"It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," Obama said. "Being my brother's and sister's keeper. Treating others as they would treat me."
Now, Rick rightfully points out that the whole "brother's keeper" thing isn't even from Jesus. It's an OT reference to Cain not knowing where his brother was. So Obama's inclusion of it here is somewhat bizarre in a discussion of Christ's precepts.
But it gets stranger.
First of all, I've never met a Christian who talked about "precepts". They always refer to it as the "teachings" of Christ. Obama's construction is quite peculiar. Especially since the term precepts is more commonly associated with Buddhism. In Christianity, it's used more typically by academics than practitioners.
But even odder is his clumsy mangling of the Golden Rule. Most people learn it as "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." But the thing is, people don't LEARN it - they MEMORIZE it. And they don't SAY it, they RECITE it. Not saying it exactly as memorized is awkward and uncomfortable. Most normal people would construct their sentence around the recitatation rather than paraphrase a memorized quote, like Obama did. It's as weird as saying "when it rains, it usually pours pretty hard".
Not to mention the fact that Obama's construction has more of an "eye for an eye" connotation than the patient, tolerant empathy that Jesus was going for.
And then there's Obama's mangling of the Declaration of Independence - twice omitting the phrase "by their Creator".
Who the hell paraphrases the Declaration? For most Americans, it's memorization and recitation. Recitation, I might add, that typically includes a noticable tone of awe and reverence.
It's like Obama is some Asperger's-afflicted sociopath to whom words are mere sounds without meaning, whose sole use is to manipulate the emotions of whatever audience is in front of him.
Seriously, I've had enough of this line of talk from Charles Krauthammer and his addlepated ilk:
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.(emphasis mine)
I used to work in the engineering spaces of a nuclear-reactor-powered aircraft carrier. I'll understate things and say that I dealt with dozens of very complex, inter-related mechanical systems.
They trained us well how to operate these systems, and they also drilled into our heads what to do in case of an emergency.
Or, more specifically, what to do in the event of broadly-categorized general types of emergencies.
For example - flooding (always a big concern when you're on a vessel whose bouyancy depends on keeping the seawater in the sea).
The official procedure was "find the hole, and cram shit into the hole until the water stops coming in".
You can ignore the quote marks in the previous sentence, since that's not verbatim, but honestly, the written procedure was no more detailed than that.
Because it COULDN'T be. You could never know beforehand where the hole would be, how big it would be, or what you would have available to cram into it.
When you deal with a complex mechanical system, there is simply no way of predicting how it will fail when it finally does. Speaking from experience, nothing delights one of these aforementioned systems more than going kerblooey in a new and exciting way that you couldn't have seen coming, even if you spent all your time inspecting the system instead of operating it.
In short, BP's oil rig failed (as all complex mechanical systems do) in a surprising way, the specifics of which could not have been predicted. They could only be dealt with in the aftermath. Criticizing BP for lacking omniscience is a fool's pastime.
In justice, if Krauthammer ever fails to get his car started because he forgot to turn off his headlights a few hours earlier, someone needs to shove a microphone in his face and demand to know why he doesn't carry a spare battery in his trunk.
From the principal of an elementary school in Ann Arbor that recently had a blacks-only field trip to meet a black rocket scientist:
""The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community."
No, what happened was that you taught the white kids that a black man should not be their hero, a black man should not be their role model, they should not look up to a black man, and the accomplishments of a black man are completely irrelevant to them - not because they're not accomplishments - but because the man is black.
I was email chatting with a friend, and the question came up: "how would a Hollywood-imagined president confront some of the challenges facing President Obama?"
Well, Hollywood answered that question in the Clinton fantasy "The American President" in 1995 (which I had the misfortune of seeing). Thinking about that maudlin, ham-fisted pile of crap, I mulled it over a bit, and came up with this maudlin, ham-fisted pile of crap:
"Denzel Washington would play America's first black President. He would be shown as a true patriot (scenes of him quoting the Constitution & Declaration from memory to justify his policies as he talks about fulfilling the dreams of Washington, Lincoln, & Kennedy).
But he's beset at every turn by fat, white, balding radio talk show hosts, cable news personalities, and racist Tea Party activists that compare him to Hitler. Congressional Republicans refuse to pass the legislation this country needs to rescue it from a financial crisis. When Denzel confronts the legislators, they make dismissive, vaguely racist remarks about him not understanding his position in the political scheme of things.
When it looks like his country-rescuing legislation is doomed to be defeated, we have a pivotal scene of Denzel looking in on his innocent, sleeping daughters. He MUST get his legislation passed... FOR THE CHILDREN! By any means necessary!
He recruits a down on his luck, former-Republican lobbyist of sleazy reputation who's seeking redemption, (played by Viggo Mortensen). Together they dig up dirt on every Republican Congressman who's opposing the bill.
At the climax of the film, Denzel calls a meeting with the Republican opposition. He proceeds to read the documentation Viggo's obtained, threatening to expose the assembled group if they don't vote for his bill.
Next scene, the Republicans, looking guilty and defeated, pass the legislation unanimously. The movie ends with a beautiful sunlit scene of Denzel signing the bill into law in the Rose Garden, as the assembled masses cheer.
Happy music plays, Denzel embraces his wife and daughters... fade to black... roll credits."
The purpose of civil disobedience is to bring moral pressure against those who have the power to change an unjust law. This is accomplished by breaking the unjust law in a visible manner so that authority figures lose the moral high ground when they arrest the lawbreakers for doing something that non-oppressed people are allowed to do.
For example - in the 60's blacks would sit in white areas of segregated facilities. They didn't cause any trouble, just waited to be arrested for being black in a white area.
The law sucked, they were in the right, eventually the law was changed.
Several dozen people were arrested around 8 a.m. Tuesday; leaders wrapped up the protest about half an hour later. For the most part, the protest was peaceful. Those who were arrested were were sitting on the street in front of the immigration detention center. They were blocking a van coming out of the facility, which reportedly contains illegal immigrants in the process of being deported. About 24 people were taken into custody.
The protesters arrested will be charged with disorderly conduct or blocking traffic. The police chief in Broadview said he would try to make sure the charges were lenient. He said for the most part they were peaceful arrests and said he did not want to arrest the protesters but had to because they were breaking the law.
What unjust law are they breaking? Is disorderly conduct unjust? Is the law prohibiting blocking traffic unjust?
If they want to make their point, they should renounce their American citizenship, become Mexican citizens, then walk across the border and announce that they're in the country illegally. Repeat until the powers that be repeal all immigration laws.
I’m going to research two things. What I can do to help our country get back on track and which is the best country to move to after this one.
I don't blame her.
The thing that pisses me off the most about the ObamaCare debacle is that these punch-bowl-turd liberals keep screwing up my free country. Which is really... just not fair.
I mean, if you like rectal-thermometer-wielding nanny-states with semi-civilized standards of living - hey, all of Europe awaits you. Hell, you can even try Canada if you bring your snow shovel. The point is, there are DOZENS of countries where you can live without having to do your own life-planning.
But me... I *like* planning my own life. I *enjoy* making my own decisions. And I can do that in America more so than anywhere else.
It sucks, though. Because while liberals can always find a less-free country to escape to if America ever becomes too liberty-oriented for them, I can NEVER find a more-free country to escape to if this one slides too far down the slippery slope of government control.
Alec Baldwin can slip across the border to Canada. I can't slip across the border to Freedonia.
So, yeah, I've spent my share of time thinking about "escape hatch" countries.
Personally, I keep one eye on Hong Kong and one eye on Singapore. They're both highly-advanced civilizations with long histories of being free trade ports. I've been to both and the vibe was rich and prosperous.
Neither is particularly keen on free political speech, but if you keep your yap shut, you can pretty much do what you want if it's not hurting anybody.
Let me be clear, though - right now I don't want to run away. I want to stand and fight for liberty.
But... some day... I may decide I'd rather live like a free man than die like one.
In this comic strip, a space alien who can sense gravity waves though a rooster's-comb-like feature on his head gets asked "what do you see with your mohawk?".
The little guy had trouble answering, and it occurred to me why. He doesn't "SEE" with his mohawk. The comic doesn't go into it, but he'd have another verb entirely that means "to detect gravity waves with your mohawk".
It'd be like having a blind alien ask, "what do you hear with your eyes?". After stammering for a bit, you might come up with either "light waves", or "electromagnetic radiation vibrating in the 400 to 790 trillion cycles per second range."
Which would make you a complete alien freak to them, if the Blindanarians had the normal human hearing range of being able to dectect atmospheric vibrations of 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
Oh, and to answer the title question, you hear "airborne chemicals with concentrations as low as 1 part per million"
I dreamed I was working at some dead-end, thankless job with some other guy, where we both slaved away all day, but we never got any recognition.
I was bitching about it, and he just looked at me, shrugged, and said "no bread, no basket".
You ever got to a restaurant where they bring you a basket of complimentary bread? Everybody wants the bread. The bread's the star of the show. The basket's just there to make it look good.
If the restaurant didn't need to serve good-looking bread, they'd have no use at all for a basket.
"No bread, no basket".
Working support is better than not working at all.
Just wanted to give a little shout out to Richard Nixon.
If it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't have the lexical shortcut of appending "gate" to scandalous events to indicate that they are... scandalous events.
For example, ClimateGate would have to be referred to with the annoyingly copious verbiage of "the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK Global Warming Email Scandal".
BLECH!
Imagine how much ink could've been saved in 1922 if the Harding administration wrestled with DomeGate.
Blogdaughter Tammi of Tammi's World got asked that question and gave a good answer. Comments are closed over there, so I'll answer over here.
Well, growing up, I never noticed anything about this country that particularly sucked, so I always thought America was pretty cool. The question of NOT liking my country never crossed my mind.
The notion that America was actually GREAT and thus worthy of a deep and abiding love... probably somewhere in 1988 when I was 21, and in my 3rd of 6 years in the Navy. I was just about to embark upon my first real visit to a foreign nation: The Philippines.
At a "cultural briefing" before setting us loose on the town, they explained about a quaint Philippine law: unjest vexation.
They explained it thusly: if you're in a bar, and you piss off a local so bad that he breaks his camera over your head, he's not guilty of assault. YOU are guilty of "unjust vexation" and have to buy him a new camera.
Which was the most fucked-up thing I'd ever heard of, and led me to conclude that America truly rocks.
This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.
The following text appears at the first link:
The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:
Dear friends, family and associates,
As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.
As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.
My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.
May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.
Bloggranddaughter Rave of Quid Nunc is toying with the idea of "extreme honesty":
"What I am talking about is if you look like crap and ask me what I think of your outfit, I'm going to tell you I think you look like crap."
As a married man, I know that questions like these are actually just poorly-phrased requests for self-esteem boosting, and grading of physical appearance is not the intent of the questioner.
I answer the question the person wants to know the answer to ("how much do you love me?" - "lots"), and avoid taking things literally when it's not called for.
Unless I'm feeling grumpy or trying to be funny ;-)
A mysterious stranger shows up at a couple's house and gives them a box with a button on it. He tells them that if they push the button, two things will happen: they will get $200,000, and someone "whom you don't know" will die.
After agonizing over the morality of the decision for days, the wife finally pushes the button.
The stranger comes back, hands over the cash, and takes the box. The wife asks what will happen to it. The stranger looks at her and says it will be given to someone "whom you don't know".
Asking the government to pass a law for your own financial advantage (like, say, health care) is pushing the button. You figure it's safe, since you don't know the person who will have to absorb the negative consequences of your decision.
Problem is, someone else is pushing a different button that will screw you over because they don't know you.
The common factor is a government that's passing out buttons like Halloween candy, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be the button's victims.
As much as I love the tea parties, I find the use of children as props a little distasteful. I didn't like the anti-war yahoos doing it, and I don't like it from folks on the right.
Don't get me wrong. By all means, take the kids, show them what "free speech" and "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances" means in practice.
But don't give them signs to hold with messages that they're too young to understand.
Just give them a nice flag or colorful balloon, slather them with sunscreen, and have a fun day, instead.
Steven Crowder (whose comedic works I adore, by the way) thinks that Atheism is a "Mental Handicap" and wants atheists to tell him if he's correct in that evaluation.
As an atheist, I have to say, "it depends on WHY you're an atheist".
Me, I'm an atheist-by-reason. I just don't see enough evidence to believe in a being that both created the universe and also occasionally intercedes in day-to-day events on behalf of individuals. I'm more of a "the universe just is, and things just happen" kinda guy.
The atheists Steven spends most of his time talking about are atheists-by-morality. They're actually immoralists who claim to be atheists. They see the Christian code of morality, find it inconvenient or uncomfortable, then reject the existence of God as a means of rejecting Christian morality and often ANY hard & fast sort of moral code.
And I would agree that lacking a moral compass constitutes a mental handicap, because my observations indicate that embracing a moral code leads to a happier, healthier, longer life, all things being equal.
A functional moral code requires accepting responsibility for one's actions, and reflecting on those actions from time to time for the purposes of correcting past mistakes and avoiding future mistakes.
For Christians, this takes the form of prayers for forgiveness of sin, and prayers for God's guidance. For me, it's just "thinking things over".
The other part is how you treat others. For Christians, it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and "turning the other cheek". For me, it's "be courteous" and "don't waste time pursuing revenge against idiots - get on with your life".
People who reject morality usually do so in order to avoid either self-accountability and/or self-correction and/or good manners. After they make the conscious decision to be thoughtless jerks, they cover their asses by saying, "it's ok to act like a reality show contestant all my life, because I refuse to believe in a God that tells me otherwise".
So, Steven, you don't HAVE to be a mentally-handicapped Hollywood jerk to be an atheist, it's just that a lot of people get there that way, and they give the rest of us a bad name.
Will we EVER get back to the point of wanting to take care of ourselves? Will we EVER stand up and tell the government ENOUGH!?
Because 1 or 2 voices are not enough. And right now the majority of folks are enjoying having someone take care of them.
And I just hope it doesn't come to a "blowout" (on a grander scale) like the one Mama and I had all those years ago. That......would NOT be a good way to see this end.
Well, the bad news is - yes, there will be a revolution.
The good news is - it will happen at the ballot box.
Historically, entrenched government power always becomes corrupt and oppressive. And it never just goes away on its own. It has to be forcibly removed. Usually by bloody revolution every 20 years or so.
America is a little different, because its citizens have options besides killing the bastards. We can move to another city or state that's less oppressive, or we can forcibly remove political dirtbags merely by voting. In America, NO politician has ever ignored the results of the ballot box. The winner wins, the loser goes home, and everybody tries again later. The game is fair, and nobody screws with the rules. It's sorta like football. Everybody might cheat a little - a hold here, a late hit there - but no one tries to shoot the refs and declare the scoreboard results invalid.
And personally, I don't think it's actually the MAJORITY of the folks looking for a handout. I think it's just that the usual suspects are making more noise than normal.
Fortunately, they've stopped being polite about it. They no longer say "please" or "thank you". Now they're just grabbing & saying "GIMME!".
Big mistake. Americans don't like rude, greedy, grabby people. Our mommas raised us better.
Which means the time is right for the responsible adults to ACT like responsible adults and start punishing the spoiled children who are misbehaving. That means saying "No! Bad! Don't!" out loud, with feeling, and as often as it takes to correct the unacceptable behavior.
Hopefully a lecture and a time out will be sufficient.
But still, I admit that there's a part of me that wouldn't mind carving a hickory switch.
I found that my first thought was "I should send Hannah a card!". Which is VERY strange, because I haven't mailed a Christmas card since my wedding day. Anyway, I was looking around the room for an envelope, when a second thought occurred to me:
It's lovely that I'd like to do something nice for a complete stranger hundreds of miles away, but there are also people who are NOT complete strangers - who live in my house, for example - who also really enjoy it when I do nice things for them.
Maybe I should start a little closer to home.
Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't send a card to 704 Orchard Rd., Lititz, PA 17543. By all means, mail away.
I'm just saying you might want to hug everyone under your roof before you do.
Now, it's been a while since I've had Frosted Flakes. Decades, in fact. But I ate them anyway so that I could show you the box.
I thought "Tigre Tono" looked... off... a bit... from his American cousin, and after comparing this picture:
I think I notice two differences.
Tono has a squarer jaw.
Tono has one eyebrow higher than the other, giving him a bit of a leer. Plus the eyebrows are more angular than Tony's.
What does it mean? I speculate wildly as follows: although the kids ask for the cereal, it's moms who plunk down the money, so both tigers have to be a compromise between cartoony and masculine. So I'd say that Mexican women prefer men with thick eyebrows and angular jawlines, while American women only care about the muscles (although Tony DOES still have a big, strong, manly chin, albeit rounder).
Maybe I'm way off on that, but the fact is, Kellogg's DID decide to make the Tigers different for the different countries, so they must have some sort of market research to justify the cost and bother of tweaking their mascot, since messing with a brand they've spent years and millions to develop is not something they'd do lightly.
If you leave a package of Oreo cookies sitting out, they will get stale and soft.
If you leave a slice of bread sitting out, it will get stale and hard.
Why?
I would think that both of these baked goods would end up with moisture contents related to the household's internal humidity, and thus end up with similar degrees of pliability.
The Staleness Gnomes are whimsical and capricious, and should never be challenged! Their wrath is fearsome and terrible to behold!
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it has to do with the specific densities of each item causing the discrepancy. Oreo cookies are a denser bread than bread, so, absorbs more water vapor, while bread, being less dense, actually loses moisture. But, that's about two steps below a WAG.
I think it probably has something to do with the amount of fat, specifically saturated fat (which stays liquid at room temperature) in each. With the Oreos, the just get soggy with their fat.
It's the sugar. Sugar is hygroscopic. It absorbs water. Starch (bread) is not. Starch in bread causes it to lose moisture, the sugar in Oreos causes them to absorb moisture.
MMMbop tick a ta ba do ba
dubi da ba do ba
tick a ta ba doo
yeah eh yeah
Here's the horrible thought:
That's what they recorded.
At some point, there was a first draft, and it was so mind-bogglingly horrible that it was rejected in favor of the wretched demon-flatulence listed above because - by comparison - said sickly ear-barf actually sounded GOOD.
Just pray that no copy of that first draft ever falls into the wrong hands, or we're all doomed.
That 1 Guy exemplified on March 01, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Oh, for the good old days, eh Harvey? Back when Jeremiah was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine, never understood a single word he said, but he always drank a mighty fine wine.
My old favorite cobalt blue glass coffee cup finally bit the big one after years of use. Got a crack in the bottom, probably from years of sitting on a coffee warmer all the time.
I immediately set out to replace it. One does not simply "just go on" after losing a favorite coffee cup.
Ebay was helpful in this regard, and I bought a set of 4, so as to prevent future states of cuplessness.
These came with a note that said "THE GLASS FACTORY RECOMMENDS PLACING SPOON IN CUP BEFORE POURING HOT LIQUID INTO MUGS!!!"
"What a retarded urban legend", I thought, as I proceeded to pour fresh coffee into my [room temperature] mug, only to watch said mug split apart, leaving me with 2 chunks of cup, a counter full of coffee, and that horrid still-caffeine-free feeling.
No, I didn't put a spoon in, first.
Neither did I put a spoon in the old cup that lasted for I don't know how many years getting hot coffee poured directly into it.
I say the spoon thing is just a cover for either A) shoddy workmanship or B) the piss-ignorant notion of using non-tempered glass in a COFFEE cup in the first place.
Now, having Googled this, I know that there are plenty of smug fucks out there who say "I always use a spoon and my cups don't crack". Well, since cups hardly every crack in the first place, that doesn't mean much. I'd like to hear from someone who DID use a spoon and their cup cracked anyway, thus falsifying this suspiciously unscientific wives tale once and for all.
Any takers?
And please don't talk to me about how "the spoon acts as a heat sink". That would only help cool the coffee and "protect" the cup if you poured all the coffee down along the length of the spoon to cool it. Why not just recommend putting an ice cube in the coffee pot to cool it off instead? It'd be even more effective, since the specific heat capacity of ice is 5 times that of iron.
I have NEVER heard about the whole "spoon in the coffee cup" phenomenon - but then I don't drink coffee. Probably just me...
And you have 3 more to experiment with! Yay!
Richmond exemplified on February 02, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Do you drink your coffee black, Harvey?
'cause I'm just wondering, if you're gonna stir cream or sugar in anyway, how difficult is it to put the spoon in the cup first?
But, like Richmond, I don't drink coffee either.
Roses exemplified on February 02, 2008 at 09:09 PM
I don't drink coffee (I'm a Postum man, myself). But of all the Postum and hot chocolate and other hot drinks I've poured into mugs I've never had one crack on me.
However, as a college student I have a high amount of ramen in my diet, and once, I was pouring hot ramen into a bowl and my bowl broke.
I did, in fact, have a spoon in the bowl.
I don't think it was a heat-tempered bowl, though.
My brother's friend knew this guy who's sister's friend's third cousin was married to a guy who's great uncle broke a glass with a spoon in it. I think. Maybe I've got it wrong.
My brother's friend. This guy who's sister's friend. Third cousin married. Great uncle. Yeah. I was right.
What the hell were you asking?
That 1 Guy exemplified on February 02, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Also, this morning I found a beer bottle my roommate had left in the freezer all night (the cap had blown off, but the whole bottle was still intact) so I set it in the sink and boiled some water to pour over it to try and break it.
At first, I Couldn't see who it was that left the comment about their sister's cousin's friend's dad...and after reading the first line....I knew. I just flat out knew....flippin' freak! ;-)
OK, now, Harvey. You KNOW I drink coffee, and tea, and yeah....I have NEVER heard of this thing you say with the spoon and breaking. Ever. And I go either way. (sorry couldn't resist) Coffee? No spoon. Tea? Spoon....
just sayin'......
tammi exemplified on February 03, 2008 at 06:53 AM
i'm just so freaking jolly to hear tammi say "I go either way" i can't remember what i was going to say about coffee anymore.
and wives tales, like marriages, prolly only have a 50% success rate, if that. good luck on your research.
SuperGurl exemplified on February 03, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Kyle Keith exemplified on February 03, 2008 at 01:39 PM
ccl-onlinetr exemplified on February 03, 2008 at 04:16 PM
olesja exemplified on February 03, 2008 at 05:29 PM
I drink tea and coffee never put a spoon in either and never heard the spoon theory. I pour boiling hot water into my tea mug. Only time I broke a mug in hot water was while washing dishes. (to preface, I don't use cold water). Put the mug in went to swipe around it with a sponge, it broke and went through my hand. At least you just had coffee on the counter, LOL.
Goodness... never heard of that ol' wives tale. And doubt it is true for all the reasons you stated. I break cups all the time. But only because I'm likely to sit them down to hard on the counter (which causes a small crack that causes problems later) or I drop them. A spoon wouldn't have helped in either case. ;-)
vw bug exemplified on February 04, 2008 at 05:27 AM
Harv, if you'd take the spoon out of your...
oh, you didn't want people to know about that, did you? Sorry.
And just so you know, the spoon isn't about heat displacement. Rather, it's to break the pointed end of the liquid, keeping it from driving through the cup's material and possibly beyond.
You didn't split your counter or table, too, did you?
That 1 Guy exemplified on February 04, 2008 at 06:50 AM
You are talking about a pure glass coffee "mug" correct?
Are the others?
Glass should not crack upon hot water being added to it.
Unless there is a minute crack or scratch, or the glass was make poorly to begin with.
I speak with authority as I use to work at Ford Glass Division and know glass pretty intimately and how it's made.
Quality Weenie exemplified on February 04, 2008 at 08:44 AM
You are talking about a pure glass coffee "mug" correct?
Are the others?
Glass should not crack upon hot water being added to it.
Unless there is a minute crack or scratch, or the glass was make poorly to begin with.
I speak with authority as I use to work at Ford Glass Division and know glass pretty intimately and how it's made.
Quality Weenie exemplified on February 04, 2008 at 08:45 AM
I've never put a spoon in a cup before pouring coffee, never had a cup crack either.
Not even the crappy WalMart coffee cups I seem to always get for Christmas.
Someone needs to order another cup, test this, and take this company to task!
Specific heat of water: 4.184 J/dl
Specific heat of many common metals: 0.80+/-
Strangley, BOTH the above numbers (yeah, I'm such a nerd) are still higher than the IQ of any idiot that designs a coffee mug lacking, oh, I don't know, HEAT RESISTANCE!
Another thing, IF the company recommends the spoon treatment, you'd think they'd 1) offer a damn spoon with the shoddy mug they were selling you; or 2) figure out better materials to use than the obviously sub-standard crap that's also used to make Christmas lights.
Hapkido exemplified on February 04, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Nope, never heard the spoon in the mug thing either. I've used many a mugs, have never put a spoon in first and have never had one break when pouring coffee into it either.
With my luck, if I did put a spoon in the mug would break.
Saddam may or may not ever started dealing wholesale with terrorists, but you can bet his boys - in their effort to outshine their father's brutal and stupid legacy - would've ramped up the anti-American rhetoric and followed it with action, whether covert or overt.
The war was worth it, if for no other reason than removing the region from the shadow of an insufferable Hussein dynasty.
It was big, strong US Troops who made a lot of Iraqi moms very happy, and a lot of Iraqi girls finally safe when they insisted on Saddam's boys assuming room temp.
Joan of Argghh! exemplified on September 18, 2007 at 06:22 AM
It reminds me of why Bush won in 2004: More dead terrorists and less taxes.
Ogre exemplified on September 18, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Amen, Harvey. Those two taking a big dirt nap is nothing but net.
Richmond exemplified on September 18, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Amen! And can we add spammers to the list of military objectives? IP-homing JDAMs - the next Internet Revolution!
Seriously, every time I hear the "no weapons of mass destruction" charge, I call bullshit and tell 'em, "Ouday and Qusaywere weapons of mass destruction, and now they're DEAD, Jim!" Then I ask them where's my damned FREE OIL, and why is Alec Baldwin still here?!!
Bitterroot exemplified on September 18, 2007 at 11:15 PM
This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.
The following text appears at the first link:
The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:
Dear friends, family and associates,
As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.
As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.
My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.
May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.
Asked by blogdaughter Machelle of Quality Weenie in the comments to this post:
Why is it that teenage/early adult males can not handle a gay man being around them?
Do they fear "catching" it?
Does it make them feel less of a male?
Does it make them feel that uncomfortable that they just don't want to deal with it?
I've mulled this over, and I'm not really sure myself. About the only thing I can think of is "they're insecure about their manhood".
Which sounds like a cliche, but this is what I mean - teen males know that they're expected to act "manly", but they don't yet understand what all that would entail (they're probably a little fuzzy on the honesty, integrity & discipline aspects of manhood at that point - hopefully they'll figure out that those are the REAL keys). What they DO understand about manhood at this point is the concept of penile-vaginal copulation. That's the one aspect of manhood they're certain about. So, when placed in a situation of uncertainty, they fall back on what they can count on to demonstrate their manhood - defending their love of vagina.
That's my theory. Others are welcome in the comments.
Personally, I don't mind being around gays and I never have.
If I have a friend who I find out later is gay it doesn't change my opinion of them.
However, what bothers me are the flamboyant ones. Many seem like, since they are attracted to men they have to make themselves into an annoying stereotype. They don't understand that it's their demeanor and not their sexuality that gives everyone around them the urge to punch their teeth out.
I know flamboyant guys who are straight (or at least claim to be)and I can't tolerate them either.
Also, one of the most annoying things anyone can do, gay or straight, is be compelled to bring up their sexuality at least every four sentences.
Most gay men I have known do this. As well as lesbians and frat guys.
And that's why I can't stand any of them.
To sum up: It's not the sexual preference that bothers me, it's having to constantly be reminded that I'm in the presence of a gay man.
And, of course, I can't speak for all young men, but I do know quite a few that agree with me about this.
I don't think all teenagers are that way, but I know many that are. I think that some of them just don't like the thought of another guy hitting on them. Hell I'm an adult and really don't care if someone is gay or not, but I really am not comfortable with a guy hitting on me. I may not care if someone is gay, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong.
Contagion exemplified on August 26, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Given the harvest of homosexual activities that the world has been blessed with I can understand the reaction of young men to hyomosexual contact. Would a visit to an AIDs ward would be a tremendous boaster to the gay lifestyle? As if there aren't enough problems and misery in the world, do we really need more such problems?
Thomas Jackson exemplified on August 26, 2007 at 06:32 PM
It's because the gay guy dresses better.
All joking aside, I agree with Joey. I've known several gay flaming drama queens who go out of their way to annoy the shit out of everyone around them then cry "homophobia" when you call them on it. My response is usually something along the lines of "I'd think you were an asshole even if you were straight"
Graumagus exemplified on August 26, 2007 at 06:46 PM
In my case it was real simple. When I was 19 and 20 I spent time in the San Francisco Bay Area, first at the body and fender shop called the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, then in the Marine Barracks at Treasure Island there in San Francisco Bay.
Oddly, before then I had no particular thoughts about gays, they were none of my business. Getting propositioned twelve times in a block was just a little much.
Adolescent males are still finding their identity, and really aren't comfortable around anyone that they can't identify with. They also cannot handle being around elderly people, babies, and toddlers. Since a large part of the adolescent male's identity is the Search for Trim, then someone whom he should identify but has actively rejected this identity (and especially one who advertises with every sentence through characteristic speech patterns) is someone assaulting his world-view.
In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:
Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?
Fine.
Let's stop mincing words.
We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.
After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims before they killed us.
Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any. In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region. It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is from Kuwait.
And now Muslims have two choices:
They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they can become productive members of the civilized world, much like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
OR
They can be exterminated like vermin.
All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious, deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief system must either change their minds or be killed.
I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that, hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not, there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.
Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.
Harv, STOP beating around the bush and just tell us how you REALLY feel, I mean stop being so PC and just speak your mind.
JEEZ your just getting soft In your old age.
It also has the side benefit of exposing the traitorous bastards and useful idiots in our own midst.
Unfortunately the powers that be have gallowsphobia
so none of the assholes have swung like they should.
Graumagus exemplified on August 17, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Ah, must be nice to live in such simplistic ignorance. It's so much easier to let someone else tell you what to think instead of actually doing some research and knowing something about the subject you discuss - in this case 2000 years of history (until the 16th century, Islamic lands were centuries ahead of Europe medically, philosophically, economically, scientifically, etc.), the history of the Crusades (no, Christians weren't the good guys there), or the history of the Cold War (no, the U.S. wasn't the good guy there either).
Not to mention this large group of men who attacked people from hiding, running away when a counterattack was mounted, using snipers to pick off officers and terrorizing those who sympathized with the enemy . . . these men were, and still are, lauded as heroes . . . in the 1770s when they fought the British using terrorist, sorry guerilla, tactics.
Let's also look at reality:
Before the U.S. invade Iraq, according to the CIA and U.S. State Dept., Iraq:
a) was a second world country
b) was politically, economically stable, and
c) had no terrorist presence or leanings whatsoever.
After the U.S. invasion, according to the U.S. military, CIA, and State Dept, Iraq:
a) is a third world country
b) is politically and economically unstable, and
c) is a terrorist training ground.
Not only has the invasion failed to make the U.S. safer, it has actually made us less safe. But, the administration's misson has been accomplished: Cheney's company got a multi-billion dollar no bid contract, Cheney's gotten his kickback from that, and Dubya's personal vendetta has been successfully ended.
It was Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (heard of them?) who said it is the duty of every true citizen and patriot to question their government rather than blindly accepting everything their leaders say. The latter is the surest way to destroy a democratic republic.
Related note, the previous post was not intended to support the tactics used by terrorists around the world (even the American and Irish terrorists, or those we funded throughout Central America in the 80s). Rather, it is meant to point out that the mess we are embroiled in right now is a direct result of screw ups made throughout the Cold War, especially during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations which abandoned our Middle Eastern Cold War allies after completely screwing up their countries (Iraq and Afghanistan especially). Sadly, the present administration has chosen to remain utterly blind to history and this basic fact, therefore the administration refuses to understand the fact that this country is not an innocent and utterly blameless nation. At teh same time, by ignoring the history, they completely lack understanding of the motives of Terrorist leaders like Bin Laden (one of our Cold War allies, like Hussein, whom we abandonded when the Soviet state fell).
As we can learn from history, those who do not understand the enemy, whether deliberately or not, and those who do not respect their enemy are doomed to failure by underestimating the enemy - as this administration has done time and time again over teh last six years.
IF YOU WERE *REALLY* EXTREME, YOU'D SKIP THE HELMET
Found this video in the comments to this post at Twenty-Sided:
Although I do admire the rider's skill, and I'm in awe at the amount of work that obviously went into perfecting that skill, I'm mostly centered on a different thought while watching this:
I'm just glad I live in a country where it's SO incredibly safe to live that kids have to go WAY out of their way to find danger.
In a lot of countries, the extreme sport is avoiding government death squads.
Shamus of Twenty-Sided tackles the complicated question of "are video games art?" after noting that Roger Ebert answered "no" and "HELL no". Lots of good discussion in Shamus's comments, if you're interested in the topic.
Here's my take on it:
I don't believe video games are art. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion through contemplation. The purpose of video games (the story-lined kind, not the repetitive-motion kind) is to evoke emotion through interaction.
In art, you get to watch the hero. In video games, you get to BE the hero.
This does NOT make video games inferior to art. Quite the opposite. Their immersive quality has the potential to be more than mere art could ever dream. However, as Jimmy noted in his comment, the form is still in its infancy:
it’s a young medium; artists are still working out how to use it. We had motion picture technology from the 1860s, but Metropolis (one of the earliest truly great films) wasn’t made until 1927. Check back around 2040 and see how we’re doing.
I agree. The greatest days of video gaming are still ahead.
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'..."
A lot of conservatives have repudiated Ann's remarks.
Ann herself, however, did not. She clarified them as follows:
"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."
Well, since she's 45 years old, I imagine the first part of that is true for her. Being 40 years old myself, it certainly was for me. Although we inevitably shortened it to fag, since one-syllable insults somehow seem more insulting.
And let's not forget that in 1985, there was a #1 pop tune with a #1 pop video - Dire Straits "Money For Nothing" - that used the word "faggot" three times. How offensive could it possibly be?
Then there's the second point. John Edwards is NOT, in fact, gay.
Sure, he's a baby-faced man with delicate features and girlish mannerisms who stars in a YouTube video where he fusses over his hair like a supermodel, but he is NOT gay.
So Ann says it's not a gay epithet, because the target obviously isn't gay, and everyone knows he's not gay.
Fair enough - but let's take it to the next level.
Would it be ok to call John Edwards a nigger because he's not black?
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'nigger,'..."
Well, that one's probably indefensible, since - while "nigger" is frequently used to describe gansta-thug rap artists in their own songs and videos - John Edwards has never rapped, pimped, or worn excessive bling, so it's hard to pass it off as a joke, because in order for something to be funny, it needs an element of truth.
But how about this - checking my dictionary, one of the meanings of "nigger" is "Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: 'Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society' (John Aquilino)."
Would it be ok to call John Edwards a nigger because he's not deprived?
Something like "I'm not going to talk smack about John Edwards, because I just feel so sorry for him. Big house, millions of dollars, but when it comes to running for the Whitehouse, he's just a nigger."
Personally, I wouldn't go there, because when I skewer folks with political humor, I try to make it as accurate and unambiguous as possible. Using a term that can be construed to make a point that you are not, in fact, trying to make, is just sloppy communications. It's always better to say exactly what you mean.
So maybe Ann IS a verbal-bomb-throwing lunatic who should be shunned by conservatives as a too-pricey political liability, but then again, maybe she just really sucks as a humorist and desperately needs to hire herself a speech writer.
You've probably seen my takes on it, but I think she is just trying to be sensational to get in the news. This wasn't her first time using the term. In 2006 she called Al Gore a fag, and Bill Clinton a latent homosexual in the same interview. I think she was using it in the same context here.
Personally I just think it does wonders for the Democrats while hurting the Conservatives. We don't need any help in that department. Our politicians do enough without Ann Coulter stepping in to help.
Here's my bitch about this. I don't give a rats ass what she said. If she wants to call Edwards a cum felching drag queen, I could care less.
But she should do it on her OWN time. If she wants to throw some offensive shit out there to stir up the pot and keep her name in the news: fine. Do it in a press conference, or on a talk show, where the focus is on HER.
CPAC is not about Ann Coulter. Like it or not, if you're invited to CPAC you're not just representing yourself, you're representing conservatives as a whole while you're there. Ann Coulter is a very intelligent woman. She's made a deliberate decision to use CPAC to attract media attention to herself twice now with calculated offensive statements for the glory and profit of Ann Coulter and Ann Coulter alone.
I'm not going to denounce her (in fact, I enjoy her columns and her books), but if I were the organizers of CPAC, it would be a cold day in hell before I invited her back.
Graumagus exemplified on March 07, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Oh yeah, on a side note, if gun owners are the new niggers, I am SO going to start slangin' at the range.
"Yo' homey, pass me that gat...."
Graumagus exemplified on March 07, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Considering that I am an equal opportunity swearer, there I some words that I WILL NOT USE. Ever.
Not for fun, not in anger, not trying to make a point. Because there are better ways to make a point (or crack a joke). Ann needs to grab a clue and eat a sandwich for heaven's sake. You can practically see through her...
Richmond exemplified on March 07, 2007 at 04:09 PM
Blunt and outspoken. So far as I am concerned, PC is for politicians. Period. Citizens can say anything they please so long as they are prepared for the consequences. The Dixie Chicks did. Sadly, they misjudged the reaction they would receive. Silly girls. Ann says what she means and if Gays dislike the word fag, they should grow thicker skin. It is an old word and will continue to be used. My lover is a black woman and I hear the word nigger often. I don't use it. Not true. I rearly do and only in jest and only to those who know me. I am, so to speak, an honorary nigger.
I don't care to be an honorary fag. Hmmm. So far as that goes I am pissed off about the hijacking of the word gay by our homosexual bretheren. I have a good many friends of that persuasion too and gay is not a word I would apply to their lives. Everrybody just needs to get over the thin skinned language problem. Sticks and stones and all that. Words do hurt and cut deeply, but only from those one truly cares about. Everybody else can piss-off!
Blane Burns exemplified on March 07, 2007 at 04:42 PM
And by the way; I like this place! Just found it today and I think I can fit right in!
Blane Burns exemplified on March 07, 2007 at 04:45 PM
The best part about Ann's non-apology was the part where she said to the Republicans tripping over themselves apologizing for HER remarks: "You might want to keep those statements handy for the next year or two. There's going to be more."
Or something darn similar to that.
If she'd just EAT SOMETHING, she'd be the hottest woman on the planet: looks (when she's not facing perpendicular to you), brains, wit...and the proven temperment to club your sorry ass to oblivion when you're getting out of line.
The woman is a frickin' stick. Personally I blame Sean Hannity. The guy practically has a free ticket to Ruth's Chris Steakhouses. He needs to drag her skinny butt in there for some serious reeducation :)
Graumagus exemplified on March 08, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I grew up believing that a nigger was anyone, of any color, who was shiftless, low-class, criminal, etc.
Ever seen actual "white trash", folks? I have. I grew up surrounded by it. Those, like my former neighbor who broke into my trailer last Thanksgiving & stole some of my firearms, are niggers.
Tennessee Budd exemplified on March 08, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Last I looked the Jihadis were trying to kill us and the Libs to put us in jail.
So, here we are throwing away our friends. That's the way.
We see how the Left treats minorities who stay of the Leftist plantation.
How about the left's famous tolerance of adventuresome sex? Jeff Gannon or that Sanchez feller can tell us all about that.
Yeah, throw Ann under the bus. She used a word.
Peter - ya know, I'm surprised that Edwards didn't try taking the "faggot" label as a compliment in an attempt to show solidarity with homosexual voters.
After all, wouldn't it be considered a leftist honor to be associated with an oppressed minority?
Like I said, I like Coulter and I wouldn't throw her anywhere (although, as stated, she's skinny enough to use as a javelin).
But if the organizers of CPAC disapprove they are well within their rights to not invite her back.
Graumagus exemplified on March 09, 2007 at 02:59 PM
(The following is said with Love)
Folks give too much damned power to "a word"!
I like Ann. I'm GLAD she didn't apologize for using the word "faggot".
Contrast what she said to what Leftards have been saying for ages: calling Bush "Hitler", expressing disappointment over the fact that Cheney has survived heart maladies and a freakin' bomb & wishing Al Qaeda "better luck next time", and so on. Oh no, no hatred *there*.
But we're supposed to be outraged 'cause Ms. Coulter said "faggot" while making a joke?
I think all the folks crying about it are just a pack o' poofters & whiny bitches.
"people aren't rejecting the dollar coin because of who is on it. They are rejecting it because, first of all, old habits are hard to change, second, people prefer dollar bills and finally, possibly most important, most of us have never even seen one of the darn things except in magazine ads selling them for twenty or thirty dollars each as "collectors' items""
I'd like to add that it's not just the "we have a choice and we prefer bills" issue, there's an infrastructure issue, too. A lot of vending machines don't take dollar coins, and - here's the biggie - cash drawers at most supermarket checkouts don't have a slot for them. Which is the same reason for the unpopularity of the half-dollar. In the cases where cash drawers DO have a 5th slot, it's already designated for half-dollars.
By the way, if anyone out there works at a checkout, please comment about how you handle halves and dollar coins.
In the comments to her post, Lynn wonders why she never sees half dollars anymore. Well, in addition to the above problems, there's also the fact that a half weighs the same as two quarters. So besides being inconvenient to use, there's no weight benefit to carrying one, either. Unlike, say, the advantage of 1 nickel to 5 pennies, or 1 dime to 2 nickels.
By the way, if for some reason you WOULD like to get some half dollars, just ask for them the next time you're at the bank. One of the tellers probably has a few she'd like to get rid of - since she doesn't have any place to put them.
Maybe the dollar coin would work IF they did It right, theres talk of phasing out the penny once those are pulled from circulation...Oh and get rid of those F@ckin fifty cent pieces too these are MORE useless then the penny....sorry i drifted there for a minute.
Now those two are out of the way start pulling the dollar bill out and start pushing a dollar coin into circulation preferibly somthing with Washingtons face and in double height letters accross the top ONE DOLLAR.
Don't give the vending machine companys a choice, I think thats part of whats holding back a sucsessful change from paper to coin, as long as the paper bills around why would they spend the money to upgrade there machines to use a NEW coin that may not last the year??
I like to get the dollar coins as much as possible. I leave them as tips at the bar. It bugs the dickens out of the bar-gal, but not too much cause I tend to tip well.
Australia uses both one and two dollar coins. They can not be mistaken for any of their other coins. Their half is huge by the way, and they use a lot of them.
Are there any other denominations in more than one form?
There aren't two kinds of quarter dollars.
There aren't two kinds of five dollar pieces.
Why add a different form of dollar?
The paper one works fine.
Instead of eliminating the penny to advance the dollar coin, you'd actually have to eliminate the dollar bill to promote the dollar coin.
That, and you'd have to redesign the g-string.
Roses exemplified on February 23, 2007 at 09:28 PM
I've already had one friend nearly hospitalized by a strippers boobs in his face, now you want to pack them with coins??
Graumagus exemplified on February 24, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I hate both the half & the full dollar because it weighs more. I hate the silver full dollar even more becuase its shape resembles that of a quarter.
michele exemplified on February 24, 2007 at 01:12 PM
And... let's be honest... Susan B. Anthony was a bit butch, and it's possible to mistake her portrait for Washington's during a quick glance.
Harvey exemplified on February 24, 2007 at 01:28 PM
The perils of being old...I remember silver dollars from back when they were silver.
Coins have their uses. Ever try to bust somebody in the beezer with a roll of dollar bills? A roll of quarters or those new dollars works a lot better.
Peter exemplified on February 26, 2007 at 01:29 AM
As one who traveled to Canada way to much for business in the brief 2 months I worked for GM having all coins and no paper money sucks.
I had a pocket full of coins and it was heavy so I would take the coins out then have to break paper money again and I ended up with 10 lbs worth of Canadian money.
Paper money makes more sense as it is much lighter in weight.
Quality Weenie exemplified on February 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Most TV opinion shows have the decency to have at least one person from each side of the issue they're discussing. When they don't, it makes them look a little catty.
Like this clip from Paula Zahn's show that I found via Hot Air (and an e-mail from Frank J. of IMAO), where they discussed their final solution to the atheist problem without having an atheist on the panel.
First, ya gotta love those big, yellow, hornets'-nest-stirring questions in the background:
"Why do atheists inspire such hatred?"
and
"Are atheistic tactics too militant?"
Jerks.
Anyway, it occurs to me that just as non-terrorist Muslims need to speak out, condemn, and separate themselves from the splodey-dope lunatics who claim to be members of the same religion, I - as a tolerant, sane, non-evangelical atheist - need to do the same thing.
When people talk about atheists, they usually think about the frothing, blasphemous, God-hating, religion-mockers. People who write screedy, antagonistic diatribes like Russ of Pam's House Blend.
I just don't understand that stuff.
I think most people agree that in-your-face Christian evangelicals can be annoying with their constant fretting about the state of your soul, and their polite-but-condescending invitations to Bible studies. It's like having your 70-year-old mother who lives in another state calling you before you go to work to remind you to take an umbrella because the Weather Channel says it looks like rain.
Thanks for caring, but really, I'm good, here.
But why should atheists adopt the same tactic, going out of their way to antagonize Christians? It's a waste of time. You're not going to de-convert anyone. Try doing something productive with your life.
Personally, I'm not so insecure about my lack of religious beliefs that I feel the need to sway people to my way of thinking, and I'm not afraid of or offended by the little scraps of Christianity that poke their heads up in day to day living, like having "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the back of my currency. Let's face it, no one's ever said to me "You must be a Christian because the money you're spending professes trust in a deity".
And just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I think that "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" must automatically be bad advice. I believe in wisdom, regardless of the source. I just don't believe in miracles.
So you go ahead and worship your God, and I'll go ahead and not worship mine, and as long as neither one of us are obnoxious about it, I don't see any reason why we all can't get along.
I consider myself an agnostic instead of an atheist, simply because nobody's been able to conclusively prove to me there ISN'T a god either. That said, I tend to judge people's religious beliefs by the extent that they leave me the fuck alone. If you want to believe that I'll burn for eternity, fine, have fun imagining my suffering: I don't give a shit.
When you start passing laws based of your beliefs that affect my lifestyle (IE: Bullshit "no liquor before noon on Sundays" laws) I start to get pissed.
If you show up at my house before 10am on a Saturday, you had best have beer or a warrant. A copy of Watchtower magazine ain't going to spare my wrath.
When you call me infidel and say you want to cut off my head if I don't convert to your religion, I start tipping my ammo in pig fat so I can send every one of you camel humping shitheads I see to hell.
Likewise, when an atheist screeches that a Christmas tree anywhere in sight offends them and it needs to be taken down, I wasnt to bitchslap their fucking teeth down their throats.
Leave me alone, and we'll get along fine.
I have a lot of respect for the Bhuddists and Wiccans for this very reason. Think about it: when was the last time you saw a headline like "Wiccan suicide bomber kills 5" or "Bhuddist kidnaps and beheads schoolchildren"?
Graumagus exemplified on February 12, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I think the majority of people Christian and atheist fall into the category of live and let live - especially in America today. It's that fringe group on either side that will drive us all insane because they insist on shoving their beliefs down everyone's collective throat.
As for Paula Zahn... she wants ratings and having a one sided screed going will get people to pay attention to her show - for better or worse. Personally I try not to listen to that crap. *grin*
Teresa exemplified on February 12, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Amen, Harvey. ;-)
Richmond exemplified on February 12, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Um...
If one is going to hold to an irrational belief system (that would be atheism), one must not get bent out of shape when the people who agree with that irrational belief system act irrationally. It's kind of a logical necessity for them to do so.
Using only logic, reason, and real observational science, proving the existence of *A* creator takes about 20 minutes of a person's time. Worshiping that logically necessary being is only logical, since one owes one's entire existence to that logically necessary creator.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with holding to a religion (atheism most certainly IS a religion...) that justifies the murder of over 100 million people in just one century? The lack of *A* creator is necessary for Communism, National Socialism, 'global warming', Socialism, Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Anarchism (not really anarchy, but, we'll use their idiotic name for it). Other than that, there really isn't anything wrong with atheism.
The existence of *A* creator is necessary for freedom, liberty, and capitalism. Other than that, it doesn't really have anything going for it.
Wait... are you saying Paula Zahn's an atheist? :-)
Harvey exemplified on February 12, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Calling one's self a Christian and then acting like an atheist would tend to lead others to believe that you are actually an atheist.
In addition, without watching the video (Paula Zahn isn't too hard on the eyes, but, that's about her only redeeming quality), I could very easily make the argument that atheists WERE represented on the panel...by Paula Zahn.
There are a microscopic amount of non-atheists in the mainstream media outlets (and I include Fox News in that...they're only conservative by comparison), so, it would be safe to assume that any major personality in the MSM would be an atheist, unless otherwise informed.
When 98% or so of a demographic holds to certain beliefs, it's not a wise bet to assume one of that demographic will NOT hold to those beliefs.
wRitErsbLock exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 07:53 AM
For the most part, we Catholic-types don't tend to preach on street corners or knock on doors, but we do pray and hope for our friends... I'm frequently surprised at how misunderstood the Catholic faith is, sometimes (and sometimes especially) even by other 'Cradle-Catholics'.
I was raised Catholic - sometimes even 'against my will'. When I rebelled, I was accused of being atheist, and I discovered to my own chagrin that neither was that the case. I settled on agnosticism for a while - even studied other religions to see if I could find a better 'fit'... For rebellion's sake, I even delved into Wicca and the Occult.
Personally, I think each person has their own journey. "There are as many paths to Heaven as there are people to walk them."
Right now, I'd definitely say I'm not the best Catholic among the ranks - I'm suffering what amounts to a self-imposed separation from the sacraments. I've actually been pretty pissed at God lately. But I have a feeling He understands...
I do know that I've experienced some powerful moments of faith in my life. "Miracles" that I can't deny, and true evil, too. Of the two, Evil exists in undeniable abundance in this world - and perhaps ironically, it is THAT which gives me reason to Hope...
*slaps and shakes head 'loose'*
Whoa, Dude! I never thought I'd go there on Bad Example!
/Jeff Spicoli moment
Bitterroot exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 08:19 AM
From my perspective, Catholicism has one good thing going for it - LOTS of ritual. And rituals have a lot of comfort value, especially during hard times.
Harvey exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Plus they have that giant spider...
(ducks and runs as the catholics who get the South Park reference start throwing things at me)
Graumagus exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Damn Grau - now I have to go hunt the "giant spider," 'cuz I have absolutely no idea...
I'll deal with YOU later!
Bitterroot exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM
For what it's worth, I have noticed that just about every single atheist or agnostic I know used to be Catholic, or came from a Catholic family.
Not a lot of former Presbyterians out there among the ranks.
Well, by sheer statistics, there are far more Catholics (25.9% pop.) than Presbyterians (2.8%). So you have more chance of meeting a former Catholic than a former Presbyterian atheist/agnostic. And I would suspect that more non-Catholics convert to Catholicism than Catholics becoming atheist or agnostic. (And so many of those former Catholics 'turn-back' as they face death...probably, like Harvey said, because of the comfort of the rituals.) Frankly, however, if I wasn't Catholic, I would want to be Jewish.
But I believe in live and let live. I don't think God keeps a scorecard. And if there is no God, it doesn't really matter WHAT you believe. Just play nice.
Mrs. Who exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Okay, so I'm ruminating this religious stuff shortly after having been branded a "Super Geek" and the 'slogan' enters my head...
"CathoLinux: We Are root!"
Heh. I'm putting that one on a T-Shirt.
Bitterroot exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Last church I attended regularly was Baptist.
But I was like 7, so that probably doesn't count.
Harvey exemplified on February 13, 2007 at 11:06 PM
The first time I ever reviewed anything written by Matty O'Blackfive, I had this to say:
...the setup is overly long, and the first part probably should've been in a separate post and shortly summarized before the more relevant part of the story.
In other words, "shut up, boy... ya talk too much".
After I got to meet him in person, I found out that that was a feature, not a bug. Matt's a born story-teller, and - since he's of Irish descent - I assume that he not only kissed the Blarney Stone, he may have given it more than a little tongue in the process.
However, when it comes to his book ("The Blog of War", by Matthew Currier Burden, paperback, 304 pages, available at Amazon.com) he does an amazing thing: aside from various introductions and the Epilogue, he actually shuts up and lets other people do the talking. You'll never see that in REAL life, so you might want to buy the book just for that experience alone.
On the other hand, those of you who know Matt also know how much he enjoys name-dropping. In this book, he does little but. What it lacks in personal loquacity, it makes up for in shout-outs to folks both in and closely related to the military.
Which is appropriate, since it's their stories that he's telling in his book - told in their own words and often taken directly from their own blog posts - with very short introductions by Matt. These are arranged in chapters according to various aspects of the war experience, summarized below:
1 - "Some Must Go To Fight The Dragons" - Setting the stage for the rest of the book by dealing with the broad, philosophical reasons why some men chose to put their life on the line to answer their nation's call. This chapter - like many of the others - is hard to read. Not because it's poorly written, but because it's written so well. It's hard on the heart, and touches the reader's deepest core
2 - "Life In A War Zone" - Very earthy, very gritty, very you-are-there tales from the front line. I imagine that to civilians, some of the oddball fuck-aroundery in NCO Alley will seem incomprehensible, but those with military experience will be able to relate and will get a huge kick out of it. I don't know if I'll ever get that "like a coyote ravishing a housecat" line out of my head.
3 - "The Healers" - Tells exactly WHY war is hell, in heart-rending, blood-soaked detail. If you don't tear up, wince, or flinch away from the book at least once during this chapter, I'd suggest getting your soul checked, because I would question your humanity.
4 - "Leaders, Warriors, and Diplomats" - There's a lot of talk about "winning hearts and minds" in this war. The newspapers will never explain what that actually means. This chapter does. You'll see soldiers winning with a cool head instead of a hot hand, and perhaps you'll come away with a better understanding of the fact that war isn't all about killing. It's about accomplishing the mission, however that needs to be done.
5 - "The Warriors" - I'm going to be understated. This - in clear and disturbing detail - is what good men have to do to keep you safe. If you ever meet one of these men, thank him. Profusely.
6 - "Heroes of the Homefront" - Another "hard on the heart" chapter. This is the hell the families left stateside have to go through to keep you safe. If you ever meet them, thank them also.
7 - "The Fallen" - Unlike the other chapters, you KNOW how the stories in this one will end. There is no way to thank these men. They are gone. All you can do is honor them by cherishing the freedoms they bought for you with their lives, and never forgetting what they've done.
8 - "Homecoming" - As much as our troops want to be out of the war zone, the transition back to life in the safe, civilized United States is rife with mixed emotions and conflicting feelings. For our troops, it's one final battle to win the war inside themselves.
As for the epilogue... well, you remember how Animal House ended? With little snippets of "where are they now?"
Teasing aside, I think it was an excellent idea to give some closure with the people the reader has come to know and care about. Well done.
I'll also mention that there's a handy glossary for military terms and acronyms. You probably won't need it, though, since Matt and the contributors did a pretty good job of defining the terms as they came up. Even the greenest of civilians will be able to avoid getting lost in the terminology.
So... were there any bad parts? Is this review going to be nothing but ass-kissing suck-uppery of Matt's brilliance?
Not really, and mostly. The only thing I could find to complain about is that a few of Matt's introductory paragraphs are written - for no discernable reason - in present tense instead of past tense. I realize that's a bit of nit-picking on my part, but I stand by it. I also lay the blame for it squarely on the shoulders of the book's editor, who should have corrected it before the book went to press.
However, that and the occasiona minor typo (possibly in the original posts being reprinted) will likely pass completely unnoticed by the reader, since the stories themselves are too gripping to leave awareness left over for grammatical niceties.
Do I recommend this book?
Yes.
If you support the war, but don't know anyone personnally who's serving overseas, you owe it to yourself - out of intellectual honesty, if nothing else - to read this to find out EXACTLY what it is you're supporting.
If you enjoy reading warbloggers, you will enjoy the familiar, blog-entry-like style of the tales contained within. It reads so much like a blog, I sometimes found my hand twitching to try to click a link. No book has ever cried out more to be published in a fully hyper-linked electronic format.
If you've served overseas, you should read it so that you can see whether you should nod your head in agreement or call "bullshit" over an inaccurate description (of which I suspect there will be very few). I'd be curious to see whether those in-the-know think Matt got it right.
Who would I not recommend this book to?
Those with delicate constitutions. There's plenty of coarse language and adult situations. I'd give it a good, solid R rating. Definitely not for children or the child-like.
On the other hand, I also think everyone should buy this book so that Matt can quit his crappy day job and go to blogging full time. Which would be a wonderful thing.
Matt a name-dropper? say it isn't so!!! I never noticed that, I mean, I heard from my dear friends former senators Nunn and Miller that he used his association with ME to crash Sir Elton John's birthday party for Gwynneth Paltrow last week at the Applebees in Dawsonville, but I don't know. I couldn't make it what with housesitting for the Indigo Girls.
Tammi exemplified on September 05, 2006 at 09:33 PM
RSM - Dude! I don't know how many times I have to tell you - It was Senator Dole! Get it right man or I'll have to tell Bruce Willis to stop talking to you the next time you're hanging at Denzel's place. Capisce?
Harv - thanks! You DID read it!
Blackfive exemplified on September 05, 2006 at 10:09 PM
"occasiona minor typo"...yeah, guess we ALL know about those, huh??!! :)
TNT - It's the Grammar Critic's Corollary to Murphy's Law that any criticism of grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors will, itself, contain such an error.
Harvey exemplified on September 05, 2006 at 10:38 PM
I think you've got it exactly right Harvey. I'd link to this - but my blog is gone for the moment... figures - just when I might have something to say. *grin*
Teresa exemplified on September 06, 2006 at 09:06 AM
Since trackbacks aren't working... let's see if this works...
Airborne! All the Way!! Great review, now this old paratrooper has to buy the book. Well, if it helps Matt, that's good, because Matt helps all of us veterans. God bless!
"A sniper is a soldier highly trained in fieldcraft and marksmanship, who delivers long range precision fire at selected targets from concealed positions in support of combat operations." Top Team, XVIII ABN Corps Sniper Course, Class 3-86
Alan Briley, RN exemplified on September 07, 2006 at 09:16 AM
AWTM - It is now :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 07, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Harvey,
Great review. Thanks for the great slice o'Matty, and for that giving us the term "*uck-aroundery" for what often passes for what goes on.
dadmanly exemplified on September 07, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Heather Mills-McCartney testifies at the trial of a photographer accused of assaulting her...
IS THERE ANYTHING PEOPLE *WON'T* SAY TO GET THEIR 15 MINUTES?
David Frum is talking about the Hezbollah Hundreds again. And he's talking out of his ass. For example:
Only one thing was missing--the thin wire security strip that runs from top to bottom of a genuine US$100 bill. The money Hezbollah was passing was counterfeit, as should have been evident to anybody who studied the photographs with due care.
I assume he's talking about the one single picture that shows a $100 bill with light passing through it, which I discussed in a previous post
As I said before, I don't think the picuture is clear enough to be definitive.
He goes on to brag about how "SnappedShots.com, MyPetJawa and Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs" pointed out the counterfeiting:
These [blog] sites magnified photographs and showed them to currency experts and detected irregularity after irregularity in the bills.
I'm calling bullshit. Other than the questionable "absence" of a security strip, there was nothing in any of the pictures I saw which indicated that those notes were counterfeit. American currency is subject to wide variations in ink color and seal placement, and all the notes I saw were within spec.
I'm putting out a challenge: if there's anyone who can point out any "irregularites" BESIDES the crispness of the notes, the security strip in that ONE picture, ink color, or seal placement, (all of which I address in the earlier post mentioned above) please bring it to my attention, I'll tell you whatever I can based on my considerable currency-handling experience.
And for heaven's sake, use direct URL's that work.
A final thought, because I want to be very clear on this point. I'm NOT saying these bills are genuine. I'm saying that I haven't seen enough evidence to declare them counterfeit. Unlike these so-called "currency experts" who are, in my opinion, simply taking advantage of the situation to gain a little ego-stroking from the media.
[Hat tip to reader Larwyn for pointing out Frum's article to me]
I don't think I know anyone who has claimed the Hezbollah bills to be counterfeit. What I have seen is the posed question of suspicion and the examination of web pix, which at 72 dpi is pretty lousy reference. Then, for me, that spurred research on who might be responsible IF the money were found to be fake - possibilities of course Iran and Korea. That led to research on Supernotes, which Treasury and State has been pursuing.
But known supernotes smuggling or laundering may be an entirely different thread of counterfeiting than money that shows up in Lebanon.
For me, the question became one of hoping the MSM or people in position to obtain Hezbollah bills might raise this to a level of examination. (That's why I emailed Israeli bloggers, closer the situation.)
I know when I looked at a lot of bills on the Internet, I could make comments, about signatures but not about true authenticity.
The question was always - where did they get those crisp bills?
Sticky Notes exemplified on August 29, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Looked to me like David Frum was claiming that the blogsphere had proven that the bills were fakes, flatly stating, "The money Hezbollah was passing was counterfeit".
And you're right about the important question: where's is coming from. There are two possible answers - they're making it themselves OR they have backing from folks who have hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) in cash just laying around, and prefer to spend it on supporting terrorists.
I've been chatting with Sticky Notes about whether Hezbollah is passing out fake $100's, and, as I said earlier, I'm not inclined to believe they're fake.
But if that money IS genuine, that leads me to another thought:
That cash is a few years old, and it's still in like-new condition. Whoever is bankrolling this operation is well-funded enough to let large stacks of US currency sit around untouched for years.
This is no grass-roots relief effort. There's a major player involved. Who that might be, I don't have enough information to speculate on, but it narrows down to a question of "what source of Hezbollah funding could afford to sit on hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in cash without needing to spend it?"
Whoever it is needs to have their assets frozen until they decide that terrorism is not a good investment.
Interestingly enough, Sticky Notes speculates that if they ARE fake (which I admit they might be - I can't tell for sure without actually touching them), she might have a guess as to their source.
Replace "freeze their assets" with "make them need that money to replace the infrastructure wiped out courtesy of the USAF" and I agree wholeheartedly.
Graumagus exemplified on August 26, 2006 at 11:35 PM
Oh... that's what I meant... sorry about the typo :-)
I just noticed this article, so sorry for not responding sooner. I don't think it's fair to characterize the posts at Snapped Shot as being made "just for the sake of 15 minutes" of fame. I raised a question about this latest "charity" based on Hezbullah's potential criminal history, and followed up as more information came in.
As you'd see, if you looked over the website, I quickly retracted *every single one* of my allegations about the counterfeiting, as you and others who are more knowlegable about currency than I am commented and provided counter-examples. (I don't readily carry $100 bills, so I wasn't in a position to do any comparisons by myself.) The fact that Frum cited my website as definitive proof that the money was counterfeit had nothing to do with me—he did so for reasons which only he can explain. He certainly made no attempt to contact me before publishing his article!
Check out the latest article on Snapped Shot—a journalist *in Lebanon* has written with details about Hezbullah's financial operations which further invalidate my suppositions about counterfeiting—all of which has been posted as breaking news on Snapped Shot.
(your blog is mis-interpreting my URL and rejecting it as spam. Replace the "----" in the following hostname with "shot" to hit the link:)
To me, the most notable aspect of great men is that they possess an insane and fanatical devotion to the pursuit of their goals. The spend what normal people consider "too much" time doing what they love.
In the cases he cites, it's music. They spent too much time reading it, writing it, and playing it. And they created a large body of crappy and forgettable work in the process. Most people wouldn't be able to continue after producing those tons of worthless garbage - they'd think "I can't do any better than this. I might as well give up."
But the greats kept on trying anyway. "Luck", after all, is when hard work meets opportunity.
They probably had a LOT of people tell them "There's more to life than just music. Why don't you get out once in a while? Get a hobby. Learn to play golf or something".
Thankfully, these idiots were ignored.
Of course, producing large quantities of crap does NOT guarantee eventual greatness (see my 6000 or so blog posts for proof), but greatness simply can't be done without it.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. NOT KNOWING WHEN TO SHUT UP - UPDATED 6-22-06
Blogson Jeff of Ponytailed Conservative considers the story of Brittney McComb, who - while giving her valedictorian speech at her graduation ceremony - had her microphone cut off because she repeatedly referenced her Christian beliefs.
She didn't get her mic cut off for mentioning God, she had it cut off for deviating from the speech which had been previously approved by the school board - as she had been warned beforehand would happen. She agreed to the rules, then broke her agreement. What other recourse did the school have?
I think the essential question here is - did the school have the right to edit her valedictorian speech in the first place? Well, they're paying for the mic, so I think they do, for this particular venue.
Brittney's still perfectly free to praise God on her blog, or in her church, or even on random street corners. Her right to free speech in general is not being threatened here. The democratically elected school board has been granted the authority by their electors to set guidelines on graduation speeches. Given the information in the article, I don't see anything to indicate that they've misused that authority.
And I *do* have to wonder about Brittney's choice to go ahead with the unedited version of her speech. Why did she feel the need to mention Jesus over and over again? Wouldn't a simple, humble, "and I'd like to thank God" have been sufficient?
Perhaps she should re-read Jesus' opinions on the habit of indulging in pious public acts for the purpose of impressing other men.
As for the secular issues involved, the solution when butting heads with a rule you don't like isn't to violate the rule, it's to either complain loudly enough to get the rule changed beforehand, or to find an alternative means to reach your goal WITHOUT violating the rule. She could have printed her original speech out and passed it around as a flyer. She could have posted it on the internet as an MP3. She could have discussed it with her peers, one-on-one.
As it was, her actions were disruptive and uncalled for. She behaved like an undisciplined, spoiled brat, throwing a tantrum because she HAD to have HER way, right NOW.
Hopefully, as she matures, she'll discover that going over, under, or around are sometimes better methods of getting past a brick wall than trying to bulldoze through.
Substantively, Harvey, I agree. A larger question is: Is the school legally able to violate her constitutional right to freedom to exercise her religion? "Separation of church & state" obviously doesn't enter into it, as it is nowhere in the Constitution. However, may one voluntarily agree to the curtailment of one's constitutional rights?
As former sailors, I guess you and I both know the answer to the last question.
TB - I think you're right that this probably falls under "voluntary curtailment", assuming the laws in her state allow her to refuse to attend public school at her age.
If her attendance was state-mandated, then the "voluntary" aspect gets a little more questionable.
By the way, although the phrase "Separation of church & state" isn't in the Constitution verbatim, I believe that it's generally accepted as a short way of referencing the part of the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's not a legal principle, it's just quicker to write.
By the way, is "establishment" in this context a verb or a noun?
Harvey, establishment is a verb. It goes back to the reign of Henry VIII when he established the Church of England to get around the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce. (Everyone in England was forced to change religions and the monestaries and nunneries were sacked for ol' Henry's purse.)
Our forefathers did not want the new government to have the ability to do the same, so the first amendment not only prohibited the establishment of a religion, it also made sure the government couldn't interfere in a person's right to exercise their chosen religion.
Personally, had the school not required prior approval, she should have been able to say what she wanted. Usually the school only prohibits profanity or inciteful speech and it's a sad day that being thankful for God's blessings is considered inciteful speech.
Anna - "verb" does seem to be the general consensus that I've found by Googling, but it's hard to find a serious legal discussion of the matter.
I agree that a simple bit of thankfulness to God is hardly inciteful. However, the article seems to indicate that her thankfulness was included so often in the speech as to make it seem inappropriate for a secular occasion, i.e. graduating from a public (not parochial) school.
Barring the release of the original version of her speech, it's hard to judge, though.
The democratically elected school board has been granted the authority by their electors to set guidelines on graduation speeches.
Bullshit. Utter, contemptible bullshit.
The United States Constitution SPECIFICALLY forbids placing restrictions on the free expression of ANY religion. Including Christianity.
The school board had no right to edit her speech. Period. Just because the majority of the school board are atheists does NOT mean they can impose THEIR religion on the Christians.
Do some fucking research into the ACTUAL US Constitution sometime. Like, how about using original documentation of what the writers, such as John Jay, said about what the Constition meant. It will burst your atheist bubble. Sorry. Just because a majority of idiots in black robes decided that "will not prohibit the free expression thereof" was trumped by "make no law RESPECTING a religion", and added a few more clauses that aren't actually there, doesn't make it correct.
The ONLY thing you need to know about the Supreme Court is that they're not.
Schools have never been a democracy. They have always been a dictatorship. They set the rules, you follow or move on. Period. This is no exception. This rule is in place in our schools as well... valedictory speeches get pre approved. You deviate from what you submitted, *snip* mic is cut off.
She knew the consequences. She gambled. She lost. End of story.
Jeff - That last comment was gratuitous & uncalled for. Please stay on topic.
Anyway, the point is that free speech is NOT an "always and everywhere" kind of thing. You have it on your own property. You have it on public property. When you're on someone else's property, it's their rules.
Public schools make this a little dicier in principle, since they're both "public property" and "someone else's property" at the same time. However, from a legal standpoint, when the government runs something, they generally compromise by checking for "due process" and "equal treatment" when there's a question of fairness.
In this case, it sounds like Brittney had her "due process". Her speech was reviewed (just like everyone else's), it was edited, her and her father appealed the editing decision, and the board didn't change its mind on appeal. They didn't say "we refuse to listen to you because you're a Christian", they said "we still don't think your speech is appropriate for this venue. Accept the changes or don't give the speech at the graduation ceremony that will be held on school property".
They gave her her "day in court". She lost.
If you want to make the case that she didn't receive "equal treatment" because she was a Christian, you'll have to find evidence to prove your assertion, otherwise it's just a baseless accusation of "religious bias". Which I find uncomfortably similar to the way accusations of "racism" get hurled when minorities don't have proportional representation in a given profession, regardless of whether there are non-racist reasons why this may be so.
Now personally, I don't think government should be in the schooling business at all, but - since it is - I'm examining it from a "law as it exists" standpoint, using what I remember from my one miserable year of law school. I didn't graduate, so take it for what it's worth.
I have given commencement speeches for 6th & 12th (private) grades, and for grad school (public university). Every school had speech guidelines and codes of behavior.
The one thing that has stayed with me is that commencement speeches not about the individual but rather are meant to reflect the collective educational experience as seen through an individual's eyes. It's not about "thanking" a person, thing or entity. It's about summarizing an experience and using it as a springboard to look at the future while at the threshold of change.
I think where this girl went wrong is believing the speech was to be about her. That's not only a bad speech, it was selfish and unchristian (& I'm a christian). Of course she tried to personalize it, but the truth of the matter is her speech obviously lacked substance and was mired in egotism and repetitiveness.
A better speech might have been one in which she posed the question: What were you most thankful for during your educational experience, why and how can those present continue to improve and contribute to society and future generations.
What aspects of your education will have a longlasting effect into your adulthood.
Those were the last 2 topics I covered at comencement.
My only wish is that more people either would receive guidance or would get cut off at commencement speeches.
Blog pappy, I agree with you. you're points were very much on target.
That 1 Guy exemplified on June 22, 2006 at 09:31 AM
If you look at the first amendment the school board was wrong for doing that They Violated her righst to free speech By her saying that dooes not mean the school endorses it. If next year someone gets up there and they let a valedictorian bash the government which is also free speech then they have serous issues she was thanking god and cited a few versus
Brittany said what she wanted to say in her speech. By the way... it is HER speech,not the school board ( who by the way sound like a bunch of jerks) and so do you man get over yourself. Yall are the ones who need to get over yourselves and let people say what they want to say in there speeches as long as it isn't hurting anyone. Please tell me how is Brittany telling people about her beliefs hurting anyway... Maybe people dont want to hear the truth. People dont want to hear about Jesus and doing right when they know they are doing wrong.. it's true even Christians. But anyway back to the point Brittany should of been able to say what she wanted to say... Way to go Brittany!
No, Brittany's speech didn't HURT anybody, but "hurting" isn't the standard. The standard is whether the speech represents a government-sponsored promotion of religion. According to previous rulings by the 9th Circuit Court, it would have. That's why it wasn't allowed:
You may not agree with those rulings, but they represent the law in America as it currently stands.
Personally, my problem with Brittany wasn't the content of her speech, it was her behavior. The school board told her that her speech in its original form wasn't acceptable, and told her that if she wanted to give her speech, she'd have to give an edited version. She agreed to those terms in order to get her shot at the podium, then she broke her agreement by giving the unedited version of the speech.
She lied to get what she wanted, and that's indefensible. Especially for a Christian.
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I'M NOT A BITTER LITTLE MAN CONSUMED WITH ENVY
Democrats are complaining because the latest Bush tax cut will only provide an average of $20 to Joe-six-packs like me, but $42,000 to those making $1 million plus.
the American people are beginning to understand that when they talk about tax cuts, they're not talking about helping middle-class people. They're talking about helping the wealthiest corporations and individuals among us," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Ya know something Schumer? F*ck you.
That's still 20 bucks more than I would've had if idiots like YOU were in charge, and my soul is not so black and shriveled that I can't be grateful for the small things I *do* get, even though I'd have been happier with more. For example:
My health club has a machine that rents movies for $1 a night. Now I'll be able to watch 20 more movies than I would've.
Or buy 3 more bags of my favorite Kenya AA coffee.
Or take my wife out to dinner at a Chinese buffet place, and still have enough change left over to buy her a bottle of that White Zinfandel wine she likes.
True, these are only small pleasures, but they are pleasures nonetheless, and who the hell is Charles "6-figure-salary" Schumer to begrude ME these small pleasures simply because he hates people who make 7 figures?
It so pisses me off when they complain that the little guy only gets $xx money, but the big guys get $xxxxx money.
Well you know what the big guys pay more in so of course the big guy is going to get more money back.
What pisses me off even further, some of the figures they throw out there about families making to much money include me.
Know what pisses me off even more that than, the fact that I have worked my ass off and my husband works his ass off so we can get where we are. We have spent alot of money to educate ourselves to get to the positions where we are at and now some jackass in the goberment tells me I am rich and make to much money and I should be giving me hard earned money to some dumb smuck on welfare. Well they can kiss my large, white, well educated, rich ass.
Well said, Harvey. I'm thinking that $20 will buy me plenty of enjoyment of a nice case of beer. Or just a case of Bud Light. Either way.
spurringirl exemplified on May 18, 2006 at 08:47 AM
Hear Hear...or here here, I forget which one is correct, but either way, I gotta go with QW in thinking if rich people have more money, don't a bunch of them SPEND more too?? I know some of them are rich 'cause they save money, but wouldn't the ones who spend be helping our economy. In fact wouldn't the best way to get money from rich people(or from ALL people for that matter) would be to just apply a SALES tax to everything? Income tax doesn't get everybody, because not EVERYbody works...BUT everybody buys stuff.
Shimauma: When rich people save money, they invest it, which helps provide jobs, goods, and services--that's the theory, anyway.
Harvey: I always calculate these sums of money in terms of pizza. $10 is enough for one large pizza, $20 for two, and even a couple of bucks would buy a slice, enough for lunch for one.
Are you for real here? OK, let me put it simpler... the 42k comes out of a budget that's already IN deficit... So that's coming out of YOUR taxes (the tax burden is disproportionately held by those under 100k)
So no, you didn't make $20, you lost numerous little services that probably saved you more than $20.
--Phil
Phil Julius exemplified on May 22, 2006 at 02:35 PM
Phil - Respectfully disagree about the tax burden:
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
Also, I'm not familiar with any instances of the gov't ever actually cutting a service.
Via Right Wing Nation, I found an offended feminist complaining about this Carl's Jr. commercial wherein Dr. 90210 recommends breast augmentation... the punchline being that he's talking to a chicken, and chicken sandwiches are what's being advertised. But yon offended feminist claims that it's not "just a commercial"
It's not "just" anything. It's an ideological piece of propaganda designed to justify two things: the annihilation of chicken's lives and the annihilation of the human female's self esteem.
Gotta disagree.
Here's what the commercial is designed to do:
Sell chicken sandwiches.
But what the hell does a cosmetic surgeon have to do with food?
Here's the deal - prior to about 1950 or so, advertisements took the direct approach. They told people why a product was good and asked them to buy it. Maybe they threw in a jingle to help folks remember the product's name.
But somewhere in the early 50's, marketing researchers discovered that listing the features and asking for the sale wasn't necessary. Just the jingle. Because people don't choose which products to buy for logical reasons, they buy them for emotional ones, and make up the logical ones afterwards to justify it.
Ultimately resulting in marketers designing ad campaigns that went straight for the emotions.
The way they do this is to spend the bulk of the commercial using sensory stimuli designed to put you into a particular emotional state - usually a positive one - and then telling you what they want you to buy in the hopes that the product will become associated in your mind with the positive state.
Does this mean that every time you pass a Carl's Jr., you'll slam on the brakes and zombie-shuffle into the store to buy a chicken sandwich?
No.
But if you're hungry and you're driving around and you see a Carl's Jr. sign, when you ask yourself "should I stop here?", a quick mental Googling of your inner database will turn up a response of "I've heard of Carl's Jr. and my general feelings toward it are more or less positive".
You may stop at Carl's Jr., you may not. But the commercial upped the odds somewhat.
But why would Carl's Jr. advocate murdering chickens and demeaning women in an attempt to make people feel good?
They. Didn't.
It was a joke. It was funny. Here's why:
In order for something to be funny, it needs both truth and exaggeration. If it's only exaggeration, it's just a lie. If it has only truth, it's a physics textbook. You need both.
However, if you don't have any truth handy, a popularly accepted stereotype will work almost as well, since a stereotype is something that's true for a significant portion - but not all - of a given group of people.
In this case, the stereotype is that women are insecure about their physical appearance, and some will seek to correct that through breast augmentation. The exaggeration is that this would apply to a chicken.
Throw in a pun on the word "breast" and you have humor. Which is designed to make you laugh so that you feel good so that you'll associate Carl's Jr. with that good feeling and stop into one of their restaurants to spend your money which they'll spend on more funny commercials.
Thus completing the Circle of Corporate Life.
The next logical "offended feminist" question is, "But doesn't it say something about the corporation that they chose to joke about women's breasts instead of, say, professional football, like in those nice Creepy-the-King burger commercials?"
Probably not. It's more likely that it's just what came off the top of the ad agency's head that morning.
As a self-described humor writer, I know how the creative process works, and it's something like this: you pick a topic, you free-associate some facts & stereotypes, and when you find one that takes you off on an unexpected tangent, you make a punch line out of it.
In this case, Mr. Ad Man had to make a chicken joke; thought about feathers, beaks, eggs, farms, and roosters before the idea of breasts; then - knowing "sex sells" - connected it to human female breasts, and eventually decided to use breast augmentation surgery as the segue between the two.
A joke was made, people laughed, a commercial was produced, and chicken sandwiches were sold by the ton.
Except to offended feminists, who will never go to Carl's Jr. ever again, on the assinine assumption that Mr. Ad Man's first thought was "How can I demean women today?" and not "How can I make a joke about chicken?"
But that's how it goes with humor. When you use stereotypes instead of truth, the joke will fail for the people to whom the stereotype does not apply. One man's funny is another feminist's annihilation propaganda. So when you write, the best you can do is aim for the bulk of your target audience, ignore the offended, and hope that next time you have to write a joke, the truth or stereotype you base your humor on is more universal.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go assuage my hunger with a Carl's Jr. chicken breast sandwich.
I think the spams were from the title. I've been trying to analyze what brings the spammers out in force and in the last two weeks, certain words in post titles are bringing them out: "Ads," and "Links" are big for me, so I'm betting "commercial" did it for you.
I've been to a few weddings in the last couple of years, and I've always found myself raising an eyebrow at the "kiss the bride" segment, because the kisses were short, perfunctory, and absent of all but the most token passion.
By contrast, during my own wedding ceremony, the nuptual buss was long, deep, and enthusiastic. When it was finally finished, the minister's first words were "you may now STOP kissing the bride" (seriously, we've got it on tape).
So, how was YOUR wedding kiss?
If it was short, was it just because you were nervous, or maybe just intimidated by the throng of witnesses?
Also, do you think there's any correlation between the enthusiasm of the wedding kiss and the longevity of the ensuing marriage?
Never had the fortune to have my own wedding... but at one of my brother's wedding, we had a fire-extinguisher hidden behind the pulpit in case the kiss went on too long. Unfortunately, we didn't need to use it.
My fiance and I practiced our 'you may kiss the bride kiss' before the wedding. We both agreed that in front of a church full of family with the minister looking on was no place for some hot tongue action. Our kiss was on the lips for... 1, 2, 3 and release!
You have the rest of your life to swap tongues with your spouse. Show some class and don't do it in church.
Quality Weenie exemplified on April 16, 2006 at 10:51 AM
I barely remember - but I think it was short and of the "let's do this quick and get the hell out of here variety". My husband and I hated our wedding. The families (on both sides) made the whole thing a nightmare. So, while I am very happy to be married to him - I just cringe whenever I look back at that day. We don't even look at the pictures if we can help it.
I figure that day has been the low point of our marriage - that means it's gotten better every year since then. *grin*
I had a very large and formal wedding. A long kiss with tongue action would have brought on some serious frowns from both sides of the family, I feel certain. But I'm not into overt public displays of affection like that in general, so it was never something that was considered. It was more of a romantic gentle, lingering kiss... not quite 1,2,3, but not passionate where I'd want to avert my eyes from the TWO priests that were conducting our ceremony.
I think our kiss was short because we were nervous, plus the minister had us holding both hands, so leaning forward over our own hands was awkward and we were both too spooked to let go for a good EMBRACE. We had to make up for it later.
shimauma exemplified on April 17, 2006 at 06:54 AM
We had a good kiss. Not too short but not eliciting any frowns either. I was just relieved to be married...
Richmond exemplified on April 17, 2006 at 10:51 AM
We just re-watched our wedding video for Valentine's Day this year (approaching our 5th anniversary in a little more than a month)... Our kiss was relatively short, but there was definitely tongue involved. I noticed it when I watched the video - it didn't occur to me at the time how obvious it would be or we might have tried to be more discreet I suppose. ;)
songstress7 exemplified on April 18, 2006 at 12:59 AM
Kiss? What? You are supposed to KISS after the ceremony?
I think our kiss was just long enough. We're not big on PDA. I don't recall being nervous (because I slammed an airplane-size bottle of vodka/empty tummy). We got married on Halloween. I was the traditional bride, but hubby wore a real straight jacket and a plastic ball n chain. Best man was the grim reaper (because we all know marriage = death!). Most guests, as requested, came in costume. Nothing traditional about our wedding other than my gown. Even the tier cake was halloween themed!
wRitErsbLock exemplified on April 18, 2006 at 02:02 PM
http://heavens4gate4download.blogspot.com heavens gate: download heavens gate, heavens gate, heavens gate mp3. More link http://heavens4gate4download.blogspot.com heavens gate here. Top sites.
heavens gate exemplified on April 23, 2006 at 12:38 AM
http://jesus4lizard4download.blogspot.com jesus lizard mp3: download jesus lizard, jesus lizard, jesus lizard mp3. More link http://jesus4lizard4download.blogspot.com jesus lizard mp3 here. Greetings from
http://paralysed4age4download.blogspot.com paralysed age: download paralysed age, paralysed age, paralysed age mp3. More link http://paralysed4age4download.blogspot.com paralysed age here. Web site!
paralysed age exemplified on April 23, 2006 at 12:41 AM
http://cheap xanax^xanax online xanax: empty. See also http://cheap xanax^xanax online here. Thanks!..
http://pharmarkg.virtualave.net/data/bextra/ bextra online: buy bextra, generic bextra, order bextra. Also http://pharmarkg.virtualave.net/data/bextra/ order bextra here. Free web sites:
bextra online exemplified on May 01, 2006 at 11:38 AM
1. Am I hungry?
2. Am I horny?
3. Do I have to pee?
4. Is the game on?
5. Will this get me laid?
6. Am I sleepy?
7. Will this make me money?
Can't really argue with this list. And the number 8 for married guys rounds it out exquisitely:
8. Is my wife gonna yell at me if I.....?
However, I think she may be slightly off on answering this particular question:
"Why don't men see things that need to be picked up?"
The truth is, every person - men AND women - have a certain tolerance for chaos & disorder in their living environment. A certain amount of "scattered objects and dust-bunnies" above which the irresistable desire to restore order kicks in. And the level is different for everyone.
So, in ANY given couple, someone will crack under the stress of needing to clean before the other person. Usually it's the woman.
However, when I got married, Beloved Wife had a higher tolerance for chaos than I did, and I could never figure out how SHE could manage to "not see things that needed to be picked up".
Which left me with three courses of action:
1) Change her
2) Clean up after her
3) Adopt her level of chaos tolerance
I chose option 3, and we've lived happily ever after, even if there ARE a few things that need putting away.
How YOU folks choose to solve the "chaos gap", I leave to your own discretion.
I'm a neat freak.
My BetterHalf however is a self admitted slob.
I absolutely positively refuse to go to option 3.
Especially not with 2 kids.
So about once a week I actually get to snap the whip a bit and get her to help me out.
The rest of the week I assume the household cleaning duties. All I ask of her in that time is fold the laundry and empty the dishwasher. I'll do everything else
BloodSpite exemplified on March 22, 2006 at 05:12 PM
And I like Bloodspite have come to terms with the the fact that "nobody cares but me" anyway... Crack the whip? Yes I do, occasionally.
I definitely wish others cared too though, sometimes.... :)
Richmond exemplified on March 22, 2006 at 08:47 PM
And those who remain happily married almost never choose option #1...
Congrats on recognizing this, Harv, as it's a key to a happy relationship.
Heh, yeah Ogre, like many women can be changed in a marriage anyway.
That's like teaching a cat how to fetch.
silentwarrior exemplified on March 23, 2006 at 07:22 AM
My husband and I have different tolerances for chaos in different areas. If something is bugging me then I clean it up. If something is bugging him then he cleans it up. Seems to have worked so far. *grin*
I wish I could honestly say I didn't understand what you mean, but as my SO has a significantly greater chaos tolerance than I , I do know exactly know what you mean. I just lowered my tolerance. Count on you to take the high road.
I'm married to Monk, as in the character from the TV show. And I have clutter issues. I'm not slovenly by any stretch, but I'm not a neat freak either. He has adapted to me, trying to be OK with the chaos that can be my life and I know what really pushes his buttons and try to make sure I don't bug the ever living crap out of him.
We can't change each other, but we've met somewhere in the middle. And when he finally gets all OCD on me, I just stay out of his way and know he'll work through it.
Bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom made mention of this in her meme answer:
~7)Least favorite thing about your significant other.
~he procrastinates, and is irritated with my "reminders".
9) Your significant other's least favorite thing about you
(again, without asking them).
~"reminding" him he has procrastinated.
Meanwhile, Bloggranddaughter Lee Ann of Lee Ann's View is getting called "mother" for passing out "reminders"
Which got me thinking... Beloved Wife TNT of Smiling Dynamite does NOT nag.
She does, however, "remind".
And pretty much every time she does, I find myself getting irritated.
And I have no idea why.
It's not like she's hitting me with a rolling pin at the time, or speaking in some gawdawful Gladys Kravitz voice, so it shouldn't cause me any discomfort.
To my own credit, I don't snap back at her, and I reply with an acquiessive "Yes, dear", because I *know* my reaction is inappropriate and needs to be squelched. Yet I always rankle a little at queries about my to-do list, as if she were questioning my competence to function as an adult.
Which she's not, so it makes no sense for me to react as if she were.
I'm puzzled about this, and so I ask - is there a way for a wife to give "reminders" that ISN'T irritating, or is this just a permanent skirmish in the battle of the sexes?
There will NEVER be a way for women/wife/other to give reminders where the man doesn't get irritated. And if there is, I WANNA KNOW TOO!
I remind Hubby by email. We share a calendar in Outlook, so I put in reminders and email them to him in the next room. It automatically goes onto his calendar.
He doesn't have to say 'yes, dear' or hide irritation at me, I get to remind him without the irritation.
For us, it's a win/win situation.
But, smart-ass question aside, the correct solution is to be proactive. You should provide her with an update as to the status of the items on your to-do list before she asks.
Or, if she asks, provide a status then.
In the first case - being proactive - you have eliminated the question and satiated the curiosity of "have you forgotten about this?"
In the second - rather than answering "yes dear", but provide a status (e.g. "That store was packed with people so I'll stop there tomorrow at a different time.") - You have satisfied the curiosity as well, just after the fact.
...
Three follow-up comments:
-- AdVice is one of the worst vices there is.
-- Free advice is worth every penny.
-- Taking relationship advice from a person who isn't married may not be worth the penny you paid.
:)
_Jon - yes, I do remind her sometimes, but she just takes it as me showing interest in her activities and showing that I care, which - I assume - is a typical female reaction, and the reason why women are puzzled by men's grumpy reactions to "reminders".
Nope. It will always bother you when you're reminded. Why? Because it reminds you that you failed.
Seriously. If you did what you knew you were supposed to do, there'd be no need for a reminder. You DIDN'T do it, so you're being reminded -- and at the same time, quite often unintentionally, told that you failed.
I will every once in awhile ask him if he's did something that I know he has already done and then when he says yes I make a big deal out of it with lots of praise. So it makes the "nagging" about doing things that haven't been done a little less "nagging".
Positive reinforement is the answer to almost everything.
Machelle exemplified on March 16, 2006 at 10:25 AM
Hmmm, that reminds me,,,,
The new permenent heating and air conditioner filters that I bought are just about ripe and ready to be cut to size and installed. I'd better get to it before Linda Lou beminds me.
Unless its something really really important, I don't remind. I try not to give him a 'to do' list at all. If something needs to be done, I just do it.
I will 'remind' him for real about a commitment, but I don't think that's what you're getting at. I'll say, "Remember, the boys have ball practice tonight..."
[My 15-year old son] has decided that it's fun to sneak out of the house at midnight.....
[snip]
Now, he did not have glassy eyes or smell of weed, which is good. But it doesn't clear him, by any means.
[snip]
WHY does he do this? I am not a 15 yr old male. I don't know what's going through his head.
Short answer - because it's fun.
As a former 15 yr old male, I confess that I occasionally snuck out after midnight. Sometimes not even for criminal purposes.
If I remember correctly, it had to do with the solitude. I knew the whole world was asleep, and no one was going to see me walking around. I lived in a small town that rolled up the sidewalks at 9pm, so this might not be applicable to Rave's case.
Traipsing about in the wee hours, there's nothing but you, your thoughts, and a sky filled with stars. No people, no distractions. It was a good time to contemplate who I was and what was going on in my life without worrying about being interrupted by an inquisitive parent.
Plus the added thrill of doing something forbidden.
As for what to do about it... I have no advice. I think it's just one of those "straining against the leash" phases. All I can say is that if you don't hold the line on this, he'll just find another boundary to test. Make a fuss about it to his face, but inwardly, be relieved that it's just a growing pain.
If any other former 15 yr old males have more insight, please share.
I skipped those years, myself. But I'll weigh in with the "thrill of doing something forbidden" -- that's a BIG reason for doing SO many things for the adolecent male.
I will agree with Harvey on this one. My son and his friend used to do this.
(A little background: Once we moved from our house where he grew up - he stuck stubbornly to his friends in the old neighborhood - so nearly every weekend his friend was at our house or he was down there.)
Anyhow - It drove me straight up the wall. For one thing they would leave the doors unlocked all night... so I always knew. I told them they were going to get picked up for breaking curfew and I would let them sit in jail and rot. I told his friend's mom what they were doing and she tried to drill it into their heads too...
The big thing I pulled out was - if anything was going down in the neighborhood and they were picked up outside at that time of night - they were going to catch the blame - whether or not they had done anything. (note big eye rolls by both boys)
Yeah, stand your ground - as Harvey says - if you let this go - they'll try something bigger and better. Testing the limits is a teen thing. You don't want all out war - but they have to know when they've hit a boundary.
Also, I could pull the plug on him having his friend over for the weekend or letting him go anywhere. Teens will make anyone stark staring mad - they only make it through those years by sheer luck of this I am sure.
Get his ass up at 6am and don't let him take a nap.
By midnight he'll be passed out.
Oh, and no Dew or Bull after 6pm.
You can also try the "future privelages" negotiation:
- Explain that after he gets his driver's license, he's gonna want to borrow the car. If he gives up the sneaking out now, then borrowing the car next year is possible (assuming grades stay up). Don't threaten with "If you go out, you'll never be able to borrow the car." You'd be full of shit and he'll know it. Leave the threat unsaid.
If you don't have a car for him to borrow, substitute for something else. Like molesting the cat, I dunno.
I have no advice. It's 2AM and I just uncovered the clothes piled on Daredevil's bed. I have no idea where my son is. He is 18 now, so whatever happens is on his shoulders. But, I hate sitting here scared to death waiting for the phone to ring.
Oh yeah, my friends and I used to do it all the time. We'd get up and sneak around the neighborhood. Mostly seeing how long before someone saw us and called the cops. Then it was a game to see if we could get back to the house and get inside before being caught. We never were.
And looking back I'm not sure why it was fun. I think the worse thing we ever did was toss tomatos at passing cars on a nearby road.
None of our parents really laid down the law on us, although I know at least some of them knew. I think they just realized it was just us being stupid and if we got arrested we knew it was our ass.
I remember when one of my friends slept over back when I was about 15. We snuck out to run around the neighborhood with another kid, and when we got back, discovered that my dad had come home from working late after we had left, and locked the house up for the night. We had to ring the doorbell to get back in.
Patriot Xeno exemplified on March 04, 2006 at 07:43 AM
I lived in the middle of nowhere when I was 15. Of course I still live in the middle of nowhere, but now its because I hate people. Anyway, I never sneaked out after midnight. As far as why he is sneaking out, it could be he thinks he is tough enough to take on the world. Tell him, the doors will be locked by midnight and they will not unlock until you get up. If he wants to sneak out, he had better be prepared to stay out all night and be grounded for a couple of months when you do let him back in. He will probably rail against you for denying him what he wants. But, better he gets it into his head now that bad things happen when you sneak out without telling anyone than to sneak out and suddenly find himself on a milk carton.
Deathknyte exemplified on March 05, 2006 at 01:04 AM
LOL- you guys are too funny.
Locking the door after midnight didn't even occur to me! (I just wanted to take all his clothes out of his room...)
What has this blog come to that I’m carpet blogging? I am sure it is truly the most pathetic blogging around...
Most people put cat-blogging at the bottom.
Which makes me wonder... what IS the "quality blogging" hierarchy?
I'll take a stab at it. From highest to lowest:
1) Original news - breaking a story before the MSM
2) Competing news - covering stories that the MSM is ignoring
3) Original opinion - finding an angle on a news story that no one else has
4) Helpful advice - posting a piece containing a solution to a problem
5) Essay blogging - sharing a common opinion, but doing so in uncommonly good style
6) Story blogging - well-written original fiction
7) Life blogging - well-written true-life stories
8) Original humor - just making stuff up to make people laugh
9) Forwarded humor - re-posting something funny you found elsewhere
10) Hey! Look at this! - linking something interesting you found elsewhere
11) Memes
12) Quizzes
13) 24
14) American Idol
15) Carpets
16) Kids/Cats/Dogs/Hamsters/Ferrets and other critters that mess up carpets
17) WTF! OMG! RU serious? - Live Journal teen angst diary-posting heavily laced with IM abbreviations and/or dark, introspective poems about how painful life is.
Which is not to say that any of these are - by definition - not interesting. I'm just talking about perceptions of status.
oddybobo exemplified on February 27, 2006 at 10:06 AM
American Idol - popular amongst Americans because it's a sure fire bet that an American will win. Winter Olympics - unpopular amongst Americans (and Brits) due to the Russians and Europeans winning everything. Hence AI trouncing Turin-a-thon in your ratings?
Eh, well, I suck. All my blogging falls between #7 and 16... hamster blogging. But I happen to like some of my hamster blogging best as it usually involves some sort of chaotic mess that results in a pseudo funeral service with my handling a shovel in our pet cemetary. ;-)
Nice list. I was feeling pretty good about myself (and averaging a 4) and even getting pretty smug about the fact that I've never mentioned either 24 or American Idol on the Yak until I hit #15 and 16 and realized that for a short time I blogged a few entries containing both the words "carpet" and "cat puke."
At least I've never let the "send" button go down on my angst. Then again, yaks aren't exactly known for suffering from angst.
The Random Yak exemplified on February 27, 2006 at 12:07 PM
.. wait.. where do I fit in?... oh, and you left out drunk-blogging...
Why do Americans sound so phoney when they try to put on an English accent, but the gotammed Brits can sound like they just rolled in from Lincoln, Nebraska whenever they want?
If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because the "accentless" cornbelt dialect is quite popular in movies & TV, and fairly consistent between speakers. If you can tell the difference between someone from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska, I'd be flabbergasted. So of the thousands of famous people who speak "Normal American", you can pick any one of them to emulate & pass yourself off as a Yank.
Famous British accents, however, are numerous and conflicting in style. If you're in-country and travel 20 miles down the road (or even across town in London), it's going to be noticably different. It's just harder for an American to pick one and find enough examples of it to master it properly. Who should I pick? Mick Jagger? Pierce Brosnan? Benny Hill? John Cleese? Tony Blair?
So my short answer is: because Hollywood is a district of Los Angeles, not London.
Really? MJ has British family and they all do truly reprehensible American accents. We spent some time with them at Bro in laws wedding and they were shooting BB guns and trying to act like cowboys...
It wasn't pretty!
Jake Jacobsen exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 02:55 PM
Aren't you forgetting Madonna? Who can forget her wonderfully authentic British accent.
'Scuse me while I vomit.
Raging Mom exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 03:19 PM
I can pick out accents from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Ontario.
It's easy if you actually live near these states.
Machelle exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 03:29 PM
When I was in NY (briefly) I learned to distinguish a Lon Giland from a Brooklyn. It is a proximity thing.
Also, some people's brains pick up accents easier than others.
Also, accent-less speech (such as computer speech) is closest to west-coast US (including California), so maybe it's harder for someone who doesn't normally use the tools of accent (pacing, inflection, tonal quality, etc) to utilize them than for some who already does....
caltechgirl exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 03:55 PM
So, after all this readin', somebody tell me, how do you say "Wanker" properly.
RedNeck exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 04:59 PM
It might also be a factor that a central or south central accent is how rock and roll is done. Or was. Whether you grew up in Helsinki or Crumbly-on-Cheese you could do Mellencamp or Fogerty.
Sluggo exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 06:30 PM
I've also marvelled at Hugh's accent, being a fan of Blackadder as well as House. I thought maybe he'd lived in the US for a while or something, but then in the movie Flight of the Phoenix he was back to a strong British accent. Guess the guy is just a major talent. Mind you, I'd like to see him try an Aussie accent, it seems no one but us aussies can get that right. Still cringing from Meryl Streep's attempt in the Lindy Chamberlain movie ...
Amanda exemplified on February 23, 2006 at 11:38 PM
Rachel Griffiths, the Aussie who played Brenda in "Six Feet Under" did a great American accent as well. However, I prefer to view Hugh Lauire and Rachel Griffiths as losing their "foreign accents" to play these parts.
:-)
Jim - PRS exemplified on February 24, 2006 at 03:55 AM
Wow.
I just thought it was because when Americans do a British accent, they try to make it as annoying as they percieve real British accents to be.
Or may that's just me; nudge, nudge, wink, wink, knowwhatImean...
jimmyb exemplified on February 24, 2006 at 08:02 AM
I don't think there are more accents in the UK than here in the US - it's just that they are all squished up into a tiny little space - if you squished up all the accents here into a space the size of the UK, then I think the accents would be much more noticable.
I can tell the difference in regional accents here - St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas City, Southern Missouri and Western Kansas all have distinct sounds and even words.
I've heard some awful American accents from British people and some great British accents from Americans. Most people on both sides of the Atlantic stink at doing the other accent, but a few are great. Mark Addy from "The Full Monty" does a great American accent on "Still Standing" too, by the way.
MikeTheLibrarian exemplified on March 01, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Seriously, though, no Christian would be upset by this, because Christianity isn't about an image, or even Jesus. It's about an idea. The idea that Jesus embodied. The idea that a person can examine his life, discover his faults, repent his mistakes, and choose new behaviors at ANY point in time in order to live his life more in tune with his professed moral code.
Juvenile mockery bounces off that like a pebble off a stone wall.
I hope that Islam embraces a similar idea someday, so that it its adherants may join the ranks of the civilized world.
IS IT *EVER* OK TO USE RACIAL SLURS? - UPDATED 2-16-06 9:30AM
Kevin of Eckernet is a little pissed at Ann Coulter for using the term "raghead", citing this quote (I can't find a transcript - search "ann coulter cpac" on Google News for more info):
"Maybe they do [have nuclear weapons], maybe they don't, but they're certainly acting like they do. ... If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't point a gun at them. Or as I think our motto should be, post 9/11," Coulter said, "'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"
I'm not sure I agree with him.
Now, I'm not usually a fan of racial slurs. Using them bespeaks a lack of imagination on the user's part. After all, there are SO many creative ways to be insulting, why settle for the easy target?
On the other hand, there may be times...
A thought experiment - if a black man murdered my wife, I wouldn't refer to him as "an African-American gentleman". I'd feel free to trot out a stream of the most hateful race-based epithets I could conjure, and I wouldn't feel bad about it.
I think in that case, it'd be ok, because it's personal between me & him. I don't mean to insult his race as a whole. I'm just trying to find the cruelest, most hurtful thing to throw at him, personally.
On the other hand, if I were to look at a black man looting stuff during Hurricane Katrina and I were to say something like "Ain't that just like a Negro to steal anything that ain't nailed down?", then that's NOT personal - that's just blanket bigotry. I'm insulting all black people in general.
Ann's case is somewhere in between. We're at war with a lot of Middle-Eastern Muslims. I'm a big fan of disrespecting my nation's enemies. Anything that pisses them off or makes their lives miserable is a GOOD thing in my book.
On the other hand, there are plenty of Middle-Eastern Muslims I would be proud to call "friend". Specifically, the ones who are working to help transform Iraq into a civilized nation in the face of a long, uphill struggle.
So if Ann were to say something like "I wish I could go to Iraq and personally shoot every last raghead I saw," then I'd say "Ann, you ignorant slut. Sit down and shut the f*ck up."
(Notice how "ignorant slut" is personal to Ann - I'm not insulting EVERY woman who's intellectually-challenged and vaginally-generous)
But upon examining her quote, she appears to be directing the "raghead" label only at Middle Eastern Muslims who actually threaten the security of American interests, rather than just haphazardly toward anyone who's wearing a turban. She's specifically aiming at terrorists, who - in general - suck. This isn't strictly personal, but I think it's nearer to that end of the spectrum than it is to bigotry.
So I'm leaning towards not having a problem with what she said.
Feel free to persuade me otherwise, if you're so inclined.
UPDATE 2-16-06 9:15 am: Perhaps the question should be, "is it simply wrong to insult a man based on ANY unchangeable physical characteristics?" For example, if my hypothetical murderer were bald, missing an eye, and had a club foot, would it be inappropriate for me to call him a "butchering, chrome-domed, popeyed, monopod"?
Not a rhetorical question. I'm honestly trying to examine where lines should be drawn on this issue. I know it's a sensitive topic, and I appreciate that so far the discussion has remained rational.
UPDATE 2-16-06 9:30 AM: Would calling him a "bastard" be considered a slur against people born out of wedlock? Would the appropriateness of the insult be affected by whether or not his parents were married when he was born, i.e. if he actually WERE a bastard?
vaginally generous. I like that term. Very Evocative.
:-D
tommy exemplified on February 15, 2006 at 10:47 PM
In the cases you cite, if your issue with the man himself or his race.
If it's with the man, deal with that. Independent of his race, his race should have nothing to do with it.
Even if the cases you cite justify what you that situation, Ann was not in a similiar situation. She's playing to a crowd. She's not trying to "hurt" any militant Muslims as she knows damn well they don't care what an infidel like her thinks or says.
Kevin exemplified on February 15, 2006 at 11:03 PM
The only racial epithets I use are towards Arabs.
I've dealt with Muslim Arabs, in their home countries. Not much will make you hate them faster than that.
I think the whole point is moot. Viva Feedom of Speech!
Contagion exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 07:23 AM
She didn't use "raghead" she used "jihad monkey".
Her column is up on yahoo today.
Machelle exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 07:48 AM
Harvey, I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. A couple of reasons:
1) I don't use the word n*gger, and haven't since I was old enough to understand what it meant. If a black man killed my wife, I'm certain that if he somehow managed to get to the police before I got my hands on him, I'd be begging the cops to "let me get my hands on that black cocksucker", but I wouldn't start hurling racial epithets.
2) Raghead is too inclusive. Think about the Sikhs. They wear turbans, but are pretty much peaceful people from what I've seen. Don't you think that raghead is offending to too many people? Think if Ann had used the term "sand n*gger" because, you know, they all look alike over in that part of the world. Still not offensive enough?
3) And here's the killer: those of us that don't sit on the left side of the political aisle have had to deal with the prevailing sentiment that we're all racist bastards. I always hear phrases like "You voted for Bush? You don't act like a racist/homophobe/bigot/::insert slur here::". What I don't need is a prominent conservative like Ann reinforcing that stereotype. And that's why I found her comments so egregious. It's not just that they made Ann look stupid, but they made everyone sitting right of center look bad.
If I ever meet her, I'll be sure to thank her.
physics geek exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 08:19 AM
Machelle - apparently she used "raghead" during her CPAC convention speech, but I did find the column you mentioned where she said "jihad monkey":
PG - ironically, "cocksucker" could be considered a slur against gays :-)
Which makes me wonder... if the murdering black man were also gay, would calling him a "cocksucker" be as off-limits as calling him "n*gger"? Are you saying that it's only considered sporting to insult him if what I say is a lie, or am I misinterpreting?
Kevin - If I wanted to put a positive spin on Ann's remarks, I'd say that she's intentionally disrespecting militant muslims to show that she doesn't fear their terrorist threats.
Or it could very well be that she's just a rude, loud-mouthed, hate-monger who gets a perverse pleasure from being unnecessarily crude in public.
I don't read Ann Coulter on a regular basis, so I don't know if this is just some over-the-top schtick she does for comedic effect, or if she's just a loon. I'm not qualified to say.
Harvey exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 09:32 AM
Towelhead would have been more approriate.
spacemonkey exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Is "nigger" even an insult anymore? All the gansta rappers call themselves and their friends that.
Deathknyte exemplified on February 16, 2006 at 07:03 PM
Isn't "raghead" more of a cultural slur? No one is born with a piece of cloth attached to his head. A minor point, possibly, because people don't choose the culture they are born into any more than they choose their skin color but they can choose how they respond to and participate in their culture.
Lynn S exemplified on February 17, 2006 at 08:07 AM
CAN THE NSA MONITOR INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS?... MAYBE... (UPDATED 1-17-06)
If you're interested in the NSA phone-tapping controversy, The Volokh Conspiracy does a thorough - but still readable - examination of some case law surrounding the issue. I'd recommend this post as the BARE minimum for you to know before attempting to discuss the matter at your next cocktail party or Democratic Underground comment flame.
Having read it, I'm still a bit undecided on the technical legality of it, but more sure that I don't have a problem with it. Here's what I mean:
1) Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the authority to warrantlessly monitor completely-foreign communications.
2) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the warrantless monitoring of domestic communications.
The NSA program warrantlessly monitors communications that involve one end in the US, and one end in a foreign country, and there's no solid legal precedent for saying whether the situation falls under area 1 or area 2.
That's how things ARE.
As for how they SHOULD be, it comes down to the following question:
Do you fall on the side protecting the privacy of US citizens, even if it means extending the protections to their foreign contacts; or do you fall on the side of monitoring foreigners, even if it means monitoring US citizens?
Because we're at war, I'm willing to stand for the second option, mostly because these are marginal cases, and I don't see this escalating toward an approval of purely domestic warrantless wiretaps.
Feel free to disagree in the comments, if you're so inclined.
UPDATE 1-17-06 _Jon of We Swear points out a post at Power Line wherein some more on-point case law suggests that Article II trumps FISA when it comes to warrantless international searches.
1) Article 2 gives the Pres the ability to do what is needed to protect the country in a time of war.
2) Article 2 cannot be over-ridden by acts of Congress. FISA is nice, but meaning-less / powerless in this situation. It requires an Amendment to limit the Pres's powers during war.
3) Congress gave the Pres war powers a few years ago. So even if FISA did apply, that neutered it.
Besides, Clinton did *much* worse - go read "Spying - two Sides" at my site.
(The preview thing *above* is annoying. This dialog keeps getting pushed down.)
_Jon - Agreed about FISA likely being - in fact - an unconstitutional limitation on the President's powers. However, that question hasn't actually come before the judiciary yet, so the matter is technically still undecided.
Oh, and I'm looking into tweaking the live preview thingy.
Harvey exemplified on January 16, 2006 at 10:15 AM
How about we do the actual monitoring IN a foreign country? i.e. setup the monitoring equipment in England. Then we're really only monitoring the airwaves in a foreign country...
http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=372 paxil online: paxil prescription, generic paxil, order paxil. See also http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=372 order paxil here. Thanks!..
paxil online exemplified on June 29, 2006 at 02:09 PM
http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=373 pharmacy online: pharmacy prescription, generic pharmacy, order pharmacy. http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=373 generic pharmacy here. Have a nice day!
http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=374 order phendimetrazine: phendimetrazine prescription, generic phendimetrazine, order phendimetrazine. See also http://wsu.edu/~converse/cgi-bin/webbbs/board2.cgi?read=374 phendimetrazine prescription here. Good luck!
DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK INSTAPUNDIT'S BEING A LITTLE UPPITY HERE?
Glenn Reynolds criticizes high-interest lenders like LoanMax thusly:
"many of the deals offered by a lot of these loan outfits are so bad that it's hard to believe anyone agrees to them understanding what's going on."
Easy for HIM to say. He's a lawyer with an IQ of 170. He understands EVERYTHING.
For the rest of the country - especially the half with sub-100 IQ's and no training in legalese - every legal and financial form is just so much unread gobbledygook. They rely on what they're told by the smiling lender on the other side of the text, and they mostly only want to know two things:
What day of the month are the payments due?
and
How much are they?
Yet Reynolds insists that that's not enough. If borrowers don't care about interest rates, then it's obviously because they're being craftily misled by spiky-toothed loan-sharks:
"The interest rates are so absurdly high that merely spelling out the deal would seem to be evidence that the borrower probably didn't realize what was involved."
Here's a different theory: They realize just fine. However, they don't give a shit.
Take for example, a female acquaintance of mine, who is not named Carol.
She had a credit card from a local furniture store (she LOVED furniture & decorative doo-dads), which she more or less kept maxed out - around $1000. As soon as it got paid down below the credit limit, she'd be back in the store getting more crap.
Making minimum payments every month at 18% interest.
Meanwhile she had about $2000 tucked away in a savings account pulling less than 1% interest.
Personally, I thought she was being stupid, and tried to explain it to her, but she wouldn't listen. The ONLY thing she based her spending decisions on was "Can I make the monthly payments?" Nothing else mattered. She looked at her credit card bill NOT as something that could be paid off, but as a recurring debt, much like water, electricity, or phone bills. Do you ever worry about how to "pay off" your utilities?
HELL no!
So is it really that shocking that some people would view their credit card bills the same way?
And - truth be told - this "living paycheck-to-paycheck" point of view, while short-sighted, isn't quite as moronic as it appears at first glance. As a practical matter, there's no downside to it IF you stay healthy and work (or otherwise maintain a steady income) until you retire or die.
Of course, failing to plan ahead like this makes for a train-wreck if either your health or employment goes awry, but it's NOT the responsibility of LoanMax, or Rent-A-Center, or CheckAdvance, or ANY other high-risk, high-interest lender to ensure that the borrower is living a prudent, forward-thinking life. If borrowers value immediate gratification more than they value getting a good interest rate, that's their option, and it's no sin for the lender to offer them the opportunity to indulge themselves. Just like it's not McDonald's fault for making me fat if I choose to go in there and eat six Big Macs a day.
And let's be honest here. If you outlaw LoanMax, these dim bulbs that actually use their overpriced services will just find another bad deal to piss their money away on, because making imprudent choices is simply what they do.
Personally I can never ever think of a time that I would need to use the services of one of those types of places. They are nothing more then legalized loan sharking. Why do people use them? You could be right, they just want the instant gratification. Maybe they're just financially stupid. I don't know.
Contagion exemplified on January 09, 2006 at 12:18 PM
As somone who knows a lot on the subject and has been known to actually - you know - *read* the contract, I can see both points.
What should be shown on the contracts is the amount the interest increases the purchase price.
They shouldn't be outlawed, but they should be regulated.
As something close to a Libertanian, I believe the FedGov should do something to prevent ignorant peeps (that's not an insult - stupid is an insult) from being ripped off. The contract should be simple and clear. Even for revolving credit (which is what a credit card is).
I also wonder... who's actually upset about this? Is it people who sign up for high interest loans who are pissed because a friend of theirs got a better deal elsewhere & they missed out? Is it lawyers who think they smell some blood in the water? Is it politicians looking to squeeze the industry for some campaign contributions?
I suspect that it's people who aren't a party to any of these contracts who are making the fuss, and I'm always leery of third-party interventions. Especially since it's my experience that people who go in for this stuff wouldn't care if the contract said "110% APR" in huge, red letters right above the signature line. They just want their stuff.
As for being ignorant... well, getting ripped off is a good way to learn a healthy dose of caution... of course, so is getting advice from those who know better.
Anyway, I'm generally against government regulation designed to help people who simply don't bother to ask enough questions.
Harvey exemplified on January 09, 2006 at 07:15 PM
On occasion, I get people asking about some of the comments left by Madfish Willie. They'll say something like, "What's up with him? How come you let him troll your comments like that?"
Troll?
Hell, that ain't trolling, that's male bonding.
#1 guy rule - if someone you like says something rude, it's meant as a compliment. It's a way of saying "I think you're tough enough to take a verbal punch, and I think you're clever enough to give better right back."
Women, however, play a completely different game. With them (all too often) if you say something that can be taken as either completely innocent or mean & hurtful, they'll assume it's the mean & hurtful one (See rule #29).
And oh MY can they be acrobatic about extracting the wrong meaning.
Probably a habit formed over a lifetime of talking with other women, since when one woman says something ambiguous to another woman, she's usually getting in a cleverly-disguised little dig.
It's simply too unladylike to be mean in an upfront fashion, ya know. Gotta be catty about it.
On the other hand, maybe my mind's been poisoned from watching "Desperate Housewives".
Contagion exemplified on December 27, 2005 at 08:18 AM
TNT watches it and she won't let me have the remote :-(
THAT'S what makes me a woman :-D
Harvey exemplified on December 27, 2005 at 08:25 AM
See, this is why I have hardly any friends that are girls. They generally can't handle the abuse I constantly spew. Men seem to make better friends because they just say it how it is, and pick on you to your face instead of behind your back. You always know where you stand with a guy friend. Women, I just can't figure out. Funny because I am a woman!
Sarah exemplified on December 27, 2005 at 11:29 AM
Heh. You're SO going to love Contagion :-D
Harvey exemplified on December 27, 2005 at 01:07 PM
What's that supposed to mean you slack jawed hill billy?
Contagion exemplified on December 27, 2005 at 02:34 PM
I watched part of Desperate Housewives once - I thought the writing was really good. I talk out loud when watching TV, usually predicting what the person should say. In many cases, they said what I have. Which is pretty rare. (Without the swearing, of course.)
Blogson-in-law Alex of Alex in Wonderland is contemplating the meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech". Although in America it's usually discussed as a legal matter, he also makes note that - in a broader view - it's possible to have your freedom curtailed by peer pressure, even if it doesn't amount to a rights violation, per se.
Which brings me to the topic of how to voice objectionable opinions.
We all have opinions that other people wouldn't like, and we usually know it before speaking them. Yet sometimes the information is interesting or important. So what do you do?
My suggestion: stay calm, stick to facts, and limit yourself to a short, conclusory paragraph at the end, instead of interspersing the facts with copioius ranting invective.
For example, let's say that I'm disgusted by some things that certain black people are doing. I need to make it clear that it's motivated by hatred of stupidity, and not hatred of blacks in toto. I'd probably write something like this:
Stupid people need to keep quiet.
Or the MSM needs to speak up.
Because I haven't heard much about:
Louis Farrakan, who recently said "FEMA is too White to represent us and so is the Red Cross."
Or Kamau Kambon, who gave a speech a while back and said "We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet" (audio clip of speech here)
By the way, did anyone else know that some free blacks actually owned slaves? I don't mean just buying family members, I'm talking about a plantationful.
Wonder how the reparations crowd plans to handle that?
And does anyone remember when the Neo-Nazis marched in Toledo against "black gang violence"... at which point black gang members violently rioted in the streets? Pegged the irony meter, it did.
Of course, if I did that, then SarahK would rewrite the comment to make me look foolish, my message would be completely lost, and my exercise of free speech in this case would be futile.
So I agree with Alex - don't be afraid speak your mind. However, DO keep your audience in mind and make your controversial points simply, clearly, factually, and (if possible) with supportive linkage.
Remember, if a free speech falls in a forest and no one sticks around to hear it, it doesn't actually make a sound.
This is the stupidest thing you've ever written! I demand you delete it now! :D
Actually, I think everyone should just say what they think and feel. They just need to be preparred for the backlash of dissenting oppinion. IE this is your blog if you wanted to go off on how you feel that there is a huge double standard on what is considered racist and equal opportunity, go for it. If the MSM pick up on it and give out your address, you may get flooded with visitors that strongly disagree with you.
Thus comments galore telling you that you are a moron. It's your freedom to spout off and it's thier freedom to respond.
Contagion exemplified on December 01, 2005 at 09:19 AM
Well, I'm glad you linked to Alex's post because I only found out yesterday that Sally was contemplating giving up the blog. I need to email her because now I know why she's doing it.
Blogging as free speech is a bit of a problem because morons will tend to respond to you either through comments or email and it's very difficult not to be hurt by their blatherings. Even if you do state things calmly and factually, there are often people who will go nuts over it. Then the delete key becomes your best friend. After all, as _Jon said - they can get their own blog and blather.
Teresa exemplified on December 01, 2005 at 01:30 PM
Oh no doubt you will get called a racist because you dared to go outside the political correct norm. But I have found that those who call me racist cannot refute the facts so they resort to words of insults to cover their inadaquacy of logic. Now, if I could yell insults loud enough to cover my inadequacy of spelling and typing
What's the fun of having a blog if you don't have people disagree? I love the occasional troll because I get the chance to slam on them with basic logic. Usually they will label me a Nazi and run.
SeanS exemplified on December 02, 2005 at 12:57 AM
Second, greatly enlarged side-by-side comparison of the fake pic (left) and the real pic (right). In the fake pic, notice that the camoflage pattern - right down to the wrinkles and reflection of the sunlight - is EXACTLY the same on both pairs (with allowances for distortion due to photoshopping).
Yet if you look at their feet, you'll see that they're standing at different angles. Which makes for a VERY strange effect for the left soldier: although his right foot is slightly behind him, and you should see the butt-crack of his pants (as you do in the shorts pic), you actually see the front of his pants, which made me think of Escher's "Belvedere" and thus the title of this post.
Anyway, I suggest that MO.O remove the ad, apologize for misleading the American people, and fire the guy who came up with the idea for posting the fake picture.
Bugz - True, but I'm trying to be kind by suggesting the course a responsible adult would take after being caught exercising bad judgment.
Not that I expect them to go that direction :-)
Harvey exemplified on November 30, 2005 at 01:14 PM
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/scores.html?comment_id=270466
lets see what they do.
z exemplified on November 30, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Kinda off-topic, but I LOVE M.C. Escher's drawings! :-)
dustbunny101 exemplified on November 30, 2005 at 06:56 PM
Naughty MoveOn.org. You would think that they would have learned a lesson from Air America that you can't fool the public anymore!
SeanS exemplified on December 01, 2005 at 04:10 AM
And?
Seems to me this is small taters compared to the cherrypicked WMD evidence, the Scooter Libby/Karl Rove lies, and the biggest lie--"Mission Accomplished."
Paul - Granted, it's very small. I just found it ironically amusing that MO.O would doctor a photograph on a web page designed to accuse Bush of misleading people.
It was mostly petty schadenfreude on my part.
As for the rest of your comment... I'll just say that I disagree with your evaluation of Bush's job performance and leave it at that.
Harvey exemplified on December 01, 2005 at 08:34 AM
Shocking!
Only evil libs could do such a dastardly thing:
vw bug exemplified on December 02, 2005 at 07:01 AM
What's really funny to me is that they took the guy that is in line behind the shorts guy and put his pants on the shorts guy... check it out... that's REALLY weak - even I could do better than that... FYI - I understand they've taken that image down now
Madfish Willie exemplified on December 02, 2005 at 09:03 AM
Wow! Now getting caught with your pants up around your knee's is a novel occurence. Only the folks who had no problem championing a President with his pants around his ankles would see no ethical problem with "tweaking" the photos.
Pam of Pamibe lost her mother recently. She turned off comments on her post, but I suppose you can leave some words here, if you'd like.
Being an adoptee, Pam asks an interesting question about whether being adopted has an effect on the depth of her mourning:
"I feel disloyal, wondering how a birthchild would feel in my place. Would the connection be broader, sharper, as a branch of the family tree is snapped off? The pain more deeply felt, the sadness a seemingly endless well?"
Short answer, no.
My father went after a lingering illness, and since I knew it was coming, I got a good deal of my mourning finished before his body quit.
You'll feel the loss in stabbing bits and pieces, as you stumble over moments when you think "Mom would like this" before remembering that she's gone. It won't be a constant thing. It'll catch you off guard when you least expect it, but each time it bleeds a little less, until the wound is healed and all that's left is the scar of loving memory, where the flesh is bright and strong.
No more pain. Just the reminder.
Cherish the memories and tell her stories so that her light will still shine.
I feel it would be the same as mourning for the loss of a family memeber from your spouses side.
Your not related to the them blood wise but you feel a bond with them, a bond of family.
I mourned the loss of my husbands grandmother, whom I only knew for 7 years, more than I mourned the loss of either of my grandmothers, who I knew for my entire life (35 & 37 years).
It's the connection you feel with that person, not the DNA.
Machelle exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 12:16 PM
I agree that when faced with a lingering illness it seems to be the case that you get some of those thoughts and feelings out before your loved ones pass. I remember being glad that my grandfather had finally passed. I wasn't too sad as he had lead quite a life. I was more grateful to have been able to share a bit of it.
Pam, you are in my thoughts. Remember your mom and all those moments your folks blessed you with.
Oddybobo exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 12:22 PM
Pam, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family right now.
Please don't reproach yourself for your feelings. You wouldn't feel any different if you and your mother shared blood as well as the bond of your family. Your grief comes from your love for her, not your blood.
And Harvey's right, too. Your mourning isn't new, so there's no reason for it to be sharp and painful. When my grandmother died after a long battle with cancer, I felt washed out, flat, not really sad. I don't think I ever cried until later. When I missed her.
Hugs.
caltechgirl exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 01:04 PM
Pam, know you are in my thoughts, and may the light enfold and guide you in the days ahead.
Short answer, as Harvey says, is no. You and she may not share genes, but you share hearts, spirit, and love for she was you mother. She wanted you, and raised you. That transcends mere genetics and the mechanics of delivery.
I still reach for the phone some days to share news, funny stuff, or just life with Dad or even Mom, and I lost them five and ten years ago respectively. Harvey describes it well...
In both cases, we got a lot out of the way well before the end -- particularly with Mom as she fought ovarian cancer. Dad went down fast at the end, but we both knew the end was indeed coming.
It still hurts, but the funny stuff that I would share brings a smile these days, simply because I know they would find it funny.
Besides, if I listen real carefully, I can hear their laughter and comments still.
Laughing Wolf exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 04:19 PM
Thank you so much, everyone, for the perspective as much as the condolences.
My husband was adopted, but found his birth parents at age 30. He was close to BOTH sets. He has lost 3 of the parents in the past two years. He mourned all of them. Blood IS irrelevant. It is love that binds one to parents...adopted or otherwise.
You are in my thoughts and prayers.
DixieDarlin' exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 10:02 PM
I would argue that the love from her mother was greater than a natural child. She _chose_ Pam. Adopting her was a deliberate and planned act, not simply a matter of letting "nature take it's course". She made a conscious choice.
As for the grieving part, I agree that Harvey sums it up best. I think the toughest part is the unexpected events that will remind you of her and result in an emotional moment at an inconvenient time. I had one of those this weekend - they suck. It's a bit tougher for a guy to explain why he's welling up, so I keep sunglasses handy wherever I go. :)
I recommend, Pam, that you try to be productive and active. That was my dad's advice to me as he found that spare time resulted in him dwelling on the past, making the transition more difficult for him.
Based on the way Beth *still* misses her parents, *especially* this time of year - I'd say no, the bond is as deep as you want it to be. And, if anything, birth-children can be can take parents for granted...
You are planning to volunteer for the military, right? I mean, "support the troops" is more than just an empty slogan for you, right?
The fact that I spent 4 years on a floating nuclear missile target (aka aircraft carrier) during the Cold War aside, I think the author of that question has an exceedingly narrow view of what "support" means.
You don't need to be firing a gun in theater to "support the troops". In addition to men, a successful military campaign also needs supplies and good morale - the will to stay in the battle until victory.
The most you can do to "support the troops" from the homefront is to actively provide material or morale. Send them armor, send them cookies, send them a postcard. It all helps.
The least you can do to "support the troops" is stay out of the way while they get the job done. You don't even have to so much as say "hi" to a soldier on the street. Just live your life as a productive citizen leading a normal life. Believe it or not, it DOES help troop morale just to know that the country they're fighting for is safe and comfortable - to know that there's a land of sanity to return to when the job is done.
What DOESN'T support the troops is denigrating the mission. Arm-chair quarterbacking that the troops aren't doing a good job, or that they're doing the wrong job. It's corrosive and eats away at morale.
Now, to the commenter's credit, he's not following the third option. He's merely evaluating some events in Iraq in a more pessimistic light. I won't hold that against him.
But I wonder if he's thought through the full logic of his chicken-hawk argument. If the only people who can be considered as "supporting the troops" are those who're in combat, then aren't the only people with the right to criticize the war the people working for the Department of Defense who have full access to ALL the relevant information about conditions in the field?
If I have to pick up a rifle or shut up, they have to get a job at the Pentagon or shut up.
Tell that commenter to shut the fuck up... he obviously doesn't know who he's fuckin wit...
Madfish Willie exemplified on November 27, 2005 at 06:15 PM
I agree. On both counts. Morale & supplies are vital to a successful mission. And if that guy wants to tell other people that the only way to support the troops is to be out there with them in the midst of the battles, I'd like to know exactly where he was asking his question from.
dustbunny101 exemplified on November 27, 2005 at 08:33 PM
Looks like "Doc Amazing" is amazingly unable to read your About Me post... scroll on down "Doc" the link is near the bottom on the right...
Oh yeah... and "Doc"... when YOU have done your military service - we'll be very happy to listen to you. (surprise! strictures work BOTH ways... funny how that happens)
Teresa exemplified on November 27, 2005 at 11:38 PM
I like to think that there are two aspects to our side of the battle.
We need one group to go out and fight, and the other to stay here and be worth fighting for.
I'm far from perfect, but I do my best to be part of that second group.
And thanks to every one who's in either group.
Chuck exemplified on November 28, 2005 at 12:10 PM
I've had my crumb-catcher since about 30-seconds after I was discharged from the Navy, so some people might suspect that I grew it simply because I could.
Mostly true.
However, the other part of my justification is that I have a long, thin face. Combined with a hairline that's been abnormally high since I was a kid (and is slowly but surely receding), there was simply too much skin showing. I desperately needed to bring some balance to my visage.
Now, as to Jim's observation on upkeep:
In most cases, one has to regularly trim that sucker, which involves not only a razor, but also scissors and a fair amount of time. To me, that sounds like more of a pain in the ass than a daily three-minute zip, zip zip with a Mach III.
Yeah, not doing a full-face shave WAS part of the attraction. At the rate my whiskers grow, 24 hours does NOT allow enough stubble to grow for my razor to get a good grip on the tiny hairs. Result - a patchy-looking shave and plenty of irritated skin.
Now, I *do* shave my throat and take out any strays along the edges (see Little Joe's quote in the right sidebar), but I only do so every 48 hours, which lets me whack the shadow right down to the follicle every time without irritation. I can live with that. No one accuses me of "not shaving", because - Hey! I have a beard!
As for trimming the beard itself, that's only a little scissoring every couple weeks, and a 15-minute run-through with the electric beard-trimmer about once a month. Timewise, I think I come out ahead.
However, I admit that beards aren't for everyone. If yours is thin & patchy, then you're better off riding the razor-pony. But if you've got the caveman genetics to pull it off, then it's a pretty good deal.
Not to mention the fact that some women find beards VERY attractive. I've had plenty of women who were complete strangers give in to the temptation to touch it.
You naked-faced guys will never know the pleasure.
"Are you growing a beard, or did you just stop shaving?"
Apparently lacking the "Caveman genetics," I cannot do the former, and I dare not do the latter. Unless, of course, I wish to look like Fido's Ass, or the average 1960's Rutgers SDS member.
Jim - PRS exemplified on October 21, 2005 at 05:33 PM
My facial hair grows like Homer Simpson's. I can get a clean shave and by the time I leave the house I have stubble again.
I can do a pretty fair Hagrid imitation in about a month.
I trim my beard with a full size plug in barber's hair clipper because the smaller ones meant for beards and mustaches last about two months before they sputter and die.
Graumagus exemplified on October 22, 2005 at 03:35 AM
Last time I shaved my full face was in 1978... to get a job as an iron-worker at a coal conversion plant in Borger, TX... I could shave the thing off now and people I've known for years wouldn't recognize me until I started to talk (I have a touch of Tourette's syndrome [sp?] - what with all the fucking cussing and shit)
Madfish Willie exemplified on October 22, 2005 at 06:02 PM
My husband has the thickest fastest growing beard. I tell him if he let it grow out, he'd have hair up to his eyes.
I love his beard, but with his profession, he won't grow one except when we're on vacation. Now it's going gray, so that's his new excuse.
I only have a mustache and goatee so I still have to shave daily, but like Grau, when I have to trim my facial hair, I have use a full sized hair trimmer. The thick and corse facial hair I have breaks the smaller beard trimmers after 2-3 months.
Contagion exemplified on October 26, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Can someone (like say an older white Christian male) who uses the phrase "Jew him down" still be considered a generally decent person? Or should we assume he knows darn well that what he's saying is anti-Semitic?
I'd assume it was a matter of habit & social isolation.
Back in my Navy days, an otherwise charming Southern boy was discussing some improvisational repairs to an automobile and described it as being "nigger-rigged".
While chatting with a group that was predominantly black.
One of the gentlemen of color asked him incredulously to repeat what he just said.
And he said it again, with an innocent and puzzled look on his face, perhaps a little surprised that his friends weren't familiar with what he considered a common colloquialism.
One of the black guys defused the situation by suggesting that perhaps he meant "jury-rigged".
Right about then, the light dawned on this poor kid, who blushed and apologized profusely. Everyone accepted and the conversation moved on. Apparently, he always just thought of the phrase as its meaning and never contemplated the implied racial slur.
Sometimes people use words like that.
Anyway, is "Jew him down" really that offensive? I've always assumed it meant "to negotiate an exceptionally good price" - a compliment to the statistical propensity Jews have for business success.
Apparently some people think it means something else. Damned if I know what.
Personally, I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Until and unless he displays a pattern of overt racist behavior, just assume that it's a figure of speech and don't take it personally.
I've always said jury rigged. I just never use what we call 'the evil n word'. But I would never talk about someone being 'jewed down' either. Its just offensive. Period.
Actually, it could easily be a corruption of "Jawed down" the same as a jaw harp was corrupted into jews harp. To jaw someone down is to talk down the price.
Here's one that almost no one thinks about: gypped. No DOUBT that it is derisive, but is it offensive anymore?
Phelps exemplified on October 09, 2005 at 05:15 AM
Well...he does live up in northern Wisconsin during the warmer months (and grew up there), but he lives in Florida the rest of the year. Somehow I think he knows better.
Plus there was the part where 20 minutes later he said something about "the Jews" owning something on the lakefront. I was in a different conversation in the back of the vehicle and didn't catch what THAT was all about.
Jennifer exemplified on October 10, 2005 at 09:40 PM
Since I poked Serenity in the eye over a couple small technical details (minor spoilers at the link), I thought I'd share some of my other common complaints about TV & movie unrealism (which are not directed specifically at Firefly):
Control panels full of randomly blinking lights - 99% of these lights should be either on or off to tell you their status. As a general design rule, blinking is usually reserved for an abnormal status. The only exceptions I know for this are hard drive or modem activity.
Control panels should also have their buttons, switches, & lights LABELED - When was the last time you saw an unlabeled button on ANY electronic device? Your radio, your VCR, and even your remote control have crap written all over them... yet you're just supposed to GUESS which button to push on a nuclear reactor?
Factories or basements with leaky steam pipes - When you have a steam leak, you call the mechanic and FIX it (having worked in a ship's engine room for 4 years, I speak from experience).
Pipes ALSO have labels.
Super-fast computers that display new lines of text on their screens s-l-o-w-l-y, one letter at a time in green monochrome with a DOS caret at the front of the line - Have these writers even TOUCHED a computer built within the last 20 years?
And don't even get me started on the big blinking "ACCESS DENIED" warning. (Swordfish was especially bad with this one).
Yes, I know it's just an exercise of artistic license to make a plot point and that I should try to relax.
Oh yeah and I've always loved the "ACCESS DENIED"... of course you have to understand that most of the people watching the show probably don't know enough to understand it unless they have an access denied box pop up. *grin*
Teresa exemplified on October 04, 2005 at 08:57 AM
How about Walker Texas Ranger? EVERYTHING is wrong with that show.
Yeah, any computer 'based' movie is horribly unrealistic. Ignore such fantasy farces as 'Lawnmower Man', my beloved 'Tron' and such. Do you remember "The Net" with Sandra Bulloch?
I roll my eyes and have to bite my toungue every time I see someone about to login or hack a computer terminal... remember the good old days when you couldn't see the cpu anywhere, just a monitor and keyboard as if they were using a dumb terminal?
gamongrel exemplified on October 04, 2005 at 04:59 PM
All explosions in movies really set me off. Grenades go boom then black smoke, not boom then balls of fire. There are very few movies that get it right.
Dr. Phat Tony exemplified on October 05, 2005 at 10:49 AM
Lynn of Reflections in D Minor examines some ways to think like a genius, and asks the obvious question on this one:
"Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives that no one else has taken (or no one else has publicized!)"
Uh... okay. How do you do that?
The answer is simple... stare at the problem until an idea pops into your head. Dismiss it because it's trite and unoriginal.
Repeat as often and for as many hours as necessary until something original hits you.
Normally I don't have to do this for more than 3 or 4 hours max before something clicks, although sometimes - if I'm very lucky - it only takes a few minutes.
You probably think I'm kidding, but it's actually how I manage to do most of my assignment-based humor pieces for the Alliance & the IMAO podcast.
It's a crude, brute-force technique, but it DOES work.
Sucks the life right out of ya, though.
By the way, if you think the jokes that I post are bad, you should see the ones that never made it out of my skull.
tommy exemplified on September 30, 2005 at 10:16 AM
Or you could just kidnap a genius and hide him in your basement. Geniuses can live on nothing but Ramen soup, need little exercise, and are exceedingly quiet. They do tend to be messy, though.
When we initially spot a woman, we give her a quick scan, head-to-toe (usually consisting of hair, eyes, lips, boobs, hips & legs), making mental notes of which parts are good and which parts are... REALLY good.
Then we completely ignore the merely good parts and spend our time rotating between staring at the various REALLY good parts.
Once we've got the short list & the rotation pattern, those merely good parts are completely invisible.
You could have an ass the size of Montana. We don't care. We're too busy alternating between wondering what it'd be like to kiss those lips and fantasizing about going face-first into that cleavage you're showing off.
Seriously. If you've got ONE good feature for a man to lock eyes on, you're beautiful.
Of course, MY problem is that my eye muscles are always exhausted, because - being married to TNT - my rotation pattern contains about 300 stops...
Only 300? You must be slippin' 'cuz I seen a LOT more than that and I ain't even married to her! ;^)
BTW, you (or your wife) interrupted the nice conversation I was having with Tammi a few minutes ago. I WILL seek retribution! You owe me one (1) soft-serve vanilla ice-cream cone, or there's HELL to pay! (and consider yourself lucky I didn't use multiple exclamation points)
Johnny - Oh exemplified on September 29, 2005 at 09:05 PM
Believe me, I'm grateful that I only got whacked with 3 of those punctuatin' bastards :-)
And the truth is, it IS over 300, but I'm just ashamed to admit that I can't count any higher.
Good thing I know how to bowl, or I wouldn't even be able to count THAT high :-D
Harvey exemplified on September 29, 2005 at 10:02 PM
Add to that the fact that every man has his own odd set of features he looks for. For me, the upper back, chin, hands, and belly are aesthetic.
You just made my day sweetie. Hubby says the same thing -- tells me I'm HOT!! Gotta love a man that says that about me after all this time and I feel I look like I'm 500 years old most days.
You may have seen the BBC News story about the hospital in West Yorkshire that instituted a "no cooing over babies" policy. The subheading on the story makes it sound like the place has been commandeered by foamy-mouthed baby-rights advocates:
A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection.
I think the BBC news version is slanted a bit to make the hospital look more unreasonable than it is.
The local coverage in the Halifax Courier is a little more in-depth and offers a better collection of quotes from those involved, making it look more like the hospital was primarily concerned with the confidentiality interests of the mothers than anything else.
This tidbit from the Telegraph seems to support that:
Staff there had given visitors a card with a message purporting to come from a newborn baby. "I am small and precious so treat me with privacy and respect," the baby said. "My parents ask you to treat my personal space with consideration."
Still, I'm left to wonder exactly what led to this situation? Were there a lot of mums complaining about people asking questions? Perhaps a rash of unwed mothers who didn't want to discuss how the baby came about?
Speaking of not-quite-sane, I find this line from the Telegraph story... odd...:
It is ironic that the hospital seems to have used the Human Rights Act to justify an apparently rigid and unfeeling policy[...]
Why is the word "seems" in there? Was the reporter too lazy to call to find out the reason for the "no cooing" policy?
Overall I suspect the papers may be making WAY too much out of one statement from the hospital's Neonatal Manager, Debbie Lawson: "Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me"
Notice that she doesn't specify which particular right she's talking about. Let's see if the FULL quote (from the Halifax Courier link) sheds any light:
"We know people have good intentions and most people cannot resist cooing over new babies but we need to respect the child. Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me.
"We often get visitors wandering over to peer into cots but people sometimes touch or talk about the baby like they would if they were examining tins in a supermarket and that should not happen."
Sounds slightly less nuts that way, doesn't it? I can understand being upset about people acting with inappropriate casualness toward a stranger's child.
Anyway, setting aside the one out-of-context quote you'll see everywhere, I honestly suspect that the reason for this rule MAY be related to the fact that the UK government has taken an increased interest in tracking hospital infection rates.
Whichever it is, I'm just a little disappointed in the lack of dilligence exhibited by the press on this one.
[Hat tip to bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom for the pointer to the BBC story]
I'm trying to figure out why the manager of a Neonatal unit is talking about "rights" when she should be telling visitors to keep their hands and germs to themselves!
Secondly I'm wondering where in the world these babies are at that the general public can come in and wander amongst them... Every nursery I've seen in the US is behind glass - and babies in rooms are with their mothers.
Do they have big open wards of new mothers with babies at their side and then tons of visitors? That's a stupid thing to do! I wouldn't be a bit surprised in that case to find that both babies AND mothers have high infection rates. Both of them are pretty vulnerable at that time (no matter how "natural" the process!!!)
Teresa exemplified on September 29, 2005 at 02:03 PM
It's hard to find details on this story.
I might have to nudge Sally & Alex.
Harvey exemplified on September 29, 2005 at 09:37 PM
I think it's just random lunacy. Like when that women suggested that failed exams should be described as "deferred success".
I can tell you that maternity wards are very heavily protected with security doors etc..
As for infection rates, I frequently see hospital workers picking up their children from school wearing their hospital uniforms. My Dad knows someone who died of MRSA, and whenever he sees a nurse, or someone in the street, he takes them to task about it.
Sally exemplified on September 30, 2005 at 06:36 AM
For those who (like me) don't know what MRSA is:
"The organism Staphylococcus aureus is found on many individuals skin and seems to cause no major problems. However if it gets inside the body, for instance under the skin or into the lungs, it can cause important infections such as boils or pneumonia. Individuals who carry this organism are usually totally healthy, have no problems whatever and are considered simply to be carriers of the organism.
The term MRSA or methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus is used to describe those examples of this organism that are resistant to commonly used antibiotics. Methicillin was an antibiotic used many years ago to treat patients with Staphylococcus aureus infections. It is now no longer used except as a means of identifying this particular type of antibiotic resistance."
Harvey exemplified on September 30, 2005 at 10:13 AM
Thinking about what Ogre said regarding the "fine tuning" of physical constants in the universe being evidence of intelligent design, I think we're having a difference of perspective.
Ogre imagines himself in a pre-universe lawn chair, watching God drawing up plans for a universe capable of sustaining human life.
Me? I come at it quite differently.
I start with the fact that the time is now, the universe exists, and I'm in it. Then I use what I know about the universe as it is to look backwards towards the beginning of time.
Trouble is, there's a wall that I can't see past.
If I remember my Hawking correctly, the physical constants on which I'm basing my mental time-travel assumed their current properties at 3x10-14 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, they were... different... and there's no way of knowing - under current theory - HOW they were different.
So my vision is limited. Any pronouncements by me of what things were like before that would be speculation of the "guess what's in the mystery box" sort.
Now, now, I never said it was God, did I? I just said it was an intelligent design. For all I know it was Horton placing stuff in a dandelion -- I'm just saying it doesn't appear to be random chance, and simply has to be on purpose.
Ogre exemplified on September 28, 2005 at 07:36 AM
P.S. Nice Bucs logo over there...
Ogre exemplified on September 28, 2005 at 07:38 AM
Ogre - no, you didn't say God.
But you would if I asked, right? :-)
As for the Bucs... yeah, well... there's a REASON it's called "gambling" :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 28, 2005 at 08:21 AM
My favourite use of the anthropic principle was made by Fred Hoyle. Hoyle had been studying the nucleosynthetic formation of heavier elements through stellar fusion, but couldn't find a way that C-12 could be formed. Just as Gamow had gone through, there looked like no way to explain the existence of any element heavier than helium.
There seemed two ways, both impossible, of carbon-12 being created: 1)the fusion of three helium-4 atoms into a carbon-12 atom, or 2)the fusion of two helium-4's into a beryllium-8, and then a fusion of the Be-8 with a He-4 into C-12. The first is impossible because there could not be enough energy at impact for fusion. The second is impossible because the result predicted is heavier than carbon-12. There seemed no way to explain how Carbon came into existence, and thus no way to explain any of the heavier elements.
Hoyle solved the problem thus:
A. Fred Hoyle exists in the universe.
B. Fred Hoyle is a carbon-based lifeform.
C. Therefore Carbon exists in the universe.
D. Therefore there must be a way of creating carbon.
E. The only way to create carbon must involve an exact excited (and via e=mc^2, heavier) state which is attainable through fusion.
F. Therefore there must exist this exact excited state of carbon.
In short, "he is partly made from the c-12 nucleus, so the correct excited state of carbon must exist, or otherwise neither c-12 nor Fred Hoyle would exist." (Simon Singh's "Big Bang")
In the end, Hoyle calculated that the excited state would have to be 7.65 MeV's above the normal state, and this was found to exist by Willy Fowler at the Kellog Radiation Lab within a brief time.
As far as I know, this was the only use of the anthropic principle which yielded empirically falsifiable results (Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers," though brilliant it, as Harvey states, does not tell us enough to test)
Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views mulls over the possibility of the universe arising by happenstance, crunches some numbers, and concludes.
"In other words, according to physics and mathematics, there is absolutely no possible way that this universe was created through random chance -- it's simply not possible."
I beg to differ. There's a big difference between "infinitesimally small" and "non-existent".
What he's calculating are the odds of getting it right on the first try.
To calculate the probability of the universe as we know it getting created, you'd need to know the number of trials that were attempted.
As the number of trials approaches the inverse of the odds of occurrance, the likelihood of success approaches certainty. Not knowing the number of trials involved, though, there's no conclusion to reach about how much of a long-shot the universe is. There may well have been a Googolplex of failed universes before a functional one popped up.
For the record, I'm agnostic about any particular theory of universal creation. The rules of physics changed at the (moment of creation/big bang), and without consistent rules, there's no way to deduce what happened before that moment.
So if you want to say "God created it", fine.
Me, I'm just going to say "I don't know, and I don't think I ever will".
I'm only an atheist about the stuff that happened afterwards.
I'm not going to say who, what, when, why, or how, but I'm just going to ask this:
As a kid, or even now, how many times have you dumped out a cannister of lincoln logs and they've bounced into a cabin? Or taken an erector set, tossed up all the pieces together, and had a working vehicle when it landed?
I'm not saying that it's impossible, just nearly so... unless there's some assistance.
That 1 Guy exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 10:36 AM
Even if you take the case that there was only one attempt the probability argument doesn't work.
What happened is one of a possibly infinite number of outcomes, but something was going to happen, and whatever it was that happened was going to be one of a possibly infinite number of outcomes.
The only think that makes it interesting is the fact that we are talking about large enough numbers that they are approaching unimaginable.
tommy exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 10:43 AM
(Anxiously waiting Harvey's Response to T1G because the odds don't increase with infinite possibilities, according to the smart math people).
Ogre exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 02:11 PM
Slightly away from the point, here are some pretty fly MC Hawking lyrics:
I'm not saying there's no God,
That's not for me to say.
I'm just saying the universe
wasn't built in a day.
Chuck exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 07:47 PM
Dump out that bucket of Lincoln logs.
Return logs to bucket.
Dump again.
Repeat every minute for several billion years.
No matter how improbable, as long as something isn't completely impossible it will happen given a long enough time span.
That said, my own personal belief is that the nature of the universe and man's understanding of it are mutally exclusive. That there is an intelligence behind everything, and if we ever even come close to figuring out the rules of the game that intelligence will change the rules around because it's a complete asshole like that.
Graumagus exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 10:07 PM
T1G - Sure, in THIS universe, pouring Lincoln Logs into a cabin is improbable, but if you adjust some of the physical constants, it becomes quite commonplace :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 10:22 PM
I find the example flawed in that logs do not have the capacity to evolve. Each instantiation of a human habitable environment is unique. Even if they were all identical, the myriad of possible variables induces the possibility of random having success.
By the way, I support ID.
_Jon exemplified on September 27, 2005 at 10:23 PM
But odds and probability are different things. Odds are a mathematical number. Probability is the chance that something will actually happen. In this example, and the Lincoln Log example, you might be able to calculate that there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (breath) 000,000,000,000 chance that the logs when dumped out will form a house. However, the probability of that happening is zero -- it will not happen.
It's the same with the origin of the universe. Mathematically, it's simply not possible to randomly form, no matter how many times you dump that pile of stuff out.
Ogre exemplified on September 28, 2005 at 06:02 AM
Ogre - You're assuming these physical constants CAN be dumped. There may be an underlying force in the universe (as yet unknown) which - as an emergent property - causes constants to be restricted to what they are.
Of course, if THAT were true, you'd point to THAT and say "See? Intelligent Design!" :-)
Twenty years ago on Quincy, Jack Klugman described the murders he uncovered each week. CSI shows theirs. From every angle. Over and over again. A drug-crazed raver strangles his friend. A woman caves in a man’s skull with a rock. A man shoots himself in the head. A teenager stabs an entire family to death with a kitchen knife. The detectives are fond of saying that blood "talks." It also flies, drips, runs and pools on the floor. CSI is ugly, exploitative, gross, [and] disrespectful of the dead [...]
True.
But what they don't mention is what turns me off the most about this show: the detectives' antiseptic indifference to what they see.
When Quincy described the autopsies he did on his victims, there was always a suppressed undertone of outrage in his voice, as though - even after all his years as a Medical Examiner - he was still mortified at the inhumanity that was shown to the bodies he was examining.
CSI? They couldn't care less. They're cold, emotionless... practically bored. It's just another classroom exercise to them. Whatever.
Mostly I avoid the show, although I occasionally peek in just to see if someone is going to feel something.
To even compare CSI to Quincy is insane. It's sort of like comparing Evil Glennn to Bambi. CSI is simply trying to exploit the public's current desire for blood and gore and trying to shock more and more than anyone else.
Ogre exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 08:00 AM
I don't know about the spin-off CSIs, but in the original, they do have some emotions. In fact, one of them (Sidle) is always getting in trouble whenever there seems to be a domestic violence case because she keeps attacking the suspects like a rabid pit-bull. (Verbally that is. She never shoots anyone.) She's contrasted with Grissom, who is accused of having no emotions.
But at the same time, you do have to realistically expect some detatchment from a professional in that position. Otherwise they would burn out with the first unsolved case they get.
I love to watch that show, but I do have one problem with it. It tends to portray the technology a little unrealistically. For example, you can't get DNA cross-matching in half an hour. In the real world, it takes weeks. (Although, maybe things are different in Vegas...)
GEBIV exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 08:03 AM
All that said, I really liked to watch Quincy too.
GEBIV exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 08:04 AM
I agree on the most part with Gebiv. I love CSI, the orriginal. I don't like the others.
I think they do a decent job of portraying the emotional issues of the individuals that work in that field. From my personal experience especially after pulling bodies out of rivers, handling suicide victims, assisting in the removal of bodies from cars, doing autopsies on 18 month old babies, investigating child rape cases and listening to someone burn to death in a house fire 20 miles away. You tend to have to seperate your emotions, if you don't you will lose it. You can be outraged at people, but there is time for that AFTER you do your job.
There is a reason I have no love for people.
Contagion exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 08:15 AM
I really, really hate it when detectives show emotions! Its unrealistic, you cant deal with dead bodies every day and agonize about it without going mad in two weeks! Even in CSI there was too much of it! One character there particularly vexed me in this regard - she had this constant gaze as if she were to cry any moment.
Though I dont think its the actual showing of emotions by detectives - I dont mind Hercule Poirot getting angry for example - its probably the bad acting on display.
lemuel exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 09:10 AM
Contagion - granted, there's a certain level of realism involved, but the thing is - this is a TV show. It doesn't HAVE to be realistic. They can make their characters more sympathetic if they want to, and the 299+ million people who DON'T work the job won't know the difference.
But the producers of CSI and/or its spin-offs don't care, as long as they get enough camera time for their corpse-porn - because getting to show realistic dead body parts is what it's all about.
Anyway, if the Quincy comparison doesn't work, how about in Silence of the Lambs when Agent Starling examines the corpse? She showed both emotion AND professionalism.
Harvey exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 09:14 AM
I disagree, I think that is why the show is doing as well as it is. People that worked the job, and/or know people that did see the realism of it. Of course the time frames and the exactness they get stuff done in isn't true at all.
I will agree the show does like it's special effects, and they are great.
As for Starling in Silence of the Lambs... good movie, complete BS and Starling in the movie was a newbie... She wouldn't have developed a sensitivity to it yet. Think of in CSI when they took Greg Sanders in to view his first corpse and he couldn't look at it and was all nervous and almost got sick. Same thing there.
Contagion exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 09:32 AM
Harv- If you ever meet my sister I'll have to have her do her CSI impression for you. It's really funny. She hates that show.
MY main bitch is why don't they ever turn the fucking lights on.... WTF is it with that?
Madfish Willie exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 09:00 PM
Willie - DAMN good question.
Low lighting has become VERY hip & trendy in TV shows.
Maybe they're trying to cover a lack of acting ability :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 09:24 PM
My gripe is all you intelligent people sitting around watching a fucking soap opera. And *all* of them are soap operas.
And don't give me that "down time" bullshit.
How about each of you get a hobby that will provide what you need (relaxation) *and* allow you to help the current generation or leave something that benefits the next?
Be a "Creator" rather than just a "Consumer".
_Jon exemplified on September 20, 2005 at 10:01 PM
I simply watch it because George "Nick" Eads is HOT!
I'd do him anytime, anywhere.
Machelle exemplified on September 21, 2005 at 07:24 AM
I don't watch Tv, so it doesn't much affect me. However, I caught a bit of that show at a friend's house one night. What bothered me about it was that they were wildly inaccurate on technical details. I've heard that some people are impressed by the show's "realism", but those are folks who don't know anything about real-world blood & gore.
Dilletantes.
Tennessee Budd exemplified on September 21, 2005 at 07:49 AM
_Jon - I blog about boobies, and I do it for the children :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 21, 2005 at 08:35 AM
I'm with Willie, WTF with the damn lights? but it IS nice to see someone mention Quincy, which is my favorite show of ALL time. Did you know it just came out on DVD?
caltechgirl exemplified on September 21, 2005 at 01:04 PM
Finally, don't forget to check what Darwin actually wrote in Origin of Species, with - perhaps - special attention to Chapter 6, where he addresses some of the objections that he thought people would raise to his theory:
Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification -Transitions-Absence or rarity of transitional varieties-Transitions in habits of life-Diversified habits in the same species-Species with habits widely different from those of their allies-Organs of extreme perfection-Means of transition-Cases of difficulty-Natura non facit saltum-Organs of small importance-Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect-The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection
WARNING: The above links contain prodigious quantities of dry, technical language. Do not attempt to read without having a caffeine source handy.
I needed some reading material to put me to sleep. THANKS! ;-)
vw bug exemplified on September 13, 2005 at 11:02 AM
But realize that all links to that site are not designed to be an open-minded view -- the site is predisposed to supporting evolution and will not even consider any evidence that precludes evolution.
In fact, on that same site, the author declares the intelligent design is NOT a theory. He then declares that the only way to disprove the theory of evolution is to come up with a better theory.
In other words, he says he's right because he's right and you cannot prove him wrong.
But, to address just one issue with the specific links -- the site claims that jellyfish and sponges (not SpongeBob), have a "common ancestor." Can anyone explain how a sponge grew organs? And if they did, why are there still sponges? If survival of the fittest happened, and The Sponge That Grew An Organ was more designed to survive, why didn't the Sponge die out?
Ogre exemplified on September 13, 2005 at 12:37 PM
Ogre - I'd prefer to leave the author's attitudes out of the argument and stick to his statements. His being closed-minded doesn't affect whether he's right or wrong.
Anyway, offhand I'd say that the mobility that gave jellyfish an advantage wasn't in competition with the way sponges get their food. I'd guess that the competition that gave rise to the jellyfish was happening more toward the outer periphery of the sponge territory, and the more jellyfish-like critter was better able to get food than whatever other species was originally out-competing sponges outside of sponge territory.
Basically the difference between intra- and inter-species survival struggle.
Just my opinion. I haven't studied biology much.
Harvey exemplified on September 13, 2005 at 01:49 PM
Hard to know what to say to this but I will try.
Evolution works. Millions of years and fossil evidence that is still being produced to this day along with advancement in other scientific areas such as DNA and genetics and the ability to compare cell structure and the like all prove that evolution at various levels is taking place. Our brains are still evolving as has been recently proven. If evolution was defunct we would all still be living in caves and hunting mammoths.
Theoretical sciences (a lot of physics is theory I understand) is a completely different matter. Stephen Hawkins is busy proving and disproving various aspects of quantum mechanics, etc but I wouldn't have the tenacity to go and argue some of his theories as being wrong with him.
On a wider note I read with some dispair an article about the cutting if the funding from your government in R&D science areas and this saddens me. Once, your nation took all the worlds truely great scientists, furbished them with money and allowed them to flourish, giving us some truely momentous and ground breaking advances and insights. It seems that America is attempting to revert to a kind of Dark Ages and I, for one, am saddened by that. I wonder whether people like Oppenheimer, Cray, Nash et al would have been allowed to flourish now or to rot in obscurity.
Alex exemplified on September 14, 2005 at 08:05 AM
Knowing the reasons a person says things indeed has an effect on the results. The reasoning on that particular site goes like this:
It is a confirmed fact that 2 is not a number. No one can dispute this fact.
I propose that 1+1=3. The only way you can prove me wrong is to provide a better number for an answer to 1+1.
From that point, he begins his arguments. It is simply impossible to disagree with that author, simply because he says it is so. That's why I don't rely on that site -- it's just disingenuous and dishonest.
To continue to sponge/jellyfish example, back up a tiny bit -- where did the organs come from? How did the sponge suddenly generate organs? If it was to survive, then the sponge would need to die off. If it wasn't to survive, then the sponge with the organs would have died off.
There's no reason for the sponge to grow organs -- and there's actually no mechanism for it to grow organs, either. The only way to explain this split of species is to reject survival of the fittest.
Ogre exemplified on September 14, 2005 at 11:02 AM
Ogre - Ok, so... I'm not allowed to cite anything from Talkorigins?
And you found no useful information at either of those links addressing your concerns about intermediate forms and observed speciation?
Anyway, could you point to the specific passage about sponges & jellyfish? I may have missed something.
Alex - American scientists do fine using private funds. Bioweapons plants are always hiring :-)
Harvey exemplified on September 14, 2005 at 02:46 PM
This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.
The following text appears at the first link:
The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:
Dear friends, family and associates,
As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.
As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.
My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.
May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.
5 minute video memorial. No burning buildings, no rubble, no explosions, no speeches, no screeches, no Bin Laden, no bodies. Just a remembrance of some people whose lives were cut short through no fault of their own, with poignant candid snapshots from their lives, accompanied by a musical background.
Mr. Snitch! exemplified on September 11, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Hi Harvey. To commemorate 9/11, I've decided to visit every single blog on my blogroll today. I appreciate the entertainment and enjoyment you provide, and I wish you peace and happiness.
LJ
mooalex exemplified on September 11, 2005 at 03:52 PM
I understand that the President has broad discretionary powers in this arena, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case.
Half-staff should be reserved for honoring the death of specific individuals who, by their government service, did much to honor this country. Presidents, Justices, Congressmen, etc? Yes. I have no problem with that.
To honor international allies facing the loss of one of their great names? Sure. That's what friends are for.
And perhaps even honoring some victims who lost their lives during battles in the War on Terror. Individual soldiers or those who died on 9/11.
Sissy exemplified on September 08, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Seriously.
There should be a line between respecting the dead and honoring them, and half-staffing should be kept on the "honoring" side of that line.
Harvey exemplified on September 08, 2005 at 05:03 PM
You should be an expert at "half-staffing" by now... jack-off idiot that you are.
Madfish Willie exemplified on September 08, 2005 at 07:25 PM
Thus begins the uninformed moonbat rantings. Willie, why not try being constructive in your criticism, or is that just too difficult for small intellect to handle?
SeanS exemplified on September 08, 2005 at 10:23 PM
I'm completely with you on this one.
I'm still not totally sure about the half-staff for Sept 11th (which is now a "permanent" thing).
Ogre exemplified on September 09, 2005 at 05:53 AM
Perhaps they are half-staff because of Chief Justice Rehnquist's departure.
Kudos for know it ain't half-mast
don surber exemplified on September 09, 2005 at 06:32 AM
Heh - he said "half-staff". heh.
btw, Harv your blog has been slow lately.
_Jon exemplified on September 09, 2005 at 07:39 AM
Sean - Actually, Madfish Willie isn't a troll. He's one of my blogsons whose schtick is being a crotchety old grouch. Just give it right back to him.
Madfish - and YOU would be an expert on "quarter-staffing", mister micro-manhood :-P
Ogre - I'm kinda wobbly on that one myself. Although it's technically war-related, and I don't have a problem with honoring war heroes, it's still the top of the slippery slope - honoring victims.
Don - Half-staff vs. half mast:
http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/half-staff.shtml
_Jon - yeah, I know :-(
Harvey exemplified on September 09, 2005 at 09:55 AM
Been gone a couple o' days...
Sean...Sean...Sean.... Luckily for you, Herbey just saved you from a savage verbal beat-down!
Madfish Willie exemplified on September 11, 2005 at 09:56 PM
Future supplies of gas (and more regionally - other consumer goods) are uncertain. It could very well be that needed items will not be able to be sent to where they can be easily purchased through normal channels. Nobody knows.
Uncertainty makes consumers panicky, and panicked consumers start hoarding.
Jacking up the prices is the only way to keep these panicky people from buying up everything in sight and causing shortages.
Meanwhile, the high prices are also an incentive for freelancers to load up their station wagons to bring in more supplies, helping to ease the supply crunch until the regular distribution channels are back to full capacity.
It's a temporary spike and temporary price spikes let people do their own rationing. People can decide for themselves if $5/gallon gas is worth buying, or if they should wait a couple days. Prices will drop after people take a few deep breaths, and things will get back to normal a lot quicker this way.
However, as a cheap political stunt, some government officials try price controls. Since there's now no incentive to not buy stuff, panicky consumers start hoarding, leading to shortages and more panic.
There's also no profit incentive to return capacity to previous level, nor is there any encouragement for freelancers to help bring in supplies, outside of organized charity.
If there were any brains in government, they'd get the hell out of the way and let anyone help who wanted to, even if they DO make money off it.
Gee, but letting capitalist market forces take over is never politically expedient. The politicians are perceived as not doing anything to SAVE us! :P
can't have that.
tbflowers exemplified on September 01, 2005 at 04:18 PM
I hope you are right, Harvey. I have a feeling, though, that the oil companies won't be so anxious to let the price fall back to where it used to be in a matter of days. I'm guessing more along the lines of months.
SeanS exemplified on September 02, 2005 at 04:03 AM
There's no such thing as PRICE GOUGING in a free, capitalist society. It simply doesn't exist. What is the value of a glass of water in the Sahara? What is it's value in New Orleans right now? Any government intervention can only have disasterous results -- absolutely assured.
Ogre exemplified on September 02, 2005 at 06:13 AM
Also, there's nothing the gas stations would like more that to start undercutting each other to draw in customers, and any given gas station would do it if they could afford it. Not to mention that a lot of states have minimum mark-up laws which prevent gas stations from selling buck-a-gallon gas and making up for it with inside sales.
From what I've heard, most gas stations make more money off of inside food & beverage sales than they do off gas, anyway.
They don't want to sell expensive gas as much as they want to get you inside the store.
Harvey exemplified on September 02, 2005 at 09:57 AM
I've pretty much got a lifetime membership to the "Fuck the nanny state" club. I'm not a big fan of laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, wear motorcycle helmets, etc.
[snip]
But just because I don't think the law should force people to wear them doesn't mean I don't think they're suicidal idiots for not doing so.
Same with me.
I personally became a fan of seat belts when I watched a driver safety film in my high school driver's ed class. In one scene, they showed the one good thing France ever did. They gave a prisoner a reduced sentence if he drove a car into a tree at 50 mph.
He did.
The front of the car looked like a wadded up Kleenex afterwards.
He unbuckled & stepped out of the car 2 seconds after impact without a damn scratch.
I was sold.
About 10 years later, I was driving home after dark, in winter, down a piece of highway that I'd driven down every day for years. It was cold - below freezing - but it handn't snowed for days. That road should've been clean & dry.
Apparently I found a spot where it wasn't.
Lost control of the car, started spinning around in circles, went off the right side of the road, down a shallow slope, and slammed driver's-side-door-first into a big ass tree.
My car had a distinct horseshoe-shape to it.
My injuries consisted of a couple small cuts on my right hand, because it landed in a pile of glass from the driver's-side window that had landed on the passenger seat.
That's all.
I'm still sold on seat belts.
Funny thing is, I told this story to the tow-truck driver who brought me & my horseshoe-car the 5 more miles to my front door, and his response?
"I don't like seatbelts".
Maybe one of his cars was wrecked by a French prisoner...
In the 23 years I spent working the roads of my county I never once had to unstrap a corpse.
In spite of that, we seldom wore our belts on routine patrol, we'd buckle up when we were in a chase or running to a hot call. The seatbelt slowed us down when we'd have to bail out of the cruiser to chase some as, um bad guy and the belt was very uncomfortable over that Sam Browne belt with all the crap we had to carry on it. Hard to get to the shootin' iron, too.
Funny, when I creamed that cruiser at a hundred plus, I walked away. I spent damned near a week in the body and fender shop when a drunk rammed me while I was stopped, sitting in the car unbelted writing a ticket.
The only times I wrote tickets for seatbelt violations when only adults were involved was when the citizen got real mouthy or the brass was on me for not writing them. Usually there were enough people that talked me into giving them tickets that the bosses stayed off my butt. Kids, though, that's another story. Grownups can decide to be organ doners, that didn't bother me but buckle up the kids or I'd be on the driver like stink on, er, white on rice.
These days? I don't drive down to the mailbox without the belt on.
"In the 23 years I spent working the roads of my county I never once had to unstrap a corpse."
LOVE that line :-)
The bad thing for me is that I've got a 20+ year habit of reaching for shoulder strap, and now my damn car has passive restraints, and 90% of the time I forget the lap belt.
Man, my first car was a VW bug. Used to slide off the vinyl seat on sharp turns. at the very least I like the feeling that I'm firmly rooted.
tbflowers exemplified on August 05, 2005 at 05:30 AM
Amen to all above.
I once read a e-mail by someone which started with the line of "We never wore (seatbelts or helmets when we rode bikes or some such) and we are still here and alive. I pointed out that was because the ones who weren't alive and well weren't using the computer to write such messages. She didn't get it.
Rachel Ann exemplified on August 05, 2005 at 06:10 AM
I HATE "automatic" belts. Total crap.
And I'm in complete agreement here -- the laws requiring seat belts are 100% crap. If they're legitimate, why I am "permitted" to work in my yard when it's 100 degrees? Assholes (the state, not you people).
I don't believe there should be any such things as mandatory seat-belt or helmet laws. That said, I often ride in Kentucky, which has no helmet law. I wear a helmet wherever & whenever I ride.
Back when I used to drink & drive, I totalled almost a dozen cars. Never wore a seat belt, never got seriously hurt. I wear a seat belt when I drive not for the reason most do, but so that I'm anchored behind the wheel & don't go sliding around during extreme driving.
Tennessee Budd exemplified on August 05, 2005 at 09:49 AM
I sent Grau's note to a firefighter friend and he said the same thing as Peter, that in 20 years in the fire service, he never had to cut a seatbelt off a corpse.
If that doesn't sell you on using them I don't know what will.
My mantra to myself when I think about not clicking up on short trips:
"I don't want to become a quadraplegic because I 'didn't feel like buckling up'. That's just WAY too humiliating and it sounds like something a hippy would say."
Herbey... I'm thinking that maybe your injury was more serious than you care to admit... how else to explain your fucked up thought processi... anyway, if you ran into anything 'head-on' you'd disappear 'cause your head is so far up your ass!
Madfish Willie exemplified on August 05, 2005 at 06:45 PM
I prefer to think of it as wearing an "ass-helmet".
I was in a low speed collision a little over two years ago.
We were pulling out of the school parking lot, and, at not an alarming rate, we hit the car in front of us.
I was strapped in in the back, and hit my knee a tiny bit. No trouble, just a bump. like running into a table.
The girl in the passenger seat, however, (and keep in mind that we couldn't have been going more than twenty miles an hour), had not yet belted up and used her forehead to, not only crack, but render the car undrivable via shattered windshield.
Miraculously she walked away with just a bump, but that totally reenforced everything I felt about the belts.
Terrific post Harv. My mother was in an accident nearly 40 yrs ago in which she wasn't wearing a seat belt. Thrown through the windshield, body found far from the car and shoes far in the other direction. Survived with minimal frontal lobe brain damage and various deep wounds to face and legs but still bearing physical and emotional scars to this day. All would have been different had she just been wearing that belt. Yeah I'm buckling up, law or no law. So is she. Awareness beats evil nanny laws.
I agree, everyone's gotta do it sooner or later. Crap builds up & needs to be taken to the curb.
Me? I use a pen, a spiral notebook, and a quiet place - preferably outside, if it's reasonably nice - then just start writing.
I find that when I'm troubled, the biggest problem is that my thoughts keep jumping and swirling and I can't find a pattern, much less the root cause of what's REALLY bugging me. So I start by jotting down the first piece of flotsam that floats by. Ok, that's gone. Next.
On and on and on.
Eventually, my mind's waters are clear of garbage (although still swirly), and maybe now I can see to the bottom, find the plug, pull it out, drain the tank, and feel clean and dry again.
I can't say it ALWAYS works, but I never feel worse afterwards.
Actually, I highly recommend it. Sometimes you'll be amazed at what comes out. Writing therapy always works. It's the best way to find out what you're really upset about.
Madfish Willie exemplified on August 03, 2005 at 07:48 PM
... just kidding!
Madfish Willie exemplified on August 03, 2005 at 07:49 PM
I'm with Harv and Cindy, writing works. It's one of those essentials I learned about early in recovery from alcoholism. It even helps pull me out of depression.
This editorial in the Sun News of Myrtle Beach has it right. The editorial talks about a "tax break" that's been proposed in North Carolina. This "break" would allow home builders to be exempt from property taxes for up to 5 years for homes they build that are not occupied immediately.
Of course, if this happens, then everyone else will have to pay more taxes to make up for the builder not paying taxes.
Me?
Personally, I'm happy for ANYONE who gets out of paying any tax for any reason.
It'd be better if it were me, but... *shrug*
And technically, the tax break doesn't CAUSE the higher taxes on everyone else. That's a separate decision and deserves to be cursed on its own.
The Staleness Gnomes are whimsical and capricious, and should never be challenged! Their wrath is fearsome and terrible to behold!
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it has to do with the specific densities of each item causing the discrepancy. Oreo cookies are a denser bread than bread, so, absorbs more water vapor, while bread, being less dense, actually loses moisture. But, that's about two steps below a WAG.
the Humble Devildog exemplified on March 20, 2008 at 07:28 PM