It's one of those things that doesn't quite make sense to me, but it still sticks in my head. Whenever I see an actor or an actress for the first time in a movie (even if it wasn't their first film but it's the first film I see them in), that role stereotypes them in my head and I can't quite convince myself that they're able to play other roles or that they're not really evil people. Examples:

- Tommy Lee Jones as a crazy terrorist in Under Siege. For the longest time, I couldn't find him believable in a good-guy role.
- Laura San Giacomo as a bad girl hookin' up with the Devil in "The Stand." Seeing her in that mini-series was the main reason why I never liked her show "Just Shoot Me." Well, that and the fact that it's fairly dumb and just not funny.
- Alan Rickman as a not-so-crazy terrorist in Die Hard. And I was confused when I saw him in his next film and he didn't have a German accent.

It could be said that they're doing such a great job acting to be able to convince me of how believable they are in their characters. Or it could be said that I'm just strange.

Some guy in Tampa managed to get on two different flights with a loaded 9mm semiautomatic gun before security finally caught him with it, and they only got him because he was randomly selected to be searched. Is it just me, or is all this racial profiling doing absolutely no good?

What's wrong with this picture: the unarmed non-threatening Arab-Americans get pulled off of flights because flight attendants or pilots or other airline personnel "aren't comfortable" with them on the planes, yet the armed white Americans are getting weapons onto the flights. Uhh... guys? Here's a little tip for you -- if the armed white Americans continue to slip past security like they have been so far, maybe you should stop a few of them and search them instead of just yanking people off planes because they look different.

It's a wonder that humans have survived this long at all. We make absolutely no sense and we do such stupid things.

Oh, and Mr. Ashcroft? I can hearing you breathing on the other end of my phone. Quit it.

Some guy in Tampa managed to get on two different flights with a loaded 9mm semiautomatic gun before security finally caught him with it, and they only got him because he was randomly selected to be searched. Is it just me, or is all this racial profiling doing absolutely no good?

What's wrong with this picture: the unarmed non-threatening Arab-Americans get pulled off of flights because flight attendants or pilots or other airline personnel "aren't comfortable" with them on the planes, yet the armed white Americans are getting weapons onto the flights. Uhh... guys? Here's a little tip for you -- if the armed white Americans continue to slip past security like they have been so far, maybe you should stop a few of them and search them instead of just yanking people off planes because they look different.

It's a wonder that humans have survived this long at all. We make absolutely no sense and we do such stupid things.

Oh, and Mr. Ashcroft? I can hearing you breathing on the other end of my phone. Quit it.

Somehow, Rudy Giuliani (in a parting deal) managed to get through a $1.6 billion deal to build new stadiums for both the Yankees and the Mets with retractable roofs. Michele has expressed her disapproval, and I'm going to second it.

First of all, if Rudy thinks that the old cliché of "you need to spend money to make money" is going to hold true here, then he obviously didn't pass Econ 101. The fans will come to the stadium regardless of where it is because they're coming to see the team on the field, and building a new stadium that actually holds less seats than the original means they're going to have to raise ticket prices to make up the difference, which they're probably planning on doing anyways because they'll need to make up the costs of actually building the new facilities. And charging more for tickets is going to turn fans away because someone who might've dropped $15 on a whim for a nose-bleed bleacher seat on a nice spring or summer afternoon probably won't pay $30 for it.

Second of all, in the midst of a recession, you're going to spend $1.6 billion? If you guys are hurting for cash so much that you have to produce "come to New York" commercials to boost your tourism, then you don't need to be shelling out money to replace the stadiums which aren't in such incredibly bad shape that it's absolutely necessary to put up new ones.

Third of all, where are they going to put these new stadiums? Last time I checked, stadiums were pretty big and New York City was already lacking huge chunks of undeveloped real estate space. Are they going to make floating stadiums in the middle of the East River?

Finally, the Reverend Al Sharpton condemned the deal today with the information from the Coalition for the Homeless that there are now 30,000 homeless people in New York City shelters, which is an all-time high for the city. I don't usually see eye-to-eye with the Rev, but in this case, I'm going to have to take his side when he says that the city could do much better things with that $1.6 billion. However, if they insist on railroading this thing through, I hope that they at least do something useful with the space or structures left by the Yankees and the Mets. Stadiums are pretty big, and you can easily close off access to the field and set up cots inside so at least people can stay there for a little while if they need a roof over their heads -- basically turning the structure into a shelter. In the summertime, they can sleep out on the field, or if it's raining, they can stay under the covered part. Or maybe they can knock down the old stadiums and put up city- or state-subsidized low-rent housing. Because if New York can afford to blow that much cash on luxuries in the middle of a recession, then they certainly can afford to help out their not-so-fortunate residents.

Somehow, Rudy Giuliani (in a parting deal) managed to get through a $1.6 billion deal to build new stadiums for both the Yankees and the Mets with retractable roofs. Michele has expressed her disapproval, and I'm going to second it.

First of all, if Rudy thinks that the old cliché of "you need to spend money to make money" is going to hold true here, then he obviously didn't pass Econ 101. The fans will come to the stadium regardless of where it is because they're coming to see the team on the field, and building a new stadium that actually holds less seats than the original means they're going to have to raise ticket prices to make up the difference, which they're probably planning on doing anyways because they'll need to make up the costs of actually building the new facilities. And charging more for tickets is going to turn fans away because someone who might've dropped $15 on a whim for a nose-bleed bleacher seat on a nice spring or summer afternoon probably won't pay $30 for it.

Second of all, in the midst of a recession, you're going to spend $1.6 billion? If you guys are hurting for cash so much that you have to produce "come to New York" commercials to boost your tourism, then you don't need to be shelling out money to replace the stadiums which aren't in such incredibly bad shape that it's absolutely necessary to put up new ones.

Third of all, where are they going to put these new stadiums? Last time I checked, stadiums were pretty big and New York City was already lacking huge chunks of undeveloped real estate space. Are they going to make floating stadiums in the middle of the East River?

Finally, the Reverend Al Sharpton condemned the deal today with the information from the Coalition for the Homeless that there are now 30,000 homeless people in New York City shelters, which is an all-time high for the city. I don't usually see eye-to-eye with the Rev, but in this case, I'm going to have to take his side when he says that the city could do much better things with that $1.6 billion. However, if they insist on railroading this thing through, I hope that they at least do something useful with the space or structures left by the Yankees and the Mets. Stadiums are pretty big, and you can easily close off access to the field and set up cots inside so at least people can stay there for a little while if they need a roof over their heads -- basically turning the structure into a shelter. In the summertime, they can sleep out on the field, or if it's raining, they can stay under the covered part. Or maybe they can knock down the old stadiums and put up city- or state-subsidized low-rent housing. Because if New York can afford to blow that much cash on luxuries in the middle of a recession, then they certainly can afford to help out their not-so-fortunate residents.

Somehow, Rudy Giuliani (in a parting deal) managed to get through a $1.6 billion deal to build new stadiums for both the Yankees and the Mets with retractable roofs. Michele has expressed her disapproval, and I'm going to second it.

First of all, if Rudy thinks that the old cliché of "you need to spend money to make money" is going to hold true here, then he obviously didn't pass Econ 101. The fans will come to the stadium regardless of where it is because they're coming to see the team on the field, and building a new stadium that actually holds less seats than the original means they're going to have to raise ticket prices to make up the difference, which they're probably planning on doing anyways because they'll need to make up the costs of actually building the new facilities. And charging more for tickets is going to turn fans away because someone who might've dropped $15 on a whim for a nose-bleed bleacher seat on a nice spring or summer afternoon probably won't pay $30 for it.

Second of all, in the midst of a recession, you're going to spend $1.6 billion? If you guys are hurting for cash so much that you have to produce "come to New York" commercials to boost your tourism, then you don't need to be shelling out money to replace the stadiums which aren't in such incredibly bad shape that it's absolutely necessary to put up new ones.

Third of all, where are they going to put these new stadiums? Last time I checked, stadiums were pretty big and New York City was already lacking huge chunks of undeveloped real estate space. Are they going to make floating stadiums in the middle of the East River?

Finally, the Reverend Al Sharpton condemned the deal today with the information from the Coalition for the Homeless that there are now 30,000 homeless people in New York City shelters, which is an all-time high for the city. I don't usually see eye-to-eye with the Rev, but in this case, I'm going to have to take his side when he says that the city could do much better things with that $1.6 billion. However, if they insist on railroading this thing through, I hope that they at least do something useful with the space or structures left by the Yankees and the Mets. Stadiums are pretty big, and you can easily close off access to the field and set up cots inside so at least people can stay there for a little while if they need a roof over their heads -- basically turning the structure into a shelter. In the summertime, they can sleep out on the field, or if it's raining, they can stay under the covered part. Or maybe they can knock down the old stadiums and put up city- or state-subsidized low-rent housing. Because if New York can afford to blow that much cash on luxuries in the middle of a recession, then they certainly can afford to help out their not-so-fortunate residents.

To the idiots who were shopping at the Best Buy in Watertown, Massachusetts, tonight:

1. For the last goddamn time, no, I do not have a gun. Just because I'm wearing a long black wool trenchcoat does not mean I'm armed.

2. Smiling and cooing "oooh, she's being cute!" is not an excuse to let your kid continue to mimic me and step back and forth in the narrow aisle to block me from getting through and then laugh about it. It's an excuse for me to use your kid as practice for my football punting. Control your child. It's not cute, it's damn rude and it speaks volumes for your poor parenting ability especially while you stand there talking to whomever on your cell phone.

To the idiots who were shopping at the Best Buy in Watertown, Massachusetts, tonight:

1. For the last goddamn time, no, I do not have a gun. Just because I'm wearing a long black wool trenchcoat does not mean I'm armed.

2. Smiling and cooing "oooh, she's being cute!" is not an excuse to let your kid continue to mimic me and step back and forth in the narrow aisle to block me from getting through and then laugh about it. It's an excuse for me to use your kid as practice for my football punting. Control your child. It's not cute, it's damn rude and it speaks volumes for your poor parenting ability especially while you stand there talking to whomever on your cell phone.

So now George W. Moron says he's going to be "madder than heck" if his Secret Service agent was pulled off an American Airlines flight because of his ethnicity rather than his questionable paperwork as the airline said. What I want to know is, how come Moron wasn't "madder than heck" when other Arab-Americans were being pulled off planes simply and blatantly because of their ethnicity? A story came out a few weeks ago about an Arab-American college student minding his own business, but a flight attendant said she "didn't feel comfortable" with him on the flight so the plane taxied back to the gate and airline personnel removed him from the plane. That's okay, but because this other guy works for the government, that makes it unforgivable? Hello, favoritism?

So now George W. Moron says he's going to be "madder than heck" if his Secret Service agent was pulled off an American Airlines flight because of his ethnicity rather than his questionable paperwork as the airline said. What I want to know is, how come Moron wasn't "madder than heck" when other Arab-Americans were being pulled off planes simply and blatantly because of their ethnicity? A story came out a few weeks ago about an Arab-American college student minding his own business, but a flight attendant said she "didn't feel comfortable" with him on the flight so the plane taxied back to the gate and airline personnel removed him from the plane. That's okay, but because this other guy works for the government, that makes it unforgivable? Hello, favoritism?

Top five all-time desert island things I saw done on tonight's episode of "Blind Date" that should never ever be done on a first date -- and more likely on any date period (in no particular order):

1. Fart. Excessively and loudly. And try to blame it on her.
2. Once you've heard that she's never had a one-night stand, ask if she'd like to have one that night.
3. Lick her cheek.
4. Once she's made it clear that she doesn't want to kiss you goodnight, try to go in 11 more times to kiss her and end up headbutting her every time.
5. Tell her you don't date anyone who doesn't put out on the first date, and you hope she does because you want to see her again.

Not only can I not believe these guys actually pulled these stunts, but also that they had no problems doing it on national TV. But I get the feeling with my track record, if I were to make it onto the show, I'd experience yet another Date From Hell that I could add to my collection -- but at least this one would be filmed and documented for all of you to laugh hysterically at.

Top five all-time desert island things I saw done on tonight's episode of "Blind Date" that should never ever be done on a first date -- and more likely on any date period (in no particular order):

1. Fart. Excessively and loudly. And try to blame it on her.
2. Once you've heard that she's never had a one-night stand, ask if she'd like to have one that night.
3. Lick her cheek.
4. Once she's made it clear that she doesn't want to kiss you goodnight, try to go in 11 more times to kiss her and end up headbutting her every time.
5. Tell her you don't date anyone who doesn't put out on the first date, and you hope she does because you want to see her again.

Not only can I not believe these guys actually pulled these stunts, but also that they had no problems doing it on national TV. But I get the feeling with my track record, if I were to make it onto the show, I'd experience yet another Date From Hell that I could add to my collection -- but at least this one would be filmed and documented for all of you to laugh hysterically at.

Despite the fact that I really enjoy being an only child and despite the fact that all of my friends complained incessantly about their younger siblings while we were growing up, I kind of wish sometimes that I'd had a younger brother or sister. There's just something about being the cool older brother, the one who watches out for the younger sibling yet still protects them from Mom & Dad and exposes them to cool music and gives them rides when they need them and makes sure they still experience the important things. I think it'll translate into me wanting to be more of a pal to my child if and when I have one rather than being an authoritative father, but I hope I'm able to find that gentle compromise.

Despite the fact that I really enjoy being an only child and despite the fact that all of my friends complained incessantly about their younger siblings while we were growing up, I kind of wish sometimes that I'd had a younger brother or sister. There's just something about being the cool older brother, the one who watches out for the younger sibling yet still protects them from Mom & Dad and exposes them to cool music and gives them rides when they need them and makes sure they still experience the important things. I think it'll translate into me wanting to be more of a pal to my child if and when I have one rather than being an authoritative father, but I hope I'm able to find that gentle compromise.

It still amazes me the extent to which celebrities believe they are either above the law or able to use their stardom to bend it to their will, in addition to their own inability to rein in the less pleasant aspects of their personality. Being famous may mean that some people put you on a pedestal, but it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and expect the media not to cover it. You're in the spotlight -- fame comes with its price and that price is constant attention.

I caught the last half-hour of Kurt & Courtney this afternoon (not the first time I've seen it) and every time I see that movie, it makes me think less of Courtney Love -- and at this point, I don't think I could think any less of anyone. I already hate her, her continued existence in the spotlight rankles me, but it just doesn't seem like she'll get hers anytime soon.

As documented in the film (and I've also heard this confirmed from other places), Courtney has repeatedly made death threats against journalists investigating her background and writing articles about her -- to the point where they were too scared to comment on her ever again because of their violent nature and harassing nature. She has physically attacked journalists, intimidated them so badly that they fled their houses and moved away from the cities they lived in, and threatened their families as well. In spite of that, she was a featured speaker at an ACLU event -- surprising, considering the organization champions free speech.

I've found Courtney to be pretty stupid, pretty crass, pretty violent, and not talented at all -- but more than that, I think she's a pretty poor excuse for a human being. Funny how it's the bad eggs who get famous and revered. It makes me doubt that there's justice in the world, because the worst punishment an egomaniac and megalomaniac like her can experience is a life of mediocrity in an unnoticed existence.