Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Sneaky, Ninja Cat

I'm a sucker for funny pet-related videos. Watch the cat. The cat only moves when the camera is not on him/her:

Monday, December 29, 2008

Prank Call: I Don't Know If It's the Best But It's Pretty Good

And the Republicans Wonder Why Minorities Don't Support Them

Or, alternate title, the RNC tries to offend everyone. (cover of the album above)

For a party that claims they're attempting to reach out to minorities they sure have a funny way of showing it. Chip Saltsman, Huckabee's former campaign manager and candidate for the RNC chairpersonship, sent the above "parody" (depends on what you think is funny) music album to RNC members. Here's the track list:

Track Listings
1. Blazing Liberal -
Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
2. The Justice Brothers - Paul Shanklin,
3. We Hate the USA - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
4. Al Gore's Norwegian Moose Research - Paul Shanklin,
5. Hillary Clinton Dialect System - Paul Shanklin,
6. I Can Talk Like a Cola Miner's Daughter - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
7. Message from Kim Jung II - Paul Shanklin,
8. California Spanking Psa - Paul Shanklin,
9. Stand - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
10. Your Momma's So Fat - Paul Shanklin,
11. Obama - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
Hillaryclinton.com - Paul Shanklin,
13. Down on the Farm with al Gore - Paul Shanklin,
14. Ball of Fire - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
15. Paul Shanklin Interview on C-Spam - Paul Shanklin,
16. David Ehrenstein's "Barack the Magic Negro" - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
17. Citizen McCain - Paul Shanklin,
18. John Edward's Poverty Tour - Paul Shanklin,
19. I Am Woman - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
20. Pelosi vs. Sheehan - Paul Shanklin,
21. Obama Apology - Paul Shanklin,
22. Wright Place, Wrong Pastor - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
23. Trent Lott - Paul Shanklin,
24. Osama Audio Translation - Paul Shanklin,
25. Mister Tan Marine Man - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
26. Bank of Amigo - Paul Shanklin,
27. The Party of Love - Paul Shanklin,
28. Love Client #9 - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
29. The Justice Brothers "Duke Lacrosse" - Paul Shanklin,
30. McCain and the Old Gray Lady - Paul Shanklin,
31. If You Don't Know Me by Now - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
32. Where Have All the Conservatives Gone? - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
33. The Justice Brothers "Broadcast Insurance" - Paul Shanklin,
34. U Can't Say That - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
35. Simplify Your Life - Paul Shanklin,
36. I Started a Joke - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul
37. Your Momma's Still Fat - Paul Shanklin,
38. 3 A.M. - Paul Shanklin,
39. Ivory and Ebony - Paul Shanklin,
Shanklin, Paul
40. Dr. Phil - Paul Shanklin,
41. The Star-Spanglish Banner - Paul Shanklin, Shanklin, Paul

It's the RNC members that will determine who the next chairperson of the RNC is. This album, and who sent it to who, has raised the ire of minority groups. Songs such as, "Barack the Magic Negro" and "The Star Spanglish Banner" haven't sat well with certain people. Surprise, surprise.

Two troubling things about what has transpired: 1) A candidate for the RNC chairpersonship would send it and 2) A candidate for the RNC chairpersonship thinks the RNC membership would like this album and help sway votes his way.

Again, for a party supposedly trying to build a more diverse party, they sure have a weird way of showing it. I wonder, how many minority RNC members thought this gift was funny? I also wonder, how many minority RNC members are there?

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Nazi Movies Don't Play In The USA On Christmas

Or, alternate title, movies about Nazis are especially bad when the bad guy doesn't die

So, Tom Cruise's big blockbuster, "Valkyrie" is coming out. Tom Cruise's character unsuccessfully attempts to kill Hitler. Doesn't that sound like Christmas fun to you? Yeah, me neither. Here is, in my opinion, why it's going to fail miserably:

1) It's coming out on Christmas

2) It's about Nazis

3) They actually sent Tom Cruise out to promote the movie

4) It's about Nazis

5) The "hero" in the movie works for Nazis

6) It's mostly about Nazis

7) They've advertised like crazy (seriously, we get it, he tried to kill Hitler)

8) We all know that Tom Cruise's character failed to kill Hitler in 1944. Even had his character killed Hitler it would not have been in time to stop the vast majority of the atrocities committed by the third reich. (by the way, whoever the hell that guy was, played by Tom Cruise, do you know his name now? Yeah, maybe you would. But, guess what, he didn't succeed. That's why you don't and won't know his name.)

9) Most folks like to go to movies with friends, family and children. People go to movies on Christmas for fun and the last thing you'd go to see is a movie about a failed plot to kill Hitler, unless you're a weirdo.

10) Oh, by the way did I mention it's about Nazis and Nazi Germany

Those are the reasons I think the movie is not going to do well. Let me know if you choose to go see it on Christmas day. Happy Holidays.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Dramatic Chipmunk Turn

I know it's been around for a while but, I thought I had posted it already. It makes me smile every time. Here it is:

Monday, December 22, 2008

Our Pets #15: Gilda & Cat Litter, Part III

An Example of Why I Don't Like Insurance Companies Sometimes

Or, alternate title, make sure to read the fine print when you're signing a deal with the devil

Below is a link to a news story that is all too familiar for folks that do business with or against insurance companies. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that all insurance companies are bad or that the people that work for them are evil, just like I don't think that every plaintiff's attorney is a saint. Insurance companies and plaintiffs' attorneys are in it to make money. However, it's stories like these that make me wonder how plaintiffs'/trial attorneys are looked down upon but insurance companies, at least to some, are on the people's side. Also, this type of story illustrates why it's not a bad idea to retain an attorney when you have to make certain types of claims against insurance companies whether you are the injured party or the party that purchased the insurance policy.

Here's the background: Three people were killed in a Houston office fire in 2007. The three families of the victims hired an attorney and sued, presumably the office building owner (side note: in Texas you don't sue the insurance company directly, you sue the person or entity that is insured. In fact you will never hear the word "insurance" in front of a jury in a personal injury/wrongful death trial because saying "insurance" in front of a jury would make the jury more inclined to give more and larger awards to plaintiffs, at least that's what insurance companies argue, and that's the argument they've successfully used to convince the Texas legislature and courts). The building owner had insurance with Great American Insurance Company. In this instance, the insurance company has stepped in (the article doesn't say but, probably by filing a declaratory action). Below is an excerpt from the article detailing the relief that the insurance company is seeking:

Great American Insurance Co. has asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal in Houston to rule that the deaths caused by the smoke, fumes and soot will not be covered by the policy because there is a specific exclusion for pollution and it mentions smoke, fumes and soot.

You see, the people that perished in the fire did not burn to death. They died of smoke inhalation. The policy that the building owner signed with Great American specifically excludes coverage for deaths caused by smoke, fumes and soot. If the judge goes by the letter of the policy the judge will likely have to rule for the insurance company if the policy does indeed exclude coverage for deaths caused by such injuries. The problem is most people, even office building owners, don't know what is covered in the insurance policies they sign and pay for. Moreover, two parties to a contract, even if it's Joe Buildingowner and Big Insurance, are deemed to have read and understood a contract when they sign it. In this instance the building owner was sold "fire" coverage. The building owner probably didn't read the fine print and just assumed that the policy covered any and all deaths and injuries caused by any future fire. Of course, you know what happens when one "assumes". Is it right that this building owner thought there was coverage? Is it right the Great American sold the building owner "fire" coverage knowing full well that this exclusion existed its policy? Is it right that the building owner would be left holding the bag if the court goes Great American's way? Of course I don't think it's right. I think it should be against public policy to let insurance companies write policies like this that cover "fires" but don't really cover things associated with fires. But it's not up to me, it's up to a federal judge for now. And even if this judge rules against Great American is there any doubt that Great American would appeal? And why wouldn't Great American appeal an adverse ruling. They have nothing to lose and all to gain by having a court rule that these types of policies are OK. It's just the policy holders and those that are hurt that have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

Thursday, December 11, 2008


Just in case you haven't heard of them, here's a couple of their songs from their HBO series. Funny and good music. They're second season on HBO should be starting soon. I believe the first season is out on DVD and the album is on itunes.

First, "Business Time":

Here's a live performance of "The Humans Are Dead":

The New York Times Needs To Be Bought By Google To Survive? Maybe.

Or, alternate title, "Extra! Extra! Dateline December 11, 2008, Print Media Discovers New Phenomenon Called the Internet!"

For years a good friend has been pointing out the dead-end road the traditional print media is on. Apparently, some media types, such as the New York Times, are starting to look at their circulation numbers, balance sheets, and real worth of their traditional media companies and see the end of the road too.  They're worried, and for good reason.  Below is a link to an article that points out the obvious problems papers, like the NYT's, are facing.  The solution?  Sell to a Google-type company.  Of course there's only one Google-type company, Google.  So sale options are limited.  Good for the buyer/Google, bad for the seller/ the Old Grey Lady.  

Plus, I just heard today that NewsWeek is cutting jobs and may cut number of pages per issue.  The print media survived the invention of the TV and some print-media-honchos probably thought they could survive this whole crazy, computer, internets, world wide web thingy too without significantly changing their business model. Whoops. 

They'll tell you that they have changed their business models and point to their online content for example.  The key word in the phrase, "signifcantly changing their business model," is "signifcantly".  All the traditional print media types have online content but they're also still losing money hand over fist.  So now we'll see what happens to the traditional print media.  It should be interesting. 

Our Pets #8: Cindy Did It!

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Coldplay Rips Off(Allegedly) Small Brooklyn Band Called "Creaky Boards"???

Creaky Boards released their song in 2007 before Coldplays' "Vida La Vida", which was released in 2008:

One problem for Creaky Boards and Coldplay though, Joe Satriani released his instrumental, "If I Could Fly" in 2004. Whoops.

Why is this of note? This could turn into a nasty lawsuit with millions of dollars at stake. Just ask the Verve what happened when they sampled, "too much," of a Rolling Stones song, even though the Verve had been given permission ahead of releasing "Bittersweat Symphony" to sample part of the Stones song, "The Last Time".

Artilce on Coldplay vs. Creaky Boards:

Article on Coldplay vs. Joe Satriani:

Texas Supreme Court Justice Hecht's (Alleged) Illegal Campaign Contributions

Or alternate title, "I, Nathan Hecht, swear to uphold the law, except when it applies to collecting contributions for my own campaign or legal defense."

Justice Hecht, of the Texas Supreme Court, has been fined for violating camapaign contribution/fundraising laws. This all stems from him throwing all his weight behind W.'s soon-to-be-doomed U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers (good judgement shown there by Justice Hecht). The Texas State Commmission on Judicial Conduct determined that Hecht had violated ethics cannons by using his judicial office to promote a candidate and/or abused his position. What did Hecht do? He lawyered up and got help from the biggest law firms and PAC's in Texas (Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts and the firm where Miers landed after leaving Washington, now Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, Hillco PAC, funded largely by home builder Bob Perry, and Texans for Lawsuit Reform, backed by Big Insurance) to fight the Commission's findings. Why did these heavy hitters help him out? Maybe because the Republican Texas Supreme Court votes for Insurance and Big Business over 85% of the time in cases before it. And maybe these big firms and PAC's service Big Insurance and Big Business. That's just a guess.

Hecht and his team of lawyers got the Commission's ethics decision overturned. But, in doing so Hecht demonstrated more bad judgement. Hecht received this help with his legal battle at a signifcant discount. How significant you ask? Over $150,000.00 in discounts. Moreover, in soliciting help from these big firms and PAC's, Hecht wrote a letter (never put your solicitation for free help in writing!) that read that the discounted help would be an, ""in-kind contribution", to his campaign. But, then Hecht didn't report the massive discount in his legal bills as a campaign contribution. And that's not allowed. The Texas Campaign Ethics Commission fined him $29,000.00 over the illegal campaign contributions.

What's Hecht going to do now? Pay it? Ha! Yeah, right. I don't know for sure but, I expect him, true to form, to lawyer up and fight this fine (by the way a $29,000.00 for over $150,000.00 in illegal campaign contributions? Sounds like a profit thing to me). Why shouldn't he fight it? He has a stable of lawyers ready and who is going to hear his appeal? Oh, that's right, more Republican judges that owe their bread and butter to Big Insurance and Big Business. Again though, that's just a guess.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Gov. Blagojevich: A Senate seat: “is a f***ing valuable thing."

Or alternate title, Gov. Blagojevich would have fit right in with Boss Tweed

Gov. Blagojevich is governor of Illinois and as such would have been the one to appoint President-Elect Obama's replacement to the U.S. Senate (he still could if he doesn't resign or is impeached but, it's doubtful he will in this atmosphere). However, Gov. Blagojevich has been arrested because he was seeking value for that appointment. By, the way, the quote in the title to this post is an actual quote from the Governor that was caught on tape. Oh, there are some more quotes from the Governor. For example, he was also caught on tape saying, “Unless I get something real good [for Senate candidate 1], s***, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying.” Way to go Governor. Obama was still one day from being elected when these comments by the Governor were taped. Wow.


Monday, December 8, 2008


Or alternate title, didn't we beat that team?

So the BCS rankings are official and UT is 3rd. OU is number 2. What is frustrating and confusing by these rankings is that UT beat OU, head to head, on a neutral field. Furthermore, it's not just the computer-created BCS poll that's out of whack. The BCS takes into account, I believe, the coaches and AP polls. But look at both of those and UT is behind a team it beat. Especially frustrating is the AP poll where OU is #1 even though in that same poll staring up is UT at #3. Again, UT BEAT OU, ON A NEUTRAL FIELD, ON NATIONAL TV! What's so hard in ranking UT ahead of OU?

Don't give me the Texas Tech argument either. OU fans will point out that UT lost to Tech and OU beat them badly. First, UT lost at Tech. OU was at home when they beat Tech. Second, and most importantly, you only use and consider such rankings arguments when the two teams you're trying to rank never played. But, wait UT and OU played, so you know who's better by looking at their play against each other on the field. There is no need to extrapolate how they would compare because they had never faced each other. Again, UT beat OU, heads up.

Another frustrating component to this whole thing is that UT and UT fans had to watch two teams play in the Big 12 championship that UT had beaten on the field in the regular season.

Every other division of college football has a playoff, so should the highest? Coaches say the extra games will hurt their student-athletes in the classroom. Besides that being funny, college student-athletes that play football in lower divisions handle it fine. Also, basketball players handle it fine and they play a boatload more games than football players.

More on basketball compared to football in relation to the argument that a playoff would make the regular football season meaningless. College football "purists" say that the bowl system is great if only because that's they way it's always been. Each regular season game is a playoff and a post season playoff will make the college football regular season meaningless. That is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. No one is advocating a college football 64 team playoff so, not every big program will make the playoff. What people are advocating is usually an 8 team playoff. So, guess what, it would be a race to land in the top 8 by the end of the season. Then, the argument would be between those teams ranked 8-11, for example. This season, it would be between Penn State, Tech, Ohio State, Boise State, and TCU. There would still be an argument but at least it would be farther on down the rankings.

Anyone else ready for a playoff? And what if OU beats Florida? UT will have beaten the "National Champion"? Does that make a sense to anyone? Of course OU will likely lose to Florida and OU will have choked away another chance at National Championship handed to them on a silver platter. Hook 'em.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

New SNL Digital Short - J!zz in My Pants

Andy Samberg's comedy group, The Lonely Island, debuted this video as an SNL digital short. Funny. Their album comes out in Feb. 2009:

Monday, December 1, 2008

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism In Texas

Or alternate title, let's teach our children by showing them "Land of the Lost"

Or second alternate title, what if I believe that part of our intelligent design involves Galactus?

I am proud to be a Texan.  But seriously, some folks make it hard.  In Austin Governor Perry and his religious right supporters are trying to push intelligent design/creationism through the State Board of Education and have it part of every child's public school curriculum.  Where should we start?

First, what is scary is that Perry put Don McLeroy in charge of the state education board. McLeroy believes in a literal reading of the bible which is, from a public policy perspective, dangerous and scary for numerous reasons. Most bible literalists are (1) anti-gay and (2) believe the earth is about 6 thousand years old. Why is it dangerous to have a bible literalist in a public policy decision-making position besides those two above reasons?  Because if a person is really a bible literalist they should believe the following too: (1) that slavery is OK because it was in the bible and (2) that people's lifespans have decreased dramatically since people around the time of Moses lived hundreds of years.  Bible literalists forget that their English language bible was translated from other languages and that at least some of it, if not all of it, are stories, allegories, arguably not to be taken literally.  They also forget that men, not a deity, decided what went in the bible and what should be left out at a little meeting called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, not a lot of the guys at that meeting spoke the Queen's English.  

Let's take bible literalism to its logical conclusion.  If the earth is, according to a bible literalist, about 6,000 years old and most literalists believe that people lived and walked among dinosaurs, then, why don't we just show the kiddos re-runs of "Land of the Lost".  "Land of the Lost" can be termed a re-creation of our ancestors walking among dinosaurs.  I'm being facetious, kind of.  If you begin teaching this stuff there are questions kids are going to ask and the logical answer to those questions leads to talks about religion and a deity or deities.  

For example, no matter what anyone says, we have some semblance of separation between church and state.  We do not teach that there is a great designer/creator to or behind our existence for a reason.  If we did then the next question to be asked is who or what that designer/creator is.  The religious right will tell you that it's their version of their deity.  Well, that's great for them.  What if someone wants to teach their kid about their own version of a deity. Oh wait, that's why we have freedom of and from religion and we all get to choose which church we go to or if we go to church at all.  If the religious right wants to teach about intelligent design/creationism they are free to do so, at their church, not in a public school. 

The answer to who or what designed/created (if anything did) everything is a theological one and really a matter of faith (if you believe in a God)/guesswork (if you don't) that differs from person to person, church to church, faith to faith etc.  And what if a person believes that Galactus is part of intelligent design and is going to someday come and eat our planet, can we teach that?  Or the father and son deities a person believes in are Odin and Thor?  Or that the "Force" is an energy field created by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together?  Can we teach all those too?  No, because it's dangerous to teach myth or theology side by side with science.  In doing so you are endorsing one type of theology instead of another.  You can't teach about all the different types of deities otherwise you would have to teach about Odin & Thor, amongst others, and that's silly.  Very simply, if the state teaches creationism/intelligent design it's endorsing that there is/was a creator/intelligent designer.  That, in and of itself, is endorsing a deity, and it really doesn't matter which deity it is.  The state has no business, constitutionally, endorsing any deity.  Period, end of story.

Do we have to go over the whole "Scopes Monkey Trial" with these people?  If Perry and his religious right cronies get their way and try to have creationism taught here in Texas there will be a lawsuit to stop it.  We'll be forced to have another "Scopes"-esque trial or series of hearings here in Texas, then the case will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Of course maybe the Texas Supreme Court could rule against Perry's would-be creationism cirriculum but, I doubt it.  By the way, the Scopes Monkey Trial occurred in 1925.  Are we regressing?  What millennium are we in?  When we should be looking forward to 2025 we're being forced to look back to 1925 for lessons.  Hopefully, the whole, "learn from history or doomed to repeat it," will come into play and we will demonstrate they we have learned from history.  I hope.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Surprise, Surprise. Monty Python is Ahead of the Curve

They were revolutionary for their comedy. Now they're demonstrating that they're way ahead of the internet/YouTube curve. Below is the YouTube video by Monty Python announcing the launch of their own YouTube channel, oh, by the way the video is funny:

Their YouTube channel can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/montypython

They're ahead of the curve in doing this because, in my opinion, they're choosing the path of less resistance. They could go to court, sue, blah blah blah. Instead, they're putting up their own free site exposing their hilarious comedy (that still holds up) to new viewers. Plus, folks like me will still buy the DVD's for extras. And it's free advertising.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Thirty Second Bunnies Movies

These crack me up. There are others too. The Exocist, Die Hard and Caddyshack to name a few. Here's "The Shining":

And here's "Titanic":

Monday, November 24, 2008

Our Pets #7: Who Did It?

Lieberman's Lucky the Dems Don't Operate Like the Corleone Family

Or alternate title, "I know it was you Fredo (Joe), you broke my heart."

Or second alternate title, "Tell Mike(Barrack) it was only business. I always liked him." (Tessio/Lieberman to Hagen/Biden)

Lieberman declared himself an "Independent" some years ago and defeated the Democratic nominee for Senate from his state. Then, he supported the Republican nominee for president this year. He not only endorsed McCain but campaigned for him. He not only campaigned for him but spoke at the Republican convention. He had promised to only be supportive of his friend McCain and not speak negatively about Obama. But, he ended up going negative on Obama. This is a former Democratic nominee for vice president that turned his back on his former party and its nominee this time.

So, what do the Democrats do to punish Lieberman for pulling a Benedict Arnold? What would Michael Corleone do? Well, we know what Michael did to Tessio and his own brother when they betrayed the family. I'm not saying the mafia and political parties operate the same way (they kind of do except without the violence/killing and it's legal) but, when a political figure goes against their party or their former party one would expect there to be some type of consequence, especially when the betrayed party just won both chambers of the Congress and the White House. What would Karl Rove do? But, the question that really matters is what did the Dems do in response to Lieberman jumping ship? Would they kick him out of their voting caucus? Take away his chairmanship and committee seats? Exile him to the wasteland of a Senator truly without a party?

Nope. The Dems did pretty much nothing. A slap on the wrist. They took away one committee seat and let him keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. That's all. And Obama led the charge to let bygones be bygones. Why? Maybe because the Dems are nice and really like Lieberman. No, that's not it. It may be because the Dems are so close to that magical 60 vote filibuster buster in the Senate they can taste it. So if they have to make nice with Lieberman to get closer to 60 they will and they did. The Dems did take away a committee seat to begin to satisfy those who wanted political blood. Now they just have to hope Franken pulls out a miracle in Minnesota or bank on turning some moderate Senate Republicans to their side on key votes to overcome any filibuster. For Lieberman though, he essentially got away with political murder because the situation allowed him to. Had the Dems only been at about 50-55 seats in the Senate he may have ended up taking a political swim with the fishes for betraying his former Democratic policitcal "family".


Saturday, November 22, 2008

Our Pets #5: Introductions

Letterman's Top 10 W. Moments Plus Some Other Stuff That Predates This Blog

All the stuff below predates the blog so I figured I'd put all under one post.

Letterman's top 10 W. moments:

Why would our president do this? W. gets his groove on:

W. gets his groove on, again:

Here's an old and rough political cartoon I did:
Who's going to play with Georgie Now That Tony's Mum Has Called Him Home?

Here's another rough political cartoon when Atty General Gonzales was called before Congress.
AG Gonzales Attempts to Channel Sammy Sosa:

Some more campaign videos:

And last but not least, a funny bit regarding W.'s speech preparation with his Speechalist:

Friday, November 21, 2008

More Palin

She went to a turkey farm to "pardon" one turkey. Then she gave an interview afterwards. Watch what's going on behind her. Was the news crew trying to make her look silly by setting up this shot with that going on in the background?

Kind of funny, but not so much for the turkeys(keep an eye out for what's going on behind Palin)...

I'm Sorry, But There's More Palin

She went to a turkey farm to "pardon" one turkey. Then she gave an interview afterwards. Watch what's going on behind her. Was the news crew trying to make her look silly by setting up this shot with that going on in the background?

Our Pets #4: The Arrival of a Man

Primo, Cindy, the Man

Our Pets #3: Dedication

3. Dedication

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Dark Toy Story 2

My Favorite Webcomics Are...

Basic Instructions
The Book of Biff

My Favorite Entertainment / Sports / SciFi / Comic Book / Comic Strip / Funny / Fun Sites I Check Out Sometimes

48MinutesofHell.com (S.A. Spurs blog)
Antarctic Press
Armor Games
Avatar Press
Barking Carnival (UT sports blog)
Bleeding Cool
Boom Studios
Dark Horse
DC Comics
Entertainment Weekly
Failed Smile Shirts
IDW Publishing
Image Comics
Joke of the Day
Monty Python(on YouTube)
News of the Weird
Psychic Chimp
Rotten Tomatoes
SyFy Channel
Seth McFarlane's Cavalcade of Comedy(on YouTube)
Star Trek
Star Wars
The Comic Chronicles
The Oatmeal
The Onion
The Ticket
Top Cow
Valiant Comics
Zeus Comics