Nerd Girl Politics

Guess what Dr. Tiller and his murderer have in common?

2009-06-01T14:35:00.006-04:00

They've both been known to kill people.

A blogger at Jezebel says refering to abortion (even late-term abortion) as murder somehow encourages murder of abortion providers: "Calling abortion the murder of unborn children or referring to people who perform abortions or who are politically pro-choice as infanticide-perpetrators is a time-worn tactic of the movement to make abortion illegal in this country. It was a deliberate choice on the part of the anti-abortion movement, stemming from a growing public relations problem with referring to women that way [as murderers]... It's a deliberate use of language to demonize a group of people that, for some, will inevitably translate to the demonization and dehumanization of individuals like George Tiller."

Sooooo, I guess that's what happens when people make moral judgments (like saying, "this act is bad.") - it just feeds the crazies, huh? So we should use euphemisms like "terminating" as opposed to "killing" or even "ending the life of" - because if people see abortion for what it is, they might get really pissed and, if they happen to be crazy already, go kill abortion providers.

Um, WRONG.

Some people are just crazy and will find ways to justify doing crazy sh*t, like killing murderers whom the law protects (You don't like current abortion laws? Work to change the laws, or work to change hearts/minds. Don't kill people, sheesh). But just because someone:

A) realizes that late-term abortions performed only because the child is an inconvenience (not for the life/health of the mother) are f'ing sick; and

B) HAPPENS TO BE A NUTJOB (which is UNRELATED TO CIRCUMSTANCE A, TYVM); and, as a result of the combination of A+B,

C) that person shoots an abortion provider,

that doesn't mean the rest of us should censor ourselves or stop making decisions as to what is right and what is wrong.

It's official - there are some black people who I just really don't get

2009-05-30T13:40:00.003-04:00

Surprised? Of course not. There are a lot of people in this world who I don't understand. But today I'd like to focus on a few specific people. Who are black.

I work in a store. Yesterday, I overheard an older black man tell a couple middleaged black women that Bush saw Iraq as a black country, and that's why he invaded it. If he hadn't seen it as a black country, he would not have. They agreed.

To that ridiculous statement, I can only offer a gigantic WTF???!!!!111

I think most people would agree that seeing all humans as either black or white is stupid. But I don't think Bush does. I do think that old man does. And that is scary.

Iraqis are like tan. Or brownish. Or something that's not black. Sheesh, man, it's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, Mr. Suburban store shopper whose friend was waited on by a nice little suburban white girl.

I bet if that man made small talk with me for five minutes he'd assume I'm a liberal, because I'd be respectful (you know, like a normal person would be), and conservatives are all racists who look at non-white people as people to be subjugated. Nevermind the black conservatives. They're race traitors. They should be out with these Black Panther guys, intimidating voters during an election for president and NOT GETTING IN ANY TROUBLE AT ALL.

But it's okay. They're black. You gotta root for the underdog, right?

It's kind of like that South Park episode where the townspeople decide to shop at the small local pharmacy instead of shopping at the evil "Wall-Mart," which they burn to the ground. The small local pharmacy is so successful that the owner is able to expand, and ultimately create a superstore with low-priced items, which the townspeople then burn to the ground.

The episode ends after Randy says, "Let's not make that mistake again!"

In other words, the top dog isn't always the top dog. The consumers/voters can choose to elevate whomever they wish - and giving super preferential treatment to someone/store will ultimately enable it to be the biggest dog on the block, who can then do whatever the fuck it wants.

Or, you know, we could like, be fair and treat everyone the same under the law.

Or not.

Waterboarding is torture, just like going to the dentist.

2009-05-28T16:14:00.005-04:00

Both are scary and possibly psychologically scarring. (And getting poked by dentist tools HURTS! If they ever try to give me a root canal, I'm gonna need to be drugged, like srsly drugged up.) But does that mean that waterboarding those three terrorist jerkwads was inexcusable?

Here's an interesting article about that Mancow dude getting waterboarded.

And here's one of the comments someone posted:

"2009 May 27
Suburban Scarecrow permalink

Waterboarding is distasteful. Then again, war is distasteful, and the things you must do in order to win a war are distasteful. I wouldn’t want to be waterboarded and am not about to volunteer to have it done just to prove a point. I also wouldn’t want to be held in prison, interrogated, or strip searched. But I’d rather have any of these things done to me, waterboarding included, than to be shot in the head. Yet somehow, in war, it’s okay to shoot the enemy, but not to terrify him? I don’t understand this logic. No-one has convinced me that waterboarding harms the victim in any way except psychologically."

*sings the dentist song from Little Shop*

Correction. I'm an idiot.

2009-05-27T14:39:00.003-04:00

Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are considered US citizens. But I'm not deleting my previous post because I think it's cute and my point about the PC police taking away perfectly good words is still valid.

So, is PR a country? It's a protectorate or something, but it IS its own country (sort of), right? Ugh, see NOW I don't know if one can immigrate from a protectorate of the US to the US. And now I have to research this because if I don't figure it out it will drive me crazy.

Graaah!

Why don't newspaper people know English?

2009-05-26T21:56:00.006-04:00

There was not an error in this article about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the Supreme court. But the NY Times corrected a non-error anyway:

"Correction: May 16, 2009
An article on Friday about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a possible candidate for nomination to the Supreme Court, referred incorrectly to her parents. As people who moved to New York from Puerto Rico, they were United States citizens. They were not 'immigrants.'"

OMG.

YES THEY WERE.

When they MOVED from Puerto Rico to New York they IMMIGRATED. And became citizens, which is awesome!

What is less awesome is that people got offended by the CORRECT use of the term "immigrant," bitched to the editors, and got their way. This means some no-brain no-spine editor gave in to the kvetching of idiots, instead of simply pointing them in the direction of their nearest dictionary.

You know what? As someone with a degree in English (read: someone who is hyper-anal about words and really really annoying about such things) I am offended.

And you know what I'm gonna do about it? In ten years, when the term "immigrant" has been deemed "offensive" [You don't think it'll happen? Remember "oriental"? Yeah, we can't say that one now. Don't believe me? Go see "Avenue Q."], I'm gonna say it. ALL THE TIME. Well, in appropriate contexts, of course. And probably get my ass kicked by PC police. No, they wouldn't kick my ass, they're too nice and feel-goody for that. They'd have to hire someone to do it, like the anarcho-socialist ninjas (You know, the ones wearing masks made from black T-shirts. You gotta watch out for those T-shirt-mask wearning anarcho-socialist ninjas, especially after dark)

LOL, of course I'm kidding. The anarcho-socialist ninjas can't beat me up. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. Because ANARCHO-SOCIALISM DOESN'T EXIST because it CAN'T because it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. Silly anarcho-socialists! They just THINK they exist. LOLZ!

*Adds the NY Times and the anarcho-socialists to her list of people/groups who need dictionaries.*

Star Trek Gave Me Unrealistic Expectations About Men

2009-05-15T21:13:00.008-04:00

Did Disney give me unrealistic expectations about men? Naaah, of course that stuff's not real life. But Star Trek is the FUTURE! Can you blame me, who grew up watching TNG, DS9, and some original series here and there, for thinking men would be as appealing and badass yet thoughtful as the men of Star Trek? For thinking men would want to want to bond with women over poker of the non-strip variety (TNG episode, you know who you are)? For being surprised that men don't tend to debate the definition of sentience while getting coffee? For expecting men not only to have balls and the ability to kill just about anyone, but the restraint not to do it? (Unless it's absolutely necessary. Because sometimes you need to punch a Jersey shore rat - I mean, a Cardassian - in the face.)

I saw this guy on the train last week. He got up so I could sit down. And proceeded to the end of the car to beat up some dude for who knows why. What a lame-ass. (He had a hot GF, too. WTF?) The fight was promptly broken up by this man with support from his GF/wife (couldn't really see what was going on, but she had her man's back). The rescuer-guy pulled the victim away and kept him from continuing the fight (he felt he had to teach the guy who started it a lesson). Somehow they talked the instigator down, and the superhero guy spoke calmly to the victim, while restraining him, about how it wasn't worth it, and just to let it go, and that he wouldn't let the other guy hurt him.

Meanwhile, I was like, DAMMIT, I knew I should have learned kung fu.

On the way out of the station, I saw the super-couple, and told the guy he reminded me of Samuel L. Jackson. Because he so did. He grinned and said, "I'm sick of these mother fucking fights on this mother fucking train!" And that was that. He wasn't all super proud of himself. It was like they did this stuff all the time, like, "Pssh, yeah, it happens. What do you say we steam some asparagus tomorrow with dinner?"

See, THAT's the kind of guy I want IRL. Those rare times I find a guy worthy of admiration occur only when the guy reminds me of A) a superhero, like Spidey, or B) someone affiliated with Star Fleet. I do not want Bob Bobberson, whose greatest strength is his stock portfolio and who seeks a women who'll let him install a pole in the living room. I want Picard, who may be a socialist Frenchie but who can beat Q at his little games; I want Spock, who exercises discipline and doesn't go around trying to jump up women's skirts; I want Worf... who would probably accidentally kill me if we hooked up (Klingon mating rituals, WTF), but who is generally an appealing mix of refined man and beast. Hell, I even kind of want Dr. Bashir - a mystery novel nerd who finally lives up to his vision of himself as brave and badass, while getting the F over his ego trip (So you were top of your class, Jules. No one cares.); most importantly, nerd boy is well groomed, doesn't live with his mom, and looks hot carrying old fashioned automatic weapons.

Oh man, but so does Data! And does ANYONE rock a fedora better than Data? Um, well, Picard. But Data has a kitty cat!

Now, yeah, there's Kirk, with his ego like FWOOOM, and Riker, who's... Riker (*cough*whore*cough*), and Quark, who's a Ferengi. But there are so many other appealing options! O'Brien and Sisko are great dads and loving husbands. You can't get anything by the brilliant shapeshifting Odo (who is so freakin' cute when he falls in love with Kira, OMGOMG!). Geordi and Scotty are especially adept at thinking on their feet, although everyone on the show is some kind of genius.

Maybe that's it. Not only do that have brains but they USE THEM.

Mmm, brains! Brains are hot!

Almost as hot as ridgy foreheads. ^__^

Thanks, Star Trek, for guaranteeing my eternal singledom

2009-05-15T20:21:00.003-04:00

Okay, let's make a choice: that douche I met in a club last week who said, "We should have sex sometime," or SPOCK.

Nevermind the Bedouin

2009-05-15T15:32:00.003-04:00

This guy isn't what we tend to think of as African-American. Because he's white. Not just a lightly toasted brown. Not one of the many people of Arab descent who have lived in Africa for generations.

The term "African-American" is used in a completly stupid way. It is meant, I assume, to be synonymous with "Black American" - but you can't call people "Black" (or "black") because it might be considered rude. Why? Because nasty racist assholes have been known to say it sneeringly. So the rest of us can't say it at all. (Well, we CAN, and some of us DO, because "African-American" is a stupid term, as it is presently used.)

"African-American" SHOULD mean Americans from Africa. Or kids or grandkids in America descended from someone from Africa. Kind of like "Mexican-American," "Irish-American" or "German-American."

And I contend that that is what the term DOES mean. But not to some people. To some people it is synonymous with "black." Even though they KNOW that excludes Caribbean blacks or black people whose families have lived in say... France for 3 generations prior to moving to the US. But hey, those people can still sort of correctly be referred to as African-American as clearly some of their ancestors were from Africa.

JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE FREAKING HUMAN RACE.

But we can't consider EVERYBODY in America to be African-American because how could we confer special status on the specific people we want to elevate? Now, those we want to give special status to are those with dark skin and some familial connection to Africa. Whether or not their great-grandparents were slaves. FOBs are totally welcome to this party!

Unless they're caucasian ("Caucasian"? I don't know). Right, so basically, in some culture class at UMDNJ, this dude Paolo Serodio ID'd himself as African-American, which is correct. A black African-American student took offense to this (because his skin is white) and the ruckus apparently snowballed from there. "He's not a REAL African-American!"

Quick digression: at the grocery store, this lady and her dad, an old man, were in line ahead of me. They were black. They paid in cash and the checkout guy, a really dark-skinned middle-aged Indian man. The dad took offense to this and started rambling and yelling about oppression and racism against black people. The Indian guy, who was acutally from India and had a bit of a British accent and who was just as dark if not darker skinned than the old man AND FROM INDIA, WHICH WAS OPPRESSED BY THE BRITISH, tried to sympathize with the man to get him to calm down. But noooo, no one alive today has been oppressed as badly as this particular man who lives in the 'burbs with his longsuffering daughter. BTW, quick trivia - did you know, in Britain, "black" also describes Indian people? End digression.

So, the conclusion of this story is you're not African-American unless you have been or might possibly have been or could possibly be treated badly by whitey.

Even though the term "African-American" actually means something else. We should ignore its actual meaning so as not to offend black medical students whose academic success is a big FU to racism and who really don't need to be so darn insecure.

BTW, this dude Paolo calls himself a "white African-American," which means he's not trying to change the meaning of the term "African-American." It can still be used as stupidly as it is, unchanged by his definition of himself - the definition his school TOLD HIM WAS INAPPROPRIATE. Sorry, we know you're from Africa and are now an American and are white, but you can't just go around calling yourself a white African-American. Even if it's true. It's offensive!

America figures out that unrestricted abortion rights do not equal women's rights

2009-05-15T10:03:00.004-04:00

That's one hypothesis that could explain why for the first time since Gallup began asking the pro-choice/pro-life question in 1995 more polled Americans stated they are pro-choice.

What is more telling is the second chart, which shows that 53% of respondents said they believe abortion should be illegal in some circumstances. By contrast, 23% believe it should be illegal in all circumstances while 22% believe it should be legal in all circumstances.

We don't know what these circumstances are that 53% believe abortion should be allowed under, and they probably vary from respondent to respondent, but I have a feeling they have two things in common:

1) the mother is capable of carrying the child to term without it causing any severe or long-term damage to her health, and of caring for it after birth, but simply does not want to; and

2) the fetus has reached a point of development at which the respondent finds it difficult if not impossible to dehumanize it.

So could this mean that the American people are disentangling the abortion issue from actual women's rights issues? Is this a kick in the pants to Roe v. Wade? Or is it probably a fluke?

Because it's not really racism! Just vote how we tell you, mmmkay?

2009-05-14T10:30:00.002-04:00

"Joyce Johnson, the former president and CEO of the nonprofit Black Equity Alliance, said its board of directors ousted her after she endorsed Bloomberg in March...

"Johnson said a board member told her "it would not look good" for the president of the BEA to endorse Bloomberg.

"BEA, which supports black and poor communities in the city, objected because Bloomberg is "white and Jewish," according to a suit Johnson has filed in Manhattan Supreme Court."

Clearly, this woman doesn't know that her place is with her people: those who have African ancestry. (And you thought her people were all of her fellow Americans! HA! How little you know.) Race traitor!

And if we're not causing it?

2009-05-13T19:13:00.002-04:00

Even if we are, will kicking the economy in the ass be worth it?

Good article about Bristol Palin

2009-05-08T11:19:00.003-04:00

Here

Very good article. First off, I wish she could just get out of the spotlight and live her life, but since she's here, we can discuss. Her discussing abstinence isn't hypocritical (as the article points out), it's simply honest. She says how hard it is raising a child as a teenager, and while she loves her son, it's very bittersweet; it's simply better not to have sex at all if you're young.

Frankly, I agree. Abstinence is a great idea. Much easier. I'm against abstinence only education, which makes very little sense. The focus should be on safety. "Abstinence is the safest form of birth control, but if you are going to have sex, here's what you do." The less you teach about sex and b/c, the more people will have sex unsafely. But there's nothing wrong with saying, you don't have to have sex, and I give Bristol some kudos for that.

Because High School is AWESOME! A movie review: "17 Again"

2009-05-03T19:33:00.007-04:00

So I just went against the advice of everyone in my age group and saw "17 Again." "Sif," you ask, "why the hell should we care?" Well, you might care that 1) the main character's best friend is a sci-fi/fantasy nerd, whose take on the whole becoming-17-again thing makes the whole spirit-guide-janitor thing seem... well, not less lame, but kind of funnier; and 2) it delivers a big punch in the balls to those who say, "Non-loser high school students abstaining from sex? That's TOTALLY unrealistic!"

No. No it's not.

But before we get to that, I just want to say that if you're gonna go nerd, go all the way. None of this referencing shit that doesn't exist, like elven "lairs," or pretending there's a word for "arugula" in Elvish (there's not, not in Quenya or Sindarin. Fucker.) Oh, and it's ELVISH, not "Elf." "Elf" is not a language. Douchebag.

Anyway.

I actually liked this movie (which stars Zac Efron of the super-lamewaddiness that is "High School Musical," which I'm sure no self-respecting person over 20 has watched willingly - just think of Bridon from South Park; that's the kid we're talking about).

Premise: In the year 1989, high school basketball hot shot Mike O'Donnell (Efron) throws away his chance to play college basketball to be with his girlfriend, Scarlett (two chicks), and their baby (who grows up to be Michelle Trachtenberg in a hoodie). But life makes Mike hard (or it makes him an unsuccessful corporate douche with a stick up his ass, not to mention he turns into Matthew Perry), so when he finds himself 17 again, he jumps (lol) at the chance to reclaim his basketball career! Until his realizes his kids (MT and some kid named STERLING KNIGHT, WTF) need more help than he does...

Sif thinks: It was cute and amusing and not completely lame. But best of all, it showed a "hot" guy touting abstinence (and doing such a good job by talking about love and babies, the girls in his health class toss their recently distributed condoms back into the basket-o-condoms, much to the dismay of the boys in class. *snrk!*). I actually liked the character of "young Mike O'Donnell," and the way Efron played him (as in, not about to sing and dance every five seconds. Although he does dance with cheerleaders once, but that's during his young and foolish days, in 1989. Damn, these movie flashbacks are being set during years I remember...). Efron is totally believable as the "creepy man-child," or whatever Mike's confused adult wife calls him when he acts inapproprietly towards her for the 10th time, LOLz. This may be because the actor IS a creepy man-child, but hey, it works. (As my friend who balked at the idea of me paying to see this film said, "He looks like an alien." "Yeah," I said, "and not even a hot one, like young Spock!" Mmm, Spock... but we'll get to that next week.)

Anyway, good moral lessons delivered in an appropriately awkward-but-kind-of-hot way by a teeny-bopper heart-throb gives this movie a little something extra, especially because Mike (who goes by "Mark," so it's Zac -> young Mike -> Mark) isn't a douchebag about it. He plays it like, "I used to be cool, and I kind of fail at that now, but I am too confident and too on-a-mission-to-help-my-kids to care." And that works for him, because Mike/Mark gets his swagger right and everyone who's anyone agrees he's the shit, even though he can't fight. And all the hot girls want him and come onto him, BUT, being a responsible dad IRL, he sits them down to try to explain that no guy will respect them for being whores. The girls respond by acting even more whorish and then congratulating each other on their sluttiness. Mike/Mark gives up: "This is some other dad's problem." I totally forgot how weird looking Zac Efron is after that because I so wanted to glomp him then. I mean, I wanted to glomp Mike/Mark. Somebody. Who's not Matthew Perry. Whatever, if you needed further proof as to why "Twilight" is so freakin' popular, here it is: A (hot) guy who wants to wait for sex until he's in love, and even maybe married is TOTALLY irresistible to girls, including Mike's daughter. OH NOZ! Poor Mike's daughter, Maggie. Or really, poor Michelle Trachtenberg - her character was so underdeveloped! And I wanted to bitchslap the mom for going out on dates and not realizing (caring?) that her daughter's horny neanderthal BF was in her house making out with her daughter like all the time. But no worries! It's young Mike/Mark to the rescue! Until he forgets he's supposed to act 17 and "forbids" Maggie to see the horny neanderthal. Ohh, conflict and tension! What will she choose?

The son, Alex, seems a little more like a real person. Sort of. Probably the best thing about Alex is that he sends the message, "Hey Dad, get it through your head - I'm not popular like you were, so lay off!" without ever having to say anything so melodramatic. Eh, both kids are played well, so it seems like they COULD be real people, if we knew any more about them.

Conclusion: If you're into teen comedies that aren't over-the-top-silly, you'll appreciate this movie for not being completely ridiculous, and for making fun of itself when it is ("Dude, I'm not your Spirit Guide."). That plus the "hot" guy talking sex+love+marriage, and the (sometimes poorly executed) nerd power factor make it worth seeing (especially if you're a silly girl like I am and can be reasonably sure beforehand that you'll dig it).

Hugs to Stephen

2009-04-20T12:46:00.000-04:00

Hawking is sick. :(

Obama did something I like

2009-04-20T12:17:00.007-04:00

...aaaaand, the Universe begins to rip itself apart.

But really - he showed common sense while basically offering a nice big FU to Ahmadinejad by having the USA boycott Ahmadinejad's Pay Attention to Me (and Hate Israel!) Party, otherwise known as a UN conference against racism.

Also, a lot of other countries walked out in response to A's ridiculous "Israel is meanie racist-faces!" talk. These countries now officially kick ass (even France).

If only Obama would stop cozying up to Chavez... I mean, pretending to be friends is cool if you have a plan to get info from him or like, stab him (I know, I know), but how much anti-US blah blah blah should our president endure before punching a douche in the face (metaphor for not hanging out with him anymore)?

Oh, and that little book Chavez gave Obama, "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent", which is about the US getting involved in political ish down south and blaming the US for the rampant corruption there...

First: Why do you think they speak Spanish and Portuguese down there, hmm? Because like EVERYONE has been all up in Latin America's business since like, oh, about the time they started making big ships.

Second: Wouldn't it be nice if we could blame everyone, INCLUDING CHAVEZ, and other such dictators, appropriately, for their roles in Latin America's problems? Are you listening, Mr. Chavez? If so, please note that you SUCK. And you suck even harder for blaming your country's suckitude on us. Dictators = fail.

Re: IP Protection Gone Too Far

2009-04-13T16:24:00.003-04:00

I did not know about that. Gee, South Korea, got some creepy Northern influence goin' on there?

Wait...

Wait.

I heard about something like this... happening here. But that was just crazy talk, right? Searching people's iPods for pirated ish, come on! If this is for real, shouldn't we be hearing more about it?

Makes me wonder what the Internet of the future will be. Just another PC police propaganda tool? Or every individual's propaganda tool? If we have to pick, I choose the latter.

Fuck squirrels.

IP Protection Gone Too Far

2009-04-13T16:05:00.002-04:00

South Korea - not my kind of place right now.

Read this:

The National Assembly passed the new anti-file sharing provision, suggested by the ruling Grand National Party (GNP), following a close vote April 1, despite protests from Internet companies and civil liberties advocates that it could threaten the freedom of expression on the Internet.

This is not good. The internet is the world's bastion of free speech, transfer of ideas, where content changes and shifts every second. It's vital that it remains as free as possible - mankind will only be limiting its knowledge if not. Because where do you draw the line? Internet freedoms are slowly getting sapped away in South Korea. I expect it in China, but South Korea? Really?

I'm a strong advocate of net neutrality. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot with these kinds of laws?

Now I know what "bellum" means!

2009-04-11T12:07:00.003-04:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940383654409651.html

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Why I have a problem with the modern incarnation of the workers' union

2009-04-11T12:04:00.004-04:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940322061309643.html

Because they don't want things to be fair. If things were fair, they would lose relevance. And power. And money.

The IDEA of unions is great. But the people who run them (and their buddy pals in Congress) are often gigantic rat turds who need to go to boot camp at Mickey D's and find out what it's like to EARN money.

Almost half of new Americans in 2008 were Hispanic

2009-04-08T17:13:00.002-04:00

Fresh tortilla availability increases.

Keep 'em comin'! (LEGALLY!)

'Cuz really:

Hispanics: tacos, plantains, coconut flavored soda.

People I'm descended from: scones, haggis, porridge.

Which would you prefer?

Some days I love Camille Paglia

2009-04-08T11:31:00.002-04:00

When asked about modern liberal zombie ugliness (my terms), liberal writer Camille Paglia responded:

"Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

"The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak. (A superb 1990 documentary, "Berkeley in the Sixties," chronicles the arguments and misjudgments about tactics that alienated the national electorate and led to the election of Richard Nixon.) For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding -- there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play."

Somehow, I feel less alone in the world. ^____^ Some of the crazies she references were my teachers and professors in high school and college, who did more to turn me off to liberal causes than smelly hippies ever could have on their own (some smelly hippies are a LOT of fun! They play with FIRE).

International Law

2009-04-04T23:20:00.004-04:00

is the funniest joke EV0R!

Just ask North Korea.

LOLZ!

And people wonder why the US keeps gettin' all up in other countries' business. (Don't make me sing the Team America song, now!)

But, don't worry: "U.N. diplomats already have begun discussing ways to affirm existing sanctions on North Korea against its nuclear program and long-range missile tests."

Whew!

Bill: right to kill to proctect an unborn baby

2009-04-03T13:29:00.003-04:00

No one better try to punch any pregnant Oklahoma women in the stomach.

I have no problem with allowing women to use lethal force to protect their unborn children. I do wonder how complicated some cases might be, though. For example, if you're killing a guy to protect your unborn children, you probably won't want to wait until he strikes you. But then, once he's dead, if you can't prove abuse, how do you prove he intended to kill your unborn baby? How would this law, if it becomes a law, be applied?

This is why news articles about bills should provide links to the bills!

The Fix for the Middle East!

2009-04-01T11:04:00.004-04:00

Jamie and I were joking around on GChat, when J came up with a GENIUS idea - world peace through PUPPIES.

I realized, DUH, that's IT!

They don't keep dogs as pets over there (hence the necessity to save them and bring them here: Baghdad Pups). They just let them roam around like wild animals (which, if you've ever seen a bunch of wild dogs roaming around, looking for scraps, you may know is a very depressing sight). Puppies need hugs, and people need to hug puppies! It's an oxytocin thing, or something. More puppies equals less time for terrorism (puppies require training and walks!) and happier people who don't want to blow themselves up, bc the kyuuuute puppy faces need them!

Also, Sesame Street. None of this "localised" (Palestinian produced) Sesame Street ish. They need the real thing. Such as this: hellz yeah, get down wit' yo bad self, Kermie!. Maybe if they kids learned that it's not easy being green, they'd be like, green is cool! And maybe t3h J3w5 aren't evil, even though they aren't green.

Maybe.

Guys don't do no more for her

2009-03-19T12:45:00.003-04:00

From Jezebel: It's nice to think of a "second part" of life in which women are free to change their sexual and romantic lives (except, of course, that they still face stigma, as several couples note). A little less nice is the story of Macarena Gomez-Barris, a USC professor who left her husband because he was unambitious and "someone had to care about making money to support our family." After dating some men who "were not so sure of themselves in their careers or financially," she met fellow USC professor Judith Halberstam, an out lesbian. She was impressed that Halberstam picked up the check on their first date, and once she got out of the "heterosexual framework that said only a man could provide for my kids and be part of a family," they fell in love.

From Sif: So Macarena went for Judith because Judith better embodied Macarena's sense of what a man should be - which is a somewhat traditional idea of masculinity. EPIC FAIL, MEN.

Sif is tired of lame ass men who can't get their sh*t together (but Sif does not dig chicks, so Sif is nearly eternally single. Oh well. More time for novel writing).

I KNEW IT

2009-03-17T21:44:00.000-04:00

REAL LIFE CYBORG!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5005118/Computer-programmer-from-Finland-has-lost-finger-replaced-with-USB-drive.html

Re: A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

2009-03-17T16:26:00.005-04:00

First: Should "gay marriage" be hyphenated? I can't think of any reason why it should be.

Second: At some random point when I was a kid, I realized how little I knew about the whole marriage process and asked my mum how it all goes down. When we got to the signing papers part, I was confused. I knew there was a government aspect because I'd seen marriages performed by a justice of the peace on "The Andy Griffith Show," but what, I asked, did that part actually cover? Financial ish, okay, sure. What did I know about that? (I was like 7.) The big shocker came when Mom told me that a couple wasn't ACTUALLY married until they signed the papers.

WTF?, I would have said, if I said things like that back then. Why the heck does the government get to say when you're married? I thought marriage was a ceremony and there were rings and you said things and then POOF, you were married! Couldn't you be married without the papers-signing? "No." "But-" "No. Sorry. That's the way it works."

So the fact that government plays the role it does in marriage irked me even before I knew about homosexuality.

(You should have heard my response when I learned about Social Security in kindergarten! "But that's like stealing! Can't people just save their money?" Lol, I was small.)

Actually, I thought the government part of marriage WAS a civil union! I thought people who didn't have church weddings just got civil-union-married. I'm still confused about why that isn't so.

Maybe it should be so.

So, I'm totally with J on this one. Let people tie their finances and health insurance and stuff together. Who cares who thinks they shouldn't get married? There are probably THOUSANDS of straight couples who I would advise not to get married [INSERT NAMES OF RANDOM OFFENSIVE DITZY HEROIN-ADDICTED CELEBRITY WHO CAN'T DRIVE WITHOUT CRASHING INTO SOMETHING HERE] (or have babies, OMG, think of t3h babies!). Just step away from each other, you two - it's only going to end in billions in sales for the Enquirer.

But I digress. Civil unions for all, marriages for whoever can get a church official to marry them (and THAT's an argument for another day.)

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

2009-03-17T10:48:00.003-04:00

My verdict: a resounding yes. And another yes.

I've been saying this for quite a while, and many people I know (of varying faiths and political views) agree with me.

Marriage is something sacred, as defined by the various religions that practice it. Some religions consider it to be eternal, through death (Mormons), some as a sacred union between two loving people (say, the UCC, or the UU), others between one man and one woman specifically (most Christian sects). Each religion or religious group has a different idea of marriage, and that's all well and good, because I'm not an Evangelical Christian, and therefore don't need to get married in a church, for example.

But the government is not a religious entity and should not impose these sort of moral/religious ideals onto me. If I want to join with a woman legally, by the state, there's no good reason why I can't, besides that pesky Defense of Marriage Act. So why not make civil unions the government standard? Two people of any gender uniting legally as partners, marriage optional. It solves everyone's problems, if you think about it - everyone gets legal benefits and recognition, and marriage becomes, perhaps, even more sacred or "pure" because its definition hasn't been watered-down (so to speak) by the government - it can once again be a wholly sacred ceremony, performed by your religious officiant of choice, completely separated from its legal obligations.

Because in our society today, the word "marriage" has the connotations of a long-lasting, loving partnership, and "civil union" does not, I too want to get married. But if "civil union" was the norm, I'd be all for getting that.

Random Victoriousness

2009-03-12T20:39:00.003-04:00

Community development in Ethiopia: business classes for women, schools for kids, and convicting a child rapist. W00t!

He's so cute, I could just eat him up!

2009-03-12T19:53:00.006-04:00

But I really don't want to. Nor do I want to eat tofu flavored like a human, even if he is George Clooney (who is not hot. And, although it goes without saying, is not Batman. Ew, what a disgrace to the cowl). Anyway.

We know PETA is full of human-hating animal-loving whack jobs who probably live about 75 miles away from the nearest Sonic Drive-In; how else could they find gym-towel-sweat flavored tofu appealing? There are certain things humans aren't supposed to like the taste of, such as SWEAT (What is sweat? Crap our bodies kicked out), and, say, earwax (That's why Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans are funny - apparently PETA abstains from getting the joke).

PETA prez Ingrid Newkirk said, "I thought, 'What would make tofu more attractive to people?' ... I can see people having parties to try CloFu." Yeah, and I can see people having color-coordinated floating body death parties when I YouTube Logan's Run. Some science fiction should stay fiction. Kind of like...

Wait for it... wait for it...

CLOFU IS PEOPLE! OH GOD, CLOFU IS... well, just one specific person. But it's, I mean, eeeeeew. Just, ew.

PETA: Even implied cannibalism is gross. My miso soup is gonna be Clooney-free, thanks.

George: Get your lawyer working on the restraining order against Newkirk. I hear she's a BIG fan (of your body's excrements).

Re: The Stimulus

2009-03-06T11:29:00.005-05:00

Why didn't I study economics in college? Why?

It seems the current economic situation is indeed the fault of many many people (who apparently didn't get that "housing bubbles" burst...). While it's important to try to understand what caused it and how to avoid it in the future, we also need to figure out what to do about it.

So, our ever brilliant congress has given us THE STIMULUS.

I am skeptical.

Because I don't think it's going to help very much at all. I also don't think the majority of it is meant to stimulate the ecomony.

Take a look at what's in the recent economic stimulus package and let me know what you think.

Part of it is, apparently, to give the federal goverment a larger role in determining which medical procedures you should have, usurping your doctor's role (you know, the person who KNOWS you). If they're not "cost effective," too bad. If your doctor isn't a "meaningful user" of this new system, s/he will face penalties. But that's okay, because the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology knows what's best for us.

I guess our elected representatives missed that when they were skimming the bill (Pelosi: QUICK! I have to get to the Vatican!).

Olympia Snowe didn't miss the 1 billion 300 million in grants to AMTRAK, which hasn't made a profit in, oh, about ever. I love trains. AMTRAK sounds cool. Will giving it more money stimulate the economy?

What about the taxpayers? Well, we'll get to keep about $13 extra bucks of our money per week. Woo hoo! PARTAY!

There's also $650 million for "renovation of forest roads, bridges and trails, remediation of abandoned mines, removal of barriers to fish and other critical habitat." Thank God we don't have to worry about the fish. or the abandoned mines. Wonder what they'll find in those mines (I hear canary skeleton prices are way up on EBay, as are those for dirt). I also wonder why they were abandoned in the first place (Lack of shiny sellables? So little breathable air it just wasn't worth it? Why is it worth part of $650 million now?)

I especially enjoyed the total of $201 million in SPENDING OVERSIGHT for various departments. Of course, that's only $201 million out of several hundred billion... Srsly, let's keep this in perspective...

I agree that we've got to do something, but we should stay focused on stimulating the economy, not spending $50 million on fixing up the National Cemetary. (Guess what? It's full of dead people. They can wait.)

The question is, do the Dems (and 3 lame Republicans) really think this is going to work, or were they planning on spending this money ANYWAY and used the economic crisis as a way to get it passed?

Could the folks in Washington spending our money, be, I dunno, politicians? With pals at banks who receive bailouts? What, AIG, you couldn't fix yourselves up with the first two bailouts, so now you need a third? Who do you know, and can you introduce me?

But hey, AIG failing would probably be a bad thing. So maybe we should accept this bailout/stimulus stuff. Let's just hope this crazy stimulus plan doesn't make things worse.

What if we're not doing it?

2009-03-03T23:12:00.003-05:00

I'll get back on topic with the stimulus tomorrow, when I'm awake, as I really need to be awake to respond to J's awesome post.

I just want to ask: What if we're not doing it? Or if we did, what if bankrupting the coal industry won't make a difference?

Discovery says, scientists are being scientists and not agreeing with each other about global warming - but it's not warming at the moment, despite a rise in greenhouse gasses.

I'm just wondering, given that anthropogenic climate change/man-bear-pig might not be a significant factor, are we working on contingency plans (other than those free Amish heaters)?

The Stimulus

2009-03-03T10:11:00.004-05:00

I'm no economist, or nothing close to it, but I've done a great deal of listening and reading and thinking about the stimulus and the economy in general. To preclude this, yes, I'm a Dem, I voted for Obama (though he wasn't my first choice of candidate), but I try to look at non-partisan sources from actual economists. And a lot of NPR, which can be biased, but programs that I listen to try very hard not to be, so I trust them.

People start taking notice at the end of 2007. Now it's exploded. The whole thing seems to be a combination of greed and (semi) willful ignorance. Banks give mortgages to subprime customers - those who most likely can't pay back their loans - and pass this on to investors, and the cycle of home pricing inflation skyrockets, as this chart shows nicely. Then as people aren't able to pay their mortgages, the banks don't get their money, so the investors don't get their money, and everyone loses money, and the homeowner loses their house. The homeowner shouldn't have bought the house, the banker shouldn't have been so greedy to make this a possibility, and the investor should have known better. And we all get screwed, but especially us.

It's everyone's fault, the general everyone. No, I personally haven't borrowed money or bought anything extravagant, but I don't feel indignant. It's the county's fault, so many individuals', from Bernie Madoff (why isn't he in jail yet?) to the newly married couple who bought too much.

What can we do? It seems that the big banks are essentially insolvent. The bubble has burst, and the repercussions are being felt all over the world. So what do we do? We can't lower interest rates anymore, because they're essentially 0 now, and that hasn't worked. There seem to be two main options - let the market correct itself, or try to jumpstart the economy so that people get jobs, money, etc. It seems that the first option hasn't worked, so now we're trying the second.

It's scary. Noone's happy about it. It's an impossible decision to make. The stock market is tanking, as is ING. There are no good choices yet, but it comes down to this: "The Federal Reserve is not trying to save AIG so much as keep it from taking out the rest of the global economy in a catastrophic collapse." Things suck, and we need to do something to keep it afloat while it gets fixed.

Hence, I support the stimulus. I'm not happy about it. But if we can create jobs, cut Healthcare costs, aid homeowners, that could give us the strong foundation the economy needs to get back on its feet. I pray that it actually works out. And it has its flaws, and its pork, and its detractors, including economists who think that this is a terrible idea (as is nationalization). Yet I don't know of anything else that would work, or could work, save tweaking the stimulus package itself.

Something like this, I think.

Remember Chechnya?

2009-03-02T12:49:00.012-05:00

That place somewhere near Russia where there was violence? Haven't heard much from there lately, have we?

Just heard this: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/europe/president-kadyrov-defends-honour-killings-14208919.html

"The President of Chechnya has justified the right of male relatives to carry out 'honour killings' after seven young women were found shot dead.

Ramzan Kadyrov said the women, whose bodies were found dumped by the roadside, had loose morals and were rightfully shot.

The 32-year-old former militia leader describes women as the property of their husbands and says their main role is to bear children.

He also encourages men to take more than one wife and women and girls are required to wear headscarves in all schools, universities and government offices."

So, what's up with Chechnya?

Acc to Wiki: "As per 2002 Census, Chechens at 1,031,647 make up 93.5% of the republic's population. Other groups include Russians (40,645, or 3.7%), Kumyks (8,883, or 0.8%), Ingush (2,914 or 0.3%) and a host of smaller groups, each accounting for less than 0.5% of the total population."

Also acc to Wiki, in the article "Chechen People": "Chechnya is predominantly Muslim. Some adhere to a Sufi tradition called Muridism, while about half of Chechens belong to Sufi brotherhoods, or tariqah. The two Sufi tariqas that spread in the North Caucasus were the Naqshbandiya and the Qadiriya. The Naqshbandiya is particularly strong in Dagestan and eastern Chechnya, whereas the Qadiriya has most of its adherents in the rest of Chechnya and Ingushetia.

Almost all Chechens belong to the Hanafi school of thought of Sunni Islam.^[12] Salafism was introduced to the population in the 1950s. Some of the rebels involved in the modern Chechen wars are Salafis, but the majority are not.^[18]"

Conclusion: it sucks to be a woman or a minority in Chechnya.

However, check out the Chechnyan constitution (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/cc00000_.html):

From the preamble:

"We, the multinational people of the Chechen Republic,
being aware of its historical responsibility for the establishment of civil peace and accord in the Chechen Republic,
striving to protect the human rights and liberties as the supreme values and to consolidate the democratic base of society,
abiding by the universally recognized principles of equality of rights and the self-determination of peoples..."

Section 1, Articles 2 and 3:

"Article 2 (The Multinational People, R.F. 3)

(1) The only source of power in the Chechen Republic within the scope of its jurisdiction is to be its multinational people.
(2) The people exercise their power directly, as well as through bodies of state power and local self-government.
(3) The supreme direct expression of the authority of the people is the referendum and free elections.
(4) Establishment of authoritarian rule or conquest of power is intolerable and will be prosecuted through to the law.

Article 3 (Protection of Human Rights, R.F. 2, 7)

(1) The individual, his/ her rights and liberties are to be the supreme values. The Chechen Republic confirms the particular political and legal significance of the rights and liberties of individuals and citizens enclosed in the Constitution of the Chechen Republic as well as in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, for regulating rights and liberties of individuals and citizens.
(2) The creation of conditions which will guarantee every individual a worthy life and unhindered development, civil peace and harmony in society, the preservation and defense of historical and cultural heritage of peoples and their national distinctiveness are the highest goals of the Chechen Republic."

Advice to Chechnya: You can't have it both ways. Pick one: freedom or total suckitude.

Solution: Erm...?

Re: Was That Racist?

2009-02-20T15:55:00.003-05:00

The ad wasn't intending to be racist, but boy oh boy was it a poor choice of symbol. Apes/chimps/etc have been used as racist symbols for black people for a long time, and the average person might not realize that it was Pelosi et al who wrote the bill, but they'll know who Obama is, and they'll probably know the racist connotations of the chimp in the cartoon. The writer was obviously trying to say that whoever wrote the bill is as stupid as a chimp, but wow, I can understand those who are rather offended by it. I am slightly, though I'm much more offended by the stupidity of the cartoonist!!

Was That Racist?

2009-02-20T13:34:00.005-05:00

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aq3GJy7iyar8&refer=us

A NY Post cartoon, inspired by that crazy face-mauling chimp who had to be shot by the police, published a cartoon with two cops standing over a chimp that one cop had just shot and killed. The other cop says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." As in, the stimulus bill is so bad it must have come from a chimpanzee! Har har, someone take that typewriter back! It's not Shakespeare yet!

.....

But some have alleged that this cartoon is racist. Supposedly, because there's a chimp, and the chimp is supposed to be responsible for the stimulus bill, he must represent Obama. (Because racist people think black people look like monkeys!)

I dunno about that. Dead chimps don't make me think of black people. Or the president. But maybe that's because I'm just an ignorant white girl who doesn't understand the implications of shit that doesn't occur to people who aren't fixated on race.

But seriously, that chimp did NOT represent Obama. Why? Because Obama didn't write the stimulus bill - people like Pelosi and Reid did. So, maybe the cartoon was comparing the silly Democratic leadership to chimps.

Maybe? You think? Naaah, because then it wouldn't be racist, because Pelosi and Reid are white people, the oppressors! In that scenario there's nothing to get pissed about! What the hell is Sharpton supposed to do with the stick up his ass if there's no blatant racism to rant about? Look, it's very important that we all believe the cartoon was meant to be racist and get someone fired because otherwise we'll have to face the fact that Sharpton isn't relevant anymore.

So yeah, it was racist. TOTALLY. I'm so freakin' offended.

Why Sci-Fi Writers are the Most Useful People

2009-02-20T12:58:00.001-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496309,00.html

What might happen without us to think of this stuff before it happens?

"A Different Thought on What the Word Meant"

2009-02-19T09:41:00.002-05:00

http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget

Someone send this PD a dictionary.

Re: Well, THAT was mature

2009-02-17T11:19:00.000-05:00

A professor has no right to shut up his student, unless he's flat wrong (say, in a math course, and the professor stops to correct him). It's simply uncalled for to call your student a "fascist", especially when the term means "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (thanks m-w.com!). This student was speaking his mind, and it's only right to let him do so, then argue against it later on. Sounds like the professor let his beliefs compromise his academic integrity there.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of same-sex marriage, and treat it as a civil rights issue. But I would never threaten expulsion to a student (if I was a professor) who didn't agree with me! Shameful.

Well, THAT was mature

2009-02-17T11:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Student-Sues-Says-Prof-Called-Him-a-Fascist-Bastard.html

When a student (Jonathan Lopez) in his public speaking class gave a speech against gay marriage in class, professor John Matteson called the student a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish. Apparently, the professor also threated to have Jonathan expelled after the student complained to the higher-ups.

This is stupid. If you want gay marriage legal, you need to recognize that in some states, it's going to come down to the voters. You need to understand WHY people oppose it if you want to wage a successful pro gay marriage campaign. Just calling people "hateful" or "ignorant" or "brainwashed" will make them LESS likely to support your position. DUH.

First Post!

2009-02-16T14:54:00.000-05:00

As opposed to the actual first "test" post and the first post to come that will include relevant content. W00t!

Test

2009-02-16T14:47:00.001-05:00

test