Squishy Left

Junk Journalism

2005-11-16T10:31:00.000-05:00

Felixwas has a great, well-written (as always!) analysis of why less people are paying attention to the news (newspapers, especially).

And if you're interested in other diatribes against the state of journalism and newscasting today, there's always the fabulous 5th Estate.

Al-Qaeda's Presence May Chill The Air

2005-11-13T18:55:00.000-05:00

Apparently, San Francisco's golden sun is not shining for Bill O'Reilly.

(By the way, if you caught the theme song of this post, you're super rad, and deserve kudos.)

Surprise! I'm criticizing the UN!

2005-11-12T15:24:00.000-05:00

Go ahead and try to tell me that Kofi Annan's face, particularly his eyes, (from this article) don't perfectly express the thought: Oh my fucking God. What the hell is going on? Go ahead and try.

And now for some real commentary on the United Nations: Look, I love the UN. I support the UN. I love the idea of an international body where everybody gets along and talks things out. See? I like them. Nice UN. ::gives Kofi a hug:: BUT! I do not think that after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's actions... well, let's just say that that man should be kept on one hell of a short leash.

In case you missed it, back in October (the 28th, to be precise), President Ahmadinejad said to his supporters (who were chanting "death to Israel" and "death to America") that it was necessary to "wipe Israel off the map". And then President Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his statements. And what did the UN do? They clucked their tongues and shook their heads.

Ahmadinejad took a short walk in the crowd, rallying in support of his comments that the Islamic world could not tolerate the Jewish state in its heartland. He said Western criticism carried no weight.

"My words are the Iranian nation's words," he told the official IRNA news agency, when asked if he had a message for the world.

"Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

The Islamic Republic has never acknowledged Israel's right to exist. It denies training and arming Palestinian militant groups dedicated to Israel's destruction but says it gives them moral support.

The U.N. condemnation, endorsed by all 15 council members, was delivered in the form of a press statement -- rather than at a formal council meeting, which would give it more weight.

And their 'condemnation' was (quite literally) not strongly worded! (The Vatican had more balls: they called Ahmadinejad's remarks "particularly serious and unacceptable", emphasis mine.) From a similar article:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan had rebuked Iran and expressed "dismay."

Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, who had requested a council reaction that Britain then furthered, said he was "very satisfied" to have heard "a very clear condemnation by the Security Council."

"We felt that time was of the essence even if it was at the cost of a certain word," he said. China had brokered a compromise with Algeria and the word "strongly" was deleted before the word "condemned," diplomats said.

If you're not going to do more than condemn Iran for their threats of uranium enrichment and nuclear programs, or for their human rights violations, or for their zeal to kill Israel and America, you should at the very least boot their asses from the United Nations--tell them they can come back when they can play nice. Why? Because: "Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid"? Puh-lease. What the hell do you think the United Nations is for? Peace! Understanding! Can I get an Amen? You can't be in a group whose purpose is to create global understanding and cooperation if you outright refuse to cooperate. Period.

At least Kofi decided not to visit them. Or did Tehran reschedule? Ah, well.

On a happier note, not all Iranians are completely and utterly retarded.

Okay, one more link. This one will make you giggle!

Conversation

2005-11-06T17:33:00.000-05:00

Chris: Alright, here's the deal: I need money. Mulah. Dinero.
Jamie: Don't we all!
Chris: This man is worth 10 grand
Chris: So me, you, and one gun are going to Texas.
Jamie: Nice.
Chris: You lure him in with the scent of your womanlyness and I bag him. Deal?
Jamie: Okay. So I spread my legs. You shoot him. Got it.
Chris: Oh my fucking God, here's how he got out! "Thompson managed to get some civilian clothing, convinced a jailer that he was with the Texas attorney general's office and slipped out."
Chris: Hello! HEY GUARD, yeah you. It seems I've locked myself in one of these here cells. Can you let me out, it would really mean alot to me.
Jamie: ROFL
Chris: Thank God for Texans
Jamie: XD
Jamie: Oh wow
Jamie: Maybe--just maybe--it was a game. They let him out so they could chase him down with guns. Haaaaahaha. I bet that was it.
Chris: haha, "things have been kinda slow around here Jimbo. Aww heck let 'em loose *shoots guns into ceiling*"
Jamie: LOL--"Give 'em a fahve seckund head starrrht"

Seriously--how do you explain that guy getting out?!

An Obituary, of sorts

2005-11-05T13:42:00.000-05:00

"It's the stuff nightmares are made out of," Chalkley said. "The things that make you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and each second seems like an eternity, because you're frightened to move."

The jury foreman read the verdict and Anderson's world went black.

Guilty.

His sentence: 210 years in prison.

[snip]

The sophisticated DNA testing that was not available back in 1982 revealed what Anderson and his loved ones had known all along: He was innocent.

Chalkley, the prosecutor, read all about it in the newspaper. Then he walked to the bathroom and vomited.

On Aug. 21, 2002, Gov. Mark R. Warner granted Anderson a full pardon. He became the first Virginian to be cleared by genetic testing.

As Anderson's story spread, others stepped forward, wondering if evidence had been saved in their cases, too.

Burton's samples were found in the case files of two other men convicted of rape. DNA testing cleared them both. Julius Ruffin, who had always maintained his innocence, was freed after 21 years in prison, pardoned by the governor. And after 23 years and three days behind bars, Arthur Lee Whitfield walked out a free man.

Prosecutors said DNA tests on the samples revealed the same man -- Aaron Doxie III -- was likely responsible for the rapes in both the Ruffin and Whitfield cases. Doxie is already serving three life sentences for a separate sexual assault. Prosecutors did not pursue charges against him because Burton and other key witnesses are dead.

In Anderson's case, the samples Burton saved implicated John Otis Lincoln, an inmate who was serving 23 years for grand larceny, assault, robbery and burglary. Lincoln was convicted of the rape in 2003 and sentenced to three life terms plus 40 years.

Stories like this are among the strongest arguments against the Death Penalty. Imagine if someone--some legal powerhouse--had heard that Anderson was sentenced to 210-years and decided What's The Point? This Is An Open-And-Shut Case--Let's Push For Capital Punishment.

Also worth noting are Doxie and Lincoln's obvious examples as failings of our (punitive) legal system.

Constructive Criticism

2005-11-03T08:43:00.000-05:00

Matt of 1115.org offers some constructive criticism to the liberal blogosphere. This is one of the few critiques of the blogosphere that I wholeheartedly agree with. Matt starts strong...

The beauty of blogs, of course, is that anyone with one can use their space however they please. I’ve read a few in my time, and the depth and breadth of opinions and topics is beyond belief. That said, it’s almost impossible to ignore detractors who complain that blogs are sloppy and unfocused. The final stages of the investigation into who leaked the name of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame provided an opportunity to showcase the collaborative reporting and information distribution prowess of blogs; instead it turned into a myopic circle-jerk that prevented left-leaning political blogs from having any impact whatsoever.

And works up to an incredible payoff:

As the blog community matures, its members need to look in the mirror and decide whether their egos and traffic are more important than promoting the cause. If it’s the former, their posts aren’t “BREAKING”… they’re broken.

Field Trip!

2005-11-03T08:12:00.000-05:00

A New Jersey school district has a problem with some of its kids being taken to McDonald's for breakfast on their morning bus ride. [via]

The problem I see here isn't "OMG TERRURISTS IN MCDONALDS"... er, I mean, robbery. It's not the fear of some kid getting hit by a car. Sure, those are legitimate fears (the robbery and car accident--not the terrorists), but they're hardly blips on the radar compared to very obvious reasons like, hmm...

This is, by all means, an unauthorized field trip. The bus driver has no authority to take these kids anywhere but from their bus stops to school and back again.

Second--McDonald's? What a horrible decision on the driver's part! McDonald's is not only the grossest fast food their is, but it is--as is fast food in general--really, really unhealthy, to say the least. You've got all of the information on McSpotlight to consider, too...

Congressional PMS

2005-11-01T22:10:00.000-05:00

Harry Reid is, apparently, on his man-rag.

Google again

2005-10-08T18:23:00.000-04:00

I have to wallow in my wide-eyed wonder at the answer to this question: Where does Google get its money?

"People always ask us how Google makes money," Mayer says, as she does a Google search for flowers. The left side of the screen displays the top 10 Web sites Google found related to flowers. Appearing on the right side are what Google calls sponsored links. This, she explains, is where the money comes from. When someone clicks on a sponsored link, say in this case it's an ad for FTD flowers, the company pays Google. It’s a revolutionary idea: advertising to an audience of one, and one who’s already looking for what you want to sell.

The rates are so low - typically between 5 cents and 50 cents per click - that almost anyone can afford to advertise.

Eric Schmidt, Google’s 49-year-old CEO who was hired in 2001 to be the resident grown-up, says that the pool of potential advertisers is almost limitless: "There’s a lot of evidence that the companies of which Google is a member are enabling a new kind of commerce, between very small communities, people who can find each other, for whom the traditional advertising mechanisms, whether it’s television advertising or radio, do not serve.

"An example: a friend of mine named Peter puts his credit card in and he give us $50 [for a sponsored link]. And his wife knits a particular kind of rug. I said, 'Call me back, give me an update.' So Peter calls back and says, 'We’re ecstatic. For $50, we got all these customers.' And I said, 'Well, how many did you get?' And he said 100. And I thought, 'Wow, you know, that’s great. What a wonderful outcome.' And he said, 'There’s a problem...my wife does one rug per year.' So that’s all the revenue we’re ever gonna get from Peter."

But there are millions of Peters out there, and billions in potential ad revenue. The business world is just beginning to grasp the potential.

Okay, yesterday I tried to list all that Google does. I forgot Google Desktop, Google Maps and Earth, and Google's offer to provide wireless internet (free or inexpensive) to the entire city of San Francisco.

Celebrity Deathmatch: Google v. Microsoft

2005-10-07T15:12:00.000-04:00

There's got to be some sort of cyberpunk, 1984, mind-control, apocalyptic story-precedent for what Google is doing. I mean, first it was just searching, then news, then Gmail, Google Maps, Google Earth, now VoIP--who can keep them all straight?!--and NASA? and TAKING ON MICROSOFT!?

By the way, did I mention that Google stock is worth $313/share?

Curiously-Acting George Defends His Choice

2005-10-06T20:48:00.000-04:00

On Tuesday, the President held a Rose Garden press conference to sooth his angry conservative base over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Can't trust the media to interpret Gee Dubya's words, so let's go right to the transcript!

Congress has got other important work to do, starting with our response to the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Is it possible that Bush is doing something RIGHT for once? After all, it's only right for him to nominate an un-arguable pair for the SCOTUS so that Congress's attention isn't diverted from things that actually MATTER... right? (That's not to say that the SCOTUS doesn't matter; I think we can all agree it certainly is. But don't you think that we need to put a big band-aid on the Gulf Coast first?)

The engine that drives growth and job creation in America is the private sector

...sounds plausible enough...

and the private sector will be the engine that drives the recovery of the Gulf Coast. So I've outlined a set of policies to attract private investment to the affected areas, to encourage small- business development and to help workers in need get back on their feet.

Now, hold on--in an already horrendously corrupt area, you're going to further reward big business? Nice.

They highlighted a problem I've been talking about since I've come to Washington: We need more refining capacity.

Unequivocally, I will tell you: that is NOT the PROBLEM; that would be one idea for a SOLUTION. The problem is that we use WAY more fuel than we produce.

I know [Harriet Miers] well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change; that 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy that she is today. She'll have more experience, she'll have been a judge, but nevertheless, her philosophy won't change.

I'm a-wishin' and a-hopin' for a pseudo-Souter. And it is starting to look like that's what we're getting...

And my favorite exchange of the press conference Q&A:

QUESTION: Are you still a conservative?
BUSH: Am I a what?
QUESTION: Still a conservative?
BUSH: I'm still a conservative, proudly so, proudly so.

Must Probe, Pronto!

2005-09-08T16:44:00.000-04:00

For the next week, I’m going to be piecing together Katrina & Co.’s story as part of a school assignment. Sneak peek: I’ll be assessing the economic impact of Hurricane Katrina. I’ll examine the (mal)function of governmental entities, and maybe try to point a better-informed finger. I’ll be asking how and why the Mississippi has been altered, how any ‘alterations’ may be influencing the disappearance of wetlands throughout the south, how New Orleans ended up below sea level, what the levees were supposed to do and why they failed, and whether or not global warming has anything to do with the strength and frequency of recent hurricanes. And I’ll be critiquing the reporting on Katrina, asking what role the media should take and whether or not they’re fulfilling that role.

When I’ve completed my work, I’ll be sure to make it available. In the meantime, I’ve heard enough about Katrina to make me sick—I think all of us have. The latest information you can add to your Repertoire of Infuriating Things is this: Ken Burris, a “director of operations” for FEMA, basically tells critics to STFU, there are people suffering LOLZ!!!1!

Hurricane Katrina will become the yardstick by which all other disasters are measured. There is much that is still unknown about what is still to come. We are still fully engaged in disaster response at this critical time. There will be plenty of time for analysis in the future, and we will be our own toughest critics when that day arrives. But today is not the day. Today our focus is on getting the rest of the residents of New Orleans out safely, delivering them into safe, secure, sanitary shelter and helping them begin their lives again.

It's no secret that FEMA is taking much of the criticism. But we can take the heat, because we know our purpose — helping victims — is noble. Responses are never perfect because responses are carried off by imperfect people, and we know there are lessons to be learned.

You sanctimonious son of a bitch—“There will be plenty of time for analysis in the future”?  “Today our focus is on getting the rest of the residents of New Orleans out safely”?  Well, you prick, had you and your supervisors—had you and everyone above you in this bureaucratic mess—given an ounce of credence to the idea that “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” this mess would be nowhere near the size it is today.  This mess would not have claimed so many lives.  And for those of you who are soulless, nihilistic bastards: This mess would not have claimed so much from our pocketbooks.

But we are where we are.  No, we can’t call this water under the bridge just yet (s’cuse the pun), but we can make sure that it never happens again.  Never.  I don’t care if you have to fire every bastard working in the Department of Homeland Security—this will not happen again.

For now, let’s take things one step at a time.  And our first priority will be the people.  Let’s get some search-and-rescue- and HAZMAT-certified paramedics.  Yeah!  That’ll be good.  Send those guys in.

Next, let’s get the people some material aid—y’know, physical stuff.

And, gee, I don’t know, hide all the sad stuff?

Roberts' Stand-Up Routine

2005-09-08T08:12:00.000-04:00

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, offers this alternative view; into Roberts’ supposed anti-women in the workplace attitude:

In the now-much-talked-about 1985 memo written to Linda Chavez (then Reagan White House director of public liaison), John Roberts (now Supreme Court chief justice nominee) questioned how "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

The reaction from the Left has been telling — and characteristic.

For starters, Chavez is a mom. Disparaging mothers in any way to her would have been dumb. The biting young Roberts, instead, it would seem., was making an anti-lawyer joke. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there was an underlying assumption there too: Homemakers play a deeply crucial role in society.

If such is the case, then Mr. Roberts has easily just surpassed Republican Senator of Arizona Jon Kyl as my favorite political figure of the moment. Mr. Kyl, by the way, has been up to all sorts of nonsense—like saying that that NOLA flood victims maybe should have to fend for themselves, financially.

Kyl: It's a great question, Barry. You need to explore it. Because the question is if people know year after year after year a natural disaster occurs in a particular place and people continue to build there and want to live there, should they bear the responsibility of buying insurance or should everyone else bear the responsibility? Good question. I think you ought to ask your audience.

Tell Kyl what a prick you think he is here: http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Losing Whose Civil Liberties--And To What End?

2005-08-27T03:32:00.000-04:00

First paragraph:

Three out of four Brits would happily hand over their civil liberties in exchange for better security against terrorist attacks, according figures from pollsters ICM.

Wow! I've been drawn in on that hook--a headline like "Brits happy to ditch civil liberties"?! That's incredible! 75% of the British would "happily" hand over their civil liberties. Simply incredible.

Second paragraph:

It is interesting to note that this is the same general public that rails against any attempts to make them drive more slowly, or with more care. This is in spite of the fact that in 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents, and a further 2,550 people died in other road accidents.

Oh? That so? Well, driving isn't a liberty, per se, it's a goddamn right--right?

Now, now, liberal folks, don't get your flower-child panties (if you hippies even wear any!) in a twist over the supposed fascism of the British. Remind yourself that polls are not measures of an entire population--they are estimates based on the results of a small portion.

BUT, one should also remember, it's not hard for someone who is in the majority demographics of any given population to offer up their civil liberties for the sake of security. Who do you think would be affected if England started violating the civil liberties of its residents? Probably not your average white fellers--and white people make up 90.9% of the population. No, it's people like this poor bastard who are affected. (And I very strongly recommend reading his entire account; it's compelling, to say the very least.)

Last note: I've yet to see some hard evidence that the violation of civil liberties in any way strengthens national security. Just a thought.

Open Letter

2005-08-27T02:02:00.000-04:00

Dear anyone who's ever told me I spend too much time either reading or writing for blogs: You can suck my proverbial, ah, member. Love, Jamie.

Knee-Slappin' Good

2005-08-20T21:10:00.000-04:00

I wanted to write about this article, but found an already-hilarious commentary on it here, at Davenetics, under the heading "Kung Pau Chicken with Shock and Awe Sauce".

Also, Cindy Sheehan now knows exactly why her son died in Iraq. (Via.) Straight from Westboro Baptist Church: [beware the PDF!]

Dear Mrs. Sheehan,

Asking Bush a question like that ["Why did my son die in Iraq?"] is like asking an orangutan to teach table manners. Bush is a simplistic, irreversibly Hell-bound hypocrite without hope and without God in this world. He's clueless.

[snip]

Why did your son die in Iraq? Because God Almighty killed him and cast him into Hell -- where you will one day join him and his soldier pals, all cursing each other bitterly as you are tormented with fire and brimstone.

Thank you, "Reverend" Phelps, for clearing that up.

As always, Google News is a grand source of entertainment. Does www.365gay.com keep stock photos of every male on the planet, just in case they turn out to be a homosexual?

And, last but certainly not least, something that's more inspiring than humorous: Jack Cafferty, bless 'im, was live--live!--on CNN, when he said some words I've been waiting to hear for a long, long time. (The transcript, which I've only modified slightly for reprinting below, can be found here.)

BLITZER: Jack Cafferty's been watching all of this [BTK sentencing footage] together with us. He's joining us now from New York. Jack?

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: How you doing? It's like the world's gone mad, Wolf. I mean, what a charade. The BTK killer actually shed a tear or two during this 'sentencing' hearing, this circus today. That was on the outside. He had to be laughing hysterically on the inside. We, the news media and the criminal justice system played right into his hands. A two-day sentencing hearing that was televised live around the world after he'd already confessed.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Publicity is this monster's gasoline. It's what kept him going during the years he was playing cat and mouse with the cops and murdering innocent people. He loved being the BTK killer. He loved reading about himself in the newspapers, watching the television stories on the local news in Kansas, on the nights before he got caught.

Doesn't anybody get this? This thing should have been sentenced in a closed courtroom in 30 seconds and thrown into a hole to rot. I'm a little embarrassed to be a part of the media on a day like this.

The question is, how should Dennis Rader have to spend his days? If I was a betting man, and I've been known to be one on occasion, my guess is he'd better get busy writing that book, because I'll bet you in six months he's no longer with us. I'll be the lads over there at El Dorado take good care of him and it won't take them long.

BLITZER: Would you be surprised, once we take a look and see how many viewers were watching, not only CNN, but the other cable networks, Court TV, all the networks that were taking this live -- would you be surprised, Jack, tomorrow, if you discover that, you know what, a lot more people were watching this than would have been watching CNN and the other news networks had we been doing just the normal course of the day's news?

CAFFERTY: That's got nothing to do with anything, Wolf, as far as I'm concerned. This is a ghoulish exercise on the part of the news media. And if ratings are the reason, then I'll say it again, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. There was no reason to give this guy a platform to talk to everybody in the country about thanking the cops and all this garbage that he spewed.

I watched it for two hours. It's nonsense. It doesn't belong on television. Nobody needs to watch this stuff. All it does is inspire other nut cases out there that maybe they can get themselves famous by doing this kind of -- it's terrible and I don't care how many people were watching.

BLITZER: Now, I'm not suggesting it was because of the ratings. I'm suggesting there's a lot of interest around the country in this case and that viewers are interested. And remember, we didn't only put Dennis Rader on the air and air what he had to say. The victims' families, we allowed all of them to explain their side of the story -- heart-wrenching stories that we all heard, as well. Should we have not put them on the air either?

CAFFERTY: I don't think any of it should have been put on the air. The guy confessed to the murders. Sentence him in a close courtroom and lock him in jail. Why give him a platform?

I'll say it again: we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. I just think it was absolutely the wrong decision to put this person on live TV and allow him to once again abuse the public and enjoy the spotlight. That's what these clowns get off on. This is -- that's their deal. That's why he invented this BTK nonsense. That's why he was, you know, playing games with the cops, so he could read about himself in the paper. We're playing right into his hands. Does anybody get that?

BLITZER: All right. Well, I think you make an excellent point and we'll hear what the viewers have to say. You'll be getting their e-mail in the course of the next several minutes. And we're anxious to hear what they have to say, as well. I suspect, Jack, you have a lot of people who are going to agree with you.

CAFFERTY: Oh, it probably might be one or two, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm sure there's a lot of people. Jack Cafferty, the "Cafferty File."

We're going to continue our coverage of this and all the day's other news. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

If you have a soul, please email Mr. Cafferty at caffertyfile@cnn.com. Let him know how much you appreciate and agree with what he said.

On Stupidity and Political (In)Correctness

2005-08-18T18:11:00.000-04:00

I believe, as I'm sure many do, that there is a general, collective, dumbing-down of society occuring. MTV is not helping, no matter how many "Power of One" commercials they run. Take, for example, the following headline, pulled directly from Google News.

"Xpensive"?! How witty! How clever! Why, MTV, how do you do it?!

Speaking of dumbing-down, it seems that people are letting political correctness get in the way of what's important: in the following case, education.

A California teacher was required, as part of a "multiculturalism" class, to rate his "cultural responsiveness" in the classroom. First of all, what kind of academic, legalistic talk is THAT? How, exactly, is a course in "multiculturalism" run? (Should there even be courses in "multiculturalism"?)

Personally, I think it sounds like, excuse my French, a load of merde de cheval. That's horseshit for all you non-French speakers. Not that horseshit isn't the favorite fertilizer of your friendly neighborhood farmer, but I've no green-thumb and therefore no use for the stuff. In fact, I'd argue that most people have no use for it. I'd even go so far as to argue that most people are opposed to the presence of horseshit. Except for the Amish, I guess. No offense meant for the Amish. I love 'em. I'm a Pennsylvania resident. I have to. It's like a prerequisite. I mean, would you move to central Africa if you hated black people? Would you move to Latin America if you hated Latinos? You see my point.

Aww. I'm sorry. Was that not very politically correct of me? Okay. Deal with it. There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being an outright bigot. A very noticeable difference. So maybe you prefer the term "African" or "African-American" or "person of color" to the blunt term "black". Maybe you prefer the term "hispanic" or "of Spanish descent" to "Latino". (And I won't be addressing my use of the term "Amish", because none of them should be reading this anyway.) Maybe you've got a problem with my terminology, but c'mon now. I could say and do worse. I have no inclination to, but it's a possibility.

The biggest problem I see with political correctness nowadays is when a bunch of white people sit around trying to decide how to refer to and deal with non-white people. Or people of a minority religious or cultural group. I mean, seriously--I'm shocked at the number of people who are uncomfortable asking a homosexual male, "How's your boyfriend?" They hem and they haw and they ask covert questions like, "How's life? How are things? How's your family?" Newsflash! You're probably better off asking about a homosexual's significant other than about their family.

Well, now that I've gotten severely off-topic, let's go back to that "multiculturalism" survey, shall we?

Question number one: What groups are represented in text, discussion, and bulletin board displays? Are certain groups invisible? Were I writing this survey, I'd avoid pussyfooting it and come out with something like, "Do you breeze over any information regarding people who aren't the same color, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera, as yourself?" Because, really, that would give me a lot more information than asking if "certain groups" are "invisible". "Why, yes, as a matter of fact, my classroom plays host to several students who are semi-transparent, including one who is an exchange student from the Hungry Ghost Realm!"

Question number two: Are roles of minorities and women presented in a separate manner from other content-isolated or treated as a distinct topic? "Yes. The females in my classroom are positioned at the back of the class, and the minorities sit to the left. See? Isolated. I treat them differently, because they are different groups, and I respect that."

Question number three: Are minorities and women treated in a positive, diversified manner or stereotyped into traditional or rigid roles? ...

I can't go on. I would have made such an ass of myself had I been filling that out. Go read how the teacher actually filled that out and ponder the idiocy that the current public education system fosters.

2005-08-15T22:14:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

I am a Dopey Kid. ;__;

2005-08-14T21:58:00.000-04:00

From: writingrights@gmail.com
To: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject:"dopey kids" watch Comedy Central?

Hi Mr. O'Reilly (or whoever reads your email...):

Let me just say that I watch your show all the time--nearly every day.

Let me also say that your show makes me laugh and want to scream at the same time. I laugh at your ridiculous statements, and want to scream and tear out my hair at the thought that, wow, there are actually people that listen to you and agree with you!!

Now I have heard you dissing--to say the least--Comedy Central. You were probably thinking of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart when you made your statement. "You see what I'm talking about? Now, we live in this fog world, where agendas are defined by the Comedy Central network. And Matt was right: you get a bunch of dopey kids, watchin' these shows [indescribable noise] O'Reilly [more noise]." In case you've forgotten your own statement, you can listen to the clip here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/09.html#a4381

I am a Comedy Central fan, and a Jon Stewart fan, thank you very much, and I watch his show even more often than yours. At least Jon Stewart can back up his opinions with facts--you know, evidence? As in good reasons for his statements?

I'm sixteen--that certainly makes me a "kid". But because I watch Comedy Central--do you think I fit into the category of "dopey", Mr. O'Reilly? I would be offended, probably, if anyone else were to call me a "dopey kid". But you? I don't even take you seriously at this point. I just think that you should know that you're doing yourself no good (nor are you helping your sales of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids) by referring to kids that enjoy Comedy Central as "dopey". Also, you'd do well to learn to speak English. I don't think I've ever heard one of my peers--dopey or not--make the odd noise you did.

You're a pundit of the worst kind, sir.

--
Jamie Niedecker

http://www.officeoftheindependentblogger.com
http://squishyleft.blogspot.com

2005-07-18T07:39:00.000-04:00

Interview of Arlen Specter by Fox News's Brit Hume in which Specter says nothing shocking, or even anything very interesting. There's one short exchange that's decent:

HUME: Let me ask you about another matter. You've mentioned balance on the court. Justice O'Connor was viewed as a moderate, centrist justice.

Do you think the president is under any obligation by this or any other nomination to preserve the existing balance on the court?

SPECTER: I think that's a very weighty factor for him to consider.

HUME: Why?

SPECTER: Because the Supreme Court decides all of the cutting- edge questions.

I think that the way our government has evolved, the Supreme Court has taken too much power. They have declared too many acts of Congress unconstitutional because, as the court says, Congress hasn't thought it through. Well, who is the court, really, in our system of government to say that they can think it through but the Congress can't think it through? So that judicial restraint is very important.

But the president is in his second term. Many people contributed to his election. But now I think he stands above the fray, and he stands in a position where he has to put a person on not where the president would be beholden to any group, no matter how much they contributed to his election, but something in the national interest.

And when you have these very delicate questions, it's helpful to the country to have somebody who is a swing vote, which maintains the balance.

HUME: Well, but, Senator, you just said that you thought the court had gone too far. She was often a swing vote in favor of what a lot of critics have called judicial activism and decisions stemming from that. It sounded as if you were making an argument for a judicial restraint, judicial conservative?

SPECTER: Well, I do make that argument, especially when it comes to acts of Congress.

But where you have cases like the right to die and whether you're going to execute 17-year-olds, what you're going to do with medical marijuana, it is important to have somebody who is not ideologically bound in one camp or the other on one extreme or the other.

And I think that to achieve what the president wants -- and that is a dignified proceeding and somebody who will add luster to the court -- that he's going to try to find somebody to maintain that kind of balance.

Apparently Rove can't keep his mouth shut--there's been another leak, this time of the Democrats' suggestions for O'Connor's replacement: Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Edward C. Prado, and Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.

The Independent Blogger, Reid, and moi.

2005-07-17T09:52:00.000-04:00

Good stuff regarding public broadcasting over at Office Of The Independent Blogger.

Senator reid tells good stories, even if you don't agree with his politics:

Once, in high school, Reid and a friend were brawling with a group of airmen who'd come to Searchlight to partake of the town's whorehouses. One man hit Reid so hard it felt like he couldn't breathe. Broke a few ribs. Reid lived with the injury, which is how these stories usually go.

"See that knuckle?" Reid says, indicating a flattened area on the back of his right hand. That was from eighth grade, Searchlight Elementary. The teacher's son was in the class, and Reid couldn't stand him. "So once during class I just beat the crap out of him, right in the classroom."

Was the kid hurt?

"Hell, yes, he was hurt," Reid says.

Reid was sent home. His mother, Inez, thought he had broken his hand, but it went untreated -- the closest hospital was 40 miles away, and the Reids couldn't afford doctors anyway. Reid's father, Harry Sr., told the future senator to keep his fist clenched the next time.

Got into an interesting discussion on Friday about political parties and "lever-pullers": people who will vote always and only for their own political party. Never for any other candidate. Now, in the course of this discussion, a roomful of people all stated, unequivocally, "I don't like either Democrats or Republicans." And I was asked if I'm an independent. "You don't seem to agree with lots of Republican stuff... But you don't agree with a lot of Democrats, either."

Partisanship leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. The back-and-forth of Democrats and Republicans means that one politician gets a lot done, and the next spends all of their time undoing it, only to have what little he does get done undone by the next person. But, I readily admit, I side far more strongly with the Democrat platform than the Republican. That said, ideally, I would like to be registered independent. Blasphemous, I know. But I couldn't stand the thought of not being able to vote in Democratic primaries. My dad claims that non-Dems can vote in Democratic primaries in certain areas (same for Republicans), but I'm not sure about that. I'll look into when I'm closer to voting age!

Aww. Mah widdle WINO.

2005-07-14T08:21:00.000-04:00

...Er, RINO.

Yes, Arlen Specter is looking hungrily at the hand that feeds him. Talking the big smack, yo. Let's see... He pokes at Nixon ("President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1970; and if we had financed that war as well as we've financed our other wars, I think they could have prevented my Hodgkin's lymphoma."), says he's "not reluctant" to override a Presidential veto on stem cell research, and has a really awkward quote about passion. I'm not sure--was it supposed to be inspiring? "I'm more than passionate... It's life and death. Passion is when you care a great deal about something. Life and death is when you care everything about something."

Other recent developments in Specter's fight for stem cell research: a Doctor Hurlbut of Stanford wants to, uh, make broken embryos. "Non-embryos", he calls them.

[Senator Tom] Harkin [D-Iowa] said he was suspicious of the recent interest in alternative stem cell research methods. "I am intrigued by these methods," he said. "But we need to be clear about one thing as we listen to today's testimony. There's only one reason why these methods have suddenly become so popular at the White House: They want to use them to defeat HR 810."

Specter's Strange Suggestion

2005-07-12T10:07:00.000-04:00

My (better-liked) Senator, Arlen Specter, thinks that it "would be very tempting if the president said to Justice O'Connor, 'You could help the country now.'" Rehnquist hasn't resigned (yet?). Hatch thinks Rehnquist is leaving; Specter thinks he'll stay on as long as possible. And Specter, Leahy, and Durbin are aware of some (secret?) meeting between O'Connor and two Senators that said she should be Chief Justice--and "she was flattered"? Who are these two?

Many social conservatives have denounced Justice O'Connor's votes on abortion, sodomy laws and public displays of religion. Hailing her resignation as a long-awaited chance to turn the court to the right, they have reminded Mr. Bush of his repeated praise for the court's conservative anchor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Instead, Mr. Specter, who said he was not making a recommendation to the president, echoed a chorus of Democrats who have lauded Justice O'Connor since her retirement. Speaking on the same program, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, readily assented. "I think it would be a very doable thing," he responded to the idea of enticing Justice O'Connor out of retirement to become the new chief.

Also, good post regarding North Korea (and a bit more about that here) over at Office Of The Independent Blogger.

2005-07-11T05:34:00.000-04:00

There was quite the good post about China and Russia over at Office of the Independent Blogger last week. Highly recommended.

Quirky little Venezuelan columnist Mary MacElveen has at article at VHeadline.com entitled "We must continue to ask the tough questions and more importantly demand them". She uses some strong, and very amusing, language in describing President Bush:

Over the weekend, I have been trying to come up with a term to describe how I view this presidency since George W. Bush took power and the only term that I could come up with is hemorrhagic.

To me since he seized power and became the president of the United States of America the world came down with Ebola.

Since he took office in 2001, I would have to say that the entire world is bleeding out. But what I find to be maddening is that no one is calling the world wide C.D.C. to isolate this very virus and eradicate it.

The text formatting on that site alone makes the article worth reading.

Something else worth noting is Gore's new campaign for the revolution of television. (Link's to Salon; watch an ad for a free site pass.) Interesting. In my opinion, video logging isn't going to get popular so long as there's such a chasm between people with 'good' computers and people with 'bad' computers. TV video log viewing would eliminate that, as television sets are all fairly standard now.

I'd like to see a factor analysis of the Factor...

2005-07-10T17:02:00.000-04:00

Honestly, how seriously do people take Bill O'Reilly? I mean, I know there are your right-wing wackos out there, writing to Bill at least once a week and getting their free "No Spin Zone" embroidered jackets--but does anyone with any credibility listen to this trash?

Bill O'Reilly says, via my unofficial transcription:

The Talking Points Memo this evening is about sanitizing terror failing to deal realistically with a deadly enemy.

This morning I was having breakfast in Killarney, Ireland, when the terror attack news broke. My first thought was al-Qaeda trying to disrupt the G8 summit in Scotland. My second thought was now maybe Europe will wise UP! The terrorists are the evildoers, not the USA. That is probably wishful thinking: generally speaking, the European media is viciously anti-American when it comes to the war on terror.

The garbage these people are throwing out to a largely clueless public is astounding. Failed leaders like Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germany also pound home the anti-American theme to divert attention away from their own disastrous administrations.

But now the terrorist have struck again: 9/11, Madrid, today London. If all the anti-US bitterness were directed into anti-terror bitterness, the world might defeat these savages. We all know which major countries allow terrorists to operate: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent, Pakistan and Indonesia. Why isn't the European press condemning those countries? Why doesn't Europe admit Saddam's regime helped terrorists all day long? Why won't the world help the struggling democracy in Iraq? These are powerful questions and this London terror attack should get those questions on the front burner where they belong, but don't expect the elite American media to ask them.

...you get the picture.

Let me just say as an aside that I hate the way O'Reilly pronounces "terror". He pronounces it "terra". Eww. Are you too much of a gangsta to pronounce the last R?

Intelligence Not Abundant in the Debate for 'Intelligent Design'

2005-06-27T07:52:00.000-04:00

First of all, I'd like to thank whoever emailed me from "hey_j_me@squishyleftism.com" (a fake email address, for those of you who couldn't tell) for bringing this article to my attention. Sometimes I get so focused on the big picture and the "important" news that I forget to look for news around my own hometown. Thanks.

June 20th was apparently a contentious day in the Pennsylvania State House.

Excerpt: HARRISBURG -- The national debate over "intelligent design" and whether it ought to be taught in public schools played out in the Capitol yesterday during a hearing on a House bill that would allow schools to introduce to their students the competing theory to evolutionary Darwinism.

Intelligent design's supporters say life is so complex that it likely is the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.

The proposed law says that during "any public school instruction concerning the theory commonly known as evolution, a school board may include, as a portion of such instruction, the theory of intelligent design."

And therein, in my opinion, lies the problem: during any public school instruction concerning the theory commonly known as evolution, a school board may include, as a portion of such instruction, the theory of intelligent design. The law specifically cites "the theory of intelligent design"; it's a no-no on two counts: One, the word theory is being used according two very different definitions, and two, the constitutionality of specifying that intelligent design is okay to teach alongside evolution, but not writing a general, all-inclusive sort of clause to draw in any other creation theories out there.

More on the definition of "theory": used in the scientific sense, theory is defined by Encarta as "a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena". One can see, quite clearly, how the facts, propositions, and principles set by Darwin and other evolutionary, natural selection, and descent-with-modification theorists can be synthesized into these postulations. What isn't so clear is what the facts, propositions, and principles are in regards to intelligent design. It seems that proponents of intelligent design are taking their language out of the realm of scientific vocabulary and into the realm of common usage--and let me tell you, that's a very scary place to be in a scientific debate.

Bill Toland writes elsewhere about intelligent design:

Intelligent design attempts to use scientific evidence, rather than the Bible, to prove that living organisms are far too complex to have evolved mindlessly over billions of years. Its proponents say neither adaptive Darwinism, known as "natural selection," nor macro-evolutionary biology can explain how eyeballs developed or how the first organism was assembled. At the subcellular level, they say, there is an "irreducible complexity" -- condensed to its tiniest elements, life eventually reaches a point at which it can't be reduced, because the removal of any part kills it.

For those reasons and others, the world must have an intelligent designer, guiding the process not only at the beginning but along the way, with specific goals in mind.

I'm sorry? I don't see the connection. If we don't understand how something works, then it must be the work of a supernatural being? Well, I don't understand economics in the least--but does that mean that God's got his hand in every monetary transaction? Oh, I apologize: Franklin & Marshall College philosophy professor Michael Murray tells us that intelligent design "can't tell you whether God, man or the Martians did it."

EduLiteTM: Supporting The Backbone Of America

2005-05-28T11:55:00.000-04:00

(My other idea for a post title was "Educating America (maybe we can do it cheaper!)" But EduLite^TM is better, methinks. How much does a catchy title affect a person's blog reading, I wonder?)

Bigger isn't always better, I guess. (login: root; password: password)

Let me summarize it for those of you who are too good to click links: "[California] Lawmakers voted Thursday to ban school districts from purchasing textbooks longer than 200 pages."

Personally, I think this is a goofy thing to even consider. Less pages, you say? Were I a publisher, I'd have to consider making the books taller and wider. I'd lessen the margins and use smaller typefaces. I'd see how much of the appendix could be amputated, and I'd eliminate or downsize large graphics (though to be fair, eliminating glossy photos of kids reading your textbook, or raising their hand during class--you know, the generally unhelpful pictures--eliminating those sorts of images would not be such a bad idea, but please oh please--let us keep our scientific diagrams and mathematical graphs!). I'd do everything physically possible to print the same material in less space. (Goldberg, the Los Angeles Democrat who chairs the Assembly Education Committee and supports the measure, notes that publishers have been 'uncooperative'.)

But, more importantly: will this ultimately increase or decrease school spending on textbooks? (It's all about the Benjamins, baby.) Maybe supporters of the law feel that it will decrease the amount of money that schools will spend (waste?) on materials (though Goldberg says that the 'thrust' of the bill 'is learning, not economics'; in fact, the "fiscal effect" is "None, according to Legislative Counsel", says the official bill analysis). I can see how the thought of buying a (literally) smaller book would make you think that you're going to spend less money, but bear in mind that if a book is cut off at 200 pages, you're very likely going to have to supplement that text with either another book (or several), internet access, or other adjuncts. (The bill actually encourages this.)

Excerpt, from the bill analysis: Textbooks are too laden with print supplemental materials, and too uninteresting in style. In the 21st century, the information age, information changes more rapidly than books can be printed. Educated, informed citizens of the 21st century will have to rely on technology and media for information. Textbooks should provide an overview of the critical questions and issues of a subject, and then become a roadmap to guide students to other means and sources of information. Students need to begin learning to use these means and sources in school so they can consider the advantages and hazards of information acquired from these sources and use them wisely.

(As an aside among my many asides, I love that this bill will address the terrible problem of textbooks that are "too uninteresting in style". Thank you, O Great Legislators, for taking into consideration the Methylphenidate Kids of America^TM!)

Now apply this rule to higher education--college professors not allowed to assign textbooks longer than 200 pages? How d'you think that would affect a college student's textbook spending? I have a feeling that their spending would decrease--that is, until a professor decided that 200 pages simply could not cover their entire course.

And, as a sort of reading-between-the-lines consideration (i.e., another aside!), notice that the law is to regulate ("ban") the specific actions of school districts--not to regulate the actions of textbook publishers. I see two explanations for that:

1) If the law controlled publishers within the state, districts could go to an out-of-state publisher. That could hurt the state's economy. Ouch. (Remember kiddies, Jesus says that the love of money is the root of all evil.)

2) When people hear that the Government is regulating gay marrige, or abortion, or whatever--something on an individual basis--people get pissed, right? But only the people who the regulation works against. When the Government tries to control business--well, that's a can of worms that just shouldn't be opened, I think. (Not that I think people should be canning worms anyway, weirdos!) People hear of business regulations and flags go up, warning sirens go off. Liberals say that the Government is siding with big business; Conservatives say that the Government is eliminating personal responsibility, etc. etc. Best to just avoid all that nonsense, hmm?

A final thought on the textbook limitations: It's frustrating to hear that instead of using the advent of new technologies to the benefit of education, the "changing world" situation is being used to argue dumbing-down education and empower standardizing testing.

Excerpt: California schools are teaching kids with the same kinds of massive books that were used generations ago, though the world has changed significantly, Goldberg said. ...

The workplace increasingly demands ... expertise in using the Internet to research and solve problems, according to Goldberg.

"Our textbooks are not going to be able to meet that standard," said Goldberg, a former Compton high school teacher. "I think it's time for us to begin to approach the problem in a different way."

(The basis of this rant was nicked from The Education Wonks. ¡Muchos gracias!)

Otherwise relating to education: some kids thought it was funny to print in their high school yearbook's "Most Likely To" list most likely to assassinate President Bush. Oops. The Education Department is going to start enforcing "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day" (because "Constitution and Citizenship Day", or maybe just "Citizenship Day", would have rolled off the tongue far too easily for Nina Shokraii Rees, the official developer of the plan, who has the job title "Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement". Seriously--scroll down the bottom of the page and see for yourself!) And man, am I pissed that this was not the case when I was an elementary school spelling prodigy!

"No Shit!" News

2005-05-25T08:53:00.000-04:00

The Guardian tells us that, yes, abused kids do worse in school. Also, women will not further their cause--whatever it is--by being bitchy. (I really enjoyed that article; I'm going to keep my eye out for more by this Dorothy King.) (And here's more commentary on women in journalism and Susan Estrich.) Soccer Moms don't act in the best interests of all students. (My favorite part of that article: "Pre-election jitters have supplanted rational thinking." Isn't that always the case!) The Finns and the Asians are winning the education race--oh, yeah, and by the way, rich kids do better. America is in its second civil war, based around religion.

And some more interesting tidbits...

Kids that suck dick or lick pussy are less likely to get preggers. That's actually quite encouraging. Except that now girls will be swallowing all of our Good Christian Soldiers^TM!

Who has seen this new Star Wars flick? The biggest thing I'm hearing is that it's "too political". ..."there are more important things in life than Star Wars."

"I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference."

2005-05-14T20:01:00.000-04:00

...says the Ob-Gyn.

Turns out that a Bush policy advisor was sexually abusing his wife. Raping her. Sodomizing her.

Excerpt: Linda Davis (née Carruth) first met David Hager on the campus of Asbury College in 1967. "On the very first date he sat me down and told me he was going to marry me," Davis remembers. "I was so overwhelmed by this aggressive approach of 'I see you and I want you' that I was completely seduced by it."

...

Sex was always a source of conflict in the marriage. Though it wasn't emotionally satisfying for her, Davis says she soon learned that sex could "buy" peace with Hager after a long day of arguing, or insure his forgiveness after she spent too much money. "Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said. Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'"

By the 1980s, according to Davis, Hager was pressuring her to let him videotape and photograph them having sex. She consented, and eventually she even let Hager pay her for sex that she wouldn't have otherwise engaged in--for example, $2,000 for oral sex, "though that didn't happen very often because I hated doing it so much. So though it was more painful, I would let him sodomize me, and he would leave a check on the dresser," Davis admitted to me with some embarrassment. This exchange took place almost weekly for several years.

Please, feel free to read all about "Dr. Hager's Family Values" in The Nation.

Also from the piece, and highly appreciated:

Excerpt: (Lest inappropriate analogies be drawn between the Hager accusations and the politics of personal destruction that nearly brought down the presidency of Bill Clinton, it ought to be remembered that President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky was never alleged to be criminal and did not affect his ability to fulfill his obligations to the nation. This, of course, did not stop the religious right from calling for his head. "The topic of private vs. public behavior has emerged as perhaps the central moral issue raised by Bill Clinton's 'improper relationship,'" wrote evangelist and Hager ally Franklin Graham at the time. "But the God of the Bible says that what one does in private does matter. There needs to be no clash between personal conduct and public appearance.")

An array of news.

2005-05-09T18:30:00.000-04:00

First of all--and I say this to justify it to myself--I do this entirely for my own amusement. I'm not at all qualified to give commentary of any sort.

Phew! Now that that's over with...

Frank Rich has a great piece up this week about how shoddy the media is. I admit it: I <3 Frank Rich.

Excerpt: AS we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Drudge Report and the second anniversary of the Jayson Blair scandal, American journalists are in a race with the runaway bride for public enemy No. 1. Newspaper circulation is on the skids, the big three network anchor thrones are as precarious as King Lear's, bloggers are on the rampage, and the government is embracing fake reporters and threatening to jail real ones. A Pew Research Center poll shows that Americans now trust the press less than every other major institution, from government to medicine to banks. We can only be grateful that the matchups didn't include pornographers or Major League Baseball.

Also a favorite New York Times columnist of mine: Paul Krugman, who indignantly penned for this week "The Final Insult". It's a fairly short bit about the most recent tactic of the Bush Administration in the fight against--yes, they are fighting against--Social Security.

The latest bit of wisdom from the Religious Right: Tom DeLay says on behalf of the Legislative Branch, "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse."

Yes, we all know Senator Reid is a fighter (as well as someone who knows when to throw the dogs a bone). But does he have to be so mean about it? Heh, I kid! I've certainly said much worse.

See you Saturday.

"C'mon, kids, let's all hop in the minivan and go get some pizza!"

2005-05-09T08:43:00.000-04:00

Apparently women get smarter after they're pregnant. (Men get smarter after they knock someone up.) Too bad they use those brains for tallying soccer scores.*

Excerpt: What if parenting really isn't a zero-sum, children-take-all game? What if raising children is actually mentally enriching for mothers - and fathers?

This is, in fact, what some leading brain scientists, like Michael Merzenich at the University of California, San Francisco, now believe. Becoming a parent, they say, can power up the mind with uniquely motivated learning. Having a baby is "a revolution for the brain," Dr. Merzenich says.

*Credit for the crack about soccer scores goes to Trevor. Thanks, man.

Prophylactic, Shmophylactic.

2005-05-01T03:51:00.000-04:00

Kids are performing oral sex on each other, and they might not be using protection. Surprise, surprise.* In order to counter this absolutely horrible trend, Bush has decided that the best thing to do is to continue supporting the abstinence-only education, whether or not they are actually acheiving anything. How ridiculous. I appreciate the idea that promoting "safe sex" waters down the message of abstinence. I understand what they're saying. But I believe that a person who wants to have sex will have sex--whether or not they are told that abstinence is the best way to go. Which is why I'm glad that there are going to be more contraceptives--easier and female-oriented--available.

*On a side note, I was pretty annoyed at the title and subtitle of the article. First of all, the title ("Teens say oral sex not really sex") states something that is not corroborated by any evidence or even logical extrapolation of evidence in the actual content of the article. What the article does say about teens' comparisons of oral sex and intercourse is that oral sex is "more acceptable for their age group", which in no way indicates that these (on average) 14 1/2-year-olds feel that oral sex is "not really sex".

As for the subtitle ("Report: Practice [of oral sex] seen as less risky than intercourse")... Well, that subtitle seems to hint at the teenagers who believe that oral is less risky than intercourse are incorrect in their assumptions. But if you'll direct your attention to the last two sentences in the article, please--I'll even copy and paste them here for you to read (emphasis mine):

Excerpt: [Alan Guttmacher Institute researcher David] Landry said the California survey is encouraging because it shows teenagers know that oral sex carries some health risk.

“Most adolescents also correctly recognized that oral sex is
less risky than sexual intercourse,” Landry said.

To which I say: Oh, really, Mr. Landry? Teenagers know that they can get diseases from blowing their boyfriends and eating their girlfriends? Imagine that. I would never have guessed were I just skimming the headlines! You should really talk to MSNBC's editors about that. While you're at it, suggest that the reason for the increased amount of oral might have something to do with the fact that "Sexploration" is one of MSNBC's subsections in Health. Actually, that probably has nothing to do with more kids giving each other oral. But if it's kids and oral they're worried about--well, they're not exactly walking their talk, now are they?

<3 Bill Maher <3

2005-04-29T19:44:00.000-04:00

Makes me wish I still got HBO. Anyway, Bill Maher's a funneh funneh guy. Check out his little bit about redefining marriage.

Now read his rant from Earth Day.

Excerpt: Because it's Earth Day, I get to ask this question: How come we have cars with global positioning systems, satellite radio and voice-activated web access, and we still power them with the black goop you have to suck out of the ground? Well, I hate to tell you this, folks, but gas doesn't cost too much; it costs too little. Ooh, I know, I know. I know you hear about gas prices over two dollars a gallon and it makes you nearly choke on your four-dollar latte.
We bitch about gas, but adjusted for inflation, it's the same price it was back when the Pope was a Nazi. And that's not the fault of ExxonMobil, either. That's like Kirstie Alley saying her problem is that Arabs control all the fudge. Anyone who's been to Europe knows that the price of gas over there is just a picture of an arm and a leg. And that's because they tax it heavily and we don't. How come we Americans accepted that you could do that to cigarettes - overtax them because they were bad - but burning oil into the atmosphere is okay? You can't smoke in a bar, but you can drive through a restaurant?

A little smoke from a cigar is intolerable, but a lot from a Hummer is no problem? Of course, the Hummer is made by General Motors, the owner of other gas-guzzling Fuck-You-mobiles - like the Escalade and the Suburban. And they just lost a billion dollars in one quarter. Because it suddenly got a lot less sexy to drive one of these fake macho vehicles now that it costs a hundred bucks to fill it up. Yeah, nobody's dick is that small.

Plus, does anybody remember the '70s? GM did this before. They got filthy rich selling giant cars that suddenly people didn't want because gas went up. Cut to the Japanese gloating, as they are again. Because they own the patent for the hybrid car. GM could have had a piece of it, but they said it didn't make economic sense. Hey, you just lost a billion dollars in three months. You don't have any economic sense.

So, here on Earth Day, let me remind everyone of this: the most vulnerable point of the earth is the atmosphere, which acts like a giant mirror, absorbing 95% of the sun's energy. Now, when I heard that, I said, "Honey, that sounds important!" And I'm not even married. If we don't protect the atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation will fry us like ants under a magnifying glass. I know these kind of facts aren't in the Bible- -but maybe - but maybe we should think about them. After all, it could affect Brad and Jen!

It's not a real threat, like an activist judge. But it's kind of important. Because in the last half century, this precious atmosphere of ours has thinned by 40%. And this worries me, because in the exact same time frame, my hair has thinned by 40%. [insert photos of younger Bill Maher] It worked out for me, but the earth may not be so lucky.

And then you can read this little thingeh right here.

Excerpt: Ah, summer: The days are longer, temperatures are higher and people willingly pay more for watered-down coffee. Yes, iced-coffee season is upon us, which means that scam artists are gearing up to charge you more for less. But this year, you're going to fight back, aren't you? You're not going to let them charge you $3 for an iced coffee when they charge $2 for the same sized regular coffee, are you?

Not anymore. Not if you read what I consider The Most Important Column I Have Ever Written (if you drink iced coffee, that is). This column should win me a Pulitzer Prize: We are talking about the greatest culinary fraud since frozen yogurt!

I Smell a Ratzinger.

2005-04-24T13:09:00.000-04:00

Let me preface this with saying that I am not a Catholic. I would never consider converting to Catholicism. Nominally, I am a United Methodist. I did, however, enjoy Jon Stewart's take on the papacy.

With that said, I'm highly disappointed in one of the first actions of Pope Benedict XVI's Vatican:

Excerpt: Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Sera, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law.

He said every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.

The cardinal insisted that just because something was made law it did not make it right.

And then the Pope will turn around and claim to be reaching out to "all men and women of today, to believers and nonbelievers alike"?

Dennis Miller says that Ratzinger's gotta be an ass-kicker, because "frankly, the Catholic church is going to hell in a handbasket". He also wanted to know why the Catholic Church doesn't "get behind this whole gay marriage thing".

While we're talking about the gays, I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with the gays or their agenda.

Musing on MACROMEDIADOBE

2005-04-19T03:50:00.000-04:00

Well, son, when two large software companies love each other very much and are married and have both been tested for STDs and both clearly love Jesus and have accepted him into their heart and aren't even really planning on enjoying what they're about to do, are really only doing it because it is God's Will that they bring more children into the world...

Okay, what started out as an introduction to the way exciting MACROMEDIADOBE news has become a dig at stupid people. That's fine by me, though, because at least it's done and I can focus on those two amorous software houses.

So Adobe Systems, Inc. has purchased Macromedia, Inc. for 3.4 billion dollars. Technically, Adobe got their stock, and Macromedia shareholders will retain .69 (heh heh, sweet) of their stocks. Or something. I forget the specifics. Anyways, what does this mean? Well, it depends upon which hat you choose to wear to look at it.

The obvious worry is that of one concerned with the potential trust created when two become one (Cue up the Spice Girls track and dim the lights). Certainly one should be wary any time big corporations get bigger. It is your civic duty to be afraid of those with more money than you. However, I would argue that this will actually end up being better for consumers. Macromedia, for example, had a technology called Flashpages that I guess was supposed to fight against PDF. Also, Adobe was fumbling around with a technology called SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) that was designed specifically to combat Flash. Then there is the whole GoLive vs. Dreamweaver thingy. How bout Fireworks vs. Photoshop? Who the hell has time for that squabble? In this kid's opinion, some of this competition was unnecessary. Whoa, you say, whoa whoa the free market saves us from the horrors of communism. But seriously, who has the time?--Certainly not professionals trying to just get the damn work done! Maybe IT departments. I still maintain, though, that the competition between these two corporations was sort of gross... One of them would have the industry standard in a certain field; the other would have a weird obscure answer.

Now granted, there wasn't all overlap. That's where the technofetishists get to come out and play. Take the case of Fireworks vs. Photoshop: For all intents and purposes, Fireworks was about getting images really small so they could be spewed over 56k, even. Photoshop was an artiste. So now we can hope and imagine that one program, the new and improved Photoshop, will be able to cover all bases. ...But it gets better!

Adobe now has ColdFusion. ColdFusion and PDF. I'm thinking that this could yield some interesting offspring, if they have similarly rabbitlike cognition. Let CF and PDF fuck away and then we'll have some kind of crazy format, dynamically generated, that can be printed by commercial printers, or something! Yeah dude, clean that jizz off your desk, in the near future it could be a reality.

Now for the DIY REVOLUTION YEAH DUDE STICK IT TO THE MAN portion of this. For anyone and everyone with something to say, I think this is significant. I think Adobe's suite has pretty much completely replaced yesteryear's photocopier, whiteout and transparent tape. When it comes to sticking stuff onto paper stock, they were number one. Macromedia, on the other hand, pretty much p\/\/n3d the beginner/intermediate web market. Yeah, I saw a ton and a half of Slashdot purists pussing out over whether Vi or Emacs was the super cooler alternative to shitty Dreamweaver. But if you dont want any of that bullshit and you just wanna staple something onto the web, Dreamweaver is a good way to do it. Well, I mean, except for blogging services, but suckmynutsbitchfuckyou.

In short, it's very cool that the two are completely coming together and we will have additional continuity regardless of whether we want to staple things together in print, staple them up to a bulletin board, or staple them up to the great big decentralized Web out there. Hopefully the energies of these two companies that would otherwise have been spent fighting one another will focus on making life better for the consumer and we can be further empowered by the freefalling price of computing power and storage space. It is now, and will become ever moreso, very possible for relatively anyone to put together a printing setup complete with badass workstation and nice printer for probably under 10k.

The big question is, is there a ton of content out there worth DIY distribution?

Another Setback for Civil Rights

2005-04-17T14:50:00.000-04:00

"Oregon Court Tosses Gay Marriage Licenses"

Almost three thousand couples had their marriage licenses revoked on Thursday on the basis that a county can't act against state matrimonial law.

Excerpt: "Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the high court said in its unanimous ruling.

The court said state law bans gay marriage. It also noted that Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment last November that even more explicitly prohibits the practice.

I brought up this issue to a friend--myself being absolutely devastated for all the poor, loving, romantic fools that were told that their marriages aren't good enough--who told me, "As long as you both understand you're married, you are. By my standards." And while I appreciate that--I appreciate the sentiment that Love that can be defined by a state and restricted to a piece of paper isn't really Love at all--I also seem to recall 1,049 federal rights that came with being married. There's a complete list here (.pdf file), and an expansion of some of the most important ones here. You also may be interested in reading about the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Thank goodness for Connecticut, however, which on Wednesday became the second state (after Vermont) to offer civil unions.

In a similar vein, here's an interesting article from Yahoo about transvestites in Indonesia.

I don't heart Hart.

2005-04-15T00:37:00.000-04:00

"More hurdles loom for morning after pill"

First things first: there two very different types of pills commonly (and mistakenly) called "morning-after pills". On one hand, you've got your RU-486, which induces a miscarriage. On the other hand, you've got the available-by-prescription-only Plan B and the previously-available-by-prescription Preven; these drugs have three effects: they delay the egg release, they prevent the sperm/egg union, and they inhibit the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. So, technically, both Plan B and Preven are forms of contraception. As contraceptives, they are ineffective if a woman is already pregnant. There's a nice little feature from MSNBC comparing the different types of pills.

Excerpt: Pending in Congress is a bill introduced by Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., to deny federal funding to public secondary or elementary schools that provide emergency contraception to students through school clinics.
...
Debate over the debate
Right-to-life groups have subtly shifted their definition of abortion, says Jean Reith Schroedel, professor of politics and policy at Claremont Graduate University. "Most right-to-life groups are now defining abortion as anything that interrupts or halts a fertilized egg," she says. But, she also notes, "just by natural processes, two-thirds of fertilized eggs don't attach."
Some on the other side of the debate say it is the pro-choice groups that have shifted ground, out of expediency. "When birth control became available in 1960s ... the medical community suddenly said the beginning of life begins at implantation, not conception," says Wright. She and others argue that Plan B should be labeled as an abortion agent since it has the capacity to determine the fate of a fertilized egg.
Asked about its position on the morning after pill, the National Right to Life Committee issued a statement, but declined further comment. NRLC "is opposed to abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide," the statement read. "NRLC takes no position on the prevention of the uniting of sperm and egg. Once fertilization, i.e., the uniting of sperm and egg, has occurred, a new life has begun and NRLC is opposed to the destruction of that new human life."

Go read the rest of the article. Then explain to me why Melissa Hart, a single woman, wants to take contraception out of the hands of women who, like her, are not yet ready to start a family?

My position on this is clear: keep your hands away from my uterus.

Linking to Someone Else's Links

2005-04-03T15:58:00.000-04:00

I don't know who keeps a LiveJournal, but I find it incredibly useful in aggregating all of the blogs that I read on an almost-daily basis. Occasionally, I'll also find an interesting person or two whose personal blog is a fun read. Today, I found a post with a great number of interesting links, all of which I could steal and link to, but that would require effort. I hope these keep you appeased for a while.

I Dream of Terri

2005-04-01T20:47:00.000-05:00

Note: what follows is a ridiculously long, involved metaphor that I dreamed up on the bus today.

Picture a whole room of second graders. You've got Bobby and Jane and Sally and Christopher and maybe the occasional Jamal or Abdul or other minority. < /political incorrectness > And the second grade teacher just brought in a fish tank, let's say. And all of the second graders are standing around the tank, watching the little fishes swim around and flap their gills and engage in general fishy activities.

The kids go home on Spring Break. The whole time they're gone, not one of them thinks about the fish. They don't really care. They're too busy playing Nintendo and watching Nickelodeon too bother with fish. When they come back, the teacher says to them, in hushed tones, "Well, I don't want to alarm you, kids, but, well--" she hems and haws, "--the red belly pacus is sick." Before the teacher said anything, not a single student noticed. Now that the teacher has pointed out the aquatic creature's misfortune--holy lord! Save the fish! Hurry, hurry! Get it out of that dirty, dirty water! Put it in its own tank, with a special water filter! Start giving it those special fish flakes!

At least, that's part of the class's reaction. Then there's the rest of the class that says, "What? Why are we saving the fish? Look at it! That thing's not getting any better! And why didn't we save our last class pet like this? Why did we just let the previous class pet die, even though that one could have easily been saved? Seriously, maybe we should just let the teacher decide--they're her fish, after all."

The teacher agrees with this. The fish are a part of her classroom, and she rules the classroom. The teacher decides that it's not worth the effort that would be required to keep the fish alive, when it is likely going to die soon anyway. Most of the class is fine with this. But the other portion is up in arms. They immediately go over the head of their teacher to their parents, and in waiting for their teachers to arrange a meeting with the Parent-Teacher Organization to discuss the fish, the students go even further. The students take the issue up with the principal.

Now, up until this point in the story, neither the parents or the principal have had much say in anything regarding the fish, and the students haven't participated much, either. The teacher was the one really caring for the fish.

A few parents speak up and demand that the fish be saved. The principal tells the teacher flat out to save the poor, poor fish. The teacher looks to the school board, which says, "What the hell? You can't just save that specific fish. If you're going to help all of those fish, fine. Go for it. But no. Not just one. And not the one that can't be saved. No, let the fish go."

It's made into a huge deal. The parents put up flyers about how the teacher is neglecting classroom animals. The students are directly at odds with one another. The principal says that school policy dictates that the fish be saved.

The school board makes an official judgment on the situation.

The fish dies.

...Have I lost you yet?

Before I enlighten you to my insane thought-processes, think to yourself: who did you identify with in this story? The students? The teacher? The principal? The parents? Or maybe even the fish?

We, the American people, are the second graders. The fish represents Terri Schiavo... (sorry, Terri.) The role of Terri's husband was played by the teacher. The part of the class that flips out about 'saving' the fish represents, of course, Terri's parents (though this was ill-represented in the story) and the evangelical, right-wingers. The rational part of the class is the--what was the number? 82%? 82% of Americans that thought Terri shouldn't have been kept alive. The parents that acted out were crazy Congress members, and the principal is Jeb and G.W., collectively. The school board, then, represented the courts. Bless the rule of common law.

Throughout the whole Terri Schiavo thing, I couldn't help but feel like I was a snot-nosed second grader, gawking at and tapping on a teeming fish tank. It's a weird stage in life, being in the second grade, where I know what I can and can't stare at open-mouthed, but I don't see anything wrong with tapping the glass of a fish tank or ant farm or other equally Big Brother-ish environment.

Summary of Events

2005-03-30T18:26:00.000-05:00

My school term is ending in two days, so I'm a little busy, but here's a summary of some pretty neat stuff that's been going on...

Al Jazeera reports on an Iranian woman who, despite constitutional limitations, intends to run in Iran's upcoming presidential elections. You go, girl!

"US consumer confidence [is] down again", says, interestingly, BBC News. The article is short and fairly unremarkable. What makes this (non-)issue worth mentioning is that it's about American consumer confidence, reported on a non-American news source. In a search of Google News, I confirmed what was to be expected: as of this post, the continuing descent in consumer confidence was not reported in any major American news sources. You'd think that Americans would eat this kind of article up.

"The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is one of USA Next's biggest financial supporters."

What's that? Who cares about PhRMA? Well, that group includes the big makers of HIV/AIDS drugs. Huh? You've never heard of USA Next? But perhaps you've heard of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to whom members of USA Next have been linked. USA Next's most recent ad campaign? Negatively linking the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to same-sex marriage.

Also note that Johnnie Cochran died yesterday, the Pope's feeding tube is grosser than Schiavo's, and somebody stole a "plasticized" fetus.

Might be some more later, but don't count on it.

Fat Kids vs. Stoners

2005-03-30T01:09:00.000-05:00

Which do you prefer?

Personally, I don't know if I can choose. There are really pros and cons to both. Well, okay. Not many pros to either. But they each have their negative aspects.

For some reason, this article didn't really surprise me. Except for the picture of the girl. How embarrassed she must be! That's really horrible, I think. Weight is a really sensitive issue for a lot of people.

I bet kids nowadays have more eating disorders, no doubt.

Quit complaining and watch your back...

2005-03-29T19:16:00.000-05:00

So this semi-resurgence of feminism kinda bothers me, for a number of reasons. One of them is because I don't think it's that relevant any more. Another is that it is, by its nature, insular. Think about it. "Fem" naturally pushes men out. Which is an issue, and I'll tell you why.

We ALL need to watch out. They're coming for us, and it's obvious. There's no time to put "Fem" into an equation. It doesn't matter that the women are one of their first targets, we're all targets. It's about control, baby, not about pushing women down. We're all getting pushed down. That vengeful eagle just managed to land its claws in the uteri first. Wanna see a few other places it landed? A certain feeding tube I can think of. The mammary of a certain Jackson family member and a specific morning radio shock jock.

So shut up about the "fem" stuff and watch your back. This isn't a woman's problem at all. This is a problem for all of us. Beware that crazy eagle.

Alternative Energy

2005-03-29T12:09:00.000-05:00

It turns out that there's a brand new alternative energy possibility out there:

Orange peels. Who'da thunk it?

Excerpt: Oranges are shaping up to be the real miracle plant. Not only are they delicious, healthy, great at making cleaners and solvents, and even carbon-trapping plastics, but now they may be a source of fuel.

I'm curious to see how far this can go. How cool would it be to have an orange-powered car? Seriously, though, I want to know if something useful comes of this; I want to see car manufacturers invest in alternative energy sources, and I want to see those that do being rewarded. I want those corporations and governments that shit on alternative energy sources to be (financially) punished. I want to see more people making a stir about how many (or how few) miles per gallon their vehicle gets.

Oh, and congrats, Illinois.

Geo-Greening by Example

2005-03-28T21:56:00.000-05:00

Taken from the New York Times. It's not long, so I'll excerpt the whole article here.

"Geo-Greening by Example" by Thomas L. Friedman.
How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency.
"Ah, Friedman, but you overstate the case." No, I understate it. Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism.
By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil.
Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: "Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm."
All the elements of what I like to call a geo-green strategy are known:
We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down. At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption.
We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet."
And we need some kind of carbon tax that would move more industries from coal to wind, hydro and solar power, or other, cleaner fuels. The revenue from these taxes would go to pay down the deficit and the reduction in oil imports would help to strengthen the dollar and defuse competition for energy with China.
It's smart geopolitics. It's smart fiscal policy. It is smart climate policy. Most of all - it's smart politics! Even evangelicals are speaking out about our need to protect God's green earth. "The Republican Party is much greener than George Bush or Dick Cheney," remarked Mr. Schwartz. "There is now a near convergence of support on the environmental issue. Look at how popular [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, a green Republican, is becoming because of what he has done on the environment in California."
Imagine if George Bush declared that he was getting rid of his limousine for an armor-plated Ford Escape hybrid, adopting a geo-green strategy and building an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens to sustain it. His popularity at home - and abroad - would soar. The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, he prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it?

I take clean water for granted.

2005-03-28T20:32:00.000-05:00

It turns out that clean water is not an international, legal right. Who knew? Honestly, I've never really thought about it. I have never had to worry about knowing where to find clean water. It's always just been there.

Excerpt: Actor Leonardo DiCaprio helped environmentalists launch an international campaign Tuesday to draw attention to the billion people worldwide who don't have access to clean water.

"We are here to help raise awareness about what is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today," said DiCaprio, speaking on World Water Day at the Clift Hotel with Global Green USA President Matt Petersen.
...
About 2.5 billion people worldwide lack water sanitation services, and five million people die from waterborne diseases each year, according to Global Green USA.

Read more about the fight for the right to potable water at Water Treaty.org.