Thursday, June 30, 2005
Today The Fair Goddess Echidne examines Social Conservativism in a much more complete manner[emphasis mine]:
Note the argument that social conservatives want to have laws which reinforce their beliefs and the argument that they don't have to resort to them. Note that social conservatism is whatever is regarded as traditional in a locality. Thus, bin Laden is a social conservative and so is Jerry Falwell. But this also makes the definition empty of practical meaning. What would be traditional in the United States is not traditional in Iran, and even within, say, the United States what is defined as "traditional" seems to vary by the speaker or writer. If the second wave of feminism took place thirty years ago, isn't the idea of gender equality traditional by now? And why does bin Laden have to dig back a thousand years to get at something he regards as traditional? More generally, a cursory study of history shows all sorts of egalitarian values to have existed at various places and at various times. Why are these not traditional? Why is the right to an abortion not part of social conservatism, given that it was only in the last two hundred years the church turned against the idea of early abortions being acceptable?
In short, social conservatism is not really conservative. It can be quite radical as the bin Laden example demonstrated. What it always seems to be is hierarchical. The view of the family social conservatives embrace has a father as its boss. The religious organizations are seen as determining how the masses live. The government is worshipped as an authoritarian power. And all these hierarchies use some sort of fixed identifiers: sex, race, age, for deciding who will be on top of the pile and who will support the whole pyramid.
Here is the link to feminism. Social conservative pyramids require that women have pre-ordained roles centered around fertility and the service of the home. Anything less is seen as causing chaos, and chaos is what social conservatives fear (unless it's caused by their own radical moves to return the world to some utopian era). Women can't have equal participation in politics and in the public sphere in general because who would then take care of the children? Someone else would have to pick up the slack and as these tasks are arranged at the bottom of the power pyramid this someone else would suffer a drop in power and social esteem.
Some of this may be a little out of context so the whole article is worth a read if you are interested. But I find especially interesting the link to feminism and I really think she is spot on. It is all about maintaining some kind of hierarchy so that life makes sense for the people on top. I personally think that the whole point of christianity before the 20th century was to distract the working poor (from serfs to factory workers) from how crappy their lives were by scaring them with damnation and promising a reward for good behavior. And that would fit right in with the whole Social Conservative schema.
Though it is hard for me to figure out why women or minorities buy into it, just like why would a woman go along with being a Mormon? Personally I find the idea of being bound for eternity to a man without whom I can never go to heaven kindof offensive, but y'know that might be because of the feminist brainwashing.
What Feminist Brainwashing? Ohhhh the kind women get at shelters for abused women. Didn't you know? They take them in and strap them in chairs and brainwash them into thinking that they are equal with men and that they should be able to live their lives and make their own choices without having the shit beat out of them. It's evil I tell you, Evil. Ilyka got a letter from a someone against the Violence against women act because "she" claimed:
Those women who accept aid are presented with a “solution” that requires divorce, and immediate application for various welfare programs. Clients and their children are indoctrinated with feminist ideology, which places blame for the problem entirely on patriarchal men, and presumes women are always victims in need of outside guidance.
Maybe that's because these women ARE the victims of "patriarchal men". I was reading the site it linked to and I nearly climbed through the computer and started abusing a woman myself, then "she" would have been the victim of a brainwashed feminist. (Theoretically the person who publishes this abomination is a woman, but this is the internet and I find that hard to believe especially after the whole Libertarian Girl fiasco. )
Anyway, while I'm sure that like all government things in this country the VAWA is fucked up, that doesn't mean it needs to go away. That means that we should push for reform, and for the acknoledgement that men get abused to. But women get abused more often and why is that? Oh it's because they are bitches who don't know to shut up when they are told? Right?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
So here are some intereting other people to fill the void left by my silence:
Moon over pittsburgh comes through again today with a great post on the possible purchase of the Nationals by George Soros
PublicBrewery and DalyThoughts have a vulcan Mind Meld over the CNN/Gallup Overnight Poll re: GWB's speech. To sum up: No
And I don't know how you could possibly have missed this awesome Revenge against the Supreme Court for the Kelo Decision. But it makes me giggle so much that I have to link it.
And also YAY for Canada and Gay Marriage!
I think that's all the non-original thought I can come up with right now. Now I will go forth and attempt to rid myself of haloscan comments. Wish me luck.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
What makes something Anti-American? It seems to me to be a very subjective measurement. I know that there are people out there who are truly anti-American, like Osama Bin Laden, and sometimes I wonder about Jaques Chirac.
For Terrorists I think their hatred of America is founded in jealousy, in a need for something to fight against in order to make their lives less miserable. These people are truly Anti-American because their hate is not based on rational thought but on a need for something to hate in order to ease the misery of their existance.
But to say that the press, or proposed displays at the freedom tower are Anti-American brings up a whole new dimension. If something reflects negatively on America, does that make it treasonous, or simply factual?
I loved history in highschool but when I got to college I found out reams of information that had never crossed my page before. Things like how Christopher Columbus who has his own holiday murdered and enslaved native peoples, and how Lyndon Johnson's explaination for the Vietnam war was to whip out his dick. These things do not reflect positively on America and they make me sad. But they also provide motivation to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. If Americans cannot look at our history and see the flaws in it and then move forward and strive to save ourselves from making the same mistakes, then we cannot survive as a country.
I love America, I really do, but does that mean I should ignore all of the horrible things that Americans have done/are doing/will do? I think that maybe in America we've confused the ideas of Like and Love. If you like something you have positive feelings about it and are generally happy. But if you love something you have to be willing to accept it as it is, acknowledge its flaws and push it to become better. Love Hurts, but it is certainly not Anti-Anything.
"Wrong? What did I tell you about talking back to me!"
Friday, June 24, 2005
Karl Rove took the time to educate us on what the Republicans "stand for" (from Balloon-Juice)
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.
You should go over to Lone Tree on the Prarie and check out the list of other naked bloggers. I'm at work, so I shall have to save my naked blogging for later in the evening. (Although I guess that WOULD be an interesting way to quit, hmmm).
And when you're done with that go Here and Vote for the Hottest US Senator (not counting Obama) There are only four left in the running: Robert Byrd D-W.VA, Chuck Hagel R-Neb, Evan Bayh D-Ind, and Joe Biden D-Del. Which one is your hottie?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
And the cure is? God or some crap.
Riiiight. Maybe the Christians should spend less time curing the gay and more time curing things like aids, poverty and cancer. Just a thought.
So here are my thoughts. I know you're just dying to hear them. Being heterosexual or Homosexual (or inbetween which applies to some of us) has a lot to do with who you love. Gay people happen to love people who are of the same gender, and enjoy having sex with said people. Straight people tend to fall in love with members of the opposite sex and likewise enjoy making babies together. So it really has a lot to do with who you fall into love (or lust) with, and less to do with evil, sinfullness and other stuff that seems to end up getting talked about.
Some might say that I'm oversimplifying the whole sexual identity issue, but I think that the reason it has become complicated is because we made an issue out of it in the first place.
I don't like this Christian conference because I think that it probably in some ways capitalizes on shame or guilt that is frequently felt by homosexuals. Some gay people struggle with their identity for a long time before acknowledging it, and even then they can feel large amounts of shame because society says their is something "wrong" with them. They can use that shame to make themselves live lives with people they do not love as so many people have done in the past, or they can pursue a dream of a happy fulfilling relationship.
I hope that the people involved in this conference can find someone they love of either gender and be happy with them, because in the end lables like Gay, Ex-Gay or Straight aren't what matter. What matters is being happy while we can.
A rare moment of spirituality: God has given us the gifts of love, and in my opinion it would be a sin to throw away his gift of love for another person just because that person happend to be of the wrong gender.
Too.... much ....sentimentality....... must .......... Kill.......... Things.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Speaking of Inconsequential Rhetoric, How's this for fair and balanced? Bill O'Reilly had some choice bits: (Via Atrios)
O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.
Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.
Is anyone else confused?? What I want to know is how Billy differentiates between undermining and dissenting, cause I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested as a traitor. Actually if disagreeing with the war meant that I was a traitor I WOULD want to be arrested. Maybe they'll deport me!
Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are now claiming (rather too adamantly for my tastes) that they support the troops serving in Guantanamo Bay?which, it follows, then, that they are not prepared to blame actual camp guards for the what they insist is the egregious and systematic torture of Islamic freedom fighters being detained there, but rather wish instead to hold accountable only those higher-ups in the military and Defense Department (with Donald Rumsfeld the chief villain) responsible for the prescribing camp policy.
I don't have a problem with what Jeff is saying, but I think that his post points out an ongoing problem with the conversation between the left and the right and so I'm going to use it as an example and I hope he wont be mean to me because only 10 people read this blog anyway.
If you have ever been in a position opposing a war in the US, you will be very familiar with the idea of "Supporting the Troops." If you don't remember all of the "Supporting the Troops" propaganda that was trotted out around the beginning of the Iraq war then I think you should be checked for Alzheimers. Any statement against the war, wasn't a statement against the decision to go to war, it became a statement against the Troops, against American fighters who were just doing their best to protect the country and ipso facto proved that you were a communist or something.
And now, the same logic is being used in reverse, how can you support the troops, when you don't support what they are doing in Gitmo? If Nancy Pelosi had come out and been negative towards the guards at Gitmo I would bet money that we would have heard about how she hated American troops who were just following orders.
And I think that at some point we are going to have to start listening to the point people are trying to make without spinning everything we can in order to invalidate their statements. Both Liberals and Conservatives are guilty of doing this. It is much easier to invalidate someone's statement because, say they used the word Nazi, than it is to actually converse about the point they were trying to make. And so then any possible conclusion or compromise that could have been made becomes lost in a sea of bullshit.
All of this crap is just a distraction from the real problem. What is the real problem? I don't know yet, I'm still filtering through reams of inconsequential rhetoric.
The chance of an attack with a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next 10 years runs as high as 70 percent, arms experts have predicted in a U.S. survey. The most likely scenario is a nuclear attack by terrorists with a weapon made of black-market materials. Most of the more than 80 experts surveyed also believed that as many as five countries could join the nuclear club during the next decade.
Please excuse me while I go build a bunker in my basement, oh wait, I live in a basement. Fuck.
This is a terrifying statistic at first glance. (Well I think it is, maybe I'm a scardey cat, I'm too young to die.) But we have to keep in mind a number of things. This statistic is based on a survey of experts. And while I think experts are great, surveying an expert isn't exactly the same as; estimating the number of terrorists in the world, and estimating how many nuclear/other wmd type materials they could get ahold of and then estimating how likely they are to actually attack successfully and using those estimates to come up with a probability. Hopefully this is what the experts did when they answered the questions, but who knows. My faith in "experts" is very low.
And also 70% is a really big number, so we should recognize that 70% is the percentage for an attack anywhere in the country. If you live in a place like Butt-fuck Idaho is probably significantly less than that try like .01%. Places like NYC, LA and Washington are probably at 70% though. It has a lot to do with where you live.
Also 70% represents any kind of attack with a weapon, like a dirty bomb or a Chemical weapon. Which would obviously be horrible regardless, but not as horrible as say, dropping one of our own weapons on ourselves. Did you know that between 1960 and 1990 the US built 70,000 nuclear bombs? At one point we had enough fire power to blow up the earth 32 times.
It is important that we don't allow the media to use these statistics to make us afraid. I think that the people are beginning to awaken from the fear that started after 9/11, we cannot let them use surveys and statistics to bring it to the forefront again. Even though we are living in dangerous times we have to keep our wits about us.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. -Dune, Frank Herbert
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Monday, June 20, 2005
Today on MSNBC I found an article on a study of the female orgasm, which shows that they can tell the difference between a real and fake orgasm in women based on the parts of the brains that are active.
When women genuinely achieved an orgasm, areas of the brain involved in fear and emotion were deactivated. Those areas stayed alert however when women were faking it.
The researchers also found that the cortex, which is linked with consciousness, is active during a fake orgasm but not during the real thing.
“The deactivation of these very important parts of the brain might be the most important thing necessary to have an orgasm,” said Holstege.
“It means that if you are fearful or at a very high level of anxiety, then it is very difficult to have sex because you really have to let yourself go,” he added.
Now, I have been telling my uptight friends this for years, (I did my own "research") But now there is documented proof by some scientific people, that in order to have an orgasm women have to fucking RELAX. Which, is nearly impossible for some women even when clothed and especially when naked, so this explains why the female orgasm remains so "elusive".
I wonder if the nature of the female orgasm is in any way related to what Echinde of the Snakes has been discussing over at her blog. Her post On Being Easy examined why women who like sex are labled "easy." I wonder if this is because any man with a realistic view of the world knows that women don't always have orgasms during sex, and I think to a man having an orgasm is probably the whole point of sex (having never been a man I cannot state this, I merely theorize, correct me if I'm wrong). And according to this article on MSNBC on how female orgasms are related to genetics.
“Factors influencing the ability to (reach) orgasm vary from woman to woman. What we do know is that psychologically women are more complex sexually,” Sadock said. “For women, being in a relationship where they feel loved and feel secure, is a big factor. Other big factors are how they feel about themselves and about sex and what their first experiences were.”
So it is possible that the perception is that women having casual sex are unable to have an orgasm and are therefore doing it for some reason besides sexual fulfillment. I don't know, I'm making this up really. I just wonder if the difference between how men and women experience sex could begin to explain why it is percieved differently.
Also there seems to be a misconception on the part of some men that women don't like sex as much as men. And while I think part of this is related to the feminine Ideal, that women aren't supposed to like sex as much as men I also wonder if the perception stems from the fact that some women do not always reach orgasm. This, is not true, As the above quoted article points out:
And even if they can’t, that doesn’t mean there’s no joy for them in sex, Berman added. A survey she recently conducted found that among women enjoying satisfying sex lives, orgasm did not rate as a key element for fulfillment.
Also Echidne did some research and discovered plenty of female porn at the library. So I don't think the real issue is the female libido.
I wonder if the issues is the Patriarchal ness of our society. As Ilyka's post on the somewhat homogenous makeup of the "editorial board" of Pajamas Media points out
Because listen, middle-aged white guys, nothing against y'all, but you do realize: Those of us who are NOT middle-aged white guys have been listening to middle-aged white guys in positions of authority for, gosh, all our lives?
So maybe it is their perceptions of sex and sexuality that we are inheriting and not anything based in reality. I tried to get in on the editorial board action at pajamas media (Or maybe even some data analysis) but unsurprisingly they weren't particularly interested. Tragic.
Fortunately Prarie Biker has finally realized that women tell dirtier jokes than men. Period. LOL So at least we're winning somwhere.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Also, How DARE Dell make me wait 8 days for a new computer since all attempts to fix my old one have failed miserably. Dude, Hurry the Fuck up Dell! I'm having World of Warcraft withdrawl symptoms!
This is 46 days after my first post regarding the memo. (not that MY posts are really the barometer of anything, but I'm not exactly on the cutting edge of new information here) Way to go Liberal mainstream media, way to jump on that story.
This is from All Things Conservative, via LGF
And here is item 6 from the Cabinet paper:[dated 2 days before the DSM]
Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have
drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq[underline
The DSM does not prove that the BA intentionally deceived the American public about their decision to go to war. But the Memo DOES raise questions about how that decision was made. The memo implies that important intelligence was being gathered in a way as to support their possible plans.
So here's what I'm seeing;
- Bush Administration begins plans to invade Iraq in case it is necessary.
- They begin collecting intelligence that will justify a war in Iraq.
- Using the intelligence they have collected, the BA decides to go to war in Iraq.
So, it seems to me it was sort of a foregone conclusion we were going to go, even if they didn't just come right out and say it. Now if in fact the DSM is WRONG and the intelligence wasn't fixed around the policy, then I think intelligence heads should be rolling, since the intelligence we had turned out to be a pile of crap.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Jon Henke at Q and O has heard of it though. He posted an amazing round up of the text of the DSM as well as other british memos that are less than flattering about our rationale for war. And another post today has a really much more interesting analysis of these memos and what they mean.
This information is especially interesting when juxtaposed with Digby's post from today that contains the Joint Resolution that is our legal justification for going to war. And it is especially interesting to note that this joint resolution clarifies many reasons for war and only one of them turned out to be true.
So yeah.... that's all I've got.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
There is considerable concern about new laws infringing on our first amendment rights. Dale Franks at QandO said:
Well, I hope you enjoyed freedom of speech. Because it's almost gone now.
Well I disagree. And I am not afraid. The FEC thinks they can regulate the internet.
Well you know what, FUCK the FEC.
I'm not afraid of jail, and I'm not afraid of fines, because if I can't speak my mind then what is the difference between my life and jail, not a whole fucking lot.
I know the FEC is afraid, and the government is afraid and the journalists are afraid. And you know why they are afraid. Because finally there are people in the world who are willing to tell the truth, the whole truth and well, sometimes things that may or may not be true. There are millions of people spewing text every single day and they DON'T control them. They can't control me and they can't control you, and they are Terrified. Be it left wing or right wing, libertarian or Christian conservative the people finally and truly have a voice.
The little protective shell they have built around themselves with millions of dollars and corporate media protecting them from taking responsibility for their own actions is gone. It is slowly eroding as blogs remove the credibility of the lying politicians and the sold out media. By attempting to regulate internet speech now, (which I think is still pretty early in the game) they are acknowledging us as a threat to their power.
I know this all seems like a big conspiracy theory speech. Compared to how the governments of Iran and China have reacted to bloggers this is nothing, a little campaign finance reform. But the fact that they are thinking about it at all is in my humble opinion evidence of their fear, not the republicans fear, not the democrat's fear but the old rich white guy's fear, the fear of the millionaires who get richer every year while the rest of the country gets poorer. This is the stuff revolutions are made of and maybe I'm exaggerating, but maybe I'm not.
It is time to put aside the Democrats vs. Republicans mentality here in the blogosphere and recognize that for at least a while in the near future the real fight is going to be Bloggers vs. The Government. And if we spend our time bickering amongst ourselves about whose fault it is and how so and so said the Republicans are racist and So and So said Democrats are stupid then you know what, we're going to lose this fight. This is about protecting the rights of Americans to publish their thoughts on the internet be they pro, anti, or neutral on any candidate up for election. Maybe it is corny, but as bloggers United we Stand and Divided we will Fall.
Monday, June 13, 2005
As I skimmed the website and read through the articles they had there i kept waiting to hit a wall and have them ask me for my credit card number, but they never did! I am shocked. And the advice and information they have on this website is amazing. They've actually helped me narrow down what it is about my job that I hate. So if you are even remotely interested in new employment you should check it out. I know it is cheezy, but it really is a great site.
Anyway, I would like to take this post to honor fathers day by Thanking my Dad for buying me an iPod for graduation. It is saving my sanity. (though I hope he isn't reading this blog....)
Via (ASV) Michele put it best I think:
Ah, no. It wasn't his time. You stupid, crazy, batshit, selfish, brain dead, idiotic woman. You made it his time. It's not his fault for opening the basement door. It's not fate's fault for making this his "time" to go. It's not even the damn dog's fault. It's your fault. YOURS.
I feel so sorry for that kid , I am sure he loved this dog and it breaks my heart that because their mother is incompetant both the boy and the dog suffered. He was probably shocked when his dog turned on him, not understanding how the dog he loved could be so angry. But I'm sure they are in heaven together right now looking down on his idiot of a mother and playing tug with the best rope chew ever.
And on top of all of this I can't believe she was letting those dogs breed! IT is so irresponsible, Pitt Bulls have a hard enough time finding homes as it is. And now because she is so irresponsible a child and a dog are dead and another 100 dogs at least will have to be put down because they cant' find homes.
Pitt bulls are already overpopulated, they attract the wrong kind of owner, which results in incidents like this, and people breed them so they can sell them to their friends who eventually abuse them or "donate" them to the animal shelter where if they aren't put down they waste away trying to find homes. As JoeB put it in the comments at ASV
" What's obvoius here is that some HUMANS should be spayed or neutered before they breed..."
Here is a great article from the NYC ASPCA on the Pitt Bull. I don't think everyone should run out and get one. But they are great dogs.
And here are some of the Pitt Bulls that I know that are still looking for homes:
Stretch is a Pitt/Lab mix, and is sweet as can be. When I take him offsite he always ends up kissing babies.
BooBoo is the cutest little guy. He was brought back to the shelter because his first adopters didn't train him or give him things to do. He's a real cuddlepuss, he loves belly rubs.
Ebony is a gorgeous girl who is terrified of big noises. She's still learning her way around the big world and she needs a human to love her and keep her safe.
I think that's ludicrous. While it is possible some people went to see the movie based on this I don't think that is the reason it went #1 and it would be stupid for anyone in the entertainment industry to believe this. For while the movie may not have had great reviews it had a number of things going for it besides the alleged love affair. (Which if Gigli tells us anything is not the way to promote a movie.)
1. Angelina Jolie is really really hot.
2. Brad Pitt is also really really hot.
3. There is romance and relationships to entertain the women
4. There is blowing up shit to entertain the men.
5. Finally a female character who kicks ass.
And while the movie wasn't Amazing (The dialogue was amazingly cheezy but they managed to pull it off fairly well.) It blew many recent flicks out of the water simply by not employing major suckitude.
So hollywood, I would advise you not to go around making movies and then manufacturing romances to promote them. Instead you could try making movies that don't suck as much.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Also, I've been watching this show Beauty and the Geek during the commercials of some other show. Basically a model and a genius are paired up and they have to compete together and they all live in the same house. I think it is really funny how the girls are shocked at how nice the "geeks" are. I didn't know people as shallow as the woman on that show actually existed, obviously I was wrong. But the "geeks" are hardly geeks. Though the most attractive one left the first day, some of them do not make me gag at the sight of them, clearly they had to pick TV appropriate geeks.
Too bad I'm sure it will the centuries before anyone even contemplates that the same premise might apply to women.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Michael Jackson: Does anyone care?
Uhh, No, no one does. So why don't you go cover some real news, like the Downing Street Memo or Darfur... or SOMETHING.
On a completely unrelated note, if you want a gmail invite send me an e-mail at email@example.com. I have zillions.
Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.
This article on uber-liberal-Salon (via atrios) points out that it is finally starting to get some press. Bush and Blair were asked about it during their press conference on Tuesday and denied the accuracy of its contents. But this still leaves me wondering why it has taken SO long for this to get ANY media attention:
"This is where all the work conservatives and the administration have done in terms of bullying the press, making it less willing to write confrontational pieces -- this is where it's paid off," says David Brock, CEO of Media Matters for America, a liberal media advocacy group. "It's a glaring example of omission."
That might be a little conspiracy theoryish for me. But the article credits bloggers and other interest groups and editorializers for getting the media to finally give this not quite smoking gun some attention. I certainly think it is worthy of a little press. But I'm sure that our inept media will let the White House spin it uncontrollably until it seems as though we were stupid for ever thinking it was important.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Bush's position (much like my Father's) is that there is not enough evidence to prove that humans have caused global warming and therefore we shouldn't have to do anything about it. And the Academics say:
"a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response."
I'm glad someone is saying this and I'm glad it is coming from 11 different countries including China and India some of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses. I just wish I thought it would have some effect on our president.
We could start harvesting hemp and run all our cars on biodiesel and be free of our dependance on oil in 10 years. But, Oh NO!, someone might get STONED!
How do women decide which cars to buy?
"If you picture a fraction with cost as the numerator then, as the denominator, you have things like reliability, performance..." said Doug Scott, NOP World's automotive analyst.
He went on with a long list of factors.
To sum it up, women add up the good things, subtract the bad things, then compare the result with the cost of the car. Then they think carefully about the result.
Men, it seems, just add stuff up then wonder if they can afford it without having to switch to domestic beer.
Tee hee. It's a good article, this quote doesn't do it justice, so go read the rest.
Apparently the most popular car for men is a Porsche 911, unsurprising. And the most popular car for women is the yet unreleased pontiac G6. Eh, Pass, THIS is the one I want. ::purrrrrrrr::
Apparently John Cole and Mark A. R. Kleiman haven't read it yet or they'd know that the crime rate drops might be attributed to legalized abortion or birth control. The book makes a strong case that the sudden drop in crime during the 1990's was due to the fact that children of low income families who would have been becoming criminals at that time had been aborted after Roe v. Wade. Horribly offensive, but possibly true. That might not be the case in 2003/2004, but it might be interesting to examine birth rates in low income areas during the mid eighties and see if there is a relationship to current crime levels.
The authors of this lovely book had an article in the NYT about the economics of monkeys. No, I'm not kidding. They taught monkeys that "coins" could be traded for food, and eventually they began saving, spending and even buying sex with their coins. Really interesting. (via Q and O)
Monday, June 06, 2005
Hemp was the worlds most traded commodity up until the 1830s
The oldest peice of paper was made of Hemp and is dated between 140 and 87 BC.
Both Jefferson and Washington were Hemp growers.
Henry Ford, a pothead? Not necessarily.
Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely.
Here is some Video Let me know if it is broken.
Also Here is a graphic from the Toronto Hemp Company that shows all the possible uses of hemp.
Now, why don't we use hemp for any of these things? Surely it would be environmentaly efficient since it is a plant and an infinetly renewable resource. I will not speculate on the possibly questionable reasons for Hemp's crimizalization, because then I will sound like a dirty hippie. I will just point out that tobacco is nothing but a drug and hemp has tons of practical uses, interesting which one is legal.
Sucks for all of the old people and cancer victims. I guess they'll just have to smoke it illegally like the rest of the country.
UPDATE: Awesome post by Digby on this.
And so continues the government's irrational war on the worlds most innocuous drug. But then why would we want a rational basis for any war? It's a way better idea to just decide to go and then make stuff up, because the only people who will complain will be losers with no credibility.
Friday, June 03, 2005
1) What is the nastiest thing you've ever eaten?
That's a good question. I'm going to have to go with the Sushi from my University Food Service. Or really anything from my University Food Service. Oh and some weird meatball thing I had in Tivoli Gardens in Denmark, it was probably only gross because I was a vegetarian at the time. But it was gross.
2) What is one food that you ate when a kid that you absolutely refuse to now, since you're on your own and don't have to?
Zucchini. While I adore zuccini bread, my mother used to do something to the vegetable that turned it into mush that smelled like stinky feet. It was revolting.
3. Have you ever eaten an endangered critter? If not, what was the best thing you've ever eaten (and I sure hope nobody answers 'April Guthrie' here)?
Is Buffalo endangered? Ostritch? I don't keep track. Like Kav I also had Reindeer when I was in Norway.
4. What food can you never get enough of?
Chocolate Chip Cookies. I love them, and I am good at making them. mmmmmmmm And Cheese, any cheese. (The boyfriend does it eat it, oh the agony.)
5. Have you ever eaten any critter's testicles? Why?
So when you say eat, does this involve actually swallowing them? If so then no.
6. Who is the better cook, your significant other or your mom?
My Significant Other. Not that he's actually a great cook (how can you be without cheese?), but my mother is really bad. I think that once she was a quite good cook, but she was in an accident and since then.... really no. Lots of burning things or underdone things. Most recently she has lost the ability to understand how time passes, so that makes for some interesting meals.
I will tag Owlish because he posts recipes and stuff, and pyrrho, because I want to see how he answers #6. Tee hee.
To mangle Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of a bad man must not want to hear that she's ruining her life. So it may come as a surprise that it is my absolute Grrl Genius opinion that there are times when you've just got to tell her anyway.
Let us consider the "runaway bride" of Duluth, Georgia. Surely, in a wedding that involved 14 (yes, 14!) bridesmaids and seven bridal showers (yes, seven!), one of those women would have been willing to risk not wearing her hideous, $200, peach-colored nightmare of a dress ‑- with equally heinous dyed-to-match shoes ‑- and stepped up to the plate to ask this bride, "Hey, do you really think it's smart to marry a guy who doesn't want to have sex with you?" (According to the New York Post, her fiancé did not want to have sex with her).
If only one of these bridesmaids had put down her piña colada and done her duty as a bridesmaid and as a friend, hundreds of wasted police man-hours could have been saved ‑- not to mention six hundred perfectly good shrimp cocktails.
I always try to be as honest as possible with my friends when it comes to their relationships. (Sometimes brutally so and I'm sorry for being a bitch to those of you to whom I have been a bitch) But even beyond relationships being "nice" about things gets everyone approximately nowhere. Nice is boring, and useless.
When I went shopping for glasses with my boyfriend I tried on probably 50 pairs of glasses and he is response was "those are okay, those are okay those are okay those are okay". Which is great and all if I need a self esteem boost, but I needed to know if I should be wearing these glasses 24-7 for the next 2 years and "okay" isn't really what I was looking for. Obviously my man would not want to tell me that these glasses look like crap on me because it might upset me and being the delicate flower I am I might slap him. If he'd told me, "Hey those make your face look really fat" I would have been upset for to the use of the word fat in my general direction but quickly I would have realized the wisdom in his words and moved on to another pair. So while honesty may hurt for a little while, it will prevent wearing glasses that make you look like Rosie O'donnell, and everyone agrees that is a good thing.
I'm on hold with Dell Tech Support, because as of tomorrow I will have gone 7 days without Worlds of Warcraft, or AIM. I'm starting to get snappy and irritable and I'm thinking of taking up smoking just to take the edge off. So now I have to wait until 4 and if they don't call me then I will have to wait until MONDAY. I'm going to cry. I finally have endless amounts of free time to play on my computer, and of course it is broken. God hates me.
UPDATE! As of 5:40pm on Friday my computer is still working!!!! I am Shinobi's joy!
UPDATE: Re Broken as of 9:00pm. God hates me.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
This phenomenon happens a lot in the blogosphere. An individual perporting to be conservative says something like "Terri Schiavo's family should be allowed to make the decision..." and suddenly they are one of THEM! They are a traitor, pure evil.
Bill from INDC has a post about this today, which is where this all came from. It is awesome, you should read it. It references this post from the Commissar which is also quite good.
It seems that party loyalty has allowed some people to forget what the point of the parties was in the first place. The Democrats and the Republicans are doing what they think is in the best interest of the country. It just so happens that they disagree on what the best thing is. But somewhere along the line both sides became convinced that the other is pure evil. I'm hope this is just the loudest voices talking. Somehow someone has managed to convince us that if someone disagrees with us they must hate our ideals, they must hate that we are trying to help America and so therefore they must Hate America.
But maybe they just hate YOUR idea of America. If for instance your idea of America is a land of Families with 5 kids playing football and drinking beer while listening to country music, some Americans wont want to live there and may in fact hate your America. And if for instance your idea of America is gay couples and their dogs visiting porn shops before they pick up their adopted children from school well then some people will hate your America as well.
America, land of the free. What makes us different then places like Iran and China? It is that we are allowed to disagree with eachother and with our government. We can criticize and think for ourselves and if it doesn't agree with the current administration that doesn't mean we hate America, it simply means that we disagree.
If we hate the people that disagree with us, don't we in fact hate what it is that makes us America?
Not that I've actually read most of these books, but... uhm.... no? I think I would object much less if it was entitled the 10 most controversial books, books that create discussion and present revolutionary ideas. But Harmful? I think harm has to cause physical and psychological pain, not just make people think about things.
Here's my list of the top 5 most harmful books, based on MY excellent definition of harm.
1. The Bible- Which has been the source of countless military conflicts throughout time not to mention martyrdom and infinite amounts of guilt
2. The Qur'an- Which inspires Muslim extremists to kill innocents in the name of Allah and oppress their wives.
3. Mien Kampf- This one stays it espouses hate and could have somehow been related to the extermination of Jews in WWII. Maybe
4. The US Tax Code -They are taking my money, that is definitely harm.
5. Anything Written by James Dobson, cause I said so.
Maya Angelou's I know why the Caged bird sings. (They made us read it when we were freshmen in highschool and there is SEX in it, OMG, I'm like scarred for life.)
Okay, so my list isn't as good as theirs. But hey, I didn't have professors from top Universities like Princeton and Northwestern on my panel.