So I'm still stuck on the situation back in Britain where the cops shot the guy who turned out to have no connection to the recent bombings. Some people are just accepting this as an inevitable tragedy in the War on Terror™/Global Struggle Against Terrorism™/Other Fun Slogans Not Listed Here™. To those people, I say that you're scum. I have fouler words, but CNET believes that fowl language is damaging in some way, so I have to go with...::sigh:: …scum. So here's what I don't understand: they pin him down and shoot him. Let's just stop right there--why shoot someone who's already pinned down? They pin people all the time on COPS and then they just whip out the handcuffs. I've heard the argument that it was necessary to subdue him so he couldn't trigger the explosives he might have had on him. Of course, this begs the question, "if he had been a suicide bomber, why didn't he just detonate once he knew he'd been spotted?" The point of terrorism isn't about body count as much as it's about instilling terror in the masses. Then we get to the really crazy part: they shoot him when he's pinned. Five times. In the head. Now, if the goal is to subdue someone with lethal force, wouldn't two headshots be more than enough? Is there anyone who's managed to survive four headshots and the British police were just being cautious? Were they like, “Hey, remember Bullet-skull Barry? We better put an extra cap in there, just to be sure.” And I'm not even mentioning the latest update that the victim was A) NOT wearing a heavy coat and B) did NOT jump the barrier. So what did he do? Was he wearing a T-shirt that said "Terrorism Rocks!" or saying British footballers were a punch of pansies? So now we have cops here in NYC doing searches. I've been seeing them do it to other people, but haven't had to deal with it myself. But if a cop does ask to search my backpack, I'm goin' to a different station. I'm fond of the 4th Amendment and I don't think this is a particularly effective way to stop terrorism. "But wait, you hippie!" I hear you cry. "Does that mean you don't travel by plane?" Of course I do hate doing it simply because it’s an unpleasant experience from the second I set foot in the airport, but I still travel by air. The reason I allow it at the airport is because: 1. Every bag is scanned. That means it’s a universal search and they were doing this before 9/11. It’s no guarantee but it’s something. 2. Unlike the subway, I don’t travel by air everyday. And where I can plan ahead for how much time I’ll need to allocate before having to catch my flight, the train comes on no set schedule. So I can be stopped for a bag check and watch my train sail by. Sure, I could make more time so that even if I miss a train while being checked, I’ll have time to catch the next one and make it to work/comic shop/dirty commie rally on time. But if you miss a flight because you got held up by security, it’s your fault. 3. It’s not a deterrent to terrorism. If anything, it says “way to go with the making us live our lives differently due to fear!” If I thought that random bag searches had any chance of stopping terrorism, I would swallow it, but the odds of stopping a terrorist are small, especially when you consider that cops aren’t stationed for bag checks at all stations. What prevents a terrorist from simply trying a non-patrolled station? If we’re going to trade our freedom for safety, we should hold out for something that might actually make us safer rather than half-hearted, reactionary measures. And finally, in a completely unrelated story, I have crushed hard for new pop sensation Anna Nalick. Have a good night, and a pleasant tomorrow.

My show will air on cable for a couple weeks before being replaced with reruns of Punk'd.

One day you're a Caveman Lawyer and the next you're a creepy robot girl created for less-than-wholesome purposes. It's just like my adolescence.

Just shot up like crazy from a Level 3 at 65% to a Level 4 at 99%. I really need to find a permanent personal profile picture as the emblem now pretty much takes care of what I was trying to do.

And now I'm betting you wished you never showed up after the internet gave the thumbs down to the new set. Hey, even respected entertainment journal "Entertainment Weekly" (which is like Entertainment Tonight except it only comes once a week and require a third-grade reading level) made sure to mention it on their website as a "scandal". So how's this for a news flash: your audience is comprised mostly of people socially conscious enough to take time out of their day to complain about a television program's set design. So despite being the most consistently funny and insightful show on television, America wants the couch and the old graphics back. It's good that the audience knows best as I'm sure absolutely no thought was put into this move or redesign and it was probably just intended to piss people off. Oh, those rat-bastard producers, always screwing with us...

I'm sure a lot of of TV.com users are posting about the 57th Emmy nominations in their weblogs today and I will join them. The Good: - Terry O'Quinn picked up a nod for his hailed-by-humankind performance as John Locke on ABC's Lost - Lots of love for Desperate Housewives and specifically leading ladies Teri Hatcher (Susan Meyer), Marcia Cross (Bree Van de Kamp), and Felicity Huffman (Lynette Scavo) as Best Actress in a Comedic Series. I'm not bothered that Desperate Housewives is nominated as a comedy as the show is so on the line between comedy and drama that it would deserve a nomination in either category. I am a bit surprised, however, that all four leads were put up for leading actress. While the show is an ensemble piece, I think that Susan would stand out as the lead character and this would allow the other three leading ladies to fill in the hole left by Sex and the City. - It may not get the ratings it deserves, but Arrested Development picked up three Comedic Writing nominations as well as nods for Best Comedy Series, Best Actor Jason Bateman (Michael Bluth), and Best Supporting Actor Jeffery Tambor (George Bluth Sr.) - It seems obvious but at least the nominating committee had the sense to nominate Jeremy Piven for his role as uber-agent Ari Gold on HBO's Entourage. If the voters don't go all sappy for the departure of Everybody Loves Raymond, Piven has a real shot at taking home the statue. - Hugh Laurie for the title role of Dr. Gregory House on FOX's House, M.D. which is good as the writers seem to put all the burden of greatness on him, leaving none for the supporting cast or plotlines. - Writing nomination for the episode "Walkabout", which truly is an amazing episode. - Nominations for Jon Stewart's individual peformance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and for The Office Special which goes to levels of comedy and pathos most U.S. sitcoms dare not dream. The Bad: - Are the even watching 24? I have a theory: I think that unless a show or actor has a lot of buzz, the nominators just fill the slots with previous nominees. The only category where 24 deserves a nomination is Best Comedic Writing. - I'm so tired of Will & Grace I could puke. Where was this love when Ned & Stacy was on the air? - Naveen Andrews (Sayid Jarrah) for Lost instead of Josh Holloway (James "Sawyer" Ford)? It's not bad, but this would just be my personal preference. - No nomination for Yunjim Kim (Sun Kwon) who is definitely Lost's strongest actress. The Ugly: - No nominations for either Eva Longoria or Will Arnett. Arnett's lack of nominations can be attributed to the Everybody Loves Raymond guys and Sean Hayes (Will & Grace) getting re-nominated under the theory I just proposed, but Longoria was a real surprise. Desperate Housewives was a breakout show and made her a breakout star. She's equally as good as her co-stars who got nominated, so what happened? Were Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Kaczmarek (Malcolm in the Middle) really so strong this year? I doubt it. I just think they didn't want to have four actresses from the same show in the same category and who ever submitted these actresses for nomination decided it would be too risky to elevate one actress to "lead" and leave the others in the supporting category. Better to have one angry star than three.

Why? Let's not play sides, here. Instead of jumping on the party line, can we perhaps go to our own moral compass and say what we truly think? Of course not as conservatives now claim: "Oh, well what he did wasn't really a crime." Alright. If this were a Democratic administration and the same thing had happened, would you keep the same argument? And please, be honest. It's not like it matters. The political reality is that this is an administration, and hell, a political culture, that refuses to acknowledge right and wrong and instead plays the system as if it were just two teams going against each other. The difference is, when the Red Sox and Yankees fans fight, it's ultimately over something superficial. Rove won't go anywhere. No one seems to be punished in this administration. George Tenet's "faulty intelligence"? Have a medal! Condoleeza Rice cites that Bin Laden is determined to strike within the U.S.? Have a promotion! And don't even get me started on the human disaster that is Rumsfeld. And Look! It's the White House Press Corps actually doing their job! http://mike.cocoonbranding.com/junk/RoveNoComment.mov Scott McClellan is so bad at his job, it's just too funny.

Went from 4% to 78% and got all my Entourage submissions accepted. Super sweet and thanks to both the TV.com and the editors of the Entourage page for keeping their collective heads on a swivel.

I think TV.com has a lot of promise. I really do. I like a lot of the features they want to implement. But while ideas are nice, accomplishments are better. Right now, the managers of TV.com are the kid that says "I'm gonna go places! You'll see!" and yet no one can see any changes from his daily routine of going to the turd mines. He might be building a rocket in his basement, but all the townspeople see are a seeing a turd-cover kid who's goin' nowhere. To use another crappy metaphor (because they're so much fun!), the users of TV.com have all piled into a shiny, new mini-van while the driver is still checking the tires. And you can only sit in that mini-van for so long before crying out "what the hell is going on with the damn tires!?" I want to see this site succeed. I really do. But maybe it would be a good idea to have one updater give a daily progress report because right now, all I see are a bunch of angry passengers and a turd-covered kid goin' nowhere.

I know I made a few jabs at them yesterday with them winning the Olympics (it was on the boards), but I kid because I love. All I can say is that my thoughts and prayers are with the people of London.