I just saw Sin City. I think it's time for Jessica Alba
to officially replace Vanity as the woman I most want to ... uh, meet. When I first saw Jessica in Dark Angel,
I thought she was one of the most beautiful women I'd ever seen, but she was just beautiful, not, uh, someone that I felt I would really like to meet.
Now that I think about it, when I first fell in love with Vanity, she was playing a damsel in distress in The Last Dragon. In Sin City, Jessica Alba plays a damsel in distress. I wonder what this says about my personality. Am I a rescuer? Or do I just like helpless women? Or maybe Jessica was just too young for me when she was making Dark Angel (she would have been 20 or 21).
I'm looking forward to the Fantastic Four. Jessica has a big part and she wears a really tight costume.
It will also be a good opportunity to see if she can play the warrior woman believably. I always suspected that part of her trouble in Dark Angel was that she was miscast. Those big, beautiful eyes were made to seduce, not to intimidate. Notably, she didn't do any intimidating in Sin City.
Oh, about the movie: it's dark, violent, gory, and has absolutely no redeeming social value except that it's a lot of fun to watch. And it has Jessica Alba in it.
Another candidate for Programmer Appreciation Day
(where you get to slap the programmers that have made your life difficult): the moron who implemented the "view all headers" option in Microsoft Outlook Express. An option that says "view all headers" should let you view ALL FREAKING HEADERS. It shouldn't let you view just the headers that some Microsoft moron thinks I want to see. That's what the word "all" in "view all headers" means. Twit.
I sometimes get spam that --according to the headers that Outlook Express deigns to show me-- isn't even addressed to me. It's probably addressed to a mailing list that I don't even know I'm subscribed to. Outlook Express doesn't give me any way to see how the hell the message got to me. Freaking moron.
By the way, this isn't one of the great posts I promised...
Also by the way: Please don't offer suggestions on how to get the information (unless you think I actually missed an option in the program), you'll just get in the way of a good mad. I can think of a couple of ways to work around this stupidity, but I shouldn't have to do that kind of crap just to find out who the freaking message was sent to. This is just an incompetently-designed "feature".
I've been a bit slow on the blogging lately. Seems to be going around
. But I've got great ideas for several posts that will all be coming out Real Soon Now.
The new carnival of comedy
is up. Or, as Spacemonkey seems to have renamed it: the carnival of carnival.
I know, making fun of someone for a typo is low class. That's part of what makes it so enjoyable.
The next Storyblogging Carnival
is up. Lots of good stuff this time.
what the Republicans got
over the deal
in the Senate to let Democrats keep their filibuster. Lots of people think the Republicans got played for suckers. Not me. I think the Republicans got just what they wanted.
Do you think Republican elected officials really want to reform the judiciary? I don't. I think that out-of-control judges are a great campaign issue for Republicans. They bring in votes, and --more important-- they bring in dollars. The Massachusetts Supreme court may very well have won George Bush his second term. It's almost certain that it helped other Republicans get elected.
This lesson was not lost on Bush or Frist or the rest of the Republican leadership. Their waffling over the filibuster was less about how the press would spin it and more about not wanting a free hand to set the course of the federal judicial system. They don't want to fix the problems that people keep electing them to fix. They are like plumbers who can't seem to fix a leak when the homeowner keeps paying them to come back and work on it. Why would the plumbers want to fix it?
What would Republicans do if they actually reformed the judiciary? What would they campaign on? Protecting the borders? Financial responsibility? Reducing the size of the government?