flag thing, have you?
I started to type that this is neither, but then I looked at my definitions.
If this small small part of the bsphere is to continue, there has to be a reason why. Did we run out of things to say? We never have before. Are we tired of the constant onslaught of partisanship? I think we'd all say yes. Do we just not care anymore? I say no.
Can we let this noble enterprise die a whimpering death? I say never:
To that end, and keeping with the Flash and not so much the Bump, let's revisit the birth of SSJ:
I'm getting a lot of email along these lines: "Love your site! You guys are great! Only place on the web where a couple of 'nuts and a 'bat can duke it out in a civilized fashion. But what's the deal with your name?"
Well. A considered question deserves a considered answer. Here it is:
One day last year, out of the the blue, I got this email from my good and close friend Scooter:
Scooter: Let's start a blog.
I was thrilled (in the old sense of "terrified" [look it up]) and terrified. What in the world would I be able to blog about? I had not had an original idea in twenty years.
Michael: What? I haven't had an original idea in twenty years.
Scooter: You're right, me neither. Forget it.
Michael: OK.
Scooter: OK.
Michael: OK then.
Scooter: But...
Michael: But what?
Scooter: What if we had a site devoted to esoteric economic theory with an occasional pop culture reference AND some hardcore conservative political commentary?
Michael: Gosh, when you put it that way, count me in!!
Michael: We're going to need a name. Punditguys?
Scooter: I don't think so. Overdone.
Michael: How about "Jacks of Spades," y'know like "Ace of Spades?"
Scooter: meh.
Michael: Ok fine.
Scooter: How about something with pajamas? [Ed. note: this was when jammies were hot.]
Michael: I dunno, seems like everyone's doing jammies.
Scooter:...
Michael:..
Scooter: I've got it. Not pajamas: smoking jackets. Like Astaire and Cary Grant.
Michael: Yeah I like that. But I dunno. It seems a little . . . gay?
Scooter: Yep.
Michael: Instaguys?
Scooter: Please.
Michael: ...
Scooter: OK. Let's go back to first principles. We've got nothing new to say, right?
Michael: Check.
Scooter: We haven't had an original idea in twenty years.
Michael: Check.
Scooter: Anything we say is going to be derivative of something someone else has already said.
Michael: Check.
Scooter: Dig this: Secondhand Smoking Jackets.
Michael: Ah, "secondhand smoke," secondhand = derivative. Not bad, not bad at all.
Scooter: Grazie.
Michael: AND if we go back to my earlier "Jacks of Spades," we could make it "Secondhand Smoking Jackets of Spades." No, that's just stupid. "Secondhand Smoking Jacks of Spades?" Too long. How about "Secondhand Smoking Jacks?" Which doesn't really make much sense.
Scooter: I kind of like it.
Michael: Eh. I guess we can think about.
Scooter: OK. I've got a site on Blogger for "Secondhand Smoking Jacks."
Michael: What?? I thought we we're going to talk about this some more.
Scooter: I guess not.
Michael: Fine.
My blog brothers: We've had our sabbatical. The times, they are a'changing, and we don't want not to be not on record, or at least I don't. E.g., I've waded in [weighed in?] on the flag thing, have you?
STS-121
For those of you not steeped in NASA doings that's the next Shuttle mission and it is currently scheduled to launch 3:49 pm EDT July 1. We're fortunate to have one of the astronauts as our friend and neighbor and have been invited to view the launch from the family/friends area. I don't know where that is but it has to be better than where I saw the first launch from*. I never saw an Apollo (i.e. Saturn V) launch (I think T did), which was the most powerful vehicle to ever leave the Earth, but I can say the Shuttle launch I saw was pretty damned impressive, even from the peanut gallery.
*The non-dangling, and correct, being "from which I saw . . ." Can't do it. Which begs the question: What's happened to Michael's stand against the degeneration of grammar and syntax? What, indeed.
*The non-dangling, and correct, being "from which I saw . . ." Can't do it. Which begs the question: What's happened to Michael's stand against the degeneration of grammar and syntax? What, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
