Okay, I just got back to my room at SU about half an hour ago, so I have a lot of unpacking to do and probably won't be blogging tonight. I just thought I'd let you know I'm here again (as if you care).
If you're an Alliance member and you haven't voted...
VOTE NOW, DANG IT!
Thanks to a tip from Alliance headquarters, all blockquotes will now appear in boxes. I just thought I would point that out (check out yesterday's fisking for an example).
I was checking the 3 referrals I got while I was working on that fisking, and one of them led me here. Apparently, I've been quoted on a message board! Go down to the third post and look for "Beyond Tolerance: Forcibly Legitimizing Immorality." I have no idea who the person is that posted that, but thanks!
Once again, I realize that the tinfoil hatted fools at Democratic Underground are extremely easy targets and shouldn't be paid too much attention, but some of the stuff they write over there is so funny that I can't let it go to waste. The article I'm about to tear apart (metaphorically, of course) is a good example, and it once again proves my theory that the liberal definition of "patriotic" is "dissent." Here comes the lunacy:
America: Land of the Free, Home of the ChickenhawksOkay, why did he capitalize the word "veterans?"
November 25, 2003
By John Cobarruvias
We recently celebrated another Veteran's Day. It was good to see Americans, as always, honoring our Veterans by attending parades, flying our flag, and taking time to reflect on their sacrifice. Our Veterans have sacrificed to give us the freedom we now enjoy and especially the freedom to question our government. But to continue to honor our Veterans...
...Americans must now have the courage to ask questions and demand answers from our elected leaders instead of silently hiding behind the red, white and blue.Here's the first indication that this particular individual has some sort of brain problem. He goes from praising the veterans and those who honor them to criticizing people for being scared. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. By the way, stuff like this indicates that people are asking questions, but will also indicate that many of those questions are totally asinine and a complete waste of valuable time.
Our men and women of the armed forces have been sent into battle based on false pretenses, yet many Americans are hiding behind their flags, lapel pins, and bumper stickers without once asking why are soldiers are dying.Actually, many people did ask why the soldiers are dying. It's not like this was an arbitrary decision. Do you think President Bush was just sitting in the Oval Office twiddling his thumbs, and all of a sudden he thought, "hey, why don't I start a war with some a-rabs!" Yet again, this person proves that some liberals can't grasp the concept of people disagreeing with them.
Silently waving a flag or displaying a "We support our Troops" sign is no longer a sign of patriotism. It is a sign of cowardice.REALLY? So, unless you're against the war, you're a coward? That's the most entertaining logical leap I've heard in quite a while. If we "chickenhawks" are afraid of anything, it's the thought of a Democratic president taking office, appeasing and/or ignoring the deranged, soulless murderers we're trying to wipe out, and inviting another attack on our country. If supporting national security makes me a coward, I don't want to be brave.
After 9/11 the entire world rallied behind America. We sent our troops into Afghanistan to bring justice to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network who were responsible for the attack on the United States. Few, if any, Americans questioned the administration. We were united as a country and we supported our soldiers.I should point out that this is the ONLY passage in the article I agree with. I just thought I would be "fair and balanced."
But with a job unfinished in Afghanistan, attention was directed towards Iraq. Over the next few months Americans were led to believe Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the means to distribute their devastation on American soil."Led to believe?" I'm sorry if your selective thinking mechanism is in overdrive, but Hussein did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. Look at this. If that isn't mass destruction, I don't know what is. Oh, wait, I forgot that if Americans aren't dying, it doesn't count. 5000 Kurds are less valuable that 1 soldier. Silly me.
Americans were scared with stories of "smoking guns" in the form of mushroom clouds.I have no idea what the F this means, so I have to assume that, if it is based on reality, it had nothing to do with my personal reasons for supporting the war. Sorry to burst your bubble there, chief.
The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, waved pictures in front of the United Nations of mobile biological weapons labs.Yes, he WAVED them. He didn't present them. He leapt off the podium and shoved it in their faces. OOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Scary, you guys!
We were told Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger...NO. WE. WEREN'T. YOU were TOLD that that's what WE were told. In actuality, we were told that Iraq SOUGHT to purchase uranium from AFRICA. Get your facts straight, arsehat.
...and aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium were recently discovered. We were convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to America, our security, and to our Allies. Therefore our troops were needed to wage a war on Iraq.Repeating...of...previously...refuted...misconceptions...hurting...brain! This is friggin' great. We were not "convinced" that Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, Dubya specifically said that we had to act BEFORE it became in imminent threat. Fascinating what a reality check can do to your argument, isn't it?
And they did. Thousands of Iraqi women and children were killed or horribly injured.I have yet to see a conclusive report of this, but I will concede that it's at least 3000. However, you have to remember three things. Pay close attention. #1: It's war. People die in war. There's no way around it. #2) Many of the civilians were killed by Saddam loyalists attacking American forces. It's not like there are U.S. troops randomly executing Iraqis. #3) When Hussein was in power, however, his party DID randomly execute people. Hundreds of thousands of 'em. I've seen estimates up to 500,000, and that's just the ones they know about. Would you rather have kept that going? Oh yeah, I forgot another piece of liberal logic: when civilian deaths do count, it's only because Americans were involved. If Iraqis are killed by their "president," it's part of their culture and we shouldn't try and change it. Hooray for humanitarianism.
The cost to American taxpayers is over $150 billion. And over 400 American soldiers have lost their lives serving our country.Apparently, our alarmist friend here doesn't realize how amazing it is that we were able to oust a dictator and liberate a country that had been oppressed for 30 years with less than 500 casualties. Compare that with WWII and Vietnam. It's incredible. Again, people die in wars. Get over it. It's not like I don't feel for the soldiers and their families, but they volunteered, they knew what to expect, and they did their jobs.
Yet months after the end of major combat operations not one single allegation used to justify the war has been found to be true.Heh...heh...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...sorry. That was the only appropriate response.
Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or any weapons programs in development.I'm glad you're able to assert that so confidently, despite the fact that you only think it's true because you believe it.
The so-called mobile biological labs were for helium production for balloons.That's news to me. Balloons? Maybe they were having a party because Hussein was such a swell fella.
The uranium purchase from Niger was based upon forged documents, detectable by a novice, but apparently not by the CIA.There was no mention of a uranium purchase. In fact, from what I understand, Hussein did try to buy uranium from other African countries, and the British government stands by its intelligence, so it's inconclusive at worst.
The aluminum tubes were for artillery shells, not uranium enriching centrifuges.Uh, yeah...read this. I'm sure that was just to see how fast balloons can spin (I'm aware that the centrifuge was buried in '91, but it shows that Hussein wanted nukes. I don't think he had a Grinch-like change of heart between then and now).
There were no mushroom clouds. No smoking guns. Iraq's imminent threat to our country and our Allies simply did not exist.STOP...SAYING...IMMINENT...THREAT! What Bush actually said was: "Some have said, we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" (from CNN.com) There was no imminent threat. There never will be any imminent threat. Do you know why there will never be an imminent threat? BECAUSE WE GOT RID OF HUSSEIN! Now kindly shut up and crawl back into the dank pit from whence you spawned.
The justification for war against Iraq, on every single allegation, was a complete, 100% failure of the United States intelligence community...Uh, that's a negatory there, good buddy (I don't know where that lingo came from).
...and yet there is still unimaginable silence.With the exception of singers, actors, directors, news reporters, professors, protestors, authors, webmasters...you get the idea. It's not dissent until 100% of America jumps on the bandwagon.
We have silence from our elected officials...It took me less than a minute to find this by searching for "anti-war elected officials" on Google.
...our media...You've gotta be kidding me. Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
and from those who waved a flag, wore a lapel pin, and shipped our soldiers out to battle with a salute and a cheer of "Bring 'em on!"CAN YOU NOT FATHOM THE IDEA OF PEOPLE HAVING DIFFERENT OPINIONS FROM YOUR OWN? THEY AGREE WITH THE WAR BECAUSE THEY ASKED INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON CONFRICKINSPIRACY THEORIES AND LIES!
There is silence from too many citizens hiding behind the flag claiming to be a patriotic, instead of asking hard, unpopular questions of our elected officials.All right, I've had enough of that statement. Here's a fact that may cause a bit of "shock and awe" for people like you: I was against the war when it started. I thought the economy was going to be affected, and I didn't know how important it was to get rid of Hussein. However, instead of grabbing a "No war for Nazi oil" sign and running out onto the street, I did some research, and I found out how disgusting and depraved Hussein was. That's why I'm pro-war now. Letting him continue his reign of terror would be almost as bad as helping him carry out his mass executions. I support the war because I figured that out, not because of some knee-jerk right wing reaction. Want to go another round, jackass?
Why did we attack Iraq?I already explained that.
Why are our soldiers dying?So others won't have to.
Why are we not handing control of Iraq over to the United Nations?Because the United Nations is a bunch of pansies who would surrender at the first sign of trouble and personally reinstate Hussein to avoid offending Muslims, that's why.
Why have we not gained the cooperation, money, and troops from our allies?WHAT?
Who in the intelligence community is responsible for the complete, total intelligence failure leading to the war?IT WAS THE LEPRECHAUNS! THE LEPRECHAUNS, I TELLS YA! IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT! No, wait, it was nobody, because the intelligence was good. Ha.
Who is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers?I'll take "Iraqi insurgents" for 6,000, Alex.
And why are these questions not being asked by our elected leaders of this country?Are you saying that the Democratic presidential candidates have never held elected offices?
Over 400 men and women of the Armed Forces have been killed in Iraq.To take a line from Happy Gilmore: "Oh, you can count."
They served their country with honor, not questioning their duties as soldiers. These questions are left to those at home who have the courage to ask questions and demand answers while proudly flying the flag. For the rest of America, it is time to come out from behind the flag and start raising your voices.Translation: until every single, man, woman, "transgender," and child in America is against the war, I will continue to believe that there is no dissent, because I'm a liberal, and reality does not apply to me.
(insert sarcastic applause here)
All right, that took me over an hour, so I think I'm about done for now. My drums are calling me again. Later.
I still have another DU fisking in the works, but I want to briefly mention something that caught my attention yesterday. I was watching MTV, and during one of the commercial breaks, they did an interview with Pink. They were talking about her campaign against fur and the people who wear it, and she said she doesn't understand why anyone would need to wear fur when there are so many other choices.
Sounds like a normal celebrity, right? Well, the next part of the interview was what made it hilarious. She said that she was "furious" about the partial birth abortion ban, and she even wore a "pro-choice" hat to an event she went to that night. So, let's recap: fur is murder, but abortion isn't.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?! DO YOU VALUE FUZZY ANIMALS MORE THAN HUMAN CHILDREN? YOU MAKE ME SICK!
Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I can move on with my life.
Hey, happy Thanksgiving! I decided to take most of the day off, but I do need to post something right now. I finally got around to taking some new pictures of myself so I could get rid of that crappy one on the intro page. I'm linking to them this time so my bandwidth doesn't disappear. The pictures will open in a new window when you click them. So, with that said, here are some more recent pictures of CD, your SIT webmaster:
I think that's about all I'm going to do today. Tomorrow, I'll have another DU fisking, along with whatever else I can come up with. I might also have some more pictures, but this is enough for now. Later.
All right! The Donktionary® is now an official Precision Guided Humor Assignment. I'll be going through the best entries and making a special collection, and I may use them for the other blog I'm working on.
As long as I'm posting, I'll give you a brief preview of coming attractions. I realize I didn't really write anything meaningful today, but I wanted to enjoy being home. Of course, tomorrow is Thanksgiving, so posting will be light again, but I do want to try and get a couple other items blogged before the end of the week. I got a new picture hosting service with unlimited bandwidth (as far as I know), so I'll be putting up some new self-indulgent photos in various sections. Also, there's an article on Democratic Underground that is in serious need of a good fisking, so I'm probaby going to do that as well.
One more thing: I still haven't gotten anyone to sign the guestbook, so you're welcome to do that. Also, I added a guestmap if you want to go that route instead (Bravenet is cool). They're on the right under the links. Check 'em out.
Sorry I haven't posted yet today. I was getting re-acquainted with my drumset. There are a few things I could write about, but it seems like other bloggers have already covered them. For example, Harvey Fierstein wants to portray a gay Santa Claus in the Macy's parade. Also, University of Chicago activists want bathrooms without gender. I can actually hear the very fabric of society being ripped apart. It's not good.
Like I said, other bloggers have covered these issues already, and they're so ridiculous that I don't think I even need to say anything else. However, I did find an interesting link via Patriot Paradox that everyone should see.
Remember this cartoon by Ted "Traitor" Rall that shows a bunch of coffins and says "This is what the war in Iraq looks like...so far?" Well, this is what Iraq looked like before the war (warning: site contains images of mass graves. May not be suitable for everyone). Now, was the war really a mistake, and is Saddam just "misunderstood?"
I think not.
All right, Semi-Intelligent Thoughts is back in business. The blog is now coming to you from Plum Borough, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh known for being unbelievably boring. I'll be here until Sunday, and then it's back to Syracuse for final exams and such.
I just spent 6 and a half hours in a van, and now I'm back at my own house for the first time since August 14, so I don't particularly feel like posting right now. I'll have plenty of new stuff tomorrow, but I'm probably taking the rest of the night off. I'll leave you with an anecdote. My Communications lecture today was on public relations, and the TA teaching it (it was her special "pretend to be professor for a day" day) used Dubya's landing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln as an example of a failed publicity stunt. She said that he appeared "arrogant" and it was unnecessary to fly to the carrier because it was so close to land. I just thought I'd let you know that the liberal propaganda machine that is college is still alive and well.
Okay, I'm still
procrastinating working hard on that paper, but I decided to post this now. I'm leaving SU tomorrow around 2 PM to go back to Pittsburgh for Thanksgiving. I will be bringing the computer with me, so SIT will still be available for the rest of the week. Unfortunately, I have to unplug the computer and pack it up before I leave, so I've decided that this will be my last Syracuse-based post this week. Unless there's a really important event, I won't be updating the blog again until I'm set up at home, which should be around 8:30 or 9 tomorrow night, Eastern standard time (I'll post something as soon as possible; I recommend checking frequently after 7, because I might be early, and I'll get more hits if you come back a lot. HA!).
Once I'm home, I'll be able to do a lot more blogging. In addition, I'll have access to my digital camera, so I'm planning on taking a few photos for SIT. I want to get a picture of myself that's less demeaning than the one I'm using on the intro page (my head looks bigger than it really is in that photo), and I also want to post a couple pictures of my cats. Why? Because I like cats, and because I can. I hope the little fuzzballs remember me after 3 months.
Until then, I will once again recommend that you check out the archives. Also, try visiting some of the pages I've linked. They're all really good, and they need traffic too. So, until tomorrow night, blog safely, and don't let Glenn buy any more hamsters.
P.S. Nobody's signed the guestbook yet, so feel free to do that if you want. Okay, now I really am done.
All right, I'm back once again. I'm a little scared right now, because Syracuse is having a Lewis Black weather experience (snow with thunder and lightning), but I do have to post links to all the people who voted in the TTLB Showcase this week. We're still losing to the League of Lunatics. That's just not right. VOTE, PEOPLE! IT'S NOT THAT HARD! Here are the people who did take the time to vote. You'll notice that Frnak is strangely absent. Hmmm...maybe the monkeys had something to do with it...
Flying Chair (41 links) - 746 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (178 links) - 736 visits/day V
Anger Management (105 links) - 391 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (31 links) - 332 visits/day V
Patriot Paradox (115 links) - 171 visits/day V
The Alliance (163 links) - 161 visits/day V
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon (149 links) - 157 visits/day V
Bad Money (117 links) - 154 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (200 links) - 142 visits/day V
BigStick (44 links) - 118 visits/day V
the evangelical outpost (69 links) - 115 visits/day V
angelweave (109 links) - 113 visits/day V
Pardon My English (55 links) - 111 visits/day V
See The Donkey (26 links) - 101 visits/day V
Left Coast Conservative (102 links) - 83 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (42 links) - 76 visits/day V
physics geek (34 links) - 64 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (28 links) - 58 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (9 links) - 45 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (50 links) - 43 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (31 links) - 35 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (46 links) - 34 visits/day V
curi's domain (12 links) - 31 visits/day V
The Patriette (47 links) - 30 visits/day V
Five Wasps (15 links) - 29 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (32 links) - 22 visits/day V
Cavalier Attitude (6 links) - 21 visits/day V
Intergalactic Capitalist (23 links) - 17 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (19 links) - 17 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (22 links) - 12 visits/day V
Shameless Self-Promotion (16 links) - 11 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (62 links) - visits/day V
eTALKINGHEAD.com: Political Commentary (56 links) - visits/day V
The New American Revolutionist (34 links) - visits/day V
I'll be back later with a very important message, but I have a paper to
put off write.
NOTE: This is a lie I wrote back in November, but it does involve Evil Glenn and animals, so Harvey linked to it
Okay, I'm back, and I've got a
filthy lie totally true story to tell about the most evil being in the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds. Here's what happened:
I wanted to write something about Evil Glenn's Thanksgiving plans for the new Alliance assignment, but I was having trouble coming up with good ideas. I decided that it might help if I took a walk to clear my head. After a few minutes of walking around aimlessly with no good ideas, I saw a pet shop on the corner that I had never noticed before. Since I had no filthy lies in mind, I gave up on that and went inside to see if they had any monkeys that I could mail to Frnak.
Well, they didn't have any monkeys, and when I said I wanted to send them to Frank J., the guy at the counter gave me a funny look and pressed the red button next to the cash register. I figured that was probably a bad sign, so I backed away and started looking at other animals. They really weren't that interesting, although one of the parrots looked mysteriously like a ninja, and he kept giving me an evil look and brandishing a tiny samurai sword. Other than that, everything seemed normal, but as I came to the puppies, I noticed that they were all cowering in fear.
"What do you mean they've all been reserved? Do you understand how important this is to my evil plan to eliminate all dogs...I mean...my...charitable plan to...give dogs to starving...LONELY children?"
"I'm sorry, Mr. Gorecinichton (that's right, he uses an ultra-liberal alias), but we can't sell you any more puppies. You've already bought ten in the past month. I'm afraid that you'll have to look somewhere else."
"Hmmmm...no puppies...BLAST!...I mean...okay, then give me two dozen of your finest hamsters!"
"Two dozen? Are you sure?"
"YES! GIMME GIMME GIMME...I mean...why, yes, that is indeed the number of hamsters I would like. Indeed."
"You already said that."
"Indeed I did."
"You're scaring me. Here's a dozen hamsters. It's all we've got. That'll be $50."
"Hmmmm...that's a lot...do you take GlennBucks?
"Uh...I don't think we do."
"WHY NOT? ALL STORES MUST BOW BEFORE THE EVIL GLENN-PIRE...I mean...here's fifty dollars. Now GIMME THE HAMSTERS...I mean...please complete the transaction at hand by exchanging those small furry creatures which, although they are named as such, are not made of ham and cannot stir. I have tested that theory many times, and..."
"Just take them and go."
So, Evil Glenn took his dozen hamsters and walked out of the store. Now, I don't know if it was the sadistic look in his eyes or the way he kept looking at the hamsters and laughing in the most evil way imaginable, but something made me want to follow him. He didn't seem to be heading in any particular direction, but he eventually wandered into the woods with that same evil look in his eyes.
I continued to follow the evil one through the woods and into a small clearing in the middle of nowhere. It was then that I noticed a small shack in the distance, and I realized that he was heading there. This turned out to be the case, although Glenn managed to shoot a poor, defenseless hobo that was hiding in the bushes before he went into the shack.
Once Glenn was inside, I looked into a window on one side of the shack. What I saw horrified me beyond words. He had hundreds of hamsters inside, and many of them were being forced to run on giant exercise wheels. If they stopped for even a second, he shocked them with a cattle prod! I couldn't just stand by and watch this, so I burst in the door to stop his evil plans.
"What do you think you're doing, you commie freak?" I said as I entered.
"Why, I'm exercising these hamsters, of course. What's so strange about that, comrade?"
"Don't you ever call me comrade again! You're not even exercising them! It just looks like you're making them tired and then shocking them! That's evil!"
"Well, if I can't shock hamsters, then why do they make cattle prods at all? If they would stop getting tired and do their jobs, they wouldn't have to be punished like this."
"What jobs? They're just running!"
"Oh, really? Then what's this?"
He pointed as he said this, and as I looked in that direction, I realized that Glenn is even more evil than we ever imagined. The hamster wheels were all connected to wires, and the wires were connected to...A GIANT BLENDER!
"You see, the hamsters generate power for my ultimate puppy blending device. I call it 'The Glennder!' It can blend up to six regular puppies at once, and up to a dozen Scottish terriers! Do you realize how much energy that is? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!"
"Okay, but what's up with that hat you're wearing? It looks like a giant hamster with dragon wings and fangs. Does it generate power too?"
"HOW DARE YOU! DO NOT EVER QUESTION THE HAMSTER HAT! NOBODY QUESTIONS THE HAMSTER HAT! THE HAMSTER HAT IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF POWER! IT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY SATAN HIMSELF MANY YEARS AGO AFTER I RAN AN ERRAND FOR HIM!"
"An errand? For SATAN?!"
"Indeed. You see, back in 1992, Satan realized that Republicans were starting to gain too much power and inject morality back into the nation, and Satan doesn't like morality, so he and I devised the ultimate evil plan."
"That's right. I RIGGED THE ELECTION AND MADE BILL CLINTON PRESIDENT! DID YOU THINK ANYONE ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THAT ADULTEROUS HILLBILLY? MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"
"YOU rigged the election? Then what did Satan do?"
"Satan married Bill Clinton! Don't you know that Satan has the ability to assume any form? Even now, Satan is planning on completing the evil scheme by running for president in 2008!"
I couldn't stand any more, so I did what any God-fearing, flag-waving American would do. I ducked just as the ninja that had been stalking me sent a throwing star in my direction, and it hit Glenn's hamster hat. I didn't want to stick around after that, so I ran out of there as fast as I could while The Evil One roared in anger. I don't know what happened after that, but hopefully he'll think twice about messing with me again. So, to sum it up:
GLENN TORTURES HAMSTERS
GLENN HAS A GIANT BLENDER POWERED BY THE HAMSTERS
GLENN GOT BILL CLINTON ELECTED
HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008
We must stop this robot-dancing murderer before he can come up with another evil plot. Also, I just realized that the word "hillbilly" can be made from parts of "Bill" and "Hillary." Coincidence? Of course it is.
I need to post one more totally random entry here to finish off the day. First of all, having a roommate who talks on the phone a lot can lead to random entertainment. For example, I heard him saying this a few minutes ago: "Crab people...Crab people...CRAB...PEOPLE! I don't know, maybe..." I assume he was talking about South Park, but you never know. I also happened to hear someone yell "F**K YOU, GREASY!" outside my dorm. College is fun.
Okay, on to important things. I still have a filthy lie about the evil puppy blending, hobo-murdering, robot-dancing, Satan worshipping communist, Glenn Reynolds, but I have to clean up my room, proofread a couple papers, write something about my summer media log, and do some Spanish homework right now. I haven't actually written the lie yet, but I have some of it worked out in my head. I'll give you a preview of a couple lines I'm planning to use just to get you interested:
"Everything seemed normal, until I realized that all the puppies were cowering in fear..."
"If I can't do this, then why do they make stun-guns at all?"
"Do not question the Hamster Hat! Nobody questions the Hamster Hat!"More on that when I
I somehow managed to stumble across this in the course of my daily
procrastination surfing. The guy on the cover of that book looks almost EXACTLY like my father, although I don't think he's ever been much of a juggler. Weird.
NOTE: If you came here from the "Favorite Posts" list on the main page, you may want some brief background info. I wrote the following essay for my moral philosophy class, and my TA said that it was "the best undergraduate essay [he'd] ever seen." Therefore, I decided to post it on the blog. It was originally in normal paragraph form, but those are hard to read, so I broke it up a bit.
I may be making a really dumb decision, but I'm posting the entire philosophy essay here instead of taking excerpts or breaking it up (read the previous post for an explanation of what I'm doing). I have other work to do, so this should hold you for a while. Feel free to read it piece by piece on separate occasions. I probably won't be posting anything of this size again until I go home next week. I don't think I really need to set this up too much. I'll just let it speak for itself. Readers of SIT, I give you:
A CASE FOR MONOGAMY
In today's society, people are gradually losing respect and appreciation for traditional values. Many social practices that were once considered honorable and proper are now largely ignored and often ridiculed. Among these is the practice of monogamy.
Due to developments in birth control and other sexual safety techniques, some people consider it unreasonable to go through life with only one sexual partner. In addition, from an evolutionary perspective, monogamy appears to contradict the very design of human beings.
Although these arguments may seem convincing at first, they do not necessarily prove that monogamy is not preferable. On the contrary, there are several reasons that it can actually be beneficial. This can be shown from both an evolutionary and a psychological perspective. Therefore, I intend to prove that monogamy is the most rational form of sexual behavior for human beings to practice.
Obviously, survival is important for any kind of life. Therefore, one can assume that the human desire for sex is a beneficial and necessary one. Some have suggested that monogamy is irrational from an evolutionary perspective because it decreases the chances of passing one's genes on to the next generation.
One argument is that people should have as many sexual partners as possible to improve these chances. The question is whether or not this is beneficial to the offspring and the parents. One downside of having multiple partners is the danger of sexually transmitted diseases. These diseases have several long term consequences that are detrimental to survival and evolution.
First of all, the number of STD cases in the United States is increasing rapidly. According to recent statistics, approximately 65 million people in the U.S. have an incurable STD, and approximately 15 million new STD cases are reported each year. In addition, two-thirds of these cases occur in people under the age of 25 (ASHA).
Since the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease increase with the number of partners one has, monogamy is a safer option. If a large portion of the human race is infected with incurable diseases, survival and evolution will suffer.
Sexually transmitted diseases are not only detrimental to one generation; Children can also be affected. Many diseases can be transferred at birth, which immediately lowers the chances of that generation's survival.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Harmful effects on the baby may include stillbirth, low birth weight, conjunctivitis (eye infection), pneumonia, neonatal sepsis (infection in the blood stream), neurologic damage (such as brain damage or motor disorder), congenital abnormalities (including blindness, deafness, or other organ damage), acute hepatitis, meningitis, chronic liver disease, and cirrhosis."
Because evolution is dependent upon healthy genes being passed on, these effects greatly reduce its success rate. In addition, many of them can lead to genes not being passed on at all.
From an evolutionary perspective, reproduction is useless if the children do not survive long enough to have children of their own. Conversely, if a couple practices monogamy, they improve their chances of producing healthy offspring who can then continue the process.
An argument against this is that the success rate will improve if people reproduce with a diverse variety of partners, which may cancel out some of the effects of disease. However, even if one grants that this is true, there are still problems.
For example, higher reproduction rates can lead to overpopulation. Even if every human being on the planet is born healthy, they must still contend for limited resources. As a result, the quality of life will decrease later, but the effect will be the same.
This could also lead to more competition, which seems to support the idea of "survival of the fittest," but human nature is slightly different. People normally worry more about everyday concerns than the future of the species, so there is no guarantee that overpopulation can lead to a balance. This is an extreme example, of course, but many areas are already overpopulated due to excessive reproduction, and the results usually do not favor evolution.
Monogamy is beneficial to survival and quality of life from an evolutionary perspective, but the psychological and personal aspects of this practice are also important. Many of the most common arguments against monogamy are related to this area of reasoning.
Some argue that one cannot possibly be happy with a single sexual partner, and they cite many reasons for holding this view. At this point, one must look at the subject of immediate gratification versus long term satisfaction. While it may be true that sex with any partner can result in physical pleasure and satisfaction, it is not necessarily true that this will have any long term benefits.
Casual, meaningless sex can, in fact, have negative consequences on the individuals involved. As mentioned above, one argument is that casual sex provides relief and satisfaction and must therefore be a good thing. Unfortunately, the nature of this act can lead to greater stress and more serious problems.
Sexually transmitted diseases apply here as well. If one has to constantly worry about disease, then one cannot fully enjoy the sex act itself. Instead of relief, this can lead to greater tension. In addition, there is always a risk of pregnancy, and in casual sexual relationships, this is rarely the intention.
Therefore, the risk of pregnancy will also weigh heavily on the minds of the participants, and it will undoubtedly make the act less satisfying. In contrast, sex between two people who know that there are no immediate health consequences can be much more fulfilling, and if a pregnancy does occur, the child will have a greater chance of growing up in a loving environment.
A second consequence of casual sex with many people is the loss of respect for oneself and one's partner. Some have said that the ability to have a fulfilling sexual relationship without any emotional baggage is a positive trait that will improve one's self esteem, but it can, in fact, have the exact opposite effect.
For example, an issue that is often discussed is the objectification and subsequent devaluation of women for sexual purposes. When women are viewed as a method of sexual satisfaction rather than human beings with emotions and needs, this can occur. However, many fail to realize that men can suffer these same consequences.
It is possible for a man to eventually view himself as a simple sex object, and he may build his entire identity on his sexual abilities. When these abilities are based on meaningless sex, a man's identity may become meaningless. Basically, even if one has superb sexual abilities, it is difficult to develop self esteem based on physical skills alone.
Another argument against monogamy is that sexual relationships will not be as fulfilling when both partners are inexperienced. This relates to the problem of basing an entire relationship on sex, but there are other problems as well, as it can also lead to the decoupling of physical and emotional satisfaction.
In order to have a truly successful relationship, both of these must remain intact. In resisting monogamous relationships, most often marriage, people employ arguments such as "I don't want to buy the cow if I can't milk it first." Although it may provide comic relief, this analogy does not properly address the issue of monogamy.
The problem with this view is that those who hold it view sex as something that people give them, just as a cow would give milk. However, one has to ask if these same people would feed the cow before buying it. The answer should be no, because this act would assume a certain responsibility. When sex is treated as a free gift rather than a mutual exchange, its purpose is lost, and relationships suffer.
In addition, this view rests on the belief that people should not commit to a long term relationship until they have had enough sexual experience to know what they are looking for in a partner. This can also lead to problems.
If a person has a string of casual relationships before finally making a serious commitment, those relationships can surface again. The person will constantly be making comparisons between current and past sexual partners, and the emotional and personal aspects of the relationship will not fully compensate for the fact that the relationship as a whole is not unique.
At this point, the argument about experience becomes a factor again. The couple in the previous example may have a better sexual relationship due to past experience, but the fact remains that much of this experience comes from other people.
In monogamous relationships, however, the partners will gain a better understanding of each other and learn everything together, which will ultimately bring them closer. They will not need to compare everything to past relationships or worry that they made the wrong decision.
In any case, this once again raises the question of what is truly important in a relationship. It seems that the physical and emotional aspects should complement one another rather than being totally separate.
This is, incidentally, another decoupling that occurs with casual sex. A positive emotional relationship makes sex more fulfilling, and this will then improve the emotional aspect even further. In this way, monogamy is still preferable if one truly wants to be happy.
It is even possible to build more trust through monogamy, and trust will result in a greater sense of satisfaction and happiness. By entering into a monogamous relationship, two people place a certain amount of trust in their partners and expect them to remain faithful.
This can build confidence and respect in both partners, and it gives the relationship an even more unique aspect. Casual sex cannot have the same result. By avoiding committed relationships, people concede that they do not trust themselves or their partners enough to share a truly fulfilling bond.
Another common argument against monogamy is the reality of sexual desire. Some say that because humans always have a desire for sex, they should act on that desire whenever possible. The issue of immediate gratification once again becomes a factor in this case.
It cannot be the case that giving in to every single desire in order to avoid temporary discomfort is an intelligent response to life's challenges. After all, if people never resisted desire, the majority of the world's population would be dead or in prison.
In reality, the power to resist extremely strong urges is a virtue few possess, and if one can successfully overcome sexual desires until the proper time, then one can apply those powers of resistance and dedication in other aspects of life. These abilities can also help to improve relationships. If both partners are aware of their ability to resist temptation, they will trust each other even more.
Much of what has been mentioned here about trust and emotion can be applied to reproduction as well. Monogamy is beneficial to evolution from a purely biological perspective, but it has positive effects from a psychological perspective as well.
In the proper relationship, children are viewed as a blessing rather than a burden or an accident, and parents who are ready to provide a positive environment for their children have a better chance of raising them well. In addition, the values and strengths gained from staying in a monogamous relationship, such as trust, love, and the ability to set long term goals, will be transferred from one generation to the next.
At the same time, parents who instill negative values in their children increase the risk of failure in the future. If a child does not learn self control or experience a loving relationship, that child will have a poor understanding of these concepts.
The consequences of this have already been discussed. Overall, given the biological benefits of monogamy, one can assume that the psychological benefits will further assist the human race in its survival.
Even though modern society does not cherish the same values it once did, it can still benefit from the results of those values. Monogamy is beneficial from an evolutionary perspective, as it decreases the risk of disease, controls overpopulation to some extent, and ensures that some members of future generations are able to continue the process.
In addition, monogamy is beneficial from a psychological perspective. When monogamy is practiced properly, emotional relationships improve, sexual relationships are more fulfilling, and children grow up in a better environment.
This practice also builds character, self control, trust, and respect. Casual sex may feel good and provide immediate relief, but in the end, it is not as rational as a committed, monogamous relationship.
"Facts & Answers about STDs." American Social Health Association. 11/10/03. http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html
"STDs and Pregnancy." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11/10/03. http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_Sheets/facts_stds_and_pregnancy.htm
A couple end notes for blog readers who managed to get all the way through:
1) I'll remind you again that this took 3 hours to write with only a half-sheet of notes to help.
2) I did all the research as I was writing.
3) I really do believe in all the arguments I made here.
4) Any time I used the word "evolution," it really means "survival," because one of the requirements was to cover how your argument is and is not at odds with evolution, but I think evolution is crap.
5) Have I mentioned I'm religious?
Sorry I haven't posted anything interesting this weekend. I was really tired yesterday and couldn't summon up enough energy to write. However, I need to post something now that I've been meaning to include all weekend, then I have some more "real world" stuff to do. First of all, I'm now officially blogrolled on IMAO. Not the best timing, since I recently sent the monkeys from "Evil Monkeys" over there to harass Frank, but a good thing nonetheless. As Frank has stated, permalinks don't get you any extra hits, but it's good to be on there anyway.
Now, on to more important business. Remember that philosophy essay I mentioned a couple weeks ago? The one that I turned in literally 4 minutes before it was due after spending less than 4 hours writing it? The one that I wanted to keep confidential because it sucked so much?
Apparently I'm not a very good judge of my own skill, because the TA who graded it thought it was, in his words, "the best undergraduate essay" he'd ever seen. Okay. So, to sum things up, I thought it was possibly the worst thing I'd ever written, and the TA thought it was the best thing one of his students had ever written. I don't want to go off on a huge tangent about my personal life again (that ADD post was more than enough for one week), but this kind of thing happens a lot. Every time I think I've done something really terrible, a teacher invariably acts like it's the greatest thing in the world. I mean, he wrote comments on there like, "excellent point," and, "absolutely brilliant!" This has happened so many times, I almost feel guilty when I get an A. I even told him, "yeah, I wrote it the day it was due, but...I thought about it for a while." Of course, that "thinking" was a handwritten quasi-outline that I made between classes that same morning. It took about 40 minutes, and a lot of that time was spent staring out the window.
This could actually be an addition to the ADD rant, because it demonstrates another part of the disorder that you don't hear about: low self-esteem. I've read accounts of people with ADD who classify themselves as "lifelong failures" and say that they've never done anything meaningful with their lives. They always think that they haven't accomplished anything because it was all so easy, even if people appreciate their work. I feel the same way. For some reason, nothing I do is ever good enough, and I really do feel guilty when I get good grades for doing so little work. I feel like I should be putting more time into things, but since I don't need to, I usually don't. The same goes for larger things, like getting into college. You may be aware that Syracuse is a fairly prestigious university, and the Newhouse school is the most competitive. In addition, TV-Radio-Film is the most competitive major. As my peer advisor put it, "everyone who isn't in Newhouse wants to be in Newhouse." When I somehow got in, I thought there must have been a mistake. It didn't seem like I had done any work at all in high school, but I managed to do what many people have only dreamed of and get accepted as a TRF freshman (many people have to transfer later because it's so hard to get in the first year). I don't get it. I always wonder if my work would actually suffer if I spent more time on it. It seems like it would be kind of artificial and overedited, which is why I never write rough drafts if I don't have to. I think I mentioned this before, but everything I post for SIT is off the top of my head. I've never spent more than an hour on anything I've written here. That's the same way I do assignments. I sit down, start writing, and somehow pull an "A" paper out of nowhere. Strange.
Okay, I've probably bored you again, so I'll go ahead and wrap this up. I'm going to post the text of the philosophy essay I just mentioned, and you can judge for yourself whether or not it's any good. It does make a decent argument for a subject people usually don't bother to pay attention to, so maybe it'll make you think. Or maybe it will just make you drowsy. We'll see. My next post will be either some or all of the essay. Later.
If you see a couple hundred crows in the trees outside your dorm, and the first thing that pops into your head is, "Man, I really wish I had a shotgun right now," is that a bad sign?
Sorry. I promise the next post will be a real one.
West Virginia: 34
I'll post again after 5.
Saturday=Syracuse football game at noon=marching band practice at 7:30 in the morning=I won't be able to blog until after 4 PM and will probably be in a really crappy mood by then. Just thought you might want to know.
When I do get around to posting (probably early in the evening), I'll have some more philosophy stuff with an interesting background story.
I have to get up at 6:45, so I should probably go to sleep now.
You know how your brain will sometimes stop working right, and you sit at the computer and stare at things for about 4 hours, and then you just play random drum cadences on your leg for a few minutes, then check your email a few dozen times...actually, you probably don't know what that's like.
I think I've mentioned once before on SIT that I have ADD (abbreviations, anyone?), and that may have had something to do with it. It's a great disorder, let me tell you. I'm actually going to write something about it here, and then I've got something else that I've been meaning to post all day.
Some of you may have read Mrs. Du Toit's essay about special education and disciplinary methods and things, and the topic of medication and behavioral disorders came up. Of course, there was disagreement over whether or not things like Ritalin are necessary, and some people think it's wrong to "put kids on drugs," and that type of thing.
I don't know why I haven't blogged about this before, but as an ADD sufferer, I want to clear up a few things about the disorder. Therefore, I'm going to write an "ADD rant" off the top of my head and see what happens. If you don't want to read it, fine, but the aforementioned essay and a discussion about medications that came up in my sociology class today have inspired me to finally write about this subject. This may end up being longer than I originally intended, and I'll probably end up telling you way too much, but it has to be done.
Let me say it once more if you missed it: I have ADD. Attention Deficit Disorder. Also known to some narrow-minded people as "hyperactivity." It's generally pigeonholed into this category. The stereotypical ADD sufferer is some kid whose parents feed him too much sugar and don't teach him to sit down and shut up, and that's that.
Let me tell you right now: that stereotype is UTTER BULLCRAP. If ADD were that simple, we could be rid of it, but that's not all it is. Another stereotype is that only children have ADD, and they grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood. Again, BULLCRAP. It only seems like they grow out of it because they learn to control the more visible symptoms, but they still have the disorder.
It's a brain malfunction. It's not psychosomatic or socially influenced, and it doesn't simply go away at a certain age. It's a condition that lasts a lifetime, but a lot of the better known symptoms simply become less noticeable as people learn to control themselves and enter the "adult" world.
However, ADD isn't simply a lack of self control or an overexpressive personality. Because I've lived with this condition for almost 19 years now, I'm going to tell you what ADD really is. Pay close attention (if I can do it, so can you).
First of all, the stereotype is true to a point. ADD does tend to make you hyperactive. However, it's not as simple as that. I've heard all the normal arguments. "They don't have a problem, they just don't want to listen to authority." "Their parents aren't bringing them up properly." "They're just trying to get attention." "Kids are energetic. You can't expect them to sit still for a long time."
Here are some fun facts: I often do want to listen to authority, but I can't remember what they said. My parents did the best job any parents could conceivably do, so that can't be it. If I was trying to get attention, I wouldn't get it by fidgeting and daydreaming. Of course, they usually use the last excuse to write off ADD.
It's true that normal kids are going to have a certain amount of energy, but realistically, you should expect them to sit still for a while. However, people with ADD are slightly different. There's a loss of control and a lot of involuntary factors that go far beyond youthful exuberance.
Most people don't know this, but ADD shares several characteristics with the more serious abbreviated behavioral disorder, OCD. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I'm not a neurology expert, but from what I understand, the disorders are caused by problems in brain wiring. The signals don't go where they're supposed to. For example, in normal people, an impulse goes from one part of the brain to the appropriate receptor.
Unfortunately, in people with these disorders, the impulses and signals can't follow the right connections. When a person with ADD can't pay attention, it's because a signal tried to follow a path that leads to a dead end. If someone has to perform a repetitive action, it's because the signal took a u-turn and bounced right back to where it started.
Again, ADD has a lot more in common with OCD than you might think. ADD is just a slightly less serious version. However, in both cases, the associated problems are caused by signals not connecting properly. This means that when a child with the disorder can't sit still, it's because the impulse to not move somehow followed the path of an impulse to move, and it became that impulse (this is commonly known as a "tic," or random fidgeting-type motion).
I can tell you from personal experience that resisting tics leads to EXTREME discomfort. I personally get a bizarre feeling of panic, I can't focus on anything other than controlling the impulse, and I often get a headache when I try especially hard to control it. Usually, all I have to do in order to relieve this tension is start tapping my foot or grinding my teeth or some other activity. For example, I'm tapping my left foot against the wall as I write this. If I stop, I'll have to move something else or I'll feel like I'm suffocating.
I've had several other tics over the years. For a few months in elementary school, I had to open my mouth every ten seconds and make a yawning expression. I currently deal with fun tics like rapid, uncontrollable blinking (usually triggered by an uncomfortable social situation) and moving my eyes to the extreme left or right at random (a habit I picked up in 2nd grade and still have not totally overcome).
That's why kids with the disorder can't sit still. They may want to, but they can't handle the tension that results from resisting the impulse. ADD is a lot like being addicted to tics. You want to stop, but when you try, the result is worse than the tics themselves. When I have one of my hyperblinking attacks, I usually get a throbbing headache, but when I try to stop blinking, my eyes water and I usually get a headache anyway.
You can't honestly say that kids with this condition are just doing it to get attention. I'll tell you right now, we don't like doing these things, but they're incredibly hard to control, and I doubt elementary-age kids can handle the willpower it would take to stop.
The disorder also causes impulsiveness, which is related to what I just talked about. Occasionally, the signal to do something will reach its receptor before the corresponding signal to actually THINK about the action. This leads to embarrassing verbal slips and other fun antisocial behaviors.
A good example would be when I posted a message on SIT that said "F**K TED F***ING RALL" in huge bold letters. I should've thought about that a bit longer, but I didn't, so I had to delete it later after people had seen it.
The impulsiveness, again, is what makes children with the disorder seem so unruly. They don't have time to think about their actions until after they've done something stupid, and they're usually labelled as troublemakers and punished as if they meant every bit of what they did (although not everyone is simply a "victim"). The main point I'm trying to make here is that ADD causes things that are beyond a child's control. I'm 18, and still learning to deal with the tics and impulsive behavior. I had to see a psychologist for a few months to learn how to talk to people without blurting out whatever's on my mind at the moment.
Speaking of things like that, did you know that ADD also impairs your social skills? Not many people know that. Most people's understanding of the disorder only goes as far as the things I've explained already, but I'm going to fill in the rest of the details and tell you, from personal experience, all the other fun things you get to deal with when you have ADD.
Like I said, it impairs your social skills. I'm not sure why it does this, but it's a common factor in a lot of cases, so it must just affect the part of the brain that controls socialization. The impulsive verbal stuff makes it hard enough to talk to people, but for some reason, it's hard just to have a simple conversation anyway. Eye contact is difficult, for one thing, and I still get watery eyes when I'm around a lot of people (when I'm not blinking, at least).
Also, the tension associated with ADD causes mental panic, and it's impossible to come up with anything to talk about or form intelligent responses. I tend to stutter a lot when I talk to people despite the fact that I have no actual speech impediments. I just have to concentrate so much on not saying something idiotic that I can't pay attention to what my mouth is doing.
This, coupled with the fact that ADD causes me to talk really really fast when I'm nervous, has made it hard to have normal conversations. Also, I was literally afraid of people for a while, but I'm getting over that now.
Overall, ADD also makes it hard to pick up on social cues, like body language and voice inflection. You just don't notice subtleties like that. It may not surprise you, therefore, to know that I have few close friends and have never had a girlfriend. I just don't know how one goes about getting them.
Amazingly, that's still not the end. Getting back to tics and things, did you know that ADD also causes MENTAL tics? I don't know how many others have this problem, but I get things stuck in my head all the time. Have you ever had a song stuck in your head? Probably. Have you ever had it stuck in your head for 3 months? I don't know, but I have.
Here's the real fun part: I get actual words and sentences stuck in my head. A lot of times, they're random quotes from TV shows or things I've heard people say, and sometimes they're just things my mind invents, but I have a constant string of disconnected English running through my head 24/7. It's the first thing I hear when I wake up (besides my alarm), and the last thing I hear before I fall asleep. Sometimes, it's even in my dreams.
The worst part is that I often have to concentrate on the words and arrange them into logical sentences. This can be very distracting and has led to some rather awkward moments which I won't go into here. There's also the constant fear of accidentally saying one of the phrases, although I occasionally develop a mental block where I'm physically unable to say the things in my head.
Speaking of which, do you know why I don't use profanity? It's because I can't. I have somehow made it physically impossible to swear. I'm not joking. In high school, people would try for extended periods of time to get me to swear ("Come on! Just say f**k one time!"), and they usually got a laugh out of my refusal to do so, but I couldn't have complied even if I wanted to. It's physically impossible.
I already mentioned that ADD and OCD are related, but it may surprise you to know that ADD even shares some of the characteristics of that, at least in my case. I don't randomly count things, as the OCD stereotype does, but when I count something, I usually have to do it several times. Also, when I take a test, I usually check at least 3 times to make sure all the answers are filled in.
I also have a bit of the classic fear of being "dirty," although it's not very serious. I don't have to wash my hands every time I touch something, but occasionally I do HAVE to wash them. It's very strange. There are other instances of this as well, but most people don't even know they exist.
Here's one more aspect of the disorder for you: complete lack of organizational and time managing skills. For some reason, ADD makes organization impossible. I have a hard time throwing things away, hanging clothes up, keeping notebooks organized, making my bed, and keeping track of various supplies. Doing work is also fun, because it's impossible to organize things. I usually write assignments off the top of my head at the last minute (like I'm doing now) because I can't think ahead.
This is related to procrastination, another great effect of ADD. I know most people deal with this, but there is actually a physiological aspect of it with the disorder. I can't accurately describe it, but the brain pretty much shuts down and doesn't let you think if there's any time at all to do something else. This is another aspect of the "attention deficit" part of the disorder. This invariably leads to "hyperfocusing," where you concentrate so hard on one thing that you totally lose track of time. I usually end up hyperfocusing on the task at hand at some point, but this is only after days and days of putting it off. Headaches can result from this as well.
I could talk about more, but I've used way too much space already, and I have work to do that I've been putting off by writing this essay (see above paragraph), so I think I need to wrap it up. Before I stop, I want to give my take on medication. I take it. I take Concerta in the morning, which is basically 12 hour Ritalin, and then I take short-term generic stuff at night if I still need it.
It. Really. Does. Work. It doesn't help with everything, as some people think, but it works. It's not a magical "no more ADD" pill, since it basically just increases your ability to focus, but it makes a difference. I actually remember my mom's description of the first time I took Ritalin as a kid. She said that I was sitting there saying, "I can think now! I can think now!" Probably because I could. You do not know how much of a difference the medicine makes if you haven't personally experienced it.
The problem is that doctors and teachers are so quick to prescribe it to kids who don't show all the signs of ADD, and many of them don't need it. However, when you have the disorder, you need it. I disagree with people who say that you're "drugging children" and it should be a "last resort." Once again, BULL. Until they can physically repair the brain impairments that cause this condition, medication is all we've got.
People are afraid because they're "drugs," but they're also "medicines." There's a difference between Ritalin and crack, if you didn't know that already. Also, people who say that the brain can't tell the difference between those two forget that Ritalin only has stimulant effects in people with normal brains. In people with ADD, Ritalin stimulates the part of the brain that the disorder shuts down. It's more of an equalizer than anything else. Also, it won't turn you into a zombie. It makes you feel different, but you're still who you are, and as you get older, it has less of an effect.
I actually plan to stop taking pills for my ADD when I get out of college, but until then, I don't trust myself to pay attention and get work done, so I'm going to take the necessary precautions. I'll say it once again: if we can't give medication to people with mental disabilities, we've got no business giving wheelchairs to people with physical disabilities. Use the right tool for the right job in the right situation (sorry, I've been studying Aristotle), and you can solve the problem.
So, that's my ADD rant. I think it's the longest thing I've written so far, but I've been meaning to do something like this for a long time. There's a ton of information I left out, and I may come back to it another time, but that's the stuff you really need to know. ADD is not a figment of society's imagination, it's not the result of bad parenting, and it sometimes needs to be treated with pills. The key is figuring out who actually has it and who really is a bad kid.
If you've read all the way through this, I really appreciate it. I usually don't reveal the fact that I have ADD (although I told a couple people in my dorm that I have "an organizational disorder" so they would stop bugging me to clean my room), but I had to speak from personal experience to adequately make my case. I think I may hold off on my other planned post for today. It's also kinda long. Thanks again for reading, and use your knowledge wisely.
Come to Syracuse University if you want to see huge flocks of crows without having to leave your dorm room. Friggin' things are everywhere.
(I'll have something interesting posted in the next couple hours)
I have a few things to blog about today, but I want to start off by posting the text of two more "Nigerian scam" type emails I've received this week. I could just delete them, but it's much more fun to publish them on the web so everyone can see what these idiots are trying to pull. Here they are:
URGENTLY AND EXTREMELY CONFIDENTIAL.
I am an Accountant and the chairman of the tender
committee which awards contract in the department of
the petroleum Resources of Nigeria . I sent you a
letter by post office sometime ago informing you of
our plan to transfer the sum of US$20.5million (Twenty
ï¿½million, Five hundred thousand US Dollars only) to
your account. I have been waiting to hear from you,but
up till now, nothing has been heard from you hence
this particular message.
In any case, I guess that you may not have received
the letter after all due to the shortcomings of our
postal system. I want you to know that this fund
originated from an Over-invoiced contract sum which
was awarded to a foreign firm in 1999. I and my three
(3)other colleagues in the tender Board purposely
inflated the actual cost of the contract to the tune
of US$20.5 Million.
However, the original contractor has fully executed
the contract, the project commissioned and the
contractor paid his actual contract worth, leaving
behind the over-invoiced sum. So, it is based on this
that we now want you / your company to come forward to
claim this sum on our behalf. We are Civil Servants,
and we are not allowed to operate foreign account
while still in office, so you are therefore to act as
one who had executed a contract worth the sum of
US$20.5million for my Department and you now want your
payment. This deal is 100% risk.We are perfectly in charged and had worked out
modalities that would guarantee a perfect
ï¿½transfer of this fund to your account. We have also
mapped out 30% of the total sum for you for your help
and assistance while the remaining is for me and my
If you are interested in the proposal, and you are a
trustworthy person who would not sit on this moneyï¿½ if
it is transferred to your account, kindly indicate by
contacting me through my private telephone or via my
This deal must be kept absolutely confidential till we
succeed. Thank you as we look forward to your
NOTE=After a successful transfer, 30% for you, 60% for
us, 10% mapped out to settle expenses incurred by both
parties in the process of transfer.We will also visit
you immedaitely we conclude this transaction to
collect and invest our shares of the total sum into
any viable business you may advise us in your country.
Contact me urgently through my Telephone
or my E-mail address.234-8023353203,Best regards,
Nb:Reply Using ABUGALADIMA@TISCALI.CO.UK
Naturally, this letter will come to you as a surprise since we have not
met permit me to introduce myself. I am kolawole Abiola, the first son
of the late M.K.O. Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the annulled
presidential election of June 12th 1993 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Before my Fathers death, he willed all his assets and wealth in my name
(as the first son) because my family is a polygamous one, my father has
My father transferred a lot of money in United States dollars
domination abroad. And also his assets worth billions of dollars abroad. Presently, (US$81million) eighty-one million united states dollars
only, isï¿½ in a security company in europe and asia countries
thatï¿½s why I am soliciting for your urgent assistance to safely transfer
this money in to your account on your behalf and myself.
For your assistance, 30% of the total sum will be given to you, 10% to
offset local or foreign expenses that may be incurred in the courseï¿½ of
I shall be meeting with you, if you accept to assist me.remember all
modalities have been worked out to ensure a clean remittance of this fund
into your account hitch free. Your expertise has been taken into
consideration and quite believe that you will protect my interest by taking
this deal strictly confidential.it will taken fourteen(i4) working days to
actualize this project, without delay.
I will appreciate your quick response throughï¿½
my email address isï¿½kolaabiola@123.com
ï¿½ï¿½ I am open to further question you may wish to ask in respect of this business transaction.
Our dreams will surely come true.
Just a real quick post. I used this on the new blog (which I'm not publicizing yet), and I think it would be good here. I'm trying to monopolize as many words/phrases as possible, as you may have noticed. If Frnak can make "muckadoo" his word, I can come up with a few of my own. I've already got:
-What wouldn't Dubya do?
-Puppy pureeing hobo hunter
...and probably a couple others. For the new one, I propose a new definition of NPR. Of course, it supposedly stands for "National Public Radio," but that's boring. Here's my idea:
NOISE POLLUTION REPOSITORY
It's not the catchiest term in the world, but it's not on Google, so now it's mine. HA!
I'm very bored today.
I think that's a much better name that "Democratic Dictionary." Anyway, I came up with some more liberal definitions for various words. It was harder to think of words this time around, but I think this will do for now. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...
Anti-American: Agreeing with President Bush.
Baghdad: Quagmire central.
Chad: Small piece of paper used by Republicans to rig an election.
Killing whitey Combining people of many races and ethnicities.
Europe: Model for the ideal society; Continent populated by intellectuals, innovators, and people who are generally better than Americans.
Fox News: Republican propaganda agency.
Governor: The highest elected office ever held by George W. Bush.
Homophobia: Offending homosexuals in any way, even if it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
Islam: A religion of peace, tolerance, love, respect, tradition, and other non-violent things.
John Ashcroft: See Heinrich Himmler.
Kim Jong Il: World leader who will probably be the next victim of The Shrub's terrorist plot.
Killing whitey Standing up for underrepresented groups, murdering children protecting women's right to choose, persecuting Christians defending religious freedom, and taking your hard-earned money away from you balancing the federal budget with reasonable tax policies.
Multiculturalism: Making sure that at least 10% of the people you meet in an average day can't speak more than a dozen words of English.
NPR: Underground resistance fighters speaking out against the neo-fascists. Don't tell them where the radio station is!
Orwellian: The type of society we have thanks to the PATRIOT Act.
Peace: Avoiding conflict at all costs, even if it results in our annihilation.
Quota: Buzzword conservatives use to make diversity sound like a bad thing.
Racism: Disagreeing with affirmative action and welfare, and/or belonging to the Republican Party.
Second Amendment: See murder.
Tolerance: Agreeing with everyone all the time (unless they're conservative).
Uncle Tom: Black Republican.
Vietnam: Adjective used to describe a soldier's death (there may have been a war with a similar name at some point).
Whitewater: (place hands over both ears) I'M NOT LISTENING! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Just so you know, I don't believe for a second that all Democrats think this way. Unfortunately, the ones who do think this way are usually the ones talking. Remember, reader submissions are encouraged (especially since I'm almost out of ideas), including alternate definitions for words that have been used already. Donktionary power!
Incidentally, if you're still reading, you may be interested to know that I've been actively following politics for less than a year now. I didn't even know the difference between Democrats and Republicans until after the 2000 election, and I don't think I knew the difference between "right" and "left" until sometime in early 2002.
*The More You Know!*
I just completed the Republican half of this list for Political Translation. Here's a sample:
Tolerance: Successfully resisting the urge to kick liberals in the head.
For some reason, I'm obsessed with kicks to the head this week. Must be all the protests.
You are George Walker Bush! You are the most
powerful man in the world, which leaves you
little time to think for yourself. Fortunately,
you have your friends to think for you!
Which member of the Bush Administration are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Okay...I don't know if that's totally accurate. I don't have friends that think for me (if I did, they probably wouldn't have let me waste your time with this post), but...I guess I could live with being the most powerful man in the world.
Do you fear my power yet?
Are you still reading?
Hey! Get back here!
You'll be back!
You always come back!
Rumsfeld! Ashcroft! Don't just stand there!
Crush the dissenting traitor!
I think I'm gonna go take a nap now.
A Democratic Underground poster (yes, I'm still reading DU. Don't give me that look! You know which look I'm talking about!) has this to say about Free Republic:
"By the way, you can sign up there and have fun from time to time
if you wish. They don't seem nearly as adept at identifying members of the opposition as we do."
In other words, they allow people to disagree with them (a fact I've verified by reading their boards, although I'm not a huge fan). The DU, on the other hand, has this to say:
"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
And these are the people who say they're being censored?
Okay, I don't have anything particularly political to blog about right now, but I have to write about the top story in today's Daily Orange. There is an editorial talking about the filibusters and explaining why the Democrats did the right thing against extremist judges who want to take away our freedoms and blah blah blah...and there's also an article about gay Catholics (nice oxymoron), but those pale in comparison to the front page story. Why, you ask?
"The Hey Song" has been banned at Syracuse football games. That's big news. The song is one of the most important parts of the game to fans. They all wave their arms back and forth in unison and sing along. Sounds great, right? What could be the problem with that?
Well, apparently, they don't like the way students sing it. Since I'm a bass drummer, I just help provide the rhythm for the song, so I don't personally participate in this, but the fans and many band members have a chant they do during certain parts of the song. For example, in the chorus, after they say "HEY!" they add the phrase "YOU SUCK!" However, that's not even the part that the administration is worried about.
You see, after the chorus, there's a section of nothing but drums, and the fans do the main chant during that time. It was originally supposed to go, "Rough 'em up! Bust 'em up! Go SU! You won't deny the orange and blue!" However, the preferred chant, and the one that has resulted in a ban of the song, is "F**k 'em up! F**k 'em up! Go SU! We're gonna kick the sh*t outta you!"
I guess I understand why they have a problem with that, but I really think there's going to be some sort of student response. My roommate, who always sits in the orange-shirted student section, was furious when he saw the headline, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way. Personally, I don't care whether they change it, although it is fun to watch all the team spirit in between the vulgar parts. I just think the students are going to react to this in a very negative way. You have to have seen this to fully appreciate the tradition, of course, but you can still probably imagine what a difference it's going to make.
Okay, that's it for now. I'll come back to that editorial later and point out the idiotic parts. Also, I'll remind you again to read "The True Fan" down below if you haven't yet. I hate to plug my own work like this, but I really think it's one of my better posts. So, in the words of Principal Skinner, "Prove me wrong, children. Prove me wrong!"
The Alliance Bartender left a comment suggesting that I change "Democratic Dictionary" to "Democrat Dictionary" so the subject matter is more obvious. That got me thinking, and as I was doing my Spanish homework (says a lot about my attention span, doesn't it?), I came up with something else. So, the Democratic Dictionary will probably be called "The Donktionary" in the future. I Googled that word, and nobody...NOBODY has used it online EVER according to them, so I'm going to be the first. I'll just copy it a few times to make sure I get to claim it.
There. Now, I've got a Google monopoly on both "Donktionary" and "puppy pureeing hobo hunter." I should probably get back to work now.
I think I may actually participate in the Precision Guided Humor assignment this week. Why? Because the theme is How should anti-war protesters be punished under American Sharia Law?
You may have detected a bit of it if you saw my Ted Rall rants before I deleted them, but I'll come clean right now: I have a very sick mind, and I'm able to come up with very disturbing things when I want to. Fortunately, I can turn that particular feature of my subconscious on and off at will (hence the routine self-censorship on SIT), but I think I'm going to have some fun with this one.
(I'll probably delete this, too)
Read "The True Fan" in the post below if you didn't see it yet.
All right, I'm a little late, but as promised, here is a satirical sketch about patriotism. The scenario: Bob and Joe are sitting on a couch watching football, and they start talking about the game between plays. Their conversation is as follows (WARNING: CONTAINS (censored) PROFANITY AND SUFFERS IN THE REALITY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES OF ANY FOOTBALL PLAYERS):
-BOB: So, pretty good game, isn't it?
-JOE: I guess. You're a Patriots fan, right?
-BOB: Definitely. I love the Patriots. Greatest football team in the world. I support them 100%. If anyone...WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT? I HATE YOU!
-JOE: Didn't you just say you love the Patriots?
-BOB: Sure did. Greatest team in the-WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW? YOU SUCK!
-JOE: Uh, Bob, I'm not sure how big a fan you actually are. You don't seem to be supporting them very much.
-BOB: Are you saying I'm not a Patriots fan? I told you, I love the Patriots! They're the...WHOA! WHAT WAS THAT? GET OFF THE FIELD! GET OFF THE F***IN' FIELD!
-JOE: Okay...so, who's your favorite player?
-BOB: I don't really like any of them. They're all in it for the money. None of them actually care about football. Greedy pigs.
-JOE: But they're still your favorite team?
-BOB: Of course they are! The Patriots are the greatest team in the world! How many times do I have to tell you that?
-JOE: Well, you seem to dislike them a bit.
-BOB: What's wrong with that? I can still be a Patriots fan and hate the Patriots!
-JOE: Well...what about the coach? Do you like him?
-BOB: Don't even get me started on that f***in' idiot. He wouldn't know football if it came up behind him and kicked him in his ugly monkey head. That guy's a moron.
-JOE: You did say you LOVE the Patriots, right?
-BOB: Stop questioning me! Of course I do! They're a great team. If you keep...OH, COME ON! YOU F***IN' SUCK, YOU A**HOLES! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!
-JOE: If you're such a big fan, why do you keep yelling at them?
-BOB: Do you have a problem with my dissent? It's healthy to question your team. A lot of Patriots fans just blindly cheer whenever something good happens. They don't even think about how the other team feels. They're so afraid to be different. When I support my team, I look at all the issues.
-JOE: Yeah, but you just seem to be spouting obscenities at them. That goes beyond questioning, doesn't it?
-BOB: Are you saying that I can't disagree with the Patriots and still be a true fan? I just want what's best for them.
-JOE: That doesn't make much sense, but I guess I understand why you would-
-BOB: HA! HE BROKE HIS LEG! SERVES YOU RIGHT, POSER! I HOPE YOU ALL DIE!
-JOE: Uh, Bob, that was New England's quarterback. Why are you happy about that?
-BOB: The idiot deserved it. He needed to be taught a lesson. When the quarterback gets hurt, the coach will see that he's using the wrong plays. In fact, I think they'll have a much better season if they lose this game.
-JOE: You're rooting AGAINST your favorite team?
-BOB: No, it's not like that at all. I just think they deserve to lose.
-JOE: But you still love them, right?
-BOB: YES! The Patriots are the greatest team in the world. I'm with them all the way.
-JOE: But you just said you wanted them to lose! It sounds like you hate them!
-BOB: HOW DARE YOU! HOW F***IN' DARE YOU! I LOVE THE PATRIOTS! WHY ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY TEAM SPIRIT?
-JOE: Because it seems like you're totally against them.
-BOB: You're just...HA! NOW YOU'RE LOSING BY 28 POINTS, A**HATS! SERVES YOU RIGHT! THESE PLAYS ARE TERRIBLE! YOU NEED TO FORFEIT THE GAME, FIRE THE COACH, AND SEND ALL THE PLAYERS HOME! THAT'LL TEACH YOU TO USE CRAPPY PLAYS!
-JOE: I don't understand how you can say that about a team you supposedly love.
-BOB: Are you retarded? Can you not hear me? I LOVE THE PATRIOTS! THEY'RE THE BEST FOOTBALL TEAM IN THE WORLD! I'M BEHIND THEM ALL THE WAY!
-JOE: Wait, what are you doing now?
-BOB: I'm setting fire to my Patriots jersey. It's a disgusting symbol of greed and failure, and I'm ashamed to wear it.
-JOE: FIRE? How can you do that if you love the Patriots?
-BOB: This team doesn't represent anything I stand for, so I'm burning their jersey. What's so hard to understand?
-JOE: Why don't you just follow a different team?
-BOB: BECAUSE THE PATRIOTS ARE THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD! I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU THAT!
-JOE: I really think you need to lay off the alcohol, Bob. I'm worried about you.
-BOB: WHAT? STOP TRYING TO OPPRESS ME! I THINK YOU HATE THE PATRIOTS!
-JOE: I think you hate the Patriots. In fact, you hate them so much that you just set fire to your living room burning their jersey. I'll go call the fire department.
-BOB: FORFEIT! FORFEIT! FORFEIT! FORFEIT!...(etc.)
Okay, that was fun. I probably could've made this funnier, but I'll leave blog humor to Frnak J. (yes, Frnak is an acceptable spelling). I'm pretty sure you can figure out what I was lampooning in that little sketch there. I really want to know what these anti-America types would consider to be unpatriotic, because it seems like the word means nothing to them. If you have comments about this, I encourage you to include them. I'm going to be writing scripts in my TRF class next semester, and I want to get a head start with stuff like this. Criticism is welcome (although compliments are much better...or maybe a link or two...hint hint hint...wink wink nudge nudge say no more...). That is all.
Guess what! The DO contains articles on diversity and gay rights today! WOW! What a shock! They've never covered those issues before!
Okay, that was patronizing. Sorry about that. The DO begins today with the top headline, "Bill would promote increased diversity," and subheading, "Proposed legislation offers increased aid to schools that meet quotas." Allow me to express my feelings phonetically:
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH WUGALALALALHA LWBLWBLWWGHH GLHALASJFLARRGHA HAFJAFAHAHRAGGA!!!!!!!!!!
That's the sound I would be making if you were talking to me in person right now. QUOTAS ARE RACIST! WHY CAN'T THEY UNDERSTAND THAT? Want some quotes from the story? Good. Check these out:
"If Congress approves a new bill, Syracuse University officials could have an incentive to further diversify the undergraduate student population over the next few years."
That's always a good sign.
"The bill...states that any college or university with an Asian-American and Pacific Island undergraduate enrollment of 10 percent or greater will be eligible for an increase in general funding."
There's a word for this kind of thing: Ri-friggin'-diculous.
"In addition to the specified enrollment quota, the university must also have a large number of students who qualify for need-based financial aid."
Okay, I see two implications here. First of all, they're trying to receive more money by recruiting students who need more money. Does that seem a bit counterproductive to anyone else? Also, they seem to be suggesting that a more diverse student population would automatically contain more students who qualify for more financial aid. I'm glad they take their stereotypical worldview seriously.
"Of course [the bill] is an incentive for the university to build upon the Asian-American population and Asian-American studies..."
"It will help us build upon academic instructions where Asians are underrepresented."
Have they actually analyzed the school to see if Asians are underrepresented, or are they just assuming it? Furthermore, why do they care in the first place? IT MUST BE THE PERVASIVE RACISM ON CAMPUS THAT LED TO THE HORRIBLE PACIFIC ISLANDER BLACKFACE INCIDENT! OH NO!
"If the bill is approved, government officials would divide up nearly $30 million among qualified universities for the 2004-2005 fiscal year."
Urge to kill rising...rising...rising...
"[A congressman they interviewed]...believes that education is the gateway to success in the United States..."
Brilliant deduction, Holmes.
"Of the population of Asian-Americans...many have low English skills, and this bill would give them a bit of extra money to boost their success."
Right. Because we can't go to the trouble of TEACHING THEM TO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!
"Syracuse University is very passionate about advancing opportunities for all of its student body."
Of course, by "all of its student body," they mean all minority students. At least that's what it seems like.
Okay. That's the diversity article. There's also yet another editorial that supports "gay rights" while not so subtly insulting Christians and conservatives. I won't go through the whole thing because it's basic cookie-cutter liberal relativism that doesn't need to be dissected again, but I'll include a few of the best quotes for your enjoyment. First, the title:
Gay marriage ruling should set example
Nobody saw that coming.
"At its core, gay marriage is a matter of personal freedom. The logic is simple: To deny citizens rights based on their sexual orientation is unconstitutional."
That's simple logic for simple minds. When you think about it, it's not based on sexual orientation at all. If two heterosexual males wanted to marry for some reason (maybe they made a bet...who knows?), they would also be denied under the ban. The law applies equally to everyone!
"The court did not fall prey to the religious, moral and ethical arguments on both sides of the marriage debate."
I didn't realize morals and ethics were no longer applicable to public policy. I guess we just outlaw some things arbitrarily.
"The Massachusetts decision is laudable because it recognized...that marriage is simply defined as the union of two spouses to the exclusion of all others."
Marriage wasn't defined that way until now, arsehelmet! It was always taken for granted that marriage was between a man and a woman until the gender police showed up.
"The right's attempt to use gay marriage as a divisive national issue will ultimately prove futile and is mistake in the long run."
It wouldn't be a divisive national issue if people like you would stop whining about it. By the way, the editorial really does say "is mistake in the long run." Good proofreading, guys.
"Marriage, as an institution, is wrought with connotations of religion, society and morality."
Didn't you say that those things weren't important? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
"The Massachusetts court chose to reduce marriage to its most basic: a right for all to be accorded equal privileges under the law."
All right, I'm going to say this one time, and one time only: GAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE IT BECAUSE THEY WANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES! Everyone has an equal right under the law to marry one person of the opposite sex who has no blood relation to them. Let's leave it at that and move on.
One final note: You may have noticed that my writing style has become a bit...angrier lately (although I did delete the other "F' Ted Rall" post). I decided the blog needed a bit more attitude, so I'm going to try and keep that up (even without actual profanity).
Don't ask me why I used that title. Anyway, the Daily Orange has a couple of great articles for me to make fun of today, but I have other business to attend to, so I'm giving you something else to read. Follow the link below to read a great opinion peace on Bush hatred. I'll be back in about half an hour.
Why They Hate W
Okay, I'm still bored, so here is a sample of the Republican side of the DD entry that I'm using on Political Translation. I will NOT be posting this on SIT again; only Democratic ones will be included. You'll have to wait until the other blog is made public to see the Republican ones. Here's a sample:
-Appeasement: Wussing out/acting like France.
-Censorship: Speech codes.
-Death penalty: Punishment that fits the crime.
-Fundamentalist: Islamic terrorist.
-George W. Bush: The current U.S. president.
-Halliburton: Company Dick Cheney used to work with.
-Is: To be.
-Jingoism: Outdated word that hippies use to sound intelligent.
-Karl Marx: The man who is at least partially responsible for millions of murders in the last century.
-Lie: Anything Al Franken says.
-Noam Chomsky: See blowhard.
-Oil: Fuel that powers our nation.
-Patriot: One who loves one's country and is not afraid to show it.
-Quagmire: That horny dude on "Family Guy."
-Republican: Political party that generally supports limited government involvement, lower taxes, and traditional values. See also conservative.
-Suicide bomber: Despicable, cowardly murderer.
-Taxation: A necessary evil that should not be taken too far.
-United Nations: A bunch of liberals who like to waste time and appease dictators.
-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: We're not allowed to tell you about the VRWC. Sorry.
-Weapons of mass destruction: Weapons with nuclear/chemical/biological capabilities, such as those used against Kurdish villages by Saddam Hussein.
-Zionist: Supporter of Israel.
Remember to send your entries for Democratic definitions, including alternate ones for words I've used so far (I'll still be really surprised if anyone actually does this)!
I don't have a lot of work to do (if you can believe that), and I was getting bored, but I couldn't think of anything to write about for SIT, so I started another blog. I'm not joking. The "Democratic Dictionary" thing I'm doing gave me an idea. I'm working on a new blog called "Political Translation." It'll be similar to the DD, but it will have definitions on both sides of the political spectrum so the two can be compared.
Now, I put a question mark in the title because I don't know if I'll ever go public with PT. It depends on how many entries I get for the Democratic Dictionary, which I expect to be a continuous project. I encourage readers once again (yes, I'm still talking to all 4 of you) to send me whatever entries they can come up with and help me out. I'm trying to get a hook for SIT, and this could be it. I'm over 1000 hits now, and I want some more friggin' traffic. We'll have to wait and see how this new project goes, I guess.
Is this some kind of sick joke? The hit counter got to 999, and then the traffic stopped. I haven't had anyone here in the last 4 hours! Just give me one more friggin' hit, people! This is important!
That was fast. Anyway, here is the first set of entries from the Democratic Dictionary. I didn't get all the letters, but that's why this is only part 1. I'll be doing these periodically, so I should be able to come up with at least one for every letter. Remember, if you want to contribute your own, put them in the comments or email them to me. I WILL include them if they're good (and probably even if they're not; I don't want to be a hypocrite). Maybe this will help me gain some recognition within the blogosphere. And now, here are the DD definitions:
-Appeasement: The solution to all foreign problems.
-Bigotry: Disagreeing with liberal ideas.
-Censorship: Criticizing liberal ideas.
-Death penalty: Genocidal conspiracy against African-Americans.
-Fundamentalist: Christian who believes in God and reads the Bible.
-George W. Bush: The Antichrist.
-Halliburton: Dick Cheney's evil empire.
-Is: Definition varies from person to person
-Jingoism: Flying the American flag during a war.
-Karl Marx: The second most brilliant thinker in recent history (even if he was a bit of a centrist).
-Lie: Anything a Republican says.
-Noam Chomsky: The most brilliant thinker in recent history.
-Oil: The root of all evil and the cause of all Republican military action
-Patriot: One who blindly supports the neo-fascist government out of fear.
-Quagmire: The result of deposing a murderous dictator and freeing millions of oppressed people.
-Republican: Racist, sexist, fascist, homophobic, warmongering, anti-choice, fundamentalist bigot.
-Suicide bomber: Heroic freedom fighter (see martyr).
-Taxation: The solution to all domestic problems.
-United Nations: Organization created to keep U.S. power in check.
-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: The cause of every problem taxes and appeasement can't solve.
-Weapons of mass destruction: Red herring invented by Republicans to distract people from their imperialism.
That should give you a good idea of what I'm looking for. I really do encourage readers to contribute to this (that's right, all 4 of you). I want to get as many entries as possible so I can eventually combine them all.
Oh, and one more thing: I'm almost up to 1000 hits. Ceee-le-brate good times COME ON! Also, I have a guestbook that nobody's signed yet, so feel free to check that out.
There's a lot I could blog about right now, but I'm too tired to actually write anything at the moment. However, James Finch of VRWC, Inc. has provided some great reading material with his newest essay, The Darkest of Hearts. It's all about evil and why totally destroying our enemies is sometimes the best option. Be sure to read it as soon as possible.
There's an entertaining article on Democratic Underground that would be fun to fisk, but it's too long for that and I don't feel like doing another multi-fisking for a while, so I will instead link to it and let you dissect it yourself. Read about Shrubya's war for OOOIIIIIIIL here.
Now, back to SIT. I'm working on a series of posts right now called "The Democratic Dictionary." It's basically my idea of what liberals think of when they see certain words. I'll be doing several entries, each one in alphabetical order with words for as many letters as I can think of. I'm trying to get every letter for the first post, but that may not be easy. Here's a free sample:
Oil: The root of all evil and the cause of all Republican military action.
Feel free to leave any suggestions in the comments for this or the actual DD post. You can also email suggestions to me if you want. I'm serious about this. If I get enough, maybe I'll make an actual book out of it (or not). Help me out here, people!
I'm gonna get back to work on DD entry #1 right now.
To start off the day, here is my newest college life lesson:
PRO: If the professor is sick, class is cancelled.
CON: If the professor of your 8:30 AM class is sick, you got up at 7:45 for nothing.
I really wish I hadn't learned that lesson from experience today.
Also, I deleted the second post in my "F Ted Rall" series, but I'm keeping the original because it's the only way to express my disdain for that pitiful scumbag. I think it's incredibly ironic that people like Traitor Rall use their freedom to attack the country that grants it. It makes me sick. Also, I'm still taking donations for the Foundation to have Michael Moore and Ted Rall Eviscerated and/or Incinerated, if anyone's interested. Read the previous post for details. Maybe we can get Frank J. on board. In his latest post, he says that if he becomes rich and famous, he can make Ted Rall disappear. That sounds fine to me.
If you're still reading now, congratulations! You actually get to see the new stuff for today. On my way back to class, I was thinking about liberal double standards (I think about those a lot), and I realized something about their ideas of "censorship." Remember when that soldier went on TV and criticized Donald Rumsfeld? Remember how mad some people got when he was disciplined? The accusations of censorship and oppression? It wasn't a huge thing, but a lot of people were angry that he was reprimanded for it.
Now, think about General Boykin, the guy who implied, in a church, that he was fighting a holy war. Remember how the same people said that he should resign and make a public apology? WHY THE CRAP IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? I don't have that much to say, because I think you get the point. Soldier in uniform criticizes Rumsfeld=makes Bush administration look bad=good for the left=accuse anyone who disagrees of censorship. Soldier in uniform criticizes the enemy and makes religious references=makes the administration look good and acknowledges God=bad for the left=accuse him of bigotry. Liberals are funny.
Wrong. Go here and check out the comments from James Benjamin to see what kind of reality most liberals are living in. I figure sending other people to look at his asinine comments is more fun than offering him another free cookie (you'll have to read it to understand that one). Feel free to add something to the discussion. I'm through dealing with him.
Well, the League of
Anarchists Communists Lunatics Liberals won sponsorship of the showcase and won the overall vote with 61. I don't understand how hard it is to take 10 minutes out of your day and vote for a friggin' blog. Seriously. When I entered the showcase, I was getting almost 100 hits a day (this was less than 2 weeks ago, so I remember it pretty well). Show some respect for new bloggers and help them get noticed! You could be overlooking the next Frank J. or Puppy Blender! VOTE, DAGNABIT! Anyway, here is the list of people who DID bother to vote this week. Check 'em out:
IMAO (569 links) - 2940 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (176 links) - 1034 visits/day V
Flying Chair (44 links) - 631 visits/day V
annika's journal & poetry (83 links) - 260 visits/day V
Patriot Paradox (44 links) - 233 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (124 links) - 211 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (60 links) - 200 visits/day V
Bad Money (166 links) - 155 visits/day V
The Alliance (173 links) - 145 visits/day V
Simon World (30 links) - 100 visits/day V
angelweave (97 links) - 97 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (27 links) - 96 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (180 links) - 91 visits/day V
See The Donkey (21 links) - 89 visits/day V
Pardon My English (55 links) - 87 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (45 links) - 67 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (47 links) - 66 visits/day V
The Everlasting Phelps (30 links) - 57 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (29 links) - 52 visits/day V
TacJammer (47 links) - 40 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (6 links) - 40 visits/day V
The Patriette (41 links) - 37 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (30 links) - 36 visits/day V
curi's domain (17 links) - 35 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (48 links) - 32 visits/day V
BigRedGiant.com (19 links) - 28 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (44 links) - 28 visits/day V
Irreconcilable Musings (25 links) - 23 visits/day V
The Psychotic Rant (29 links) - 17 visits/day V
Single White Male (9 links) - 16 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (20 links) - 13 visits/day V
Peripheral Mind (32 links) - 13 visits/day V
Shameless Self-Promotion (14 links) - 10 visits/day V
Hoppings of Roxette Bunny (25 links) - 10 visits/day V
Johnalism.com (10 links) - 9 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (63 links) - visits/day V
There, see how it works? When you vote in the showcase, tiny insignificant blogs with 4 regular readers link to you. Don't you want that kind of attention?
(Big thanks to Harvey at Bad Money for the code)
Okay, I haven't blogged much today. That's obvious. However, since I do have a certain duty here, I thought I'd post an excerpt from the essay I wrote this afternoon. This is what I'm usually doing when I'm not posting on SIT. Anyway, the paper is about ways to ensure that senior citizens are able to drive safely. This excerpt covers the final 2 pages (of 6 total pages), and follows a detailed list of dangers related to old people with cars. Check it out:
Senior Citizens and Safe Roads
...Now that the reasoning behind my proposal has been explained, as well as the various problems it could solve, I will explain the proposal itself. I believe that the problems associated with older drivers could best be solved by implementing a system to make sure these drivers are still competent and physically able to drive safely. Because most problems start after age 55, drivers who reach this age would be required to apply for license renewal at preset intervals. I suggest three years, but this could be adjusted based on individuals or medical recommendations.
At the end of each interval, the potential driver would have to see a physician and receive a medical evaluation. This would decrease the risk of missing certain health problems that can contribute to accidents in elderly drivers. The physician would fill out a checklist of various problems commonly associated with aging, with a different amount of points assigned to each problem. The law would include a specific number of points that could not be exceeded. This number would be based on calculations of risk factors and driver ability. In this scenario, once a certain number is reached, the patient can no longer receive a license without undergoing treatment or therapy for the most severe problems.
Identifying the medical problems to include in the checklist could be a difficult task, but several sources provide a list of things to look for in older drivers that could make the process simpler. The American Medical Association, for example, provides a "Physician's Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers." This guide illustrates a very detailed process, and I believe it would fit very well into my proposal. The guide consists of several steps, and each one is designed to identify problems and provide treatment. Some of the steps in the guide include: "Is the Patient at Increased Risk for Unsafe Driving," "Formally Assess Function," "Counseling the Patient Who is No Longer Safe to Drive," "Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of the Physician," and "Medical Conditions and Medications That May Impair Driving" (Physician's...) These steps should be included in the initial medical examination phase to make sure that elderly drivers can function safely on the road.
The next step of my proposal involves actually testing the driving abilities of the license applicant. This process would be similar to the one currently employed in granting licenses to first-time applicants. First, the driver would be administered a written test to assess knowledge of road signs, signals, common techniques, emergency measures, and basic laws. Next, they would take an actual driving test consisting of turning, parking, driving in various traffic situations, and overall technique. Again, this would resemble the test given to people applying for their first license. Drivers would have to successfully complete all these steps before being issued a license. In the case of failure, they would be directed to medical professionals or driving instructors, depending on which part of the process they could not pass. Other forms of transportation would be provided for those who could not drive but still needed to travel frequently.
This is another area, of course, but specific programs could be included in the law. According to Helen Kerschner, five important factors in senior transportation are availability, accessibility, acceptability, affordability, and adaptability. Transportation would be provided to meet these needs. This program is meant to ensure that those who can drive are able to, and those who cannot drive can still be mobile...
This wasn't just an arbitrary proposal, to be perfectly honest. I've been thinking about this problem for a few years now, and I really think this plan would make roads safer. I support the rights of old people to drive, but sometimes they just lose that ability and should have their licenses revoked before they confuse the gas and brake pedals and injure 40 people. The entire 6 pages of this essay took about 2 hours to write. Don't ask me how I pulled it off. I have to go to band practice soon, so...later.
I did it! I actually managed to get all the classes I wanted! Here's how it breaks down (as if any of you care):
Monday: Spanish, Astronomy, and Math
Tuesday: Spanish, Psychology, and Astronomy
Wednesday: Spanish, Psychology, and Math
Thursday: Spanish, Math, Astronomy, and TRF (TV-Radio-Film)
Friday: Math at 3 PM
So, looks like I won't be blogging much on Thursdays next semester (class starts at 8:30 and, other than lunch, doesn't end until 5:30), and I have to get up at 7:30 AM four days a week, but these seem like decent classes. Thursdays are not going to be fun. I can tell right now.
Just as a note, I checked a draft of this post, and I accidentally typed "Maath" for one of them. That must be Saddam Hussein's version of math.
Just for the heck of it, here's a sample of the pathetic sociology paper I just spent the last few hours forcing myself to write:
Economic changes and their resulting effects on employment and income can also affect society itself. Jobs have become less plentiful in many inner city areas, partially because more education is necessary to move out of these locations and find quality employment. As a result, the living conditions have deteriorated. Many people end up leaving these areas, which can lower property values and actually contribute to a lack of housing for those who cannot afford anything better. Once people have left residential areas, those areas can also become more dangerous. Criminals tend to seek abandoned buildings and locations where they will not be found, and the proximity of these illegal activities to people who are still living in the area can in turn lead to more crime as the groups interact. In addition to contributing to crime, loss of jobs in a particular area can actually make it harder for residents who do want jobs to find them, since well paying jobs are usually not located in areas affected by heavy poverty or decreasing in population. This can have psychological effects as well, since residents of these areas will feel less motivated to earn a living if they cannot see any positive developments in their immediate surroundings.
I have no idea how valid this is. I just based it on an online article the professor assigned. The rest of the essay is even worse. I'm really not sure why I decided to post this, but it's here now. As you can probably tell, I enjoy blogging a lot more than academic writing. I think I should probably go to sleep now. I have to do some scheduling tomorrow morning. By the way, don't expect any posts tomorrow until late afternoon or early evening. I've got a rough draft to write for, conveniently enough, my writing class, about ways to keep old people from driving. It'll probably be a little better, since I'm actually interested in that subject, so I may post some of that as well. We'll see.
It's virtually impossible to write a good sociology paper when the guys across the hall are watching football with the door open.
"YEAH! (clap clap clap clap) HA HA HA HA HA HA-NOOOOOOOOOO! FUMBLE! FUMBLE! GET THAT! AWWWWW F**K! F***IN' SH*T! NOOOOOOO!!!!!"
Why can't they at least close the door?
When I scheduled a sociology class, I expected to study social interaction, but for some reason, I'm stuck writing a 5 page essay on economics. If I wanted to study economics, I would've taken economics. I FRICKIN' HATE ECONOMICS!!!!!!!!!
It's amazing how much pointless crap you can find when you have work to do. I stumbled across a website that translates anything you write into 12 year old AOL speak, and I decided to run my antisocial complaint post from last night through it. Check it out:
SIMPL3 TITLE COMPLICAETD EXPLANATION111!!1! OMG WTF IMM AXTR3MELY ANGRY RIGHT NOW AND I NED 2 VANT1!11!! WTF THEYRE WAS (AND PROBABLY STIL IS) A DRUMLIEN PARTY 2NIGHT AND I WANTED 2 GO BUT I DIDNT KNOW WH3R3 TEH PLAEC WAS111!! OMG LOL 2 SOLV3 TAHT PROBLEM I EMALEAD SOMEON3 AND SHA SADE SHA WUD GET ME A RIED!!1! WTF TAHTS AL SHE SADE SO I EMALEED H3R BAK ABOUT 7 HOURS AGO AND ASKED WH3N SADE RIED WUD B H3RE!111!! WTF THEN I WATE3D.AND11!!!1!1!1!1!1 OMG LOL WATE3D.AND!1!111!1!11!!1!1111 OMG WTF WATE3D.AND!1!11!111!111111! OMG WTF WATEED.AND!11!111!1111!11!1!11! OMG LOL I GOT NO R3SPONSA!11! OMG WTF I DIDNT WANT 2 JUST GIEV UP THOUGH SO I LOK3D AT TEH ORIGINAL EMALE INFORMNG US OF TEH PARTY AND IT SADE 2 B THEIR AROUND 945 OR 10 SO I FIGURED TAHT IF I S2D IN FRONT OF MAH DORM AROUND 945 THEY WUD SE M3 WHAN TH3Y GOT H3R3!1!11 WTF I JUST S2D OUT THEYRE IN DA FREZNG COLD ARE FOR HALF AN HOUR AND NOBODY SHOWAD UP1!1!11 WTF LOL IT WAS A COMPL3TE WASTE OF TIEM!1!1!111 LOL I CANT EVEN TYPE AT FUL SPED RIGHT NOW B/C MAH HANDS R STIL COLD111! OMG AND NOW 2 MAEK MATERS WORS3 MAH ROMAET AND SOME FREINDS R GONG 2 A DIF3RENT PARTY AND ASKED ME IF I WANT3D 2 COM3 BUT THERE WOKNG SO I SADE NO1!!!!!!1 WTF LOL I HAEV NO INTANTION OF GONG BAK OUTSIED 2NIGHT!!1!11 OMG WTF LOL ITS SYRACUS3 NU YORK ITS NOVEMBR ITS BEN SNOWNG FOR TEH PAST COUPLA DAYS AND ITS ABOUT 25 D3GRES OUTSIED RIGHT NOW111!1 OMG I DONT WANT 2 B OUT THEYRE ANYMORA!!1!1 OMG LOL NOW THEIR GON3 AND IMM UP IN MAH ROM AL ALONE FOR ABOUT DA 10TH SATURDAY NIGHT IN A ROW!!1111! OMG WTF M I DESTIEND 2 HAEV NO SOCIAL LIEF OR DO I JUST NOT PLAN THESA THNGS WEL??!??!!?? WTF LOL I THOUGHT MAYB WHOAVER WAS GIVNG ME A RIED SHOWED UP AT 930 AND L3FT WHEN I DIDNT COME OUT BUT IT SEMS LIEK TH3Y WUDVE WATEAD A BIT LONG3R THAN TAHT1!!! OMG WTF LOL I DONT UNDARSTAND THIS AT AL!!!!! LOL HOW HARD IS IT 2 CHAK UR AMALE 2 SE IF SOMEON3 NEDS A RIED?!??!!??! OMG LOL IF U TEL ME TAHT IL ALREADY HAEV A RIED COMNG THEN U DONT BOTHER 2 TEL MA WHEN I ASUME TAHT U ADJUST 2 MAH SCHEDUL3 B/C I HAEV NO IEDA WH3N 2 SHOW UP!111!11! OMG I RILLY DONT THINK IL B ABL3 2 TRUST TH3SE P3OPLE FROM NOW ON11!!1 OMG THIS IS CRAP11!11 OMG LOL AL RIGHT I HAEV 2 CONTINU3 MAH ANTISOCIAL EXISTANCE ELSEWH3RA ON TEH WEB NOW11!!!1! OMG SORY IF I D3PR3S3D U11111! WTF
Makes it seem even more pathetic, doesn't it?
All right, I may have gone a little overboard last night due to my complete lack of a social life (a couple of you know what I'm referring to; the rest didn't get here in time), but I'm okay now. Things like the incident I described in the last post tend to irritate me more than they should. Anyway, I think I've posted more than enough for one weekend, and I have two essays due tomorrow, so I have to get to work. Be sure to read all 5 parts of the Fisk-a-thon if you haven't already. It turned into more of a satire than an actual argument, but at least it's some kind of response. I may post again if I have time, but I need to get busy pretty soon.
One more thing before I go: Myself and a few other bloggers are working on a new link blog called GuerillaMonkey. Our goal is to give overlooked and underappreciated blogs the chance to be seen. We're still looking for more bloggers (particularly liberal ones, if you can believe that) to join the Council of Damn Dirty Apes, but you can just go there and check out the links if you want. Please do us a favor and go take a look. That is all.
Simple title, complicated explanation. I'm extremely angry right now, and I need to vent. There was (and probably still is) a drumline party tonight, and I wanted to go, but I didn't know where the place was. To solve that problem, I emailed someone, and she said she would get me a ride. That's all she said, so I emailed her back about 7 hours ago and asked when said ride would be here. Then I waited...and waited...and waited...and waited...and I got no response. I didn't want to just give up though, so I looked at the original email informing us of the party, and it said to be there around 9:45 or 10, so I figured that if I stood in front of my dorm around 9:45, they would see me when they got here. I just stood out there in the FREEZING COLD AIR for half an hour, and nobody showed up. IT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! I can't even type at full speed right now because my hands are still cold. And now, to make matters worse, my roommate and some friends are going to a different party and asked me if I wanted to come, but they're walking, so I said no. I have no intention of going back outside tonight. It's Syracuse, New York, it's November, it's been snowing for the past couple days, and it's about 25 degrees outside right now. I don't want to be out there anymore. Now, they're gone, and I'm up in my room all alone for about the 10th Saturday night in a row. Am I destined to have no social life, or do I just not plan these things well? I thought maybe whoever was giving me a ride showed up at 9:30 and left when I didn't come out, but it seems like they would've waited a bit longer than that. I don't understand this at all. How hard is it to check your email to see if someone needs a ride? If you tell me that I'll already HAVE a ride coming, then you don't bother to tell me WHEN, I assume that you'll adjust to my schedule because I have no idea when to show up. I really don't think I'll be able to trust these people from now on. This is crap. All right, I have to continue my antisocial existence elsewhere on the web now. Sorry if I depressed you.
I am currently the ONLY search result when you Google the phrase "puppy pureeing hobo hunter" (even without the quotes), and if you don't believe me, see for yourself! I feel so proud of myself. Also, I'm thinking of starting a filthy lie saying that Glenn Reynolds tortures hamsters. What do you think?
It's time for the final edition of this DU Fisking! I'm going to cover the last two sections of the article here, and then I'll sum up the whole thing. I realize this isn't exactly the best Fisking ever, but I really couldn't let an article this good go to waste. To quote Sideshow Bob: "And now, the final curtain:"
DIRTY TRICKS AND COMPUTER-VOTINGYou mean like only recounting the votes in highly Democratic districts and claiming the the electoral college is irrelevant?
All signs point at this stage to yet another extremely close election in 2004. Which means that, once again, we can anticipate dirty tricks being employed in numerous large electoral-vote states...
...- last time in Florida, more than 90,000 voters were illegally purged from the roles in advance of the balloting, and similar ploys may be tried this time in several key states. In addition, the potential computer-voting scandal could well become actual."The U.S. population would NEVER elect a Republican president if the votes were counted fairly, but since the average American is a dimwitted sheep who needs heroic liberals to safeguard the ballots, we must do our Democratic duty! Remember, if Bush wins, he must've cheated, because only big corporations and paranoid NRA members vote Republican!"
If several thousand votes could determine elections in those key states, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the vote-counting computer software could be fiddled with to determine the winner.IT'S A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, I TELLS YA!
As mainstream press outlets finally are starting to report...I thought the mainstream press outlets were cheerleaders for the administration.
...those computer-voting software codes are mainly controlled by three major Republician-supporting corporations - the CEO of one of those companies, Diebold, promised to "deliver" Ohio to Bush in 2004 - and they refuse to permit examination of those codes by outside inspectors.I'm glad you're so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Reason enough to push for paper ballots for the 2004 election, counted by hand...Having...dimpled...chad...flashbacks!
...computer-voting technology is simply too new and too open to manipulation. A journalist recently demonstrated how easy it is to enter into the machines, manipulate the tally numbers, and exit without leaving any trace of having even been inside the system.In other words, he voted Republican.
There is some evidence to suggest that such vote-tampering may have taken place in the 2002 elections in key states.The evidence? Republicans are still in power!
Given how close the 2004 vote might be, and the built-in problems with the vote-counting software, it is incumbent on all of us interested in the democratic process...I'm sure he meant to use a capital D.
...to lean on our state and county election officials not to certify those touch-screen computer-balloting machines until the software codes can be certified and until a paper-trail of votes cast can be built into the process.Translation: Keep recounting the votes until it looks like the Democrat has more.
For more information on all this, see the Electoral Integrity file on The Crisis Papers, and Congressman Rush Holt's bill on computer-voting.Weren't they all complaining about paper voting last time anyway? Something about chads and arrows and misleading ballots and old people and minorities and...I forgot what I was talking about.
DEFEAT IS UNACCEPTABLEVive la revolucion!
It is possible to defeat Bush in 2004...
...but, from this moment on, it will take lots of time, money, energy and determination.And miracles. Lots of miracles.
Once the Dems choose the nominee, it's full speed ahead in terms of mobilization, signing up new voters, working for the candidate, insisting on demonstrably fair vote-tallying, etc. Without this kind of massive activism and determination, we could lose.COULD? COULD? I think it's a little more likely than that.
If Bush gets elected in 2004, the world and our country are in for policies too awful to contemplate.Notice the use of the phrase "too awful to contemplate," then note the description and therefore contemplation of said policies below. Way to be consistent.
There would be more "preventive" wars..."Death to Iraqi civilians...Crap! Did I say that out loud too?"
...more imperialist aggression, more terrorist responses.Because 9-11 was obviously a response to Clinton's jingoistic foreign policy.
Domestically, there is no telling what would happen to our fragile, time-honored Constitution...We may actually have to take it literally!
...to our civil liberties...How dare you point out flaws in my arguments, you fascists!
...to our economy..."If poor people get jobs, it will prove that they don't need welfare anymore! Then we won't be able to give them handouts to create the illusion of compassion!"
...to our air and water...Which would otherwise be full of anthrax.
...to our schools and kids...They might learn how to think instead of what to think!
...to all sorts of helpful social programs. And to our sense of ourselves as a moral, democratic society."Because it's only a democratic society with a Democratic president, and morals are whatever we say they are based on our interpretation of the Constitution, the Bible, and the universe itself, and if you don't agree with us, you're an anachronistic, intolerant, bigoted neanderthal."
Let's get to work. Now.Either he meant to say "Let's get to work, N.O.W.," or he's admitting that people can work for themselves. Take your pick.
Wow, that was a long one. I'll admit that I still tried to take more of a comedic/satirical approach to it, but it's hard to take these people seriously. They continuously make accusations, but they never back them up with facts. He does have a point, though. As soon as the Democratic hopefuls can show the Bush has actually done all the things they claim he has, they will have a good chance of winning.
So much for the Democrats.
Awwww, the poow widdle wibewals have to come up with another excuse to bash Bush. AWWWWWWWW.... I know a lot of bloggers with much more influence than me are linking to this, but I feel I need to do my patriotic duty and bring it to the attention of the five people who read SIT, so here it is: Saddam-Osama Link Read it immediately if you haven't already. Also, go to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler for some great discussion on the infinite idiocy of Ted Kennedy. Murderous hypocrite.
I decided to cast my votes now so I wouldn't forget. Here we go:
In the political category, eTALKINGHEAD a post about the idiocy of Al Gore entitled The misleading statements of a misleading misleader.
In the non-political category, Ruminations in Korea has entered what may be the best non-political post so far. A Blessing and a Curse shows that people may only be nice to each other if they're afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise. It really made me think, and it will do the same for you.
These are some really great entries. Check 'em both out now, then come back to SIT for the conclusion of the Fisk-a-thon.
All right, I'm back once again. It's Saturday afternoon, and I just got about 9 and a half hours of sleep, so I'm set to Fisk another section of a hilarious Democratic Underground article. Last time, I covered the section entitled "The Democrats." Most of my responses were meant to be more humorous than convincing, so I really didn't do that much, but this next section is such an easy target, I almost feel guilty exposing it. Anyway, here it is:
A WINNING CAMPAIGNCaptain Obvious saves the day once again.
The focus now should be on getting a Democrat of principle nominated as a result of the primaries, one who can win the general election next November.
That's why the current debates are so helpful, in laying out the policies and personalities of the various contenders - as long as those debates don't degenerate into political bloodletting instead of focusing on the opposition to Bush and his reckless policies.Too late.
There are, I believe, three keys to a winning campaign:Something that you and your candidates have completely failed to do so far, I might add.
1. All abstractions must be tied to the real lives of American citizens. You can't just say the U.S. is less secure as a result of Bush policy, you have to show how our lives are less secure, with examples.
You can't just talk in generalizations about job-losses and fears of job-losses, you have to demonstrate how and why those jobs disappeared, and which new ones are likely to disappear unless we have a shift in economic policy.In other words, you have to lie and invent statistics.
You can't just say the wealthy got huge tax breaks and the middle-class got next to nothing, you have to provide the figures and explain what those figures mean.The middle class got plenty. Stop whining.
You can't just bash Bush for turning pollution-control over to the polluting corporations, you have to show how that capitulation will raise disease and death rates in various communities. Etc.THE EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE COMING TO KILL US ALL WITH TINY INSIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF ARSENIC! THEY WANT TO EAT YOUR CHILDREN (I seem to have gotten carried away again)!
2. Democrats can't let the Republicans seem to have a patent on security issues in this campaign.They're doing a pretty good job so far.
Americans, with good reason, are fearful and want to feel more secure for themselves and their children. The Democrats have to have specific plans for enhancing the security of the U.S. - including full funding for states and localities to put into place their emergency haz-mat systems, with all the supplies they need...I thought there was no threat from chemical weapons! Wasn't it all a lie from the Shrubya administration? Make up your tiny minds!
...without having to resort to shredding the Constitutional due-process guarantees that make our governmental system so admired around the world.Didn't you say earlier that most of the world hates our government? You lefties just don't care when contradictions come up, do you? I'm surprised you support Kucinich and not Dean or Clark.
3. The Democrats need to have a plan to defuse the two most dangerous military hot spots on the globe: Iraq and Israel/Palestine. If the U.S., under a new administration, can go back to the U.N. and assert its willingness to share power in the Iraq reconstruction phase..."We can get back to letting Saddam Hussein slaughter innocent people as quickly as possible! Uh-oh...did I say that out loud?"
...it might actually be able to repair the damage done by the Bush Administration's unilateralist tendency to insult and humiliate others.Using the U.N. to avoid humiliation? That's ironic.
Many nations might be more willing to donate peacekeeping troops and money to the cause, and, under an international banner, many Iraqis might be more willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the world effort rather than to see the U.S. for the arrogant occupation force that it is.The only people that see the U.S. as an arrogant occupation force are Saddam loyalists and radical Democrats! When will you realize that? Seriously, Dubya is trying to hand over Iraq, but we have to kill the people who are blowing up buildings every other day first. It's called war, genius.
And if the U.S. can move forcefully to help implement a fair peace settlement in the Middle East - security for the Israelis, a viable contiguous state for the Palestinians, end of the Occupation and abandoning the Israeli settlements on Arab land, an internationalized Jerusalem, etc. - much of the tension would recede in that incendiary area of the world, and better relations would ensue with Islamic countries.Wow, I didn't realize it was that simple! All we have to do in order to end thousands of years worth of fighting is be nice to them! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside! This is stupid. Israelis and Palestinians want each other dead. You have to keep them away from each other (insert "Come Out and Play" by The Offspring) or there's going to be violence. You can't have an internationalized anything that mixes Jews and Muslims...except for the U.S., which you seem to hate so much.
Only one more section to go! Are you excited? Probably not. Anyway, the final sections are called "Dirty Tricks and Computer Voting" and "Defeat is Unacceptable," respectively. Those should be fun. I'll have the Fisk-a-thon completed by the end of the day, so keep checking back for more.
I was surfing liberal blogs for potential material, and I found something really interesting. Someone has actually made a detailed case for why our country is moving toward fascism. The only problem is the fact that it places the blame on the wrong people, exaggerates the characteristics of true fascism, and ignores the fact that there is plenty of dissent (like the article itself). It also makes the classic case that the media have been frightened into supporting Bush, despite the fact that they've done everything they can to undermine his presidency. You absolutely HAVE to read this.
Look for that title if you aren't taken directly to the post. There's some other interesting stuff on that blog too, so you might want to stay there after reading the fascism article.
I don't seem to be getting many hits (probably because it's Friday night), so I'll go ahead and add something new. I've already Fisked the first couple parts of the DU article in question (go to part 1 for link), and now we come to the section entitled "The Democrats." Be prepared for moonbattery and occasional tinfoil-hattery (I'm really wearing out those stereotypes). Let's get started:
THE DEMOCRATSDidn't I already laugh at you for saying that? Oh, well...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
It would appear that, even with the mass-media being cheerleaders for the Republican Party and attack-dogs against leading Democratic contenders...
...the Democrats can count on a solid 40% of the voters, who are appalled at what Bush&Co. have done to American national-interests abroad - making us less, not more, secure - and to the economy and civil liberties at home.Let's review this statement: Eliminating a threat to America and humanity in general makes us less secure, an improving economy is bad, and our civil liberties are being threatened despite the fact that NOBODY CAN EVER CITE ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!!!!
All over this country, Dem voters have indicated that they will, if necessary, hold their noses and vote for whatever reasonable candidate the party puts forward, even if they might disagree with aspects of that candidate's program.You hear that, Democratic candidates? Even your own party doesn't like you. This supports my theory that the people who write this kind of article haven't even examined Dubya's policies. They just assume that, because he's a Republican, he must be EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL! Democracy at its finest.
And large segments of Greens likewise have expressed a desire not to repeat the political disaster of 2000 by running a name-candidate for president, and will go along, for the public good, by voting for the Democrat.Yes, because the Green Party has been such a political threat in the last few elections....idiots...
(But many would-be Democratic voters are turned off by the cowardly enabling of the Dems in Congress, who have a tendency to roll over whenever push comes to shove on key issues, such as giving Bush a blank check to launch his Iraq war, and then, just recently, approving everything he wanted in his $87 billion package for that war. Not a good sign.)More waffling! Is it a blank check, or is it $87 billion? It can't be both! Anyway, why should we hold the Dems personally responsible for "rolling over?" The fascist warmongering Republicans threatened their dissent! What could they do? I want to add one more note here: this section would've been so much better had the author used the phrase "when Bush comes to shove." Wouldn't that have been more effective?
If the Republicans and Democrats already have 80% of the vote locked up, that means, as usual, that the election will be decided by the 20% of voters in the middle. Many in that group are independents, libertarians, disaffected moderate-conservatives and small-government rightwingers/isolationists who are outraged at having their party hijacked by let's-have-a-war types and Big Brother neo-fascists.Big Brother neo-fascists? Isn't this coming from people who want the government to say "GIVE US MORE MONEY" every time there's a flaw in society? The next time someone forgets that fascists reside on the left side of the political spectrum, I will find a way to make bad things happen to them.
Also in that tappable middle are mad-as-hell veterans, and disgruntled soldiers and their families - angered by the incompetency and militarist arrogance that are getting them and their loved ones killed and wounded for what appear to be questionable ends.They only appear to be questionable ends if you look at the world through blue-shaded Bush-hatin' lenses. Sane people realize that letting Hussein continue his reign of terror and murder would be one of the most irresponsible decisions in the history of civilization. 300,000. Have you seen that number? 300,000 Iraqis (and that's just a fraction of the total) compared to less than 400 Americans. Do the math.
If the Democrats run an elitist-type campaign without taking those voters' concerns into consideration, they will lose.Well, so much for their campaigns.
If they can make the citizenry understand that Bush-led Republicans are out-of-the-mainstream extremists...I think there's a cliche in here somewhere involving a pot and a kettle.
...who are endangering America's security and the U.S. economy...By killing our enemies and making more money.
...- including such popular programs as Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, and giving short shrift to the educational system and America's decaying infrastructure...I think I already mentioned how effective the left has been in destroying education, and if the infrastructure is decaying, how will changing the president in the middle of a war help anyone?
...- they have a good chance to win.Insert "Dream On" by Aerosmith. Laugh loudly. Repeat as necessary.
I wish I could post more, but I don't want to make this too long. There are a couple other sections, so I'll probably need 2 more posts to finish. I may do one more tonight.
I really don't know why I'm posting this in the midst of my Fisk-a-thon, but I was thinking about blogs with names like "Nuns with Nuts" and "Geeks with Guns," and it somehow inspired me to make a new list. Here is a list of animals for each letter of the alphabet, followed by a word that starts with the same letter as the animal name. I tried to use some kind of weapon for as many as possible (don't ask why).
Aardvarks with Arrows
Bats with Bombs
Crabs with Cannons
Donkeys with Detonators
Emus with Emoticons
Flamingos with Flamethrowers
Goats with Grenades
Hyenas with Hydrogen Bombs
Ibexes with iMacs
Jackrabbits with Javelins
Koalas with K-nives
Llamas with Lawsuits
Monkeys with Machetes
(TBA when I think of an animal name that begins with N)
Ocelots with Optometrists
Parrots with Pencils
Quails with Quagmires
Rhinos with Rocks
Salamanders with Slingshots
Toads with Tazers
Ungulates with Umbrellas
Vultures with Violins
Wallabies with Water Balloons
Don't make me come up with one for X.
Yetis with yardsticks
Zooplankton with Zoning Permits (you thought I would use zebras, didn't you?)
Wow, that was the strangest thing I've posted so far. I may change these if I think of better ones. Feel free to contribute your own ideas in the comments. Sorry if you think this is really stupid, but I needed to post another humorous list. I haven't written a good one since the first week of blogging.
Okay, I'm back for part 2 of another exciting Fisking of the moonbats at Democratic Underground. Part 1 and a link to the original article can be found directly below this post. When we last left our misinformed friend, he was talking about how Democrats need to focus more on bashing Dubya rather than each other. Now, we come to the second half of the article, and a section entitled "The Issues." Let's begin:
I'm guessing that the central issues for the Democratic primary will be the war in Iraq (the lies and manipulations that got us in there and that wrong-headedly keep our troops quagmired there, with the U.S. isolated and hated in much of the Muslim world, Europe and elsewhere);Wow, that was so original. "Bush is a liar! Bush manipulated us! Everybody hates us!" My favorite part of this is the fact that he thinks "quagmired" is a word. I don't know if anyone out there is a Homestar Runner fan, but I can just see that in an episode of "Teen Girl Sqad." Teen Girl #1: "Let's get some new clothes...oh no! I'm in Iraq!" Strong Bad: "QUAGMIRED!!!!" (sorry if you don't understand this allusion). By the way, the Muslim world hated us long before Bush came along, and nobody cares what Europe thinks.
...the shaky employment situation;Somebody hasn't been reading the news...
...and the lack of funds to maintain popular social programs because Bush&Co. are spending away the treasury on war and security issues, thus saddling our kids and grandkids with humungous debt and bankrupting popular social programs in the process.What social programs? Welfare? Affirmative action? "Oh no, if we defend our country, some people may actually have to work for themselves! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
This, while giving generous tax breaks to the already-wealthy, providing little or nothing to the strapped middle-class, and leaving plenty of children behind with their education scam.Interesting. I seem to remember that everyone got a tax cut and the rich already pay a majority of taxes in the country. Here's a fun fact: One of the most recent tax cut programs (I forget what it was) only helped the lower class. My parents apparently didn't get anything from it because they make too much money. And my family is middle-class! Isn't that bizarre? Now, as for the "education scam," the only one I can think of is the plot to indoctrinate children into your relativistic belief system where only right wing ideals can be criticized and everyone is equal, but some groups still need a helping hand. If schools aren't doing well, don't blame the friggin' president. You could start by teaching facts instead of "tolerance."
It's also possible that several major Bush scandals will come to a ripe head prior to the election: 9/11 pre-knowledge (still being stonewalled by the Administration)...Read Losing Bin Laden and tell me it was all Dubya's fault.
...the felonious outing by "senior Administration officials" of a covert CIA agent as a form of revenge politics, the gross lying by the Administration about the toxicity of the air in New York for months after the 9/11 attacks...I'm sure knowing that the air quality was bad would've helped fix it. Did anyone ever even bother to ask them, or are you just assuming it was a coverup?
...Cheney's secret energy report still kept hidden away from public view...Then how do you know about it?
...and the appalling treatment of soldiers and veterans by an administration that pretends to be a dear friend of the military.We can't send SOLDIERS to WAR! Actually, if he's referring to the denial of compensation to Desert Storm veterans who were captured and tortured, I may agree with him on this one. That's a little scary.
THE REPUBLICANSThat was another great example of liberal tolerance. There are actually a lot of these people who would vote for a Democrat if Democrats didn't PERSONALLY INSULT THEM IN PUBLIC (Howard Dean).
Bush, as in the 2000 election, has about a solid 40% base to start with - die-hard conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, angry Southern white men, etc. - who might normally be counted on to stick with him no matter whom the Democrats select as their nominee.
So he cannot afford to alienate this base, and will continue to throw them red-meat: playing to the religious right (thus no overt sanctions for the anti-Muslim ravings of Christian zealot Gen. Boykin)...Double-standard alert! "Let's fight anti-Islamism by calling Christians raving religious zealots! Hypocritical? They're just Christians! They deserve it! Not like peace-loving, tolerant Muslims!"
...nominating extremist judges that won't and can't be confirmed by the Senate...You heard it here first, folks! Conservative judges are extremist, but unconstitutionally filibustering their appointment isn't!
...ratcheting up the patriotic themes, harping on gun-control and abortion and gay marriages."You can't cover the issues! What kind of president are you? Gun control, abortion, and gay marriage are wrong? How dare you have an opinion contrary to ours!"
Bush will count on the war situation not deteriorating much further in Iraq, and an economy that gives preliminary evidence of bouncing back.And how exactly does this help Democrats?
Somehow, he's got to neutralize the jobs issue, the fact that 3,000,000 Americans have lost their jobs since his inauguration."And he's personally responsible for every single one, just like he personally executed every death row inmate in Texas!"
How he does this will be most interesting, since so many jobs have been "outsourced" abroad, especially in the high-paying tech fields, and will not be returning to the United States. The "economy" may indeed be improving for some, but the lack of well-paying jobs - and the general insecurity about keeping one's employment - could be the economic albatross around his neck. It's the jobs, stupid.Contrasting...evidence...making...brain....hurt! Are there no jobs, or are there no well paying jobs? I thought making large amounts of money was a bad thing! If we have too many rich people, they'll get tax cuts, and then the government won't have enough money to redistribute among the lower classes and (insert random Marxist rambling here). And what's with using yet another set of scare quotes around "economy?" Are you saying that the economy ceases to be authentic if it actually improves? I guess that wouldn't fit well into the liberal paradigm.
The neo-con philosophy undergirding Bush foreign/military policy - as was emphasized openly by Bush in his recent major address on the need for Arab democratization - requires more arrogant bullying, especially in the Islamic Middle East, perhaps even more wars. But, unless Bush and his advisors are absolutely nuts, there will be no invasions before the election.I knew it! They just see war as a political tool. "It's all a plot to get reelected! It has nothing to do with the 300,000 people buried in mass graves and the chemical weapons!" Who exactly are we "bullying," by the way? If we're democratizing, then by definition we're trying to let the Iraqis run their own government. We just have to find Saddam Hussein and subject him to an extremely cruel and painful demise first...or would that be too arrogant for you?
On the other hand, you never know with these guys; they may figure that the American citizenry wouldn't want to change electoral horses in the middle of a full-fledged war - and some incident always could be found to justify an attack on Syria or Somalia or elsewhere: "aiding and abetting the opposition in Iraq," "hiding al-Qaida cells," maybe even "caches of WMD.""And furthermore, Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust were just incidents used to justify our involvement in WWII! 9-11 was an incident used to justify invading Afghanistan! LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES!"
Those worked once, thanks to a quiescent press...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....oh, you were serious? ... ...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
...and lots of lying..."Saddam said he didn't have WMD, and Bush said he did...so Saddam must have been right!"
...so maybe they figure they can get away with it again. (A risky strategy, as the approval of Bush war policy in Iraq is way down these days since the populace seems to have cottoned to how they were manipulated into a war that threatens to have no end other than a Vietnam-like tragedy.)"Tragedy (n): The result of bringing democracy to an oppressed nation and making the world safe with minimal casualties." This has been an entry from the Democratic Dictionary.
I think that's enough for now. I'll be back again later to continue with the next section, entitled "The Democrats." That should be fun. By the way, if you think this Fisking didn't appear too well-researched...you're pretty much right. I prefer to refute the more obvious errors in cases like this.
I know they're an easy target, but I was bored and couldn't let this one go. It's a huge article, so I can't respond to the whole thing (although you can read it and draw your own conclusions here, but I really need to Fisk something, so I'll pick my favorite sections. This may take up too much space, but bear with me. By the way, I learned how to use block quotes today, so I'll be testing out my new skill here. Let's begin:
Handicapping the 2004 Race: Wazzup, Democrats?Funny, I still haven't seen ONE example of constitutional rights actually being violated. Unless you're talking about taking a tougher stance on illegal immigrants who, by the way, HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! As for the militarist, police-state thing, I guess only the Iraqis deserve to live that way. You people seem determined to return to those days as soon as possible. I will remind you once again that if you are allowed to post moronic bullcrap like this, it's pretty clear that no brown shirted minions are going to drag you away to Dubya's Dungeon where Donald Rumsfeld will torture you while John Ashcroft recites various Bible passages, thereby forcing his religion down your throat. I seem to have gotten carried away with this one...
November 13, 2003
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
Twelve months from now, the most important American presidential election since the Depression will take place. It will determine whether the country continues its imperial warring abroad - the next potential targets appear to be Syria and Iran - and whether domestically we will continue our quick slide away from Constitutional protections into an even more militarist, police-state society. The stakes are that high.
It might prove useful one full year before that vote, therefore, to take a step back and see where we are in a variety of areas that might influence American voters.What's with the scare quotes? Since when are heart attacks not legitimate health concerns? Oh, I forgot, Dick Cheney doesn't even have a human heart. He just has a big motor that pumps Iraqi oil through his veins and gives him the power to telepathically communicate with Halliburton executives 24/7.
We already know who the Republican nominees will be: Bush & Cheney. Of course, the GOP powers-that-be might decide that Cheney is more a liability than asset, and he would resign due to "health concerns."
Then it could be some GOP senator (Hatch?) or Condoleeza Rice - trying to take the African-American vote out of the Dems' base.So, Rice is just trying to take away precious black voters? It couldn't have something to do with the fact that she's qualified? In any case, I think they just feel threatened because pandering to minorities has always been a Democratic strategy.
...I would guess that Lieberman and Edwards would bow out fairly early, maybe also Kucinich (who, probably no surprise, is my candidate).Dennis Kucinich: The Tinfoil Hat Club candidate (you're right about the "no surprise" part).
Gephardt, with heavy manufacturing-union support, probably will stay in the race. Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, who have been most impressive, may stay in the hunt, not because they can win but to ensure that they have major leverage at the convention...Translation: Sharpton will call everything and everyone racist, which will eliminate the need to pay for entertainment at Democratic fundraising events.
...Clark still has a lot of learning to do as a campaigner, but he's well-positioned as the middle-range candidate between the Dean/Kucinich more liberal wing of the party...That's an understatement if I ever saw one.
...and the Gephardt/Lieberman more conservative wing.How is it possible to use "Gephardt/Lieberman" and "conservative" in the same sentence without triggering armageddon?
Plus, he's got the heroic warrior credentials, something that would play well against Bush's AWOL history.Heroic warrior? I seem to remember a little article about him almost triggering WWIII...
Kerry, also a war hero...Thanks, I forgot that Kerry was in Vietnam (although I doubt anyone that French-looking could ever be a war hero).
...- but one who voted to give Bush a blank check to invade Iraq, thus angering the Democratic base - in this analysis could squeeze by only if Clark and Dean falter.That's some good juxtaposition. Kerry was for the war (that imperialistic chickenhawk neocon!), Clark couldn't make up his mind about the war (don't want to alienate voters? Take both positions!), and Dean is against anything Republicans do, so he could actually be pro-war for all we know.
As of mid-November 2003, I'd say the tickets could well look this way: Bush/Cheney vs. Dean/Clark or maybe Dean/Graham. (But the Democrats, jockeying for voter blocs, need to cool their rhetoric towards each other and aim their verbal guns mainly in the direction of the resident in the White House.)Policy? What's policy? Is that another way to say "call Bush a Nazi?" Because that's all we've got! Nobody cares what we think about the issues as long as we don't like the current president! Are you questioning my patriotism? YOU FASCIST WARMONGERING LIARS (I seem to have shifted into an omniscient perspective here)!
I think this is too big for one post, so I'll leave it at that and continue at another time. Maybe tomorrow...or maybe 10 minutes from now. You never know. Like I said, it's a huge article, but there's a ton of great material there (preview for those who haven't read it: the author apparently thinks "quagmired" is a real word). I'll probably Fisk it in 2 or 3 more separate posts, although I won't cover the whole thing. This should make up for my complete lack of political posting over the past week.
You may have already seen this, but if you haven't, you absolutely have to check it out. It's so well-written, I found myself questioning our involvement in WWII!
Why is it that we call our enemies "Saddam" and "Osama," but we call our president "Bush?" I've never understood that (I still call him Dubya).
"For medical reasons, columnist Molly Ivins has cancelled her Nov. 18 University Lectures appearance at Syracuse University. The event was to start at 7:30 p.m. in Hendricks Chapel."
I don't really have anything to say. I just wanted to post that. By the way, James Earl Jones is going to be here tonight (although I'm not going) to give a presentation called "The Cultural Conquest: How Culture Affects Us and We Affect Culture." What's interesting about this is an article by one of our old friends at the Daily Orange. Quotes about the appearance include:
"It's part of the university's effort to bring diversity to campus..."
"Our goal for this year is to bring diverse and talented speakers..."
"We wanted to bring a prominent and diverse figure..."
"...Jones will be discussing diversity..."
Gee, do you think they like diversity? I don't think they mentioned it enough! What does "diverse" mean? Why are they using it to describe one person? How can ONE PERSON be diverse? According to the Language Master (a computerized dictionary, in case you forgot), diverse means "involving different forms." Do they even know what they're saying? I can see the headlines: "Optimus Prime to Speak About Diversity at SU Next Week!" That's the only way you can have a diverse speaker according to the dictionary definition (Optimus Prime is a transformer, for those of you who either didn't know that or haven't seen the Family Guy episode entitled "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein"). I may be going overboard with this, but I haven't written anything good on here since "No Offense," and I feel like I'm slacking off. Anyway, one more fun observation. There's a full page advertisement for Jones' speech in the DO, and it features his picture, a smaller picture of Darth Vader, and a caption that says "The Dark Side." I'm just wondering how that would be taken if the picture of Darth Vader was removed and/or it was featured in a conservative publication (which the DO is definitely not).
Okay, I'm done now. I think that was one of the more parenthetically condescending posts I've written (because I explained the obvious and wrote like I was addressing an ignorant audience within parentheses...like I'm doing now...purely as an example...and with no intent to insult your intelligence...I should be doing real work now).
According to this article, Saddam Hussein has been spotted by Iraqis around Tikrit, but he is in diguise.
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? KILL HIM! KILL HIM NOW! HE'S GONNA GET AWAY AGAIN, YOU MORONS! F***ING KILL THAT F***ING PIECE OF SH*T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, even I need to get a little angry once in a while (although the self-censoring does kinda take away from the overall effect). Why have they not killed him yet? They know where he is. Did you read that last sentence? THEY KNOW WHERE HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...........Okay, I have to go take a philosophy quiz now.
Syracuse+snow+ high winds+low temperatures=freezing sandstorm. That's a very important lesson to learn.
(Sorry; I'll have something meaningful posted by the end of the day)
Read this article now. I'm too upset to even rant about it. Be sure to read the whole thing and not just the title; it makes a difference. ARE YOU READING IT YET?
You know, I just thought of an interesting question. Why is it that people are pushing for homosexual education in schools because they want to encourage diversity and teach children that not everyone lives the same way, but when the schools try to display Christian symbols, they're forcing their beliefs on children? Think about it.
It took a while, but I managed to work out a schedule where I only have one 8:30 AM class! Unfortunately, I won't be in my room on the day registration opens until 45 minutes after it starts, so I probably won't get any of the classes I want. I was thinking of skipping class that day (it's just a
socialism sociology lecture), but there's a frickin' paper due, so I have to be there! I just thought I would put that here, since it is my blog and everything.
Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I got out of my sociology lecture, so I can register at literally the earliest possible second, and I found out today that because I'm in Newhouse, I actually register a day or more before some other schools (although seniors and juniors are scheduling right now). The BAD news is that I had to schedule Spanish at 8:30 AM four days a week AGAIN because I read the schedule wrong last night and left out a couple days. If this schedule works out, it looks like I'll be blogging on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and weekends next semester. Tuesday and Thursday look a bit full. We'll have to wait and see about that.
Sorry to post about another completely non-political topic, but I have to share a very important discovery I made this week that made me realize that I worked harder in high school than I thought. I already mentioned that I use a Mac, and I've been using Appleworks and similar programs for word processing over the last few years. For high school essays and things, I always used double spaced Times, size 12. This always seemed to work for me, and I never thought about using other fonts. Last year, I took AP English and AP European History, which means that I was writing a minimum of about 6 pages worth of essays every week. To make things worse, I had a serious case of senioritis last year, and I wrote most of these essays at about 2:30 in the morning, sometimes later. The recommended length for an essay in European history was 3 or 4 pages, and I always made sure to insert enough useless filler to hit that mark. When it came time to write the 12 page term paper, I did the same. All of this cost me a lot of sleep and caused an enormous amount of stress.
This brings us to the present day. I was writing a paper a couple weeks ago, and I suddenly realized that I had never tried Times New Roman before. I always figured that it was the same as Times, so I hadn't really given it much thought, but I typed the paper in TNR just to see what would happen. When I finished, I looked at the font and realized that it seemed larger. To test that theory, I found an old European history essay in my documents folder and converted it to TNR, and I was amazed. It immediately went from 3 to 5 pages without anything being added! At that point, I realized that I had been doing about 1/3 more work than I had to all throughout high school, and all because I decided to go with the "old school" version of the Times font! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THAT KNOWLEDGE WOULD HAVE HELPED ME? I COULD'VE GOTTEN HOURS AND HOURS OF EXTRA FRIGGIN' SLEEP LAST YEAR IF I HAD KNOWN! IT TOOK ME 7 HOURS TO WRITE A 10 PAGE ENGLISH PAPER WHEN IT COULD'VE TAKEN 5! I FINISHED THAT PAPER AT 7:15 THE MORNING IT WAS DUE! I HAD BEEN WORKING TOO HARD THE WHOLE FRIGGIN' TIME! In addition, Appleworks pages have about 350 words in TNR, whereas Microsoft Word pages have 250, so I was doing too much work to begin with, but Times makes the pages almost 450 words long!
I just gave this theory another test. I actually found my English paper, which was 10 pages long in Times, and converted it to Times New Roman. Guess what? It's now 13 pages long! Those last 3 pages took 2 hours to write! I had to miss school that day because I stayed up all night writing! MY DAD HAD TO DRIVE TO THE SCHOOL AND GIVE THE PAPER TO A FRICKIN' CROSSING GUARD IN THE PARKING LOT! I could've been done with that thing by 5:30 and gotten a whole hour of sleep (which was about average for me last Spring)! This is crap! I was writing more than I had to for 6 years of my life! All right, I have to finish my scheduling forms now. Sorry if I bored/disturbed/frightened/confused/enraged/(insert verb here) you. I needed to get that off my chest. Remember,
ALWAYS USE TIMES NEW ROMAN!
According to CNN, President Bush is unpopular in Britain! Well, guess what? The British don't vote for American presidents, SO WE DON'T FRICKIN' CARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I bet Sandra Day O'Connor is happy about this crap.
Okay, I know I haven't posted anything yet today, but there wasn't that much going on. I couldn't think of anything to do for Veterans' Day that hasn't been done already, so I just let that one go. Fortunately, my AOL mail just provided me with some content. I want you to take a look at this message that showed up in my mailbox with the title "HELP." Here it is:
As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for
me, because, I believe everyone will die someday.
My name is SHAFFER NANA , a merchant in Dubai, in the
U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer .
It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now
I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts.
I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I
never really cared for anyone(not even myself)but my
business. Though I am very rich, I was never
generous, I was always hostile to people and only
focused on my business as that was the only thing I
cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know
that there is more to life than just wanting to have
or make all the money in the world.
I believe when God gives me a second chance to come
to this world I would live my life a different way
from how I have lived it. Now that God has called
me, I have willed and given most of my property
and assets to my immediate and extended family
members as well as a few close friends.
I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul
so, I have decided to give alms to charity
organizations, as I want this to be one of the last
good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed
money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E,
Algeria and Malaysia. Now that my health has
deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself
anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one
of my accounts and distribute the money which I have
there to charity organization in Bulgaria and
Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to
themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as
they seem not to be contended with what I have left
The last of my money which no one knows of is the
huge cash deposit of twenty eight million dollars
$28,000,000,00 that I have with a finance/Security Company
abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit
and dispatched it to charity organizations.
I have set aside 20% for you and for your time.
God be with you.
What the crap is this? It doesn't seem like spam, but it's probably not real. Is someone trying to send me a virus (I have a Mac, so that probably won't happen)? Is somebody in the friggin' United Arab Emirates (yeah, I know what UAE stands for) actually trying to reach a charity that has an email address like mine? What is this thing? I checked out Snopes, and they didn't have anything, although I did find out that the "five second rule" isn't accurate. That's good information, I guess.
AHA! Some idiot was trying to scam me! Go here for more information about stupid crap like this. If I ever find out who this was...
Why am I still awake now? WHY? Anyway, just a couple things before I turn in for the night. First, I've added a couple links on the right. Go look under the "Silliness" heading if you want to check out my warped sense of humor on the 2 other blogs I update occasionally. Also, I'll again recommend that you check out some of the Alliance voting links I posted below this. They deserve it. Finally, a question to other bloggers: when you're putting links in a post, do you find that you type a hfer instead of a href just about every time, or am I just going too fast? I'll leave you with that to think about. Goodnight.
Straight from Bad Money, here is the list of Alliance members who voted in the showcase this week. I encourage you to check out at least a few of them. I've been to most of them, and they're really good.
IMAO (558 links) - 3022 visits/day V
Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler (463 links) - 2835 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (154 links) - 763 visits/day V
annika's journal & poetry (79 links) - 249 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (121 links) - 206 visits/day V
The Alliance (156 links) - 156 visits/day V
Patriot Paradox (37 links) - 149 visits/day V
Bad Money (140 links) - 146 visits/day V
angelweave (111 links) - 115 visits/day V
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon (84 links) - 98 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (176 links) - 87 visits/day V
Pardon My English (47 links) - 84 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (43 links) - 70 visits/day V
See The Donkey (15 links) - 68 visits/day V
Altered Perceptions (44 links) - 65 visits/day V
physics geek (39 links) - 63 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (26 links) - 61 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (60 links) - 45 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (30 links) - 43 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (41 links) - 35 visits/day V
Grim's Hall (15 links) - 31 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (42 links) - 30 visits/day V
The Psychotic Rant (26 links) - 26 visits/day V
Peripheral Mind (48 links) - 24 visits/day V
Five Wasps (14 links) - 23 visits/day V
Not Quite Tea and Crumpets (31 links) - 22 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (23 links) - 22 visits/day V
curi's domain (7 links) - 21 visits/day V
Various Orthodoxies (28 links) - 17 visits/day V
Newmanisms (21 links) - 17 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (16 links) - 11 visits/day V
Hoppings of Roxette Bunny (23 links) - 10 visits/day V
Flying Chair (32 links) - 0 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (63 links) - visits/day V
Shameless Self-Promotion V
The Inscrutable American V
INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!
I said I was going to change the color scheme, didn't I? I couldn't stand the old colors anymore (see the bottom choice on the template poll to find out why). If you have any comments about the new template, whether you like it or not, you're welcome to leave them here.
Also, I said I might post a portion of the essay I wrote, but it really sucked, so I'm going to keep it confidential. In the process of writing that thing, however, I set a new record for turning work in at the last minute. Basically, it was due by 5 PM, and I started writing it at about 1 (which should give you some idea of how good it was). Anyway, I spent the whole afternoon writing, and I finished around 4:30. Unfortunately, I have the worst printer on the face of the earth, and it took about 15 minutes to print out a readable copy. I had to write "sorry if this is hard to read. I printed several copies and this was the best one" on the inside of the cover page so the TA would know why it was so funny looking.
Now, at this point, it was about 4:47. All I had to do was staple the essay together. Unfortunately, my stapler decided that it didn't feel like putting the staples all the way through the paper today, and then it jammed. Luckily, my roommate's stapler was sitting out, so I used it, then I rushed out of the room and made my way toward the building where the philosophy TA offices are. I got lucky with this one, because the building happens to be about 5 minutes from my dorm, but I had to run down the Mount Olympus stairs (there are 100 of them, if you didn't know) to get there. Also, the TA offices are on the 4th floor, so I had to go up 4 flights of stairs. When I finally got there and dropped my essay in the box, it was 4:56. That is not an exaggeration. If I had gotten there 4 minutes later, I would've lost 1/3 of my total grade. 4 minutes! All right, I probably bored you with that story, but it was still worth blogging about.
Just thought I'd get your attention. In all seriousness, 28 votes isn't bad, and I'm glad I got to participate in the TTLB showcase. I do need to say, however, that the Alliance participation is really disturbing. 34 of 91? What was everyone else doing? The League of Lunatics knows how to do it. They actually vote. We're never going to win back sponsorship if nobody votes. I just hope there are more than 2 conservative political entries this week. We need a bit more competition. Anyway, thanks to everyone who did vote for me, and congratulations to the winners.
Now, back to regular business. I have procrastinated on yet another essay, so I can't do any blogging this afternoon, and then I have to do some scheduling stuff, so tonight may not be very eventful either. I will remind you again that I can't post much in the next 2 weeks, as I've got a ton of stuff to do. However, since I am writing an essay this afternoon, I figure I can use it for blog content. I may post an excerpt later today depending on how much it does or doesn't suck. We'll see about that.
I thought it would be better to make a new post for this one. I wrote earlier about who is responsible for manipulating the details of the Jessica Lynch story. Well, if you're not convinced, go here. I don't think the Pentagon had anything to do with the writing, production, marketing, or airing of this movie.
That was from The Simpsons. Anyway, Al Gore needs to shut up and go home. It's that simple. I don't have time for a rant, but you can share my rage by clicking on this link.
Not that I'm trying to give negative publicity to the blog that's winning the showcase right now, but you really should go here and check out the comments under the "I Thought Elephants Didn't Forget" post. It demonstrates one of the most common liberal debate strategies: When one argument doesn't work, switch to a contradictory one. When that doesn't work, claim that facts are irrelevant. When that doesn't work, just claim that you don't need proof to be right. Read it now!
This is really pointless, but I need to post more so I can push that picture down past the links. Anyway, 2 quick things. First of all, Frank J. of IMAO voted for me in the showcase! I'm speechless (which is kind of a moot point since I'm typing this). I've already gotten 12 referrals from that, and since my previous record of hits from one site in one day is 5, I'll consider that a "Frankalanche." Unfortunately, it doesn't look like SIT is going to win (the League of Lunatics ganged up on all us conservative bloggers again), but it was fun to be part of the contest. The second thing I wanted to mention is that the word "Rottweiler" is spelled wrong in the Alliance blogroll. Oh, well. I guess that's better than what I saw last night. I visited my parents in the motel they were staying in for the weekend, and there was a maintenance room next to theirs. The sign on the door said "Maintanance." Go, literacy!
Well, according to articles like this one, Jessica Lynch is talking smack about the government for using her and "lying" about her rescue. Now, it may be true that the Pentagon or the military released information that wasn't credible, but just like that whole "Uraniumgate" thing, they were using the intelligence they had. It seems to me that the MEDIA is using these stories to try and symbolize the war. After all, I believe it was the Washington Post that first produced the dramatized report of her capture, and the news channels broadcast video of her rescue. I haven't heard Dubya say that much about her, actually. I've heard news reporters call her a hero and everything, but the government doesn't seem to have that much to say, so blame the people responsible for the exaggerations. The people who reported the inaccurate information should be held accountable. The government just releases the info they have. It's up to the media to decide what is reported and how the subjects are portrayed. The Pentagon didn't make the decision to call Jessica Lynch a hero.
For those of you who get the right alignment and related problems, here is what the page is supposed to look like:
First of all, I'd like to congratulate Patriot Paradox for getting Emperor Misha's vote in the showcase. I'm really impressed (and a little jealous). Now, back to SIT business. I will not be posting much this week. That is not a possibility; it is simply reality. I have an obscene amount of work to do, and I don't want to screw up my first semester of college with bad grades, so I need to concentrate on that. I'll make up for it when I go back home to Pittsburgh for Thanksgiving break. I'll have nothing to do for 5 days but sit at the computer and play drums (not at the same time, of course). I have a philosophy paper to write today, and I really need to get started now. Maybe I'll post an excerpt on the blog just to provide some new content.
Before I go, I want to share some slightly non-political anecdotes from yesterday. It was Saturday, and Syracuse had a home game (which they won, in case you didn't know), so I had to be there for marching band things. One of our tenor (the drum, not the saxophone) players said a couple things that were probably funnier to those of us who heard them, but are still worth blogging about. For the first one, I need to give a little background. Marching band is a disciplined activity, so we have various commands we have to follow. For example, when the drum major says, "band, atten-hut!" we yell "pride!" and stand at attention. The aforementioned tenor player likes to mess with this procedure and yell different words, but they're usually not that funny. However, at the end of rehearsal yesterday, the drum major said the usual "band, atten-hut!" and instead of saying "pride," he yelled "Babylonian coin!!!" Once again, this is probably one of those things that's funnier to hear than to read, but...Babylonian coin? What the F is that?
The second story is also about the tenor player (I hope he doesn't read this). In college, the visiting team usually doesn't bring their marching band, but for some reason, Temple did. When they were warming up, our subject started talking to their drumline and playing their tenors, and one of their tenor players, a black guy with that "cornrows" hairstyle, basically told him to go f**k himself. He came back to us with that story and said that he wanted to show off his skills to teach them a lesson. At first, he referred to the one who yelled at him as a "guy with cornrows," but he thought that might be offensive, so he eventually said, "I'll show that...person of a different ethnicity from me...which has nothing to do with why I hate him!" I turned to him and said, "that's the best disclaimer I've ever heard." And it was.
Okay, I think I'm done now. The guy across the hall just yelled "DAMN IT! THEY SUCK!" So I'm guessing a football game isn't going well. I can't concentrate with this crap going on. I'll leave you with a couple more fun facts: according to my roommate, it's illegal in New York to milk another person's cow or sell your own eyes, and it's illegal in Nebraska to fish for whales or burp in church. That's good to know.
You may have noticed the new Alliance Blogroll. I'm still fiddling with the code, so some links are now repeated, but I can get that fixed pretty easily. Unfortunately, I have to go eat dinner now.
I tried to post this earlier, but the computer froze. Here's a tip: if you're thinking of getting an eMac...don't. Anyway, sorry about not posting anything else today. I don't really have much to work with right now. As for tomorrow, I can't post anything for most of the day. I have band rehearsal at 8:30, followed by a pep rally at noon and a football game at 1:30, and after that, I'm going out to dinner with my parents. I probably won't be back until after 7 PM, just so you know. Hopefully I'll have something by then. In slightly better news, the hit counter is at 600, with about 70 of those coming today. Thanks again to everyone who has visited and/or voted. Also, I spent most of the evening messing with the template code on my practice blog, and I now know how to change the colors of every individual section, heading, and title (I also changed Evil Monkeys a bit, for those who visit there occasionally). Therefore, if you have a suggestion for a new color scheme, feel free to leave a comment. I'm not definitely changing it, but I'm getting a bit bored with the current one, and I figure changing colors is easier than switching templates entirely. That's about it. Goodnight.
Hey, as long as I'm talking about the showcase so frickin' much, here are my votes:
I'm not just jumping on the Alliance bandwagon here. All these posts are really good.
Okay, if I did change the template, it would probably be to one of these:
I can't figure out how to have 2 polls at once, so just leave a comment if you have any opinion at all. Again, I will try to write a political post before the end of the day. Right now, I have to clean my dorm room. The guy in the room next to me thinks I'm going to attract roaches and raccoons, and he's coming by at 5 to make sure I cleaned it. He just wrote a message on my dry-erase board that says "5 PM: Doomsday!" (replacing the o's with bombs) so I should probably get to that.
I put the guestbook back just for the heck of it. If you want to read/sign it, it's at the bottom of the page next to the Alliance banner.
That was my reaction a few minutes ago. I got back here in kind of a bad mood because I left my music at band practice and forgot to pick up an information sheet for a possible bowl game trip, but then I checked out my hit counter. It's currently at 512. Of those 512, 49 are from today, which completely obliterates the old record of 26. I'm really happy. I knew I would get some extra hits from entering the showcase, but...wow. I'm also getting some votes, which is good. The League of
Liberals Lunatics is way ahead with their voting, so I'm still behind, but it looks like I may have a chance. A lot of Alliance members vote on Sunday night, while the LoL votes early. It's hard to tell right now, but...49 hits in one day...that may not seem like much, but when you've only been blogging for 6 weeks, it's an amazing feeling. Thanks to everyone who's voted for me so far (it's too tough to track them down and thank them individually), and I hope you'll come back. I've alluded to this already, and it may disappoint the original 4 readers, but I'm going to have to cut back on posting for the next couple weeks. All you new people can go through the archives, because there's over a month of material there. I suggest reading through the first week of posting. It'll help you get a feel for my style, and you'll find out why the blog is called Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (if you haven't gone to the "New to SIT?" link yet, you can also find out there). Also, I'll try to keep posting something new every day, but I really need to take a break. The next 3 weeks are not going to be easy for me, because I've got 4 essays due before Thanksgiving, and I have to start registering for Spring classes next week, so I need to limit my online activity. Sorry about being so self-absorbed here, but I haven't exactly had what you would call a good day, and this really helps. Thanks again, and I'll try to post something meaningful in the next 36 hours...I think that was the wordiest post yet.
First of all, thanks to everyone who's voted for SIT so far in the showcase. I really appreciate it. Anyway, I don't think I'll be posting much today. I have to leave around 4, and then I won't be back until 9, so I obviously can't write anything during that time. I'll try to get something up here later tonight if at all possible, but I am kind of busy. Remember, if you happen to be a new reader, there's a lot of archived stuff, so be sure to check it out. I guess that's about it.
Go here for an awesome post about affirmative action and why it's idiotic. In the meantime, I'm going to sleep. Goodnight.
Well, I just entered "No Offense" into the New Weblog Showcase. This is it. In a few days, I'll find out just how interesting people think I am. No offense (ha ha ha ha) to my 4 regulars, but I really need to expand my audience a bit, and this may be the way to do it. Even if I don't win, this should get me a lot of attention, as big, important bloggers like IMAO's Frank J. participate in the showcase. I hope I'm making the right decision here. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that I am officially throwing my hat into the ring, as it were, and I'm ready to take on the blogosphere with full force. Unfortunately, I have a lot of essays to write, so the archives may have to suffice for a while...like right now. Bye.
I paid a visit to Tongue Tied today, and their first post brought something to my attention that's been bothering me for a long time: the nature of political correctness.
Here's the basic story: students in Orlando weren't allowed to enter two floats in their homecoming parade because they weren't politically correct. One featured the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue, and the other basically recommended that people follow Jesus.
I think both of those are great messages, but according to the article, they had the potential to "alienate" Muslims and young children, so they were banned.
I don't know how either one of those would offend children, and Muslims can handle other religious messages, so one has to wonder why they're making such a big deal of it. It seems like they're giving preferential treatment...and that's the problem with political correctness.
The goal of political correctness is to make everyone feel safe and comfortable, and the cardinal sin in PC world is to "offend" or "alienate" somebody. However, this just doesn't work. Realistically, if the entire world was politically correct, we would have to live in a pluralistic, omniracial, androgynous society where nobody could use adjectives or make any statements implying the superiority of something.
We are moving closer to this, as books like Diane Ravitch's "The Language Police" have illustrated (I really want to read that book next summer). However, there is a double standard involved. Political correctness is supposed to keep people from being offended, but what if this offends people?
Why is nobody complaining that the students in this article may feel alienated because they can't express their beliefs? They're being stigmatized, which is supposedly wrong. The only way to keep people from being offended is to outlaw all expression of opinion.
Think about it. There are so many things people used to say that are no longer politically correct because they are considered offensive (this isn't to say that some of them aren't). However, if somebody is a racist, won't they feel offended and alienated if they are labeled and denied equal rights of free speech because they use derogatory language?
Sexism is politically incorrect, so what if a manager who treats his female employees like objects and makes crude comments on a regular basis feels offended because he can't continue to do so? These things are wrong, of course, but the people who do them will still feel like outcasts if they aren't allowed to continue.
When you break it down, political correctness is really just a concentrated effort to keep people's feelings from being hurt, but it is contradictory in this way because labeling behaviors and opinions as incorrect hurts feelings as well, even if those behaviors/opinions truly are offensive.
There is another aspect of preferential treatment in political correctness that people seem to forget. Certain groups are considered more important than others, which also alienates some people. In one of my other posts entitled "How to Mess with the Thought Police," I mentioned that I'm overweight, but I don't get special protection, and I can't go crying to the authorities every time someone makes a fat joke.
Sure, it offends me, but I've learned to deal with it. In the same way, the Muslims who are supposedly offended by Jesus' name should learn to tolerate other religions, although I haven't seen evidence that they actually complained. It was just assumed that they would be offended.
People need to learn that they can't live in a giant bubble of comfort and security. Every so often, something is going to offend you, and you should just learn to ignore it. If we make everyone so sensitive that the slightest hint of bias can be turned into a huge controversy, we'll have a lot more "Rush Limbaugh" type incidents.
I think that's about all I have to say on this issue. I just believe that it's impossible not to offend anyone, because everyone has his or her (I seem to be catching the PC bug!) own opinions. If someone's opinion is considered offensive or just plain wrong, they shouldn't be forced to change it under penalty of law. Civilized debate exists for a reason.
If you have the right idea and are able to justify it with a good argument, your point will be made effectively. When political correctness is invoked, it shows that the people calling for it really haven't thought the issue through, and they're probably too insecure to make a rational case for their position.
I just thought I would remind everyone that PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS NOW ILLEGAL! Children's lives have been saved, and we're on our way to eliminating this violation of human rights once and for all. This is why I support Dubya. He's not afraid to be controversial. On a side note, how low has our society sunk when someone who is AGAINST dissecting babies alive in the name of convenience is considered controversial, radical, and extremist? Think about it.
We had the debate, and the professor friggin' tricked us. He asked "who wants to be on the pro-war side?" and four people (including me) raised their hands. Then, he asked who wanted to be anti-war, and about 8 people raised their hands. Then, he revealed that everyone who raised their hand would be defending the opposing position, and he put the people who didn't have a preference on the anti-war side, which was originally the pro-war side. Confused? Good. So, I did end up having to argue against the war. I used the argument that it was nothing but a distraction so people wouldn't notice the economy, and I said that Bush is using the war to accuse people of being unpatriotic so they're frightened into supporting him. The professor did a very strange thing during this. He originally said, "I'm not going to say anything. I want to let you guys debate." Then, he started commenting every so often and said that he would be the "fact guy," but wouldn't support any one opinion. Unfortunately, this gradually deteriorated into arguing against the war. So much for being a moderator. First, he said that the justification (other words he used were "propaganda" and "rhetoric") for the war has changed in the last year. He said that when the administration couldn't prove a link to 9/11, they started looking for WMD, and when that failed, they talked about the humanitarian benefits, which, according to the professor, are not working. Of course, in the process, he made the mistake of claiming that Bush specifically mentioned Niger in the State of the Union speech (he called it "sleight of hand"), failing to realize that no specific country was ever named. He also argued that the economy is only improving because of the war, and that we're going to be in debt for years because we can't pay back $87 billion. In addition, he said that when Bush took office, there was a budget surplus thanks to Clinton, and he blamed Dubya for the current deficit. These people are really predictable. There was another fun incident with one of the students. He apparently is very anti-war, so he had to argue for the war. He was trying to make an argument, and he basically said, "uh....we had to invade...because...DAMN IT! I wanted to be on the anti-war side!" He later called President Bush a "nut-job" and said Clinton was better. I think I've written too much again, but war debates are always fun. I do like how the professor was open to all points of view, but it bothers me that he couldn't stay neutral for 60 minutes of his life. I have to go to band practice in about 15 minutes, but when I come back, I want to write some stuff about political correctness that's been bugging me lately. I may submit it to the new blog showcase if it's good enough. Until then, blog safely, and don't put words in the president's mouth.
In my rush to get this written before I had to leave, I left out a couple points. In addition to the statements I've already listed, my professor said a couple other idiotarian things. First, he claimed that Donald Rumsfeld supposedly started planning the Iraq war 3 hours after the WTC attacks. He also said that the U.S. funds more terrorism than any other country in the world (shocking, isn't it?). He gave examples of various covert military operations and assassinations, but I fail to see how that counts as terrorism. The U.S. doesn't attack innocent people. I'll remind you that this is the professor who thought Wesley Clark had already won when he announced his candidacy, and he thinks Bush is only president because he has more money. It was funny to hear him talking about last night's Democratic debate, though. He said he was very disappointed, and he found the candidates "uncharismatic and uninspiring." Well, maybe that's because they haven't told us any of their plans yet! As far as I know, their policy is to do the opposite of what Bush would do. In fact, I think I'll give that policy a name: WWDD--What Wouldn't Dubya Do? I doubt it'll catch on, but I still think it's pretty accurate.
This hasn't been the best day so far. I slept late and missed Spanish AGAIN, and my sociology class was so boring that I actually can't remember 99% of what the professor said. Here's a tip for college professors: If you give the class a handout with all the necessary notes already on it, there's no point in having a lecture. Just email it to us and let us sleep. There's also less to rant about today. Nothing particularly stupid has happened yet. The only thing in the Daily Orange that I could talk about concerns the Public Safety officers and their new "Peace Officer" status, which would allow them to carry guns. A student said that he doesn't feel comfortable with armed Public Safety officers. Now, this is understandable, but what's strange is the reasoning behind that. The student who said this is black, and he cites this as the reason armed officers make him nervous. Does that sound slightly biased to anyone else? "If we arm the officers, they'll shoot minorities!" Seriously, all Public Safety does is break up frat parties when they get too loud. I don't think they'll need the guns much. SU has more serious crime that actual police officers should be dealing with (we have a lot of car break-ins and armed robbery). I may have something to write about later. We're having a debate in my writing class at 3 on the Iraq war. Now, here's the catch: we won't know which side we're defending until the debate starts. I may end up actually arguing against the war! My communications teacher actually did this last year, and the debate was about affirmative action. I ended up being on the pro-affirmative action side, and I was picked to start the discussion. I had to say something like, "uh...well, this is kinda hard for me because I actually don't like affirmative action, but maybe it will...um...eliminate racism that already exists?" The teacher just laughed and said that we shouldn't add "disclaimers" to our statements. I hope that doesn't happen again today. I actually have to do some research for said debate right now, so I'll be back later. By the way, check out that DU message board thing if you haven't already. Apparently they don't even like moderates now. Also, I want to thank Zero Effect and Nuns with Nuts (or whatever it's called these days) for linking to SIT. I have them both linked on Evil Monkeys, which probably doesn't help much, so I may add them here as well.
I can't believe what I'm seeing. Somebody actually posted an intelligent response to a DU message board discussion talking about how the Democratic party is dead. Look at this:
We have the most inept(Hoover), incompetent(Carter), and corrupt administration (Nixon, Clinton) in history, led my a man whose only activities are lying(Nixon, Clinton), fundraising and vacationing(Clinton), yet who still enjoys approval ratings in the 50% range(Clinton).
Like it or not the economy is getting better and the jobs will return. Its a normal, historical economic cycle. This is the very attitude on why we have lost elections for the last 10 years. When you attack with such hatred of a sitting president you will get a loss in return. Don't you remember Clinton winning because the republicans attacked him for everything? The people dismissed accusations because there were so many minor ones.
If we remain only pandering to our far left extreme then we will lose more seats and the presidency again. Yeah I'm the new guy here but I'm an old dem. We have lost the great democrat base and losing more everyday with the rhetoric. So you can stand on your far left principles and watch things continue to go to the right. Its time correctly analyze our faults. Blaming the other guy only works on occasion.
I give him 12 hours before the "open-minded liberals" ban him from the board. Anyone else have a prediction?
*UPDATE* (posted at 1:25 AM)
Wow. This is impressive. They've already deleted all his posts and banned him from the board. If you want to see for yourself, go here. The person who posted the above message was named Virus, and their first post was #9. Seriously. It took less than 3 hours. IT TOOK LESS THAN 3 HOURS! From what I've seen, they may have actually deleted the post within the first hour. That's just sad. Guess they were offended.
Apparently, I'm in the top 10 on Google searches for "vondrook." I just thought I would post that.
A comment on my last posts inspired me to put up a few lines from the article about the students that were removed from a residence hall for racially insensitive music. I'll link to the article itself at the end, but it may require (free) membership for viewing. Here's the basic story from the DO:
"At about 3 a.m., a black resident heard three freshman girls in her neighbor's room playing music that featured derogatory lyrics and making derogatory comments considered racially offensive, said Kevin Morrow, an SU spokesman. The girls were singing along with the song's chorus, which repeated a racial slur many times, the resident said. Later in the morning, the same student overheard a conversation that was offensive in nature toward black people and little people. Overall, the incident lasted one hour and 14 minutes, she said...The university regards this incident as a violation of the student code of conduct because the students' actions could be considered threatening to the mental state of others...'We tend to see a fair number of cases of bias-related activity because first-year students aren't used to exposure to cultures different from their own,' Morrow said..."
I hope I'm legally allowed to post that much of it. Here's the link to the entire article
All right, I'm back again, and I'm ready to fisk the asinine editorial in today's Daily Orange. If you haven't read the first part of this, I suggest you scroll down a bit and see what I'm talking about, because I already responded to an article. This piece I'm covering now is about the same incident, and it displays the classic liberal idea of collective guilt. You probably know what I'm talking about, but this basically rides on the coattails of socialism and blames entire groups for the actions of a few. This leads to things like affirmative action, and in this case, it may lead to "sensitivity training" or similar indoctrination methods. I'll start by giving you the title of the editorial, which really sets the stage for the uninformed idiocy contained within it. Here we go:
"Racist incident highlights need to fight ignorance"
First of all, they haven't necessarily proven that the blackface guy was trying to be racist, and second of all, since they pretty much arrested him on the spot, I'd say their work is done. Now, on to the actual editorial, or at least parts of it:
"On Friday night, in a stunt sure to pull the strings of SU racial tension even tighter, [the author (no name was given) describes the incident here, which I've already done]. The incident is yet another act of pervasive racism and ignorance on this campus - and it again indicates the need for increased education. More than that, it begs for SU students, administrators and organizations to push toward a common goal: to promote diversity and fight racism at every turn, together." See what I mean with collective guilt? They're basically saying, "If one person (who was allegedly intoxicated at the time of the incident, if I didn't mention that yet) does it, it must mean that the entire student body is full of hate and racism and has to be taught about diversity and tolerance! Never mind the fact that students are reacting to this with outrage and saying how "disgusted" they were! They're just covering for their blatant bias! We must
KILL WHITEY! KILL THE WHITE MAN! KILL HIM UNTIL HE IS DEAD! take action to promote a safe environment." Strikethroughs are fun. Anyway, here's more. It begins with my personal favorite quote, which they chose to be displayed in bold letters in New York Times fashion:
"...we cannot underestimate the ignorance of the SU student body. This supposed 'Pacific Islander' costume only represents a public instance of racism. Imagine what goes on in dorm rooms, at parties, inside the heads of students where the torrents of racism swirl and grow unchecked." Uh, excuse me, Mr. (or Miss?) All White College Students Are Bigots, but would you care to give an example of this? I have yet to observe any racism on campus, and I'm sure that if it's as common as you say, someone would've slipped up and admitted it by now. By the way, I'm willing to bet the author of this piece is a white male. I may be wrong, but if Michael Moore has taught us anything, it's that white people can only be considered tolerant when they belittle their own race. The editorial continues:
"Though the university cannot hope to eradicate racism among its thousands of students, it has a responsibility to react to these situations in a timely and constructive manner...Students and faculty from across the university are rightly outraged by the incident, but should restrain their anger to effectively fight against the racist mentalities that surface here all too often." Okay, there is a major contradiction here. It says that racism is everywhere on campus and students are basically ignorant to it, yet a large number of people "from across the university" are aware of the incident and are upset about it. Pick one! Also, I still have yet to see one actual EXAMPLE of this racist atmosphere it so knowingly speaks of. This person must hang out with a really bad crowd. Here's another accusation of collective guilt/ignorance:
"Increased education on racial/historical issues...might lend some perspective to students otherwise unaware of the implications of blackface and other historically insensitive portrayals of blacks..........[long ellipsis=lots of words in between].....Friday's incident should spark the university community to enact change and stamp out collective ignorance. If we have learned anything from past incidents, it is that we can only stop racism if we do it together." I don't get this at all. Here's a fun fact: The minimum GPA for acceptance to Syracuse is 3.5. The majority of students here were in the top 10 or 20 percent of their graduating class, and most of them got over 1000 on the SAT's. Why would anyone assume that people who meet these criteria would be this naive? I'm sure they know plenty about racism and the implications of things like blackface, but I personally think that if we're willing to laugh at things like this when they're meant to be harmless jokes and take action if they're willingly hateful, we can do a lot more than we can by accusing the entire university of bias because of what one person did. And then, of course, it ends by referring to these phantom incidents that can't be named specifically because they don't exist, and it says we can learn how to fight racism by looking at them. I really like the fact that the author actually used the phrase "collective ignorance," because it reveals the problem with this thinking. Humans are separate individuals with free will. This isn't Star Wars. We're not all magically connected by some invisible unifying force. The actions of one person do not represent what the majority is capable of. Of course, this leads to the question, "when have liberals ever cared about the majority?" That's about it. Before I go, I want to direct you to Bowling for Truth. They've got a new section called "Dude, Where's My Honesty," and it's all about Michael Moron's new book. I think you'll enjoy it. Later.
This is insane. It seems like every time I commend SU for not moving as far left as other universities, they do everything possible to make up for it. The Daily Orange has yet again given me something to rant about. This time, it's about racism. I've read sites like Tongue Tied and Critical Mass, so I know that colleges tend to overreact to anything they think is racist, but I didn't think we'd have an incident like this. Here's the story. According to the DO:
"For the third time this semester, the Syracuse University community is responding to a major bias-related incident, this time involving a student who dressed in blackface on Halloween." First of all, those other two "major bias-related incidents" were: 1) a gay student being physically assaulted, and 2) three freshman girls singing along to music with racially offensive lyrics in their dorm room (I believe they were forced to live somewhere else as punishment). I just thought I'd point out that the university places all three of these incidents on an identical moral level. There's your first hint of things to come. The article continues:
"The student had dressed as a 'Pacific Islander' by covering himself in dark body makeup, wearing a grass skirt and carrying a wooden staff...Public Safety officers (some of whom are now allowed to carry firearms -ed.) responded to complaints from students and approached the student...[who] was taken into the Public Safety office, where officers photographed the costume and questioned the student..." Is it just me, or does it seem like they could've just told him to change costumes? Did he actually violate any rules? I agree that this was an incredibly stupid costume, because this guy knew he was going to get in trouble when the Thought Police found him, but I still don't think this reaction is really necessary. However, it gets much better, and you'll see what I mean with this post title. Here comes the tolerance squad:
"SU's black community and other students have mobilized in response to the incident and are calling for action from the administration. More than 60 concerned students, including members of the Student African-American Society, met Monday night in Maxwell Auditorium to discuss the incident." First of all, SU has a student population of about 15,000, so I don't think 60 people can be considered a significant percentage of any community, but in any case, why should one person's actions lead to all this discussion? Just tell the moron not to do it again and move on! Now, we come to the really fun part. As other schools have done, Syracuse has decided that this one person represents the majority of students, and they want to eradicate the pervasive, overwhelming racism and ignorance that permeates student life. Here's a few quotes:
"Some of the students criticized the administration's 'lukewarm' reponse to bias-related incidents and brainstormed ideas they felt would strengthen the university's policy. Among the measures discussed was the establishment of a cultural education core requiring students to take a non-Western history course, the modification of the freshman orientation program to include a cultural sensitivity training session and institution of a zero-tolerance policy (that's ironic, isn't it?) which would expel students involved in bias-related incidents."
Okay, this is just scary. First of all, considering they had a friggin' meeting about the incident, I would hardly consider it a lukewarm response. Second of all, where is the evidence that any of these solutions are necessary? I've never heard anyone on campus use a racial slur in an intentionally offensive way, and the Halloween costumes I saw were fine. Oh, wait a minute, my roommate and his friends dressed up as the guys from Braveheart! That's insensitive to the Scottish community! Here's one more quote, and then I need to start a new post and fisk an editorial about the incident:
"A student in the audience said students need to take a more confrontational approach to tackle the issue of bias. His suggestion that anybody who spots a person dressed in blackface again should 'just whoop his ass' was met with applause..." So, beating up racists is okay, but beating up gays and offending blacks isn't? Wow, you people are so consistent. Anyway, that's the objective article. The editorial is even funnier, and I will be fisking it in a few minutes.
I realize that I'm not exactly one of the most influential bloggers on the net, but I thought I'd do a favor for the Alliance members who bothered to vote in the showcase this week and include this list from Alliance Headquarters. These links go to every page that voted. Check them out if at all possible. Also, keep in mind that I may be entering the showcase one of these days, but I need a really good post (I should've submitted "Land of the Free," consarn it...) By the way, I have an easier day tomorrow, so I may blog more, but we'll see. I have essays to work on in 3 different classes right now, so that might take priority over blogging. Anyway, here's the list:
IMAO (539 links) - 3101 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (148 links) - 910 visits/day V
angelweave (107 links) - 360 visits/day V
Anger Management (68 links) - 271 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (63 links) - 215 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (109 links) - 203 visits/day V
The Alliance (157 links) - 160 visits/day V
Bad Money (108 links) - 136 visits/day V
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon (66 links) - 121 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (176 links) - 92 visits/day V
See The Donkey (16 links) - 85 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (43 links) - 77 visits/day V
Irreconcilable Musings (56 links) - 73 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (27 links) - 64 visits/day V
Simon World (31 links) - 58 visits/day V
Curiosity (28 links) - 56 visits/day V
The Everlasting Phelps (32 links) - 55 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (28 links) - 54 visits/day V
the evangelical outpost (52 links) - 51 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (23 links) - 40 visits/day V
physics geek (35 links) - 39 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (35 links) - 34 visits/day V
BigStick (25 links) - 31 visits/day V
Elegance Against Ignorance (30 links) - 30 visits/day V
BigRedGiant.com (19 links) - 29 visits/day V
Five Wasps (11 links) - 25 visits/day V
All Encompassingly (19 links) - 24 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (39 links) - 22 visits/day V
A Life of Freedom (16 links) - 22 visits/day V
Homicidal Maniak (14 links) - 21 visits/day V
Not Quite Tea and Crumpets (27 links) - 18 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (18 links) - 18 visits/day V
Peripheral Mind (55 links) - 16 visits/day V
Hoppings of Roxette Bunny (32 links) - 15 visits/day V
The Psychotic Rant (22 links) - 15 visits/day V
The Wise Man Says... (36 links) - 14 visits/day V
Single White Male (13 links) - 12 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (20 links) - 12 visits/day V
Various Orthodoxies (27 links) - 10 visits/day V
Newmanisms (16 links) - 10 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (51 links) - visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (4 links) - visits/day V
Coming up with new titles is hard. Anyway, you may have noticed that this is the first post of the day. I'm still a little short on material, and I have an insane amount of work that I should be doing (notice the word choice there), so I don't have that much time to blog. Fortunately, I do have some random stuff from today that I can write about. First, we have another fun quote from my sociology professor. We were talking about the war in Iraq and national defense, and at one point in the lecture, he compared our strategy to a "1950's" defense policy. I'm really not sure why he chose that specific decade. That was just strange. He also said something like "we haven't proven that Iraq had any direct connection to 9-11." Was anyone trying to prove that? That's not the issue. He called Iraq a "terrorist cell," which I don't really think is accurate. Iraq was funding terrorism. They weren't directly responsible for it.
Of course, now that Reverend V. Gene Robinson, the gay Episcopalian bishop, has been consecrated, our relativistic friends at the Daily Orange had to speak up with an editorial called "Approval of gay bishop a positive step for religion." Before I talk about this briefly, I'll clarify something: I'm not an Episcopalian. I'm actually not a member of any official Christian denomination. I was baptized as a Presbyterian and confirmed as a Methodist, but I just consider myself a non-denominational Protestant right now. However, I still think this gay bishop thing is not a good move. Naturally, the DO doesn't agree. I don't have time to fisk the whole thing, but here's a sample of some of the content:
"...a group of misguided conservatives is now likely to break from the church and form their own separate denomination...This reaction, though not surprising, illustrates the constant villification of homosexuality, particularly by inept religious conservatives."
They're so predictable. "Well, gays are being villified, so we'll counter that by villifying conservative Christians!" I don't get this at all. How is following the Bible and sticking to traditional values "misguided?" It seems to me that the people saying "homosexuality is not a sin" (actual quote I saw on TV; one of the other bishops said it) are the misguided ones. Doctrine exists for a reason. Here's another tolerant, unbiased observation:
"The Bible asserts all manner of ridiculous rules and regulations against homosexuals, those who consume pork, practice wizardry, and even wear wool-cotton blends."
There's a strategy they use a lot: taking different forbidden practices and making them morally equal. Here's my understanding: Consuming pork was forbidden because it was more dangerous in those days than other types of meat, and it wasn't sinful as much as it was unclean. I know that many Jews still don't eat pork today, so I may very well be wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to me that it's not the same thing. The wool-cotton blend thing was probably to make people's lives simpler, but it wasn't a sin either. On the other hand, homosexual relations are repeatedly called an "abomination." I don't understand how you could possibly go from abominable to acceptable just because 5% of the population decides that they want to live that way. Again, it's funny that you can call THE BIBLE "ridiculous," but you can't suggest that there's anything wrong with homosexuality.
Conservatives...if they are not comfortable with homosexuality in the priesthood, would do well to break off - and take their weak-minded followers with them. The last thing a progressive church needs is bigotry..."
More double standards! You people are hilarious! Why do you not apply the same standard of "bigotry" to your own opinions? In any case, I have heard this argument several times, and it's always been wrong. If a group of people decides to disregard a significant Biblical rule because they've been coerced by society, how are conservatives the ones that should break off? It seems to me that the people supporting Robinson should form their own church instead of trying to change beliefs that have been considered mainstream for thousands of years. From what I've seen, Robinson doesn't necessarily believe in the authority of the Bible, and he says that he worships a "living God." This is similar to people calling the Constitution a "living document." IT DOESN'T WORK THAT FRICKIN' WAY!
Here's one more: "Spirituality is a personal issue for many, so those who support gay priests in their church have the right to do so. Similarly, if certain factions within the church feel their retrogressive ideologies conflict with their religion, they should feel free to go off by themselves and redefine their own beliefs."
WHAT? The progressives are the ones who get to stay, and the traditionalists have to redefine their beliefs? That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't the progressives be the ones who change themselves so they can apply that label accurately? This whole "personal spirituality" thing is another problem. If you personally believe in something, why should the entire church change to accomodate you? They have policies. If you don't agree with it, join another church! That's one of the reasons I don't go to church right now. I don't know which one most accurately reflects my beliefs, so I'm still looking. I'm not going to go to a random church and say, "here's what I believe, so you'd better make it a rule! Well, I don't care what God, the Bible, and Jesus think. It's the 21st century, and you should be trying to satisfy ME! It's all about ME!" Seriously. Religion is about God, not you. If you don't agree with God, don't believe in Him. You'll find out if you were right soon enough.
I had another dumb conversation with the guy who got Pakistan and Palestine confused, but I have to go to band practice soon, so I'll save that for later. This has been the homophobic, fundamentalist, "retrogressive" rant for today. Thank you.
I don't know why I'm telling you this, but in addition to my original joke site, "Evil Monkeys," I'm working on another humor blog called "Form Fun" where I take online feedback forms and fill them out with weird responses (I don't actually submit them, just so you know). So far, I've done one from noindoctrination.org about a professor who thinks bulimia is a myth created by "digestives" to oppress women, and I just finished a response to an opinion survey on Laserwrx USA where I claim that the company is stealing my thoughts. I'm not linking to it, just like I don't link to Evil Monkeys, but if you want to see either site, let me know. I prefer to stay disconnected from both of them when I'm working on SIT because they may cause you to question my sanity, but if you're interested in finding out what a bizarre sense of humor I have, I may change my mind. I think I'm going to regret this post, but we'll see.
As a member of the Alliance, I'm now required to vote for in the showcase each week. I'm going with Peripheral Mind for this post:
You really should read this. It's good stuff. I'm still planning on entering the showcase at some point, but I want to get a really good post that will guarantee at least a couple votes. It has to have a good message but be short enough that people can read through the whole thing. I also want to submit it as early in the week as possible. I guess I'll have to wait and see what happens.
Good title, isn't it? I just wanted to mention that I now have 400 hits. It's been just about a month since I started keeping track, so that's pretty good. Thanks!
As long as I'm posting in Instapundit style, I thought I would link to this article. I don't think this is accurate because they surveyed less than 3,000 people, but the fact that they could come up with statistics like this from any sample size is pretty disturbing. 52% of Jews? Is that supposed to say 25%? Hey, I just saw a commercial for the new Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode tonight. Nice.
My post titles are really stupid lately. Anyway, I saw this on Fark. Now, read what the 16 YEAR OLD GIRL who decided to pull off this stunt and her MOTHER said about it, and tell me MTV doesn't send dangerous messages. This "teens are going to have sex, so they might as well be safe" crap (I typed "carp" accidentally there...) is a cop-out. I won't go into a big abstinence rant, but I just thought people should be aware of how some of us young whippersnappers are thinking these days.
Here's another fun article about this subject:
All right, I'm back with a brand new mouse. The other one did end up breaking, but that wasn't until late last night. To be perfectly honest, I didn't post yesterday because I had to get up early for career day at Newhouse and I was too tired to think of anything interesting. I didn't go to any parties, by the way. My roommate and his friends decided to go to a different party with some ESF (Environmental Science and Forestry) people, and apparently it really sucked, so I didn't miss anything. Now, to get back to important things, I'm a bit upset at the moment. I couldn't use the computer until I got a new mouse, which was about an hour ago, and when I checked the news, I saw this. It's hard to be pro-war at times like this. This is just going to give the Democrats a way to distract people from the improving economy. I don't even know what else to say. I hope this doesn't become a daily thing. I'm having trouble coming up with anything intelligent to write, so I'll stop now.