I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it.

Gives new meaning to the term "moving day."

I need to make my March Madness picks now that the brackets are out. One more opportunity for me to match my extreme competitiveness with my total lack of skill at all things associated with sport.

I spent several hours today cleaning a house after the renters skipped. I don't know how long they've been gone but if the food (?) I found in the fridge is any indication it was sometime in 2006. I don't think some of those packages originally contained liquids. The whole house reeked from what was in there.
I cleaned the fridge, patched a big hole in one wall and mopped floors. I still have to shampoo carpets, fix a toilet and texture/paint that patch.
It's a great house. It started out as a very basic 3 bedroom, 2 bath ranch north of town in what they call "horse country" here. But Cheryle's son-in-law, Mike, did a great remodel! He extended one end of the house and put on a master suite to die for. The new master bath is the size of a small house, and gorgeous. He also opened up the kitchen and extended the living area, put beautiful tile in both, and added a fireplace. The house sits on about an acre that could be very nicely landscaped and has a small outbuilding.
Cheryle said the place is likely headed for foreclosure. Somebody will get a great deal.

The outrage in D.C. over the bonuses being paid to AIG execs made it into every news broadcast I heard today, plus two NPR programs. Pres. Obama and members of Congress are furious that after receiving $173 billion in bailout funds AIG is still going to pay $165 million in executive bonuses.
AIG argues that the bonuses are required under terms of the contracts they entered into with those execs, and to fail to pay those bonuses would only expose the company to lawsuits that would increase the amount they'd have to pay out. Further, these contracts were signed well before they received any bailout money.
What I didn't hear, amidst all the righteous indignation, was any suggestion from the President or members of Congress that they should have done a better job of specifying the terms and conditions for the use of the $173 billion they handed over to AIG. It seems reasonable, especially for those at the highest level of govt., to think about that kind of thing before writing a check that size. Parents quickly learn that if you don't spell out the conditions before you give your kid money you can't complain when he spends it all on comic books.
If you get caught with egg on your face one option is to scream and yell about somebody else's screw-up. Diverts attention from your own stupidity.

What do the letters DNA stand for?
National Dyslexics Association.

We watched "Kings" last night on NBC. TIME mag gave it a decent review, and last night's movie was the premier of what will be a weekly series, so we gave it a try.
I didn't realize going in that the movie/show is a re-setting of the OT story of Saul and David. If you didn't see it I won't try to describe their version, but think of a major contemporary city in a country very much like the U.S., the kingdom at war with its neighbor, and a monarch feeling threatened by a young soldier who proved himself a hero on the battlefied. Oh yeah, the king's son is a closet homosexual, his daughter - falling in love with the hero - is a social liberal, and his brother-in-law runs an arms firm that makes money so long as the war rages on.
I thought the show was reasonably entertaining. They weren't going for total believability; at least I hope not. But as long as we didn't pay too much attention to details it made for an entertaining diversion.

But not long after the show was done I got to thinking about the plot line, where it came from and how I felt about that. I decided I have a problem with "Kings."

Don't mean to sound sanctimonius, but I'm not comfortable with taking those kinds of liberties with biblical narratives. I know what some of you are thinking: "What about Charlton Heston and The Exodus?" But that movie, and a couple of others from the same era, tried to be generally true to the Bible. Yes, they filled in some blanks, and that drives preachers/teachers crazy because people assume their supplied details are biblical. (The angle of death was not a fog that rolled along the ground.) Nonetheless, the goal seems to have been to take the biblical narrative and present it visually.
The goal with Kings seems considerably different. The biblical story seems to be more of a premise than a basis. Jonathan was not gay, David was not really a coward, there was no military industrial complex and David didn't shack up with Saul's daughter. Whereas The Exodus set the story in the 15th century B.C. (men in bathrobes riding camels), Kings is set in contemporary times with PDA's and Bentleys.
In other words, the writers of Kings decided the book of 1 Samuel presented a good plot line that could make for juicey TV with updating and tweaking. Take the basic characters and plot line, add in some sex, some alcohol, some corrupt business, more sex (this time homosexual), and, just for good measure, more sex (Saul and his secretary) and this might get some decent Nielson ratings.
No, I'm not naive. The producers of The Exodus wanted to make a ton of money from that movie, and they did. Had they decided setting the story in 1960's Boston would make them more money they probably would have done that. So why didn't they?
I suspect it's because they knew it would not fly with the American public. The outrage would have been quick and severe.
What does that tell you about the producers of Kings? Or the American public these days?