One of the highlights of my day is receiving the latest Snowmail. Jon Snow is a presenter for Channel 4 News in Britain, and he sends out a daily news update around midday (well, it's evening in Britain, but midday here). There's always a little commentary, but mostly it's a quick headline grab.
I love it for how quickly he sums up the news and throws a common-sense take into it. Essential for those days when I skip reading the newspaper and/or can't follow the news all day.
An item in today's Snowmail summed up Bush's defense of eavesdropping quite simply. It's good to take a step back and look at this rationally from an outsider's perspective (outside the US, at least), absent the rationalizations of the kneejerk defend-Bush crowd. And I quote:
Bush defends the listeners
=============================================
George Bush is in an ever deepening mire about tapping people's phones without permission.
It's a long and sordid tradition that US presidents tap themselves - remember Nixon?
But tapping others? An American's home is his castle as are the wires running in and out of it, people don't like it - can Bush recover?
Amazing to think that his second term is not even 12 months old and it has come to this.
'Nuff said.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Addendum
Oh, and by the way.
I've been keeping two blogs going for a long time, basically simulposting almost everything between the two (though I think the posts, etc., relating to He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named all got stuck on livejournal so as not to clutter up the self-hosted one). But I think it makes more sense (particularly since there is at least one political blog list that pulls the RSS feed for the slywiz.com blog ... there's also one on livejournal, but I have to pick one or the other here) to split them out and maintain them separately.
So henceforth, the personal and band stuff will stay on my livejournal page (www.livejournal.com/~celtichris) and political and social commentary will go to the slywiz.com one (www.slywiz.com/celtichris/celtichris.html). And I'm not using my myspace blog for anything at all. I may occasionally cross-post between livejournal and slywiz.com. Occasionally.
But this should keep the people wot want to read my political rantings from having to deal with my day-to-day life, and keep my friends from having to slog through pages and pages of boring politics stuff (their loss, I say, but ... enh, I understand). But if, by chance, you're interested in both, bookmark both or, better yet, plug in the RSS feeds to your favorite reader and effortlessly follow them (Sage tells me there's one for the livejournal page, here).
I've been keeping two blogs going for a long time, basically simulposting almost everything between the two (though I think the posts, etc., relating to He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named all got stuck on livejournal so as not to clutter up the self-hosted one). But I think it makes more sense (particularly since there is at least one political blog list that pulls the RSS feed for the slywiz.com blog ... there's also one on livejournal, but I have to pick one or the other here) to split them out and maintain them separately.
So henceforth, the personal and band stuff will stay on my livejournal page (www.livejournal.com/~celtichris) and political and social commentary will go to the slywiz.com one (www.slywiz.com/celtichris/celtichris.html). And I'm not using my myspace blog for anything at all. I may occasionally cross-post between livejournal and slywiz.com. Occasionally.
But this should keep the people wot want to read my political rantings from having to deal with my day-to-day life, and keep my friends from having to slog through pages and pages of boring politics stuff (their loss, I say, but ... enh, I understand). But if, by chance, you're interested in both, bookmark both or, better yet, plug in the RSS feeds to your favorite reader and effortlessly follow them (Sage tells me there's one for the livejournal page, here).
personal: A festive weekend
Wow, I really haven't been posting much lately. Fortunately, that's because I've been pretty busy. We start tonight with a birthday party for Mason and my brother-in-law, then head to a holiday cocktail party tomorrow night at the home of my step-sister and her husband (more about that below).
And as far as political commentary, Rachel is doing a much better job. I feel redundant. Not giving up; just casting about for something a little more unique to do with it. Until I figure it out, that part of this blog is most likely going to be limited to AFAmail and RNCmail when they're particularly outrageous (instead of predictably so, as they've largely been for the last couple of months ... though AFA taking credit for Ford pulling back on advertising in specialty publications [not just, or specifically, gay ones, it must be noted] was particularly amusing).
I've been, as I said, keeping very busy for the last couple months, mostly with the band. And I'm pleased to say that we are inches away from finishing principal recording for our CD. If Richard weren't leaving for two weeks to spend Christmas with family in Oregon, there's a good chance we could've had it finished by the end of the year. Ach, well. Of course, after the principal recording comes mixing, producing, adding in various other instruments and vocals as seasoning, etc., etc., etc., blah, woof, blah, woof, then we have to figure out what order to put the songs in, master it, come up with a title for the blasted thing, do the cover art and typeset the booklet and send the whole thing off to be manufactured ... If we're extremely lucky, we might be able to have this stuff done by the end of January. If we're lucky.
But the point is, we're getting there. And it's good. Another good thing is that we're actually starting to be offered paying gigs. Up first, tomorrow (saturday) evening we're playing at a cocktail party my step-sister is hosting. And she's paying us! We've been encouraged to invite anyone and everyone we want, so if you're in Phoenix and you know one of the three of us and/or my family, and would like to go, just drop me a line. We're playing from 7-9, but expect it to be an all-evening event.
There's another party on the calendar and then an interesting event at the Paper Heart on March 25, of which more details will soon show up on our event calendar. And we're looking into places for St. Patrick's Day. And possibly our highest profile gig yet, if I can bow and scrape sufficiently before the promoter ... can't be more specific right now, for fear of embarrassing myself if it doesn't pan out. And ... we're planning a tour of the West Coast next fall.
After laboring for more than a year pouring money, time and stress into this project and seemingly getting next to nothing out of it, it's nice to see the seeds we've planted starting to bear fruit. Soon, $11-an-hour coffeehouse gigs and just-for-tips (when nobody, simply nobody tips anymore unless they're a friend) art gallery shows will be a thing of the past.
But things are finally happening! We started podcasting last week, partly because we want to have a record of preparing our album, partly as a tool to promote the album ... but mostly because we're a strange and interesting group of people, and it gives us an opportunity to invite people into Richard's living room once a week. We recorded a new episode last night, so all that remains is for me to plop down at my computer and edit and fix it up. I know, podcasting is painfully trendy. But it's fun.
*phew* I think I've gone on long enough. Happy Christmas to all, as appropriate; Happy Holidays to all others.
And as far as political commentary, Rachel is doing a much better job. I feel redundant. Not giving up; just casting about for something a little more unique to do with it. Until I figure it out, that part of this blog is most likely going to be limited to AFAmail and RNCmail when they're particularly outrageous (instead of predictably so, as they've largely been for the last couple of months ... though AFA taking credit for Ford pulling back on advertising in specialty publications [not just, or specifically, gay ones, it must be noted] was particularly amusing).
I've been, as I said, keeping very busy for the last couple months, mostly with the band. And I'm pleased to say that we are inches away from finishing principal recording for our CD. If Richard weren't leaving for two weeks to spend Christmas with family in Oregon, there's a good chance we could've had it finished by the end of the year. Ach, well. Of course, after the principal recording comes mixing, producing, adding in various other instruments and vocals as seasoning, etc., etc., etc., blah, woof, blah, woof, then we have to figure out what order to put the songs in, master it, come up with a title for the blasted thing, do the cover art and typeset the booklet and send the whole thing off to be manufactured ... If we're extremely lucky, we might be able to have this stuff done by the end of January. If we're lucky.
But the point is, we're getting there. And it's good. Another good thing is that we're actually starting to be offered paying gigs. Up first, tomorrow (saturday) evening we're playing at a cocktail party my step-sister is hosting. And she's paying us! We've been encouraged to invite anyone and everyone we want, so if you're in Phoenix and you know one of the three of us and/or my family, and would like to go, just drop me a line. We're playing from 7-9, but expect it to be an all-evening event.
There's another party on the calendar and then an interesting event at the Paper Heart on March 25, of which more details will soon show up on our event calendar. And we're looking into places for St. Patrick's Day. And possibly our highest profile gig yet, if I can bow and scrape sufficiently before the promoter ... can't be more specific right now, for fear of embarrassing myself if it doesn't pan out. And ... we're planning a tour of the West Coast next fall.
After laboring for more than a year pouring money, time and stress into this project and seemingly getting next to nothing out of it, it's nice to see the seeds we've planted starting to bear fruit. Soon, $11-an-hour coffeehouse gigs and just-for-tips (when nobody, simply nobody tips anymore unless they're a friend) art gallery shows will be a thing of the past.
But things are finally happening! We started podcasting last week, partly because we want to have a record of preparing our album, partly as a tool to promote the album ... but mostly because we're a strange and interesting group of people, and it gives us an opportunity to invite people into Richard's living room once a week. We recorded a new episode last night, so all that remains is for me to plop down at my computer and edit and fix it up. I know, podcasting is painfully trendy. But it's fun.
*phew* I think I've gone on long enough. Happy Christmas to all, as appropriate; Happy Holidays to all others.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
politics: The Republicans -- Dishonest on Democrats
Yesterday brought yet another (yawn) installment of RNC-mail from Ken 'I'm not gay! Stop it! I'm not!' Mehlman, this one entitled "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq". There's a video, if you're really sure you want to watch it.
At this point, I should pipe up and say that even I thought there were chemical weapons in Iraq before the war. I still thought invading was a really bad idea. To make matters worse, I didn't have one of the largest and most sophisticated intelligence infrastructures in the world telling me they didn't, or at least that the evidence was inconclusive. And I didn't take that information, cleanse it of all qualifying phrases, or in some cases completely rewrite the summary conclusions and use that information to lie to Congress and the American people.
Holy Jesus, people, what kind of balls does it take to hold people you lied to equally accountable to yourselves simply because they believed you were acting in good faith? Are you, then, telling us that we should never actually believe anything Republican politicians say? Because that's the logical progression of this line of talking point. So there you all stand, shameless and naked. I hope you freeze to death, politically speaking.
At this point, I should pipe up and say that even I thought there were chemical weapons in Iraq before the war. I still thought invading was a really bad idea. To make matters worse, I didn't have one of the largest and most sophisticated intelligence infrastructures in the world telling me they didn't, or at least that the evidence was inconclusive. And I didn't take that information, cleanse it of all qualifying phrases, or in some cases completely rewrite the summary conclusions and use that information to lie to Congress and the American people.
Holy Jesus, people, what kind of balls does it take to hold people you lied to equally accountable to yourselves simply because they believed you were acting in good faith? Are you, then, telling us that we should never actually believe anything Republican politicians say? Because that's the logical progression of this line of talking point. So there you all stand, shameless and naked. I hope you freeze to death, politically speaking.
Monday, November 14, 2005
politics/Air America: Buried in a New York Times article this weekend
It should be no surprise to people who read this blog (particularly the version at slywiz.com that I'm a big fan of Rachel Maddow.
So I was very excited about an article this weekend in the New York Times about the emergence, particularly in liberal talk radio, of women as on air personalities. The bloom is off the rose somewhat for me with Randi, since she frequently dips credulously into dubious conspiracy theories and often yells unmercifully at liberal callers who don't toe her exact line on every point; and her frequent, albeit usually minor, factual errors often stick in my craw.
But Rachel is another beast entirely. Her early morning one-hour news show is peppered with humor (often courtesy of Unfiltered hang-over Kent Jones), insightful observation and a cutting wit (find the current day's show, as well as previous archived shows, in MP3 format at Air America Place, or better yet subscribe to the podcast at iTunes).
So yeah, getting around to the point finally. Halfway through the story was this quote: "The network is expected to announce imminently a move by Ms. Maddow into a more prominent morning drive-time role."
KXXT probably won't carry it, since they don't carry her show at all now and they just reshuffled the lineup to put prominent local talkers in morning drive time. But it's a great idea! It'd be better still for them to put her on in mid-afternoon or evening drive, but hey, one step at a time.
Listen. You'll be glad you did.
So I was very excited about an article this weekend in the New York Times about the emergence, particularly in liberal talk radio, of women as on air personalities. The bloom is off the rose somewhat for me with Randi, since she frequently dips credulously into dubious conspiracy theories and often yells unmercifully at liberal callers who don't toe her exact line on every point; and her frequent, albeit usually minor, factual errors often stick in my craw.
But Rachel is another beast entirely. Her early morning one-hour news show is peppered with humor (often courtesy of Unfiltered hang-over Kent Jones), insightful observation and a cutting wit (find the current day's show, as well as previous archived shows, in MP3 format at Air America Place, or better yet subscribe to the podcast at iTunes).
So yeah, getting around to the point finally. Halfway through the story was this quote: "The network is expected to announce imminently a move by Ms. Maddow into a more prominent morning drive-time role."
KXXT probably won't carry it, since they don't carry her show at all now and they just reshuffled the lineup to put prominent local talkers in morning drive time. But it's a great idea! It'd be better still for them to put her on in mid-afternoon or evening drive, but hey, one step at a time.
Listen. You'll be glad you did.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
politics: So you don't have to
I just keep getting those right-wing e-mails ... From the RNC, from Progress for America (of all the things they could've named themselves!), the American Family Association (because only right-wing Christian-approved groupings of relatives qualify as American Families), etc., etc., etc.
So what are they saying about Scalito?
Well, Progress for America wants your money to run their TV ad. As a bonus, too, you can download it for your video iPod! Snazzy!
What else do they say? "It is unprecedented for the Senate to oppose a nominee as qualified as Samuel Alito." So, in other words, advise and consent is dead. We own the country, they say, so get out of the way or you will rue the day you decided to oppose our iron fist. It's an unforgivable break with tradition, they say, to oppose their pet wingnut.
I remember a whole study we did in college of logical fallacies. One of the most common? 'Appeal to tradition.' In business, the appeal to tradition usually takes the form of 'Why change? This is how we've always done it.' This is usually followed by bankruptcy. Except in this case we're talking about moral bankruptcy.
How about the RNC?
Well, they want your money, too. But other than claiming that Scalito is a brilliant man out of whose ass the sun always shines, that under his influence America will turn into a land of milk and honey, where everyone joins hands and walks singing and smiling across the meadows, where your whites get whiter, your car never breaks down and money rains down from the heavens like a golden shower, offers up no substantive arguments for why their boy should get the job. But, as I've noted before, Kenny pretty much just expects that sending down his orders from on high should be enough to get the stormtroopers out in the streets smashing Democratic shop windows. And so on. And so on.
Of course, PFAW and MoveOn want my money, too. Frankly, I'm getting sick of all the money pitches, wherever they come from, but that's a side issue here.
So what are they saying about Scalito?
Well, Progress for America wants your money to run their TV ad. As a bonus, too, you can download it for your video iPod! Snazzy!
What else do they say? "It is unprecedented for the Senate to oppose a nominee as qualified as Samuel Alito." So, in other words, advise and consent is dead. We own the country, they say, so get out of the way or you will rue the day you decided to oppose our iron fist. It's an unforgivable break with tradition, they say, to oppose their pet wingnut.
I remember a whole study we did in college of logical fallacies. One of the most common? 'Appeal to tradition.' In business, the appeal to tradition usually takes the form of 'Why change? This is how we've always done it.' This is usually followed by bankruptcy. Except in this case we're talking about moral bankruptcy.
How about the RNC?
Well, they want your money, too. But other than claiming that Scalito is a brilliant man out of whose ass the sun always shines, that under his influence America will turn into a land of milk and honey, where everyone joins hands and walks singing and smiling across the meadows, where your whites get whiter, your car never breaks down and money rains down from the heavens like a golden shower, offers up no substantive arguments for why their boy should get the job. But, as I've noted before, Kenny pretty much just expects that sending down his orders from on high should be enough to get the stormtroopers out in the streets smashing Democratic shop windows. And so on. And so on.
Of course, PFAW and MoveOn want my money, too. Frankly, I'm getting sick of all the money pitches, wherever they come from, but that's a side issue here.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
personal: And they're off!
Once a year, for a month, I become absolutely, and almost certifiably, insane. What's that you say? I always am?
Yeah, probably.
But what's up in the month of November is National Novel Writing Month. This is my third year participating, though last year I didn't quite make it to the finish line because I was (shock, horror) working full time finishing the last semester of my master's program. And I was working full time. And my schooling necessitated a once-a-week evening commute to Tucson and back (a two-hour drive each way). And I'm in a band that wanted to rehearse occasionally. And, well, you get the idea.
I suppose my larger point is that I've always considered myself to be a writer but, like so many others, I always have an excuse not to do it. And if you've ever thought about writing a book but haven't done it, you've had your excuses too. It never hits the top of the priority list.
Nanowrimo is about abandoning the excuses and just doing it. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't have to flow. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to be fiction and the goal is to hit the 50,000-word mark by midnight Nov. 30. Knowing my life in the last year or two, I'm pretty sure politics will enter in somewhere, but I'll be honest ... I'm about a page into it so far and I have absolutely no idea what I'm writing about. And that's OK.
Join me, won't you? And if you can't or don't, bear with me if I don't answer e-mails or disappear for days at a time. I'm writing my Great American Novel, even if it falls far short of the Platonic ideal of such a beast.
Oh, and I'll be having fun doing it.
Yeah, probably.
But what's up in the month of November is National Novel Writing Month. This is my third year participating, though last year I didn't quite make it to the finish line because I was (shock, horror) working full time finishing the last semester of my master's program. And I was working full time. And my schooling necessitated a once-a-week evening commute to Tucson and back (a two-hour drive each way). And I'm in a band that wanted to rehearse occasionally. And, well, you get the idea.
I suppose my larger point is that I've always considered myself to be a writer but, like so many others, I always have an excuse not to do it. And if you've ever thought about writing a book but haven't done it, you've had your excuses too. It never hits the top of the priority list.
Nanowrimo is about abandoning the excuses and just doing it. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't have to flow. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to be fiction and the goal is to hit the 50,000-word mark by midnight Nov. 30. Knowing my life in the last year or two, I'm pretty sure politics will enter in somewhere, but I'll be honest ... I'm about a page into it so far and I have absolutely no idea what I'm writing about. And that's OK.
Join me, won't you? And if you can't or don't, bear with me if I don't answer e-mails or disappear for days at a time. I'm writing my Great American Novel, even if it falls far short of the Platonic ideal of such a beast.
Oh, and I'll be having fun doing it.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
politics: Someone wanna buy BushCo an Iain Banks book?
From 'A Few Notes on the Culture', an essay about Iain M. Banks's fictional galactic society, in The State of the Art:
... In all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind.
... In all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind.
Monday, October 03, 2005
politics: Brazen and stupid
I'm back! *phew* It's been awhile. Much has happened in the mean time, both in my personal life and in the life of the nation as a whole, that I've left uncommented on. Had a lovely trip to Northern California, saw some good music, drank some good wine. Now I'm back, wide awake and refreshed. And ready to take on Ken Mehlman's e-mail from this morning.
He headlines it, "Harriet Miers Needs Your Help." To me, I know I'm biased, but that's reason enough to oppose her, sight unseen.
But the fact that BushCorp nominated this woman in the first place demonstrates, sharply and with great shouting, that they care more about loyalty than about the good of the country. And it demonstrates BushCorp's total tone-deafness to the American public and current events.
Do they not see the collapse of credibility of their public officials? Do they not see the plunging poll numbers, indications that their long honeymoon is, at long last, drawing to a close?
And if they do, what excuse do they have for throwing a lawyer with absolutely no experience as a judge up on the parapet, a candidate for one of the most important judicial posts in the country?
So anyway. Back to Kenny-boy.
"Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench."
Excuse, please? How is she qualified? How do we know she's a fair-minded individual? Gimme something to go on here. Seriously. As for 'legislating from the bench ...', Ken, please get some new jargon. This stuff's getting old and tired. And get your guys all on board: Arnie wants legislation from the bench in California to protect him from the representative will of the people of California embodied in the state legislature.
Oh, and this part made me laugh: "President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process." Can anyone seriously imagine Skippy thinking anything through thoroughly and deliberately without guffawing uncontrollably?
Ah, yes, and there's this nugget: "They (the Democrats) have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote." Erm, so even if they did, what information is out there that would enable anyone not operating on pure and unadulteratedly blind faith to allow her a fair hearing?
I'm sure she's a nice woman and a perfectly competent lawyer. But I know lots of people like that who I wouldn't recommend for a Supreme Court post. And it seems obvious to me how little Kenny thinks of his rank-and-file minions that he can send out blather like this e-mail and not even worry about telling his own people why they should support this woman's nomination. He can assume that simply because he says it's so, that legions of cognition-deficient Republican worker drones will max out the phone lines of Capitol Hill professing their undying devotion to a woman whose name they didn't even know before yesterday.
And he's probably right.
He headlines it, "Harriet Miers Needs Your Help." To me, I know I'm biased, but that's reason enough to oppose her, sight unseen.
But the fact that BushCorp nominated this woman in the first place demonstrates, sharply and with great shouting, that they care more about loyalty than about the good of the country. And it demonstrates BushCorp's total tone-deafness to the American public and current events.
Do they not see the collapse of credibility of their public officials? Do they not see the plunging poll numbers, indications that their long honeymoon is, at long last, drawing to a close?
And if they do, what excuse do they have for throwing a lawyer with absolutely no experience as a judge up on the parapet, a candidate for one of the most important judicial posts in the country?
So anyway. Back to Kenny-boy.
"Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench."
Excuse, please? How is she qualified? How do we know she's a fair-minded individual? Gimme something to go on here. Seriously. As for 'legislating from the bench ...', Ken, please get some new jargon. This stuff's getting old and tired. And get your guys all on board: Arnie wants legislation from the bench in California to protect him from the representative will of the people of California embodied in the state legislature.
Oh, and this part made me laugh: "President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process." Can anyone seriously imagine Skippy thinking anything through thoroughly and deliberately without guffawing uncontrollably?
Ah, yes, and there's this nugget: "They (the Democrats) have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote." Erm, so even if they did, what information is out there that would enable anyone not operating on pure and unadulteratedly blind faith to allow her a fair hearing?
I'm sure she's a nice woman and a perfectly competent lawyer. But I know lots of people like that who I wouldn't recommend for a Supreme Court post. And it seems obvious to me how little Kenny thinks of his rank-and-file minions that he can send out blather like this e-mail and not even worry about telling his own people why they should support this woman's nomination. He can assume that simply because he says it's so, that legions of cognition-deficient Republican worker drones will max out the phone lines of Capitol Hill professing their undying devotion to a woman whose name they didn't even know before yesterday.
And he's probably right.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Christian charity knows bounds
Yes, ladies and gents, it's time for the latest installment of AFA-mail! Yes, it's true, the American Family Association squatted over my e-mailbox today and took a crap the size of Texas.
It starts out innocently enough, soliciting churches to house people displaced by the hurricane and federal negligence in the Gulf region. So far so good. After that, it turns kinda ugly.
"We in turn will contact a family needing shelter and have them get in contact with you directly. You can interview them to see if their needs and your facilities are compatible and to secure references such as their previous local church and pastor."
Excuse me, but WTF?
Yes, it's all very subtle. It's just a 'reference check'. "We suggest that you screen the family carefully. While 99% of these people will be very appreciative, there is always that 1% who can create problems."
In other words, pick the white fundamentalist Christian families first, then the black fundamentalist Christian families, then if you must, the Christian families of more mainstream denominations. But you can safely weed out anyone who doesn't go to church regularly, for whatever reason. They can feel free to die wherever they fall.
Remember, it's just a reference check, to weed out that "1% who can create problems."
It starts out innocently enough, soliciting churches to house people displaced by the hurricane and federal negligence in the Gulf region. So far so good. After that, it turns kinda ugly.
"We in turn will contact a family needing shelter and have them get in contact with you directly. You can interview them to see if their needs and your facilities are compatible and to secure references such as their previous local church and pastor."
Excuse me, but WTF?
Yes, it's all very subtle. It's just a 'reference check'. "We suggest that you screen the family carefully. While 99% of these people will be very appreciative, there is always that 1% who can create problems."
In other words, pick the white fundamentalist Christian families first, then the black fundamentalist Christian families, then if you must, the Christian families of more mainstream denominations. But you can safely weed out anyone who doesn't go to church regularly, for whatever reason. They can feel free to die wherever they fall.
Remember, it's just a reference check, to weed out that "1% who can create problems."
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
*yawn* Oh, look, the gas boycott is here again
Yes, here we are again. My inbox is filling up with those e-mails from friends, family, acquaintances, people I barely know ... almost every mailing list I'm on has forwarded one on to me: "Stick It Up Their @$$ Day" and other like appellations. For one day, we won't buy gasoline. Nations will tremble. Oil company executives will cower under their desks. The heavens will ring with the anguished cries of the Middle Eastern oil barons. And the price of gas will instantly halve.
As much of an idealist as I am, get fricking real, people.
I get gas about once every two weeks, once a week if I've done a lot of driving. Does this mean that I'm boycotting the oil companies the other 13 days?
Yeah, OK, maybe if everyone, absolutely everyone in America refrained from refueling (this includes the truckers who bring those frozen pizzas to your grocery stores so you don't have to get up off your ass and make some decent food yourself, and who bring you your mail every day), it might cause a hiccup that they would notice. But it would be nicely offset by the rise in gas sales the week leading up to and the week following it.
A finer example of slacktivism I can hardly envision. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, but makes you feel good about doing it.
You really want to stick it to the oil companies? You really want to complain about the obscene price gouging, the positively criminal level of profiteering?
Get off your ass. Walk. Wipe the cobwebs off that bike, pump up the tires and get riding. Carpool to work. Telecommute. Combine errands into one trip. Decide if you really have to run down to Circle K for a stick of butter. Ride the fricking bus, ferchrissake!
Get rid of that stupid SUV that you never actually use for its intended purpose (even though if you did use most of the newer ones for that intended purpose, they'd fail miserably) and buy a hybrid or a SmartCar. Find ways to save electricity. Etc., etc.
Basically, use less oil over the long term. One day isn't going to accomplish diddly. But a long-term drop in consumption will serve two purposes: It'll make the point that the stuff costs too much, and it'll slow consumption so that the day is delayed when we totally run out; plus, we'll all be in a slightly better position when it finally does.
Gawd, people are stupid.
As much of an idealist as I am, get fricking real, people.
I get gas about once every two weeks, once a week if I've done a lot of driving. Does this mean that I'm boycotting the oil companies the other 13 days?
Yeah, OK, maybe if everyone, absolutely everyone in America refrained from refueling (this includes the truckers who bring those frozen pizzas to your grocery stores so you don't have to get up off your ass and make some decent food yourself, and who bring you your mail every day), it might cause a hiccup that they would notice. But it would be nicely offset by the rise in gas sales the week leading up to and the week following it.
A finer example of slacktivism I can hardly envision. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, but makes you feel good about doing it.
You really want to stick it to the oil companies? You really want to complain about the obscene price gouging, the positively criminal level of profiteering?
Get off your ass. Walk. Wipe the cobwebs off that bike, pump up the tires and get riding. Carpool to work. Telecommute. Combine errands into one trip. Decide if you really have to run down to Circle K for a stick of butter. Ride the fricking bus, ferchrissake!
Get rid of that stupid SUV that you never actually use for its intended purpose (even though if you did use most of the newer ones for that intended purpose, they'd fail miserably) and buy a hybrid or a SmartCar. Find ways to save electricity. Etc., etc.
Basically, use less oil over the long term. One day isn't going to accomplish diddly. But a long-term drop in consumption will serve two purposes: It'll make the point that the stuff costs too much, and it'll slow consumption so that the day is delayed when we totally run out; plus, we'll all be in a slightly better position when it finally does.
Gawd, people are stupid.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
politics: I'm pretty sure lying is a sin, too, right?
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time." -- Pat Robertson, today.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it." -- Pat Robertson, Monday.
I'm astonished that he thinks people are that stupid. The man truly has hellfire at his core.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it." -- Pat Robertson, Monday.
I'm astonished that he thinks people are that stupid. The man truly has hellfire at his core.
social issues: Intelligent (?) Design
Stumbled across this quote from Neal Stephenson's The Confusion (vol. 2 of the Baroque Cycle, an intriguing and aptly-named historical fiction trilogy of sorts):
"Monads and atoms are both infinitely small, yet everything is made out of them; and in considering how such a paradox is possible, we must look to the interactions among them. ... We're obliged to explain the things we see ... solely in terms of those interactions."
"Solely, Doctor?"
"Solely, your highness. For if God made the world according to understandable, consistent laws -- and if nothing else, Newton has proved that -- then it must be consistent through and through, top to bottom. If it is made of atoms, then it is made of atoms, and must be explained in terms of atoms; when we get into difficulty, we cannot simply wave our hands and say, 'At this point there is a miracle,' or 'Here I invoke a wholly new thing called Force which has nothing to do with atoms.'"
I am reminded, too, of the old maps that left uncharted areas labelled 'Here there be dragons.
Anyway. Submitted for your consideration.
"Monads and atoms are both infinitely small, yet everything is made out of them; and in considering how such a paradox is possible, we must look to the interactions among them. ... We're obliged to explain the things we see ... solely in terms of those interactions."
"Solely, Doctor?"
"Solely, your highness. For if God made the world according to understandable, consistent laws -- and if nothing else, Newton has proved that -- then it must be consistent through and through, top to bottom. If it is made of atoms, then it is made of atoms, and must be explained in terms of atoms; when we get into difficulty, we cannot simply wave our hands and say, 'At this point there is a miracle,' or 'Here I invoke a wholly new thing called Force which has nothing to do with atoms.'"
I am reminded, too, of the old maps that left uncharted areas labelled 'Here there be dragons.
Anyway. Submitted for your consideration.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
politics: A 'well, duh' epiphany
It just occurred to me why the Bush cabal is now, at least covertly, suggesting they might start pulling the troops out of Iraq. I mean, yeah, it took me awhile to connect this with Bush's 'all options are on the table' crap concerning Iran last weekend.
But that's just it. There's no way he can invade Iran while the military is mired in Iraq.
Here we go.
But that's just it. There's no way he can invade Iran while the military is mired in Iraq.
Here we go.
misc.: Gag.
azcentral.com reports on the new color scheme for the post-merger US Airways planes.
Say what you will about America West Airlines, and there are many things you can say. But their planes are pretty. Their colors are nice. This color scheme is about as exciting as the dress code for male employees at Fry's Electronics.
What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' was unclear?
Pat Robertson. Dude is seriously whack. Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death, says the Washington Post. Apparently it's God's will that America assassinate a democratically-elected foreign head of state.
Seriously, even if this were the first time he'd said or done something so monumentally evil, I don't understand why this man still has a job.
Seriously, even if this were the first time he'd said or done something so monumentally evil, I don't understand why this man still has a job.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
misc: An engrossing random Web site find
I use Firefox for my Web browsing and I have an extension on it from StumbleUpon, which sends you to Web sites it thinks you'll like based on your ratings of other sites you've visited (sort of like TiVo Suggestions for the Web). Because the toolbar is right above the tabs in Firefox, sometimes I hit the 'Stumble!' button by mistake.
So this morning I found the photoblog PostSecret. The deal is that people anonymously send in 4x6 postcards to the address of the blog owner with a secret written, or laid out artistically, or whatever, on the picture side of the postcard.
Some of them, I'm sure, are invented, and some of them are trivial. Some are funny, some are tragic, some are sad ... but almost all of them are fascinating. I lost a chunk of my morning reading them today.
So this morning I found the photoblog PostSecret. The deal is that people anonymously send in 4x6 postcards to the address of the blog owner with a secret written, or laid out artistically, or whatever, on the picture side of the postcard.
Some of them, I'm sure, are invented, and some of them are trivial. Some are funny, some are tragic, some are sad ... but almost all of them are fascinating. I lost a chunk of my morning reading them today.
Friday, August 12, 2005
homosexuality: Dobson's really starting to creep me out
There's so much I could say about this Web site, but really, it speaks for itself.
"My son couldn’t care less about sports and the great outdoors. He’s painfully shy and easily gets hurt. Other kids call him a sissy. I’ve tried everything. My boy even wimped out of Cub Scouts. What am I supposed to do?"
This, of course, is the point in the blog entry at which I obligatorily point out that:
I mean, I know I'm no parent, but it seems to me that a paranoid urge to control your child is indicative of your own insecurities and is ultimately harmful to your child.
And, erm, there's this word that's all over this meanspirited, judgmental, psuedopsychological swill ... 'prehomosexual'.
"My son couldn’t care less about sports and the great outdoors. He’s painfully shy and easily gets hurt. Other kids call him a sissy. I’ve tried everything. My boy even wimped out of Cub Scouts. What am I supposed to do?"
This, of course, is the point in the blog entry at which I obligatorily point out that:
- I enjoy watching several sports and even participating in a couple of team sports from time to time.
- Hiking, camping, bike riding, rock climbing ... these are all activities I enjoy very much.
- Just about every guy (even the straight ones, amazingly!) I know was called a 'sissy', 'fag', etc., etc., more times than he can count over the course of his childhood. Kids are mean that way.
- Shyness is, equally amazingly, not limited to us queers, in my experience. Actually, most of the queerwimpsissyfags I know are actually substantially more extroverted and outgoing than me.
- I'm an Eagle scout and veteran of the armed forces. So much for their 'wimp' bilge.
- I am far from unique in all of this.
I mean, I know I'm no parent, but it seems to me that a paranoid urge to control your child is indicative of your own insecurities and is ultimately harmful to your child.
And, erm, there's this word that's all over this meanspirited, judgmental, psuedopsychological swill ... 'prehomosexual'.
WTF?
politics: Go, Cindy!
Cindy Sheehan is officially my new hero. Thanks to kniwt, I've been reading this blog/running commentary since yesterday, which keeps me up to date. William Rivers Pitt was doing the updating, but he's gone back to Boston, leaving Scott Galindez to keep everyone informed.
I'm captivated.
I'm captivated.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
politics: You poor take courage, you rich take care
OK, quoting a Leon Rosselson song in the subject line, and now to quote one of my own songs (in an act of blatant self-aggrandizement), in the name of truth, we're coming for you ...
Yes, it looks like Schmidt is going to Congress, the woman who I indelicately compared last night to "a schoolmarm who performs the Black Mass in her off hours." But if she can win by such a slim margin in a district that hasn't gone Democrat in decades, it's evident that the backlash against neoconservatism, neoimperialism and neofascism is already well underway.
What lessons can we take from Hackett? Being plain-spoken resonates. An anti-war message resonates. Bland and blatant adulation of the president does not resonate particularly well. Slandering veterans and questioning the quality of their service will backfire. But more jobs, protecting Social Security from the rapacious Republican hordes, and better, more accessible and more affordable health care are popular.
I feel certain the Richt will paint this as a sound trouncing of liberal values and a ringing endorsement of the unholy bloodbath in the Middle East. But to go from consistent 75%-25% races to almost a dead heat does indeed indicate a shift in the tide.
Yes, it looks like Schmidt is going to Congress, the woman who I indelicately compared last night to "a schoolmarm who performs the Black Mass in her off hours." But if she can win by such a slim margin in a district that hasn't gone Democrat in decades, it's evident that the backlash against neoconservatism, neoimperialism and neofascism is already well underway.
What lessons can we take from Hackett? Being plain-spoken resonates. An anti-war message resonates. Bland and blatant adulation of the president does not resonate particularly well. Slandering veterans and questioning the quality of their service will backfire. But more jobs, protecting Social Security from the rapacious Republican hordes, and better, more accessible and more affordable health care are popular.
I feel certain the Richt will paint this as a sound trouncing of liberal values and a ringing endorsement of the unholy bloodbath in the Middle East. But to go from consistent 75%-25% races to almost a dead heat does indeed indicate a shift in the tide.
Friday, July 29, 2005
politics: Bush to world: F off
*ahem* Real presidential. Truly.
Right. While you're digesting that, here's a quote from a Powerline post called to attention by the ever-vigilant Daily Kos:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
I swear, satire is dead. It's been rendered irrelevant by real life.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
politics: From Gitmo to Abu Ghraib
Wasn't it just 'a few bad apples'? Wasn't it an amazing thing that all those interrogators in all those widespread places coincidentally came up with the same strange, creative ways of brutalizing people?
"The commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay prison visited Abu Ghraib in 2003 and recommended the use of military dogs during interrogations, the former warden in Iraq testified Wednesday at a hearing for two Army dog handlers accused of prisoner abuse," according to the Guardian.
Wow. You could knock me over with a feather.
Of course, they'll keep spinning. And Duncan "if feeding the detainees lemon chicken and rice pilaf is torture, well, sign me up!" Hunter will keep inviting embarrassed journalists to sample the fine Guantanamo cuisine in a sublime, surrealistic act of denial.
What will it take for the apologists to wake up? Seriously.
"The commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay prison visited Abu Ghraib in 2003 and recommended the use of military dogs during interrogations, the former warden in Iraq testified Wednesday at a hearing for two Army dog handlers accused of prisoner abuse," according to the Guardian.
Wow. You could knock me over with a feather.
Of course, they'll keep spinning. And Duncan "if feeding the detainees lemon chicken and rice pilaf is torture, well, sign me up!" Hunter will keep inviting embarrassed journalists to sample the fine Guantanamo cuisine in a sublime, surrealistic act of denial.
What will it take for the apologists to wake up? Seriously.
politics: End of an era
I don't know whether the IRA story will be everywhere or nowhere today, but it struck me in a profound way this morning. It didn't come out of the blue, so I wasn't surprised since it's been brewing for awhile now. But a defining undercurrent of life in the British Isles for the last 30-40 years (well, 80, 90 or more, really, but who's counting?) is making a radical change.
Having been involved in various capacities in the Celtic music community for the past 18 years or so, I've met a lot of musicians, agents, record label people and assorted hangers-on. I've had long talks with registered Sinn Fein partisans. I've shared in the frustration of all involved when said Sinn Fein members were denied visas to the United States. I've heard from all sides of the whole Irish republican question. And I've seen how Irish Americans with a lot of money, a lot of idealism and no understanding of reality have kept the Frankenstein's monsters that are the various militant republican factions going. Even the most vehemently pro-republican people I meant spoke with something between anger and infinite sadness about the whole idea of blowing up school buses and London commuters.
Anyway, time was, the IRA was arguably the most prominent terrorist organization in the West. Did it really take watching a far-reaching network of extremists using planes as missiles and such for them to finally realize that violence only takes you farther away from a solution, rather than closer? And what will it take for the Bush crime family to realize the same thing?
Having been involved in various capacities in the Celtic music community for the past 18 years or so, I've met a lot of musicians, agents, record label people and assorted hangers-on. I've had long talks with registered Sinn Fein partisans. I've shared in the frustration of all involved when said Sinn Fein members were denied visas to the United States. I've heard from all sides of the whole Irish republican question. And I've seen how Irish Americans with a lot of money, a lot of idealism and no understanding of reality have kept the Frankenstein's monsters that are the various militant republican factions going. Even the most vehemently pro-republican people I meant spoke with something between anger and infinite sadness about the whole idea of blowing up school buses and London commuters.
Anyway, time was, the IRA was arguably the most prominent terrorist organization in the West. Did it really take watching a far-reaching network of extremists using planes as missiles and such for them to finally realize that violence only takes you farther away from a solution, rather than closer? And what will it take for the Bush crime family to realize the same thing?
Friday, July 22, 2005
politics: A load of bullcrap regarding Roberts
How fascinated I was to see this headline on my Google News just now: Most Americans Say Roberts Should Be Confirmed.
I mean, pardon me if this sounds a little snobby (it surely isn't intended so), but what the hell do most Americans actually know about Roberts? This soon after the nomination, really all any but the most dedicated political junkies know about him is that he's young and reasonably easy on the eyes for a 50-some-year-old judge.
Can we wait until there's actually some information about there before running stupid polls like this? They really ought to know better than to fall for the whole bright, shiny object that is the Roberts rush-job.
I mean, pardon me if this sounds a little snobby (it surely isn't intended so), but what the hell do most Americans actually know about Roberts? This soon after the nomination, really all any but the most dedicated political junkies know about him is that he's young and reasonably easy on the eyes for a 50-some-year-old judge.
Can we wait until there's actually some information about there before running stupid polls like this? They really ought to know better than to fall for the whole bright, shiny object that is the Roberts rush-job.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
politics: AFAmail roundup
And the hits just keep on coming!
I've ignored most of the conmail I've gotten recently, but I've kept around the ones I thought were most special, or struck a special chord with me for one reason or another. Time to clear out my inbox!
On July 14, the American Family Association wrote me with the hopeful message that "The President Is Waiting To Hear From You" (sic). As usual, though, the e-mail contained the much less hopeful message that "the liberals are bombarding the President with demands that he appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court."
Eh?
I'm not sure I know of any liberals who've called on Rove's finger puppet to appoint a liberal justice. I mean, let's face it, even if we did, it would never happen. But the point of judges and justices isn't their political leanings, it's their ability to set aside personal opinions and personally held beliefs in the interest of the conscientious practice of jurisprudence. Radical wingnut judges who've proved in the past their determination to turn America into a new mix of oligarchy and theocracy by selectively upholding or creatively interpreting law do not fit that description.
So if the only wise and fair judges in America are liberal ones, so be it, then, we do want a liberal justice. But doesn't your colorful reinvention of the truth undermine your assertion that liberal judges are activist judges, you creeps?
Ahem. Moving swiftly onward. Or backward, to July 1.
It was then that I received an AFA e-mail headlined, "Stand With The President, Ask Him To Keep His Promise And Appoint Another Scalia and Thomas To The Supreme Court".
I have nothing to add to that. I spontaneously spat out a mouthful of coffee the first time I read that one. I mean, really.
Oh, except there was one sentence in the e-mail that really gave me pause: "The President was elected by voters who share the President's philosophy."
Weirdly enough, even the people I know who voted for Bush largely don't share his philosophy on anything. They held their noses and voted for the creep, either rationalizing his, frankly, nutty views away or trying to reason that other concerns (to wit, his fabulous successes in the War on Terror[tm]) were overriding. The cognitive dissonance was truly headache-inducing.
OK, now we move to more recent times, with the AFA asserting this past Friday with alarm that, "New Bill Would Give One Group Protection Against Discrimination Based Solely On Their Sexual Behavior."
Oh, my word. I really thought this horse was dead, but still they flog.
Throughout the e-mail, the phrase 'sexual orientation' is enclosed in quotation marks, highlighting their rejection of the term, preferring instead 'sexual behavior.'
Idiots.
Stark, raving, Neanderthal, drooling, superstitious, "burn the witch! burn the witch!", "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!", my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do idiots.
Here's something for them to stick in their craw and suck on:
I realized I was gay at least eight years before I had my first intimate contact of any kind with a member of my own gender. It's so intensely hard-wired into the brain and into aspects of biology, more of which are discovered all the time, that it's simple-minded fear-mongering to dismiss it as an abhorrent and aberrant behavior.
Focussing on the mechanics of sex is merely trying to raise the revulsion of those who find it distasteful and to channel it into meanspirited action.
I find many sexual practices of straight couples revolting, or at the very least distasteful. I don't think they should be discriminated against in hiring if they are involved in specific practices that I dislike. I don't think they should be fired or passed up for promotions because they talk about their spouses or significant others openly. I find graphic public discussion of sex acts to be inappropriate whatever the orientation of the people involved.
Yeah. These people bug me.
I've ignored most of the conmail I've gotten recently, but I've kept around the ones I thought were most special, or struck a special chord with me for one reason or another. Time to clear out my inbox!
On July 14, the American Family Association wrote me with the hopeful message that "The President Is Waiting To Hear From You" (sic). As usual, though, the e-mail contained the much less hopeful message that "the liberals are bombarding the President with demands that he appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court."
Eh?
I'm not sure I know of any liberals who've called on Rove's finger puppet to appoint a liberal justice. I mean, let's face it, even if we did, it would never happen. But the point of judges and justices isn't their political leanings, it's their ability to set aside personal opinions and personally held beliefs in the interest of the conscientious practice of jurisprudence. Radical wingnut judges who've proved in the past their determination to turn America into a new mix of oligarchy and theocracy by selectively upholding or creatively interpreting law do not fit that description.
So if the only wise and fair judges in America are liberal ones, so be it, then, we do want a liberal justice. But doesn't your colorful reinvention of the truth undermine your assertion that liberal judges are activist judges, you creeps?
Ahem. Moving swiftly onward. Or backward, to July 1.
It was then that I received an AFA e-mail headlined, "Stand With The President, Ask Him To Keep His Promise And Appoint Another Scalia and Thomas To The Supreme Court".
I have nothing to add to that. I spontaneously spat out a mouthful of coffee the first time I read that one. I mean, really.
Oh, except there was one sentence in the e-mail that really gave me pause: "The President was elected by voters who share the President's philosophy."
Weirdly enough, even the people I know who voted for Bush largely don't share his philosophy on anything. They held their noses and voted for the creep, either rationalizing his, frankly, nutty views away or trying to reason that other concerns (to wit, his fabulous successes in the War on Terror[tm]) were overriding. The cognitive dissonance was truly headache-inducing.
OK, now we move to more recent times, with the AFA asserting this past Friday with alarm that, "New Bill Would Give One Group Protection Against Discrimination Based Solely On Their Sexual Behavior."
Oh, my word. I really thought this horse was dead, but still they flog.
Throughout the e-mail, the phrase 'sexual orientation' is enclosed in quotation marks, highlighting their rejection of the term, preferring instead 'sexual behavior.'
Idiots.
Stark, raving, Neanderthal, drooling, superstitious, "burn the witch! burn the witch!", "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!", my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do idiots.
Here's something for them to stick in their craw and suck on:
I realized I was gay at least eight years before I had my first intimate contact of any kind with a member of my own gender. It's so intensely hard-wired into the brain and into aspects of biology, more of which are discovered all the time, that it's simple-minded fear-mongering to dismiss it as an abhorrent and aberrant behavior.
Focussing on the mechanics of sex is merely trying to raise the revulsion of those who find it distasteful and to channel it into meanspirited action.
I find many sexual practices of straight couples revolting, or at the very least distasteful. I don't think they should be discriminated against in hiring if they are involved in specific practices that I dislike. I don't think they should be fired or passed up for promotions because they talk about their spouses or significant others openly. I find graphic public discussion of sex acts to be inappropriate whatever the orientation of the people involved.
Yeah. These people bug me.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
misc: Something to add to your Christmas list
The Smart Car is here! The Smart Car is here!
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0713smartcar13.html
Is there any reason not to have a car that gets over 50 mpg these days?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0713smartcar13.html
Is there any reason not to have a car that gets over 50 mpg these days?
Monday, July 11, 2005
politics: Dance, little worm, dance!
It wasn't so long ago that Scott McLellan was characterizing suggestions that Rove might have been in some way involved in revealing Valerie Plame's name and occupation to Robert Novak et al. as "ridiculous" and insisting that whoever the leaker was would be offered the opportunity to seek other employment.
Listening to him wither under reporters' questioning and dance furiously while they fired their figurative pistols at his feet this morning warmed the cockles of my heart. Now, if only it would transpire that McLellan was involved too, my joy would be complete.
Listening to him wither under reporters' questioning and dance furiously while they fired their figurative pistols at his feet this morning warmed the cockles of my heart. Now, if only it would transpire that McLellan was involved too, my joy would be complete.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
politics: An epiphany
I'm currently reading Douglas Coupland's Polaroids From the Dead and I happened on a little snippet, two quotes spoken in reference to the O.J. Simpson case. But I was struck immediately upon reading them that the point of the short section explains better than anything I've yet heard why it is the mainstream media has done such a piss-poor job of covering the lies, frauds and deceptions to which we've been subject for the last couple of years.
"Barbara Ehrenreich: There's a new standard. It used to be, get the scoop and be first. Now you want to be 14th or 23rd: 'No, I didn't do it until after NBC did it and ABC did it.' You have to be the last one to do these stories and wear the badge of purity.'
"Jery Nachman: When I was editing the Post, I'd get calls from colleagues at newspapers, whose names you would instantly recognize, wondering when and if we were going to pop the 'X' story. And I would ask, 'Are you going to try to do it first?' And they would say, 'No, we want to go the next day.' Ther was a race to see who would be first to go second.'"
Who wants to be the first to stick their neck out and risk having it chopped off by the White House spinning blades? Who wants to go first and be accused of spiteful un-Americanism?
It's depressing, but it makes sense to me.
"Barbara Ehrenreich: There's a new standard. It used to be, get the scoop and be first. Now you want to be 14th or 23rd: 'No, I didn't do it until after NBC did it and ABC did it.' You have to be the last one to do these stories and wear the badge of purity.'
"Jery Nachman: When I was editing the Post, I'd get calls from colleagues at newspapers, whose names you would instantly recognize, wondering when and if we were going to pop the 'X' story. And I would ask, 'Are you going to try to do it first?' And they would say, 'No, we want to go the next day.' Ther was a race to see who would be first to go second.'"
Who wants to be the first to stick their neck out and risk having it chopped off by the White House spinning blades? Who wants to go first and be accused of spiteful un-Americanism?
It's depressing, but it makes sense to me.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
misc: What's disturbing is how entertaining this is
OK, this isn't personal, political, musical or anything else, but I just had to share this link. Weird, very cringe inducing and painfully fun. If she gets stuck, you can click and drag her, or even toss her around if you're so inclined.
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/tetka.html
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/tetka.html
Thursday, June 30, 2005
politics: Oh, great, here we go.
Ladies and gentlemen, please fasten your seatbelts and keep all arms and hands inside the vehicle while it's in motion.
Is this how it begins?
Bush Wants Answers on Iranian Leader's Past.
Does it really matter that much 25 years later? And when you have a country run by clerics, who took power in an Islamic revolution during which the Americans were taken hostage, do you really expect that someone high up in the power structure of that country's theocracy wouldn't have gotten his hands dirty back then?
Good gawd, George, quit ratcheting up the rhetoric so transparently.
Twit.
Is this how it begins?
Bush Wants Answers on Iranian Leader's Past.
Does it really matter that much 25 years later? And when you have a country run by clerics, who took power in an Islamic revolution during which the Americans were taken hostage, do you really expect that someone high up in the power structure of that country's theocracy wouldn't have gotten his hands dirty back then?
Good gawd, George, quit ratcheting up the rhetoric so transparently.
Twit.
social issues: Spain ... again
Y'know, that former fascist dictatorship in southwestern Europe is now the fourth country in the world to legalize gay marriage (though it would seem like the 3rd to me, since as far as I know the Canadian law still technically has to go through the senate ... someone correct me if I'm wrong, or if the senate vote is just a formality)?
Get that?
Fascist.
Dictatorship.
Now one of the most socially progressive countries in the world.
And our country? Once perceived as the light of liberty in the world, the laissez-faire city on the hill, the most prosperous, admired, envied nation on earth?
At war with Islam, with science, with civil liberties, with the poor, with all manner of minorities (racial, social, political, etc.). Falling drastically behind in scientific, economic, political and social progress. Being eaten alive from the inside by cancerous greed, corporatism and lust for power.
Is there a point at which we'll have to give it up for dead and let the neofascists gnaw on the bones until they, too perish from their selfish shortsightedness?
It sickens me that they've even pushed things so far that I might even consider that my beloved country may eventually be beyond saving.
Get that?
Fascist.
Dictatorship.
Now one of the most socially progressive countries in the world.
And our country? Once perceived as the light of liberty in the world, the laissez-faire city on the hill, the most prosperous, admired, envied nation on earth?
At war with Islam, with science, with civil liberties, with the poor, with all manner of minorities (racial, social, political, etc.). Falling drastically behind in scientific, economic, political and social progress. Being eaten alive from the inside by cancerous greed, corporatism and lust for power.
Is there a point at which we'll have to give it up for dead and let the neofascists gnaw on the bones until they, too perish from their selfish shortsightedness?
It sickens me that they've even pushed things so far that I might even consider that my beloved country may eventually be beyond saving.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
politics: Hurrah for Ken Mehlman!
Ken Mehlman's my hero. No, really. He provides me regularly with fodder for rants, dissatisfaction and general blood pressure elevation.
True to form came his e-mail this weekend containing the latest RNC Newspeak. Well, OK, it's not so new (Republicans have been parroting this crap for months). But still.
"Yesterday's era of Democrats like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy brought real ideas and solutions to the table in an attempt to make a better life for the American people," he says.
"Unfortunately, today's Democrat Party is not the one your parents knew. Instead, today's Democrats are singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric, adding nothing to raise the level of discourse and address the concerns of Americans."
All-righty. Democrats have plenty of ideas. Just because you don't like them, or because the SCLM doesn't cover them, or you don't let them come up for votes, doesn't mean they're not there.
Regardless, if you're on a train that's hell-bent on running off the edge of collapsed bridge up ahead over the canyon, you don't sit there and yell at the guy trying to pull on the emergency brake because he's trying to stop the train instead of coming up with another idea about where to drive it.
Idiots.
True to form came his e-mail this weekend containing the latest RNC Newspeak. Well, OK, it's not so new (Republicans have been parroting this crap for months). But still.
"Yesterday's era of Democrats like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy brought real ideas and solutions to the table in an attempt to make a better life for the American people," he says.
"Unfortunately, today's Democrat Party is not the one your parents knew. Instead, today's Democrats are singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric, adding nothing to raise the level of discourse and address the concerns of Americans."
All-righty. Democrats have plenty of ideas. Just because you don't like them, or because the SCLM doesn't cover them, or you don't let them come up for votes, doesn't mean they're not there.
Regardless, if you're on a train that's hell-bent on running off the edge of collapsed bridge up ahead over the canyon, you don't sit there and yell at the guy trying to pull on the emergency brake because he's trying to stop the train instead of coming up with another idea about where to drive it.
Idiots.
politics: Amusing statistic
Here's something I read in Ode this morning, a CNN, USA Today and Gallup poll from January asking if President Bush brings people together or drives them apart.
49 percent said he brings them together. 49 percent said he drives them apart.
I laughed out loud.
49 percent said he brings them together. 49 percent said he drives them apart.
I laughed out loud.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
politics: This makes me happy ...
This makes me happy, but sort of in the same way you'd be happy if someone were in the process of chopping off your hand and instead chopped off four of your fingers:
House votes to limit Patriot Act search powers
House votes to limit Patriot Act search powers
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
politics/social issues: What color is the sky in Newsmax's world?
This is seriously perplexing, even for Newsmax. From their story headlined Facts Show Schiavo Was Not Blind:
In a press conference that raised more questions than it answered, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin claimed that the "vision centers of her brain were dead," and as a result she could not see.
Seriously.
Not only does every other story out their contradict their headline; their own story contradicts the headline.
The story interestingly casts unfounded aspersions while quoting information from the press conference that directly refutes their every vile untruth.
So rather than honorably backing off their earlier venom, they continue to spew it while the ship of their disgusting politics sinks under their feet. It's sort of fascinating.
In a press conference that raised more questions than it answered, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin claimed that the "vision centers of her brain were dead," and as a result she could not see.
Seriously.
Not only does every other story out their contradict their headline; their own story contradicts the headline.
The story interestingly casts unfounded aspersions while quoting information from the press conference that directly refutes their every vile untruth.
So rather than honorably backing off their earlier venom, they continue to spew it while the ship of their disgusting politics sinks under their feet. It's sort of fascinating.
Monday, June 13, 2005
politics: The first step toward seceding: Make yer own flag
Oh. My. Gawd.
These people have seriously launched themselves with great gusto, speed and general verve off the edge of reason, shouting loud hallelujahs as they plunge through space.
From the Baltimore Sun: Creating a Christian flag for God and country
Fun facts and quotes from the article, if you don't feel like clicking over there:
I've always thought that Christians, especially literalist Christians, ought to be more uncomfortable than they seem to be with America's near-worship of our flag, not that it's my business to tell them how to feel about things. But looking at the Word of God and all, it does seem inconsistent.
This seems worse, to me.
Seriously, you guys want your own theocracy, take Texas or something and go do your own thing. The rest of us have a country to save.
These people have seriously launched themselves with great gusto, speed and general verve off the edge of reason, shouting loud hallelujahs as they plunge through space.
From the Baltimore Sun: Creating a Christian flag for God and country
Fun facts and quotes from the article, if you don't feel like clicking over there:
- "Eldreth is untroubled by the notion of combining American and Christian symbols this way, as she quickly answers yes when asked whether the American purpose in the world is a specifically Christian project."
- "'I believe this country can only be great if God is behind us, and he is,' said Gary Folk, who displays his national Christian flag on a pole in front of his home in Cloverdale, Calif. 'That's why we are a superpower.'" Gott mit Uns, anyone?
- "Bobby Ables ... said, 'I don't get in politics too much,' but as he sees it, the flag suitably mixes God and country: 'That's what we are, a patriotic, Christian country.'"
- And then the one hyper-Christian phrase I've never understood: "It's time for America to bless God." Isn't it God who does the blessing? What ever happened to praising God for blessings received?
I've always thought that Christians, especially literalist Christians, ought to be more uncomfortable than they seem to be with America's near-worship of our flag, not that it's my business to tell them how to feel about things. But looking at the Word of God and all, it does seem inconsistent.
This seems worse, to me.
Seriously, you guys want your own theocracy, take Texas or something and go do your own thing. The rest of us have a country to save.
Friday, June 10, 2005
politics: Audacious mendacity
Wow, I've been quiet for awhile. We'll chalk it up principally to the fact that I was rather ill for over a week. Then there's the fact that though there's been such depressing news lately, it's been covered to death by everyone else and I just didn't see the point of going 'Me, too!' over and over again.
But I must re-emerge to present the June 'Disassembler of the Month' award to Ken 'No, I'm not gay! Seriously. I'm not! Shut up! SHUT UP! Lalalalala I can't hear you!' Mehlman, esteemed chairman of the Republican National Committee. Howard Dean may get all sorts of ire for bluntly stating the truth, but apparently Ken Mehlman gets none at all in the SCLM for lying.
You've probably all seen/heard/read about it in the alternative media outlet of your choice, but from MSNBC.com's transcript of June 5's Meet the Press (and if you get the time, do read the whole thing -- what a hoot he is!):
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the now-famous Downing Street memo. This was a memo, July 23, 2002, from the head of British intelligence to Prime Minister Blair; in effect, notes taken from a briefing that was given to Prime Minister Blair after the head of British intelligence came back from a trip to Washington. It says this: "[The head of British Intelligence] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This is July of 2002. We didn't invade until March of 2003. And the prime minister of Great Britain is being told by the head of his intelligence that he went to Washington and believes that a decision had already been made and that the administration was fixing or manipulating the intelligence to support the policy.
MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 911 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all. The fact is that the intelligence of this country, the intelligence of Britain, the intelligence of the United Nations, the intelligence all over the world said that there were weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction before. We still know that there was a weapons of mass destruction program. He was evading the sanctions, and he had plans to reconstitute the program. We also knew that Saddam Hussein had uniquely invaded his neighbors, had uniquely supported terrorists and we all know today that we are safer because he's been removed from power.
So I believe that that individual report not only has been discredited but that the overall reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were broader than that, they were correct, and we're now safer and certainly the people of Iraq are safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.
MR. RUSSERT: (vewwy quietly -- Chris) I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited.
So not only does he outright lie, in that not only has no one disputed the authenticity of the memo but the 9/11 Commission and the Senate didn't even know of the memo until we did, but he also falls back on the old saw of 'we're safer, Iraq's safer, everybody's dancing a jig in a field of flowers since we overthrew Saddam.'
I mean, seriously, even if I were to grant that that's true (which I don't, for the record), it would be a bit like, oh, say, someone dropping a few bombs on the Northwest Valley here in the Phoenix area, after which half the population rushes to the person's defense saying, "Look how much smoother the traffic is from Surprise into downtown now! If he hadn't bombed that part of town into oblivion we'd still have nonstop traffic jams at rush hour. Do you want that?'
The benefit isn't the point (though it's certainly cause for debate in itself), you morons. It's the cost. How many dead people is enough? How many is too many? Is there such a thing as too many dead Iraqis? I earnestly hope there's a special place in Hell for Christians who crow endlessly about the 'Culture of Life(tm)' but turn a blind eye to the mass-murder of thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of innocents because they live in another part of the world and (mostly) practice a different faith.
I know I repeatedly go off on this whole death tangent, but it sickens me that no one seems to care. I mean, even a lot of the anti-war crowd only mentions this as an afterthought. A lie is horrible. Profiteering and stealing are horrible. Blithely ignoring the Constitution is reprehensible. And all of these things are important, and I can yell about them with the best of y'all.
But dead is dead folks. Each person has a story, the way you have a story. Each person has plans, dreams, hopes, family, friends, love, hate, creativity, work, play, fun, happiness, anguish, fear, courage, lust and all the other things that make a human life what it is. When it goes, it goes away for good, and no one, and I mean no one has the right to decide for them when it does so.
So all the young Americans who've died as a result of this Big Lie, who will never see their new wives or husbands, or children or parents again are victims of murder. And all of the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives intertwined theirs are, by extension, also victims. And all of the thousands, tens of thousands, of Iraqis, who've died as a result of this Big Lie, are victims of murder. And the millions of people whose lives intertwined with theirs are also victims by extension. These are unfathomable numbers. The human brian cannot, perhaps by design, understand the magnitude of such loss and such sorrow.
That the Iraqis now rise in anger doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that, with some notable exceptions, the Americans touched by this mass murder sit quietly, after expressing their grief in quiet and socially acceptable ways, slap the magnetic 'Support the Troops' ribbons on the back of their SUVs and find meaning in the suffering by standing fully upright behind the War Criminal in chief and parroting his poisonous lies.
They shoud be channeling their anger into the immediate, lawful and unequivocal overthrow of the murderous war profiteers who've hijacked what used to be, and could again one day be, the greatest country on earth.
Since my radical college days, I've gradually tempered my total opposition to armed conflict because invariably nearly everyone I know, no matter how sympathetic in principle, would search for examples of a justified war just to see me squirm intellectually and try to argue my way out of their straw box. I got tired of it.
But you know what? I'm done with appeasement. Organized murder, whether you call it war or genocide, is a monstrous evil that has no place in humanity if we're ever to develop beyond savages with a god complex. And these unevolved creatures with the blackness of death and the heavy pain of amoral greed in their hearts need to be locked away in cages for the good of the human family.
*phew*
Catharsis! And before anyone makes any comments on this post, understand that any arguments about my anti-war stance, or exceptions you can find to the rule, or criticisms about how it's 'utopian' or 'unrealistic' will either be ignored or deleted. I have good points to make in support of my position, but I'm tired of offering them up to people who seriously have no interest in listening and just feel like taking my stuff apart.
But I must re-emerge to present the June 'Disassembler of the Month' award to Ken 'No, I'm not gay! Seriously. I'm not! Shut up! SHUT UP! Lalalalala I can't hear you!' Mehlman, esteemed chairman of the Republican National Committee. Howard Dean may get all sorts of ire for bluntly stating the truth, but apparently Ken Mehlman gets none at all in the SCLM for lying.
You've probably all seen/heard/read about it in the alternative media outlet of your choice, but from MSNBC.com's transcript of June 5's Meet the Press (and if you get the time, do read the whole thing -- what a hoot he is!):
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the now-famous Downing Street memo. This was a memo, July 23, 2002, from the head of British intelligence to Prime Minister Blair; in effect, notes taken from a briefing that was given to Prime Minister Blair after the head of British intelligence came back from a trip to Washington. It says this: "[The head of British Intelligence] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This is July of 2002. We didn't invade until March of 2003. And the prime minister of Great Britain is being told by the head of his intelligence that he went to Washington and believes that a decision had already been made and that the administration was fixing or manipulating the intelligence to support the policy.
MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 911 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all. The fact is that the intelligence of this country, the intelligence of Britain, the intelligence of the United Nations, the intelligence all over the world said that there were weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction before. We still know that there was a weapons of mass destruction program. He was evading the sanctions, and he had plans to reconstitute the program. We also knew that Saddam Hussein had uniquely invaded his neighbors, had uniquely supported terrorists and we all know today that we are safer because he's been removed from power.
So I believe that that individual report not only has been discredited but that the overall reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were broader than that, they were correct, and we're now safer and certainly the people of Iraq are safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.
MR. RUSSERT: (vewwy quietly -- Chris) I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited.
So not only does he outright lie, in that not only has no one disputed the authenticity of the memo but the 9/11 Commission and the Senate didn't even know of the memo until we did, but he also falls back on the old saw of 'we're safer, Iraq's safer, everybody's dancing a jig in a field of flowers since we overthrew Saddam.'
I mean, seriously, even if I were to grant that that's true (which I don't, for the record), it would be a bit like, oh, say, someone dropping a few bombs on the Northwest Valley here in the Phoenix area, after which half the population rushes to the person's defense saying, "Look how much smoother the traffic is from Surprise into downtown now! If he hadn't bombed that part of town into oblivion we'd still have nonstop traffic jams at rush hour. Do you want that?'
The benefit isn't the point (though it's certainly cause for debate in itself), you morons. It's the cost. How many dead people is enough? How many is too many? Is there such a thing as too many dead Iraqis? I earnestly hope there's a special place in Hell for Christians who crow endlessly about the 'Culture of Life(tm)' but turn a blind eye to the mass-murder of thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of innocents because they live in another part of the world and (mostly) practice a different faith.
I know I repeatedly go off on this whole death tangent, but it sickens me that no one seems to care. I mean, even a lot of the anti-war crowd only mentions this as an afterthought. A lie is horrible. Profiteering and stealing are horrible. Blithely ignoring the Constitution is reprehensible. And all of these things are important, and I can yell about them with the best of y'all.
But dead is dead folks. Each person has a story, the way you have a story. Each person has plans, dreams, hopes, family, friends, love, hate, creativity, work, play, fun, happiness, anguish, fear, courage, lust and all the other things that make a human life what it is. When it goes, it goes away for good, and no one, and I mean no one has the right to decide for them when it does so.
So all the young Americans who've died as a result of this Big Lie, who will never see their new wives or husbands, or children or parents again are victims of murder. And all of the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives intertwined theirs are, by extension, also victims. And all of the thousands, tens of thousands, of Iraqis, who've died as a result of this Big Lie, are victims of murder. And the millions of people whose lives intertwined with theirs are also victims by extension. These are unfathomable numbers. The human brian cannot, perhaps by design, understand the magnitude of such loss and such sorrow.
That the Iraqis now rise in anger doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that, with some notable exceptions, the Americans touched by this mass murder sit quietly, after expressing their grief in quiet and socially acceptable ways, slap the magnetic 'Support the Troops' ribbons on the back of their SUVs and find meaning in the suffering by standing fully upright behind the War Criminal in chief and parroting his poisonous lies.
They shoud be channeling their anger into the immediate, lawful and unequivocal overthrow of the murderous war profiteers who've hijacked what used to be, and could again one day be, the greatest country on earth.
Since my radical college days, I've gradually tempered my total opposition to armed conflict because invariably nearly everyone I know, no matter how sympathetic in principle, would search for examples of a justified war just to see me squirm intellectually and try to argue my way out of their straw box. I got tired of it.
But you know what? I'm done with appeasement. Organized murder, whether you call it war or genocide, is a monstrous evil that has no place in humanity if we're ever to develop beyond savages with a god complex. And these unevolved creatures with the blackness of death and the heavy pain of amoral greed in their hearts need to be locked away in cages for the good of the human family.
*phew*
Catharsis! And before anyone makes any comments on this post, understand that any arguments about my anti-war stance, or exceptions you can find to the rule, or criticisms about how it's 'utopian' or 'unrealistic' will either be ignored or deleted. I have good points to make in support of my position, but I'm tired of offering them up to people who seriously have no interest in listening and just feel like taking my stuff apart.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
politics: Thanks for the lesson, George!
I didn't know until this morning that the word "disassemble" means "to lie."
Especially endearing was the patronizing tone this smarmy know-it-all took when misinforming the assembled press corps.
Especially endearing was the patronizing tone this smarmy know-it-all took when misinforming the assembled press corps.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
politics: TRMPAC troubles
Oh, goodness, what will my old neighborhood's representative, shameless right-wing toady John Shadegg do if TRMPAC goes down? They do seem to be taking on water.
How many more of these things do they have to decide/find/discover before they can actually do something with DeLay? I mean, this is getting serious.
How many more of these things do they have to decide/find/discover before they can actually do something with DeLay? I mean, this is getting serious.
Monday, May 23, 2005
misc: Blinding Flash of the Fricking Obvious
I swear, I had to look at the first couple of paragraphs of this article a couple of times before I was convinced it wasn't fake. But no, it ain't fake, just stupid.
"Mothers' genes contain bald truth about hair loss"
What gets me about this is that this is news. What gets me about this is that they had to do fancy-schmancy genetic research to find out what we've already known for decades and then they have the balls to try to pass it off as news.
OMFG, people are stupid.
Yes, OK, so the news in the story is that they actually figured out which genes do it. But you don't get to that till you're halfway through the story.
The lead is truly precious. "Sons have long blamed their fathers when they start balding prematurely ..."
I don't know about you, but whenever I've been at any sort of social gathering where someone hinted that he were becoming bald because of his father, or would lose his hair because of his father, or wouldn't because his father never did, that person has instantly been the subject either of polite education or outright ridicule. One wonders what moronic circles this writer moves in.
Maybe I'm just feeling mean this evening.
"Mothers' genes contain bald truth about hair loss"
What gets me about this is that this is news. What gets me about this is that they had to do fancy-schmancy genetic research to find out what we've already known for decades and then they have the balls to try to pass it off as news.
OMFG, people are stupid.
Yes, OK, so the news in the story is that they actually figured out which genes do it. But you don't get to that till you're halfway through the story.
The lead is truly precious. "Sons have long blamed their fathers when they start balding prematurely ..."
I don't know about you, but whenever I've been at any sort of social gathering where someone hinted that he were becoming bald because of his father, or would lose his hair because of his father, or wouldn't because his father never did, that person has instantly been the subject either of polite education or outright ridicule. One wonders what moronic circles this writer moves in.
Maybe I'm just feeling mean this evening.
Friday, May 20, 2005
personal: Oh, crap.
In searching for some more online information about a festival at which I'll be vending this weekend, the Prescott (AZ) Highland Games, I discovered something very alarming. The Stormfront White Nationalist Community will apparently be in attendance. I won't link to them -- I don't want to give them the traffic -- but you can probably figure it out.
I remember reading an article about a year or so ago saying that they were very actively recruiting at New England and East Coast Highland games. They've apparently spread out.
I remember reading an article about a year or so ago saying that they were very actively recruiting at New England and East Coast Highland games. They've apparently spread out.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
politics: Oh-so-close to slanderous
I think I may just reprint the entirety of this e-mail I got two days ago, also from the RNC (why is that all my rants these days seem linked to the right-wing misleadmail I'm always getting?). Note that it carefully avoids directly saying that the Democrats stole the Washington gubernatorial election. But note, also, that they don't actually say where they got their numbers, what they mean or how they compare to other elections that weren't disputed. But there's enough crap-slinging here that, really, it speaks for itself. Enjoy:
Dear Chris,
More and more reports are emerging of the extent to which Democrats were willing to go to try to influence the 2004 election.
Well, their tactics worked in Washington State.
Our Republican candidate for Governor, Dino Rossi, actually won the election. Then he won the recount.
Then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for the second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount.
The new result? Dino Rossi "lost" by 129 votes. But consider the following facts in Washington state;
Also, at least another 1,600 ballots are still in question:
Dino Rossi is fighting, and voters of good conscience from across this country should stand with him. For more info on Dino Rossi and his ongoing fight, please go to www.dinorossi.com.
Sincerely,
Michael DuHaime
RNC Political Director
Dear Chris,
More and more reports are emerging of the extent to which Democrats were willing to go to try to influence the 2004 election.
Well, their tactics worked in Washington State.
Our Republican candidate for Governor, Dino Rossi, actually won the election. Then he won the recount.
Then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for the second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount.
The new result? Dino Rossi "lost" by 129 votes. But consider the following facts in Washington state;
- 943 felons illegally voted
- 49 dead people voted
- 3 people voted in Washington and another state
- 2 illegal aliens voted
- 12 people voted multiple times
- 174 provisional votes were counted but later found to be cast people who had already voted or were unregistered
Also, at least another 1,600 ballots are still in question:
- 875 more absentee votes were cast in King County than there were absentee voters
- 95 more ballots in King County and 50 ballots in Whitman County were "found" after both recounts, and have never been counted
- At least 660 provisional ballots were improperly counted in King County.
Dino Rossi is fighting, and voters of good conscience from across this country should stand with him. For more info on Dino Rossi and his ongoing fight, please go to www.dinorossi.com.
Sincerely,
Michael DuHaime
RNC Political Director
politics: Zell Miller
The RNC was kind enough to alert me that Zell Miller has a new book out. Hurrah.
No, really, this is exciting! It's called A Deficit of Decency. I mean, this is fantastic! He's finally coming clean! He's admitting what a putz he's been! Really, it warms my heart.
...
What do you mean, that's not what he means?
*sigh*
No, really, this is exciting! It's called A Deficit of Decency. I mean, this is fantastic! He's finally coming clean! He's admitting what a putz he's been! Really, it warms my heart.
...
What do you mean, that's not what he means?
*sigh*
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
politics: George Galloway's statement (a public service)
Norm Coleman, Mr. Galloway would like to hand you your ass now. Read this in its entirety. It's important. After some digging, I found the transcript at commondreams.org, though it originated at Times Online:
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
politics: Fundie hyperbole
Yes, kiddies, it's time for another installment of AFAmail!
This week's is headlined, "The Time Is Now! Phone Calls To Your U.S. Senators Have Never Been This Important! Call Today! Get Others To Call!"
"Never been this important." Every word capitalized. All those exclamation points. Wow.
In a similarly modest tone, the e-mail opens with the proclamation, "We have come down to the final days and hours in the fight for our destiny."
I'm sorry, but if your destiny hinges on breaking longstanding Senate rules about changing longstanding Senate rules to eradicate the longstanding Senate custom of unlimited debate, a standard carefully observed to ensure that the majority never steamrolls the minority and that the Senate takes every action with due deliberateness and regard for the opinions of all its distinguished members, so that you can ramrod a couple of judges who are so ludicrously outside the mainstream in terms of political allegiance and judicial temperament that they can't even garner significant support in a mostly right-wing Senate ... you really need to get out more.
*breathe*
Sorry for that last sentence.
"Call your two Senators today and ask them to vote to kill the filibuster. If they do not, only those nominees who would become a liberal activist judge will ever get a vote on the Senate floor."
Uh, yeah, right. How conveniently they ignore the 95% of Bush judicial nominees who've already been confirmed. Were they liberal activist judges, you morons?
OK, rant over. Except for the call to action that closes the letter:
"Get others to call. Give out this information at church, work and with other family members. Our children's and grandchildren's future is at stake."
If anyone tried politicking to me at work, they'd get a tongue-lashing the likes of which is very rare from me.
And church. These American Taliban are utterly shameless in their attempts to turn America into a theocracy. Shameless. God doesn't play politics, and you shouldn't play politics in God's house.
This week's is headlined, "The Time Is Now! Phone Calls To Your U.S. Senators Have Never Been This Important! Call Today! Get Others To Call!"
"Never been this important." Every word capitalized. All those exclamation points. Wow.
In a similarly modest tone, the e-mail opens with the proclamation, "We have come down to the final days and hours in the fight for our destiny."
I'm sorry, but if your destiny hinges on breaking longstanding Senate rules about changing longstanding Senate rules to eradicate the longstanding Senate custom of unlimited debate, a standard carefully observed to ensure that the majority never steamrolls the minority and that the Senate takes every action with due deliberateness and regard for the opinions of all its distinguished members, so that you can ramrod a couple of judges who are so ludicrously outside the mainstream in terms of political allegiance and judicial temperament that they can't even garner significant support in a mostly right-wing Senate ... you really need to get out more.
*breathe*
Sorry for that last sentence.
"Call your two Senators today and ask them to vote to kill the filibuster. If they do not, only those nominees who would become a liberal activist judge will ever get a vote on the Senate floor."
Uh, yeah, right. How conveniently they ignore the 95% of Bush judicial nominees who've already been confirmed. Were they liberal activist judges, you morons?
OK, rant over. Except for the call to action that closes the letter:
"Get others to call. Give out this information at church, work and with other family members. Our children's and grandchildren's future is at stake."
If anyone tried politicking to me at work, they'd get a tongue-lashing the likes of which is very rare from me.
And church. These American Taliban are utterly shameless in their attempts to turn America into a theocracy. Shameless. God doesn't play politics, and you shouldn't play politics in God's house.
Monday, May 16, 2005
politics: Idiots.
Newsweek retracts story on Koran under pressure.
Yes, the story sparked riots. And yes, people died. But you know what? I find their anger quite justifiable. Rioting, murder ... those things I can't abide. But here's what people seem to be missing: This is not a new story, and the story was accurate.
If people want to be angry, they should be angry with the people who defiled the Koran and the command structure that directed it. Find out how often this occurs and has occurred ... hundreds, maybe thousands of interrogators across the face of the globe didn't, simply and coincidentally, arrive at the same choice of tactic by accident.
When I think of what these people are doing in my name it makes me sick, it makes me feel defiled. It makes me very angry.
And bad luck to the spineless suits at Newsweek who lost their concern for the truth back around the same time they lost their souls.
Yes, the story sparked riots. And yes, people died. But you know what? I find their anger quite justifiable. Rioting, murder ... those things I can't abide. But here's what people seem to be missing: This is not a new story, and the story was accurate.
If people want to be angry, they should be angry with the people who defiled the Koran and the command structure that directed it. Find out how often this occurs and has occurred ... hundreds, maybe thousands of interrogators across the face of the globe didn't, simply and coincidentally, arrive at the same choice of tactic by accident.
When I think of what these people are doing in my name it makes me sick, it makes me feel defiled. It makes me very angry.
And bad luck to the spineless suits at Newsweek who lost their concern for the truth back around the same time they lost their souls.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
politics: Slacktivism
Oy vey. It's really been the week for e-petitions (and other chain letters, come to think of it). People really need to read this.
I've gotten that stupid name survey (I swear, somebody somewhere's got a list of everyone's first name on earth, listed twice). I've gotten that 'Dammit, Dubya, lower our gas prices!' one. I've gotten at least two of those get-to-know-your-friends things.
Then, thanks to my presence on right-wing-nutjob e-mail lists, I've gotten petitions from the RNC and the American Family Association.
Yes, the RNC, which you would think would know better, is trying to get people to sign an e-petition to get the Democrats to allow a vote on Priscilla Owen. It urges the Democrats to accept Bill Frist's 'compromise', about which I quote from the e-mail:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has offered Senator Reid a compromise that would give Democrats 100 hours to debate each judge and then guarantee each judge a floor vote, but he continues to reject this common-sense offer."
It's like a 'Free Speech Zone' for senatorial debate. Rather than open-ended deliberation, Frist wants to force debate into a little razor-wired area which, though big, is still fenced in. After the debate (which, of course, the Republicans will little heed, even if they bother to attend), the cons get to force their judicial activists down the throats of an unsuspecting public. Yeah, that's compromise. How about reevaluating the nominations, eh?
Dumbasses.
And another thing. The e-mail makes much of how Priscilla Owens has had to wait "4 years or 1,460 days" for confirmation, and that it's too long to wait.
I know it's not exactly related, but how long has it been since Dumbya said he wouldn't rest till we captured Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"? Is it too long yet?
OK, so moving on to the AFA ... It's a petition to the 109th Congress relating to the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shan't belabor either the content or, well, my wide-ranging amazement, amusement and distaste for the American Familay Association.
Given the latest addition to the long-accumulating evidence that, in terms these people may understand, God made us this way for purposes beyond our understanding, how is it wrong for us to seek out love, fall in love, grow in love and want to declare our love in a lasting and meaningful way?
Explain how it's wrong without resorting to Biblical verses about sexual conduct that have about as much relevance as exhortations against women who wear red dresses in church or proclamations against pork and shellfish. Explain to me why my love is wrong, and where it says so in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good explanation that isn't fixated on sex.
If you can't find one, maybe you oughta think about that before telling me I'm not allowed to get married.
I've gotten that stupid name survey (I swear, somebody somewhere's got a list of everyone's first name on earth, listed twice). I've gotten that 'Dammit, Dubya, lower our gas prices!' one. I've gotten at least two of those get-to-know-your-friends things.
Then, thanks to my presence on right-wing-nutjob e-mail lists, I've gotten petitions from the RNC and the American Family Association.
Yes, the RNC, which you would think would know better, is trying to get people to sign an e-petition to get the Democrats to allow a vote on Priscilla Owen. It urges the Democrats to accept Bill Frist's 'compromise', about which I quote from the e-mail:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has offered Senator Reid a compromise that would give Democrats 100 hours to debate each judge and then guarantee each judge a floor vote, but he continues to reject this common-sense offer."
It's like a 'Free Speech Zone' for senatorial debate. Rather than open-ended deliberation, Frist wants to force debate into a little razor-wired area which, though big, is still fenced in. After the debate (which, of course, the Republicans will little heed, even if they bother to attend), the cons get to force their judicial activists down the throats of an unsuspecting public. Yeah, that's compromise. How about reevaluating the nominations, eh?
Dumbasses.
And another thing. The e-mail makes much of how Priscilla Owens has had to wait "4 years or 1,460 days" for confirmation, and that it's too long to wait.
I know it's not exactly related, but how long has it been since Dumbya said he wouldn't rest till we captured Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"? Is it too long yet?
OK, so moving on to the AFA ... It's a petition to the 109th Congress relating to the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shan't belabor either the content or, well, my wide-ranging amazement, amusement and distaste for the American Familay Association.
Given the latest addition to the long-accumulating evidence that, in terms these people may understand, God made us this way for purposes beyond our understanding, how is it wrong for us to seek out love, fall in love, grow in love and want to declare our love in a lasting and meaningful way?
Explain how it's wrong without resorting to Biblical verses about sexual conduct that have about as much relevance as exhortations against women who wear red dresses in church or proclamations against pork and shellfish. Explain to me why my love is wrong, and where it says so in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good explanation that isn't fixated on sex.
If you can't find one, maybe you oughta think about that before telling me I'm not allowed to get married.
Friday, May 06, 2005
social issues: Yes, but are they still giving $20,000 a month to Ralph Reed?
Microsoft realized that promulgating discrimination is not a good business practice.
It just looks to me like they're trying to hold up a shiny object for people to focus on so they can continue consulting with bonafide nutjob Ralph Reed. But maybe I'm just needlessly cynical.
It just looks to me like they're trying to hold up a shiny object for people to focus on so they can continue consulting with bonafide nutjob Ralph Reed. But maybe I'm just needlessly cynical.
misc: Quote of the month
Bitove declared "the facts are `Stacked'" against Anderson and said he wanted her to be "kept fully abreast" of KFC's ethical practices.
What an incredibly suitable, if rude, way to be dismissive. I know nothing about the merits or lack thereof of the protest, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't ask Pamela Anderson to be a spokesperson for any cause in which I was involved.
On a related note, do straight men actually find this plastic bimbo attractive? I mean, seriously, she looks like a comic-book heroine whose body defies the laws of physics.
What an incredibly suitable, if rude, way to be dismissive. I know nothing about the merits or lack thereof of the protest, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't ask Pamela Anderson to be a spokesperson for any cause in which I was involved.
On a related note, do straight men actually find this plastic bimbo attractive? I mean, seriously, she looks like a comic-book heroine whose body defies the laws of physics.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
social issues: AFA-mail hilarity!
This one is a hoot!
My good and dear friends at the American Family Association sent me e-mail the other day and, though I've been slow to post about it, I couldn't resist.
The subject? "Pornographers Set To Go After Children With Cell Phones"
Shocking. Positively shocking!
"Soon pornography will be available to our children over their cell phones. Playboy hopes to make their porn available to the 170 million cell phone subscribers throughout North America. No doubt scores of other pornographers will follow Playboy's lead."
Do you get the sense that there's stuff here they're leaving out? I mean, just think about it.
"An independent study by IDC revealed that 33.2% of cell phone users in America, more than 55 million, are between the ages of 5 and 19." Yes, and apparently Playboy will indiscriminately send porn to ALL cell phone users for FREE without CHECKING who they're SENDING it to.
Oy.
Talk show host Paul McGuire of Los Angeles says of the Playboy effort: "…soon cell phones will open a tsunami of porn images…" He went on to say "just like the Internet, it will be hard to keep [this] sexual perversion from young people."
Because, of course, talk show hosts are always subject matter experts. The problem here, at least for me, is that the mobile phone industry is very tightly regulated. The Internet is not. The comparison is faulty.
But here's the funniest bit: "We can expect our children to have pop-up ads on their cell phones pushing Playboy's pornography. Playboy says their new venture will allow more people to experience 'the sexiness of the classic Playboy lifestyle.' Unfortunately many of these people will be our children."
Pop-up ads.
On cell phones.
Words fail.
Paper tigers and straw men. These people are just plain weird.
My good and dear friends at the American Family Association sent me e-mail the other day and, though I've been slow to post about it, I couldn't resist.
The subject? "Pornographers Set To Go After Children With Cell Phones"
Shocking. Positively shocking!
"Soon pornography will be available to our children over their cell phones. Playboy hopes to make their porn available to the 170 million cell phone subscribers throughout North America. No doubt scores of other pornographers will follow Playboy's lead."
Do you get the sense that there's stuff here they're leaving out? I mean, just think about it.
"An independent study by IDC revealed that 33.2% of cell phone users in America, more than 55 million, are between the ages of 5 and 19." Yes, and apparently Playboy will indiscriminately send porn to ALL cell phone users for FREE without CHECKING who they're SENDING it to.
Oy.
Talk show host Paul McGuire of Los Angeles says of the Playboy effort: "…soon cell phones will open a tsunami of porn images…" He went on to say "just like the Internet, it will be hard to keep [this] sexual perversion from young people."
Because, of course, talk show hosts are always subject matter experts. The problem here, at least for me, is that the mobile phone industry is very tightly regulated. The Internet is not. The comparison is faulty.
But here's the funniest bit: "We can expect our children to have pop-up ads on their cell phones pushing Playboy's pornography. Playboy says their new venture will allow more people to experience 'the sexiness of the classic Playboy lifestyle.' Unfortunately many of these people will be our children."
Pop-up ads.
On cell phones.
Words fail.
Paper tigers and straw men. These people are just plain weird.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
politics: Microsoft dances with the devil
I reiterate this here for friends of mine who may not read my friend kniwt's blog or Americablog: Microsoft paying Religious Right leader Ralph Reed $20,000 a month retainer.
Evil. Evil. Evil. I knew it. And yes, I even knew it before He Who Shall Not Be Named. I'll have it known that while I was chatting with him online the first time, or one of the first times, I was recompiling the kernel on my Linux box. And everyone has known, and derided, my longtime infatuation with the BeOS (now sadly past). So I've been trying to get away for a long time.
For $10,000 a month I'll give them some good PR advice: Stop hooking up with right-wing zealots. That would be good. And work with the GLBT community. You have a lot of gay employees and you can't get anything but a black eye from pissing in their cornflakes (if I may mix a couple of metaphors).
Evil. Evil. Evil. I knew it. And yes, I even knew it before He Who Shall Not Be Named. I'll have it known that while I was chatting with him online the first time, or one of the first times, I was recompiling the kernel on my Linux box. And everyone has known, and derided, my longtime infatuation with the BeOS (now sadly past). So I've been trying to get away for a long time.
For $10,000 a month I'll give them some good PR advice: Stop hooking up with right-wing zealots. That would be good. And work with the GLBT community. You have a lot of gay employees and you can't get anything but a black eye from pissing in their cornflakes (if I may mix a couple of metaphors).
Friday, April 22, 2005
Haiku Rd.: The road is long. And so is this entry.
Politics will return to these pages soon. But for now, a brief, self-indulgent aside.
So as far as our public image goes, Haiku Rd. has gone missing lately. Our next show isn't until May 6 (check in at our Web site for news and updates) and it's been a few weeks since our last one. Nothing else on the calendar. Why is that, you may ask? Have they broken up? Are they so busy they don't have time?
To you all I say nay!
Rather, we're at least hip deep in recording and sinking fast. It's a hell of a lot of fun.
I don't want to give a whole lot of secrets away, but a sizeable chunk of our best (and fan favorite) songs are already starting to take shape, like "Suddenly Silent," "One Leg at a Time (The Pants Song)" and "Take Me Out," as well as an instrumental I've wanted to record for a long time. Come to think of it, I already have, but it was more of a novelty experiment than an actual attempt.
We're working on this very, very carefully. We've already spent more in-studio time on this than we did on the first Hadrian's Wall album, and we're barely started. I'm not sure where Erik and Richard come down on the timeline, but my feeling is that we'll be working on principal recording through May or so. Re-recording, fixing and adding extra touches will probably last us through most of June, then a couple of weeks to a month for mixing, sequencing (putting the songs in the right order and doing cross-fades or figuring how much silence to put between songs) and mastering. I figure by mid to late summer we'll be done. Then we've got to send it off for duplication/manufacturing. And somewhere in there we have to do the title, cover and inserts. But with three creative minds, at least two of which have no small amount of graphic design experience, that should be no problem.
So a short treatise now on our recording equipment and methods, just because I feel like geeking out (and also documenting it).
As far as the equipment goes, we have the same instruments we use for performing (my two Oscar Schmidt acoustic guitars, Richard's Fender acoustic guitar and Erik's bass and electric guitars [whose manufacturers escape me]), plus a cheap-ass bodhran from Musician's Friend and my Alesis QS6.1 synth. Other instruments may make brief visits to the 'studio' as needs require. I don't want to spoil any surprises or scare anyone away, so I'll leave that vague.
The studio so far consists of two separate and distinct locations: My office (for recording keyboard parts, since inexplicably there is a loud and ineradicable electric hum whenever I plug the keyboard into Richard's equipment) and Richard's living room, for everything else.
The setup at Richard's place has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, the hardware and software are excellent (if a tad buggy sometimes) and space is ample. On the minus side, we have no way to isolate players, so anything recorded via microphone (which is just about everything) must be recorded singly. Also, because the computer is in the same room and the floors are industrial carpet over plywood, it's practically impossible to completely isolate the microphones from fan noise and other computer hums. We've managed to keep them down to a manageable level, but so far, they're still there.
We're recording through an Aardvark DirectPro Q10 into Richard's Windows XP machine running Cakewalk's Sonar 3 Producer Edition. There's a Shure SM-58 microphone present, as is a condenser microphone whose brand and specifications escape me. We've gotten good results double-micing the guitars, a procedure we've adopted so we can mix-and-match the different tones, or pan them slightly left and/or right for a nice stereo effect.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. After a number of unsuccessful (and at times nearly fistfight-inducing) attempts at finding a procedure for recording that works for all three of us, we've hit on a way of working that seems to fit our character as a band. To start off, we establish a tempo for the song and MIDI up the keyboard to give us a metronome sound. We record this to one audio track while we have all of our instruments plugged into separate inputs on the Aardvark. Usually, we'll leave off the vocal mic, but sometimes it's helpful.
From there, we punch record and run straight through the song, mistakes and all. Usually, one take is enough unless there's a major boo-boo or if we all miss a cue or something.
We take this track as a foundation, then go through and rerecord every instrument and all the vocals. As the track takes on its own rhythmic feel, we mute the click track to try to get a more organic feel. But we have a lot of songs with stops and starts, so we need the click track in order to sync everyone up properly. Once the 'basic tracks' are done, we go through and remove the original 'scratch' tracks to save space and avoid confusion.
From there, we add other instruments (or at least we will; so far only one song has been augmented with keyboards, and even these are likely to be completely redone before long). Thus far, I've avoided sequencing any of the keyboard parts, because I tend to get very perfectionist with MIDI sequences, quantizing and fixing stray notes in the software; everything I've done has been live to 'tape'.
Then we'll mix, add effects, etc., in what I hope is a more or less collaborative process (it's Richard's equipment, Erik is in many senses a sonic wizard and there are certain parts of this recording that I can hear perfectly clearly in my head). I'm sure that as we do this, it will be evident that there are pieces here and there that need polish or slight redoing.
Et cetera, et cetera.
When the time comes for the remixes, I'll blather on about how I do that. That's a really fun process (I acquired the master tracks from Marillion's Anoraknophobia album and have been remixing them over the last year or so -- only two done so far, but if you're interested in hearing them, let me know and I'll make them available to you) that I love to talk about endlessly and bore people with.
When I have interesting news to share during this recording process, I'll talk about it more. I really think it'll be interesting to relate how put our instrumental together when we get there; it's going to be a combination of loops, audio editing and live playing. On the Hadrian's Wall album, "Home" was the track on which we really spread our wings in the studio and tried interesting things (which may or may not be apparent from listening to it). This instrumental, I think, will be the analog on this recording.
We're also planning on doing one written-in-the-studio song just to stir things up a bit. What I want out of this album (and I'm only speaking for myself here) is an album that people with a rock/pop aesthetic can listen to and think we've got some good tunes and a good rhythm, and only after some time realize that there's a lot of acoustic instrumentation and almost no percussion; and that folkies can listen to and grok the folk sensibility and get drawn in before being shocked by the subtle use of electrics, electronics and studio editing and production techniques. At this stage in the game, I want to be clever but not groundbreaking. That'll be the next album.
All right, enough. Back to the usual stuff.
So as far as our public image goes, Haiku Rd. has gone missing lately. Our next show isn't until May 6 (check in at our Web site for news and updates) and it's been a few weeks since our last one. Nothing else on the calendar. Why is that, you may ask? Have they broken up? Are they so busy they don't have time?
To you all I say nay!
Rather, we're at least hip deep in recording and sinking fast. It's a hell of a lot of fun.
I don't want to give a whole lot of secrets away, but a sizeable chunk of our best (and fan favorite) songs are already starting to take shape, like "Suddenly Silent," "One Leg at a Time (The Pants Song)" and "Take Me Out," as well as an instrumental I've wanted to record for a long time. Come to think of it, I already have, but it was more of a novelty experiment than an actual attempt.
We're working on this very, very carefully. We've already spent more in-studio time on this than we did on the first Hadrian's Wall album, and we're barely started. I'm not sure where Erik and Richard come down on the timeline, but my feeling is that we'll be working on principal recording through May or so. Re-recording, fixing and adding extra touches will probably last us through most of June, then a couple of weeks to a month for mixing, sequencing (putting the songs in the right order and doing cross-fades or figuring how much silence to put between songs) and mastering. I figure by mid to late summer we'll be done. Then we've got to send it off for duplication/manufacturing. And somewhere in there we have to do the title, cover and inserts. But with three creative minds, at least two of which have no small amount of graphic design experience, that should be no problem.
So a short treatise now on our recording equipment and methods, just because I feel like geeking out (and also documenting it).
As far as the equipment goes, we have the same instruments we use for performing (my two Oscar Schmidt acoustic guitars, Richard's Fender acoustic guitar and Erik's bass and electric guitars [whose manufacturers escape me]), plus a cheap-ass bodhran from Musician's Friend and my Alesis QS6.1 synth. Other instruments may make brief visits to the 'studio' as needs require. I don't want to spoil any surprises or scare anyone away, so I'll leave that vague.
The studio so far consists of two separate and distinct locations: My office (for recording keyboard parts, since inexplicably there is a loud and ineradicable electric hum whenever I plug the keyboard into Richard's equipment) and Richard's living room, for everything else.
The setup at Richard's place has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, the hardware and software are excellent (if a tad buggy sometimes) and space is ample. On the minus side, we have no way to isolate players, so anything recorded via microphone (which is just about everything) must be recorded singly. Also, because the computer is in the same room and the floors are industrial carpet over plywood, it's practically impossible to completely isolate the microphones from fan noise and other computer hums. We've managed to keep them down to a manageable level, but so far, they're still there.
We're recording through an Aardvark DirectPro Q10 into Richard's Windows XP machine running Cakewalk's Sonar 3 Producer Edition. There's a Shure SM-58 microphone present, as is a condenser microphone whose brand and specifications escape me. We've gotten good results double-micing the guitars, a procedure we've adopted so we can mix-and-match the different tones, or pan them slightly left and/or right for a nice stereo effect.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. After a number of unsuccessful (and at times nearly fistfight-inducing) attempts at finding a procedure for recording that works for all three of us, we've hit on a way of working that seems to fit our character as a band. To start off, we establish a tempo for the song and MIDI up the keyboard to give us a metronome sound. We record this to one audio track while we have all of our instruments plugged into separate inputs on the Aardvark. Usually, we'll leave off the vocal mic, but sometimes it's helpful.
From there, we punch record and run straight through the song, mistakes and all. Usually, one take is enough unless there's a major boo-boo or if we all miss a cue or something.
We take this track as a foundation, then go through and rerecord every instrument and all the vocals. As the track takes on its own rhythmic feel, we mute the click track to try to get a more organic feel. But we have a lot of songs with stops and starts, so we need the click track in order to sync everyone up properly. Once the 'basic tracks' are done, we go through and remove the original 'scratch' tracks to save space and avoid confusion.
From there, we add other instruments (or at least we will; so far only one song has been augmented with keyboards, and even these are likely to be completely redone before long). Thus far, I've avoided sequencing any of the keyboard parts, because I tend to get very perfectionist with MIDI sequences, quantizing and fixing stray notes in the software; everything I've done has been live to 'tape'.
Then we'll mix, add effects, etc., in what I hope is a more or less collaborative process (it's Richard's equipment, Erik is in many senses a sonic wizard and there are certain parts of this recording that I can hear perfectly clearly in my head). I'm sure that as we do this, it will be evident that there are pieces here and there that need polish or slight redoing.
Et cetera, et cetera.
When the time comes for the remixes, I'll blather on about how I do that. That's a really fun process (I acquired the master tracks from Marillion's Anoraknophobia album and have been remixing them over the last year or so -- only two done so far, but if you're interested in hearing them, let me know and I'll make them available to you) that I love to talk about endlessly and bore people with.
When I have interesting news to share during this recording process, I'll talk about it more. I really think it'll be interesting to relate how put our instrumental together when we get there; it's going to be a combination of loops, audio editing and live playing. On the Hadrian's Wall album, "Home" was the track on which we really spread our wings in the studio and tried interesting things (which may or may not be apparent from listening to it). This instrumental, I think, will be the analog on this recording.
We're also planning on doing one written-in-the-studio song just to stir things up a bit. What I want out of this album (and I'm only speaking for myself here) is an album that people with a rock/pop aesthetic can listen to and think we've got some good tunes and a good rhythm, and only after some time realize that there's a lot of acoustic instrumentation and almost no percussion; and that folkies can listen to and grok the folk sensibility and get drawn in before being shocked by the subtle use of electrics, electronics and studio editing and production techniques. At this stage in the game, I want to be clever but not groundbreaking. That'll be the next album.
All right, enough. Back to the usual stuff.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
social issues: The progressive beacon on the hill -- Spain?!
Freedom is breaking out all over.
I couldn't have phrased this better myself, and I find myself wishing we had high-ranking government officials who had this kind of perspective on rights and freedoms:
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
Meanwhile the American Taliban struggles to make a retarded theocracy of my beloved home country, binding hundreds of millions of people to their prehistoric, juvenile attitudes to sex (EWWWW! Boobies!) and society.
I couldn't have phrased this better myself, and I find myself wishing we had high-ranking government officials who had this kind of perspective on rights and freedoms:
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
Meanwhile the American Taliban struggles to make a retarded theocracy of my beloved home country, binding hundreds of millions of people to their prehistoric, juvenile attitudes to sex (EWWWW! Boobies!) and society.
politics: A short entry about John Bolton (apologies to Neil Gaiman)
The title of this article made me laugh. Out loud. At work.
It was embarrassing.
Politics is the only reason why anyone with even half a brain would entertain for the briefest moment the notion of confirming this man as the UN ambassador. He gives every impression of being an intolerant, unstable bully with absolutely no facility for diplomacy whatsoever. And he certainly has a broad and threatening attitude toward the United Nations that, until he was up for the job, he didn't even bother to conceal or moderate.
So blind adherence to party dictates from on high is the only thing I can think of that would act in his favor. So go on, you Republican senators who long ago sold out your scruples and who put supremacy of party over the interests of the people and the nation you claim to serve. Go on, vote for the bastard.
Anyone else with a spine and a conscience, go ahead. Set politics aside. And see the man for what he is. Thanks, George!
It was embarrassing.
Politics is the only reason why anyone with even half a brain would entertain for the briefest moment the notion of confirming this man as the UN ambassador. He gives every impression of being an intolerant, unstable bully with absolutely no facility for diplomacy whatsoever. And he certainly has a broad and threatening attitude toward the United Nations that, until he was up for the job, he didn't even bother to conceal or moderate.
So blind adherence to party dictates from on high is the only thing I can think of that would act in his favor. So go on, you Republican senators who long ago sold out your scruples and who put supremacy of party over the interests of the people and the nation you claim to serve. Go on, vote for the bastard.
Anyone else with a spine and a conscience, go ahead. Set politics aside. And see the man for what he is. Thanks, George!
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
social issues: A simple, humble worker in God's vineyard?
There's a minor thing that bugs me about Benedict XVI. I'm leaving all of the nastier allegations alone; they're being done to death in other forums, and a lot of them seem unfair to me (and I'm no great fan of the Catholic Church in general or of Cardinal Ratzinger in particular).
But something rubs me the wrong way about a man bedecked in gold damask, grasping and flanked by ostentatious objects and reminders of the church's obscene wealth and power, describing himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard."
The Dalai Lama, now there's a man who practices that about which he preaches, simple but elegant and radiating peace.
By comparison, the Vatican and the Bishop of Rome seem hopelessly mired in their own bureaucracy, believing their own PR and peddling influence in an unseemly way.
But something rubs me the wrong way about a man bedecked in gold damask, grasping and flanked by ostentatious objects and reminders of the church's obscene wealth and power, describing himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard."
The Dalai Lama, now there's a man who practices that about which he preaches, simple but elegant and radiating peace.
By comparison, the Vatican and the Bishop of Rome seem hopelessly mired in their own bureaucracy, believing their own PR and peddling influence in an unseemly way.
Monday, April 18, 2005
politics: Shameless rationalizing
Thanks to Rachel Maddow, I was lucky enough to read this article from Newsmax republished at The Conservative Voice.
I can't really add much to what Rachel said (follow the link above), except to marvel at the ingenious confluence of sexism, rationalizing and just flat-out abnegation of reality. I mean, even if I were to grant their basic premise that the presence of women in Army units hampered their ability to go after Osama bin Laden, wouldn't that point to really, really bad planning on the Army's part (or, perhaps, it might suggest that women should be allowed to participate in combat) instead of the unworkability of allowing women in the Army?
*sigh*
I can't really add much to what Rachel said (follow the link above), except to marvel at the ingenious confluence of sexism, rationalizing and just flat-out abnegation of reality. I mean, even if I were to grant their basic premise that the presence of women in Army units hampered their ability to go after Osama bin Laden, wouldn't that point to really, really bad planning on the Army's part (or, perhaps, it might suggest that women should be allowed to participate in combat) instead of the unworkability of allowing women in the Army?
*sigh*
Friday, April 15, 2005
politics: Oops.
So yeah. I got e-mail from Mark J. Yannone.
Decided I didn't need the stress. Was mildly curious about how he got the e-mail address, but only mildly; it's pretty easy to find if you go looking. Deleted it.
Had second thoughts. Realized I'd promised to post any responses I got.
Feel mildly guilty about calling him a nutbar. Petulant, certainly. Politically utopian (read: unrealistic). Definitely of the shoot-the-mouth-off-first, think-second, variety. But nutbar was probably a bit strong.
Anyway. Went to retrieve the e-mail and forward it to a friend so they could read it and post it for me so I would have some removal from the thing.
Unintentionally had already clicked 'empty trash'. Yannonemail gone.
Mr. Yannone, if you're reading, could you resend? Thankyew.
Decided I didn't need the stress. Was mildly curious about how he got the e-mail address, but only mildly; it's pretty easy to find if you go looking. Deleted it.
Had second thoughts. Realized I'd promised to post any responses I got.
Feel mildly guilty about calling him a nutbar. Petulant, certainly. Politically utopian (read: unrealistic). Definitely of the shoot-the-mouth-off-first, think-second, variety. But nutbar was probably a bit strong.
Anyway. Went to retrieve the e-mail and forward it to a friend so they could read it and post it for me so I would have some removal from the thing.
Unintentionally had already clicked 'empty trash'. Yannonemail gone.
Mr. Yannone, if you're reading, could you resend? Thankyew.
politics: An ancient fable?
OK, I'm blatantly stealing this from shanej at the Randi Rhodes Message Board:
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb, "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf, "if it was not you, it was your father," and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and "SLURPPPP" ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
---Æsop
Word.
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb, "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf, "if it was not you, it was your father," and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and "SLURPPPP" ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
---Æsop
Word.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
babylon 5: Excitement on e-bay
Looks like JMS is cleaning house. It is that time of year, after all.
Of course, none of the Babylon 5 stuff he's selling of is anywhere near a price I can afford. But the auction descriptions ... well, let's just say it's a pleasure reading an e-bay auction item description crafted by someone who actually knows how to write!
Anything Babylon 5- or Crusade-related would make a lovely gift for yours truly. But, well, maybe I should just take care of myself like a responsible adult.
Of course, none of the Babylon 5 stuff he's selling of is anywhere near a price I can afford. But the auction descriptions ... well, let's just say it's a pleasure reading an e-bay auction item description crafted by someone who actually knows how to write!
Anything Babylon 5- or Crusade-related would make a lovely gift for yours truly. But, well, maybe I should just take care of myself like a responsible adult.
politics: Well, THIS is what passes for a top story.
Copied-and-pasted from http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ ... :
Department of Homeland Security Announces Support for Rail Hazmat Placards
April 8, 2005 -- Speaking at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner last night, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recommended continuation of the placard system for hazardous materials transported by rail. The placards are designed to ensure the safety of citizens and first responders and the decision came after the completion of a comprehensive study that included input from first responders, rail operators and other key stakeholders.
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Homeland Security has completed a review of alternate technologies to the current Department of Transportation placard system,” said Secretary Chertoff. “Based on that study and the input of the first responder community, we are recommending that the Department of Transportation maintain the placard system. This is a common sense approach to risk management.”
Uh-huh. That's right.
It's good to know this redundant department, this phenomenal waste of taxpayer money is at least working on big-picture issues that keep the ... *ahem* homeland ... *ahem* secure.
Department of Homeland Security Announces Support for Rail Hazmat Placards
April 8, 2005 -- Speaking at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner last night, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recommended continuation of the placard system for hazardous materials transported by rail. The placards are designed to ensure the safety of citizens and first responders and the decision came after the completion of a comprehensive study that included input from first responders, rail operators and other key stakeholders.
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Homeland Security has completed a review of alternate technologies to the current Department of Transportation placard system,” said Secretary Chertoff. “Based on that study and the input of the first responder community, we are recommending that the Department of Transportation maintain the placard system. This is a common sense approach to risk management.”
Uh-huh. That's right.
It's good to know this redundant department, this phenomenal waste of taxpayer money is at least working on big-picture issues that keep the ... *ahem* homeland ... *ahem* secure.
social issues: Yeah, the storm is coming. Run for cover. No, really.
We can always trust that the wingnut press will come to the rescue of America with its balanced coverage of today's issues.
It was with much interest then that I read the article "Family Group Warns of 'Deviant Homosexual Content' on New Cable Networks". Before I even address the content of the article, I find it interesting that they even make a pretense of balanced coverage by including one, and only one, quote from an actual person on the anti-fascist side of this 'issue'. Granted, it's a good quote and one that, to any sane person, obviates all of the contrary wingnut actions and statements, but still ...
What kind of sad little world do they live in that they expect to see graphic sex acts on basic cable? Is it so inconceivable to them that it's possible to look at the world from a gay perspective without everything devolving into pornography?
It's been my observation that as gay America comes out of the closet and integrates more openly in society at large, it manifests itself in more normal and healthy ways. Repression and self-hatred breed deviancy, hypocrisy and dangerously self-destructive conduct.
And as for their complaints that the late-night programming on Here could turn "pornographic," well ... Anyone watched the late-night programming on HBO or Showtime lately? Since it's a video-on-demand service, it's a fair comparison. Double standards, anyone? The article mentions the video on demand at the start, then conveniently immediately forgets it, serving instead as a mouthpiece for chief American Family Association wingnut Timothy Wildmon's blithe ignorance of the truth.
Niche programming on basic cable? An outrage! An outrage, I tell you!
*sigh*
I do love to watch the AFA squirm and shriek, though. It's almost as entertaining as listening to Tom DeLay stick his foot in it again.
It was with much interest then that I read the article "Family Group Warns of 'Deviant Homosexual Content' on New Cable Networks". Before I even address the content of the article, I find it interesting that they even make a pretense of balanced coverage by including one, and only one, quote from an actual person on the anti-fascist side of this 'issue'. Granted, it's a good quote and one that, to any sane person, obviates all of the contrary wingnut actions and statements, but still ...
What kind of sad little world do they live in that they expect to see graphic sex acts on basic cable? Is it so inconceivable to them that it's possible to look at the world from a gay perspective without everything devolving into pornography?
It's been my observation that as gay America comes out of the closet and integrates more openly in society at large, it manifests itself in more normal and healthy ways. Repression and self-hatred breed deviancy, hypocrisy and dangerously self-destructive conduct.
And as for their complaints that the late-night programming on Here could turn "pornographic," well ... Anyone watched the late-night programming on HBO or Showtime lately? Since it's a video-on-demand service, it's a fair comparison. Double standards, anyone? The article mentions the video on demand at the start, then conveniently immediately forgets it, serving instead as a mouthpiece for chief American Family Association wingnut Timothy Wildmon's blithe ignorance of the truth.
Niche programming on basic cable? An outrage! An outrage, I tell you!
*sigh*
I do love to watch the AFA squirm and shriek, though. It's almost as entertaining as listening to Tom DeLay stick his foot in it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)