Check out this Victoria's Secret link, Victoria's Secret Sale page. You can find some really good deals on clothes for under $20 under Clearance. I love shopping for marked down clothes on the Net. It's like digging through the sales racks at stores.
I picked up two Victoria's Secret matching lounge outfits to wear at home, each for under $20. They're cute outfits, 100% cotton, the top and pants match, and they're terrific when you want to look good but still be comfortable.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
It looks like John Kerry won, and Chris Matthews and the Hard Ball gang are saying Howard Dean has a stint and and a 1 in 10 chance of winning the democratic presidential nomination.
I've turned the TV on just in case Howard Dean decides to give another "I have a scream" speech. God, I love that phrase. I wonder who coined it. People are so clever aren't they?
I never liked Howard Dean. He was too much angry talk and no substance on his policy issues. I still think the 2004 presidential election race will be close, with the Smirkiemeister coming out on top.
I'm a democrat, but I'm also a pragmatist at heart. Political pundits have been reporting lately that the republican party is united behind Shrub giving 90% support. This the real story of why the Shrubmeister will win. 9 out 10 people in his own party support him.
The democrats are fighting amongst themselves, and when there is too much infighting there is no unity. Demos just don't get that, and until they do people like Smirkiemeist will be running the country.
It's that theory of if you give people enough rope, eventually most people will hang themselves. The demos are hanging themselves, voting Green in local elections and saying it doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
It's the effect of living in a very connected world. What one small part of the world does really affects another. You can't be a demo and vote green in a local election, and not expect there to be consequences on the national party and national politics.
The GOP has disciplined itself to understand this theroy. They've learned to put their differences aside and present a united front. Arnie's win in the governor of Cali's race is testament to that.
But the GOP had to suffer a long time in politics to figure that one out. And their takeover of the federal government has been in the planning stages for years, and it started out in local elections all over the country. The GOP started connecting with all kinds of people, and well look where they are now.
Demos, I'm starting to think, are so insular, thinking that everyone is crazy and stupid except for them. That's not a great strategy for getting people over to their side.
So maybe it's the demo's turn to suffer. The only problem is, how long are people willing to suffer? It looks like to me another four years.
I've turned the TV on just in case Howard Dean decides to give another "I have a scream" speech. God, I love that phrase. I wonder who coined it. People are so clever aren't they?
I never liked Howard Dean. He was too much angry talk and no substance on his policy issues. I still think the 2004 presidential election race will be close, with the Smirkiemeister coming out on top.
I'm a democrat, but I'm also a pragmatist at heart. Political pundits have been reporting lately that the republican party is united behind Shrub giving 90% support. This the real story of why the Shrubmeister will win. 9 out 10 people in his own party support him.
The democrats are fighting amongst themselves, and when there is too much infighting there is no unity. Demos just don't get that, and until they do people like Smirkiemeist will be running the country.
It's that theory of if you give people enough rope, eventually most people will hang themselves. The demos are hanging themselves, voting Green in local elections and saying it doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
It's the effect of living in a very connected world. What one small part of the world does really affects another. You can't be a demo and vote green in a local election, and not expect there to be consequences on the national party and national politics.
The GOP has disciplined itself to understand this theroy. They've learned to put their differences aside and present a united front. Arnie's win in the governor of Cali's race is testament to that.
But the GOP had to suffer a long time in politics to figure that one out. And their takeover of the federal government has been in the planning stages for years, and it started out in local elections all over the country. The GOP started connecting with all kinds of people, and well look where they are now.
Demos, I'm starting to think, are so insular, thinking that everyone is crazy and stupid except for them. That's not a great strategy for getting people over to their side.
So maybe it's the demo's turn to suffer. The only problem is, how long are people willing to suffer? It looks like to me another four years.
I'm glad I saw "Master and Commander: The Far side of the world" before it left the theatres. It got so many oscar nods. I'm bummed however, that I missed "Seabiscuit", but hopefully the studio will redistribute the movie now that it's been nominated.
Okay, I saw "Lost in Translation" and while I thought it was a good movie, was it really "Best Picture" oscar worthy? I don't think so. I think Sofia Coppola got the nod because her movie is one of the only movies that is making any money. It was made with a low budget, and it's raking in the big bucks relative to much it cost to make. It's movies like "Lost in Translation" that are financially propping up the Hollywood film industry.
I likes LinT because it's an indie movie that appeals to a commercial audience. Coppola proves you don't have to make artie fartie movies that are self indulgent and that don't make any sense to be an indie, and you can make an indie type movie that does sell commercially and is entertaining. She breaks the myth that a movie can be artie and good, only if very few people have seen it, it loses money and it's not in the least entertaining.
"Master and Commander", which is also not a great movie, got the nod for Best Picture because technically it's a difficult movie to make. Academy voters like epics, and M&C is an epic. From a technical point of view, M&C was a difficult movie since they filmed on an actual ship. For all its techincal prowess, M&C did not make money in its run at the USA box office although DVD sales and its overseas box office, may help the movie to break even.
M&C, while not a great movie, is the type of movie that Hollywood used to make in its past. It's the kind of movie that really looks great on screen, and worth seeing in the movie theatre. It's also the kind of movie that generates a ton of jobs for Hollywood people, actors and techs.
Since Academy voters are all union members, it makes sense that they would vote for a picture that insures for them a sort of job security. Vote for oscar films that employ a ton of people, so those kinds of film keep getting made.
I'll watch "LOTR: Return of the King" and "Mystic River" this weekend.
"Mystic River sounds like an actor's movie, and "LOTR" had to get nominated because it's a box office smash, the story is great, and it employed a ton of technical people.
Okay, I saw "Lost in Translation" and while I thought it was a good movie, was it really "Best Picture" oscar worthy? I don't think so. I think Sofia Coppola got the nod because her movie is one of the only movies that is making any money. It was made with a low budget, and it's raking in the big bucks relative to much it cost to make. It's movies like "Lost in Translation" that are financially propping up the Hollywood film industry.
I likes LinT because it's an indie movie that appeals to a commercial audience. Coppola proves you don't have to make artie fartie movies that are self indulgent and that don't make any sense to be an indie, and you can make an indie type movie that does sell commercially and is entertaining. She breaks the myth that a movie can be artie and good, only if very few people have seen it, it loses money and it's not in the least entertaining.
"Master and Commander", which is also not a great movie, got the nod for Best Picture because technically it's a difficult movie to make. Academy voters like epics, and M&C is an epic. From a technical point of view, M&C was a difficult movie since they filmed on an actual ship. For all its techincal prowess, M&C did not make money in its run at the USA box office although DVD sales and its overseas box office, may help the movie to break even.
M&C, while not a great movie, is the type of movie that Hollywood used to make in its past. It's the kind of movie that really looks great on screen, and worth seeing in the movie theatre. It's also the kind of movie that generates a ton of jobs for Hollywood people, actors and techs.
Since Academy voters are all union members, it makes sense that they would vote for a picture that insures for them a sort of job security. Vote for oscar films that employ a ton of people, so those kinds of film keep getting made.
I'll watch "LOTR: Return of the King" and "Mystic River" this weekend.
"Mystic River sounds like an actor's movie, and "LOTR" had to get nominated because it's a box office smash, the story is great, and it employed a ton of technical people.
Everyone is weighing in on SF Supervisors Daly and Gonzalez wanting to rename SBC Park, 2 supervisors say hey, why not Mays Field? SBC, Giants unreceptive to name change.
But what no one seems be talking about is I think it's a reaction to what our sister city on the other side of the Bay San Jose is doing.
From a SJ Mercury News article on 1/21/2004;
**Facing an $85-million-plus deficit and anxious to find new revenue, the council unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday that allows City Manager Del Borgsdorf's office to seek out donations and sponsorships of up to $100,000. ... The new policy "is not intended to supersede or modify'' San Jose's ability to name its facilities, said a memo from Borgsdorf. It does not grant the city manager the authority to rename buildings, parks or services -- a power that rests with the council."**
I'm sure these supervisors are wondering whether San Francisco is going to do the same thing.
Like this for example. Snapple has agreed to pay New York City $100 million for exclusive rights to be the Big Apple's official drink.
Most cities are going broke or about to go broke. It's not just the federal government and states that are cash strapped, but the cities as well.
What's a city to do for money except sell itself for corporate sponsorship. Athletes do it all the time. Every sporting event on TV is awash with advertising signs. Why not cities and everything they own?
But what no one seems be talking about is I think it's a reaction to what our sister city on the other side of the Bay San Jose is doing.
From a SJ Mercury News article on 1/21/2004;
**Facing an $85-million-plus deficit and anxious to find new revenue, the council unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday that allows City Manager Del Borgsdorf's office to seek out donations and sponsorships of up to $100,000. ... The new policy "is not intended to supersede or modify'' San Jose's ability to name its facilities, said a memo from Borgsdorf. It does not grant the city manager the authority to rename buildings, parks or services -- a power that rests with the council."**
I'm sure these supervisors are wondering whether San Francisco is going to do the same thing.
Like this for example. Snapple has agreed to pay New York City $100 million for exclusive rights to be the Big Apple's official drink.
Most cities are going broke or about to go broke. It's not just the federal government and states that are cash strapped, but the cities as well.
What's a city to do for money except sell itself for corporate sponsorship. Athletes do it all the time. Every sporting event on TV is awash with advertising signs. Why not cities and everything they own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)