Apparently, we need to add the
Patterson family to the list of presidential hopefuls
visiting New Hampshire recently. As with the other hopefuls, Pun Salad
has so far missed seeing them. And they're being coy about their
intentions. But experts say the signs are unmistakable:
"The Pattersons have an uphill climb, that's for sure," said political analyst George Stephanopoulos on his ABC program This Week. "But this New Hampshire trip vaults them onto the national stage, sending the message that they are serious about '08. All that's left now is the paperwork."
"Honestly, who in their right mind would visit the Audubon Society of New Hampshire if they weren't running for office?" he added.
Jeff Goldstein is back at Protein
Wisdom; while his replacement bloggers did a decent job,
… well, there ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby.
If you weren't particularly persuaded by yesterday's slam at Dennis
Kucinch's attempt to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" ("But … how
can you be against Fairness?"), please check Jeff's
he responds to Taylor Marsh's defense of same.
… Marsh is simply upset that in her chosen field of endeavor, the product she hopes to peddle just doesn't sell well. And so like any other mouthpiece of the grievance culture, Marsh is looking for the government to step in and pump up her popularity artificially. That she wishes to couch her desire for government to intercede in the choices of consumers as "FAIR" is simply another shining example of how "fairness," to progressives, is all about equality of outcome.though they hope very much to convince us that it is really about equality of opportunity.The Baby Jesus loves Jeff Goldstein.
NH's own Senator Gregg is attempting to give the President
"recission" authority, effectively reviving the line-item veto.
Andy Roth also is keeping
Nice to see Republicans coming up with good ideas … much too late.
On the other hand, Slashdot is reporting
Under Senate Bill S.1, political bloggers with a readership of over 500 who comment on policy matters or hope to incite 'grassroots' action amongst their readers would be forced to register with the Federal Government as lobbyists.See you in jail, folks!
I don't think very hard about the reasons, but it's difficult for good movies to be made from good books. Even the sucesses seem to be a step down in quality. (For example, The Princess Bride was a fantastic book; the movie was pretty good, but not as good as the book.)
It's even harder, I think to translate humor between media; it's unusully context-dependent. That's why we say things like, "You had to be there, I guess."
All this is leading up to say: this movie isn't very good. Even though Dave Barry is one of the funniest guys on the planet. The book on which this movie is based is very funny. But it doesn't translate well.
The movie is (essentially) a bunch of skits on the general theme of guyness. The actors (except for the immortal John Cleese) aren't comically gifted. Dave appears as a narrator, and he's not bad. It would have been better to just have had him onscreen reading his book out loud. Then we could have turned the picture off and it would have been like a book on tape. That might have worked.