« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
Denver Bronco wide receiver and kick returner David Kircus came out of nowhere last year to make the team. After several years with the Detroit Lions, Kircus sat out a year because he could not make an NFL team.
During his involuntary vacation, Kircus made sandwiches at a Subway in Michigan.
He may be asking for his old job back.
Kircus was arrested for assault this week.
Bronco coach Mike Shanahan said he will wait to hear all of the facts before deciding Kircus' fate with the team, but "if he didn't handle himself the right way, he won't be with us."
Can I have that sub toasted?
This from page 4 of today's Rocky Mountain News:
MAJOR CRIME
Detectives from Fort Collins' Major Crimes Unit arrested Chih Hsien Wu on Tuesday in the thefts of more than 1,300 women's undergarments from apartment complex laundries.
Victims can come to police headquarters Saturday to identify their items.
How exactly does one identify their underwear? Unless the lady has her name in it, I think she should be required to bring a picture of her wearing said undergarment as proof of ownership.
Otherwise, get up on there Saturday for free panties!
The Christian Science Monitor wants the goverment to have more power over television.
In response to one argument against governmental expansion of power, the Monitor says, "to simply state that parents alone are responsible for controlling their kids' access to media violence is also to say they should be responsible for such things as safe streets."
That is a misquided sentiment.
Parents are clearly not responsible for safe streets. Parents, however, are responsible for not letting their child venture down a dark alley at night alone. Likewise, parents are responsible for what their little children watch on television.
There are bad streets. There is bad television. It is parents' responsiblity to keep their children away from both. It is no one else's responsiblity, especially some government official.
The Monitor also says that "television violence is ubiquitous." I do not think that word means what they think it means. Television violence is NOT everywhere. In fact, it is only on television. It is not in the park. It is not in the backyard. It is not at school. It is not on a soccer field. You get the point.
"Television violence" is not even everywhere on television. It is not on "American Idol." It is not on "Sesame Street." It is not on "Seventh Heaven." It is not on "Jeopardy." It is not ubiquitous.
Televisions, even the brand new ones, have off buttons. That is all the regulation they need.
Assertions are easy. Facts are hard.
For example, Frances Beinecke, President of something called the National Resources Defense Council, asserts that "to displace enough emissions worldwide to avoid just four-tenths of a degree of warming, we would need a new nuclear plant every three weeks for the next 40 years."
From whence does this statistic come? I have no idea, since she cites no source, but my guess is that she got it out of her ass.
An assertion, like a bridge, needs support. Without it, each is worthless.
This per the IMDB.com TV/Movie News:
'Terminator' Revived for 2009 Movie
The Terminator will be back, thanks to a new takeover by entrepreneurs Victor Kubicek and Derek Anderson. The pair have bought the rights to the film franchise, which has already scored three blockbuster hits, from producers Andy Vajna and Mario Kassar, and they're planning to have a fourth film in cinemas by 2009. It's unlikely that Arnold Schwarzenegger will return as the title character and no director has been attached to the fourth Terminator film. The new movie will center around character John Connor, who was a teenager in the first Terminator films, as he leads mankind on a futuristic battle against machines taking over the planet. (Emphasis added by me.)
As David Letterman used to say, "100 adult males were polled - and we all know how painful that can be..."
I do know. Polls often make my hair hurt.
I realize they serve some purpose, but too often they are used to support an argument. For example, politicians often try to support a position by claiming some poll shows "most Americans" agree with them.
So what? If 99% of people believe in a bad idea, it is still a bad idea. The number of people that believe in a proposition has nothing to do with the merits of that proposition.
At different times and places, most people believed in witches, a flat earth and Richard Nixon.
In addition, the wording of many polls renders them useless. For example, the results of a poll on global warming are on page 27 of the News section of today's Rocky Mountain News.
It claims that "84% of Americans, echoing recent international reports, see human activity as at least contributing to warming."
If I spit in the ocean, I have "at least contributed" to the sea level. If I send Sandra Bullock a postcard, I have "at least contributed" to my chances of marrying her. If I write one sentence, I have "at least contributed" to my chances of winning a Pulitzer.
The wording of the question renders it meaningless.
Dale Earnhardt, Jr., is leaving Dale Earnhardt, Inc., at the end of this Nextel Cup season.
His dad, the original Dale Earnhardt, formed DEI. By all accounts, the original Dale intended for his kids to be part of his company.
When he died, however, he left DEI to his wife, Teresa. Teresa was not Dale, Jr.'s mother. Teresa is Jr.'s step-mom.
Jr. and Teresa have never been exceptionally close.
Jr.'s contract with DEI ends this year. He wanted a controlling interest in the company to stay. Teresa said "no." Jr. is on his way out the door.
Many fans out there agree with ESPN.com poster sdelliott31:
I don't think Dale Sr. would have been happy with this split. Teresa should have done the right thing and gave majority ownership to Jr. and Kelley [Jr.'s sister and business partner]. I think Teresa let her own personal feelings and greed get in the way of family even though she claimed that she wouldn't.
All of the blame does not fall on Teresa. If Sr. wanted Jr. to take over the company, he should have said so in his will.
For example, he could have let Teresa run the company until Jr. turned 30 years old. Upon Jr.'s 30th birthday (or whenever Sr. wanted), control would transfer to Jr.
For whatever reason, the original Dale did not. He let Teresa have complete control forever. It is not fair to criticize her for exercising it.
Dale, Jr., and Teresa will both fare well.
Patricia Calhoun, the Westword editor, has an article on a commercial landlord-tenant dispute in this week's paper.
Normally, the alt-weekly would not care about such a mundane conflict. This one, however, deals with the eviction of a swingers' club from a building.
Calhoun discusses Denver's "lively swingers scene," and claims the city has "five officially recognized swingers clubs."
Officially recognized by whom? Is there actually a sanctioning body? Is it like the accreditation process to which colleges and universities are subject? If an officially recognized club lets its standards slip, can it lose its status?
I believe a follow up article is required.
Denver County prosecutor Joe Morales is in charge of a case against Michelle Cawthra.
Cawthra was an employee in the state Department of Revenue. She was supposed to protect the state's tax money.
Instead, she has been arrested for stealing more than five million dollars of it.
Morales said "she was put in charge of helping to clean it up, and she ended up cleaning it out. She was both the fox and the sheepdog in the henhouse."
I do not pretend to know much about either hens or henhouses. I do know that foxes will eat the hens if they get into the henhouse. That part I get.
But what the heck is a sheepdog doing in the henhouse? Shouldn't the sheepdog be out in the field with the sheep? Does the sheepdog even care about hens? I think a sheepdog might even eat a hen, if no one was looking.
A wolfe might try to fool you by donning sheep's clothing, but I do not believe a fox has ever done that. If a fox were to try that to get into the henhouse, I think the sheepdog might try to herd him back to the flock.
Even the farmer would think it odd that a sheep was trying to get into the henhouse, so I do not think it would be a very good disquise for either a wolf or a fox.
I guess this is another reason I was never a prosecutor. I do not know my animals.
