This Just In!

I bought the song from that MacBook Air commercial. (If you've been watching any basketball at all [or, perhaps, any television programming whatsoever], you know which one I mean.)

I'm very pleased with my purchase.

Here's the video:
Click here to read more . . .

Happy Colors!

I'm watching some Big Ten Tournament basketball, and I just thought the logo in the middle of their floor was pretty cool.

Click here to read more . . .

Weird Al Update

Al is going to tour again this summer (yay!), but there's good news and bad news.

Bad news: so far, he hasn't lined up any dates close to any of my home bases.

Good news: so far, he also doesn't have anything lined up for July 19th--so he's free for my wedding!

Should we hire him to play the reception, or just send him an invitation? (You can answer on the poll on the top right corner of the page!)


Click here to read more . . .

My Nightmare

After the disastrous showing the Ags made the week before last, one of many (six)breathtakingly lopsided/just terribly played games of this season, I made this comment to several people: "I'm done investing any emotion in the Ags this season."

Pop quiz!

Was this statement:

A. Hooey

B. Nonsense

C. Faradiddle

D. Gammon

E. Malarkey *

. . . The answer is, of course, faradiddle. (You thought I would say "all of the above," didn't you? If so, then you have an underdeveloped appreciation of how fun it is to say and to write "faradiddle.")

It helped that they beat Baylor, of course. (Losing to Baylor is only slightly bearable this year, since they're actually pretty good. But losing to Baylor twice? I shudder at the thought.) And when they played Kansas, well . . . they didn't just roll over and die, and that's nice. But what really gets me? Is the bubble.

It's that time of year, isn't it? When the internet is filled with people, paid and unpaid, speculating on who's in and who's out--except those aren't interesting; it's who might be in and who could be in and who's probably out that keep the basketball press churning away.

Take this article: A&M is not in the "should get in," they're in the "work left to do." And that's scary. Because with this team, I never know whether they're going to show up to work or not. Added to that: the "work" is the Big XII tournament, in which Texas A&M has won one game ever. Sure, our first opponent is Iowa State, but that game is an unhatched chicken. I'm not going to count it, and you can't make me!

I mean, from those teams that get categorized as "maybe" or "work left to do," presumably some of them aren't going to cut it. What if my Aggies get left out? And what if that happens and . . . Kentucky gets in?

That's where the nightmare is, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, the Ags started 15-1, Pre-Season NIT champs. Kentucky, on the other hand, started 7-9, including the nightmarish (read: hilarious) loss to Gardner-Webb. That kind of thing really gets a girl's hopes up, is all I'm saying.

But now, according to the Hoopundits, A&M and Kentucky are on equal footing. If, before next Sunday, the two diverge even farther . . . it's going to be a sad, sad day.

On the other hand . . . check this out.

Of course, the brackets probably won't look like this when they're the real thing, but I'd just like to point something out. In the south bracket, the guy has Kentucky as an 8 seed playing Baylor as a 9. In the west, there's BYU as an 8 seed versus Texas A&M at the 9. Now, if you were on the committee, and if I were on the committee, and if people who like to make games interesting were on the committee (hint: one of those might be true and sadly, it's not the one where I'm on the committee), wouldn't we flip those around?

If Kentucky and A&M both end up around there in the middle, I know I wouldn't be shocked if they got paired up. And that would be either the greatest thing or the worst thing ever. (I say that sort of thing a lot, but this time, it isn't faradiddle.) Because we'd either lose (the pain!) or, if the sainted spirits of Reveilles I through VI could talk Jesus into it, win. (Awesome.)

So, like I said . . . I'm still emotionally invested.

*I included a link to the definition of "malarkey" because of the example phrase: "snookered by a lot of malarkey". I plan to employ that phrase whenever possible from here on out.

Click here to read more . . .

Maybe Millard Would Win in a Fistfight

I just read this story about a bunch of Abraham Lincoln's letter that are going to be auctioned next month. The writer thought (as you can tell by her putting it first, natch) the most compelling part of the story was Lincoln's reply to a group of boys and girls in Massachusetts who petitioned him to free the "little slave children." That is precious but, I would say, not as awesome as this:

An 1862 letter from former President Millard Fillmore excoriates Lincoln for expanding his war powers, calling him a "tyrant" who "makes my blood boil."

It's not that I don't know what Fillmore was referring to (suspension of habeas corpus, etc.) But still. The idea of Millard Fillmore reprimanding Abraham Lincoln on his skills of a president is hilarious. Lincoln should have been all, "Yeah . . . let's talk about that later. You know, as soon as your major accomplishments aren't A: having been the only major (yet still unsuccessful) presidential candidate fielded by the Know Nothing Party (the Know Nothing Party!) and B: being the archetypal Totally Boring, Indistinguishable President. Seriously, dude. Come on."

Now THAT is a letter I would buy. Click here to read more . . .

Great Aggie Basketball Picture

I've been disenchanted with my boys as of late (I promised myself I wasn't going to say anything about this, but . . . 10 points in a half? Ten points in a HALF????? OK, I'm done), but I found this picture today (where, you ask? Um . . . I don't know. That is to say, it does not necessarily have anything to do with the words "facebook" or "stalking" or "Josh Carter"), and I really, really love it.

The only way this could be better was if I knew exactly what Josh, Joe Jo, and DeAndre were so shocked and appalled about.

Click here to read more . . .

Exploring the Unknown

As I type this, I'm doing something I've never done before: visiting the Fox News website.

My first impression is this:

The header for the top story on the main page, it reminds me of nothing so much as those pictures in psychology books showing examples of different human emotions. (How fantastic is that picture of John McCain? Also, were I one of those suspicious people who liked to shrilly point out all possible instances of horrible bias in media outlets that are reputed not to agree with me, I'd mention how by far the least flattering picture is of the candidate who currently poses the biggest threat to a Republican presidency next term. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, so I won't.)

Also, whenever I see or hear the Fox News slogan (We report. You decide.) I honestly can't help but remember Jon Stewart on The Daily Show all the way back in November 2000, remarking on the way that channel had called the election for Bush waaaaaaaaay before it was call-able: "We report. You can suck it."

But that's not what you're wondering. You want to know, don't you, why I'm at the Fox News website in the first place. Well, it's because of stream 7. A couple days ago, Google News told me that Fox News would be broadcasting its Texas primary coverage from the campus of Texas A&M. (It almost makes too much sense, doesn't it? Democratic debate at t.u., Republican-leaning coverage from A&M.) I'm not entirely sure how much they're really going to be broadcasting from there, but I'm at least going to check it out.

I am such a sucker for anything related to my Aggieland.

Click here to read more . . .

Something I Hate

Those of you who know me realize that I can get pretty worked up about some things. I am a woman of strong opinions, both positive and negative. However, there are only a few things that get me SO ANGRY I can hardly see straight. One of those is when people say that we shouldn't have a woman president.

Seriously, my blood pressure has gone up (what's a good blood pressure number? Seventeen?) 17 points right now, just because I'm thinking about it.

First of all, I do think there are some differences between men and women. Clearly, men (and when I say this, I mean "men on the average") are physically stronger than women. But how pivotal are Presidential Arm-Wrestling Competitions? Not pivotal. I also think that, again on the average, there are temperamental, emotional, and mental trends of difference between women and men. Difference, though, not superiority. Whatever conglomeration of characteristics the average man ends up with doesn't make a father a "worse" or "better" parent than a mother, just a different one.

I once heard someone say that she didn't want a woman president because she wouldn't feel "safe." 1. Even if you're relying on stereotypical differences that say that a man is "stronger" than a woman, just look at how a typical mother gets protective of her family. Then tell me a woman couldn't keep her country safe. 2. If you're referring to a woman's inferiority as commander-in-chief because men are usually the ones that do military stuff, it's not like George W. Bush is out there drawing up battle plans or driving the tanks. I mean, the president's personal fighting prowess is not America's one line of defense against foreign attack.

And of course, no averages of characteristics can be applied to any individual as if they're foolproof. Unless you gave them a battery of tests, you don't know whether Hillary or Barack is better at math. Or better with small children.

The more common argument, and my personal least favorite, is that we shouldn't have a woman president because of what "other countries" would think. This is either ignorant or just a weak projection of one's own sexism.

Why it's ignorant: 1. Didja notice that two of our last three Secretaries of State have been women? You know what the job of the Secretary of State is? Dealing with "other countries."

2. More tellingly, lots of "other countries" have had women leaders. I'm not just talking about regnant queens from back in the day ("other countries" had to put up and shut up with Queen Elizabeth I, for instance), but modern-day, elected leaders. Sure, Benazir Bhutto's career didn't end on a good note, but she was at one point an elected head of government of a predominantly Muslim country.

Nowadays, countries on every continent (ok, I'm stretching Australia to include New Zealand, but still) have had women rulers. So not only have countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had their own female heads of state/government, surely at some point all the rest of them have at least had to deal with neighbors or trading partners with women leaders. As Argentina learned, it's actually not easier to walk all over a country that has a lady in charge (although it's not like that's why they tried in the first place).

So, in all seriousness, I don't see how you can make the "other countries" argument unless you actually did not know this information. That point of view just doesn't hold up in a world context. And if you're making that argument because you're a sexist and want to cover it up by pushing your own low opinion of women onto Iran or North Korea, I think you should just admit you're a sexist instead. I still won't respect that, but at least then we're all being honest with each other. Click here to read more . . .