Today Jeff at Protein Wisdom has a post about some Democrat's latest stance on Gitmo.
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.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Unnecessary Levels of Scariness
The top article on CNN.com today is Survey: 'High risk' of WMD attack within decade and the blurb that appears there:
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
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
Sometimes
it is good to look like an idiot. This weekend I brought home a foster cat who had an infection and she wasn't eating. I tried to feed her everything tasty I had but she showed no interest, and then she had what I thought was a seizure. I called the shelter and they said to see how she did the rest of the afternoon, but not long after that she had another and I panicked and took her back to the shelter. Today they call and tell me she's fine, no more seizures, and they think I'm nuts. I'm going to go pick her up later this afternoon. I have never been so happy to look like a total moron in my whole life. Wooo!
Semi-Annual Semi-Feministic post
Seems like it is that time of year again where we start talking about "gender issues." And I watched sorority boys yesterday, so I'm all revved up to talk about it, okay not really.
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.
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
How DARE she!
How DARE Ann Althouse Directly address Neal Stephenson!!! (Not that anything she said was rude or untrue) But you can't blog about Him unless.... unless... something..... Yeah, how DARE She. Just because Glenn Reynolds likes you doesn't mean the rest of us do, so THERE! He is the almighty Stephenson, you don't just talk about him like he is some kind of mortal.
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!
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!
Election time!
It's time to vote!!!! Who is your pick for the hottest US Senator?
I picked Santorum, not just cause I live in PA.
I picked Santorum, not just cause I live in PA.
46 Days
Today, FINALLY! this 'Downing Street memo' raises questions appeared on the CNN front page. Albeit far underneath headlines of Tom Cruise's Engagement to Katie Holmes, I'm going to have to agree with Michele on that one.
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 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.
Forgive me
If I fail to be convinced by this "evidence" that "debunks" the Downing Street Memo.
This is from All Things Conservative, via LGF
And here is item 6 from the Cabinet paper:[dated 2 days before the DSM]
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;
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.
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
added].
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
Which Memo was that again?
The Downing Street Memo? Never heard of it. Neither apparently has Amy at Me First. She points out that the reason no one has ever heard of it is because the press dropped the ball. I tend to agree. ::ball rolls across floor and bumps into trashcan::
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.
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
Freedom of Speech
Seems like there is some concern in the blogosphere today stemming from this TCS interview between a blogger and the Federal Election Committee Chairperson. There is still a lot of concern about how blogging will be affected by changes in Campaign Finance Laws, specifically political blogging. (For those people who plan to advocate certain candidates etc.)
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.
Gone.
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.
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.
Gone.
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
Attention all JobSeekers
A week or so ago I found this website Job-Secrets-Revealed.com.
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.
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.
iPods
The woman in the cube next to me has been talking loudly on the phone in turkish for approximately 10 minutes now. Now I really like this woman, she's great. But her head is about three feet from mine and the non stop gibberish interspersed with laughter is making me INSANE. It must have taken me two whole minutes to untangle my iPod headphones and charger cable because I was twitching and SOO desperate to obliviate this chatter with a stream of unrelenting hard rock. And in fact I can still F-ing hear her because I'm trying not to destroy my eardrums. Oh lord.
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....)
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....)
Pitt Bulls
I hate humans. People like this are the reason that every year hundred of sweet goodnatured dogs can't find homes. This woman had an unneutered pitt bulls breeding in her home with her children. This is just stupid. She tried to keep her kids out of the way by putting them in the basement of all things. HELLO put the dogs outside. And one of them came in and the male dog attacked and killed her child. What an idiotic woman, and that poor dog.
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.
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.
Stupidity
in the entertainment industry this time. A headline by CNN : "Pitt, Jolie rumors lift 'Smith' at the box office"
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.
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
Mmmm Nerd Love
Good news for all of the people I went to school with. The "normal" folks are finding out how much better geeks are than the rest of the world. This article from instaland is one example talking about how celebrity women enjoy dating "nerds" (If by nerd you mean non-hearthrob celebrities).
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.
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
CNN.com shows dangers of developing good sense today with an article entitled
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 shinobi42@gmail.com. I have zillions.
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 shinobi42@gmail.com. I have zillions.
Those Crazy Christians
Jeff Jarvis has posted an editorial on his blog from some christian guy. And it seems like the first time in YEARS I've heard anything rational from the Christians. (Except for maybe the Easter Sunday Sermon at my parent's church about Terry Schiavo and letting people make their own choices.) I have nothing to add to this because it is good and well written. I just wanted to memorialize my agreement with a Christian.
Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.
Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.
Finally
Last night Jon Stewart mentioned the Downing Street Memo when talking to Colin Powell. Obviously Colin Powell seemed to dismiss the memo and went on to talk about how they had behaved diplomatically etc.
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.
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
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
It is getting more and more difficult to wake up in the morning. I wonder if McDonalds is hiring.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
....And I feel Fine
The Bush administration is being called out by The National Academies for their lack of action against global warming. (The MSNBC article) (the full text of the Academie's statement)
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!
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!
Vrrrrrooooooom
This article today from CNN is an interesting analysis of how men and women think. Specifically about cars.
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::To bad I'd have to give up beer entirely along with my apartment and food in order to afford it.
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::
Freaky
Finished Freakonomics last night. My computer is re - un- re - re - broken so I've been doing a lot of reading because I have no life and television is boring. I really enjoyed the book, it was very well written for something so academic, it was easy to understand and very interesting. Economics for the masses. I recommend it.
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)
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
Some Sticky Shit
In honor of the Supreme Court's destruction of State's Rights I'm going to do a little round up on Hemp, because I only recently discovered how useful it is.
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.
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.
Supreme Buzzkill
A stinging defeat today for marajuana lobbyists. (Or are they Activists? I don't know that anyone who smokes pot could really be considered "active.") The supreme court has ruled that Federal authorities can still prosecute medical marajuana users in states where it has been legalized. Damn Activist Judges legislating from the bench!
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.
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
I'm It
Better do this now while my computer is still living. Kav tagged me and this is courtesy of prairie biker, via Hubris...
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.
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.
Honesty
I never go to iVillage because I think it is trite, but today I went to look for my horoscope out of sheer boredom and I found an article I completely agree with. (I know the website is pink guys, but I think this wisdom applies to you too.)
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.
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.
Loserdom
I still haven't seen the new Star Wars. This may in fact make me a pariah among my bloggy bretheren. But I have no desire to see it. But I keep reading posts about it, like for instance everything posted at ASV, and this post at Absinthe and Cookies, yeah, really, no idea what they are talking about. But fortunately I know enough french to vaguely get the gist. From everything I've heard I'm going to really hate this movie, so my expecations are low. But I would like to be able to participate in the blogosphere without fear of someone throwing a rock through my window that reads "Get out Jock". Therefore I will now make phone calls and find someone to go see it with me. Oh man, I'm such a loser.
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.
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
Wrath
I have angered the computer gods. My computer at home remains broken and my work computer is only working intermittantly.
Sadly I don't know any virgins to sacrifice. So blogging will probably be light for a while.
Sadly I don't know any virgins to sacrifice. So blogging will probably be light for a while.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Us vs. Them
When I was younger I used to freak people out by staring at them for a moment and then shouting "You're one of THEM" and running away. I know, sad, but their reaction is usually pretty entertaining.
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?
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?
My Top 5
If by harmful you mean interesting. (via asv) This lists the top 10 most harmful books of all time. Including things like Mein Kampf and The Feminine Mystique (I'd totally put those 2 on the same list, wouldn't you?).
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.
Runners up-
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.
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.
Runners up-
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.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Slow Blog Day
Do people really still care about Deep Throat? I don't, sorry, maybe I'm too young. I liked it better when it was a mystery.
Interesting article on love's biological basis from the NYT. They use fMRI data, which is always fun to analyze. (NOT!) Yeah, well read it, but ignore the headline because it is painfully stupid.
Maybe I should start insulting people because I'm so bored. Hmmmm.... Who do I hate a lot 100%er , being shut down. Ariana Huffington? nah, huffington toast has that well in hand. Damn, I'm too apathetic. I could post mean things about people I like. But then I'd be an asshole with no friends instead of just an asshole. Oh well back to the jorb.
Interesting article on love's biological basis from the NYT. They use fMRI data, which is always fun to analyze. (NOT!) Yeah, well read it, but ignore the headline because it is painfully stupid.
Maybe I should start insulting people because I'm so bored. Hmmmm.... Who do I hate a lot 100%er , being shut down. Ariana Huffington? nah, huffington toast has that well in hand. Damn, I'm too apathetic. I could post mean things about people I like. But then I'd be an asshole with no friends instead of just an asshole. Oh well back to the jorb.
Dude
If you get a dell you should definetly shell out extra bucks for their business help line if possible. My dad put me on his and I got to talk to someone who actually speaks english. It was amazing. And I was really grateful for it as I was attempting to re-seat my processor.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Corn fuled cars
Here we come.
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
Pollibuster
Mystery Pollster has a great analysis of polls on the filibuster. I can't really add anything to that discussion, it is definetly worth a read.
Girls Rule
Qando links to a poll showing 53% support for Hillary Clinton in '08. That's exciting. I don't know if I like her or not, but the part of me that is still playing Girls vs. Boys in kickball is jumping for joy. It would be great to have a female president, but not at the expense of having a good leader so I will reserve judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women felt this way.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
I'm not dead
Just in case you were worried.
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
Monday, May 23, 2005
Links to stuff you've probably already seen.
As my life/career/self-esteem/desire to continue living have all hit rock bottom and with all of that so has my ability to add anything to any discussion in the blogosphere.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Congratulations Class of 05
My little sister graduated from highschool tonight. We have the same alma mater, private, catholic, all girls, you get the idea. We graduate in white formal gowns (usually wedding dresses sans train and veil) and carry red roses. It's a beautiful ceremony and though I'm not a fan of tradition or girliness it made my graduation very special and unique. She looked gorgeous (of course, since we share a gene pool). I'd post pictures but I don't want you cretons oggling my sister.
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
# Ninja and the Migraine
This morning our faithful Ninja arrived at work after a 2 hour battle with a migraine that was only won after calling in reinforcements. In her in box she found an e-mail waiting for her from Dumbass. This e-mail, very politely requested that she do some copy and pasting. However Ninja has been doing this particular copying and pasting every week for the past 6 months. And this week this copying and pasting is going to be particularly useful, and so Ninja, being the amazing copy an paste artist that she is was already starting to do this when she opened the e-mail. Needless to say she was slightly peeved to be reminded to do work that she was already doing. She informed Dumbass that she had the matter well in hand and that his request was unnecessary. Dumbass declared that she was being too "sensitive."
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Liberal MSM (with Meanwhiles)
Instapundit and several other blogs have cited this survey from the University of Conneticut today. (JD, you got your wish, they surveyed the journalists and found out about their political leanings, YAY, now we can disagree about what it means.)
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Friday, May 13, 2005
My name and other issues
I made the decision when I started blogging not to use my real name. The reason for this is manyfold and I wont bore you with them, but perhaps the most important issue is that I could lose my job for the things I have said in this blog. And while I don't like my job very much it does provide food and shelter for me, and I have come to enjoy those things.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
The Birds and the Birds
Conversations with hypothetical offspring of my little sister:
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
Bolton
I'm back today. Left work early yesterday because I was sick, so I WoWed and slept all afternoon. Didja miss me? No? Thought not.
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Typography
Spent the last hour or so reading through this PEW Typology study. (Via Michelle Malkin, okay, I admit it, I want to be her when I grow up.)
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Biggest Idiot on THP (with Meanwhiles!)
Jim Lampley posted this FASCINATING post on The Huffington Post today. Really, full of facts and stuff. Um. Yeah. (Via atrios)
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
I'm not Biased, YOU are!
As an outraged centrist, I am long weary of hearing about how liberal/not liberal enough most of the media is. It is an un-ending conversation. I am not going to propose an end to it unfortunately. I am going to point out however that this conversation is inevitable, and fruitless.
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
Good Advice
Good advice today from John Hawkins. (via Michelle Malkin AGAIN! shock)
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Celeblogs
If I had tags, I would file this under bitter.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Dog Blogging
Yeah so, I think cat blogging is dumb. Dog blogging is equally dumb. But I'm going to do it anyway on the off chance that anyone in the Pittsburgh area is looking to adopt a dog and might actually read this blog. HAH!
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
Drugs Are Bad
And if you do drugs, you are bad. Digby at Hullabaloo has a great post on the "War on Drugs" and how it's really a "war on marajuana." Anyway, go read Digby's article because he's a good writer, and I am not.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Is your sperm the Gay?
The FDA is going to implement new policies that prevent homosexual men from being sperm donors.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
Survey of Superficiality
Oh My god, like, I totally hate it when guys have like, back hair and stuff.
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
- forcing me to read bad poetry
- trying to impress me with extensive knowledge of only one topic
- failing to discuss ANYTHING but that one thing you know a lot about (beer, cars, heavy metal, etc.)
- agreeing with me all of the time
- stalking me
I have one superficial requirement: Men must be taller than 5'10," I'm 6' and I think it is reasonable for me to only date men taller than the shortest member of my family. (Okay smartasses, I know what you're thinking and that does NOT count as a date.)
So yeah, if I'm on the market again anytime soon, (Unlikely) now you know how not to piss me off. Basically, have a personality. I figure personal grooming is something that can be fixed, but boringness there is no cure for.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
What a Dvork
Bill Dvorkin has a fascinating article on bloggers and their role in "unredacting" the "redacted" pentagon document about the Italian hostage. (Via Atrios) Apparently he doesn't think to highly of us.
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
To war, or not to war
A memo from across the pond implies that this matter wasn't so much under discussion. It looks like we were just looking for some justification. That is the full text of the memo (I believe). Some choice bits of nosh:
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Call the ASPCA
I love animals. I feel that since humans have taken over this planet we have a responsibility to care for the furry things whose homes we have made more dangerous or non existant. Especially the critters who we have domesticated. (Horses, cows, dogs, cats... not really chickens cause they are annoying, but you get the idea.) So obviously I would not be pleased when I read the following excerpt from James Dobson's book (from Hullabaloo):
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
Monday, May 02, 2005
My Idea of Torture
is being forced into conversations with devout Christians who assume that since their opinions are based on their faith that I also would agree with them. This, is my idea of torture.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Lucky There's a
FAMILY GUY!!!
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
