Sunday, October 30, 2005


This message has been brought to you by Halls Defense, citrus flavored.

How is it possible for me to feel this crappy and still not be running a fever? I didn't know that I actually had this many lymph nodes that could swell, this is ridiculous.

I don't actually have anything of value to say at the moment, but the non drowsy sudafed I took wont let me sleep, so I just wanted to share my misery with someone who isn't my roomate cause I'm sure he will be sharing my misery here within a week or so. I wonder how well sudafed mixes with tylenol PM, I'll do some research and get back to you.

Update 3:41AM: Does this mean I'm live blogging my illness? Cause that is sad. The Tylenol PM Sudafed coctail has not worked. I am wide fucking awake and in serious pain. WOO HOOOOOOOO. I don't know how I'm going to go to work tomorrow.

Update 8:07AM: Not actually going to work. Wooooooooooo. Time to go back to sleep. I might actually post something of substance later.

Update Day 2 1:30PM: The doctor is testing me for mono and they gave me painkillers. You can actually see my lymph nodes without even trying to look for them.

Update Day 2 9:16PM: Picked up my laptop from work. I asked the doc if I could work and she said "uhhh... not with people you like." So I'm working from home which will be a new experience for me. I just took my first awesomely cool bright Pink pain pill which my med student friend informs me is also a muscle relaxer. I haven't eaten anything solid in 24 hours so this should be a fun night.

Update Day 3 8:30PM: Officially Mono. Pain pills are amazing.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

On Schooling's Failure And Journalism's Doom

Tall Dark and Mysterious posted aboutme to this article from a University Newspaper yesterday. Rather than quote the whole thing here before I expound on its ridiculousness I will request that you go read and then come back. Are you back? Good. Take a deep breath, it will be okay.

So, the problem this fine young writer seems to have with the education system is that it is forcing her to take classes in things unrelated to her career. Her career in journalism. The thing that confuses me about this, is that Journalism isn't really a topic, so much as a set of skills that give one the ability to report information effectively to ones audience. So, if you think about it, is anything REALLY unrelated to journalism? What if you have to write a peice about the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Physics? Wouldn't it behoove you to have at least a HighSchool level grasp of physics? Or Statistics! Which she even mentions in her post. Everyone hates Statistics, I know this, but if you don't understand it how can you effectively report on polls? (Or in her case the wildly innaccurate surveys that people send in to the magazines.)

You can't. I truly think that an effective journalist has to understand their subject matter as well as possible in order to explain it well to the reader. Fortunately since all Stacey with an e y wants is to work at Glamour magazine the most complex concept she will need to grasp is what color eyeshadow looks good on what skin tones. Sadly though I don't think it is uncommon for journalists to become journalists because they are too lazy to learn other subjects and this is reflected in the quality of the reporting we are generally exposed to. (Though there are some truly exceptional reporters out there, unfortunately I think they are a minority.) Thank god the age of the blogger is begining.

But what about non journalists who feel this way about the subjects they are being forced to learn? Well I can relate, sometimes you have to learn stuff in school that is boring. Really boring. Like that class they made me take on writing. I hated it, but I did my best and tried to learn, even though it brought down my GPA. And now I try to remember what I learned in that class every day when I write my blog, and as you can see, I don't. Though it might not be fun to learn some things, I have never really wished I hadn't bothered to learn a thing, though I have frequently wished the opposite.

So while Stacy's desire not to learn stuff is understandable, it isn't really a problem with school as she seems to think it is. It is in fact her own fault for being too lazy to learn things just because she isn't interested in them. Sometimes in life you have to do things you don't want to do, and just trust that someone older and wiser than you thinks you should know this stuff. At the very least it will help you learn how to learn boring stuff, and who knows you might even find it interesting.

Monday, October 24, 2005


To continue with todays apparent Morality theme. Moon has an interesting post discussing the two issues of Creationism and Sex Education in schools. (I will attempt to sum up his points here, but you should really read his post to get the nuance.)

While parents seek to have creationism taught in the (science) classroom based upon their claimed right to have their convictions reinforced at school, manifesting their belief that it's not enough to instil principles of faith outside of school but that their children's godliness requires never being exposed to any competing account of life's origin without immediate strident opposition, so do other parents seek to have (full and candid; perhaps encouraging abstinence, but not turning a blind eye to its widespread eschewal by children) sexual education taught in schools for the same reason, to have what they deem important reinforced in the classroom.

I tend to disagree with Moon on this. Though I think his mind is in the right place. I think the fundemental problem with his argument lies in the fact that we are talking about two different types of education. One type of education presents a student with a series of facts, other types of information and allows the student to use these facts to accomplish goals. (math is like this, 1+1=2, 2+2=?) The other type of education is presenting something and stating that it is true and then the students like good little foot soldiers will believe this until told otherwise.

Sex education is not about indoctrinating students for sex, but about giving them tools to make informed decisions when the time comes.

Creationism on the other hand, if taught well would be a good excersize for students on understanding how the scientific method does not work. (For instance, starting with a conclusion and finding data to back it up, rejecting all other information.) Otherwise it will just be a confusing peice of information that those who go on to college will have to unlearn (There are already SO many of those) and that those who don't go on to college probably wont remember anyway.

But truly, if parents are so concerned about the education of their children then they should educate them. There is nothing preventing any parent from giving their children literature on creationism, or talking about it at the dinner table. Just as there is nothing preventing any parent from discussing sex and its dangers with their kids. In the end, the real problem is that parents want to outsource their jobs to teachers. And if you outsource it, it just never seems to get done right.


Jody over at PolySciFi has a post about the Kansas State Court and its ruling that punishing homosexual coduct more than heterosexual conduct was wrong.

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts, saying "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment.

While I would prefer a law that treated sex as sex, it appears to me that the KSC is effectively saying that morals cannot be considered a basis for law. This would represent a serious challenge to my legal philosophy and I dare say Kansans' legal philosophies as well as most of our readership's legal philosophies.

I understand that many people in this country have a strict moral code by which they lead their lives. And I would be lying if I said that I was not one of those people. But my moral code is probably quite different from Jody's moral code. Just as Hitler's moral code was different from Ghandi's. (You might disagree with this, and if you do then I will refer you to Pyrrho's post on Moral relativism and the subsequent debate. It is not a topic I intend to address here in any depth, I will leave that to the wise philosophers.)

While morals will always play some part in the laws of any country, it is important that the courts and the legislature not attempt to force morality onto a free society, because then that society will no longer be free. It is my opinion that the laws of a country exist to protect its citizens from harm, not to force them to be "good" people by someone's standard. Many laws serve important purposes without touching on morality, such as laws that protect individuals from physical harm, (such as laws against dueling or murder) or protect those who cannot protect themselves (such as laws against bestiality or pedophilia). But to base a system of law and judgement on what one group of people considers "moral" is to base it on a moving foundation.

Society has its own way of punishing what it sees as immorality. Gays are still subject to extreme predijuce and hate in some parts of the country. Extra legal persecution of them for their supposedly more immoral actions is unnecessary.

(Also For the Record: I oppose the Miers nomination. Not that anyone will be surprised or even care.)

Friday, October 21, 2005


Charles at Obsidian Wings has a post about what conservatives should be doing. It is good and stuff.

To quote the bum on the corner outside my office building:

"Happy Friday Everybody!"

Thursday, October 20, 2005


I haven't posted much on Miers because I am so disgusted I don't even have the energy to be outraged.

But today Progress For America sent me this little jewel. I have no idea how I got on their mailing list. They were hoping to convince me that Harriet Miers is just as good as John Marshall, Byron White, Clarence Thomas and William Renquist by writing her name next to theirs a bunch of times and showing how similar they are.

Gee. I was sooooo wrong. How could I not have been convinced by their mindless propaganda before this.

(Unrelated Note: Fuck the Astros, Go SOX!)

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Back to Busch Stadium

My Hero:

Go CARDS!!!!!!

Monday, October 17, 2005

Would Hil be better off without Bill?

Digby pointed out some amazing journalism today. Apparently there is some matrimonal fracas in the Clinton household. Really Shocking.

But it made me wonder, would Hillary have a better chance in 2008 without Bill? I am torn on this, because Pres. Clinton is clearly very popular with Dems and so he might be a useful face on the campaign trail. On the other side of the coin some right wingers hate him with the fire of a thousand suns, and some might equate a vote for Hillary as a vote for another term with Bill as president. (Which may or may not be a good thing depending on who you talk to)Would ridding herself of her hubby give her a better chance to ingratiate herself with the center right? And would it destroy her chances with Value Voters and Clinton lovers?

Also, does a single woman have a better chance at the presidency than a married one? Harriet Miers is unmarried, and Condi Rice's bio says nothing about a husband (does she have one? anybody?). Arguably the reason Miers and (possibly) Rice aren't married could be because they chose to focus on career instead of family. But Mrs. Clinton already has a family, though her daughter is now fully grown. Would splitting up absolutely ruin her chances? Or would she gain some respect for striking out on her own from her filandering husband? Also would being sans-man help the American public deal with the pesky "she's a woman" issue without having to tackle the whole "First Gentleman" issue?

I have no idea. But it is interesting to think about.

Hillary Clinton v. Condi Rice race in 2008: the closest political pundits will ever get to a real catfight. Heh.

Friday, October 14, 2005


Theory: The quality of anything in inversely proportional to the amount of advertising for that thing.

Proof in progress: Elizabethtown

If I could go one day without seeing an ad for this movie, I'd be happy. The first time I saw the preview I was vaguely interested in a "both of those people are attractive enough to distract me for 1.5 hours" kind of way. But after 2 weeks of constant innundation I know there is no way this movie can be good.

Also further proof this movie sucks arrived when every time I tried to close a browser window and brought my mouse too close to my IM window a big picture of Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst swooning at eachother appeared. And if there is an advert for it on my IM, then I KNOW it isn't going to be good. (See Also: America's Next Top Model)

The sad thing is that advertising like this works, I am so brainwashed by this point I will probably go see this stupid movie just so I can say "THAT MOVIE SUCKED" every time I see an ad for it. (which will no doubt be ever 5 minutes for the next week at least, and then every 2 minutes when the DVD comes out in a month)

Milky Statistics

2% approval among black people? 2% is how much fat I like in my milk, not how many black people like the president.

Mystery Pollster debunks this number today with his usual deftness. Apparently the 2% number is based on a sub sample of only 89 African-Americans. Which might actually be a weighted number, meaning they really interviewed less than 89 people and then gave them extra weight so that the sample was consistant with the population of the US. So we might actually be talking about 2% of 40 people. Not exactly compelling evidence that this is representative of of the opinion of the entire population of African-Americans.

His post is worth a read, especially at the end where he points out stupidity at HuffPo. (As if they have anything else there.)

Wednesday, October 12, 2005


Sorry for the sporadic bloggyness.

I am having trouble feeling like posting about things because I mostly don't care. And the stuff I do care about other people are already doing a better job of posting on. So I figure I'll leave it to the experts.

If I stop posting long enough will the number of people reading this blog go negative?

Hopefully we wont find out.

Monday, October 10, 2005


In the unlikely event that you are a reader of this blog and you have not already seen Serenity. here is the first 10 minutes (via Bill at INDC).

Now, Go f-ing see it. It is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, especially of the science fiction variety.

And if you don't go see it, and they don't make the sequels because of you, I'm going to hunt you down and use big swords on you.

Fuck Stanford

We'll get em next year!

Friday, October 07, 2005

Interesting Photo Choice

It is entitled Nice one CNN.
Only on the front page.

Now I get it!

I've never really understood the appeal of pundits like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. I don't really see the point in dissmissing out of hand the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Or saying things like "The essence of being a liberal: “The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else.” Really... no. But if you want to believe that, i'm not going to stop you because you must be an idiot and therefore not worth my time.

But today I finally get it, it is so nice to have sharp wit and rhetoric turned against someone you dislike:

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush
wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
I expect this will be the only time Ann Coulter is quoted on this blog or that I actually utter her name. Because truly, she is evil. But I give her props for standing up and not drinking the kool-aid on this one. And she managed to not make blanket accusations against liberals too, wow. I'll bet some people are pissed.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Phoning it in

Bill at INDC is forced to put up a defense of someone else's hilarious yet apparently offensive blog post. Now who would post something that offensive? Hmmmm.

Echidne points to an absolutely ridiculous law. Aren't republicans supposed to be trying to reduce the power of our government?

Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity fame (where my introduction to blogging began, thanks Brendan) has a link to an important story about the Bush administration's covert use of Propaganda. As if the overt propaganda wasn't enough.

And really, here is the most important news story of the day. Clearly vital to our nation's survival.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005


I hate it when I start to write a post and realize the point I was going to make is actually quite stupid. Lame.

Instead of my not that insightful post I will post my political test results, which change drastically every time I take the test.

You are a

Social Liberal
(68% permissive)

and an...

Economic Moderate
(55% permissive)

You are best described as a:


Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test


Because blogger LIED to me when it said there was an error. It is evil and manipulative.


Monday, October 03, 2005


I thought the most painful part of the day was going to be the bruises I managed to aquire while falling flat on my drunk ass face in front of a bar on Saturday.

Turns out, I couldn't be more wrong.

Hurbris sums up my thoughts on this subject perfectly.