text:
After a leadoff single by Chris Woodward, Reed Johnson hit a grounder to shortstop Tony Graffanino, who dropped the ball on the transfer from glove to hand for an error. The next batter, Frank Catalanotto, then hit a liner under and past leftfielder Carlos Lee, who appeared to have lost the ball in the lights. Woodward scored on the play, cutting the Sox' lead to 3-2.
After a walk to Vernon Wells, loading the bases, Carlos Delgado singled up the middle to give Toronto the 4-3 lead. Another mistake followed when Joe Crede failed to tag third base on a forceout throw from Graffanino.
With the bases loaded again, after Josh Phelps struck out, Orlando Hudson grounded out to third, scoring Wells. Mike Bordick singled in the final run of the inning. Wilson tried to score from second on the play, but was thrown out by Lee for the final out.
The Blue Jays first run came in the first inning off a Wells RBI-sacrifice fly, scoring Johnson. D'Angelo Jimenez committed the first error of the game in the second with a throwing error to first on a double play attempt.
The Sox scored the next three runs with a Crede RBI-single in the second, Graffanino RBI-double in the third and Magglio Ordonez solo home run in the sixth. In the second, Lee hit one of his two doubles in the game and stole third base, but was cought off base and thrown out on a grounder by Paul Konerko. Lee went 2-2 with two walks.
Jimenez went 2-4 in the game with a single and two-run homer, which he hit in the seventh, cutting the deficit to 6-5. Buehrle was pulled after the sixth, being replaced by Rick White, who gave up a home run to Woodward. Kelly Wunsch recorded two outs before Gary Glover ended the inning.
The Blue Jays added four more runs in the eighth off of Glover (3) and Dave Sanders (1). Two more errors were made: Miguel Olivo throwing error on a stolen base attempt and Lee bobbling a double down the line, allowing Catalanotto to reach third. Toronto starter Mark Hendrickson gave up three runs in 5 2/3 innings.
Game two of the series will be Tuesday night at 6:05 p.m. CT on Fox Sports Net Chicago. Bartolo Colon, fresh off his five-game suspension, is scheduled to start against Roy Halladay.


text:
If you are into music, particularly Barbra Streisand, then you probably know about the single named 'Barbra Streisand' (yes, after the singer) by DJ Duck Sauce which became extremely popular. GoBarbra is a site that can replace the word "Barbra Streisand" that occurs repeatedly in that song by any word or phrase that you choose. You can choose the language (options available are English, Polish, German, French etc), the voice (it has Brian, Eric, Kendra and many more), then input the words and hit Go to get the song.
The tool actually works pretty well. I tried it with some weird words and the pronunciation wasn't bad at all. It immediately starts playing the song after you hit Go and also produces a link that lets you share the customized song easily.
- Add your own words to the Duck Sauce 'Barbra Streisand' remix.
- No sign up needed.
- Many languages and voices to choose from.
Check out GoBarbra @ www.gobarbra.com
Leave a Reply
Bring back Go Barbra!!!!!!!!! ???????????????????????????????????????????? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We critics get it all the time. As a matter of fact, among all condemnations lobbed at us, it's perhaps the most frequent. It comes from a place of both inferred sour grapes and some stereotypical truth. It also stems from an ill-informed conclusion based solely on that most elusive of interpersonal appeals—the consensus. You see, not everybody likes the same things. As a matter of fact, there's an old adage about opinions that is better left to the sleazy and the scatological. But this doesn't stop some from complaining loudly, especially when a favorite is being slagged. Indeed, no matter the intellectualized or well-constructed expression of their view, critics considered 'outside the loop' are often labeled with the following fallacy (and we paraphrase):
"You're just a frustrated filmmaker. Before you go about undermining another's work, try making your own movie and see how successful you are!"
The parameters are almost always the same—i.e. your opinion is wrong because, as someone unable to compete on the same level as the title (or actor, or director, or writer) in question, you have to take your aggravation out on something. Another way of looking at it is to argue that, until you've walked a mile in the shoes of someone actually invested in the artform, you have no credibility to criticize them. Perhaps the most telling out of all the interpretations is the "you're wrong because you're talentless" approach, basically defending their love of a certain film by implying that the only reason the journalist is wrong is because, when faced with the daunting challenge of cinema, their weaknesses are translated into pans.
For instance, this past Awards Season, the press and online communities all fell for the solid if limited joys of the French silent film The Artist. They ended up giving it the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (among a few others). It was heralded as a breakthrough by some, while disparaged by others as nothing more than a cleverly crafted stunt. While the overall view was favorable, there were still some who felt the film was being unfairly pressed beyond the obvious better works of the year. A quick perusal of the comments sections for some of these reviews gleans that dreary, derivative sentiment—until you've done it yourself, keep your mouth (or laptop) shut.
Sadly, many who pull out this position known little about argumentation. They know trolling, or in less incendiary words, the beautiful anonymity of the internet. Under any name, they can step into the critical conversation and pull out the "wannabe" whine. Now, it is true that a few in the field of film journalism are frustrated artists. They have screenplays sitting in draws, blockbuster ideas untapped in their always fertile brain. Because they need an outlet for their passion, because they hope (or in the conspiracy, believe) that writing about film will lead to a gig making one, they take up the mantle of the fourth estate and set about scribbling. So naturally, when they complain about a movie, it's because their own unheralded classic is sitting around in their head, being unjustly ignored by the rest of the ticket buying populace.
In theory, this means that every negative review of a film someone otherwise likes is based solely on one's inability to match what they see. No analytical overview of the various components of the creation. No flaws in filmmaking or maker. If you didn't like The Artist, it's because you can't make it yourself - and then the biggest leap in logical of all - you are disqualified from criticizing it. No matter your problems with the stylistic choices, the borrowing from better films, the stunt like nature of the entire presentation or your devotion to other 2011 choices - the proof is in the prose. Put up or shut up.
Naturally, this is nonsense. Those who toss out this attack willy-nilly know little about something debaters call "reciprocal reproach". In essence, this theory highlights the illogic in claiming displeasure because of a lack of knowledge when, in fact, the lack of said should discount all opinions. In simplistic terms—if you can't 'hate' something because you are a frustrated filmmaker, you can't "like" something for the very same reason. What this means is that every time you rave over some sensational piece of filmmaking (like the surrealistic Spanish gem The Last Circus), your praise is invalid. It has to be.
Why? Well, it's simple logic. If all opinion is based on your predetermined bias (remember, we are all just frustrated filmmakers unable to bask in the glory of our own unmade ideas) then good opinions are as poisoned as bad ones. Hate and love are linked—they are both a matter of personal preference. Whatever clouds said preference clouds both. Yes, you can nitpick out the positives from the negatives, but the stain remains. So before someone can say anything about movies (or music, or television, or books) they have to go out and do it themselves. Once they've mastered the medium under scrutiny, only then can they discuss it accurately, pro or con.
Really? If you hear a Katy Perry song on the radio and it grates on your nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard, is it because you can't write and record earworm pop candy like she does? If you pick up a copy of Twilight and realize that Stephanie Meyer is a horribly bad writer, is it because she beat you to the sparkling vampire literary punch? Envy and jealously can play a part in anyone's determination, but to say that experience cures all such ills is ridiculous. They can also add to them. A journalist can go out and make the best damn movie they can, and yet still sit back and say that something like A Thousand Words is garbage. One does not coincide or contradict the other.
While there is some minor validity to the argument pragmatically (a journalist does indeed have limited knowledge of the trials and tribulations that go on behind the scenes of any production), there is none esoteric or aesthetically. Opinions come from a variety of places, only a small percentage of which might be from jealousy or unrealized goals. In fact, unless the writer says something specific like "I believe I could do better," the assumption that it's the basis for his or her approach is inane. The main reason it exists however is because fans need a shortcut to their censure. Instead of digging deeper into the mix and making a determination based on their own learned opinion, they latch onto something ludicrous and consider such an assertion truth. Now that's illogical.
Terror Pigeon! "OtherSong" (audio) (premiere) // Music
Anton Kubikov "North" (Singles Going Steady) // Music
Johnny Dango "I Was Wrong" (audio) (premiere) // Music
The Wild Things "F.I.A" (video) (premiere) // Music
The Moving Pixels Podcast Discusses 'Tales from the Borderlands Episode 2'
// Moving Pixels
"Our foray into the adventure-game-style version of the Borderlands continues.READ the article


text:
Chinese wonder why their tourists behave so badly
By Li Hui and Ben Blanchard
BEIJING (Reuters) - From faking marriage certificates to get honeymoon discounts in the Maldives to letting children defecate on the floor of a Taiwan airport, Chinese tourists have recently found themselves at the center of controversy and anger.
Thanks to microblogging sites in China, accounts of tourists behaving badly spread like wildfire across the country, provoking disgust, ire and soul-searching.
While in the past such reports might have been dismissed as attacks on the good nature of Chinese travelers, people in the world's second-largest economy are starting to ask why their countrymen and women are so badly behaved.
"Objectively speaking, our tourists have relatively low-civilized characters," said Liu Simin, researcher with the Tourism Research Centre of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
"Overseas travel is a new luxury, Chinese who can afford it compare with each other and want to show off," Liu said. "Many Chinese tourists are just going abroad, and are often inexperienced and unfamiliar with overseas rules and norms."
When a story broke recently that a 15-year-old Chinese boy had scratched his name into a 3,500-year-old temple in Egypt's Luxor, the furor was such that questions were even asked about it at a Foreign Ministry news briefing.
"There are more and more Chinese tourists travelling to other countries in recent years," ministry spokesman Hong Lei said on Monday.
"We hope that this tourism will improve friendship with foreign countries and we also hope that Chinese tourists will abide by local laws and regulations and behave themselves." Continued...