Saturday, May 17, 2008

I host a Live trivia game with a fun, laid back atmosphere. Every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Come in for pub quizzes, prizes, and friendly people! Best of all it's FREE!
Win bar tabs! and Junk Food!!!
Prizes for 1st, 2nd and third place teams. Prizes for funniest team names and funniest wrong answers.

Trivia Night is three times a week at 8pm. At three locations in the upper west side, New York City. Different question at each place.

This is not The Greatest Trivia Night blog post n the World, no.
This is just a tribute.
I had written Worlds greatest Trivia Night post but it got deleted. Now I can't remember it.
So this is nothing like the greatest Trivia Night post in the world, alas it is but a tribute.
For if you had read the greatest Trivia Night blog post in the world, angels would appear before you and trumpets would sound. A gift would have been bestowed upon you for it was the greatest gift of all.
All you can do now is take my word for it for this is not the Greatest Trivia Night post in the World, no.
It is but a Tribute....

All places start at 8pm with totally different questions at each place.

Mondays at O'Connell's 2794 Broadway @ 108 street.

at 1020 Bar. 1020 Amsterdam Ave @ 110 street.

Wednesdays at the La Negrita 999 Columbus Ave @ 109 street.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 10, 2007

The Big Ass is here to stay

I read this article in the Village Voice via comment section from Alarming News .

I noticed the big ass trend a few years ago and it's nice to see other people have noticed it too.
I theorize that the big ass ideal started and is prevalent in racially mixed urban neighborhoods but has been expanding over time and is being emulated by the suburbs.
Not too long ago, like say 7 years ago. The big ass was a negative quality for most races. Men did not find it attractive and women avoided having a big ass or showing it off like the plague.
Then that all changed. The big ass is in now! Men of all races drool over a women with junk in the trunk and women are proud to have a big ass asset. I connect the progression of this trend with the rise in popularity of hip hop music/culture. And in racially mixed areas when a non-black guy has black guy friends and his black friends are loving the big ass the white guy will become culturally conditioned to see the big ass a positive. And when women noticed this, suddenly their dreaded big ass becomes their lovely lady hump.

I have not bought into the big ass trend and it just does not do it for me.
But I drive around the city with black and Hispanic guys all day and look at girls. I know many white and Asian guys who love the big ass. I have to wonder if they have always loved the big ass or they find it attractive now when they didn't 10 years ago.

I dated a girl with a nice normal sized ass but she longed to have a big ghetto booty. She joked about getting ass implants way too much that i started to wonder if she was joking.
I think the big ass trend for girls of all races is here to stay, at least in racially mixed urban areas. Hip hop music is here to stay and so is the big ass.

But let me tell all the girls out there that if you got a nice small perfectly shaped ass don't change it and make it ghetto! There are guys like me that will love your ass just the way it is.

Thursday, June 01, 2006


I host a trivia night every Tuesday and Wednesday at 8pm at the 1020 Bar on Tuesday located on the Corner of Amsterdam Ave and West 110 Street in Manhattan, NYC. and on Wednesdays at the La Negrita bar. Located on the corner of Columbus Ave and West 109 Street in Manhattan, New York City. All kinds of questions, interactive music and visual rounds. Win Prizes!
No Cover and Free to play!

Monday, February 13, 2006

I FINALLY remembered my blogger name and password.

I am back.

Saturday, September 03, 2005


The New Orleans cops who quit when their city needed them most are getting dumped on pretty hard. Before casting stones and judging them think about what drove them to give up the badge.
Cops are supposed to protect life, cops are only supposed to kill in order to protect life. They should not kill to protect property. Police Officers should not be asked to risk their own life to protect property. Yet, in New Orleans that is what they were ordered to do.

In the wake of Katrina, New Orleans descended into chaos and lawlessness. Armed thugs roamed the streets and looted. Many of these gun wielding animals probably were pre-hurricane criminals and hated the cops. Many people in poor neighborhoods hate cops. These same people in the post hurricane chaos had a perfect opportunity to kill a cop and get away with it. Especially if some cop tried to stop them from looting.

The cops never should have been ordered to halt their primary responsibility of protecting life and rescuing people. Cops should have been told to stop rapes, stop murders, prevent innocent people from getting assaulted. They should never been taken off that assignment and told to protect property by stopping the looting and go to war with armed bandits.

Most cops don't join the force because they want to kill people, they join because they want to protect life. They also don't join to get killed protecting a television.

If you want to go to war against the looters then send the military. Their job description is to kill people. The military is better equipped and has the man power and resources to do that job. Not the over-stretched, exhausted, emotionally drained local police force who has to deal with the trauma of seeing their city in ruins and have their own family and lives to worry about.

It's not exactly fair to compare the response of the NYPD to Septermber 11th to the disaster in New Orleans. The Officers on Sept 11th acted bravely to protect the lives of people who were under attack. They also would kill any terrorist who threatened the people of this city. This is what cops do. This is not the same type of job the NOPD was ordered to do.

The inspiration for this post was when Governor Blanco said something about shoot to kill to stop the looters.
This got me thinking that cops are trained NOT to kill to protect property, in fact a cop will probably get fired and go to jail if he/she did that. Also by shooting at looters the looters will shoot back and I didn't like the idea of cops dying for loot after initiating a kill or be killed shootout.
But it turns out the Governor was giving shoot to kill orders to the National Guard.
My argument to have the military do that job actually did happen.

Thursday, September 01, 2005


Sike. Nope, this has not happened but it possibly could in the near future. Here is the scenario.

A mega earthquake strikes San Francisco devastating the city. Buildings collapse, water and power is lost, fires burn out of control. Thousands dead. Highways and roads destroyed. Shell shocked survivors try to evacuate but highways are so damaged they are trapped. Rescue and disaster relief workers are seriously impeded by impassable highways denying them easy ground access to the city. Damaged impassable highways create logjams of cars filled with people trying to escape. Hundreds of thousands are trapped in the city and are forced to make a slow journey on foot to get out. Emergency aid can't get in the city and the population can't escape. Thousands more die as a result. And there's always the possibility of after shocks.

Jump back in time back to today. Imagine that San-Francisco has been receiving federal funding for the last 50 years to make their highways earthquake resistant. San-Francisco says it needs continued federal funds and requests even more money. President Bush ignores these pleas and instead severely cuts the projects funding.

Would you support Bush's action?

Would you defend Bush?

Would you defend Bush the same way that his funding reductions to New Orleans hurricane protection projects are being defended here?

Monday, August 08, 2005

$10,000 for a toilet seat

Government whistle blower tells her story.

somethings not Kosher.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

What do you think will happen to Karl Rove?

I've heard a lot of straw-man arguments feebly attempting to defend Karl Rove's role in the public outing of a CIA operatives identity. Before I pick apart these arguments let's re-cap the whole story.

Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger at the request of the CIA to investigate the possibilty that Niger illegally sold uranium to Iraq. After he completed his mission he reported his findings to the CIA. Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful that the transaction ever took place.

President Bush in his January 2003 State of the Union address repeated the charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

In response to Bush's speech Wilson wrote an op-ed piece
in the NY Times questioning if the Bush administration was selectively choosing intelligence that supported their case to go to war with Iraq.

As a result of Wilson's public questioning of the Bush administration, columnist Robert Novak wrote a syndicated column that reported a senior administration official told him that Joe Wilsons wife, Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and this had been confirmed by another senior administration official.

It was at this point that the ---- hit the fan. You see it's a crime to intentionally blow a CIA operatives cover to anyone not authorized to receive classified information. Not to mention it's completely unethical for a whole host of reasons.

Wilson claimed it was Karl Rove who leaked the information to the media. Karl Rove denied he was the leak and President Bush stated he would fire anyone in his administration tied to the outing of Valerie Plame.

This brings us to the current situation. It is now known that Karl Rove was one of the two sources that leaked Plame's covert identity to Novak.
We now learn that not only did Rove confirm Mr Wilsons wife's true occupation to Novak but he also blew her cover to reporter Matt Cooper from Time Magazine.
Hello, these are reporters he is talking to! Not the best people to talk about the identity of CIA operatives with. He is either stupid or maliciously conniving. Since i don't think he is stupid it leaves the latter. If he acted intentionally and was hoping not to get caught then at the least Bush should keep his word and he should be fired and at the most criminally prosecuted.

Now on to the debunking the Rove defending arguments.

1. His wife's name was not secret it's on his bio:
Big deal, what kind of smoke and mirrors argument is this? His bio does NOT say she works for the CIA. CIA employees are allowed to get married. They are allowed to keep there real names. Once again, is this really an argument or a way to hoodwink the stupid and lazy?

2. Wilson claims VP Cheney sent him to Niger but he is lying because Cheney did not:
Read Wilsons article he never claims Cheney personally sent him.

3. He is a partisan democratic hack:
He worked for Bush Sr and voted for Bush Sr in both elections. Read article about Wilson's political leanings.

4. Rove defenders are using the dubios argument that Rove's outing of Wilson's wife to the media was an off-handed remark made during casual conversation:
Do you really think that Rove is that absent minded, irresponsible and downright stupid? Do you think the American public is dumb enough to believe this excuse? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know it's common sence to not talk about the true identity of CIA Operatives, especially with a reporter. Somone in Karl Roves position in government has no excuse to not know something as basic as this.

Robert Novak claims he did not out Plame in his column in order to punish Joe Wilson and intimidate other government empoyees that may dare question the administrations use of evidence/intelligence regarding Iraqs WMD. Yet, it appears Novak, intent on outing Plame needed to find a way to make Plames true occupation somehow relevant to his article. To insert this information into his column Novak created a false pretense to justify disclosing her identity as a CIA Operative.
The false pretense - Joe Wilson was an "incredible" choice to investigate the Iraq/Niger uranium deal. The reason he got the job was because of his wife's CIA job. Anyone who knows anything about Wilsons background knows calling him unqualified for the job is absurd and calling him a partisan hack is ludicrous. Using the false pretense Novak was able to force the info on Plame into his article. Mission accomplished Bob.

Novaks behavior is even more reprehensible because he admits he contacted the CIA and was told by the CIA not to out their operative. He went ahead and published his syndicated column anyway.

Hypothetically, even if it were true that Wilson only got the job because of his wife. That is still no excuse to blow an agents cover in the national media. Novak simply could have stated that Wilson got the job because he knew the right people (he had a "hook" as we say in the NYPD).
Clearly Novak had an agenda.

Lastly, Karl Rove told at least one other reporter about Plames status. Another reporter who is currently in jail for refusing to reveal her source also learned of Plames CIA employment. These two reporters had the common sence, patriotic obligation, and ethical judgement not to use the information about Plame they dubiously became privy to.
Too bad Novak doesn't share their integrity.

Here is a good article in todays Washington post that has background info and the latest events.

Friday, May 06, 2005


Here is a test I created to measure just how libertarian you are. I think that many libertarians but not all of course, don't realize how much government does and is neccessary.

Answer the following with a "yes" or a "no". "yes" if you believe that the function, agency or service is needed at the government level and "no" if you feel that it is not.
If you want, give reasons and alternatives.

One final question. How much seperates an extreme libertarian from an anarchist?

******UPDATE UPDATE**********
Instead of answering simply "yes" or "no" think about if they should be:

1. NEA and state arts division
2. National Parks
3. State Parks
3. U.S. Forest Service
4. Animal Control (dog catcher)
5. FDA (health inspectors, drug approvers)
6. EPA (environmental laws, regulations)
7. Highway and roads
8. Child Services (childrens welfare, protection, state custody)
9. Services for adult mentally retarded (the state taking care of retards)
10. FCC
11. Librarys
12. Public Schools
13. Abortion laws
14. Civil Courts
15. Criminal Courts
16. Federal Military
17. State Military
18. Income Taxes
19. FAA (air traffic controllers)
20. Major public works (dams)
21. Youth Centers, public pools
22. Peace Corps
23. Police Force
24. Fire Departments
25. Welfare, public housing, food stamps.
26. Social Security
27. Medicare
28. Medicaid
29. Drug Enforcement
30. Border Patrol
31. Immigration services
32. Sales Taxes
33. Property Taxes
34. Gun Laws (restrictions)
35. Restaurant health inspectors
35. Safety Inspectors (amusement park rides, elevators)
36. Fire inspectors (capacity rules, number of exits...)
37. Public Transportation.
38. American Disability Act (providing access for wheel chairs)
39. Foreign Aid
40. Homeless shelters
41. Vehicle safety regulations, inspection, car registration, car insurance requirement.
42. OSHA (Labor Occupational Safety and Health Organization)
43. All criminal laws
44. Laws regulating sex between consenting adults
45. Marriage as a goverment identified status
46. Laws regulating what marriage is between who
47. Affirmative action
48. Funding for Museums
49. Center for Disease Control
50. Public Service Campaigns (don't smoke, don't drink and drive, say not to drugs, give a hoot don't pollute, Smokey the Bear and Woodsy the Owl)

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The CATCH 22 of "Police harassment"
Here is a good story from patrol last night. It's 3am in front of the Amsterdam Housing Projects. A man has just been assaulted by two other men. The two suspects flee in different directions. The police get the description of the two perps and my partner and I start canvassing the area. The Hispanic perp gets picked up by another unit and is arrested. I'm still looking for the other one with the simple description of black male, 5'8", black coat, black ski cap. It's midweek and 3am so the streets are pretty much deserted (by Manhattan standards).

We spot a guy perfectly matching the description so we stop him, we explain the reason we stopped him and give him a quick pat down. All the while he is complaining about "police harassment" yadayadyayada. We let him listen to the radio transmission of the perps description so he can hear for himself that he matches. He continues to bitch anyway (this happens most the time). We put over the radio that we need a "show up", this is when they bring the victim to our location so he can make a positive or negative ID. While we are waiting for the show up, another guy who perfectly matches the description is walking by. I'm thinking to myself, this probably isn't our guy or he wouldn't be walking right by 2 cops but at the same time I'm thinking if I don't stop the new guy then the guy we already stopped will start whining about why we didn't stop him because he matches the description too. So I take pre-emptive action and stop the new guy. And who knows, maybe he is is our perp (criminals can be really stupid). He instantly starts complaining about "police harassment".

So while these two guys are whining in chorus, a third guy walks by. Of course he's also around 5'8", black male, wearing a black coat and black ski cap. Mind you, these are the only 3 people that walked by the entire time. So now we got three guys stopped. And all 3 are going on about police harassment. One guy saw the assault take place and another guy saw the victim talking to the police. They heard the description over the radio and they all acknowledge that they match the description. It's not like we are making this stuff up just so we can harass them, and they know it. In the end, the show up had negative results and all 3 were free to leave. We had all come to the conclusion that if you don't want to be stopped by the police then don't wear a black coat and black ski cap.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

I'm going to own a "Mansion"!!
I found out I am going to have to pay a "mansion" tax on the co-op I'm buying. Just another one of NYC's endless taxes. What's ridiculous is that any property bought for over 100,000 has to pay the tax. 100,000 won't buy you a shoe box sized ghetto apt. in a bad neighborhood in Manhattan. Luckily I'm moving to queens so my "Mansion" will be a big shoe box in a nice neighborhood.

Friday, March 25, 2005

The Moral Hypocrisy is Breath Taking (literally)

So the President Bush of today who has shown such concern over keeping Terri Schiavo alive is the same man as Texas Governer Bush who in 1999 signed a Texas Bill into Law that allowed Hospitals to terminate life support OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the patients family. Abiltity to pay for care seems to be the central issue for Bush's moral flip flop. A few days ago a baby was taken off life support against the mothers wishes, under Bush's Texas law. Is this what they call compassionate conservatism?
Republicans are also using the Schiavo tragedy for political gain.
Digby writes:
By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday. Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far. Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming. And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative. Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

Now Read All About It. 5 seperate links.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?