Well, at least they admit they're trying to control the flow of information

I think I've seen this in a movie somewhere before...

Ideas for the new strategy began percolating in 2005 when the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of foundation officials and big donors, met and shared their complaints about higher education. A few months earlier, Mr. Piereson wrote an article in the roundtable’s magazine warning donors not to endow university programs or faculty chairs. “Once the endowment check is written, the donor loses all control over the program he has funded,” he advised.

Conservatives have begun to realize, said Peter Wood, the executive director of the scholars’ association, that their contributions to colleges and universities frequently pay for what they see as left-leaning academic programs that run counter to their world views.

Instead of making no-strings-attached donations, he said, conservatives started asking “ought there not be some way that we could reach the donors and convince them that their donations to higher education could be more wisely spent?”

"Gee, University of Leftism, you sure do have a nice curriculum here. It would be a shame if anything were to...happen to it. You catch my meaning? What's say you leave a door open two nights a week so my friend here, "AMERICA: FUCK YEAH" can come in and educate some of your students? What do you say? We're prepared to donate some resources to help you come to the right decision. It would sadden us greatly if we couldn't come to some understanding on this. I would hate to have to throw my support to that other University across the street. I like you, kid. I don't want to have to do that."

Fuck yooooouuuuu Buy.com!!!!

I nearly choked when I saw this come up in my e-mail.

As it happens, I was transferring files off my computer last night and I ran into a little snag: my 500 GB external hard drive was full. I deleted a few seasons worth of shows I didn't need to watch again (or that I had purchased in the interim or that darkling1 had). But full! Jesus. I have my old hard drive, and my 320GB portable one is still going strong...

BUT 1 TB!!!!! It's a good thing I have this irrational bias for Western Digital or I would have had a heart attack when I scrolled down to this.

I think they're onto me at Buy.com. I seem to get an awful lot of my daily e-mail taken up with digital storage options. In the same e-mail, I was told about this, which I still want despite the fact that this was supposed to take care of my travel-storage needs. (But the new one is so small.) And now that I'm using a 2GB SD card to watch things on my portable DVD player, this sort of thing (and this) have suddenly been added to the mix.

Buy.com, don't you know my kitty was ill? I can't afford to be tempted like this. Especially not as I'm of this particularly unfortunate mindset where this sort of ridiculous, needless purchase isn't tempting except in moments where I've already tossed that much or more out the window. (Damn you, kitty bladder obstruction! YOU ARE SAPPING MY WILL POWER!!!) I can resist anything until I've already spent as much or more on an expense that I couldn't help. (taxes, vet stuff, rent...)

Cart before the horse, at least according to a guy schilling to the rich

It's not that he's arguing that he should be given unimpeachable, god-like powers over $1 trillion of the federal government's money. It's that the economy requires him to request unimpeachable god-like powers with no oversight or restrictions on the people who benefit from his largesse:

Under a so-called claw-back provision, the secretary would have the power to force companies to recoup previous payments to executives of companies involved in the program. And Mr. Frank’s plan would give broad authority for the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to audit and oversee the program.

But Mr. Paulson said that he was concerned that imposing limits on the compensation of executives could discourage companies from participating in the program.

“If we design it so it’s punitive and so institutions aren’t going to participate, this won’t work the way we need it to work,” Mr. Paulson said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Let’s talk about executive salaries. There have been excesses there. I agree with the American people. Pay should be for performance, not for failure.”

But he quickly added: “But we need this system to work, and so we — the reforms need to come afterwards.”

Because why should we reform before entrusting $700 billion to the greedy bastards who've already lost just about as much on their shady pyramid scheme? They've learned their lesson! The lesson was: Mess up badly, get punished. Mess up badly enough, and Mommy will fix everything for you. Yes, giving them close to $1 trillion and sending them off to play again without specific instructions on how not to beat the shit out of the weaker kids on the playground is a great idea.

Mr. Paulson does know that Treasury Secretary is not a president-for-life sort of deal, right? He is probably being replaced no matter who wins the election. Also? His previous bailouts have not forestalled this one being necessary. So much for bailout then reform.

Curiouser and curiouser

More details about the brou-ha-ha over the Watchmen fiasco.

What seems significant is that Warner didn't inherit the project directly from the producer as he left Fox. It got shopped through at least two other studios who held onto it for a while and then shuffled it off. Notably, the niggling detail that the producer in question says means Fox has no case (and which they use as the basis for their case) was not passed on in the materials.

It looks like it worked out like this: Person A sold something to Studio B, who wanted to be involved whenever Person A's company made the product. Person A, through various job changes, kept the product through his involvements with Production Companies C-and-later-D with the blessing of Studio B. Studio B claims "blessing" is a strong word; they still were to be included regardless of which Studio (E, F, G, or H) eventually rolled out said product. Person A says this is bullshit; Studio B gave up all rights in the deal when it shifted from Production Company C to D.

Person A then got into business with Studio E with the intention of making the product. Somewhere in their deal, Studio E, either because they didn't do their homework or because Person A and/or Studio B didn't inform them properly, lost the paperwork that said Studio B still had rights to the product. When Studio E sent Person A and product packing to Studio F, they couldn't send on the document to show one way or another that Studio B was ever involved because they didn't have it themselves. Studio F, in turn passed on all the documentation minus this one, very important piece to Studio G.

Suddenly, Studio G has actually rolled out the product and Studio B is hopping mad that they presumed to produce something they didn't have rights to and that they didn't/couldn't have known they didn't entirely own because Studios E and F didn't provide that information.

I don't think that helped me, actually.

Lawyers out there, riddle me this: the paperwork to prove Fox's case was not provided to one of the studios in a chain that lined up to purchase it. The studio that made the product, Warner, did not have a document it couldn't really have known that it needed to have because it wasn't included in the previous two legal changes of hands. Is Warner liable regardless?

Gee, I wonder who the inductees will be?

Known: Artists are eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twenty-five years after the release of their first single or album.

Known: Nine nominees for this year's class were announced. They were, in no particular, hey why not make it alphabetical order: Jeff Beck, Chic, Wanda Jackson, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Metallica, Run-DMC, The Stooges, War, and Bobby Womack

Known: Five inductees are selected each year.

Unknown: The three final inductees, because...

Given: Metallica and Run-DMC will be inducted this year.

My picks for the other three: Definitely War, maybe The Stooges, and the last slot is a three-way wild card/condolence prize to either Jeff Beck, Little Anthony and the Imperials, or Bobby Womack. Iggy's shadow looms too large for The Stooges to be overlooked, War should be a given, but the last three either already have been inducted (Jeff Beck) or are just runners-up generally. The fact that they couldn't find better recommendations for Chic than their disco hit "Le Freak" says that Chic's got a wait ahead of them. Wanda Jackson doesn't have even one song listed with her article entry, nor any notable chart-topping habits.

::adopts Skwisgar voice::

BUT OH MY FUCKING GOD ARE YOU KIDDINK WITHS ME!?! Hows could Metallica nots be in this Fame Halls thing?

No, seriously, there's no way Metallica isn't going in. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're pretty much what people think of when they think of Rock, which is a lot more than you can say for some of the other acts. Run-DMC's influence is strong enough that that will carry them. Too bad Jam Master Jay isn't around to see it.