Camera opens on white set with Mac, PC, and two other characters: TS.com and judge.
Queue Music
Mac: Hello, I'm a Mac.
PC: And I'm a PC. Say, Mac, I hear you're coming out with a Mac Mini.
Mac: How'd you hear about that?
PC: Oh I don't know. Maybe on a little website called thinksecret.com (point to TS.com character)
TS.com: Yep, I'm the one who said it.
Mac: Who's your source?
TS.com: I'm not telling.
Mac: (enraged, grabbing TS.com by the neck) Tell me who, Goddamnit!TS.com: I won't! I'm a journalist.
PC: (Enjoying the spectacle) Let's ask the judge.
Judge: Yep, Mac is right. It's a trade secret, so the source isn't protected.
Mac: (pulling a pistol from the back of his pants, puts it to TS.com's head, and pulls the trigger. Blood spatters the all white set.) Take that, mother fucker!
PC: Can he do that?
Judge: Yep.
Queue Apple Logo
NOTE TO AD AGENTS: Do not air this commercial along side the famous Apple 1984 ad.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
If Republicans Had Any Brains, They Would Despise Ann Coulter
What is the fun in being a Liberal if we can't point out all the fun things that Conservatives do? After all, Ann Coulter just released a new book, and even though it isn't selling well, it is entitled "If Democrats Had Any Brains The Would be Republicans" which entitles me to poke her friends.
1) Britney Spear's 16 year old sister is poised to catch up with her as an unfit parent. I'll forgive that fact that this is a totally unnewsworthy news item because I learned that some publisher of inspirational material was going to do a book about family values with Britney's sister and Mom.
It's too yummy. How can a publisher of Bibles decide to use Britney Spear's Mom as a role model after such a motherly job of sexualizing her teenage daughters? Oh wait, I know. Because they worship the Almighty $$$$.
2) But I guess the Southern Baptist line is you can't blame the parent for their fucked up kids--you know, because Huckabee's kid hanged a dog at Boy Scout camp. Well, at least the fact he was at a Boy Scout camp proves he's not gay. If only Larry Craig went to Boy Scout camp, he'have one more link in his chainmail defense against being called gay.
3) Mitt Romney's Dad marched with MLK, but "figuratively" rather than "literally." I wonder if his tears when he heard of the end of the Mormon ban on black clergy were figurative as well. Way to try to pander--figurative attendance at events that the traditional GOP base opposed (with guns, dogs, and firehoses) at the time.
Update: Apparently when Mitt defended the figurativeness of the attendance at the event, he said "when we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there." Admittedly, I missed this until it was pointed out to me. But I'm not a sports fan.
4) This is a bit old, but great because it demonstrates a point that I've always made that seems to offend Texans--namely that Texans who are gung ho for guns harbor a secret desire to catch a burglar so they can get a "clean" thrill of killing another human being (or, by their thinking, a sub-human being--the dead burglars weren't black but at least they were Hispanic, and probably illegal to boot). In fact I've only said one thing that offends Texans more--namely that the purple weeds along the highways are ugly. Turns out they are state flower.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml
1) Britney Spear's 16 year old sister is poised to catch up with her as an unfit parent. I'll forgive that fact that this is a totally unnewsworthy news item because I learned that some publisher of inspirational material was going to do a book about family values with Britney's sister and Mom.
It's too yummy. How can a publisher of Bibles decide to use Britney Spear's Mom as a role model after such a motherly job of sexualizing her teenage daughters? Oh wait, I know. Because they worship the Almighty $$$$.
2) But I guess the Southern Baptist line is you can't blame the parent for their fucked up kids--you know, because Huckabee's kid hanged a dog at Boy Scout camp. Well, at least the fact he was at a Boy Scout camp proves he's not gay. If only Larry Craig went to Boy Scout camp, he'have one more link in his chainmail defense against being called gay.
3) Mitt Romney's Dad marched with MLK, but "figuratively" rather than "literally." I wonder if his tears when he heard of the end of the Mormon ban on black clergy were figurative as well. Way to try to pander--figurative attendance at events that the traditional GOP base opposed (with guns, dogs, and firehoses) at the time.
Update: Apparently when Mitt defended the figurativeness of the attendance at the event, he said "when we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there." Admittedly, I missed this until it was pointed out to me. But I'm not a sports fan.
4) This is a bit old, but great because it demonstrates a point that I've always made that seems to offend Texans--namely that Texans who are gung ho for guns harbor a secret desire to catch a burglar so they can get a "clean" thrill of killing another human being (or, by their thinking, a sub-human being--the dead burglars weren't black but at least they were Hispanic, and probably illegal to boot). In fact I've only said one thing that offends Texans more--namely that the purple weeds along the highways are ugly. Turns out they are state flower.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Democratic vs. Republican Primaries
The "primary" dilemma! The Republican has to choose the entree and the Democrat has to choose the dessert:
Entrees
Liver and kidney spiced with salt and pepper and fried in lard
Ox testicle served raw in red wine vinegar
Pickled pigs snout with mushrooms
Desserts
Frozen chocolate creme pie with graham cracker crust covered in whipped cream
White chocolate mousse in a milk chocolate shells with raspberry puree
Warm cinnamon apple pie with vanilla bean ice cream bowl filled with tawny port
Entrees
Liver and kidney spiced with salt and pepper and fried in lard
Ox testicle served raw in red wine vinegar
Pickled pigs snout with mushrooms
Desserts
Frozen chocolate creme pie with graham cracker crust covered in whipped cream
White chocolate mousse in a milk chocolate shells with raspberry puree
Warm cinnamon apple pie with vanilla bean ice cream bowl filled with tawny port
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Romney Attacks Huckabee for Attacking Bush
Yay!!! Huckabee did only one Republican candidate has done before. He criticized Bush's "bunker mentality" with regard to the GWOT. Not that it takes much courage to point out that wrong are wrong...
He was swiftly attacked by Romney. This is no surprise. When it comes to foreign policy there one and only one candidate who truly understands the GWOT. That is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, his extreme libertarianism makes him seem insane. Yes, I too think his desire to reduce the US government to only the enumerated powers of the Constitution is too much--but that doesn't mean he can't properly analyze the American role in the modern world system and why it causes the GWOT. In fact, he is the only one who can.
I heard Romney on C-SPAN telling his listeners a myth from the annals of American Exceptionalism. He said that the United States is the only country to sacrifice the blood of its children in faraway lands and not take land, "the only thing that's worth something," in return. In fact, the United States didn't take land because we are in a new economic system. Instead of taking land and trying to control it, we "hire" the current or a next group of leaders who will make sure that laws are passed that allow American interests to control their resources. Saudi Arabia should be the most heavenly place on earth given it's vast mineral wealth--instead it sends most of its oil over to the US where we waste driving alone 10 miles to work everyday (busted). Then, they make sure that the proceeds of the sales are invested into the US economy. The first Gulf War was not about oil--Saddam would love to sell it on the world market--it was about the ownership of the Bank of Kuwait. Most Americans don't know how this works, so when 19 hijackers flew planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (failure) the Capitol or White House, the first question on most American's minds was "why do they hate us?" Any American who didn't already know why they hate us is 100% unqualified to applaud when Rudy Guiliani slaps down Ron Paul for telling the truth about the GWOT. Yet, all the knuckle-dragging yokels in the audience did applaud Rudy for smaking Ron Paul for telling the truth.
Look, I know that 9/11 stung. It hurt me, too. But if you are incapable of detaching yourself emotionally and realizing that the attackers had legitimate grievances against the United States and its client states, then you really aren't qualified to make rational decisions in the voting booth that will improve the world. If you are not capable of that detachment, then you are a pawn in the hands of the demagogues who will lead the world in the wrong direction. And, sadly, the only one not demagoguing this issue in both the GOP and Dem Party is Ron Paul. I'm hoping that the Dems will come around once in the White House. I'm not counting on it for the GOP.
Anyway, when Huckabee became the second GOP candidate to dare to speak the truth over this emotional issue, Romney attacked him. Why? Romney has the best judgement of all the candidates. Why attack Huckabee for a moment of correctness? I guess because he knows that the GOP is thoroughly incapable of acknowledging the effect of years of our American foreign policy. Like a parent protects their criminal children when the police accuse them of wrongdoing, the GOP protects the USA against true and accurate charges of behaviors that are unethical, illegal, immoral, and sinful. I wish the average American would wake up to the fact that we expect the leaders of these countries to repress their citizens, that we committed genocide against the native Americans, that the Stars & Bars represent a dispicable chapter from our racist past, that we stole Texas and California fom Mexico (and invaded in 1848 and "paid" them for it--like a rapist throwing a few $20's on his shattered victim as if that turns her from a rape victim to a guilty whore.) But no--instead when those capable of intellectual detachment point these facts out, we are called "Blame America First"-ers by the anti-intellectual crowd.
In closing I leave you with a quote form Arch-Conservative Irving Kristol--I wish it weren't true but it is, and it explains why Dr. Ron Paul got booed by the GOP base and why Rudy's attack on him was cheered, and why Romney's attack on Huckabee will succeed: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
When it comes to foreigh policy, Ron Paul is talking in the truths of highly educated adults and Romney and Rudy are talking in the truths for children. Sad.
He was swiftly attacked by Romney. This is no surprise. When it comes to foreign policy there one and only one candidate who truly understands the GWOT. That is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, his extreme libertarianism makes him seem insane. Yes, I too think his desire to reduce the US government to only the enumerated powers of the Constitution is too much--but that doesn't mean he can't properly analyze the American role in the modern world system and why it causes the GWOT. In fact, he is the only one who can.
I heard Romney on C-SPAN telling his listeners a myth from the annals of American Exceptionalism. He said that the United States is the only country to sacrifice the blood of its children in faraway lands and not take land, "the only thing that's worth something," in return. In fact, the United States didn't take land because we are in a new economic system. Instead of taking land and trying to control it, we "hire" the current or a next group of leaders who will make sure that laws are passed that allow American interests to control their resources. Saudi Arabia should be the most heavenly place on earth given it's vast mineral wealth--instead it sends most of its oil over to the US where we waste driving alone 10 miles to work everyday (busted). Then, they make sure that the proceeds of the sales are invested into the US economy. The first Gulf War was not about oil--Saddam would love to sell it on the world market--it was about the ownership of the Bank of Kuwait. Most Americans don't know how this works, so when 19 hijackers flew planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (failure) the Capitol or White House, the first question on most American's minds was "why do they hate us?" Any American who didn't already know why they hate us is 100% unqualified to applaud when Rudy Guiliani slaps down Ron Paul for telling the truth about the GWOT. Yet, all the knuckle-dragging yokels in the audience did applaud Rudy for smaking Ron Paul for telling the truth.
Look, I know that 9/11 stung. It hurt me, too. But if you are incapable of detaching yourself emotionally and realizing that the attackers had legitimate grievances against the United States and its client states, then you really aren't qualified to make rational decisions in the voting booth that will improve the world. If you are not capable of that detachment, then you are a pawn in the hands of the demagogues who will lead the world in the wrong direction. And, sadly, the only one not demagoguing this issue in both the GOP and Dem Party is Ron Paul. I'm hoping that the Dems will come around once in the White House. I'm not counting on it for the GOP.
Anyway, when Huckabee became the second GOP candidate to dare to speak the truth over this emotional issue, Romney attacked him. Why? Romney has the best judgement of all the candidates. Why attack Huckabee for a moment of correctness? I guess because he knows that the GOP is thoroughly incapable of acknowledging the effect of years of our American foreign policy. Like a parent protects their criminal children when the police accuse them of wrongdoing, the GOP protects the USA against true and accurate charges of behaviors that are unethical, illegal, immoral, and sinful. I wish the average American would wake up to the fact that we expect the leaders of these countries to repress their citizens, that we committed genocide against the native Americans, that the Stars & Bars represent a dispicable chapter from our racist past, that we stole Texas and California fom Mexico (and invaded in 1848 and "paid" them for it--like a rapist throwing a few $20's on his shattered victim as if that turns her from a rape victim to a guilty whore.) But no--instead when those capable of intellectual detachment point these facts out, we are called "Blame America First"-ers by the anti-intellectual crowd.
In closing I leave you with a quote form Arch-Conservative Irving Kristol--I wish it weren't true but it is, and it explains why Dr. Ron Paul got booed by the GOP base and why Rudy's attack on him was cheered, and why Romney's attack on Huckabee will succeed: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
When it comes to foreigh policy, Ron Paul is talking in the truths of highly educated adults and Romney and Rudy are talking in the truths for children. Sad.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Response to a Mainstream Christian
I have a good old friend who is a mainstream Christian and finds fault with some of my rantings against what I call "the Christians". He defended the normal Christian. Here is my response:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that most Christians are sane and normal. After all, America is (by and large) sane and normal, and it is populated by 85% people claiming to be Christian. The sad thing is that--not just the loudest Christian voices, but really the only audible Christian voices--are those of the rabid end of the spectrum. Hence my severe extreme absolute frustration! I do believe that those who make themselves out to be the leaders of Christianity DO want to teach Creationism side by side with--if not instead of--evolution. And that they DO either hate or fear gays (those who don't know gays) or are atleast more than willing to use hatred/fear of gays as a political wedge issue (now it's the illegal immigrants on the wedge issue firing line, though). Gay marriage would do absolutely nothing detremental to heterosexual marriage. The only effect on heterosexuals would be that a heterosexual would be much less likely to marry an in-the-closet opposite sex partner, hence they'd be less likely to ruin each of their lives (e.g. Ted Haggard & Larry Craig). Any man who loves his wife won't love her any less just because the couple down the street is a gay couple. If a married couple can't respect their own marriage in a society that allows gay marriage, then that is a severe deficiency of that couple--cutting of their noses to spite their faces, I guess. I just don't see how that heterosexual couple would let such a thing spoil the beautiful wonderful thing they have together. I just doesn't compute. And the absolute worst thing would be to put into the Constitution an amendment that removes a right of a group of people. The Constitution should only limit and enumerate government powers and guarantee citizen rights. It shouldn't limit citizen rights. Ever. Ever. It's just sad that Congress has members who, while understanding this, still use the "marriage amendment" to play political chicken with the issue.
I also think that race is an issue. If it weren't, I can't imagine that George Allen would have said to Macaca, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia". Fortunately, race is much less of an issue than it was in past elections. Despite all that happens, I still see the state of society getting better and better every year. Where others see decay, I only see improvement. 2007 is better than 2006 which is better than 2005. 2008 will be even better! Society's acceptance of diversity is increasing every year. Race is much less of an issue than 30 years ago. Fortunately, in the area of gay marriage, the divide is much more intergenerational than partisan. When the boomers are dead and the Gen-X'ers run the country, gay marriage will be a reality. And the world will still continue to get better.
I'm happy to hear that you are as afraid of the fanatics as I am. I hope you agree that when Huckabee says that God is responsible for his rise in the polls, or that when Falwell says liberals, feminists, and gays are responsible for 9/11, or when Pat Robertson says that the residents of Dover, PA better not turn to God for their problems because they voted out the pro-ID school board, that you completely understand why we liberals see those as very scary abuses of religion by prominent religious leaders in order to acheive their political ends. I hope that all good Christians view those politiziations of Christianity as being damaging to both the nation, and to Christianity (I'm sure you can see how it's damaged mainstream Christianity when you read my remarks). Can you blame liberals for wanting to smack down Christians when we see people buying/reading Ann Coulter's books after she says that we should invade all the Middle Eastern countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. If these Christians weren't like this, if they didn't try to impose prayer on captive audiences at graduations and football games, impose graven images of the 10 Commandments on public buildings (2nd Commandment, Chief Justice Moore?), didn't make a scene when a Hindu opened the Senate with a morning prayer, didn't freak out when a store clerk says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", didn't claim that the Founding Fathers were more religious than they actually were, then secular liberals wouldn't act like cats being rubbed the wrong way. I just don't want to hear that when a person--who was homeschooled by a very Christian family, who went to missionary school, whose brother goes to Oral Roberts (hmm.. have they been in the news lately?)--shoots up a bunch of religious people, that the fault lies with the "secular media." Why should the blame be shifted off his own community/parents and onto my community when such a person commits such a crime? Don't make the seculars a scapegoat when a wacko raised in a hyper-religious environment sees the hyprocrisy and is severely unbalanced by that revelation. Sure, we seculars may be pointing out the hypocrisy, but don't blame the messenger. Besides, if we seculars had our way, he wouldn't have easy access to his arsenal. The ownership of such firepower seems to be correlated with religious belief--for what reason, I can't understand.
I guess in the end I really like Lincoln's quote: "I don't pray that God is on our side. I pray that we are on God's side." Anytime a politically oriented religious leader self-righteously assumes that God is on his side, it really turns us off (especially when we find that leader is filthy rich [while soliciting donations from the elderly on fixed incomes], fornicates, supports non-religious political causes based on greed, etc). Even the lay people who arrogantly know they are going to heaven rather than humbly hope they are going to heaven bother me--salvation should be based on one's works--not a one time promise of a "personal relationship with Christ". When McCain said he sees the Hand of God when he looks at the Grand Canyon in a debate, that doesn't bother me one bit. I know the feeling he's talking about. I don't think it's the "hand of God", but he and I are just naming the same feeling with different names. I am a believer in the Golden Rule, too. I believe in helping those down on their luck. I went to a Unitarian church in Houston and enjoyed it. I love visiting churches in Europe and temples in Japan. Each yoga practice I go to is opened and closed with what is essentially a Hindu ceremony. If one wants to believe that a god is the best way to explain our existence, that is fine. When one says that the belief in a god is necessary to be moral, my hackles get up. Then when one starts to use the belief that one must believe in god to be moral to institutionalize religion into society/government, my hackles get up even more. I'll be happy when the Christian leaders stop complaining about being repressed by the secularists. If you are Christian I don't care if you wish me a Merry Christmas. It's your right. If you are Jewish and you wish me a Happy Hannukah, that's fine too. When a party A greets a party B, if the greeting is meaningful to either party, the greeting is OK, as far as I'm concerned. And if Christian employee A is representing a department store and doesn't want to have to assume that customer B is Jewish because he has a hooked nose, what's wrong with Happy Holidays, Bill O'Reilly?
I guess my long winded point is that I wish the sane religious people would start restraining their own nutjobs so we liberals don't have to. I don't have ill will toward religion in general. I do have extreme animosity to the abuse of religion when it is used to attack me, my beliefs, my values, my freedom, my rights, and my future--and I will defend my side against that by going on the offense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that most Christians are sane and normal. After all, America is (by and large) sane and normal, and it is populated by 85% people claiming to be Christian. The sad thing is that--not just the loudest Christian voices, but really the only audible Christian voices--are those of the rabid end of the spectrum. Hence my severe extreme absolute frustration! I do believe that those who make themselves out to be the leaders of Christianity DO want to teach Creationism side by side with--if not instead of--evolution. And that they DO either hate or fear gays (those who don't know gays) or are atleast more than willing to use hatred/fear of gays as a political wedge issue (now it's the illegal immigrants on the wedge issue firing line, though). Gay marriage would do absolutely nothing detremental to heterosexual marriage. The only effect on heterosexuals would be that a heterosexual would be much less likely to marry an in-the-closet opposite sex partner, hence they'd be less likely to ruin each of their lives (e.g. Ted Haggard & Larry Craig). Any man who loves his wife won't love her any less just because the couple down the street is a gay couple. If a married couple can't respect their own marriage in a society that allows gay marriage, then that is a severe deficiency of that couple--cutting of their noses to spite their faces, I guess. I just don't see how that heterosexual couple would let such a thing spoil the beautiful wonderful thing they have together. I just doesn't compute. And the absolute worst thing would be to put into the Constitution an amendment that removes a right of a group of people. The Constitution should only limit and enumerate government powers and guarantee citizen rights. It shouldn't limit citizen rights. Ever. Ever. It's just sad that Congress has members who, while understanding this, still use the "marriage amendment" to play political chicken with the issue.
I also think that race is an issue. If it weren't, I can't imagine that George Allen would have said to Macaca, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia". Fortunately, race is much less of an issue than it was in past elections. Despite all that happens, I still see the state of society getting better and better every year. Where others see decay, I only see improvement. 2007 is better than 2006 which is better than 2005. 2008 will be even better! Society's acceptance of diversity is increasing every year. Race is much less of an issue than 30 years ago. Fortunately, in the area of gay marriage, the divide is much more intergenerational than partisan. When the boomers are dead and the Gen-X'ers run the country, gay marriage will be a reality. And the world will still continue to get better.
I'm happy to hear that you are as afraid of the fanatics as I am. I hope you agree that when Huckabee says that God is responsible for his rise in the polls, or that when Falwell says liberals, feminists, and gays are responsible for 9/11, or when Pat Robertson says that the residents of Dover, PA better not turn to God for their problems because they voted out the pro-ID school board, that you completely understand why we liberals see those as very scary abuses of religion by prominent religious leaders in order to acheive their political ends. I hope that all good Christians view those politiziations of Christianity as being damaging to both the nation, and to Christianity (I'm sure you can see how it's damaged mainstream Christianity when you read my remarks). Can you blame liberals for wanting to smack down Christians when we see people buying/reading Ann Coulter's books after she says that we should invade all the Middle Eastern countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. If these Christians weren't like this, if they didn't try to impose prayer on captive audiences at graduations and football games, impose graven images of the 10 Commandments on public buildings (2nd Commandment, Chief Justice Moore?), didn't make a scene when a Hindu opened the Senate with a morning prayer, didn't freak out when a store clerk says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", didn't claim that the Founding Fathers were more religious than they actually were, then secular liberals wouldn't act like cats being rubbed the wrong way. I just don't want to hear that when a person--who was homeschooled by a very Christian family, who went to missionary school, whose brother goes to Oral Roberts (hmm.. have they been in the news lately?)--shoots up a bunch of religious people, that the fault lies with the "secular media." Why should the blame be shifted off his own community/parents and onto my community when such a person commits such a crime? Don't make the seculars a scapegoat when a wacko raised in a hyper-religious environment sees the hyprocrisy and is severely unbalanced by that revelation. Sure, we seculars may be pointing out the hypocrisy, but don't blame the messenger. Besides, if we seculars had our way, he wouldn't have easy access to his arsenal. The ownership of such firepower seems to be correlated with religious belief--for what reason, I can't understand.
I guess in the end I really like Lincoln's quote: "I don't pray that God is on our side. I pray that we are on God's side." Anytime a politically oriented religious leader self-righteously assumes that God is on his side, it really turns us off (especially when we find that leader is filthy rich [while soliciting donations from the elderly on fixed incomes], fornicates, supports non-religious political causes based on greed, etc). Even the lay people who arrogantly know they are going to heaven rather than humbly hope they are going to heaven bother me--salvation should be based on one's works--not a one time promise of a "personal relationship with Christ". When McCain said he sees the Hand of God when he looks at the Grand Canyon in a debate, that doesn't bother me one bit. I know the feeling he's talking about. I don't think it's the "hand of God", but he and I are just naming the same feeling with different names. I am a believer in the Golden Rule, too. I believe in helping those down on their luck. I went to a Unitarian church in Houston and enjoyed it. I love visiting churches in Europe and temples in Japan. Each yoga practice I go to is opened and closed with what is essentially a Hindu ceremony. If one wants to believe that a god is the best way to explain our existence, that is fine. When one says that the belief in a god is necessary to be moral, my hackles get up. Then when one starts to use the belief that one must believe in god to be moral to institutionalize religion into society/government, my hackles get up even more. I'll be happy when the Christian leaders stop complaining about being repressed by the secularists. If you are Christian I don't care if you wish me a Merry Christmas. It's your right. If you are Jewish and you wish me a Happy Hannukah, that's fine too. When a party A greets a party B, if the greeting is meaningful to either party, the greeting is OK, as far as I'm concerned. And if Christian employee A is representing a department store and doesn't want to have to assume that customer B is Jewish because he has a hooked nose, what's wrong with Happy Holidays, Bill O'Reilly?
I guess my long winded point is that I wish the sane religious people would start restraining their own nutjobs so we liberals don't have to. I don't have ill will toward religion in general. I do have extreme animosity to the abuse of religion when it is used to attack me, my beliefs, my values, my freedom, my rights, and my future--and I will defend my side against that by going on the offense.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Morning Joe
Starbucks, Ladro, Victrola, Tully's, Stumptown, Kaladi, or Scarborough--doesn't matter. I love them all. Yes. I am a liberal to the end, but I have respect for Joe Scarborough--he ran for Congress and won. And, now he is not a hypocrit like O'Reilly, et alia.
There are actually a few conservatives I like. Scarborough is one. Rehnquist was one when he lived. If I had to choose conservatives to have a beer with I'd also choose in descending order, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, John Sununu (the Senator--not the high roller), John McCain, and believe it or not, Rumsfeld.
There are actually a few conservatives I like. Scarborough is one. Rehnquist was one when he lived. If I had to choose conservatives to have a beer with I'd also choose in descending order, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, John Sununu (the Senator--not the high roller), John McCain, and believe it or not, Rumsfeld.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Why C-SPAN2, Comcast?
Last Tuesday, Comcast decided to move C-SPAN2 from the same tier as C-SPAN and put it into the digital tier. Now Channel 25 is just empty wasted bandwidth. Why, Comcast? Why?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sodom and Gomorrah in Colorado?
Check out the wikipedia entry on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Read the Jewish interpretations (it was a Jewish story before it was a Christian story after all). Inhospitality and greed were the sins God punished.
Now, from The Guardian:
Then the attacks on the New Life Church... Well it founded by Ted Haggard. I don't mind the fact that Ted Haggard was using crystal meth and hiring gay prostitutes. I do mind that, in spite of that, he formed a church that hates gays for being gay and that is particularly effective in fleecing it's benighted flock. We saw an example of his shamelessness with regard to money when, after he was defrocked, he tried to use a money laundering charity (run by a sex offender) scheme to solicit donations to himself.
Did you read the Josephus section in the wiki article above:
So if you are one who believes in God and that God intervenes in human affairs to punish the wicked, you better wake up to the fact that this Matthew Murray character just might be an instrument of God. Thank goodness, I'm not a believer, and I can regard him as just a murderer. I don't condone criminals even when they attack other criminal organizations.
I feel sorry for those who lives were shattered and lost. The unknowing pawns in the evil Right Wing Faith Machine don't deserve to die while those at the top fleece their elderly, poor, uneducated, and credulous of their money by making false promises, lies, deceptions, and ruses to do so.
How these types of Christian leaders can look themselves in the mirror, I don't know. They will tell me that I, as a non-believer, can have no moral compass because I don't believe in Hell. When, in fact, if someone thinks that having a "personal relationship with Christ" is the minimum necesssary to stay out of Hell, then they can truly be unethical. Especially when they back up their faith with GOP values of intolerance, anti-intellectualism, greed, and the belief that any means necessary to get power is valid.
Read the Jewish interpretations (it was a Jewish story before it was a Christian story after all). Inhospitality and greed were the sins God punished.
Now, from The Guardian:
Maybe it is Mark 6:10-6:11? (I'm not a believer, why do I even know this?)Wick said the suspect spent several minutes speaking with people inside the dorm. Peter Warren, director of Youth With a Mission Denver, said the man asked whether he could spend the night. Several youths called on Tiffany Johnson, the
center's director of hospitality."The director of hospitality was called. That's when he opened fire," Warren said. Johnson, 26, was killed.
Then the attacks on the New Life Church... Well it founded by Ted Haggard. I don't mind the fact that Ted Haggard was using crystal meth and hiring gay prostitutes. I do mind that, in spite of that, he formed a church that hates gays for being gay and that is particularly effective in fleecing it's benighted flock. We saw an example of his shamelessness with regard to money when, after he was defrocked, he tried to use a money laundering charity (run by a sex offender) scheme to solicit donations to himself.
Did you read the Josephus section in the wiki article above:
"Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward."
So if you are one who believes in God and that God intervenes in human affairs to punish the wicked, you better wake up to the fact that this Matthew Murray character just might be an instrument of God. Thank goodness, I'm not a believer, and I can regard him as just a murderer. I don't condone criminals even when they attack other criminal organizations.
I feel sorry for those who lives were shattered and lost. The unknowing pawns in the evil Right Wing Faith Machine don't deserve to die while those at the top fleece their elderly, poor, uneducated, and credulous of their money by making false promises, lies, deceptions, and ruses to do so.
How these types of Christian leaders can look themselves in the mirror, I don't know. They will tell me that I, as a non-believer, can have no moral compass because I don't believe in Hell. When, in fact, if someone thinks that having a "personal relationship with Christ" is the minimum necesssary to stay out of Hell, then they can truly be unethical. Especially when they back up their faith with GOP values of intolerance, anti-intellectualism, greed, and the belief that any means necessary to get power is valid.
Friday, December 7, 2007
The Wrong Way To Handle Right of Way
OK, what is about this intersection that makes people throw away the traffic laws in favor of a totally undesired grant of right of way. I participated in two of these horrible incidents in two days.
The first time, I was a pedestrian and although I was totally and unambiguously clear of a certain car on 12th, the driver decided to stop. There was a car on Mercer at the stop sign. Well the car that had stopped on 12th for no apparent reason refused to go until the car at the stop sign crossed 12th. Why? The right of way laws are clear, are they not?
Then the next day at the same intersection, I was on westbound Mercer at the stop sign wanting to turn left. There was a car in front of me also westbound. That car went through after stopping. There was a also an eastbound car at the stop sign who wanted to go straight. He had the right of way--but he wouldn't go until I went and a huge gap in the traffic was lost because this moron wouldn't go straight and get the hell out of the way so I could turn left. Now I'll agree that if the intersection were a 4-way stop sign intersection, that driver would have been right because right of way rotates around to the right. But at stop signs where only one street has stop signs, the guy going straight has the right of way, does he not?
I DO NOT WANT people to try to grant me the right of way. I want the clear and unambiguous right of way rules to control who has the right of way. Period. The "politeness" of such people who do this is not appreciated by any sane driver.
The first time, I was a pedestrian and although I was totally and unambiguously clear of a certain car on 12th, the driver decided to stop. There was a car on Mercer at the stop sign. Well the car that had stopped on 12th for no apparent reason refused to go until the car at the stop sign crossed 12th. Why? The right of way laws are clear, are they not?
Then the next day at the same intersection, I was on westbound Mercer at the stop sign wanting to turn left. There was a car in front of me also westbound. That car went through after stopping. There was a also an eastbound car at the stop sign who wanted to go straight. He had the right of way--but he wouldn't go until I went and a huge gap in the traffic was lost because this moron wouldn't go straight and get the hell out of the way so I could turn left. Now I'll agree that if the intersection were a 4-way stop sign intersection, that driver would have been right because right of way rotates around to the right. But at stop signs where only one street has stop signs, the guy going straight has the right of way, does he not?
I DO NOT WANT people to try to grant me the right of way. I want the clear and unambiguous right of way rules to control who has the right of way. Period. The "politeness" of such people who do this is not appreciated by any sane driver.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Mitt & Huckabee vs. Me
OK, Mitt Romney! I listened to your defense of your faith. If you want to defend being a Mormon, go ahead. But don't do it by trying to divert the hatred of America onto us non-believers. All you had to do was wait for us lefties to knock down Huckabee and you wouldn't have had to make this despicable speech.
So what did Huckabee do? Well right now it looks like he sought to lighten the sentence of a man who brutally raped a distant cousin of "Slick Willy" as he would be called by the coddlers of those would rape his 17 year old female relatives. Well it turns out that this guy raped and murdered someone else after Huckabee caved to the pressure of Righties who apparently think that raping Clinton's kin is OK and argued for his release from prison.
In some ways it's like Willie Horton in that the released guy raped and murdered someone. But Dukakis never felt he ought he intervene on Horton's behalf simply because of the white hot hatred for a relative of the original victim. Maybe it's OK for an ordained Southern Baptist minister to participate in such injustice against distant relatives of political enemies--after all, they are men of God. And I'm a non-believer so what do I know? I have no morals because I don't believe in hell. And the other way it's different is that nobody sought to use a really scary ugly picture of this Wayne Dumond to scare the living bejesus out of the white folk.
So what did Huckabee do? Well right now it looks like he sought to lighten the sentence of a man who brutally raped a distant cousin of "Slick Willy" as he would be called by the coddlers of those would rape his 17 year old female relatives. Well it turns out that this guy raped and murdered someone else after Huckabee caved to the pressure of Righties who apparently think that raping Clinton's kin is OK and argued for his release from prison.
In some ways it's like Willie Horton in that the released guy raped and murdered someone. But Dukakis never felt he ought he intervene on Horton's behalf simply because of the white hot hatred for a relative of the original victim. Maybe it's OK for an ordained Southern Baptist minister to participate in such injustice against distant relatives of political enemies--after all, they are men of God. And I'm a non-believer so what do I know? I have no morals because I don't believe in hell. And the other way it's different is that nobody sought to use a really scary ugly picture of this Wayne Dumond to scare the living bejesus out of the white folk.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Chemistry.com Sends Me eMail
Earlier this week, they send me an email entitled 'Mark - Can't Beat The "Romo"ance'. I had not the faintest idea what it meant, so I opened it up. Turns out it was a reference to the quarterback from the evil Dallas Cowboys who spanked the beloved Green Bay Packers the previous Thursday. OK chemistry.com! If you're going to hit me with sports references, don't do it with a figure I have every reason to hate (even though I never heard of before I opened that email.)
Then today I get one from chemistry.com titled "Mark - Don't Ask Him To Sit On Santa's Lap". Now while this is likely to offend most men who actually do know who that Romo character is, I would think that chemistry.com would at least look at the "X seeking Y" and if Y is "women", they would send out emails with "Mark - Don't Ask Her To Sit On Santa's Lap".
So why am I getting email from chemistry.com? Well because I tried match.com and match.com needed something more eHarmony-ish so they developed chemistry.com. So I get the chemistry.com emails.
Then today I get one from chemistry.com titled "Mark - Don't Ask Him To Sit On Santa's Lap". Now while this is likely to offend most men who actually do know who that Romo character is, I would think that chemistry.com would at least look at the "X seeking Y" and if Y is "women", they would send out emails with "Mark - Don't Ask Her To Sit On Santa's Lap".
So why am I getting email from chemistry.com? Well because I tried match.com and match.com needed something more eHarmony-ish so they developed chemistry.com. So I get the chemistry.com emails.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Battlestar Galactica DVD's (aka Crack)
I've been renting Battlestar Galactica DVDs. Unfortunately, there are at most 4 episodes on each DVD, so it takes a few rentals to get a season.
Well, the last DVD of season 1.0 only contains 2 episodes. Dammit! Then I rented Season 2.0 and the last DVD only had 2 episodes. Dammit! And then to add insult to injury, the first episode of Season 2.5 is actually an extended version of the last episode of the last episode of Season 2.0. Monster!
Fortunately, tomorrow is two-fer Tuesday at Video on 15th, so I can rent a pile of DVDs at half price. And two-fer Tuesday runs till Thursday! So I'll probably finish up all the crack this week. Sad. What to watch after that? Deadwood? The Sopranos? I don't know. Nothing I guess.
Update:
Oh No! There is no Season 3.0 at the video store. I have all the crack that's left in my apartment. Somebopdy please come over and shoot me. :(
Well, the last DVD of season 1.0 only contains 2 episodes. Dammit! Then I rented Season 2.0 and the last DVD only had 2 episodes. Dammit! And then to add insult to injury, the first episode of Season 2.5 is actually an extended version of the last episode of the last episode of Season 2.0. Monster!
Fortunately, tomorrow is two-fer Tuesday at Video on 15th, so I can rent a pile of DVDs at half price. And two-fer Tuesday runs till Thursday! So I'll probably finish up all the crack this week. Sad. What to watch after that? Deadwood? The Sopranos? I don't know. Nothing I guess.
Update:
Oh No! There is no Season 3.0 at the video store. I have all the crack that's left in my apartment. Somebopdy please come over and shoot me. :(
Pedestrian Adventures
Yesterday I was walking down Broadway and when I went to cross Pine Street--having a walk signal--the moron in the westbound car decided to turn right on red. She cut off my walk. IMHO the pedestrians with a valid walk signal have the right of way over vehicles at a red light intending to turn right.
It's not that I consider pedestrians to be King! When I worked up in Bothell, there was one particular intersection that drove me up the fraking wall. (OK, busted! I've been watching Battlestar Gallactica DVDs lately.) Here's the deal. Apparently in Washington, pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks or something. So when I would approach this godforsaken intersection, any vehicles going by would come to a stop. A full and complete stop. In other words, they were going at their regular speed of 25 or 30 MPH and because they saw me out of the corner of their eye, they decelerated, stopped, settled, let me cross, and then went on their merry way.
Except, it took them longer to fraking decelerate to a complete stop than it would have taken if they had just driven through the goddamned intersection. I'm not going to walk in front of a car so I had to wait for them to finish their goddamned deceleration! Then I felt obligated to make haste as I crossed the intersection. Furthermore, I felt an obligation to make some show of appreciation for their goddamned delaying me by not just getting the frak out of my way by getting through the intersection as fast as possible!
Well that was when I working for a company in that area and I'm not there anymore so I don't have to put up with that much. But I still expect cars turning right to wait for me to cross before they make their right on red.
It's not that I consider pedestrians to be King! When I worked up in Bothell, there was one particular intersection that drove me up the fraking wall. (OK, busted! I've been watching Battlestar Gallactica DVDs lately.) Here's the deal. Apparently in Washington, pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks or something. So when I would approach this godforsaken intersection, any vehicles going by would come to a stop. A full and complete stop. In other words, they were going at their regular speed of 25 or 30 MPH and because they saw me out of the corner of their eye, they decelerated, stopped, settled, let me cross, and then went on their merry way.
Except, it took them longer to fraking decelerate to a complete stop than it would have taken if they had just driven through the goddamned intersection. I'm not going to walk in front of a car so I had to wait for them to finish their goddamned deceleration! Then I felt obligated to make haste as I crossed the intersection. Furthermore, I felt an obligation to make some show of appreciation for their goddamned delaying me by not just getting the frak out of my way by getting through the intersection as fast as possible!
Well that was when I working for a company in that area and I'm not there anymore so I don't have to put up with that much. But I still expect cars turning right to wait for me to cross before they make their right on red.
Speaker Newt on In Depth (BookTV aka C-SPAN2)
This Sunday, December 2, Newt Gingrich was on C-SPAN2's BookTV on a monthly program called In Depth.
Now, I love watching Newt on C-SPAN. I don't agree with his knuckle dragging social conservatism, but he's really fun to watch. I remember watching him years ago debating a paleontologist as to whether T. Rex was primarily a scavenger or a hunter. (Newt argued for hunter, cause he's a Man.) More recently I saw him talking about how the bureacracy would be better if technology were applied to it. As an example he said we should UPS a package to each illegal immigrant and let UPS's tracking system find them. It was a joke of course, but I later saw one of the more dwarven Republicans using the same joke (maybe Tancredo?).
Anyway, naturally the topic of the Clinton impeachment came up. Newt said that the President cannot be above the law and defended his position.
But here's the fun part. He said--with a straight face--that Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison for what he did AS AN EXAMPLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE ABOVE THE LAW!!!!
He mentions Scooter's jail sentence at 2:14:18 in the program. He says that the President should not be above the law 18 seconds later. And 11 seconds later he says Clinton is "fundamentally dishonest on a routine regular basis." I can think of another President that applies to--in fact, a President who promised to restore dignity to the White House.
Scooter and Cheney made it more difficult for the United States to recruit spies because potential spies now know that their probably illegal and risky work on behalf of the United States intelligence community might be exposed in political chess matches--and the President values loyalty to his law breaking minions over the safety of intelligence assets.
Now, I love watching Newt on C-SPAN. I don't agree with his knuckle dragging social conservatism, but he's really fun to watch. I remember watching him years ago debating a paleontologist as to whether T. Rex was primarily a scavenger or a hunter. (Newt argued for hunter, cause he's a Man.) More recently I saw him talking about how the bureacracy would be better if technology were applied to it. As an example he said we should UPS a package to each illegal immigrant and let UPS's tracking system find them. It was a joke of course, but I later saw one of the more dwarven Republicans using the same joke (maybe Tancredo?).
Anyway, naturally the topic of the Clinton impeachment came up. Newt said that the President cannot be above the law and defended his position.
But here's the fun part. He said--with a straight face--that Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison for what he did AS AN EXAMPLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE ABOVE THE LAW!!!!
He mentions Scooter's jail sentence at 2:14:18 in the program. He says that the President should not be above the law 18 seconds later. And 11 seconds later he says Clinton is "fundamentally dishonest on a routine regular basis." I can think of another President that applies to--in fact, a President who promised to restore dignity to the White House.
Scooter and Cheney made it more difficult for the United States to recruit spies because potential spies now know that their probably illegal and risky work on behalf of the United States intelligence community might be exposed in political chess matches--and the President values loyalty to his law breaking minions over the safety of intelligence assets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)