Brain Fertilizer

Revenge is the surrender of self for the purpose of destroying another.

Great quote!

« Hide Comments

"several independent media watchdogs have noted Fox News actually is the most fair and balanced"

Really? Which groups are those? Sounds like interesting reading.

You're going to make me do the search? Awwww...

The thing about this moonbat's Fox-censoring gizmo that I don't get is, how can it just automatically block Fox News Channel when every cable system assigns it to a different channel?

And if it can be calibrated to block the particular channel for Fox News, what is to prevent a buyer from calibrating it instead to block CNN, or CBS?

I'm sure someone could come up with one that could block other stations, but the device I saw in one picture looked sealed and not user-modifiable.

I never say I told you so. Ever. Not even once.

And, have fun at the RMBB 4.0 :D

« Hide Comments

My Dear Michelle,

As the daughter of a Babtist Minister, I find "celebrating" the death and resurrection of Jesus as much fun as "celebrating" the death of my own Father. It was THE worst day of my life. For so many the cross is a representation of thier "faith." I have seen the cross as a symbol of torture that Jesus shared with mere mortals. Afterall, the Romans were pretty mean when it came to torture.

I choose to celebrate the LIFE of Jesus, and I have true faith that a life exists beyond the time I spend on this Earth. As a result I try to celebrate the life of Jesus by trying to be the best Mother, Wife, Daughter, Sister and Auntie, I can be, EVERY DAY I am blessed to be here.

If Google chooses to celebrate the art of someone who challenged the "vision" of art during his time, then so be it. If you want a search engine to celebrate Easter and all it encompasses, create your own search engine domain. Isn't that what capitalism is about?

To suggest that there is some type of conspiricy of Google to negate Easter, tells me YOU are a dangerous Christian, in that you DO NOT THINK for yourself, and simply go with what others deem, to be a popular train of "thought." I find that quite sad.

As a former barmaid, for two summers, in a small town, I found the same people who had a "snoot full" on Saturday night, to be the same people who were at church on Sunday morning. I don't know about you, but I grow tired of being surrounded by sinners night in and day out.

Sincerely,

« Hide Comments

*Looking deeper into the Fastlane Blog, I saw this claim that GM's "performance" is back. And that entry highlights the problem exactly: GM still thinks of "performance" only in terms of straight-ahead speed. I think of "performance" as "being able drive fast safely". As in, the BMW definition of performance. You rarely, if ever, get to use even half the speed of a fast car. But take a car on a twisty backroad, and you can use every bit of the world-class handling of a BMW to stay at 50-60mph. Try it in a Mustang or one of the listed Chevy "SS" models, and you'll plunge through the guardrail and crash in flames, just like in the opening montage of "Speed Racer". Speed kills, so More Speed kills faster; but Braking and Handling (particularly Accurately Feeling the Road And Your Car's Current Adhesion) saves your life at any speed.

I don't think the Big3, or GM in particular, get that at all.

And that is too bad.

The thing that you don't understand about american cars, especially performance ones, is that people just don't buy them for thier quality and road course performance! They buy them because of the name they carry and traditional performance they carry back in the 50s and 60s(mustang, charger, corvette,etc). Trust me ford and SVT team where not thinking of marketing to the BMW or Road Course getters, they planned the 2007 shelby Cobra for those who love the name and straght line performance! Even with 450 horses, the vehicle has mild performacne on the course, yet the driver decides if it hits the guardrail or not, not the car itself

The thing that you don't understand about american cars, especially performance ones, is that people just don't buy them for thier quality and road course performance! They buy them because of the name they carry and traditional performance they carry back in the 50s and 60s(mustang, charger, corvette,etc). Trust me ford and SVT team where not thinking of marketing to the BMW or Road Course getters, they planned the 2007 shelby Cobra for those who love the name and straght line performance! Even with 450 horses, the vehicle has mild performacne on the course, yet the driver decides if it hits the guardrail or not, not the car itself

That's a valid point.

But it seems like while some people might purchase for the name and nostalgia and traditional performance, many people don't. "Performance" is being redefined according to BMW and Acura standards. Sure, many does not mean all or even most. But enough that the Big 3 are hurting for car sales, whereas BMW/Toyota/Honda are not. Well, BMW wasn't before Chris Bangle started irritating BMW fans with his radical design changes.

The point is, holding to a certain point of view is fine, and marketing in alignment with what you think people want is fine. But you can't blame the public for being stupid or ignorant if they want something else. I sort of feel that's what GM in particular is doing. They are pushing straight-ahead horsepower to a populace that increasingly wants to feel zippy/peppy and in total control while doing hairpin turns at 50mph.

If GM doesn't start to understand that, they will fail. The Solstice is a good first attempt to try and meet customer desires.

« Hide Comments

Have a safe, and uncomplicated (if such a thing is possible) move.

Too late. It's already gotten messy.

[sigh] I'll continue praying for you. And in the meantime, it will be such a drear not to be able to click over to your blog every day. I'll miss you.

Have a safe and (hopefully) uneventful move from here on out, or at least as much as is realistiic! I know you'll be glad when you get somewhat settled in your new place.

Nathan, I don't think you'll be able to stay away for very long, or at least not be able to not have some way to get out of your own head, so take along a micro-recorder and get back to us.

Tell all at the RMBB 2.0 hello for me, and do one shot in my absence.

Drive safely, live well, and we'll leave the light on for ya.

Will do.
...except I'd need a time machine to say hello to the folks at v2.0 since they are up to v4.0 now. [grin]

If you could go back to RMBB 2.0 and remind all of us what it was like, we'd be most appreciative.

Gawl, a girl can't get a break with you guys!

I could have sworn I commented on this one...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Sorry, man -- I've been trying that for nearly three full years, and it doesn't work. I am resigned to my "Crawly Amphibian" status.

I gotta say, there's something ironic about someone whose domain is "evolution-nextstep" to not get beyond crawly amphibian... [grin]

Okay, in all seriousness, I'm thinking that much of blogging is like multi-level marketing. I probably don't deserve the traffic I get with my level/skill of writing, but I started long enough ago that people stop by here out of habit, or something. And I think blogging persistence helps in Google search rankings, too.

Who knows?

Believe it or not, you aren't the first person to have a little fun with that TTLB/domain name connection. (I think it's funny too.)

Part of the problem is that I languished in Blogspot hell for two years before I got a real host. I've ran evolution for four years (almost three in blog form), and for some reason, traffic trends have passed me by.

That isn't why I'm into it; it never was. It's just neat to see what other people think.

You've got the right (healthy) attitude.

There are more things you could do to get a higher ranking...but ranking and hits are not directly correlated. A good portion of my Large Mammal ranking is just that I'm a part of mu.nu.

And there are more things I could do to get higher hit totals than 290/day. Participate in a few of the Carnivals, try to come up with a good blog meme, leave comments on every blog you come across, blog controversial themes, develop a good schtick.
That all takes too much effort, and I'm too lazy. So I'm happy with where I am. I may lust after more recognition, but I'm simultaneously enjoying what I have now.

Oh, sure, beg for attention. I don't think anyone pays any attention to my blog either, for that matter. Nobody ever comments. You get tons more traffic than I do, though. Didn't I see that you'd been added to some big-name's blogroll recently? Trying to remember who it was...

Really? A big-name? Hmmm...I haven't seen any extra hits from anyone big.

Usually less than 3% of my readers ever comment. I think they saw how I treat Sharp as a Marble...

I've also been blogging for 2.5 years, and being in the military in the wake of 9/11 probably didn't hurt me any...

Are you talking about "In the Agora"?
I didn't realize they were that big until I saw their Ecosystem ranking.

...I really didn't understand that link from them...I mean, I added nothing to the conversation they were talking about. Ah, well, sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.

In any case, the only reason I put this post up is that you should always spread your posts out throughout the day, one every 2 hours or so...because that way you move to the top of rotating blogrolls and get "recently updated" marks on other blogrolls. It keeps people coming back, drives up hit totals, and can make sure you become a daily read: people know if they come back and hit 'refresh', they probably will get another opinion.

But when I have nothing to say and still want to post something, I'll do something silly/stupid, so hopefully someone at least gets a chuckle out of my being stupid...

That explains this post.

Oh, okay. I've actually thought about that, myself. Hasn't really changed my blogging habits, but it has crossed my mind that that's a way to get hits. For me, it gets me a wash of hits through the Pro-Life Blogs aggregator, particularly when I post something pro-life in nature. I don't ever do it on purpose just to get hits from PLB, but I've certainly noticed a spike whenever I do.

« Hide Comments

I'm fighting the temptation to add a tag line to the effect of "...and anyone who can't understand that is an idiot!", but that is uselessly provocative. The thing is, everyone thinks they're right. No one would ever cling to a belief they personally felt was wrong, no?
The only person you have to satisfy is yourself, I guess, and as long as your belief system allows you to function safely and fully engage in society, that's about the best anyone can hope for. I've come to realize that a calm confidence in your own beliefs and your own understanding is all that is necessary; you don't need to destroy other beliefs or try to make everyone see things the same way you do in order to validate your worldview.

"There is nothing in science that disproves God."

There is nothing in science to disprove the great galactic chicken either, but that doesn't mean it exists!

"There is nothing in religion that contradicts science."

Unless of course you ignore the creation of the Earth in 6 days, parting the Red Sea, Turning water into wine, a man being swalloed by a whale and living to tell the tale, walking on water, surviving a warm moment in a furnace, coming back from the dead, healing genetic defects through touch, etc...

Ooh! You really got me on that one!

[snicker]

Actually, people do cling to ideas they know to be wrong, or probably a better way to say it, they cling to incomplete data because they're afraid to have their worldview changed. It means a lot of work and some discomfort.

But we're human. We have a finite mind, and there's an infinite amount of information. Everyone makes judgements on incomplete data. The human mind is a pattern recognition machine which means it doesn't require 100% information to process.

Why we call this 'intelligence', I have no idea. ;)

I know what you mean, and that's a large part of what I'm saying, SaaM.

I just find it ironic when someone who uses science as their authority claims things any decent scientist never would, i.e., we already know all we need to assume there is no room for God in the universe...
There is overlap, and someone's understanding of science can and does lead to greater faith, and people's faith in God can often lead to startling insights in science.
It is no accident that both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were Christians.

Let me clarify my agreement with SaaM in light of stating nearly the exact opposite in my post:

Logically, we only espouse the views we believe. "Playing Devil's Advocate" is the only way we might argue for a belief we don't hold, but most people won't argue from that viewpoint consistently and deeply.

But as SaaM points out, some people do argue for some things that they don't want to believe, but do. That's where we get things like cognitive dissonance and subconsciousness running counter to what we think we believe. It can be as simple as "knowing" there is no bogeyman upstairs and yet still be scared to go up there alone.

However, that is beyond the scope of what I was talking about.

The thing is, they type of people who enter into these type of arguments are the type of people who feel they have investigated the matter and come to the right answer (or at least a right answer), and so aren't really willing to budge. And yet, most people do hold varying amounts of self-contradictory beliefs, and that means that these types of arguments often hit our sensitivities, which is why so many of these arguments turn uncivil.

Science and Religion have different spheres. I often argue that the Bible is perfect and inerrant when used correctly, i.e., you wouldn't expect a road map to be perfect and inerrant to use as an aircraft navigation chart, would you? Well, science and religion have different uses/purposes/functions as well. You don't use philosophy to answer the math questions of building a bridge. But you also don't use all of science, i.e., biology may be absolutely 100% correct, but is of little use in building that same bridge.

The overlap I mentioned is not in the spheres, but in people's hearts/minds. That's why so many (but not all...heck, I wouldn't even say 'most') scientists are Christians, and so many Christians are fully conversant in science. I am just as at home reading Stephen Hawkings as C.S. Lewis, although I really haven't read enough of either lately, alas!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You've GOT to be kidding...you think this:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/23177/Act/Photos/

is more attractive than this?

http://www.chevrolet.com/malibu/sedan/

WOW.

Example A is snore-riffic. Atleast there's some uniqueness to the 2005 version.

As for wimpy in the previous years, my current "runner" is a 2003 with a 6 cylander engine...peppy as can be. But it's not a sports car, it's a grocery grabber.

I absolutely disagree with your judgment on the Malibu's looks.
The 2003 model is unexciting...but has an understated elegance to it.
Like the 2003 Accord, actually. That car sold quite well, no?

That's exactly the problem with American cars. They put the emphasis on a unique look and have a bland car. They should put the effort into having a quality car and people will fall in love with the look.

Volvo proved that. Saab proved that. Honda proved that with several models. The problem with putting the emphasis on appearance is that if you swing for a home-run, you strike-out more often (Pontiac Aztec, anyone?). And the more unique the car, the less enduring its looks. The 2003 Camry will look good for a decade, whereas the butt-ugly taillight configuration of the 2003 Impala is already dated.

Taste is personal, so I'm trying to insist my taste is the standard. I am trying to point out that cars that fit your description of "snore-riffic" have sold hundreds of thousands more than what you called "WOW". And there is absolutely ZERO buzz on the street about what you called "WOW". It looks like a cheap Saturn with that headlight/grille, and Saturns haven't actually been winning any top-seller awards.

I know, there is some contradiction in what I say. The 2003 Malibu didn't stand out in performance, the 2005 has a decent performance but I hate the looks. What I'm saying, I guess, is that looks aren't enough...but if performance is roughly equivalent, then looks make the deciding factor. And the 2005 Malibu isn't good enough to overcome what I (and millions of other people, apparently) feel is a pretty homely appearance.

It's just like in dating: looks can attract you, but cannot maintain the relationship. The person that looks the most attractive at first will seem ugly quickly if they have annoying habits/traits. The key is to be a good person, and someone will fall in love with you and then find your looks attractive afterwards. And if you happen to have an attractive look as well, at least you've made sure you backed it up with substance, not flash.

Same way with cars. If the Big3 would stop putting out crap with a pretty face, they would sell more. Having a reputation for crap in comparison with the top imports (which you can buy for less in many cases), trying to come up with a unique look isn't good enough. The only choice left for the Big3 is try to set the standard, after which other cars will try to look like Big3 cars to cash in on the Big3's success.
Instead, the Big3 apparently feels comfortable chasing the standard, offering lots of rebates to lure people in, and hoping that "Buy American" will lure in enough suckers that they can continue to produce sub-standard vehicles without going bankrupt.

Simple answer: the new malibu is outselling the old one by leaps and bounds. That's all that really matters to GM.

Sheesh, and I never intended that to come across that the car is "wow", that was my reaction to what you thought was attractive.

I think you should re-read our previous discussion on this...I won't go any further.

Well, I was emboldened by reading someone else say they thought the new Malibu is ugly. And at least two people in my office agree.

I'm just trying to understand and quantify exactly why the Big3 keeps losing more and more of the market share. GM is doing the worst right now, compared to where they started. They could turn it around, but the failure of the G6 (not a flop, no, but obviously not the bestseller they thought they were hyping during the Super Bowl) indicates that they still don't understand what most American drivers want.

I don't want the Big3 to go under. I don't want to have to buy foreign cars. But the continual incompetence and wilfull ignorance of the Big3 really leaves me little choice. I don't want the hassle of a lemon or the frustration of a sub-par car, and American cars just aren't worth the risk.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Update:
Then again,
this makes a great deal of sense to me.

This case at the same time makes me proud (because of Gov. Bush and the attempts by the legislators) and embarrassed (because of the courts) to call myself a resident of, person born and raised in, and former police officer for the state of Florida. The post on Legal XXX is a prime example of what I've seen happen in courts across Florida consistently for the last several years. People in Florida seem to be conservative to moderate in their political choices, but overwhelmingly liberal in their judicial choices. It would not surprise me to learn that, based on my experience and information I've read, to hear that 80% or more of the judges (both state and federal) are liberal in their views and democrats in their voting.

Hey thanks for the link.

« Hide Comments

Strangely enough, that's called a "traditional filibuster" while what's happening right now is called a "procedural filibuster". The nice thing is, the President of the Senate has full latitude to declare that the filibuster BECOME a traditional filibuster and therefore become subject to the rules thereof. If it were to turn into a traditional filibuster, one thought will INSTANTLY enter into the minds of every Democrat (as well as Independent and RINO) considering taking part in the filibuster, and one of two things will happen:

The Thought: Isn't this what got Daschle thrown out on his ass??

Outcome 1 (a.k.a. The Discretion is the better part of valor" Maneuver): "I like it here, I'm going to sit down and keep my hole closed."

Outcome 2 (a.k.a. The "Custer" Maneuver): "My people love me and would NEVER vote me out. Gimme the floor!"

« Hide Comments

*What? You gonna demand your money back? Sit down, shut up, and come up with your own puns if you don't like mine.

« Hide Comments

I feel guilty laughing when I read this. Even the knowing, cynical laugh seems a bit wrong.

« Hide Comments

*unfortunately, that's an increasingly apt description of moderates, too.

« Hide Comments

I'm just tired of all the fighting *sniff*
j/k

Actually, now I can predict to nearly a 99% certainty how who will respond to what I say, or atleast vaguely. So naturally, if not looking for a debate and I sense one coming, I often don't post.

But I can't predict how you'll respond to this one. Probably with raspberry syrup coated cattle commentary or chicken flavored soda descriptions or a diatribe on the need for California to secede from the US.

My experience is similar to Jo's. I know pretty much what reaction I'm going to get to whatever I say and rather than deal with the headaches, I just move on to less political issues.

I agree with Jo and R. Alex. And I guess that predictability has sort of taken the fun out of it. I also get tired of having the same arguments again and again, so if it looks likely to turn onto one of the standards, I skip it.

Often I'll post a long comment on someone else's site, and then think "Holy crap, that would be a perfect blog entry! Why am I wasting such good material here?" Sometimes I'll get an idea and post it around the comment boards just to let it ferment a bit before using it on my own blog. He's the one I'm test driving right now:

"Let's not get carried away, folks. Starvation isn't as bad as it seems. Gandhi used to starve himself all the time, just for kicks. Besides, Schiavo is on a morphine drip. It will be a very peaceful, painless death. Does she deserve one after all she's put poor Micheal through? Well, I'm afraid that's a moot point. Unless Sally Struthers steps in at the the last moment to save her, Terri Schiavo's proverbial goose is cooked."

Now if I get a wad of angry hate mails from your readers, I might turn that comment into some Liberal Larry Gold. If all I get are a few polite snickers, I'll chalk it up to the NyQuil and go back to bed.

I have a problem that is SOMEWHAT similar. I have to say something so outrageous that Alister Crowley would read it and say "Dude, you just went TOO far with that" to get any comments. I've noticed an overall decline in commenting among the comments I read. I attribute it to those who are opiniated and quick witted getting their own blog. However, with that said, I've also noticed if you can get one person to make a comment, others will usually follow if the first one is in any way coherent.

« Hide Comments

Literal-minded social conservatives sit at the north pole of morality. Any move in any direction means one is heading south.
Life is ablaze with slippery slopes, BF, which is why we have judgement.

You know, I really struggled with leaving a sarcastic response, because my impression is that you just dripped some condescension (if not vitriol) on social conservatives. If I'm wrong, I'd like to understand better what you mean.

What I tried to say was that a brittle moralism is susceptible to shattering in the presence of change, therefore prone to viewing deviations from the literal interpretation of received codes of behavior as slippery slopes.

From the north pole, there is no other direction than south, a mountain top with nothing in sight but slippery slopes.

To me, there are many fewer absolutes, much greater liberty, and an appreciation for the facility of judgement in determining what is in one's own best interest.

As you can imagine, this is seen as pretty bad news by social conservatives, whose condescension takes the form of knowing what is best for everyone else.

Literal-minded social conservatives sit at the north pole of morality.

I can't argue with that, since nearly all the social conservatives I know are not,, er, literally literal-minded.

But isn't a statement like this:
To me, there are many fewer absolutes, much greater liberty, and an appreciation for the facility of judgement in determining what is in one's own best interest. ...every bit as much of a "moral north pole" as what you ascribe to social conservatives? Such a sentence sounds like you are sneering at someone who isn't as enlightened or morally flexible as you. Thus, any attempt to establish an objective standard of morality is a move "south" in your opinion...or so it seems from the little you've written.

And maybe it is just my other experiences leading me to react this way, but it certainly seems to me that the people screaming loudest about "moral high ground" are mostly just unhappy that their own moral viewpoint isn't the standard.

"Morals", like "Belief Systems" (i.e. religion), are something everyone has. Everyone has some standard upon which they judge a behavior or an opinion to be justified or not, whether they admit it or not. Even complete tolerance is a moral position.
The trick, then, is to make sure your moral position tends to get the results you want it to have. Meaning, if someone believes everyone would be happy if they just dropped their prudish attitude toward sex, then the people engaging in "liberated" sex practices should be demonstrably happier; or if the biggest problem with homosexual marriage is society's prejudice against SSM, then legalization of SSM should demonstrably have no effect on a given society's institution of marriage, rates of divorce, child custody problems, etc.

In other words, what you take as "knowing what is good for everyone" may simply be a greater understanding of what actually works to attain lasting happiness and inner peace. There's no one who complains so much or so bitterly about the unfairness of life or selfishness of society as a liberal (or moderate?) who actually gets what he was demanding.

« Hide Comments

*The author is sometimes too positive toward foreign car companies and often too negative toward the Big3, and her predictions of the dissolution of the American companies is overwrought and more than a touch ridiculous...but I can tell you that the problems of US car companies and the strengths of "import" car companies as she described in her book fully confirmed what I discovered in my research, my sub-conscious thoughts and priorities when I was looking and mulling which cars to check out, and my impressions when test-driving.

http://www.uawhonda.com/

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/suzuki.asp

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/nissan.asp

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/toyota.asp

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/mazda.asp

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/isuzu.asp

http://www.unionlabel.org/dobuy/vehicles/mitsubishi.asp

I stand corrected.

...but I gotta say, not a particularly impressive list. I can't check the Honda site at this tiem (blocking protocols, argh!) The best car on those lists is the NUMMI-made Corolla. I think Toyota takes a financial loss for a minor political gain on that vehicle.
The listing actually seems to indicate there are far more non-union cars made by those manufacturers in the US than union cars. And Mitsubishi, whose US-made cars are all union products, is generally considered to be sub-par in quality and workmanship compared to Honda and Toyota...which kind of supports my point.
It's getting more and more difficult to make a good-quality vehicle in a union factory at a competitive cost, because the union's top priority is the benefit of the union. And that's why people don't want those cars, and are increasingly unwilling to spend their money on those cars.

Unions did a good job in the past. They are no longer necessary and have long been a detriment. I think unions should be disbanded; it is truly a shame that unions are unwilling to do so until needed again. But it is hard to give up the gravy train, I know.

The citizens of the United States do not and should not exist to keep unions on the gravy train.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*that appellation is seeming more appropriate all the time, since liberal judges in California have redefined the term "mainstream" to mean: in agreement with liberal lawmaker views but in opposition to what the majority of citizens want/think/believe.

If the memo is fake, why did so many Republicans use the same language?

"She's never had independent counsel and I think that if Ted Bundy, as a mass murderer gets lawyer and get access to court, Terri Schiavo as a disabled lady should get the same." - Gibbs, Schindler lawyers

"When it comes to federal legal protection, Terri Schiavo ranks below Ted Bundy, and when it comes to protection from suffering, she ranks below an unwanted pet." - Catholic Culture

"If we accord that right to someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, shouldn't we give at least equal protection to someone with a disability, charged with no crime, who is at risk of being starved and dehydrated to death?" - National Right To Life

"Like it or not, convicted murderers Ted Bundy and Danny Rolling received more due-process protections than Terri Schiavo, a person utterly innocent of any wrong-doing." - Ken Conner, former president of the Family Research Council

"He continues to promote the interests of Michael Schiavo by refusing Terri the right to independent counsel, a right which even serial killers like Ted Bundy received." - Bonnie Chernin Rogoff, GOPUSA.com

"If the proceedings that led up to the execution of serial-killer Ted Bundy had been handled in the same way, Bundy's conviction would have been overturned." - Florida State Sen. Daniel Webster

"If we accord that right to someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, shouldn't we give at least equal protection to someone with a disability, charged with no crime, who is at risk of being starved and dehydrated to death?" - conservativealerts.com

"This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy."- Traditional Values Coalition

“Martinez Aide Wrote Schiavo Memo”, Keith Epstein, Tampa Tribune, Apr 7, 2005

“A senior aide to freshman Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez has admitted to writing an unsigned incendiary memo listing the political advantages for Republicans of intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, Martinez said Wednesday night.
Martinez said he passed along the ``now-infamous memo'' to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa…”

Seriously, no one is surprised by the callous manipulation of the truth or cold exploitation of human suffering for personal and political gain this incident displays. That's part of the republican credo. The surprising thing is that Martinez was caught. Of course he was all too ready to throw his aide under a bus to save himself. What a coward.

It has been amusing watching your contortions over Mel Martinez's "Memo-gate". With moves like I'd think it would be relatively easy for you to remove your head from your rectum. But a simple "Gee whiz! I guess I was wrong!" is beyond your powers.

Check your colon for polyps while you’re up there.

« Hide Comments

Have gum, will travail!

Urk. And I thought my wife's puns were bad. Of course she says the same thing about mine...

Yeargh.

My prayers are still with you, friend. Let me know if you need anything else. As the well-known saying goes:

A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

Have shovel, will travel. : )

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I caught this piece on the G6 yesterday and then mentioned to MT, "Well, if we're gonna see a $3,500 cash incentive, maybe we should consider that in a couple months."

BIG MISTAKE on the patr of GM...they did NOT follow up with their new olds (haha, yes) buyers, and say, "Hey, we've discontinued your preferred model, but look, we've got this G6 that's a lot like a sportier Alero."

INSTEAD, as I shockingly discovered Monday, they've been routing Olds customers to Buick, and IMO, waiting entirely too long to contact those Olds customers, too.

The G6 is OK to look at. I am still not quite used to it, and it pales in unique styling to Malibu Maxx, for example.

Plus, for decades, the Pontiac Grand Am has been the model that GM buyers just. keep. on. buying. I have no idea what number Grand Am my folks are on, but they get one for a "running around" car (since they have fuel-inefficient farm rigs). They've never had any problem more serious than needing an air filter changed. And then, what happens? They discontinue that very car.

I know they have no intention of buying a G6.

I bet GM is kicking their own ass over this one.

I'm sure they are.

Please understand, too, I am not "chortling with glee" or anything. I would prefer to buy a good American car to a good foreign car any day. But I'm not going to sacrifice my money for their benefit. I do what's best for me and my family.

It is disheartening that GM couldn't have done a better job by the G6. I don't think the panoramic skylight is enough to attract new customers.
Everything else was decent...but it's still too expensive.

What Detroit really doesn't seem to understand is that people want a car they know will start without problems until the car is fully paid off, at the very least. They want a car that handles well, accelerates well, brakes well, is relatively quiet, with good fit/finish and made with quality materials, and gets good gas mileage for a decent price. They can get all that from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and (with some care in selection, perhaps) from Hyundai, Suzuki, and perhaps Mazda (yes, a Ford subisdiary...why isn't Ford learning anything from them?), so why come back to US vehicles? The main thing that would draw back American consumers in droves is, simply: the same quality in all aspects at a cheaper price.
Maybe the Big3 can't do it. I hope that's not true.

« Hide Comments

Don't forget a "media search"...CDs in the player, tapes in the VCR, etc...

Did that.

Did that AFTER the wedding. I couldn't believe all of the ex'girlfriend memorabilia I had collected over the years. Better yet, my wife couldn't either. I'm still trying to dig my way out of that one. At least in your case you're unlocking the shackles. Never easy, but the air is so much sweeter when it's free and clear. Good luck with it all.

Thanks!

« Hide Comments

My brother is in the high-end (Mercedes, BMW, and so on) used vehicle lease financing business... I'll bet he's all over this.

And that's just about everything I know about what he does for a living. Does that make me a bad brother?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

As far as hand guns go, a great choice for home defense is the Smith and Wesson Sigma. Imagine the look, feel, and style of a Glock with the S&W name to back it up, and to top it off they're on the lower end of the cost spectrum. I know that they come in a 9mm and 40 Caliber model, both of which have their pros and cons. 9mm rounds have less "knock down" power, but you can fit more of them in the weapon. A 40 caliber is the opposite. More stopping power but you sacrifice the number of rounds you can fit in the weapon. For my money, personally, there is no better weapon than the Heckler & Koch USP 40 Caliber. I used this weapon on duty as a police officer for 5 years, and never had a jam or malfunction, and the weapon is designed to be "idiot proof" and super-safe to handle. To quote a great mind "...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

I'm no handgun expert, or even a handgun amateur fanatic, but from everything I've heard in discussions of stopping power, the .40 is about the best there is. The carrying capacity and recoil is much closer to the 9mm (which is about .38 in size), so it's easier for smaller people with smaller hands and has enough ammo for follow-up shots....but the stopping power is much closer to that of a .45 or .357.
FWIW, I guess.

I'm fond of the Saiga, myself.

I prefer my trusty Mossberg 500 12-gauge pump.

Question: how effective is #7 birdshot in a home defense situation? Just wondering because after the Brian Nichols incident here in Atlanta, I broke down and got some 00 buck. I would have preferred #4 buck, but couldn't find any. Just don't want to get caught with the wrong ammo in a self-defense situation.

Dude, we are so far out of my area of expertise....

...but if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that birdshot would stop most people, and even if you missed, I think the invader might be a little intimidated seeing the lamp next to his head explode! But anyone on drugs wouldn't be knocked down or disabled by just birdshot, and might keep going for several minutes until bloodloss set in.
I could be just talking out of my butt, but if I'm at all close, then I'd load shotgun with a series of shells, the first two being birdshot, and then moving up to buckshot and maybe even a slug. That way, if birdshot is enough, you don't risk penetration of the heavier slugs...
Sound good? Check it with an expert, though, okay?

I am by no means an expert, but agree with Nathan. Load the first or 2nd rounds with birdshot, and the rest (most likely 3-5 more) with 00 buck. If you want to minimize the collateral and property damage, get 9 pellet instead of 12. If you use a slug, chances are the round will go through whatever you're shooting at, the rest of your house, and half of whatever house is adjacent to you. The simple act of racking the round into the chamber of a shotgun is enough to make MOST people require a change of underwear. And unless you have a person who is after more than just the stuff in your house, he's not going to take the time to try and figure out if you're peppering him with bird shot, salt shot or a slug. You're best bet (in my ever-so-humble opinion) is to contact your local law enforcement agency or gun club, and take a home defense course. These usually cover hand guns, long guns, and in some areas unarmed and "opportunity" (whatever you can get your hands on) defense.

Also in my humble opinion: my wife and I have numerous makes and calibers of handguns strategically placed around the house, from a .25 to .357s. (inherited the .25, so we keep it around as it's better than nothing when tshtf) We carry s & w .airlight .38s on our persons when we are out together for easy replenishing of ammo if nessesary, otherwise I carry a s & w .40 when by myself. We practice with most of our weapons regularly. I guess what I'm getting to is that the more versatile one is ,the more likely it is that one can defend one's life, honor, family and home. If I had to choose just one hand gun, I would go with a .40 dao, with a 4 inch .357 dao coming a close second. As far as shotguns go, I agree that just about any type of shot is probably going to get the job done. However, I would recommend a 12 gauge auto; regardless of the fear factor of hearing a round racked, I prefer shooting first and fast and not concerning myself with the possibility of inadvertantly ejecting a live round in the heat and excitement of the moment. Remember KISS: keep it simple, stupid. I keep 00 buckshot in my home defense 12; I can replace furniture and sheetrock, but I want the bad guy down and out. Besides, the wife is always talking about remodeling anyway. Let's just hope and pray that none of us has to ever face a life threatening situation and we can use our weapons for more enjoyable purposes. Thanks for hearing my humble opinions on this. God bless America and our Troops and of course all y'all reading this

Sounds good to me, Jeff.

« Hide Comments

I despise the little troll, myself. Sniveling little wretch. His program is not on the approved list in our house, mainly because of the blatant example of bad parenting. Caillou wouldn't be such a whiny brat if his dad & mom had spines.

I'm filling my mind with a picture of beating Caillou’s huge, misshapen head to pulp! Thoughts so primitive they black out everything else. I'm filling my mind with hate for Caillou.

Is your blood red like ours Caillou? I'm going to find out. All I want to do is get my hands on you. Can you read these thoughts Caillou - images of hate, killing?

You'll find my thoughts more interesting, thoughts so primitive you can't understand.

Emotions so - ugh!

No. Don't help me. I have to concentrate. Caillou can't read through hate.

Although I agree Caillou is a snotty little B$tch, my 2 year old son has loved him for about a year now. I have no idea why he is the only one who is bald, but I am glad to see that I am not the only one wondering why a kid's television program's main character is a brat. My husband calls him "the whiny gay canadian."

You are not alone, Jason'smommy, you are not alone. Maybe we should start a post-traumatic "Caillou"-survivor's support group.

Omf i hate the little snot nosed bitch, if i were his parents, he'd get the beating of his life...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Oooh, I likey :D

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Well said, I agree.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*yeah, I got nothing today.

The big order of business today is Terri Schiavo, and in reading all the opinions, I'm struck with the impression that, despite all the Sturm und Drang, very few people really know what's going on.

It's become a battle of principles and ideologies about the sanctity of life on one side, and about how govt should work on the other. I can understand that, I guess, because I've argued on principle for many things before, including SSM and the Clinton Escapades.
Except that this time it is human life.

There are arguments that Mr. Schiavo should have the right to determine his wife's fate; otherwise, the current sanctity of the marriage bond is unraveled. A good point, except that a very strong case could be made that he abandoned Terri, and so the guardianship should devolve to her parents.

People are getting up in arms about Republicans/Conservatives favoring activist judges when it suits them in this case...except that nothing the Republicans and conservatives have done involves the courts. We are pushing for the legislature to be activist, and as was pointed out in the comments here and here, legislature is supposed to be activist. We call judges activist when they assume the powers to legislate, effectively destroying the separation of powers.

I think a strong (if not fully convincing) case can be made that this is how govt is supposed to work. If not, well, govt does what we tell it to, so if you don't like it, you can certainly punish the individuals in govt responsible for this. But I am extremely troubled that so many people are eager to preserve their view of govt functioning on the sacrifice of Terri Schiavo's life. You should be willing to die for your country; you should be willing to sacrifice your life for your principles. There is something extremely creepy and selfish about being willing to write off another human being in order to preserve your view of govt functions.

There is reason for hope in Terri's situation. At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to wait another year to make sure, would it?

Wouldn't you want someone to spend a few years making sure if it was your own loved one in that situation?

(...okay, maybe I did have something)

Just so you know, I pretty much think you're always right, too. I'm trying to think of a post that I haven't agreed with. I'll let you know if I come up with one.

Now, now, ISM; you're already on my blog-roll, no need to butter me up or anything...!

« Hide Comments

You're right. My wife had a Toyota that lasted for 300,000 miles before it died hard, and it rarely had anything break on it. I had a cavalier that lasted 110,000 miles, and constantly had problems. My stepfather had a new Ford Zepher, which constantly had problems, he sold it for $200 before it’s 8th birthday. At best, I had a 71 Plymouth Sebring that lasted 200,000 miles, and was gorgeous, drove like a dream, but they don’t make’em like that anymore.

I was in the market for a new car, I wanted reliability, something that gets good gas mileage. I chose the Toyota Prius, the hybrid. That car is packed with features, it’s more than just a car, everything is well thought out. You just don’t find the American car companies designing something like this, and forget about the reliability, an American car doesn’t last for 300,000 miles. It’s sad, America’s pride can’t even design and build a car, I thought this was America?

you guys are so right volvo and mazda are so much better then ford products oh ya thats right they are ford product look at the ford website. the big three sell more cars and have more divisions than you ignorant f___ers realise. most of the so called foreign vehicles you talk about are owned by the big three and some people don't like foreign car designs, they don't like the feeling a monkey gets when he is trying to f___ a football. toyota is on there own along with Nissan. there is two companies that are way over rated. always looked at as "high quality good mileage vehicles" but if anyone reads any magazines which you hoity toity motherf___ers probably don't you could see they don't perform all so hot. To be honest they perform worse than Cheverolet, Dodge, or Ford(in the same class)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I see that this only applies to high school cheer.

I was pretty surprised during the 2004 college football season at some of the routines. I mean, it's one thing on TV, but when you're ten feet away from them, it's even...more uncomfortable. There are two groups, one pretty much does cheerleader stuff, and even though they're wearing about seven square inches of fabric, it's ok. But the other group does this weird sexy dancing stuff, in these outfits that would be highly appropriate for someone who makes her living on a pole.

I mean, I don't want to put the girls down or anything, they're very lithe and obviously work very hard, but...really, if you look at most of the women spectators sitting nearest the field, they all exchange nervous glances with each other or suddenly start studying the roster really really hard when the girls come by for a dance. It's bizarre and awkward.

Birth rates in this country are dangerously low right now. If it weren't for Cheerleader dance excited jocks and the resulting teen pregnancy, our population would already be shrinking.

« Hide Comments

The Altima standard 2.5 liter 4 cylinder has 175 HP @ 6,000 RPM; Torque is 180 @ 4,000. This is fairly comparable to many V6's, and blows the top off of the other I4's in the same class.

The sportier 3.5 liter V6 has 250 HP @ 5,800 RPM; Torque 249 @ 4,400. That's more than some sports cars, though the MPG suffers a little bit (21/27).

As a comparison - My previous car was a Mazda 929, with a 190 HP V6; my current Altima only has 175 HP, but the performance seems much peppier -- maybe because the Mazda had so many miles on it.

Gas mileage on the 929 was about 19 MPG in mixed driving. I get about 26 in mixed driving in my Altima, but have topped 30 on long trips.

(PS - the trip to Italy was safe and wonderful. Let's talk about it - and other stuff - soon.)

Dalin,
Thanks for the assist. I was going from memory, and figured I was off.
Now, Nissan is known for their engines. Honda is known for the amount of power/torque/gas mileage they crank from small displacements.
And, to be fair, the displacement on Dalin's 4-cyl is equal to my 6-cyl. Where I was confused was that I've seen the Altimas with a "2.5" on the back, and assumed that was the 6-cyl, not realizing you could pack that much displacement on a 4 banger.
...and still, they get 20 more horsepower out of it than Suzuki does out of their 2.5 liter Inline 6. [sigh]
I think the Altima is peppier due to where the torque range is. Nissan is trying to impress people with performance, so I'm sure they tuned the car to feel a little more zippy. On the other hand, one might want to compare the curb weight of the Altima to the 929, since more a little more power attached to a significantly heavier car would certainly feel less peppy...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*you remember her, right? The Senator who thought the most salient aspects of Osama bin Laden's character are that he makes roads and daycares, and that we should emulate that...but when given the chance, she voted against funding to do so.

Please, oh please don't smear all of W. Washington with the follies of Seattle and Olympia. The day I hear anything even close to that out of my daughter's mouth I'm going to her school and tearing some new ones.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

We still have a small school nearby (well, it has like 100 students + faculty, total) where some kids take four-hooved transport to school. More and more, though, due to budget cuts the small rural schools are being closed. It's asd, but better than no education at all, I guess.

The dad in the article made a good point about how much safer it is to send her on the family mule than to walk. She's protected from everything from snakes to people with evil intentions.

« Hide Comments

What can we expect in a throw away society? :-(

Look at this precious little girl, http://www.erlanger.org/craniofacial/book/clefts/images/Cleft_1.jpg
Before and after surgery...

Wow! Yeah, it's ridiculous and the height of selfish exaggeration to claim a cleft palate means a lifetime of pain or anything.
If those doctors can't be charged with murder, can they at least be barred from continuing to practice medicine?

« Hide Comments

...and that's how our forefathers came to realize that a free press is vital to the well-being of the nation.

Nothing we love more than a good smooth pun. Guess getting dressed up really put the starch back in 'em, huh? Or ironed out their problems, at least.

*angelic grin*

They really had the British hemmed in, I think.

The only worry, from what I've heard, is that they were patching and darning so fast they risked a stitch in the side...so to speak.

I guess you could say we, um, flat-out beat 'em.

Such clean humor. And tailored to your audience. Once again I leave here reluctantly, as I have pressing business to attend to...

Irony. Love it.

I hate you all, go suck off a donkey's nut.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

The red pills are Sudafed!!! There is no Matrix, but there IS a spoon!

« Hide Comments

She's a real estate agent in Hawaii, for what it's worth. Not the one I worked with, though.

I say call her.

It'd never work out. She is an attractive, young Japanese lady, and I smell like Campbell's Beef Soup....

« Hide Comments

...wait! How did this picture of Nilou Motamed get in here?!? I'm going to have to make sure the people responsible for the opening credits are sacked...

I'd forgotten all about Karate Champ. That one ate a quarter or three over the years.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Linguistic 40
Mathematics 24 !!!
Visual/Spatial 30
Body/Kinesthetic 33
Naturalistic 26 !!! (I am surprised by this)
Music 47
Interpersonal 33
Intrapersonal 37

Nathan, you should find no surprises in mine:

Linguistic: 35
Mathematics: 46
Visual/Spatial: 36
Body/Kinesthetic: 23
Naturalistic: 28
Music: 45
Interpersonal: 24
Intrapersonal: 37

In other words, the stereotyipcal asocial egghead mathematician. It should also not be a surprise that those who score high in mathematics also score high in music -- the two are linked.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Nathan-

Thanks for the link and the plug---much appreciated.

I found you through the referral logs, so your link is quite a bit more important than a drizzle.

Great blog.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

And yet, because of my conservatism,this sort of thing disturbs me:

If it is true, and if it is a unique development, and if it is due to man's influence at all, and if there is anything we can do about it.

The most disturbing aspect to all the argument about global warming is that it has become a money-making industry for the people making noise about it. I fear it is no longer possible to research this subject and have any confidence in the accuracy/appropriateness of the information you assemble.

Thoughts?

I find that picture disturbing too. I really don't want to run into the giant space creature that needs a toi-toi seat that big.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

...um, you might need a magnifying lens...
They're down near the lower right. Below the guy with his finger up his nose...to the left of the Tom Cruise Look-alike wearing a tank-top (gotta include something for the ladies, no?).
No, above the blonde...oh, never mind.

Made me look. How sad is that? :-)

ROFLMPTO!!!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I have my own take on the "one china" thing...

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/theco/111028551509391661/

I suppose it would help if i put the right link in...
http://iwt.blogspot.com/2005/03/one-china-or-not.html

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*Is "Daw" a form of address in Burmese? I've seen her name without it so many times, but also with it a good number of times, too. Someone clue me in.

« Hide Comments

The quote rightfully attributed to Wilde is "A true friend stabs you in the front." What a good one. ;)

I think Wilde was the first author whose quotations were scribbled on my school notebooks. There even used to be a "Random Wilde Quote Generator" online, but it looks like it has been removed.

Lately, the Wilde quote that most applied to me is "Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong." :)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Please note: This is the post by Mr. Bothwell; all the words following are his, not mine:

This is absolutely unbelievable. It appears Montgomery County (Maryland) public schools can implement a new sex education curriculum singing the praises of condom use and homosexuality, and, apparently, teaching about anal sex, but state taxpayers who write the school board to complain of such trash are being censored due to inappropriate content in their emails!

That's right. Here's the exact message I sent to the Montgomery County Board of Education last night after being informed by a member of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum that the school district intends to instruct children in the practice of anal sex:

Dear Montgomery County BOE [cc: Gov. Robert Ehrlich]:

I strongly oppose your use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Maryland's public school students with the Left's visions of a hypersexualized society, including discussion of anal sex and the like. It is absurd that our schools would provide our kids with the knowledge to indulge in their basest fantasies, much less neglect to educate them about the potentially disastrous consequences of having sex out of wedlock. And please don't attempt to justify these actions; I'm a former Maryland public school teacher from St. Mary's County and am well aware of how our districts operate. It is because of ridiculousness such as this that I am now a "former" teacher in Maryland.

http://www.therightreport.com/bothwell/2005/03/liberal_indoctr.html

Best,
Trevor Bothwell
Host, therightreport.com

Now, here's an automatically generated email that I received from the board of education's email administrator informing me that my message was not delivered due to "inappropriate content."

The message referenced in the details below was not delivered due to inappropriate content. It surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary.

The action on the message fell into the following category:

Messages that were dropped (Content Filtering)

If you believe the message was blocked in error, please resend it to "Help_Desk@fc.mcps.k12.md.us" and include the name of the intended recipient so it can be forwarded.

E-mail Administrator, Montgomery County Public Schools

I'm struggling to pinpoint exactly which portion of my letter "surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary," but my guess is that the words "anal sex" might have had something to do with it.

So, you got that? It's "inappropriate" for one adult to write to a group of adults expressing concern over topics addressed in a school district's curriculum (indeed, the board's own web server admits the terms "anal," "sex," "anal sex," "hypersexualized," or any combination thereof, violate standards of appropriate language laid out in the "Adult Content dictionary" and are thus filtered from receipt by the school board), but it's apparently fine and dandy to reference such terminology in schools filled with impressionable tenth-graders.

Email the Montgomery County Board of Education at boe@fc.mcps.k12.md.us. Oh, and be sure not to offend their delicate sensibilities by mentioning sexual terms that are good enough for our adolescents but not those who thrust this smut upon them.

Hmmm... the story seems to be missing now.

OK, read it.

Unfortunately, his argument is flawed at its very core. Similar problems have happened with the word "breast" even thought I doubt many would take issue with a discussion of various cancers.

The goal of the filtering is to prevent e-mails like "Super XXX Hot Anal Doggy Action Sluts LIVE!" from getting through and junking up e-mail inboxes, not from preventing legitimate dissent with school administrators.

Unless the author wishes to ininsuate that the teachers are in favor of hard core porn movies in the classrom (which I would highly doubt), I'm afraid it's much ado about nothing.

I see your point. This is doesn't actually prove anything...although it is fairly ironic.

Because while we wouldn't have a problem discussing breast cancer, the words "anal sex" were blocked for sexual content, not scientific...and the classroom curriculum is also sexual in content, not scientific.

While I still agree with you that his email doesn't prove anything, your argument actually strengthens his point to some slight extent. If adults cannot look at sexual content in a professional setting, it seems silly to designate a public classroom as a professional setting in which sexual content is required.

There are ways that sex education can be conducted in a purely clinical matter...but I think a discussion of "anal sex" as an alternative itself goes way beyond those boundaries.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Since it's labeled "Posts I Want To Delete", I'm blockquoting the whole thing here:

One year ago today in Madrid, 191 civilians just trying to commute to work were murdered. Thousands more injured.

For today, just a year later, the day stands alone without consideration of the election consequences a couple days later. Any mention or whine about it in the comments will be deleted. While the two are linked, jumping right away from the murders to the consequences lays the seed to stop looking at March 11th as a day of horrible murder to instead glance off it straight to later decisions. This is much the same how those who hate the wars and administration so much they can only see September 11th as the day America went nuts (such as the Libertarian Party which picked Sept. 11th last year to hold a meeting/rally to point out all those killed around the world due to US foreign policy) rather than pausing to remember the murdered and even more how many were intended to be murdered. This thinking makes it dangerously easy to start blaming the victims in some way.

We often can't quite fully grasp murder on these scales. I think most of you might have seen Eddie Izzard's routine about how reaction to murder goes from definable outrage at one or two or three killed, but goes to an odd confused incomprehension at the higher end. It is often some small detail that slices through that. On September 11th, for me, it was hearing about the phone messages left for loved ones back at home. March 11th's was also with phones, but the opposite direction. People near the scene reported that from the bodybags of the murdered came a steady stream of cell phone rings. People were desperately trying to reach their loved one. Then, as someone pointed out when I first mentioned this detail last year, perhaps after hope was given up, they were after one last chance, thanks to the outgoing message, to hear that person's voice.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Me thinks you show a strong preference for dark-haired women, Nate.

But, I concur- she is beautiful.

I think I'm late in coming to this topic...

yeah, she is absolutely gorgeous. before seeing her, i had no idea that dark haired women could be so beautiful.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

"It's gotta be humiliating to cite Jesus as a source of your political ideology and do so in a manner that makes it clear you have no idea who Jesus really was."

Was...or is?

Given the very spirit of Christianity is an individual's personal relationship with Christ, I don't think anyone could ever nail it one way or the other, for all humanity.

I see what you are saying, and agree...to a point.

You cannot pick and choose what Jesus said. Either you are a Christian, or you are not. Either you agree and accept what he said, or you don't.

Sure, there is some possibility of some gray area, like, was everything really transcribed correctly...but once you get into that, you are doubting what God has said about Himself. The most logical and consistent thing to do is accept that Jesus is concerned with individual piety and holiness of the heart. If you start saying Jesus would or wouldn't drive an SUV, you have clearly strayed from the meaning and intent of Christianity.

The Bible warns us to not conform to present day society, but be transformed by Christ. Making a socio-religious argument on the basis of Christianity about any political issue seems to me to be absolutely misguided, and so on dangerously thin ice, theologically speaking.

I'll let your unintentional pun slide this time. Just don't cross me again like that, okay?

*wry grin*

Oh, and I used the past tense because I was referring to what Jesus said 2000 years ago. It's a mental thing that I sometimes have a problem with. I would probably use the exact same wording if the subject had been, say, President Clinton during his term of office; not that I think President Clinton is dead, but his administration is over.
When Jesus walked on the earth, he had not yet died for our sins. His death and resurrection resulted in a fundamental change I do not fully understand, and cannot completely reconcile with God's unchanging nature. Luckily, I don't have to understand it. The finite mind cannot fully understand the infinite.

Well-said, Nathan.

Check out Pdub's blog. He has something similar about the religious right thinking wrong actions are justified by ideology.

P.S. He's a Christian.

Since your in the mood to link, I found another quite by accident from La Shawn Barber.

:D

My religious beliefs and faith do not dictate my political views. Rather, my religious beliefs form the basis of my understanding of human nature. That understanding fuels many of my political views.

Which, to some lefties, is even worse. They would much rather that one's understanding of human nature be guided by principles developed based on the ideology that humanity is perfectable by government.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*the point of the editorial cartoon seemed to argue that easy credit opportunities are encouraging people to get too far in to debt, and then have no qualms about extending credit even to someone coming out of bankruptcy. That's a big problem with bankruptcy, too.

**My terms might not be exactly correct. You know what I mean.

***when, in actuality, Republicans have demonstrated their strength and willingness to ignore the whining of any special interest, rich big-guy or fundamental little-guy, if they feel it may cause more problems for everyone later. Democrats have demonstrated no such strength.

I'm undecided on the bill. On one hand, I have little sympathy for the credit card companies. On the other, you don't spend money you don't have. I'm tryin' really hard to muster up sympathy for either side of this debate and I can't.

I work for the Bankruptcy Court. You have no idea how the bankruptcy system is abused. It is getting to the point that a first time filer is unusual. Most filers have 2 or more cases and I have had several that have had as many as 10 in in 3 years. Non of them successful, I might add. These filers are not trying to get a "fresh start". They are trying to keep all of the goodies without paying for them. I had a case the other day were a debtor had purchases a $250,000.00. Never made the first payment. Between husband and wife filing as a "tag team" had been in the house for over 5 years, had filed 8 bankruptcies, never made a payment and are still living there. They file the Bankrupcies "pro se" so they are not paying legal fees. They do just enough to stop the foreclosure before the case is dismissed. Then the creditors have to start over.
We definitely need reform. It needs to be much more difficult to file a chapter 7. Anyone can walk into the clerks office with the first 2 pages of the petition and $0 and stop a foreclosure. In my division alone, we had over 46,000 new cases filed last year. This is a way of life for some people. I rarely see someone who truly needs to file.

I'm with you, Ann. I'm going to vamp a rant in response.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I was wondering what had happened to the other condo. I'll be interested to find out how it all works out. Keep your faithful readers updated, k? How are the kidlets doing?

« Hide Comments

Please. we have coffee houses, bars, and the library. ;)

You know what the Dems need?

A catapult!

...and they can build a big wooden badger...

I thought the People's Front of Judea had all this worked out. Or was that the Judean People's Front? I can never remember.

...splitters!

« Hide Comments

With bladder emptied and recharged by a surprise nap, your pal Eager Jimmy is ready to tackle the rest of the story.

Unfortunately, it starts out slow again, but not too slow, and my requisite 6-pack is time-traveling me nicely through this part. That dude who saved our hobbit friends back in the inn is named Aragorn, and he appears to have a thing going with Arwen the Asthmatic Elf. He also has some sort of destiny (all these movies require destiny) he's hiding from which includes her, or something. Anyway, thank God for Pabst. Also before they leave and can get back to adventuring, Bilbo, who has been living in elfland stops by to see Frodo. He really wants to see the ringiest ring again. When he sees it, he snarls and snatches at it like meal-missed fat man at the last piece of pizza.

Time to go wherever the hell they are going. Oh yeah, I remember! To throw the ring into some mountain. See, the PBR only kills the weak brain cells making the rest stronger since they don't have to carry around the dead weight anymore.

So up into the mountains they go. Taking a break somewhere, Borimir -- the other human -- is teaching a couple of our hobbit friends how to use their swords. It quickly breaks out into, um, friendly, uh, wrestling. This required even more discomfort flushing drinking, but not too much. There's a fine line between drinking yourself straight and hide the cat horny in which no one or thing is safe.

Thankfully interrupting the wrestling, the elf, Legolas, sees a bunch of birds and has everyone hide. The birds fly back to Saruman, the other scuzzy wizard who is down in some caves watching all sorts of little creatures making weapons and armor and digging really badass looking creatures out of the earth. I guess Saruman speaks bird because now he knows where the Fellowship is.

Which happens to be way up in the mountains deep in snow. If not for the warmth of the brew, I'd be feeling the chill too. As they try to go forward, way off on top of his tower, Saruman gets all shouty and part of the mountain falls on them, blocking the way. Time for another route, which is some place called the Mines of Moria where the dwarf, Gimli, promises there will be feastings upon goats and pigs and figs and berries and fruit bats.

One problem is that the door's locked, and no one knows the password. So yet another sit around moment that I pass by restocking the mini-cooler. Eventually they figure out how to open the door, but before they can get inside an Anime tentacle rape monster attacks. It is quickly fought off, but the battle destroyed the doorway so they are for sure stuck inside. But, at least there will be the feastings on goats, pigs, figs, berries and fruit bats to look forward to. Well, except for the fact that everyone appears to be quite dead.

Thankfully one of the now dead dwarves was kind enough to write everything down in a book as everyone was being killed around him. As Gandalf is reading it, one of the hobbits -- oh those silly hobbits -- knocks a bucket and chain down a stone well. This makes a sheepshit load of noise and brings unwanted attention. Now we have action!

A bunch of creatures, including this huge thing called a cave troll, break in. Cool battle breaks out finally giving me a reason to chug along with the action. They manage to kill all the baddies, but not before the big troll stabs Frodo with a big stick. Things look bad, but, wouldn't you know it? Bilbo just happened to give Frodo a shirt of invincibility (+13!), so he is just fine.

Time to get the hell out of these caves. As they are running along, the whole place just swarms with these critters (orcs, I think. Really, if it matters that strongly to you what they are called, I suggest sitting down with a nice settling PBR or 5). Just when it looks like it might be the end for our merry band, something goes all stampy causing all the critters to run in fear. What might cause this? "A Balrog", Gandalf informs us. Which is a freakin' awesome looking creature that looks like a minotaur with wings that's made out of fire and ash. I had to shotgun one at the coolness of that fucker. Thought it was time to run before? Triple that now.

After running down some stairs, dodging some arrows and discussing the merits of dwarf tossing, they cross a narrow stone bridge. Except Gandalf, who turns to confront the Balrog. He is a wizard, after all. He should be able to do something. Like yell at it. Which he does. He tells it that it, much like last night's beer cheese soup, "shall not pass!" They fight, Gandalf wins, but as the Balrog tumbles down the pit as bottomless as my desire for the brew it manages to pull him down with it.

With all the critters still trying to attack them, they still have to run the fuck out of there. Finally they make it to the safety of outdoors (where, I guess, the critters can't go, at least during day). There they take time to hold each other and console each other and weep and weep together. Well, except Frodo who stands aside staring off like an indian overlooking my littered living room. But they need to get moving to the next forest to meet some more elves.

They try to sneak into a forest, but are quickly confronted by elves. One is a chick who sounds like the one who narrated the ba'le scenes way back at the beginning. The other is a guy who stares at the whole group with a "I could so fuck you" look on his face. Here, after some talking, they are finally safe.

In the middle of the night, Frodo sees the elf chick wandering around and, as most males do when they see a chick wandering around at night, decides to stalk her. Playing the tease, she makes him look into a pool of water which, like most women's pools of water, shows visions of a possible future, then that fiery catseye that I'm beginning to suspect might have something to do with the dude who wants his ring back. Frodo offers the elf chick the ring, and she goes all black & white and shrieking like my ex-girlfriend did during a drunken "talk" after I politely suggested she could stop being a bitch all the time. But she manages to resist taking the ring, and everyone gets ready to continue the journey.

Now all of a sudden the movie turns into Deliverance. They canoe down a river as a shitload of those badass creatures dug out of the ground back at scuzzy Saruman's go running through the woods after them. Oh, I hope nobody gonna have to squeal like a hobbit.

They camp just short of a waterfall. Frodo goes off to collect wood or whatever and Borimir sees this as his chance to make his move. To get the ring, at least, but with the way this movie is going, who knows? Unable to convince Frodo to use the ring as he would like, he attacks him. Frodo slips on the ring, goes all invisible again, and gets away. He runs into Aragorn, and they seem to decide that, since the ring is so ringy to everyone, it might be safest for Frodo to go on his own. Without anyone to protect him.

Ok. Um, have they seen him fight? It seems to involve making his O-Face, then weeping. Nothing really wrong with that -- that's Friday night around here -- but not so great at keeping the baddies at bay.

Anyway, just at this moment all the badass creatures show up to fight. Using classic battle technique, they send one at a time at the far more experienced and skilled warrior. So of course, Aragorn (and elsewhere, Borimir who is feeling the remorse of a Busch drinker) slaughters them. But who cares? Shaky-cam battle scene! Feel the intimacy of fast cuts, weird angles and not being able to tell just what the fuck is going on.

Unfortunately for Borimir, there is one badass creature who has half a clue and shoots him with an arrow. But one arrow cannot stop Borimir! He gets up and keeps fighting. So *thunk*, another arrow. Ha! Borimir scoffs at two arrows! Ok, so he's pretty much wasted at this point. Merry and Pippin try to fight, but are carried away by the badass creatures who all run away except the ultra badass who decides to finish Borimir off.

Leaping into the scene comes Aragorn who fights the ultra badass, chopping off an arm, then his head. Shotgun celebration from Eager Jimmy! Borimir is at his last, confessing all to Aragorn. Then he dies. And, oh no... Aragorn leans in....they're going to kiss. But, wait, Borimir is dead! This is getting too strange; even the Pabst in my blood doesn't know how to handle this. Oh thank God. He just pecks his forehead.

We haven't forgotten little Frodo. He's running off in one of the boats when Sam, his....friend...sees him and chases after. Sam, we are unsurprised to learn, refuses to leave Frodo so will join him. At least Sam, whipped as he is (and Frodo-whipped at that!), is a bit more butch in battle.

The others, meanwhile, toss Borimir's body into a boat and send it off the water fall. I tell you, that's how I want to be sent off. Well, that is if I'm found within a reasonable post-expiration date. The Fellowship now broken, they go off to find the other two hobbits. And I go to in search of some fucking Taco Bell. I'm starving.

« Hide Comments

Well, the series is about Buster's travels. Buster's "postcard" came from Vermont, a state that happens to be very open and accepting of gay unions. I would say portraying a a family with gay members is not inappropriate. Furthermore, kids are going to have schoolmates with homosexual parents. Maybe it's kindergarten, maybe it is 1st, second, or not until sixth grade. All those years ago, I was a freshman in high school when first chair alto sax had a openly gay dad.

That said, I can understand why some parents are upset, and think it was best to inform parents of the content ahead of time.

But gay parents are out there, they are part of the social landscape. So what do you do?

Well, for starters, how about not treating Christians like whacked-out freaks while treating lesbians like the bedrock of normalcy and stability?
That is an unfair juxtaposition, I admit. PBS wasn't sneering at Christians, and the Washington Post doesn't use public funds.

Maybe a better explanation is: Sometimes my posts cannot be taken singly. With all the discussion recently about what can/should be shown on broadcast vs cable TV, the "public" ownership of the airwaves was cited many times (completely ignoring that the bandwidth devoted to satellite transmission of cable TV signals is also just as owned and regulated by the government...). And so I thought it was interesting that with all the furor over not being able to say "F***" in prime-time on cable TV, it might be interesting to glance at what doesn't ruffle the same feathers on broadcast.

Then again, I wouldn't bar my kids from watching that show. There are all sorts of things I don't agree with going on at PBS, but I can deal with it.

However, this underscores the fact that if you separate out children's entertainment from adults, someone with an agenda will always try to hijack the kids' minds for indoctrination.

Far better to make adult entertainment be safe for kids. As I said before, there are appropriate ways to deal with adult situations and sex and violence that won't impinge on what the kids' understanding or consciousness in an inappropriate manner.

« Hide Comments

See also: Minnesota Vikings

« Hide Comments

[groan] Always the comedian.

I'm glad to hear that Bill has at least that much class...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Your welcome :)

I read a lot of rightish wing websites. Your's is one of the most thoughtful. If'n you don't mind, I'll just keep stoppin' by.

You're welcome. :)

WTF? You suck? This is news to me. I suppose, then, that I do too, since I have often commented that we think alike. Thanks...

Heh.

Don't let the crap get you down. I don't know what the crap is (although I have my suspicions), but you're certainly very VERY cool in my book. Besides, when we're weak is when God gets to show us just how strong He is. Hang in there, friend.

To tell the truth, I'm not totally sure what it is that prompted this post. I mean, what you suspect is certainly part of it.
I'm just having a small crisis of confidence.

...I'm still gonna blog, though. Even if crap it be.

Nathan, puuuhhhhhleeeeeeeze!

Suck, you don't!

Hey, if Wulfgar finds you thoughtful, either you;re doing something right, or you're doing everything wrong.

And I happen to know you can't possibly be doing everything wrong, because then you'd be me.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*I'm really not. I've existed for the last 10 years just fine. I just can't stop my knee-jerk reaction to the (probably inadvertant) hypocrisy in knee-jerk reactions to someone advocating "Standards" or "Morals". I guess it's a character flaw on my part.

Of *course* we're defenders of American freedom, just as you are a defender of morality. It's not that you hate freedom or we hate morality, it's just that we fall on different sides when the two collide, which is what this debate is all about, really. Freedom vs. decency. Any time ideals clash, both sides are on a high horse. If we sound self-righteous to you, rest assured that the feeling is mutual because both sides believe they are right and since it's not a tangible issue with measurable results, neither can prove it.

I could address your points. In fact, I've spent the last half hour or so researching and writing about it. But honestly, as long as our point of view is ipso-facto hypocritical, you won't be convinced and further discussion on the matter is pretty futile.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, but my point is, if you are "for freedom", how do you live with standards on broadcast TV? How do you live with the current standards that we have for Cable TV? ...because I'll bet that XXX porn and snuff films are not allowed.
How do you stand for copyright laws, then? Because "freedom" would mean that I should be able to copy anything I want, anytime I want.

I'm for freedom, too. Maybe a different emphasis, perhaps, but I'm for freedom. I'm for the freedom of a child to be a child without the parents having to follow along being ready to cover eyes and ears at a moment notice, in case someone wants to use their freedom to turn HBO on at the doctor's office, in the Best Buy, etc...

Or maybe it's more accurate to say I don't care that much, I can live with the way things are, but I'm just getting irritated with the way Sen. Stevens was vilified for bringing up what he thought might be a good idea, and how moderate Republicans and Libertarians seized on the chance to sneer at Christians as being prude Puritans.

Look through my archives, and you won't see me advocating even once for tougher standards on cable TV.

But I already made 3 cases for stricter regulation of cable:
1) at least hundreds of thousands of homes get Cable TV automatically with their apartment, so they don't choose to get cable
2) ignoring how they actually got cable, (obviously, many by choice) still, millions of children watch Cable during prime time, just like broadcast TV
3) many homes cannot receive broadcast television, so "public" airwaves are not. Some people have no choice but to get cable to have the same opportunities for news, warnings, and entertainment.

Sure, "hypocritical" was a little overwrought...
...since no one says more than "because that's the way it is" when I ask for the logical thought process, I guess I thought I'd try provocation.

So, "hypocritical" is withdrawn. Still, explain why standards on broadcast TV standards are okay, but Cable TV standards are a horrible infringement on basic freedoms.

Can't respond until tomorrow, but before I do I want to make sure which we are discussion: Why is the distinction okay constitutionally or why is it okay policy-wise?

No, not "okay", because it's been that way.
No, if Sen. Stevens is wrong, then it must be this way, and the evidence that it must be this way should be found in policy and the US Constitution.

If the Constitution and Policy do not demand that broadcast TV has standards and Cable TV has different but looser standards, then it is just arbitrary.

...which is what I think is the case. But if it is arbitrary (i.e., merely "okay" from a US Constitution and policy viewpoint, but not required), then there is no reason to condemn Sen. Stevens as so many people have.

I guess this is part of the battle over the future of the Republican Party...social moderates feel uncomfortable with social conservatives, and so any issue will be fair game for trying to occupy the high ground...and that's one of the reasons I won't stand for it.

Look, I see nothing wrong with Cable TV and broadcast TV having different standards. But unlike pretty much everyone else in the blogosphere, I don't see it as an assault on freedom to change the standards for Cable TV. Maybe a bad idea, sure. Maybe unnecessary, yeah. Maybe even impossible under the current laws, fine. But an attempt to impose religion on the masses? No. An attempt to curtail essential freedoms? Not even close.
But the arguments I've seen used against Sen. Stevens proposal have all been predicated on his idea being a reduction of freedom. I don't see it that way at all, and to even formulate that argument, you have to ignore the number of households who get cable without choosing to pay for it, the number of kids who are exposed to cable just as much as broadcast TV regardless of the choice of the parent, and the number of people who cannot get broadcast TV stations without having cable TV as the method of access.

"Arbitrary" is fine. But if so, just say, "I don't like Sen. Stevens' proposal, and I don't think he can get the votes or the support of enough people in the US". There's no reason to turn this into a Freedom vs Oppression debate, as the social moderates and libertarians seem to be wanting to do.
That's the part that makes me irritated.

http://sevencastles.blogchina.com
A Shanghai blog featuring news and views of great interest

I can't imagine where you've been looking, Nathan; it seems quite clear to me.

Profanity, obscenity, and luridly sexual entertainment, while there are currently moderate consensuses (and there were once stronger ones) about their offensiveness, cannot be proved to be harmful in and of themselves. There are millions of people who partake of these things, very few of whom sustain objectively demonstrable damage or go on to commit crimes. Therefore, the contention that these kinds of entertainment harm the body politic is unsupported by the evidence.

Political freedom under limited government imbeds as a principle that the State may act to curtail the individual's freedom only insofar as the practices to be banned or limited produce demonstrable harm -- not merely offense -- that can only be averted by legislative action. Inasmuch as no case that harm flows from the availability of salacious entertainment can be sustained by the evidence, there is no sound argument that the State should act.

More, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars Congress from censoring private expression, unless one wants to take the extreme position that only vocal speech and inked paper are covered by "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press." So not only can no case be made that Washington should act; there's an absolute prohibition against it.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Francis,
You still don't get my point, I think. I specifically said that, "Because that's the way it is/has always been" isn't a sufficient answer. As fancy as your words are, that's about all you said.

See, if Sen. Stevens' proposal is so offensive to freedom, then all of you should be up in arms about the standards broadcast TV is held to. It should be as offensive to you as taxation without representation was to our forefathers.

No, every single argument, including yours, says simply that the standards are arbitrary. As such, Sen. Stevens proposal may lack majority support, but there is nothing inherently wrong with his proposal.

It seems as if the liberally biased MSM still has excessive influence: the default assumption is still that Republicans are prudish fundamentalists trying to impose a theocracy. And so he floats a proposal, and instead of just saying: "Nah, I like things the way they are," all the moderate Republicans have to turn this into a paranoid, "The Religious Conservatives want to take away Boobies and the Sopranos!!!!!! Cable TV is the last bastion of freedom and to impose standards would mean we are all slaves! We must resist this tyranny to the last man!!!"
No. That's stupid.

1) There are standards on Cable TV already. So strengthening them slightly is no big deal. Not what anyone wants, perhaps, but not an attack on freedom.
2) Cable TV is ubiquitous enough and enough people get it (or are exposed to it) without choosing to purchase it, that the 'self-election' argument is ridiculous. Any argument that Broadcast TV standards are okay or even advisable applies to Cable TV.

If you put those two together, then everyone who complained about Sen. Stevens should now be fighting for the right to watch porn on Saturday morning broadcst TV; after all, it's a freedom of speech and freedom of press issue, just like you said, Francis.
Right along with it, all of you should be willing to die to erase what standards there are on Cable TV. See, it's principle, and not just arbitrary, then it doesn't matter if you personally don't want to watch snuff films and XXX 24 hours every day, because this isn't about your personal preferences, it's about freedom.

I expect to see you take up your arms any minute now against the Theocrats. Because it's about freedom.

The reason I blame this on liberal MSM is that if Sen. Leiberman had said the same thing, it would have been pretty much ignored. But because a GOP Senator mentions increasing standards, Outrage Must Be Drummed Up By Any Means Possible!

Just like when Sen. Santorum made quite reasonable remarks about the implications of homosexual marriage being a right, everyone got to Express Their Outrage at the Moralizing Republicans Trying to Throw Homosexuals Into Concentration Camps!

...but when a liberal later said pretty much the same thing, it was pretty much ignored, because it the MSM couldn't position it as a Religious Conservative assault on freedom.

The thing that makes me angry in all this is not that people opposed Sen. Stevens, but that they felt they (you?) had to seize the "moral" high ground by citing freedom and the US Constitution and "people pay for cable, so can't complain about the low standards", and "If you don't like it, turn it off".

You know, I expect Political Correctness techniques of "The debate was over years ago, so all we need to do is bludgeon any oppostion into submission" from liberals. I never thought I'd see it used by conservatives. I'm a little disgusted, to be frank.

Look, Sen. Stevens wasn't going to get this even written into a bill, much less passed. But if he did, it would not be a betrayal of 1st Amendment rights. Or else broadcast TV standards already have been a greater betrayal for the last 50 years.

I'm not arguing the issue as much as I'm reacting to the reaction, as I've said many times.

If everyone had said, "This is stupid, and I don't support it," I wouldn't be so irritated. But everyone had to couch it in terms of, "This is why I hate Religious Conservatives", "This is an assault on our Freedom", "This is why I can never consider myself a Conservative".

There is more outrage over Sen. Stevens than there was against applying McCain-Feingold to political blogs. Where's the logic in that?

Nathan,

I suppose I'm not who you're arguing with. I've never used to word oppression, never targeted the GOP (it's my party, after all) or religious Republicans (I can be described as such), and I'm not part of the liberal media. But as long as I'm burdened with carrying the flag with such people, there is no way I can even remotely make headway in this discussion.

But what the heck. I'm clearly a glutton for punishment.

To address your original points:
1) 95% of the parents that cannot get cable can get satellite. If they get satellite, they have the option of Locks & Limits, which allow them to "turn off" channels with questionable content. In most urban areas, you can get local channels through one satellite provider or the other. A large number of cable companies (including Time-Warner, the biggest) have similar features with their services.
2) If they get a television with the V-chip (all TVs 13" or more produced since 2000), they can block shows with a "rating" higher than they want their children to watch. This is regardless of how the cable is coming into their house.
3) You're correct, they are. This is where I was curious whether or not you were asking about the constitutionality of the distinction or whether or not making a distinction is a good idea comes in. If the question is one of Constitutionality, the difference is that the airwaves are "owned" by the public in the sense that frequencies and whatnot are run by the government. In the case of cable and satellite, the wires and satellite are owned by the vender and the customer, making cable and satellite more similar to a movie theater (also privately owned) than broadcast television. As far as to whether or not regulation of cable would be a good thing or a bad thing, because we accept censorship in one area does not mean that we must accept censorship in every area lest we be hypocrites. Part of the reason I haven't been up-and-arms about the FCC's crackdown on indecency in entertainment was precisely because alternatives exist. It was a compromise. Jeff Jarvis has been saying from the get-go that they wouldn't stop at broadcast television. I more or less scoffed, but it's becoming apparent that I've been fooled by those (from the right) that told me one would not necessitate the other. To add insult to injury, they're telling me that since I accept one I must agree with the other. The further along we get into this argument, the more I'm rethinking my previous acquiescence to regulating broadcast television.
4) Content on cable is not, to my knowledge, regulated by the federal government (or the FCC) right now. It's self-regulated. Cable networks avoid things that are too risque because advertisers want them to. This is why you rarely hear cursewords on most (non-premier) stations (to the point of bleeping them out), but SouthPark (a cartoon, no less) dropped the S-bomb over 100 times in a single show (ironically to make a case against needless cursing in entertainment).

And your additional two points in the comment section:
1) See above.
2) Children also watch R-rated movies that their parents rent. For the most part, parents have the tools necessary to block the most objectionable content if they choose. Some parents do not choose to do this. Some parents say they don't want their kids watching smut but don't take even simple measures (V-chip, Locks & Limits) to do so. I'm all in favor of giving parents as many tools as possible to filter what their kids watch. If you want to force the cable companies to offer a "family friendly" package or some other corporate regulation like that, then let's talk about that. More options are a good thing. Helping parents wade through the cultural wasteland of television is also a good thing. But at some point the choice has to lie with the consumer and not the government. In order to keep things away from the kids of the parents that don't care or want their children watching such things, we would have to go so far as to ban risque material from everywhere except Gentlemen's clubs.
3) See above.

Nathan, consult the dictionary on the difference between "tradition" and "principle." And perhaps, the next time you think to tell me that I haven't understood you, you might want to think twice.

Francis, you gave me the exact explanation I had already considered and rejected. What else am I supposed to think?

« Hide Comments

MSM wasn't all over this for a very simple reason:
so many people have stopped looking for work that the "reported" unemployment rate doesn't mean much anymore. It's almost a joke for those who are aware of this fact.
Real unemployment is closer to 9%, with newly created jobs mostly low wage service sector.
Ain't Bushworld grand......

Do you have a clue how ridiculous you sound? Making stuff up doesn't constitute proof, nor does repeating DU talking points.

If you have a shred of proof of your assertions, provide a link.

If not, I'll have to ignore you.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Wow... running against Greenspan. That's some perty smart politics right there, let me tell you...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*registration may be required, tho they usually give you one article without registration...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Rock Paper Scissor Society

Nothing beats my mighty-mighty Avalanche gambit.
Well, maybe the Bureaucrat Gambit might...

« Hide Comments

and some of us are just plain people!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Running Time: Something like four days, man. Release Date: 2001

Since the movie is split over two DVDs, I shall follow the same order and split this review into two. Besides, I figure I'm going to have to take one hell of a mighty whiz by the time the first DVD gets over.

Eager Jimmy has never been a big fan of the faerie tale movies ever since coming to one night, years ago, to find Legend playing on the TV. The confusion of the unstuporing combined with the sight of the curiously androgynous Tom Cruise raised...well, lots of drinking. Lots and lots of manly drinking.

Anyway, after that I dropped the Eager when it came to that type of movie, so avoided the whole Lord of the Rings hoo-hah. All this changed when One-eyed Sam loaned me a copy of the fancy-lad version of Fellowship of the Ring (official title: Peter Jackson's Telling Of J.R.R Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' In Which Hobbits Prance About And Get Scared). In gratitude I loaned him Spy Kids 3D because.....Well, I thought it was funny.

Being the fancy-lad version, the approximate running time of this film is four days. This meant your friend Eager Jimmy would have to do something he never considered before: pace himself. Maybe I'm just growing up, or maybe the knowledge that not even the mighty Jimmy could down an estimated 47 beers and still remember most of what he saw, but this is a major turning point in my life. Hopefully it won't lead to careers and shit.

Luckily I was informed by OE Sam that the movie, after good scenes of ba'le, opens a little slow. "Starts all fucking war, man, then gets all fucking boring, man. Fucking boring." Sam has a way with words. This meant that I probably could get away with not having the requisite 6-pack required to enjoy any endeavor beforehand. I'd just need to be on my fourth to see the "fucking war" part, then work from there.

And ho-damn, does it start all fucking war. Two big armies whaling on each other until, as is typical battle strategy, the two leaders face each other. The bad guy wins at first, but then has his finger cut off which, naturally, makes him explode. Seems there's this ring and...everyone wants it because it's the ringiest of all the rings. Taking a bit to buy in on that. Usually my disbelief is suspended in a dense sea of Pabst by this point. Right here I'm really worried about the pacing issue. If the PBR doesn't start carrying me away soon, this could get really long.

After the war stuff, we find out that there are these little people called hobbits who like to prance and play. Thankfully they also like to drink and smoke, so they aren't all bad. To help along the pacing of he movie, my own pacing has been to chug a brew every time a hobbit does something cute. I abandon this quickly.

Turns out the ringiest ring ended up in the hands of one of the hobbits in town who is about to leave to retire elsewhere. Unfortunately, the ring is very hard to give up for reasons of its ringiestness, I guess. I should mention, there is a wizard too. Can't have one of these movies without a wizard, you know. When the hobbit, Bilbo by name (they must have named that freaky art museum in Spain after him. Arty types would do that.) at first refuses to give up the ring, the wizard yells at him like my dad did that one time I drank all his PBR and replaced it with Busch. He made me ride that Blue Train 'til I puked. I never intentionally strayed from Lady PBR again. Unlike Bilbo who takes off leaving everything, including now this ring, to his nephew Frodo (which is apparently hobbit for "wide-eyed pussy").

The wizard, name of Gandalf, leaves telling Frodo to "keep it secret; keep it safe" (I hope he means the ring). Then suddenly we have bombastic music, dark scenes, and a bunch of horses bursting out of a castle lit greenishly dark like the back bathroom of the Olee. This calls for a couple PBRs plus one to the memory of memory destruction at the Olee! Now we're off!....to Gandalf reading. I hate premature beeration. Now I'm buzzed and cranky and wanting shit to happen.

Back at Frodo's place where a rough looking Gandalf suddenly jumps out with another "is it secret? Is it safe?" Were I an English major and not just a charming drunk, I'd suspect some sort of molestation allegory especially during the whole "I'm giving it [myself] to you!" "No, don't temp me [with your smooth, boyish skin]!". I half expect Gordan Jump to pop out. A few discomfort dislodging brews had to go down during this whole bit. But we do discover that the guy who went all splodey at the beginning isn't actually dead. By now, me and the beer are ready to accept such things pretty easily. Anything to distract from the subtext and words like "subtext" which require a half-chug to flush away. Oh, and that splodey dude, called Sauron, wants his ring back, which is only natural.

Time finally for the adventure. The bad guys know the ring is where the hobbits live, so the ring got to get the hell out of there. Frodo and his ...friend...Sam are sent off with the ring. Since this is a very important mission, Gandalf quickly abandons them to go somewhere else. This somewhere else is the tower of another scuzzy looking wizard who is apparently Gandalf's boss or something. Unfortunately, this other wizard has decided to play for the bad team.

Back to our little hobbit friends who have picked up a couple other hobbit friends named Merry and Pippin. Seriously. Anyway, there's quite a diversity of accents amongst the hobbits for being from such a small area. Though I guess whatever accents Frodo and Sam are sporting could be explained away by brain damage. As they are hobbitting along, they are confronted by one of those horse dudes from earlier. We know he's evil because he makes bugs crawl out of the ground and the screen goes all twisty. At first I thought this meant the PBR was finally going to let me see through time, but it was just an effect. Faced with evil, Frodo naturally wants to look his best, so starts to put on the ring. He's so excited about this, he breaks out into his O-face prematurely.

Escaping with the classic "throw something over there" technique, our hobbit friends flee across a river eventually coming to a scuzzy town. I'm detecting a scuzzy theme here. Thankfully the alcohol in the Pabst will protect me from any germs. Gandalf was supposed to meet them at the inn (called, in another step that makes this movie really creepy, "The Prancing Pony". Are we sure Gordan Jump is dead?), but never showed. As all should do whenever faced with a disappointment, they settle in for a beer. Don't mind if I do too.

Now comes what is the highlight of the movie. One of the little nippers comes back from the bar with a nice, large mug of beer informing the others that this is a "pint". Sad little fellows, never knowing what a pint was. Maybe that explains the accents or the mincing. One responds to this new knowledge with, "It comes in pints?" Hell fucking yes it does! That deserved a one and a half shotgun salute in honor of the pint! Just wait until the little bugger discovers the 40oz!

In pintal excitement, though, one of the hobbits nearly says too much. Since this is a moment of excitement, Frodo breaks out the O-face again. In the mess the ring ends up on his finger making him invisible where everything goes white and he sees a giant, fiery catseye. Something we've all seen a million times during a night's drinking. It's never a good thing.

The hobbits are saved by another scuzzy looking guy who cleverly hides them in a room that the evil horse dudes choose not to bed stab. Remember, if you want to avoid bed stabbing, always go somewhere the bed stabbing won't happen. As soon as it is clear, they take off to some rocky hill in the middle of nowhere. Well, that's at least where they stop to spend the night. Unfortunately, the evil horse dudes find them and attack. Another moment of excitement, so time for another O-face. Frodo slips on the ring trying to escape, only the horse dudes can see him and in invisible world they are all white and glowy like the creatures in The Dark Crystal when the Skeksis and Mystics joined as one. Since they can see him just fine, they stab him in the shoulder which must be the hobbit's most vulnerable spot.

Getting stabbed by an evil, glowy dude's evil blade in invisible world is never a good thing. Frodo ain't doing good. Thankfully Arwen the Asthmatic Elf is there to save the day! She hauls up Frodo and takes off for Elfland, or wherever. The evil horse dudes are chasing close behind, but prove cautious about crossing a dry river bed. When they finally do, Arwen the Asthmatic Elf sends the whole damn river on top of them, wiping them out and calling for a healthy chug at the coolness.

Frodo is healed by Agent Smith who has decided to leave the Matrix and become a hippie. After a nice, creepy, slo-mo hugging reunion with the other hobbits that required yet more awkwardness flushing drinking, he gets ready to leave. But first he has to have an exit interview or something about the ring. Everyone is there. Humans, dwarves, ponies, unicorns, and an elf that brings back unpleasant memories of an androgynous Tom Cruise. Had to shotgun away some memories when he showed up onscreen.

Because, as well established, this is the ringiest of all rings, everyone fights over it. The humans want to use it, but Gandalf says it must be destroyed. A dwarf tries to smash it with an axe but it bounces off like my drink charmed pick-up lines do with the ladies. To destroy it they need to take it to some mountain and toss it in. Everyone starts fighting over who will take it, the elves, the humans or the dwarves. Seems there's a bit of mistrust amongst them all. Something that would probably be easily solved with a keg and some soulful drinking.

Finally Frodo announces that he will take the ring since he has already done so this far. They all agree, but decide that one representative from all those there except the ponies and unicorns would go along with him and his already established companions. At this point Hippie Smith actually says, "I present to you the Fellowship of the Ring." This is like Han Solo, upon discovering blown up Alderan saying, "Wow, it's like there's some sort of war amongst the stars going on. A Star Wars, as it were."

And now, I gotta take a whiz like it's 4 hours into Mardi Gras and all the alleys are blocked off.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Sadly, 20 spam pings later, I figured this out today.

Set up MT so you get an e-mail when you are pinged. See what entry the e-mail tells you was pinged. Manually go to that entry and delete the ping there.

It sucks!

MT Blacklist will delete trackback ping spam as well.

Robert,
You are correct. I didn't think it would, because when I clicked the little "De-Spam using blacklist" link, it said the ping wasn't found. That's why I originally thought it didn't de-spam trackback pings. But then I just refreshed my MT control screen, and all the trackback spam pings were gone...so probably Reverend Misa was cleaning up for me...?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Actually, this is a great reason to oppose Mr. Stevens: I don't trust the courts to determine whether or not it's constitutional. The last time I counted on the courts on the courts to overturn something I oppose ("campaign finance reform"), I was sorely disappointed. The oath of office, I believe, is to accept and defend the Constitution... not to punt it to the courts and see what you can get away with.

The "public's airwaves" argument justifies censorship of airwave TV and radio, but to regulate what can be transmitted through private channels (no pun intended) cannot be differentiated to what movies a theater can play. That's not even a slippery slope... they're both on the same plateau.

So let me get this straight: you state you do not trust the courts...but you apparently don't trust Sen. Stevens, either, since he's a part of the legislative branch. So, by extension, you don't trust the people of the United States, since they are the ones who elect legislatures to represent themselves.

If you trust democracy, i.e., you think people are smart enough to know what they want, then you should allow us to vote for Senators who will vote to regulate cable TV's standards. The courts only enter into it if the legislature passes a law that violates the Constitution. Regulating Cable standards doesn't rise to that level, I don't think.

I trust democracy, but not entirely. That's why we have a Bill of Rights - because few of us (right, left, or otherwise) trust the voters to legislate anything they want. I don't trust the courts or legislature individually to adhere to the Constitution, but I would like each to evaluate for themselves the implications rather than leave it to the other. In the case of the legislature, those that believe in the Constitutionality of regulating opt-in entertainment fully evaluate the implications of what they're asking for and take a stand for what they believe the Constitution to say (and not just say "We'll see if the courts agree"). Instead, what Stevens appears to be doing is quite short-sighted. A ruling that allows the FCC to prevent breasts from appearing on television could easily allow the state of California to prevent Passion of Christ from appearing in any movie theater. Do we really want to open the door for that? Do we trust the courts that much? Do we trust anti-religious voters out there not to try to ban movies they don't like or keep "culturally insensitive" shows off the cable airwaves?

I know that I don't. I don't trust anyone that tells me what I should be able to watch. I don't believe the government has that right to decide what voices can and cannot be heard through private media.

(And I say this as someone without cable or satellite and would not be affected by Senator Stevens's law in the slightest.)

Well, there we disagree.

I do trust the people. I trust the legislature to largely remain responsive to the overall desires of the people, and I generally trust the judicial branch to stop the miscarriages of justice (although recently they are giving me some doubts).

I don't expect it will happen quickly, mind you...but I do think our system is working pretty well. We might go through a Prohibition-type mistake while we work it out, but the whole Prohibition debacle (which will probably soon by joined by an in-retrospect-acknowledgement of the Roe V Wade mistake/debacle) makes me feel pretty good about the chances that things work themselves out in our political system, eventually.

« Hide Comments

Deal.

I've often thought about this same thing... you and I are on the same wavelength, I think.

I'll answer, since we are largely in agreement on most things but not, apparently, on this:

The long and the short of it is, broadcast networks air on "publically owned" spectrum to all viewers with machines capable of receiving and displaying the signal. Satellite and cable do not and are only accessible to those who expressly choose to get extra equipment and pay for the service.

That being the case, the two methods of content distribution, while they result in output that can be displayed on the same equipment, are not perfectly comparable products. Rather than treating them as two types of apples, they ought to be looked at as apples and pears. It's the same as the difference between what can or should be allowed to be on a billboard v. what can or should be allowed in a novel.

Lileks has had some very, very good remarks on this topic lately, also, which I would commend to your attention.

Yes, the sexiness of the lure versus the full exposure is definitely where it is at. Another current example is a comparison between the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue and anyone's favorite nudie magazine.

Nice post!

Dodd,
Okay, you surprised me with a good argument.

I still feel irritated with this whole mess. This series of rants is my (now) knee-jerk reaction to other people's knee-jerk reaction to discussions and legislation regarding "standards".

Also, I can't check out Lileks at work. He's blocked (like your site was about 2 months ago, too...ARGH!), so I'll have to wait until I get home to check it out.

The thing is, this is our country, not the US Constitution's. It exists to serve us, not the other way around.

So if enough people want something, it will happen. It will happen through laws, or through judicial activism attempting to enforce accepted public standards, or through a movement to change the amendment.

So, yes, there is a real legal difference between cable and broadcast TV. There is an increasingly small difference in effect, when basic cable is considered the default minimum for more people than just broadcast stations, particularly when there are a huge number of places where you cannot even get the local stations without cable! There is always a move toward pushing the envelope, and the envelope pushes back. I'm part of the pushing back part.

If we get enough people on our side, standards will be tightened and enforced through some mechanism or another.

What is the argument that keeping people from saying f-bombs on primetime broadcast is okay, but keeping people from saying the same f-bomb during primetime cable is somehow the imposition of a fundementalist theocracy?

It's not the number of under-age viewers... It's not the voluntary aspect of cable purchase, because that same arguement could be made for having to purchase a TV to get broadcast programs....

What is the compelling logic behind saying "my standard (which still prohibits snuff films and XXX porn) is the essence of freedom and liberty, but your standard is prudish and hopelessly outdated" ?

I'm not saying the compelling logic doesn't exist. I'd even be willing to admit that I might not be able to accept the compelling logic when I see it. I'm pretty certain someone out there is making the argument on a blog I can't access or haven't yet stumbled across.

But I still haven't seen it yet. I still don't see anyone making the first steps to explaining that logic...everyone would apparently rather just spout cute phrases instead.

Nathan,
Another difference between broadcast and cable/sat that you should consider. With satellite, you can block certain channels. I used to take calls for DirecTV and got a large number of calls from parents concerned about this or that. DTV even has a (free) feature where shows are "rated" and you can block anything and everything above a certain rating. So by taking ten minutes aside, you can make cable "clean" to whatever your definition of clean is. Broadcast television, to my knowledge, can't do that. Not sure about cable, but the price difference between cable and satellite is marginal (and often beneficial to satellite). There are places where satellite does not offer local channels, but between DirecTV and Dish Network, those places are fewer and fewer every year.

On the general subject I agree with the points you make about "censorship" (and I very much support it for broadcast television) and I more than share your agitation with the senselessness of much of the sex and violence. But I simply can't get on board on government setting standards for optional entertainment, even if it starts with things that I would much rather not be on television.

« Hide Comments

*yeah, that was snark

Okay, with this expansion and context, I think I get your point. And generally, I agree with it -- all of us desire censorship in any form to be specific to our own personal desires. Not that my agreement (or disagreement) probably matters a fig to you, but there it is. When we're right, we're right...

I will still respectfully disagree with your analysis of Titanic though. That movie was good, darn it! It was good, I say, good...

;)

Heck, now that I am "grown up", I can't believe my mom let me watch M*A*S*H, LOL

Ever watch Rugrats? My Godson watches it because it's a cartoon. I watch it to see how many references to David Bowie lyrics I can find. ;)

Yeah, in retrospect, my inclusion of Titanic was a cheap shot on the basis of taste, not standards. I can write a post of why I don't like Titanic for you tear apart later, if you want. [grin]

Believe it or not (given our disagreement above), I agree with 98% of this post.

I do get more reasonable after I get my emotional rants out of my system! [grin]

« Hide Comments

*No, I'm not serious. But I'm getting angry, and it makes as much sense as the reverse.

« Hide Comments

*I say "Democrats" in reference to "Keep Republicans out of my entertaiment", okay? I don't actually think Democrats are setting the standards.

I have no problems with him putting forth the legislation and he should have no issue with the outrage from the public at his suggestion.

I'm a firm believer in the public decency laws as they pertain to publically (i.e. everyone can get them) available sources like the networks,PBS and the radio. However I draw the line at the government censoring something that people are opting into. People actively seek out and sign up for cable, it isn't forced on them.

There are no laws for cable decency, they have imposed that on themselves and there isn't a lot that is overly indecent on the non premium channels. Sure you can find some things like nip/tuck and the like but parents do have the option with cable these days to lock out those channels.

The laws aren't applied to cable currently and it is fairly well self regulated. It isn't porn all the time or constant cussing like Steven would suggest it is becoming. Cable's been with us for nearly 25 years and all of the sudden it's an issue that needs to be addressed for decency?

As for your assertation on Republican standard brought movies I guess you wouldn't lump things like Black Hawk Down in there because of the incessant (and realistic) cursing. Being an ex-sailor myself, war movies without cussing or blood or actual reality in them are just candy coated banter trying to hide the actual horrors of reality.

30 years ago entertainment was more "good" as you put it because that is your taste. I still love I Love Lucy, but I also love a little Platoon or Saw or *gasp* national geographic channel that occassionally shows some guy in the jungle in a groincloth and his ass hanging out.

If something isn't to your taste just don't watch it. Don't try to force everyone to watch only what you like. After all if you don't like your kids watching all the cable channels you can get basic cable and lock out every channel but PBS, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon and Disney channel so they can't accidentally see anything offensive at all.

Good points.

I think you're wrong. I think you want to impose standards just as firm as the ones you decry, you just want yours. That's fine.

Simple fact: in many places in this country, if you don't get cable TV, you don't get TV.

Simple fact: cable TV had looser standards because it was the only alternative to broadcast TV in the beginning. Right now there is another alternative: the internet. And Cable TV is part of the standard entertainment package for most people.
Simple fact: I can't even watch all NFL broadcasts without cable TV.
Simple fact: I can't even watch broadcast NFL games without indecency.

And when a company tries to give people what they want by editing profanity out of movies, people get up in arms about "censorship".

So while there is nothing objectionable about your response, the endless glib statements of "you can always turn your TV off" and facile, self-serving comments of "No one forced you to get Cable TV" are really starting to make me angry.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

"imposing a few more family values"

My friend, this is where you and I will have to disagree. I love my daughter, and I don't want her to have to listen to the crap that's all over TV nowadays. But 'imposing family values' will backfire when those 'family values' aren't the values that you abide by. Who is to determine them? If Hollywood is making money hand over fist with the poop they shovel today, then that's what the market is asking for.

The market won't sidestep government intrusion. If we allow the government the rights to control the airwaves then when the market sidesteps into something else, the government will try to control that as well.

I am for separation of church and state for the very same reason - you don't want to be Protestant when the government mandates Catholicism, if you catch my drift.

Well, that was an ironic comment on the state of crap being put out by Hollywood, rather than a call for censorship...

Let me put it to you this way: were 1980 standards so bad? Were we living in a horrible theocracy in 1980? Were people punished for watching HBO to see some full frontal nudity? ("Morgan Fairchild...mmmmm")

What, exactly is wrong with standards? You say you don't want your daughter listening to the crap that's on TV nowadays...but these days, there isn't anything else. Last year's Super Bowl halftime show was not family appropriate even before the wardrobe malfunction. Do people who prefer not to have their children see sexual-themed dance shows just never turn the TV on? Do we have to pull our kids out of school?

No, wait, then we are phobic jerks who beat our children and are so scared of society we run away from it.

I don't want censorship (and I think I stated that pretty clearly). I'm just fed up with the argument that non-religious moral standards are somehow the second coming of the Taliban.

Well, the biggest problem I seem to have now isn't with indecency on TV, but rather my own wife... ;)

I seriously have no problem ditching TV. There not much there any more worth watching anyway and would much prefer a total s la carte system where I purchase shows off the Net instead. But that's a long way away. Until then, I limit my daughter to channels I feel are appropriate. When Noggin starts showing 'Dora's Dyke Adventures' then I'll switch that off too. But I fear any Government involvment in setting decency, ever.

This really touches on both of your "standards of decency" posts, but I decided to post it here. Apologies if I ramble a bit.

How can someone who is generally so "right" about the necessity for standards of decency be so completely wrong (or "left" in the dark) about the plot of Titanic. Certainly you have a right to your opinion about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the film, but to suggest that it's not worth seeing due to its "lousy story" seems a little odd to me. Millions of people did see it -- worldwide -- often in repeat viewings. It was an excellent film. And if you are going to use public support as a standard of exellence (which you did for Passion of the Christ), you can't ignore it for Titanic.

Second, not sure which version of Aliens you were watching, but mine was rated 'R', contained lots of graphic violence, gore and enough salty marine profanity to generate an 'R' rating without the addition of violence. It was a great movie, I agree. But holding it up as a paen of family-friendly entertainment is unfair.

Third, as a devout Christian, I also went to see Passion of the Christ, and was deeply moved by parts of it. Clearly, it was a film that needed to be made. But using your own standards, was it honestly improved by the addition of enough graphic violence to put Freddy Kruger to shame? The gore was so extreme, that I was often pulled out of the spiritual intensity of the movie, and either sickened by its carnage, or curious about how many gallons of stage blood they were going through in an average shooting day. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what Mel intended. Regardless, the 'R' was well deserved.

As for Speed Racer, I never watched it as a kid...mostly because my mother felt that a child's cartoon should not focus so much on car crashes, wanton violence and people screaming in agony and horror all the time...

Morgan,
Nice points. I stand corrected on lots of it.

I guess my badly-stated point was that things are appropriate in context. Marilyn Monroe was no angel, but I list her, too, right? But her sexuality was usually implied, rather than poking you in the eye.

And the thing of Aliens is context, too. It was necessary to tell the story. And it got an R Rating, which it deserved.

But the violence and language wasn't added in to appeal to a Beavis and Butthead crowd. It wouldn't be shown in prime-time on broadcast TV, and I see no reason why it should be then broadcast on Cable TV during primetime.

Even HBO used to keep its full-frontal nudity after 10pm on cable. Woah! You mean standards used to be tighter on cable, too???????

Yep. I guess the whole argument of Cable TV censoring itself well doesn't hold any more water than the banal "You can always turn the TV off!" argument does.

Heck, I'm not really trying to advocate anything, really, so I may not always make alot of sense. I'm just getting very angry that "standards" are being considered somehow "wrong". That if we don't have an "anything goes!" attitude that we are worse than the Taliban. I'm getting very angry that there's this double standard that not saying a$$ on TV is prudish and we prudes should just not watch TV if we don't like it...and simultaneously making fun of us for doing so, crying censorship if we want movies with profanity edited out, attempts to make 'homeschooling' illegal so we can actually attempt to help our kids avoid indoctrination of liberal low sexual standards, and a general refusal of Hollywood to even acknowledge that there is a HUGE market for family-friendly fare.

Another post soon.

« Hide Comments

...my apologies if I don't do it with the same flair as Jeff G. ...but then, who does?

« Hide Comments

Each day, that is.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Hey, it isn't coming up. File not found. I want to read the best review ever...

« Hide Comments

And aside Nate, but your blogiversary (at least with MuNu) is coming up soon, isn't it?

I've still got more than a month.

« Hide Comments

For some odd reason, life has seemed to be looking up recently.

« Hide Comments

Okay, I'm game. For clarity I did oppose the invasion of Iraq. I was very in favor of an invasion of Afganistan, even 3 years before we actually invaded. Hope that clarifies that I am not a passivist.

As to Iraq, I believed then, and still believe that it was truly the wrong war at the wrong time. I believe this not because of anything to do with the middle east or events there, but because I'm an American, and I believe that the Iraq war was detrimental to my country. This I think is where the dialogue between the right and the left (whatever those terms mean anymore) radically breaks down. Many like to view what's happening over there as signs of progress towards a better world. I rather view much of what's happening right here to be hurting America. War corporatism and profiteering, further erosions of civil rights, a country becoming increasing hostile and exclusionary: these are all indirect results of the invasion of Iraq. So, if (and its still a very big if) these early signs of growing democratic reform in the ME bare fruit, the question still remains, was it worth it for us, the people of the US?

The connection that you attempt to draw between the invasion and the listed events is very plausable, but causal relations are often the hardest to prove. It's very easy to believe that it wasn't the US invasion that is changing minds, but rather the Iraqi vote. The immediate argument is that there wouldn't have been an Iraqi vote without US force. That is factually true, only in this case, but it does not preclude that the Iraqis could have taken back their country all on their own, with more limited US help, or none at all. In my personal view, I don't think we, as Americans, had any obligation or moral imperative to help them find democracy. That may sound heartless, but it reflects the fundamental principal of liberty. If you want freedom, then pick yourself up and claim it. To sum that up, a good result over there does not justify the means expended over here.

As to whether or not I'm wrong about Bush, no my opinion hasn't changed. His preemptive and poorly orchestrated war on Iraq may have great results in the long run, or it could still all blow up in our faces. But, as I've indicated, that's over there. GW Bush isn't president of Iraq, or Syria or Egypt. He's President of the USA. They can hail him as a hero and build as many statues of him as they like ... and it makes not one bit of difference to my opinion of the man. He should be answering to you and I, not history, or the vision of the future of the PNAC. On that score of being accountable to the US, he has done a very poor job.

I don't know if these ramblings of mine add anything to the mix, or offer any insight into the opposing views. I would hope so, but it frequently seems as if people are approaching the issues with such widely varied value sets that there is no chance of understanding or acceptance; tower of Babel all over again.

Wow. No, that was an excellent answer that helps me to understand better where you (and those who feel pretty much the same) are coming from.

Here's a few thoughts I'd like to toss back at you, though:
After the 1st Gulf War, the first President Bush encouraged the Kurds and Shias to rise up against Saddam, that we'd help them in their overthrow. Then due to political atmospheres in the US at the time they did rise up, we didn't lift a finger to help. Thousands were slaughtered, an entire village of Kurds were murdered with chemical gas, because they believed us. So in light of that, I do think we had a moral imperative to see it through this time. And if they weren't as eager to overthrow Saddam without our help, well, isn't that at least partially our fault?
I can see there's some room for debate on that, though.

I do agree with you that the Iraqi election was the tipping point, not our invasion. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" truly applies in this case. But they did drink, and drank deeply. And the other Middle-Eastern nations saw, and many of them want change, and more freedom.

There are short-term problems, true. Nothing is static, and it may hurt us in the bottom line in some things. But "war profiteering", if it really is such, still contributes to the economy and keeps US dollars at home, rather than outsourcing. I know it's not an 'either/or', but is it better for the US Govt to get gouged building the next Robert C. Byrd Memorial Golf Course or to help rebuild Iraq? ...and I'm still not convinced Halliburton and other contracters are gouging the US Govt in this...and a good portion of it is getting paid for by Iraqi oil dollars, too.

I still don't see any erosion of liberties...in fact, I see more freedom now than 8 years ago. I see Padilla's release ordered by the US Judicial system, despite the insinuation that Bush has got his stormtroopers just waiting to lock up anyone who dissents.
Has there been even one incident of govt overreaching itself like with Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, or Elian Gonzales (sending armed troops into a private home to seize an adolescent boy?!?!?!)...? Nope.

But I respect your opinion and courage in voicing it, even if I disagree with it. There's probably nothing President Bush could do to change your mind, and that's fine. At this point, you're kind of stuck with him! [grin] You'll have your next good chance to limit his actions in 2006, I guess.

I myself was VERY disappointed with our national behavior towards Iraq in 1991. We did pooch that one, and we missed a significant opportunity. I believe that that does go a long way to explaining GW's motivations. His response is of arguable moral value, but that argument is way too belated to have.

One other point that I would like to clarify is concerning the errosion of liberties. You are correct that the Govt. isn't using the forceful tactics of the past, but that doesn't mean that we are more free to think and act as we choose. Dissent is being methodically radicalized, ostracized and silenced. Ann Coulter (admittedly the extreme) has called several times for the internment or direct inprisonment of "Liberals". The warning doesn't reside in her saying that, it's that we, as Americans, aren't standing up and telling her where to shove that fascist garbage. Her thinking is becoming more mainstream daily. Add to that the more radical elements of Christian fundamentalism, and you don't need to use force to silence and belittle people. You can use legislators, lawyers and pundits to accomplish the same thing. Now I'm a Montana moderate Democrat. Few things get my hackles up more than be called a traitor to my country. But that's happening more and more everyday, and what's worse, is that we as a people aren't putting the brakes to this garbage.

Final response, I don't know how many people who hold similar beliefs as I do would agree with me on this, but Bush isn't the problem to me. I've always considered him somewhat incompetant, based on his history. But he surrounds himself with people that are very competant and very scary. If anyone were to ask me what the worst thing the Bush administration has done, I would not say Iraq. It would be that Dick Cheney has covered the nation's energy policy under a judicially supported blanket of state secrecy. That's not right, at all. That does tend to color my view somewhat.

I do want to thank you for this opportunity for a polite exchange. That's a very rare thing anymore.

...well, unless you call me a fascist or an idiot, I can usually keep things polite! [grin]

I think the smartest (from my opinion, the best, but I can certainly understand your view of it being the worst) thing W did was surround himself with capable advisors. That's why George Tenet's "It's a slam dunk [that Iraq has WMD]" is so galling to me: W *depends* on his people giving him good information, or having the courage to say, "we don't know". I think Tenet inadvertantly betrayed W with that statement of assurance...

I'm not still not convinced about the erosion of freedom of speech angle, though. I think it is basically the same thing as when Bill Clinton tried to claim the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing was caused by right-wing talk radio, when Hillary Clinton said flat-out that Bill's dalliance with Ms Lewinsky were the fabrications of a Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy and nothing more, when liberals and/or Democrats want Fox News Channel off the air, or severely restricted, when liberals and/or Democrats are happy when Rush Limbaugh has a setback (hoping that will drive him off the air, I guess).

People still have the right to say what they choose, and no one has been thrown in jail over it. The only person I know of who lost his job over saying something was Trent Lott. Oh, and Governer Dean lost his candidacy, but that's hardly the fault of President Bush, but of Democrat voters changing their opinion of him.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth based every allegation against John Kerry in verifiable facts. Kerry's only response was to call them all liars and attempt to smear their backgrounds...he could have laid every accusation to rest if he had just signed the Form 180, something he promised to do on TV, but still has not. Is that a loss of liberty?

...Dan Rather lost his position not because of any erosion of civil rights, but because he rushed to push fairly obvious forgeries onto an unsuspecting public. Eason Jordon didn't *have* to resign...what does it say that he would rather resign than release the tape of his statement? That doesn't seem to be a loss of liberty to me, but rather being held accountable to your words, much like Trent Lott was held accountable.

I don't know...the Patriot Act *could* be abused, but it seems like the Courts are doing a good job of preventing any abuse. And technology is advancing on, with PDAs and chatrooms and WiFi and Blackberrys and such...I guess I have to believe that the laws should evolve to match the capabilities of the terrorists and criminals. The law-abiding citizens deserve to have a chance to be kept safe, as long as the information gathered is done so legally and disposed of (or processed) legally and appropriately. And believe me, the rules regarding information gathering on US citizens are VERY robust, detailed, and strongly enforced.

Cheney and the energy situation, I'm not too sure of. I definitely didn't like what Enron did in California...but weren't the seeds of that sown under Clinton? Did Cheney contribute to that? Wasn't it a pretty tough winter in the Northeast this year? ...but I don't remember hearing stories of heating oil shortages and price gouging like I did in '98 and '99...
If the oil companies make a profit, but people get a more plentiful, cheaper product, is that a bad thing?
Now, if you have specific examples of shortages due to the current energy policy, I wouldn't reject them out of hand...I just haven't seen any in the news in casual perusal.

« Hide Comments

This truly is upsetting. Especially if the white supremacists had anything to do with it. In my opinion, nothing and I MEAN NOTHING, is a lower, scum-sucking, sewer swimming form of fecal life than a white supremacist.

They're even lower than Islamic terrorists.

« Hide Comments