« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 30, 2007

FOUR FOR FRIDAY

Q1 - Beam Me Up, Scotty: Do you think humans should actively attempt to colonize another planet, or would doing so right now simply be a waste of money?

Q2 - Absurdity: Which do you think is more absurd: That a 54-year-old school teacher in the Sudan was arrested earlier in the week and sentenced to 15 days in prison after she allowed her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Mohammed" as part of a school project, or the fact that almost every single late night "talk" show--including The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and The Late Show with David Letterman--is on hiatus because of a "writers" strike?

Q3 - Spend It All, Now!: On this day in 2004, longtime Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings finally lost after winning 222 consecutive rounds and netting for himself over $2.5 million in winnings. If you came into 10 times that amount of money ($25,000,000) and were given just 72 hours to spend every last dime, how would you spend it? (Caveat #1: You are limited to investing or trusting only 1% or $250,000. Caveat #2: You may only purchase one piece of real property and its cost may not exceed 4% of the total spend or $1,000,000.)

Q4 - Cars: What is the absolute worst experience you have ever had in an automobile?

Posted by Mikal at 12:35 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

November 23, 2007

FOUR FOR FRIDAY - THE "BETTER LATE IN THE DAY THAN NEVER" EDITION

Q1 - Luggage: You can't stand in an airport for more than a minute or two before hearing: "For security reasons, please do not leave your baggage unattended. Unattended baggage will be confiscated." Keeping that in mind, what would you do if, while waiting to board a plane, a complete stranger asked you to watch their luggage while they head off to the bathroom? If you're reaction to this question is to automatically say: "I wouldn't do it," would your answer be "Yes" if you were physically attracted to the person?

Q2 - Thanksgiving: How would you rate the amount of food you ate on Thanksgiving day -- same amount you eat during an average day, less than you normally eat, more than you normally eat, or a ridiculously large amount of food/you can't believe you ate the whole thing and actually wish you hadn't?

Q3 - Holiday Shopping: According to the National Retail Federation, the average U.S. citizen plans to spend an average of $816.69 on holiday-related shopping. The research also suggests we will spend an additional $106.67 on special "non-gift" purchases for ourselves. Do these numbers ring true for you... will you be spending nearly $925.00 this holiday season? If not, do you think you'll spend more or less?

Q4 - WAKE UP!: When you travel, do you use the hotel's wake-up call system or do you prefer to futz with the hotel's alarm clock or a clock of your own?

Posted by Mikal at 11:34 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

November 16, 2007

Q1 - Request: If you opened your email program and found two messages from a friend or co-worker -- one with this subject line: "Something You Should Know!!!", and the other with this subject line: "DO NOT OPEN PREVIOUS MESSAGE, EVER," would you open the first message?

Q2 - Gambling: Earlier this week, a professional tennis player was suspended for nine months and fined $60,000 by the Men's pro tennis tour for betting on tennis matches. Thirty-year-old Alessio Di Mauro, who is ranked 124th in the world rankings, was found to have bet on the matches of other professional players but not his own. Do you think professional athletes should be allowed to bet on sporting events like the rest of us--so long as they do not bet on their own games, matches or results--or should professional athletes never be allowed to bet on the outcome or statistics related to any college or professional sporting match?

Q3 - Secret Societies: If you were offered membership in a highly selective yet secret society--one whose members were rumored or shown to be significantly influential in government, banking, law, international affairs, the arts and entertainment, and more--would you accept?

Q4 - Adoption Records: Most states prohibit adoptees from obtaining birth certificates and other information from their court adoption files unless a judge approves their request. However, a recent study by a Boston-based adoption research institute says open records for adoption after the age of 18 does not result in decreased adoptions or fractured adoptive families. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, sealing adoption records "is a living symbol of the bad old days, when we hid unwed mothers, and stereotypes about them ruled the day." The Donaldson Institute advocates reshaping public policy to address what it sees as: 1). a basic civil right issue, and 2) a necessary step to provide access to important information about an individual's mental and physical health history. Others, like the National Council for Adoption, advocate a "mutual consent" policy rather than mandated open records. What rights if any do you feel should be extended to people of age when it comes to gaining access to their adoption records?

November 9, 2007

Q1 - Judged by a Supreme Being: If their objective were to judge us, what would the three worst places be for extraterrestrials to land in the U.S. and observe Americans?

Q2 - Changing it Up: After checking into a hotel, have you ever been so disappointed with your accommodations that you asked to be moved to another room? If so, what were the circumstances that led to the request?

Q3 - Wedding Bands: Do you have a system for when you do and do not wear your wedding band/ring? For instance, do you wear yours 24/7/365, remove at night or when participating in strenuous activities, etc.? If you are not married and you wear jewelry on a regular basis, what system do you employ?

Q4 - ???: What's your reaction to this?

November 7, 2007

Ignore this post.

Technorati Profile

November 6, 2007

The news division at ESPN has really gone downhill. Take a look at the following piece, which appeared on the front page of ESPN.com over the weekend:

Reid will not be disciplined for sons' legal issues

ESPN.com news services
Updated: November 4, 2007, 2:12 PM ET

Andy Reid has never been subject to discipline from commissioner Roger Goodell because the charges against the Eagles coach's two adult sons do not constitute a violation of the NFL's personal conduct policy.

Reid's sons, 24-year-old Garrett and 22-year-old Britt, were sentenced to jail on Thursday -- Britt for eight to 23 months for pointing a gun at another driver, and Garrett for two to 23 months for a high-speed, heroin-fueled crash that injured the driver of the other car.

According to the personal conduct policy, if an NFL player had children in legal trouble under identical circumstances, the player also would not be in violation of the policy.

At Reid's sons' sentencing, Montgomery County Judge Steven O'Neill admonished the family, likening the environment of the household to "a drug emporium."

"There isn't any structure there that this court can depend upon," O'Neill said before handing down the jail sentences. "I'm saying this is a family in crisis."

O'Neill noted that searches of the Reid home found illegal and prescription drugs throughout the house. He said both boys had been overmedicated throughout much of their lives and that Britt got hooked on painkillers when he suffered a football injury in high school.

At his regular news conference Friday, Reid insisted he will not resign. Asked whether he intended to stay on the job, he delivered a stern, one-word answer: "Yes."

Reid took a five-week absence earlier this year. On Friday, he said more about his sons' legal problems than he had previously.

"I know this is a big story for everybody and I respect that," Reid said. "On the other hand, I can't go into questioning on it at this time.

"However, as parents we have huge concerns for our two boys. This has been a battle we have dealt with here for a few years and I'm sure we'll continue to address the situation. ... Our prayers are obviously with the boys, for their future, and to make sure things work out, where they can live a normal life down the road."

Are you kidding me... this is news (that Andy Reid did nothing wrong and that he is not subject to discipline for the actions of his two grown sons)? Well thank goodness for ESPN's crack reporting and decision to make Reid's situation front-page news. Next, they'll be telling us that Andy Reid's use of his assigned parking spot at Lincoln Financial Field violates no team or NFL policies, or that his decision to drive the speed limit is okay with the NFL.

This just in... ESPN is reporting that Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Joe DiMaggio are all still dead!

In another amazing move by a press-related organization, Atlanta Magazine, which is owned by Indianapolis-based Emmis Communications Corp., just published a retraction to a September 2003 profile of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.

In an unprecedented move, Atlanta Magazine reprinted an original article from four years ago but with new observations and commentary in red handwriting, portions stuck out and other changes. A section of one sentence, "rock star," is highlighted in yellow with an arrow tracing to an image of Ozzy Osborne surrounded on one side by three flying bats.

Click here for a PDF / visual of the article.

November 2, 2007

PLEASE READ THIS NOTE BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER

This week's Four For Friday is a little different. As you may have noticed from my previous entry, Belicove.com is currently undergoing a server and content management system upgrade. Rather than risk this entry's comment link not working, this week--and for this week only--I kindly ask that you click over to my friend's Stu Lisonbee's, where this week's Four For Friday is posted with commenting enabled and open for your answers.

My apologies for the disruption. We should be back online and better than ever sometime next week.

Q1 - Big Oil, Big Spill: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this week to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to fishermen and other victims in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that ruined more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989. Exxon's position on the matter is that a ship's owner should not be "vicariously" liable for the reckless behavior of a captain, and that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident. Attorneys for the fishermen and other victims contend that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company knowingly put a drunk in charge of an oil tanker. What do you think? Based on what you just read or know from the longstanding case, should Exxon Mobil be made to pay the $2.5 billion in punitive damages?

Q2 - Racism: Do you think you could be friends with a racist?

Q3 - Criminal Background Checks: Most cities and towns have their fair share of controversy, but Eagle Mountain, Utah, seems to be a magnet for suspicious characters. Back in the late 1990's, voters learned that a candidate for Mayor had previously been convicted of tax fraud and served time in a minimum-security prison. In 2003, the town's Mayor told his police and his wife that he had been forced to drive to California at gunpoint. After learning he lied about the incident, police charged the then Mayor with filing a false report to police. Last year, Eagle Mountain's Mayor was charged with seven felony counts of misuse of public funds. Now, someone whose Real Estate license was recently pulled by the State of Utah over allegations of Real Estate Fraud is running for Mayor, and a sitting councilwoman was recently charged with a second-degree felony for apparently accepting a $10,000 gift without reporting it to the city. Do you think candidates for public office should be compelled to submit to criminal background checks, with the results of such checks made publicly available; or is a candidate's previous criminal prosecutions and adjudications no one else's business?

Q4 - Food: Can you eat something with a texture that is visually unappealing. What about food that smells bad but taste good?

Click Here to answer this week's questions!