The Dirty Northwest

The format war may be over, but that’s no reason to commit to BluRay just yet.

Sunday’s Oregonian had a front page story on last weeks storm titled “Can we do better?” with a rather circumspect sub-headline about room for improvement.

Now, I didn’t actually read the story and frankly I don’t plan to, but I ought to acknowledge that this approach is far more mature and respectable than their earlier coverage which I had bashed on Wednesday.

With circulation down and the combined weight of dozens of local Web sites crushing them, the Oregonian is frequent fodder for chortles and snickers.

But today’s coverage of yesterday’s storm is outright laughable.

Thrashing about for relevancy, their What a Mess! story targets the defenseless kid in school: TriMet. http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1169007929112380.xml&coll=7&thispage=4

Buses without chains struggled up the slightest of inclines. The ones that made it downtown then hit the new transit streets of Third and Fourth avenues only to find a parking lot of cars that couldn’t navigate the icy streets.

TDNW’s new headquarters happen to be on Third, and it certainly wasn’t a “parking lot” by any stretch. Many folks stayed home and traffic was exceptionally light.

As for the buses – yeah, there were some issues. The storm caught the whole region off-guard. Commuters of all stripes had their challenges. Singling out Tri-Met as unprepared? That smacks of an agenda, Oregonian. An agenda, or at the least a bored writer struggling for an angle.

[timestamp edited to adjust publishing issue]

Winning tonight is like winning the NIT tourney.

How dare they work tonight, on MLK Jr day?

You know you’re a dork when your coworkers IM you links to Star Wars crap on YouTube.
Or maybe that’s just the way life is in 2007?

You can feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland and pick up the new under-sized Wall Street Journal today. It’s now the Hello Kitty of finance rags and a bit like returning to a childhood home only to find that the massive front lawn is actually tiny and the long hallway can be covered in a few quick steps.
Or you can turn to the online edition (free access today) where you’ll find to your great joy that billionaires can amicably split. See — money can buy happiness.

Tim and Edra Blixseth spent 25 years building a $2 billion life together.

When they decided to divorce, they spent a single afternoon in the Beverly Hills Hotel, dividing it all up. With just two notebooks and a bottle of wine, the Blixseths — California real-estate tycoons and founders of the famed Yellowstone Club — finished the job in a matter of hours.

No attorneys. No accountants. No judges.

She kept their 420-acre estate. He got the house in Mexico. He kept his land businesses. She kept the dogs. They each got a Rolls Royce, and they will share their three private jets.

Sharing the jets? Pshaw. I give it a week.

1. So apparently this is sexist. I see the pro argument, but if I were ever asked to take up the con side (just for fun), I’d would point out that it’s a parody of the marketing campaigns (note the Apple Switch campaign nod) for the two products — the supposed serious, full featured, decidedly unsexy PS3 versus the fluffy, sexy Wii.

2. We have a problem.

3. After viewing number 2, you’ll be happy to note that Nintendo has taken some steps (caution: failed humor).

Normally, I’m against littering.

Disney? Pshaw — pure fluff.

Warner Bros.? Great merch, funny plots, but ultimately a one trick pony (”No it’s not!” Yes it is. “No it’s not!” No, it’s not. “Yes it is!!” Oh, fine — it is.)

Hanna Barbera? Tom and Jerry would have been enough. The Smurf’s? Incredible franchise. Scooby-Doo? The Flintstones? The Jetsons? Icons of American culture.

It’s a bummer, sir. We’ll miss you.

Insert your own “very special mix” pun here (YouTube).

It’s probably uniquely American to enjoy watching the destruction of overpriced consumer electronics*. And this work is entirely derivative (think “Will it Float?” from the David Letterman show). So I guess I’m just a sucker for conspicuous destruction.

*redundant?