Wednesday evening quarterbacking

I don’t often write about politics, but I feel that the United States has just witnessed a fairly historic election. Even after all the extreme vitriol and outright seething hatred of Bush by the Democratic Party and its supporters, the Democrats still couldn’t pull off a victory. In my estimation, the 2004 general election will be viewed, depending on the Democrats’ next steps, as either the death or rebirth of the Democratic Party.

If you believe the left-leaning weblogs, then I am among the uneducated, oblivious, easily manipulated, and downright evil masses who willingly and/or ignorantly invited the destruction of the American way of life by inciting terrorists and simple-mindedly handing over our democracy to fascist Nazis that are chomping at the bit to reward their corporate cronies through war profiteering.

In reality, I am an educated, well-informed, thoughtful voter who weighed the candidates’ views on a variety of subjects and found that while both Bush and Kerry hold positions that I strongly disagree with, my disagreements with Kerry were unacceptable and my disagreements with Bush were tolerable (if only just barely).

I am a registered Republican, but if there were a candidate that more closely matched my views, then I’d be happy to vote for him/her. Case in point: although I voted for Bush here in Illinois (despite his steep odds in my state), I would have rather gnawed my own arm off than vote for Keyes over Obama. Keyes is a nutjob of the highest order, and voting against him was almost as strong of a motivation to get to the polls as voting for Bush was.

So how do the Democrats get back on track? How do they rebuild? I have a simple, 4-point plan for the Democratic Party chairman that would make the Democratic party more attractive to me (and, I suspect, a great many others).

1. Security and Foreign Policy

Forget what Clinton told you; there is no “peace dividend”. Asymmetrical threats like Al Qaeda require as much time, money, and vigilance as cold wars, and additionally a large conventional force is required to intervene in destabilizing regional conflicts, to quell genocide or support other peacekeeping efforts, and to act as a deterrent against would-be enemies of the American homeland - especially if there’s more than one of these threats at any given time.

As commander-in-chief, don’t let domestic or foreign politics compromise military operations. The President is empowered to set military objectives and - on a grand, strategic level - military priorities. Once that’s done, get the hell out of the way. Let the military do its job. Don’t force them to accomplish their goals with rules of engagement that place a higher priority on protecting America’s alliances and PR status than on protecting American soldiers (as Clinton did in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, and pretty much everywhere else). Don’t punish American soldiers who are deployed in a war zone by voting against $87 billion in desperately needed funding just because of the way the political winds are blowing domestically (like Kerry did). Kerry repeatedly criticized Bush for not sending enough troops to Iraq, but Bush listened to the military leadership’s requests and then gave them everything they asked for - U.S. military doctrine has been trending toward smaller, faster troop deployments for the past 20 years, and technology (especially communications) has finally caught up to the point where the senior military leadership could make it work (which it did, in such spectacular fashion that we didn’t have enough time to plan for the aftermath). Bush’s level of trust in the military’s judgment and professionalism is in stark contrast to Clinton’s distrust and compulsion to have non-military political operatives micromanage military operations. This is why the best military professionals love Bush and sought early retirement in droves under Clinton.

When it comes to foreign policy, quality beats quantity. Countries who share our core democratic values and with whom we have a vigorous and mutually beneficial cultural and economic exchange - countries like the Australia, Germany, Japan, and the UK, among others - are always more important than rabble-rousers who are at best suspicious and at worst resentful of the United States’ role in the world. Don’t get me wrong; the support of as many countries as is practical is always preferable to no international support when the U.S. acts outside its own borders, but it is by no means required if America or its allies are threatened. The U.N. has neutered itself into irrelevance by refusing to enforce its own resolutions, and most voters are not really interested in being lectured by France, a country whose rabid anti-Semitism invalidates any moral superiority they claim with respect to human rights and whose ridiculous and unwarranted vanity brought you such classics as “Paris Mean Time” to replace GMT and the legal requirement to use the term “courriel” (since “e-mail” sounds too Anglicised).

2. Economics

Grand social programs (you know, the ones where the government knows best and will take care of everything because the masses are clearly not altruistic or smart enough) are deader than Dillinger. That kind of thinking only reaffirms the general populace’s belief that the Democrats are a bunch of cultural and intellectual elitists. Insulting your electorate by not-so-subtly saying “we’re going to take a bigger share of your money because we know better” doesn’t win a lot of votes.

That’s not to say that Democrats need to go crazy with personal or corporate tax cuts and loopholes, but not raising taxes unless the public gives you a clear mandate to create a new spending program or improve an old one is a good start. The dirty little secret of fiscal conservatives and even Libertarians is that most of them (the ones who aren't anarchists, anyway) don’t actually want zero government spending; that’s simply an exaggeration to contrast with what we’re typically faced with. They just want targeted, efficient government spending on things that are of clear utility to society and are areas that the government has a legitimate right and interest to be involved in. Liberal doesn’t have to mean “monolithic socialized medicine program with no choice”, it should stand for liberty. Speaking of which, liberty is a decent segue into…

3. Social Issues

This is the area where Democrats can really stand out. Instead of getting stuck, like the Republicans, with a platform dictated by a religious and moral code that not every American agrees with, the Democrats have an opportunity to be the party that stands for personal freedom and humanistic values.

The tricky part about personal freedom is that you have to be consistent. You have to stick up for all personal freedoms, not just the ones acceptable at Ivy League cocktail parties. Yes, that includes the right to own a gun if you don’t use it to hurt anyone. And the right to choose your own doctor.

With respect to humanistic values, the Democrats should be decidedly pro-people in their agenda and their spending. Don’t be beholden to environmental groups if there’s a compromise between environmental protection and preserving people’s jobs. Don’t be a slave to PETA if animal testing will advance medical research. Now this doesn’t mean you should slash, burn, pollute, and dump cosmetics into rabbits’ eyes just to see what happens, but find a prudent balance. In general, if you’re spending money intelligently on protecting people’s rights (defense, crime prevention, enforcing civil liberties, etc.) or sustaining/improving society (infrastructure, education, research, health care, retirement, etc.) while maintaining a maximum amount of personal choice and freedom, then you’re probably doing the right thing.

4. Understanding Your Constituents

After Kerry conceded the 2004 presidential election, the reaction from the Democrats was brutal. Move to Canada! No, secede from the Union! No, armed revolution! We can’t possibly live with the ignorant yokels who gave Bush a mandate!

A little tip - slinging names at the people who voted against your candidate, accusing them of being too stupid to know what they were really voting for, etc. is not the way to win people over to your cause. Insulting swing voters instead of seeking to understand why they preferred the other candidate and modifying your platform to be more inclusive is poor politics. Truly centrist voters already think that your pompous attempts to engineer society to become some New England/west coast politically correct utopian standard is just as offensive as the Republicans trying to engineer society to an evangelical Christian standard. Break that perception. Reach out to new voting blocks.

Anyhow, that’s my $0.02. Like Coldforged, I’m taking a long break from further political blogging if I can help it.

A little Ohio math

Just to point out where we are with the U.S. Presidential election, Kerry and Edwards are not conceeding the election because they feel as though they still have a chance to win Ohio when all of the provisional ballots are counted. Given that Bush will almost certainly win one or both of the remaining undeclared states (Iowa and New Mexico), whichever candidate actually won Ohio will be the next President of the United States.

Let's do some quick math to see what this means:

With 100% of the precincts in Ohio reporting, Bush currently has 2,794,346 votes. Kerry has 2,658,125 votes, which means Bush's lead is 136,221.

In the Democrats' most optimistic estimate, there are 250,000 outstanding provisional ballots and they are all valid. (In 2000, only 90% of the Ohio provisional ballots turned out to be valid.) In order to win in this scenario, Kerry would need to get 193,111 of the 250,000 votes in order to win in Ohio. This is a margin of ~77.24%.

In the Republicans' most optimistic estimate, there are 175,000 outstanding provisional ballots and only 90% of them are valid. In order to win in this scenario, Kerry would need to get 146,861 of the 157,500 votes in order to win Ohio. This is a margin of ~93.25%.

Assuming the truth is somewhere in the middle, Kerry probably needs ~85% of the provisional ballots to win. In Kerry's best county in Ohio (Cuyahoga), he only managed to get ~67% of the vote.

So why does the Kerry campaign think such a huge margin of victory is possible among those voters who cast provisional ballots? In Ohio, provisional ballots come in two flavors - absentee ballots and ballots for voters whose eligibility to vote could not be immediately verified (usually because they showed up at the wrong polling place).

The Democrats think that the overwhelming majority of provisional ballots are from young, first-time voters that support Kerry, and these voters made a rookie mistake of showing up at a precinct other than the one where they were registered.

The Republicans, however, agree that some of the provisional ballots are from first-time voters, but counter-claim that first-time voters aren't necessarily young nor do they necessarily support Kerry. The ballot initiative in Ohio to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman helped motivate a lot of churches to get their members registered, and the Republicans claim that there are as many or more of these religiously motivated (and implicitly Republican) first-time voters than there are of the young Kerry supporters - a plausible theory given the age 18-29 turnout cited in other states. To add more weight to their claim, the Republicans also feel as though they have an edge in the absentee provisional ballots, since many of Ohio's absentee voters are overseas military personnel who are thought to favor Bush by as much as 2-1. In other words, the Republicans not only disagree that Kerry can get the requisite ~85% of Ohio's provisional votes, they question whether he can even get 50%.

The bottom line is that the race in Ohio is close enough to justify Kerry's wait-and-see stance, but mathematically speaking it is incredibly improbable that a full count will work out in Kerry's favor. (Celebrate or cry as you deem appropriate.)

EDIT: Shortly after I posted this, I learned that the number of provisional ballots in 78 of 88 counties had been counted (i.e. not tallied, just counted to see how many there were) and the total was 135,149. Assuming the same ratio in the other 10 counties and that all of the provisional ballots were valid, there would only be 152,476 valid provisional ballots total for Ohio - Kerry would need to have received 144,349 or an amazing 94.67% of the vote on those ballots to take the presidency. It is little wonder, then, that shortly after these numbers were released, Kerry's concession to Bush was announced. The United States has elected its next president, and at least we can say that this time it took less than 36 days.

Election Day

If you're a U.S. citizen, today's the day to get out to the polls and vote.

Hit mypollingplace.com if you're registered but unsure of where you should vote. (The website's running a bit slow as of this writing, which I take to be a good sign.)

If you can't get through to mypollingplace.com, then head over to your search engine of choice and look up your state's board of elections website.

The common cliche is that many Americans have fought and died to preseve our right to vote - which shouldn't be taken lightly - and hopefully after the excruciatingly close elections of 2000 people will realize that even their single vote can make a difference, especially in states where the race is very close.

Even if you're not in a "battleground state", though, exercising your right to vote is still important. First of all, no one wants to see another split between the popular vote and the electoral college. Additionally, consider the case of 1992 - there was one exit poll (sorry, I can't find a link) that asked people if they would have voted for Perot if they thought he had "a realistic chance of winning". As it turns out, the number of people who would have voted for Perot if they thought he could win would have been enough for Perot to actually win (at least in the state where the poll was conducted).

In other words, don't let the pollsters and the pundits get you down. I went out and voted first thing this morning, and if 6am in my precinct is any indication, then turnout is going to be huge and all bets are off. Vote for your candidates regardless of who is "supposed" to win in your state (or, if you're voting later in the day, who the media projects as the "likely winners"). Exercise your right!

Commercial spaceflight

While I am personally inspired by the first private space flight and would love to travel in space someday, my pragmatism makes me a bit wary of the things that could go wrong in a commerical setting.

It it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

This article was recently brought to my attention.

It's an exposure piece of how Narconon (*cough cough* Scientology *cough*) is spreading Scientology lessons and ideals to children under the guise of drug prevention programs.

Hey, I think it's great that people are out there trying to convince kids to avoid drugs. However, this group is "backed" by Scientology and though they claim they strictly keep religion and education separate, it's fairly obvious they manage to still get their messages across.

Those of you not familiar with the insane cult of Scientology, I would recommend you take a look here but, more importantly, check out Operation Clambake.

Anyway, Narconon claims that they are not promoting Scientology but evidence like the following clearly disputes that. Let's not forget that most of their claims are disputed my medical science:

Example 1 (a quote from a former "church" member) -
"Communication drills are one of the basic tools taught by Scientology," said Christman, the ex-church member. "It's the first course that anyone who enters Scientology gets -- or Narconon rehab. It's sitting across from someone and looking at them for as long as it takes to 'be there comfortably,' in Hubbard's words. No movement, no speaking, no facial tics -- nothing."

Example 2 (from a lecturer at the end of a class) -
As his lecture ended, Bylsma turned to the students and said, "I want to say thank you to a man named William Benitez who started the program, and thank you to L. Ron Hubbard! Thanks to them, we have the program in 37 countries! Let's give them a hand!" And the students clapped.

Example 3 (an email from a Scientologist referring to an upcoming talk by the above instructor) -
"Tony will go over how to do seminars but the information is SO basic that it'll show you how to handle kids, parents, teachers as groups OR ONE-ON- ONE on what drugs do to both the mind and body. ... He gives examples of how drugs scramble the pictures in the mind, how it stores in the body and how it takes one down the tone scale lower and lower -- ALL IN NON-SCIENTOLOGY TERMS. ... All the Scientology and Dianetics Handbook basics but in simple descriptions!"

There are plenty of other examples. My favorite is the Scientology insistance that drugs are stored in fat indefinitely, unless you "clear" them.
Right.

What I don't understand are the superintendents of these schools who fail to look at the evidence before them. They are allowing these maniacs into their schools and access to their children. That irresponsibility is deplorable.

I want a pet Kangaroo!

What I got from this story:

Kangaroos bark?

OSC vs. gay marriage

First a disclaimer: this blog has been careful not to discuss certain topics in the past, namely work, politics, and (to a lesser extent) our private lives. Public posting about any of those topics tends to lead to professional or personal disaster - or both. This is why, by and large, we stick to posting about information of general interest or news that directly relates to our hobbies and preferred methods of recreation.

However, I was so dumbfounded after reading an essay about gay marriage by Orson Scott Card, an author of literature I enjoy and whose intellectual and political views I typically agree with, that I have to make an exception. Read more to see my (long) response to Card's arguments.

Mr. Card's argument is comprised of four parts:

1) the creation of new law via the judicial branch violates the United States Constitution's separation of power, 2) the state's interest in marriage is in encouraging the creation of family units, 3) the idea of marrying for love is relatively new, and 4) the redefinition of marriage - especially in a context that's not meant to support human reproduction - is not only dangerous, but it is the first step on a slippery slope to destroying both the value of language and Western civilization as we know it.

I don't dispute the first point; Mr. Card is absolutely correct that laws should be created or re-written via the legislature if same-sex partners are to be given the ability to marry each other. Effectively creating a new law through an impossible-to-justify interpretation of an existing law and then inflicting that on the rest of the country due to the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause is irresponsible at best. This merely addresses how the issue came to be debated, however, and is not an argument for or against the concept of gay marriage, so I won't waste any more virtual ink on it.

Mr. Card's major premise - that the state's interest in marriage is to promote reproduction and that "civilization is rooted in reproductive security" - simply doesn't make sense. Mr. Card wisely (but narrowly) avoids arguing that the state's interest should be based upon Judeo-Christian sensibilities. Clearly we all recognize the value of church/state separation. I firmly believe that any religion should bar gay marriages if it chooses to, even if I believe that the theological basis for such a ban would be tenuous at best. Even the Aramaic to English by way of Hebrew and/or Latin version of Leviticus 18:22 (which, given that pedigree, is somewhat suspect) can be interpreted as "there's nothing wrong with being gay as long as you're celibate" in the strictest reading. (A reading that takes into account a more historical context could also see this as particularly aimed at discouraging the use of male prostitutes in rituals performed by competing religious cults at the time as opposed to a decree against all homosexual activity in general, but that's beyond our scope here.) Then again, Proverbs 6:26 implies that hiring a prostitute for a loaf of bread is a preferred alternative to having sex with a married woman, so maybe our sensibilities as a civilization have evolved a bit since Biblical times.

Since religion is out of the picture, we have to think solely about the state's interest. If you believe that the state's only interest in marriage is reproduction (as Mr. Card does), then it logically follows that you think that the state's extension of marriage to all heterosexual couples, regardless of their ability or intention to reproduce, is overly-broad. That, in the technical parlance, is stupid. The state's modern interest in marriage is community-building and providing a reason to abide by the social contract, specifically to allow for the orderly development of a stable tax base with which the state can support its communities. If Mr. Card wants to suggest that this view of marriage was not the intention of the framers, then I won't argue - I'll merely respond with a "so what?" Establishing roots to the community and growing the tax base has been the motivation behind almost all marriage law established in the 20th century (if not before), and it is a very myopic to believe that all such roots are grown from parenthood. What is amazing about the failure of Mr. Card's logic is that if you accept either interpretation of the state's interest in marriage (mine or his), it exposes his suggestion that gays and lesbians should get married to people of the opposite sex if they want to exercise their right to marry as laughable.

Even if childrearing is necessary to participate constructively in society (which is a position that I find highly offensive), then I refuse to accept that gay parents are less capable than their straight counterparts, regardless of Mr. Card's instinct. I understand that although some stereotypes about genders/gender roles got to be stereotypes because they're true, that doesn't make learning them (if they are even worth learning) in a household with a same-sex couple impossible - example is a powerful form of education, but it is not the only way. I agree with Mr. Card's belief that a lack of two-parent families contributes to child misdevelopment, but think that's more due to time and attention and diversity of praise (i.e. getting self-esteem boosts from two authority figures is better than one), not because a child needs both a man and a woman as role model.

Mr. Card's argument that divorce is also ruining society, while a simple aside and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, is an interesting one. I tend to agree, but not for the same reasons. Mr. Card's assertion is that divorce happens when people marry for love and pleasure and suggests that if people married to have children then it wouldn't happen. To use another technical term, this is bullshit. I married for love and I may or may not ever have any kids, and I am quite certain that I won't get divorced. I am sure everyone reading this essay can think of many examples of people who married with the express purpose of child-rearing in mind and ended up either getting a divorce or suffering through an abusive relationship "for the kids".

Mr. Card seems to imply that people who married for love and not to have a family are somehow "wrong". The promotion of this concept that "marriage without children is pointless" is what bothered and failed to resonate with me about Bean and Petra's relationship in his Shadow series, too. Is Mr. Card's implication that heterosexual people who can't or don't reproduce are more likely to feel disconnected from society, unpatriotic, and less willing to abide by its rules? Common sense and a wealth of personal experience demand that I reject that contention out-of-hand.

I also find myself uninterested in standing on tradition when it comes to Mr. Card's history lesson regarding what marriage was supposed to mean in previous generations. To put it bluntly, who gives a damn? Some notable exceptions aside, the rule of law is not meant to enforce historical standards or even the status quo, it's meant to enforce the rules and methods that we all agree to use in order to structure how we live together. To my way of thinking, that's an argument to include different lifestyles, not exclude them. I agree with Mr. Card that inclusion is only valuable if there is something that's being excluded, but I would contend that there's plenty that's still being excluded when defining civil marriage as the legal recognition of (and conferring of certain rights upon) a union between two adults - polygamy, bestiality, child exploitation, etc. are all solidly and thankfully in the "excluded" category.

Mr. Card paints a fairly hysterical (and, sadly, believable) picture of overcompensation by the politically correct "cultural elite" to show that anything that bucks the dominant paradigm - heterosexual white men - is better than anything that conforms to it. I accept that that some degree of this would be an unfortunate side-effect of legalizing gay marriage, but I can not go so far as to say that it would lead to "institutionalizing the absence of heterosexual role models" (as Mr. Card does). The loss of precision in language that Mr. Card decries is also regrettable, but again, the redefinition of marriage to mean "the union of two people" instead of "the union of one man and one woman" is hardly comparable to his description of the bastardization of the word "family".

Finally, his hypothetical scenario breaks down for me at the insistance that homosexuality can be learned or imprinted through abuse, that it is not genetically/chemically based, and that the cultural elite's "endorsement" of homosexuality will cause more people to choose to learn it. I don't have enough information to blindly accept any viewpoint on the development of sexuality in humans, but I would be very surprised if there were not at least some genetic predisposition involved in order to facilitate the flow of hormones and other biochemicals necessary for arousal in either heterosexual or homosexual situations. I also can't bring myself to believe the far-fetched scenario that adolescents (even troubled, confused ones) will make any lasting choices about their sexuality based on what the NEA or MPAA says is "cool". Where has Mr. Card's trust in the judgement and intellect of children, as displayed in Ender's Game, disappeared to?

I am firmly in favor of extending marriage rights and status to gays and lesbians, even if it is for the "conservative" reasons of promoting additional stability and participation within our communities. Anything less offends my sense of justice.

It had to happen...

I should have known. I shouldn't be surprised. OF COURSE a lawsuit had to come about from the Janet Jackson Super Bowl exposure, claiming "serious injury."

*sigh*

I can't stand this anymore. I can't stand how litigious the people in this country have become. Don't even try to "represent" me in this suit you stupid bitch. I wasn't injured and neither was anyone else...unless you want to count discomfort in the nether-regions of just about every male who saw it.

All I can do is hope common sense will prevail and the first judge who looks at this suit will throw it right out. Please...please...allow me to have a little bit of faith left in this country.

Who the hell are these morons?

*sigh*...I seem to be a noticing an evolution of my posts (DID YOU SEE THAT GEORGIA??? I SAID EVOLUTION! EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION).

I'm getting bitter. Is it my age? Maybe. But I'm more inclined to blame the increasing numbers of complete moron assholes...or morholes...in the world around me. I hate you all so very, very much.

I was originally planning on having another "Separated at Birth" post. I couldn't help but draw "wild hair" comparisons between Saddam Hussein (at the time of capture) and James Brown (at the time of his recent arrest). But then I decided I would be insulting the Godfather of Soul, and I really didn't want to do that.

But in the process of looking for Saddam photos, I came across this site: La Voz de Aztlan, or, How I Grew Up to Be a Conspiracy Theorist and Hate the Country That Allows Me to Have This Website....whichever.

The link that drew me in was a story claiming the Saddam capture as a hoax. Look at how nicely they used Photoshop to draw the arrows to the meat and dates! And such irrefutable evidence from sources I'm sure exist and know what they're talking about!

Well, as you can imagine, I had to look for more! They are obviously "in the know." I got roped into an article entitled: "New York to be Nuked on Feb. 2", complete with another Photoshop masterpiece. My favorite part of the story:
"It is heartening to see that more and more Americans are finally awakening to the fact that there are sinister forces within the government taking their orders from an 'International Cabal'. "

Gah! I've spent more time on these people then they deserve.

This is bullshit.

Sorry to be so blunt in the subject line, but I am beyond pissed off. I'm not sure if any of you followed the story of the Representative from South Dakota, Bill Janklow, who was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, speeding, running a stop sign and reckless driving.

One day he was driving at least 70 in a 55 mph zone, when he blew off a stop sign and killed a motorcyclist. He has had 13 traffic citations since 1990. After his convictions, he was sentenced to 100 days in a county jail. A county jail. 100 days. What a ridiculous sentence for someone who killed a man, and obviously has problems following traffic laws. Oh, and it will all be struck from his record if he completes his probation without incident.

Now you might argue that losing his seat was punishment enough. Please. Imagine if it was just a "regular" guy who committed these crimes. Being a Representative is a job, not a piece of armor.

I would be insulted if I was Randolph Scott's family. They deserved better justice.

And I can't help but notice how the guy Randolph Scott was riding with testified for the defense and was surprised at the "large amount" of jail time Janklow received. Gee, I wonder who got to him.

Geek is Cool? Damn straight!

I think this article still doesn't quite get it right, but at least it's a start. I think that the term "geek" has had a positive connotation for some time. So saying a "typical Internet user" equals not a geek because he/she is socially active and involved in non-computer activities equals a cool person doesn't say anything about being a geek.

To me, it's: "typical Internet/computer user" equals geek because he/she is into computers AND IS ALSO socially active and involved in non-computer activities equals a cool person.

I'm a geek and I'm proud, damn it.

But I'm probably not making any sense.... :)

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!

I want to stay mad at this guy...I want to tell him to just cram it! But, I can't (damn him).

A few weeks ago, our friend Mike sent me a link to a column written by Bill French, which was later posted on heraldnet.com. Unfortunately, I no longer have the link, but he basically alluded to how violent video games breed violent video gamers.

Here's a later article, written by French, discussing the backlash he received from his original article.

But, it sounds like he learned his lesson...thanks to the Penny Arcade guys. We gamers aren't so bad after all, eh?

Note:
.....killographic is a real word? Please! I'm going to go all killographic on the asses of whoever made up that stupid term or even felt the need to create it!

Note #2:
Aha! After much searching, I found French's original article.

Punished for Trying to Learn

Dan sent me this story this morning. It's about a 13-year-old kid who saw his father do something neat on the computer and asked how it was done. It eventually led to him trying to do it on his own and accidentally sending an extremely innocent message ("Hey!") to every Windows machine at his school. Oops.

I simply cannot believe the repercussions.

To me...this was a learning event. He got a lot of crap from a lot of people, and that's a big lesson in itself. He also learned that what he tried to do just didn't work that way....another lesson. Yes, he did need to also learn that things can go wrong and to make sure that doesn't happen, but I hardly think that necessitates a 3 day suspension.

I mean, hell, if he wasn't "such a good kid" he was going to get expelled???
All because he learned something and then tried to apply his knowledge in as innocent a way as possible.

I'm still fuming mad that his principal immediately called him a liar and refused to believe the facts presented to him. What an asshole.

The best part of this story follows...it gave me goosebumps as I read it:
Mr. Brandt from PC World Magazine wanted to send me a subscription. He said that if I couldn't learn computers in school, maybe his magazine would help teach me what my teachers wouldn't teach me.

Appleton's Houdini

Magicians creep me out. Still, I thought I would report on this story about Houdini (there's a rift between the Oatagamie "Houdini" Museum and the Houdini Club of Wisconsin) because he's from the same small town that houses my alma mater (Lawrence University).

The "Houdini Museum" was literally right across the street from the University but not only did I never visit it, but I never saw anyone else ever set a foot inside.

Celebrate, Celebrate, Dance to the Music!

As some of you might recall from old posts of mine, I am NOT a fan of our former Governor George Ryan. Well, today he was "indicted on federal charges of taking payoffs, gifts and vacations in return for government contracts and leases...."

And for some reason, that just makes me want to do a little celebratory jig!

*jig* *jig* *jig*

Scientology Got the Boot

As some of you may know, I'm constantly on the lookout for Scientology stories. Imagine my delight in seeing one coming out of my home town.

Gov. Blagojevich recently expelled a Scientology exhibit from a Chicago government building. The group is actually the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (they mostly exist to warn the unwashed pre-clears about the evils of psychiatry, probably because psychiatry exposes the evils of Scientology...but I digress), a group that doesn't bother hiding their Scientology affiliation, but still managed to get past organizers at the Thompson Center.

Anyway, I'm pretty proud of the governor. For those of you who are screaming about the First Amendment, keep in mind that it's Scientology who pushed to be considered a religion. Therefore, seperation of church and state applies.

There is a sad ending to this story. It looks like we've lost Jason Lee to the dark side. :(

Haunted Roller Rink?

A roller rink that my siblings and I frequented often in the 70's (celebrate good times, come on!) was recently slated for demolition. In the process, workers have come across two groupings of human bones. Disturbing! It must have been the ghosts haunting the place that prevented me from learning how to skate backwards...right? :)

Why dammit, why??!!!

For two freaking days "Paris Hilton Cancels Letterman Appearance" has been one of CNNs major online stories. WHY??? By all that is holy...WHY???

Real Men of Genius

I've been listening to these radio spots for the last few years...back when they were originally "Real American Heroes" (pre-9/11). I always thought they were hysterical, but lamented not being able to share them with my non-radio listener husband and friends.

Well, now they're planning on making some television commercials...I'm so excited!

Here are some samples:
From Mr. Tiny Thong Bikini Wearer: "If you've got it, flaunt it, that's your motto. Which is ironic, because you haven't got it. So crack open an ice-cold Bud Light, sweet cheeks, and know that if you weren't wearing that suit, we'd ask you to take a bow."

From Mr. Fancy Coffee Shop Coffee Pourer: "What do you do with a master's degree in art history? You get a nose ring and pour coffee for a living."

From Mr. Handlebar Mustache Wearer: "You may not be a Civil War general, but with a handlebar mustache, even a simple computer programmer can rally the troops."

Add some female background singers and the former-Survivor lead singer, and you have commercial gold. :)

He was how old?

This is a tragic story, and I shouldn't poke fun. But after reading it and lamenting the tragic, sudden death of a high school student, I couldn't help noticing that this particular high school student was 20-YEARS-OLD...that's tragedy in it's own right!

What are we, stupid?

I'm not sure if any of you have been keeping track of the story of the four malnourished adopted boys, aged 9-19, who, when found by police, were no more than 4 feet tall and weighed 45 pounds or less.

Their adopted family insists they ate "normally" and had meals with the rest of the family....that they ate insulation and rummaged through garbage cans because of an EATING DISORDER! Anyone want to clue me in on which eating disorder this is? Oh, right, I call it....NOT BEING ALLOWED TO EAT!! The parents put a freaking alarm on the fridge because of this "eating disorder".

Of course the biological children are lying...they don't want their freaking horrible parents to go to prison (which is where they belong). You don't get so stunted and malnourished over night...oh no...it takes years to reach this level of abuse.

So now the parents are on the news with Dan Rather requesting that their children be returned to them. Do they think we're morons? No one on this planet deserves that kind of hell...let alone to be returned to that hell once they escape.

Cloned food

On Friday (that's right, Halloween), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had a trick of its own up its sleeve - it issued a draft assessment regarding the safety of consuming "food products derived from animal clones and their offspring".

While this is just a draft and does not legalize the sale of food from cloned animals in the U.S., it does state that food from cloned animals is "likely to be as safe to eat as food from their non-clone counterparts". This telegraphs the FDA's intention to commercialize cloned food unless new information comes up or there's significant public outcry.

Promisingly, the announcement about the report does go on to say:

"Although the document being released today does not specifically address ethical issues, that fact does not mean FDA is overlooking those issues. The draft risk assessment is intended only to address the safety of food from animal clones and the risks to animal clones, and the assessment is only one part of an orderly and public process to address the many facets of the cloning issue."

While I am not against cloning per se, I would like to see issues regarding cloning debated thoroughly and thoughtfully, so I will be following this story as it develops over the coming months and years.

Thanks for the hard learned lesson

Dan and I first came across this story while watching the news Monday night. We thought we were hearing things when the newscaster said that the roommate would be receiving six charges for murder for one actual murder. Then we found out why...the murder was so brutal that it warranted six charges.

I followed up yesterday by reading the above, and I was really struck by the last two paragraphs.

A man came to the house for a garage sale and found the body. He ran to a neighbors asking for help because a man was dead or dying. The neighbor, in her infinite wisdom, sent her 11 YEAR OLD SON TO CHECK IT OUT. I'm speechless. Why the hell would you send your 11 year old to check out:
1) a scene that, regardless of how nasty a death, would include a dead or dying person...something he would have to witness alone for the first time.
2) a place that hasn't exactly been cleared FOR FUCKING SAFETY!!!

Christ. A crazy murderer might have been sitting in the garage waiting for more people.

She needs to get her son taken away from her the careless, thoughless bitch.

Ahh...the irony

Thanks to my brother for bringing this to my attention.

For the past few years we've been reading about an upsurge in people leaving their children locked in cars...and often those poor children have died as a result. This is another in the long list of children lost this way.

However, this story (and others) have fixated on the fact that the mother was playing EverQuest while her daughter was dying in the car. There are many, many "reasons" why people make the mistake of leaving their children in the car...but the only one we've ever really heard about is this one. Once again, the media is trying to point out just how horrible computer gaming is, rather than focusing (as it should) on why children are "forgotten" in cars.

But that's an argument for another day.

I couldn't help but fixate on the fact that the mother was once an advocate of "Spouses Against EverQuest". Here you can see several posts she made against EverQuest. It's just so ironic that she fell "prey" to the game as well.

"All I know is we're not guilty of anything"

Though this is enough to make anyone angry, I feel enraged. I have a sister who is handicapped and I've been around many autistic children over the years. To hear how this one was tortured and terrified until he died makes he want to torture and terrify the idiots involved.

How *anyone* involved can say that they're not guilty of anything is ridiculous. Maybe the boys death was accidental, but they were certainly responsible. They restrained him. They beat him. All so that God could "fix him".

I came across another version of the story here. This article states that these "church" members would meet at the boy's house three days a week for "prayer sessions". When they would arrive, the boy would cry and panic, and a neighbor noticed bruises and a fat lip after some of these sessions.

Shame on these fools for thinking this is something they could "exorcise". Shame on the mother for letting these people touch her child.

The Danger of Having a Mullet

This is a tragic incident and I shouldn't poke fun, but I think it's high time people realized the dangers of wearing a mullet! Stop doing it people! It looks bad and it can get you killed!

Giving superheroes a bad name

A dozen day-care centers in Australia are trying to force children not to pretend that they're superheroes by banning superhero costumes in an effort to discourage rough play.

Normally, I'd say that this is rediculous, but apparently when some people don the cowl, they do seem to get aggressive.

My old High School is in the news again

Though I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, I think it's interesting to note that not only has my high school already returned to school (yikes that's early!), but they are instituting a healthy eating plan throughout the school...the first in the area.

Me...a NASCAR fan? Who'd have thought?

Well, not so much a NASCAR fan as much as a "Man, I can't stand Jesse Jackson" fan.

Though this is just an article written in response to an opinion piece, I'd like to focus on one of the revealed facts. NASCAR has decided to stop contributing money to Rainbow/Push, an action that is being supported by several black conservatives. This article claims the donations have stopped because NASCAR has felt that the only reason they are contributing money is so that Rainbow/Push will not go after them for race discrimination...basically they've been paying off Jesse Jackson to leave them alone. Gee, how come that doesn't surprise me?

Ooh..a new "religious sect" for me to sink my teeth into...

I'm all for religious freedom. I'm free to believe in what I want to believe, you're free to believe in whatever you want to believe, etc. But I can not tolerate people who throw a religion together as a convenient way to break whatever rules they don't want to follow. There is a reason we don't live in a state of anarchy. We have rules to prevent us from doing so. And, I'm sorry, I just can't believe that my social security number is the "mark of the beast".

Some of you might have read about Catherine Donkers at CNN. She's the "driving and breast feeding mom" who was arrested for child endangerment and a few lesser charges after being caught doing so.
I read along, surprised to find out that in Michigan it is legal to breastfeed while driving. But then I was stopped dead while reading the line "Donkers, who represented herself, and her husband, Brad Lee Barnhill, belong to a religion they say requires Barnhill to be responsible for punishing Donkers."

Wellll...of course I had to read more about this "religion".

It's called the First Christian Fellowship for Eternal Sovereignty and was founded in Nevada in the 1990s. The organization claims that their "main objective is to convert and educate sovereign Americans "to demand and defend their God given rights and fulfill their duties as freedom loving Christians against the encroachment of the Beast and his agents." (thanks to worldnetdaily.com for the summation)

I read along, feeling generally irritated and having a hard time hearing about yet another "religion" that gives the husband complete dominance over the wife (hell, read between the lines of these stories...she had to call and get permission from her husband before breastfeeding!!). That irritation turned into downright frustration and anger when I read one of Barnhill's quotes: ""Just like we don't need permission to get married, why should I need permission from the state to use my property on the road?"

Ok...that's where I draw the line. The difference between the above, and I think it's VERY FREAKING CLEAR, is that you have to SHARE the road with OTHER PEOPLE. Use of shared property is regulated by the government because, otherwise, we have LAWLESSNESS.

After doing a little more research (5 minutes worth, anyway), I also found that this "religion" doesn't believe in paying income tax. Ok, red flag there Mr. Income Tax guy. Go after these assholes. I contribute my share of income taxes so that I can live happily and heathily in this country. I expect the same from EVERYONE ELSE. If this group doesn't like it, get the fuck out.

Study shows that cell phones are not a major distraction for drivers...wwhhhaaattt???

This is why I can't pay attention to surveys and studies. Precious few people know how to create a truly objective and helpful study and, unfortunately, even fewer people realize that most of the studies or surveys out there are pure crap.

So, this particular study is trying to tell us that cell phones are not a major distraction for drivers. They reached this conclusion by evaluating the following: "Only 30 percent of the subjects used a cell phone while their vehicle was moving, compared with 97 percent who leaned over to reach for something and 91 percent who fiddled with radio controls." Ok, so let's completely fail to take into account the magnitude of distraction involved. Anyone who does it, or sees it done knows that talking on a cell phone is EXTREMELY more distracting than reaching for something, or changing the radio station. So who cares if more people are distracted by changing their radio station...these aren't the people that are so distracted they run people over.

I'd also like to know where the hell this study was conducted. I'm lucky if I don't see someone on a cell phone while driving in this area.

Ok, now this is disturbing

This guy gave his neighbor/baby sitter a lava lamp for her birthday. Little did she know that he put a live feed camera in it. Freaking sicko.

Aw, come on...give a Dog his due!

I'm sure that many of you have been following the gripping take of bounty hunter Dog Chapman and his fight against Mexican law.

Well, today we found out that he isn't getting any reward money for capturing Andrew Luster.

I don't know, maybe it's the sci-fi/comic book chick in me, but I can't help but love to hear the words bounty hunter and vigilante actually being used today..and for good! Dog got himself into a world of trouble for trying to help...can't we float him a few bucks? I mean, look at his hair...maybe at least $12 ($15 with tip!) for a trip to Cost Cutters?

Notice something wrong about this sentence fragment?

"...president of the Association of the Living Dead..."?

You know, I have a great deal of respect for India and Indians. There is so much history and culture in India and it's mostly so beautiful, colorful and rich. But, sometimes (remember the Monkey Man?), I have to sit back and say..."ok, time to usher yourselves into this century people".

This is one of those times. These poor people had been declared dead by family members in order to take control of their property, or whatever other reason. They're obviously not dead but the poor things can't get anyone to listen to them. They even have to have a freaking association!

When are people going to learn?

Never, ever, ever talk about anything that can even remotely be construed as positive when you're talking about Hitler.

Never. Ever.

Boy, I'm red in the face!

Ok, I have to admit that I fell for the Bambi hoax. I guess it's time I learned to take what I read on the Internet with one huge grain of salt. :)

There go the French Again...

The French have decided to ban the word "email". Email is now to be known as "courriel", which is short for "courrier electronique".

You know, there's something to be said about wanting to retain the purity of your language. It's annoying and conceited, but whatever. However, once you start being so freaking uptight about it that you start to hamper the way your people are to communicate with the rest of the world, you're just an asshole with a false sense of "something to prove" (in French that would be "quelque chose a m'averer").

I call it criminal negligence!

How many people have to die before states start realizing that once people reach a certain age they need to be tested more often in order to keep their driver's license?

It's not insulting! It's not ageist! It's a freaking fact that once people reach a state where they are no longer able to distinguish between the gas and brake pedals because their reactions are either 1) slow or 2) confused, then they should NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE!

Damn it! What is the problem?! Why is it taking so long for legislation for this to come along???!!!!

Hey, law makers...read this article...maybe you need to see the reality of the situation.

USMC attack robots

Now all we need is an AI called Skynet to control these guys, and then James Cameron would start to look like a prophet. Calling them "Terminators" instead of "Gladiators" would help, too - since when is a SAW a non-lethal weapon?

Contraceptives to be covered by insurance

I never understood why female contraceptives weren't covered by insurance. One would think that our country would want to make contraception much more appealing, instead of complaining about all the money that goes to "welfare mothers who keep on pounding out babies".

Anyway, I was then very troubled when I found out that Viagra could be covered by insurance while, still, female contraceptives weren't. If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

Anyway, that's all changing now in Illinois.

What's the Italian Word for Faux Pas?

The Italian Prime Minister, while accepting the EU presidency, made a very terrible and uncalled for Nazi joke.

Way to promote European solidarity!

A Cat Serial Killer?

AAAHHHHHH!!!!! *breathe* AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!