Correction and Clarification: May 11, 2019

In my post about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees for 2019, I said of Janet Jackson, "I'm not saying Janet Jackson isn't a good singer or anything, and I'm not saying she's a first-rate entertainer . . .."  Oops! When you deal with double negatives to convey the positive, you can trip over them when writing something timely and on a deadline.  I meant to say, "I'm not saying Janet Jackson isn't a good singer or anything, and I agree that she's a first-rate entertainer . . ."  My confusing original choice of words, which I regret, has been corrected.  Sorry.

Correction and Clarification: February 12, 2012

I don't like it when I make mistakes on my blog, but when I do make one, I correct it as quickly as possible. And I made a beauty of a mistake . . . about a beauty.

I am, of course, referring to my blog entry yesterday about Gisele Bündchen for her outburst at the Super Bowl last week. I wrote yesterday that Bündchen "let out a tirade against [husband Tom] Brady's teammates dropping passes and suggesting that Brady himself was not culpable for their loss." I also opined that "the situation of your wife giving instructions to your coworkers on how to do their job causes more problems than it solves. Yoko Ono sat in on numerous Beatles sessions, and we know how that worked out."

I wrote this thinking that Bündchen made that angry comment directly to Brady's teammates. In fact, she made it in response to a Giants fan who taunted her. So, I was wrong. Although I still think that her outburst was uncalled for and undignified, I nonetheless apologize for improperly misrepresenting the context.

And while I maintain that I'm not saying that Gisele Bündchen is a jerk but think she merely acted like one, the Giants fan who taunted her by saying, "Eli owns your husband," a reference to Giants quarterback Eli Manning, also acted like a jerk. But I think Gisele Bündchen should have been classy enough to ignore the fan.

That's it, I don't want to write about Super Bowl XLVI anymore . . . except to say that Madonna, who is a jerk, had no right to be angry at British rapper M.I.A. for giving the finger during the halftime show on live television after Madge herself built her entire career on obscene gestures. She certainly didn't build it on that meaningless afterthought, the music.

Correction and Clarification: August 18, 2011

Yesterday I wrote of the state Senate recall elections in Wisconsin: "So, despite coming up one seat short of taking over the state Senate, Wisconsin Democrats have won four out of five recall elections."

I was specifically referring to the five recall elections Democrats were given the best chances in - the two elections to recall Democrats and the three elections to recall Republicans that Democrats had a realistic shot of winning - when I said that. Winning that fifth seat (the one held by Republican Alberta Darling) would have given Democrats the majority. Of course, there were three other recall elections affecting Republican state senators that Democrats had little or no chance of winning and in fact lost, which I completely failed to mention. Plus, there was another race on July 19 won by a Democrat. So there were nine Wisconsin Senate recall elections against six Republican incumbents and three Democratic incumbents, with the Democrats winning five and the Republicans winning four. My point was that, although the Republicans kept control of the Wisconsin state Senate, the Democrats were competitive by winning all but one of the five races they needed to win to get a simple Senate majority. I am sorry for the misrepresentation of the facts by omitting those other three races the GOP won, and I regret the error.

But just remember this. Republicans lost two Wisconsin Senate seats and Democrats lost none.

Correction and Clarification: June 28, 2011

I need to correct something for the record about my Peter Falk entry.

I originally wrote, "Perplexed why an actor would have a job in Hartford when there was no professional theater there at the time, Falk explained that he wasn't an actor." I meant to write: "Le Gallienne was perplexed why an actor would have a job in Hartford when there was no professional theater there at the time, and so Falk explained that he wasn't an actor." It was his acting teacher who was perplexed. I regret the original misconstruction of the sentence, and I corrected the original post.

Not to use it as an excuse or anything, but I was dealing with Internet browser problems at the time . . ..