Well, you really couldn't ask for any more from the San Diego Chargers. They played their hearts out today, fought from behind, and, were it not for a kick just a few feet off, they would have advanced in the playoffs. It was a spectacular (4 hour) game with a bit of rain, a few flags, and great performances by both teams. Congrats to the Chargers on their 12-4 record this year after a pathetic 4-12 last year. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come next year.

URL: ESPN.com - NFL - NFL - Recap

So, not only are the results staged each year at the People's Choice awards on CBS (I never have watched them, nor do I lend them any credence), Goldderby.com reports that this year, to save money, a less accurate poll was taken as well:

This year the People's Choice nominees and categories were chosen by a new voting system involving a panel of 6,000 "entertainment enthusiasts from across the country," according to PCAvote.com. Winners were chosen by participates at the website, a less expensive decision-making process than the previous method of conducting a Gallup Poll, which gave a more scientifically accurate reflection of the American people's choices.

For some reason, this just seems a bit odd to me. CBS (home of memogate) is going to air the People's Choice awards which notify winners in advance so they can show up and then pretend to be surprised when they are presented with awards that are not truly representative of the "People's Choice"? Sounds kosher to me. Also, how is the people's choice determined? I would suspect no majority is necessary to win. So by presenting a choice from amongst five films ("Farenheit 9/11," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "The Incredibles," "Shrek 2" and "Spiderman") what do you think will happen? My prediction - 45% or so of the population (those that most likely are Democrats and still haven't accepted the fact that George W. Bush won the election) will vote for the propagandist "Farenheit 9/11" while the other 55% or so of the population will pick their favorite film from amongst the other four films. Which will win? Hmmm...let's think about that for a second. Even if just 30% are Democrats who would vote for "Farenheit 9/11" just out of spite and the other 60% cast their vote evenly over the other four films, "Farenheit 9/11" still receives double the votes of any other film. Note: this is why you may see "Farenheit 9/11" win the Academy Award as well. Though, hopefully, the Acadmey has some sort of run-off system should a film not receive 50% of the vote.

And if you need proof that the Democrats still can't get past the election results, one only needs to read this caption from the AP:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., wipes away a tear as she announces with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio, that they will object to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes during a joint session of Congress today Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes. (link)

URL: InsideTrack1

About a year and a half ago, over the summer, I rented a DVR from Time Warner Cable. I loved it. It was easy to use, didn't need any tapes, and just made life easier when it came to TV. When I went back to school, I got rid of it and tried going back to tapes again. It was hell. Now I'm back on DVR (aka crack) and it's great. But, the problem with a DVR that can record two things at once is that you get all these TV shows backed up and just waiting to be watched. When I began to write this post, I had a reason behind it, other than the "I love my DVR" idea. But I've lost all focus with Wickedly Perfect on in the background. Oh well.

URL: DVR - Time Warner Cable

Looks like Fontana has been shaking a little this morning:

2.2 2005/01/06 06:47:38 34.125N 117.457W 4.9 3 km ( 2 mi) NW of Fontana, CA
1.6 2005/01/06 06:46:30 34.124N 117.447W 7.0 2 km ( 1 mi) NNW of Fontana, CA
1.3 2005/01/06 06:44:04 34.123N 117.445W 8.3 2 km ( 1 mi) NNW of Fontana, CA
2.8 2005/01/06 06:37:01 34.098N 117.445W 5.7 1 km ( 1 mi) SW of Fontana, CA
4.4 2005/01/06 06:35:26 34.136N 117.431W 0.0 3 km ( 2 mi) N of Fontana, CA
3.3 2005/01/06 06:22:38 34.122N 117.433W 2.8 2 km ( 1 mi) N of Fontana, CA
1.3 2005/01/06 06:13:13 33.497N 116.566W 13.7 12 km ( 7 mi) ESE of Anza, CA
1.4 2005/01/06 05:19:42 33.662N 116.773W 18.0 11 km ( 7 mi) SSW of Idyllwild, CA
2.5 2005/01/06 04:32:45 34.126N 117.441W 2.2 2 km ( 1 mi) NNW of Fontana, CA
3.6 2005/01/06 04:11:29 34.128N 117.429W 3.0 2 km ( 2 mi) NNE of Fontana, CA

I woke up in the middle of the 4.4 quake that is bolded. It was very weak here at my house, though it was strong enough to wake me up I guess. It lasted about 4-5 seconds and seemed like a rolling quake as there were just intermittent shakes for a few seconds. I went to check the USGS website and didn't see anything reported yet but it showed up a few minutes later confirming my suspicion. I just love quakes (unless they trigger tsunamis of course).

URL: Recent Earthquakes for 117-34

Today, I switched my early days at work with a co-worker so I could get off early and go to Danny K's to play a little NTN and watch the Orange Bowl. Unfortunately, Greg got sick, so I just came home after work to watch the Orange Bowl, expecting a great game as these two teams appeared to be so evenly matched. Unfortunately (or fortunately since I'm from Southern California), the game is anything but close. It's currently 55-10 and USC once again has the ball in the 4th quarter. After letting Oklahoma score first, USC has since outscored them 55-3. What happened to that close game everyone was predicting? Las Vegas had USC as 3 point favorites. The newspapers had them at 1 point favorites and just about every national writer and television commentator thought Oklahoma would win. Ooops. At least I did get to watch one great bowl game - the Rose Bowl. Even though my favorite team, Michigan, lost, it was a great game as Texas' quarterback Young was just amazing as they eked out a win 38-37.

Congrats to USC on 2 consecutive national championships and 21 straight wins. Fight on.

URL: ESPN.com - NCF - College Football - Game Update

Yesterday's name change was the most absurd thing I've heard all year - granted, it's only four days into the year. But still...it'll be hard to top this one all year long. Looking to tap into some extra advertising revenue, Arte Moreno, the owner of the Angels, changed the team's name from Anaheim Angels to...the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Being of hispanic descent, I'm sure he knows what Los Angeles means in English, so once we get past our team being "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim" we now have to deal with the ridicule that comes with two city names in the name of the team.

Now, I understand Moreno's reason for changing the name - more advertising revenue from the Los Angeles television markets. But, realistically, how much will this help? It's certainly not enough to bring another high-profile player to Anaheim. It may pad the linings of Moreno's pockets a little bit more, but in all honesty, until this brings better players to Anaheim, it's all in vein...and, quite simply, just sounds stupid.

I guess I wouldn't really mind all that much if we just went back to Los Angeles Angels - at least it's a former name of the team. In fact, California Angels would be a much better name if we're going to have a history lesson. But...Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? There's always been a non-spoken feud between Orange County and Los Angeles. Whereas Los Angeles is a democratic stronghold, Orange County always goes with the red states of the country. We've always tried to separate ourselves from Los Angeles and create our own county and all this does is undermine our identity. It's not good enough to just be the Anaheim Angels or the Orange County Angels...no...we have to try and go after the Los Angeles fans who have already jumped on the bandwagon following the 2003 World Series victory. Last year, attendance at Anaheim Stadium was third in the league behind New York and Los Angeles. I'm sure we'd be number one if the stadium hadn't been beautifully retrofit after the Rams left and it was changed to a baseball-only stadium. Why were we third? Most likely because Yankee Stadium holds 57,478 per game, Dodger Stadium holds 56,000 and Anaheim Stadium holds 45,050. Last year we had a record attendance, record number of sell-out games, and fan interest in the Angels was higher than ever. But still, Moreno believes he can get a new contract with a Los Angeles-based television station worth more money if we're the Los Angeles Angels. Hope it all pans out - otherwise, you've made a fool of the team for nothing.

URL: ESPN.com - MLB - L.A. Angels of Anaheim have ...