I think she should design a costume and take it up as a profession.
Bat-Gran! Bat-Gran! Bat-Gran!
February 29, 2004
A few weeks ago, Earth had what can only be called a "near miss" in astronomical terms with what looked like an object that could damage a large swath of the Northern Hemisphere. As usual, the popular press oversimplified some of the story, suggesting that it "posed no danger" because it went by so far, about 32 times the distance from the Earth to the moon's orbit.
What should be disturbing is that an object about 500m in size, which would wreak more damage than your average nuclear warhead, passed very close to the Earth, and we had no more than a few days' warning, and would have been able to do nothing but cover our heads and wait it out. We had at most a couple of days' warning, and we weren't really sure until the last minute that we were safe. This is the second such event that I can remember in the last decade.
As Rand Simberg notes, efforts to develop a better, more reliable planetary defense system are starting to be talked about more seriously. Good. While the threat of something truly catastrophic like this seems remote, there have been hugely damaging meteor strikes throughout history, and there will be more. It's something worth talking about, and thinking about, and not really a laughing matter. It's something future generations might really curse us for not putting some time into.
What should be disturbing is that an object about 500m in size, which would wreak more damage than your average nuclear warhead, passed very close to the Earth, and we had no more than a few days' warning, and would have been able to do nothing but cover our heads and wait it out. We had at most a couple of days' warning, and we weren't really sure until the last minute that we were safe. This is the second such event that I can remember in the last decade.
As Rand Simberg notes, efforts to develop a better, more reliable planetary defense system are starting to be talked about more seriously. Good. While the threat of something truly catastrophic like this seems remote, there have been hugely damaging meteor strikes throughout history, and there will be more. It's something worth talking about, and thinking about, and not really a laughing matter. It's something future generations might really curse us for not putting some time into.
Former Secretary of State Al Haig gave a pretty good speech not long ago entitled There Is A West. In it, he expresses some doubt about the spread of democracy, but gives a vigorous and unwavering endorsement of NATO, seeing it as being more vital and necessary than ever, and gives a ringing defense of Western liberal values. Definitely worth reading.
I really think he's right about NATO especially.
(Thanks, Jerry.)
I really think he's right about NATO especially.
(Thanks, Jerry.)
Well, I wasn't going to weigh in on Gibson's The Passion. Mostly because I've decided not to see it. The criticism of Gibson frankly seems over the top, but that's not the reason I'm not interested.
I wasn't going to say anything here until I read Roger Simon's scathing criticism, in which he said the following:
First off, as I said in other people's comment sections here and here, many people seem to believe that what Christ was portrayed as going through in the movie is excessive, that it seems unreal and, in Simon's words, like no one could survive it.
Unfortunately, if you read much on the subject of human torture and human misery--more than most people I mean--you learn a few rather grisley and disturbing things. The main one of which is that what Jesus was put through was relatively tame by Roman standards. Scourging is to literally flay all or most the skin off of someone's back--not usually nicely, with a knife, but with whips and chains and hooks, typically. So long as the back is not broken, people can in fact survive for days after such an experience. It's just brutal and horrible. Similarly, Jesus' crucifixtion itself was relatively tame by Roman standards. He was given something to drink, and he was stabbed, while on the cross. The first alleviated some of his suffering, the second made sure to shorten his suffering if he weren't dead already. It was not unusual for someone crucified to live for a week or two, but Jesus only had to go through it for about a day.
Just to give you another example of Roman cruelty, they sometimes made use of something called "The Brass Bull." It was a large brass statue of a bull, hollowed out inside. In its mouth and nose were pipes. A door was on its side. To punish someone, they would throw them in the door, lock it from the outside, light a fire underneath, and listen to the pleasant sounds of the pipes caused by the shrieking of those being fried to death inside, the air filled with the smoke and aroma.
Not nice people, the Romans.
Someone will undoubtedly suggest that by saying so I'm minimizing Jesus' suffering. No, I'm just telling you, the Romans were Saddam Hussein-level nasty. When they wanted to make an example of you, they made sure to see you humiliated badly and then to die a gruesome death in a horrible public spectacle. Lingering in agony, most of the time. They were, relative to their standards, rather nice to Jesus. Unless you saw a spine being broken or something like that, the flagellation scenes probably cannot possibly be worse than things the Romans actually did to many people they executed. It was also bloody decent of that chap to give him the wine and vinegar.
It wasn't just the Romans, by the way. Henry the VIII used to boil people to death in a big pot. In the 20th century, just read up on things Mengele did, or that the Japanese did to interned prisoners during World War II.
So here's my point: I know all this. I realize I don't particularly want to be treated to a spectacle of that nature, so I don't think I want to go see this movie.
Now, from a Christian perspective? I can explain the significance. Fair warning: I am an apostate from the faith. But I understand the thinking fairly well.
The simple fact is that if you believe that Jesus was God's son, and you believe that any time he wanted to he could have put a stop to what was happening, but did not, then this is deeply spiritually significant for all Christians. He went through something deeply horrible and gruesome--not just getting beat up and then nailed to a cross, but was truly horribly punished. He had the power to stop it by saying just a word, by calling on God the Father to stop it, and did not. And he did not in order to sacrifice his own self to redeem the sins of all mankind.
This is a tale of sadness, remorse, and redemption for serious-minded Christians, and contemplating the suffering Christ went through for mankind's redemption is deeply moving to them. Many of them, anyway. See how Bill Hobbs feels about it, for example. You shouldn't doubt his sincerity, nor the sincerity of other Christians who feel exactly the same way.
Now, to be very clear: I do not believe it. They do. I won't be angry at them if they won't be angry with me. They believe it, I don't, but I respect it.
So, when I hear about The Passion, what exactly do I think? Well, I think I'll get to watch a well-shot depiction of a gruesome torture and execution. Not the worst torture and execution ever perpetrated on a human being by any means, but horrible and gruesome nonetheless. I also get the spiritual significance it has for the committed and pious Christian, but it holds none for me, and is certainly not likely to bring me back into the fold or to make me feel closer to God. So what interest have I in it? Well, none really.
In short: I think it is worth respecting the spiritual significance this has for hundreds of millions of people, and trying your best to understand it even if you reject it. In fact, explaining to them why you reject it might be profitable to you or to them or to both. But it is not porn, and it is not an act of self-aggrandizement. We should give Gibson, and his fellow believers, at least that much credit and respect.
I wasn't going to say anything here until I read Roger Simon's scathing criticism, in which he said the following:
Instead of adapting one of the magnificent spiritual works of world literature, the Gospels, Mr. Gibson has tossed them aside and made two hours of virtually unremitting gore, taking the “Son of Man,” ripping him, shredding him, flaying him, smashing him, bashing him, beating him, mauling him, hammering nails in him, and then starting all over again. And again. And then again. No known human being—of divine origin or not—would have survived even a fiftieth of this. It’s the theatrical equivalent of ten years of root canal work.I believe Simon fails to understand two things. One major, one minor. The major issue, for me, is non-spiritual.
First off, as I said in other people's comment sections here and here, many people seem to believe that what Christ was portrayed as going through in the movie is excessive, that it seems unreal and, in Simon's words, like no one could survive it.
Unfortunately, if you read much on the subject of human torture and human misery--more than most people I mean--you learn a few rather grisley and disturbing things. The main one of which is that what Jesus was put through was relatively tame by Roman standards. Scourging is to literally flay all or most the skin off of someone's back--not usually nicely, with a knife, but with whips and chains and hooks, typically. So long as the back is not broken, people can in fact survive for days after such an experience. It's just brutal and horrible. Similarly, Jesus' crucifixtion itself was relatively tame by Roman standards. He was given something to drink, and he was stabbed, while on the cross. The first alleviated some of his suffering, the second made sure to shorten his suffering if he weren't dead already. It was not unusual for someone crucified to live for a week or two, but Jesus only had to go through it for about a day.
Just to give you another example of Roman cruelty, they sometimes made use of something called "The Brass Bull." It was a large brass statue of a bull, hollowed out inside. In its mouth and nose were pipes. A door was on its side. To punish someone, they would throw them in the door, lock it from the outside, light a fire underneath, and listen to the pleasant sounds of the pipes caused by the shrieking of those being fried to death inside, the air filled with the smoke and aroma.
Not nice people, the Romans.
Someone will undoubtedly suggest that by saying so I'm minimizing Jesus' suffering. No, I'm just telling you, the Romans were Saddam Hussein-level nasty. When they wanted to make an example of you, they made sure to see you humiliated badly and then to die a gruesome death in a horrible public spectacle. Lingering in agony, most of the time. They were, relative to their standards, rather nice to Jesus. Unless you saw a spine being broken or something like that, the flagellation scenes probably cannot possibly be worse than things the Romans actually did to many people they executed. It was also bloody decent of that chap to give him the wine and vinegar.
It wasn't just the Romans, by the way. Henry the VIII used to boil people to death in a big pot. In the 20th century, just read up on things Mengele did, or that the Japanese did to interned prisoners during World War II.
So here's my point: I know all this. I realize I don't particularly want to be treated to a spectacle of that nature, so I don't think I want to go see this movie.
Now, from a Christian perspective? I can explain the significance. Fair warning: I am an apostate from the faith. But I understand the thinking fairly well.
The simple fact is that if you believe that Jesus was God's son, and you believe that any time he wanted to he could have put a stop to what was happening, but did not, then this is deeply spiritually significant for all Christians. He went through something deeply horrible and gruesome--not just getting beat up and then nailed to a cross, but was truly horribly punished. He had the power to stop it by saying just a word, by calling on God the Father to stop it, and did not. And he did not in order to sacrifice his own self to redeem the sins of all mankind.
This is a tale of sadness, remorse, and redemption for serious-minded Christians, and contemplating the suffering Christ went through for mankind's redemption is deeply moving to them. Many of them, anyway. See how Bill Hobbs feels about it, for example. You shouldn't doubt his sincerity, nor the sincerity of other Christians who feel exactly the same way.
Now, to be very clear: I do not believe it. They do. I won't be angry at them if they won't be angry with me. They believe it, I don't, but I respect it.
So, when I hear about The Passion, what exactly do I think? Well, I think I'll get to watch a well-shot depiction of a gruesome torture and execution. Not the worst torture and execution ever perpetrated on a human being by any means, but horrible and gruesome nonetheless. I also get the spiritual significance it has for the committed and pious Christian, but it holds none for me, and is certainly not likely to bring me back into the fold or to make me feel closer to God. So what interest have I in it? Well, none really.
In short: I think it is worth respecting the spiritual significance this has for hundreds of millions of people, and trying your best to understand it even if you reject it. In fact, explaining to them why you reject it might be profitable to you or to them or to both. But it is not porn, and it is not an act of self-aggrandizement. We should give Gibson, and his fellow believers, at least that much credit and respect.
Have an important appointment with a treatment advisor today.
Don't much want to talk about it now. But you deserve to know all is well and getting better.
Still clean. Not wanting anything else but.
Don't much want to talk about it now. But you deserve to know all is well and getting better.
Still clean. Not wanting anything else but.
Posted by dean | PermaLink |
February 28, 2004
Some years ago, I learned an interesting fact: there are now multiple peer-reviewed studies which indicate that Omega-3 fatty acids often significantly improve cogitation and substantially reduce other symptoms of schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder. And, if you check in your DSM-IV, you'll find that both disorders are sometimes misdiagnosed as some form of bipolar disorder.
There is more than one study on this, although a surprising number of psychiatrists are unaware of it. I've lost most of my references, but here's one from Pubmed, and here's another site I found from a group of researchers at Sheffield University reporting on some of their findings.
Yes, the studies are double-blinded and placebo-controlled and peer-reviewed, and show genuinely remarkable results in some patients.
These types of fats are found in high quantities mostly of fish, but for a turbo-charged boost of the stuff, a tablespoon of fresh, cold-pressed flax seed oil, which can be bought at any decent health food store contains a massive amount of Omega-3. The stuff goes rancid (as in, oxidizes) fairly quickly, so pills are a bad idea, and if you buy it by the bottle, you really want to make sure it's fresh, cold-pressed, and refrigerated.
Check with your doctor, but as it's merely dietary fat that can be found in numerous common foods, especially seafoods, it should not interfere with most medications.
If you know any psychiatrists, you might want to mention it to them.
There is more than one study on this, although a surprising number of psychiatrists are unaware of it. I've lost most of my references, but here's one from Pubmed, and here's another site I found from a group of researchers at Sheffield University reporting on some of their findings.
Yes, the studies are double-blinded and placebo-controlled and peer-reviewed, and show genuinely remarkable results in some patients.
These types of fats are found in high quantities mostly of fish, but for a turbo-charged boost of the stuff, a tablespoon of fresh, cold-pressed flax seed oil, which can be bought at any decent health food store contains a massive amount of Omega-3. The stuff goes rancid (as in, oxidizes) fairly quickly, so pills are a bad idea, and if you buy it by the bottle, you really want to make sure it's fresh, cold-pressed, and refrigerated.
Check with your doctor, but as it's merely dietary fat that can be found in numerous common foods, especially seafoods, it should not interfere with most medications.
If you know any psychiatrists, you might want to mention it to them.
Lord of the Rings fans will probably get a kick out of this: Lord of the Peeps.
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Tolkein--like him, don't love him--but I am simply stunned by the work these folks put into this little parody project. It's quite cute.
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Tolkein--like him, don't love him--but I am simply stunned by the work these folks put into this little parody project. It's quite cute.
I have several new friends who will be added to my blogroll over the next two days, as I catch up on things. One step at a time. I still have emails I'm getting to, and phone calls I'm returning.
Two for now are the extraordinarily beautiful Serenity's Journal and the independent Interociter.
And I really, really don't know how I missed Ilyka, who should have been on there months ago, even though she's always wrong about everything.
More to come.
Two for now are the extraordinarily beautiful Serenity's Journal and the independent Interociter.
And I really, really don't know how I missed Ilyka, who should have been on there months ago, even though she's always wrong about everything.
More to come.
Why do I think that Dean's World commenting regular Arnold Harris is behind this, somehow?
Slate has a pretty good defense of John Kerry's defense record.
Just goes to show that when you look at someone's legislative record, you should look carefully, and realize that these issues are often complicated.
(Hat tip: Ara.)
Just goes to show that when you look at someone's legislative record, you should look carefully, and realize that these issues are often complicated.
(Hat tip: Ara.)
There appear to be quite a lot of them that Rosie O'Donnell has either never heard, or chooses not to make note of.
There is a place in the world for over-the-top rhetoric, but my experience is that it's more often likely to backfire on you. Especially if you get caught applying different standards to different people.
Persuasion is a lot harder. It's more of a grind. It requires a lot more patience, and a lot of repetition. It doesn't give you that soul-satisfying rush. But it's the odds-on favorite to win the day.
Which is not to say that I'm 100% in keeping with the principle myself. I'm not. But I know I lose arguments more often than I win when I give in to temptation.
There is a place in the world for over-the-top rhetoric, but my experience is that it's more often likely to backfire on you. Especially if you get caught applying different standards to different people.
Persuasion is a lot harder. It's more of a grind. It requires a lot more patience, and a lot of repetition. It doesn't give you that soul-satisfying rush. But it's the odds-on favorite to win the day.
Which is not to say that I'm 100% in keeping with the principle myself. I'm not. But I know I lose arguments more often than I win when I give in to temptation.
* Update * I pretty much agree with Robert's take. But I often do, on most things.
* Update 2 * You really should read this Outsmart magazine article. The whole thing.
I have been a fan of artist Roger Dean's work for as long as I can remember. He is best known for his album cover designs from the 1970s. If I say "the guy who did the cool Yes cover," I think most of you will probably say, "oh, that guy!"
Turns out he has a web site. right here. With some cool art slideshows and other stuff. Including some neat stuff for sale.
The desktop wallpaper looks especially tempting.
(Thanks for pointing the site out, Jerry. I'll have to content myself to look for now, but it's lovely stuff.)
Turns out he has a web site. right here. With some cool art slideshows and other stuff. Including some neat stuff for sale.
The desktop wallpaper looks especially tempting.
(Thanks for pointing the site out, Jerry. I'll have to content myself to look for now, but it's lovely stuff.)
Long believed to be a hoax, recent archaeological discoveries have apparently now verified the actual existence of "Emperor Domitianus," a Roman renegade who ruled Britain, or tried to, back in 271 AD. They have found coins bearing his image, more than one, from multiple locations.
The first one was found over a century ago, and was the only one of its kind. The finding of the second coin from the second site seemingly proves its legitimacy.
It's funny. As with most subjects, when it comes to history, what we don't know always exceeds what we think we know. Gotta love it.
The first one was found over a century ago, and was the only one of its kind. The finding of the second coin from the second site seemingly proves its legitimacy.
It's funny. As with most subjects, when it comes to history, what we don't know always exceeds what we think we know. Gotta love it.
The dog's getting better. Looks like osteoarthritis and a kidney problem that can be fixed with dietary changes and medicine. Which he's getting. He also has heartworm. We are still trying to decide how to proceed with that one.
Car's fixed.
I'm getting fixed. We're getting fixed.
A friend recently complained that I'm being too cryptic in public. Sorry. This has been incredibly draining. In a good way, but still. It's going to be okay. Been sleeping a lot, and eating. Watershed week and all that. Humiliating, humbling, life-affirming.
Still sober.
I'm busy writing a lot of thank-you notes and making some phone calls, and talking to new friends. If you haven't heard from me, you probably will soon. I need to be online. The friends I make here mean as much to me as friends I make any other way.
Am closing off comments and trackbacks on this, but if you haven't heard from me, you will.
Thank you again.
Car's fixed.
I'm getting fixed. We're getting fixed.
A friend recently complained that I'm being too cryptic in public. Sorry. This has been incredibly draining. In a good way, but still. It's going to be okay. Been sleeping a lot, and eating. Watershed week and all that. Humiliating, humbling, life-affirming.
Still sober.
I'm busy writing a lot of thank-you notes and making some phone calls, and talking to new friends. If you haven't heard from me, you probably will soon. I need to be online. The friends I make here mean as much to me as friends I make any other way.
Am closing off comments and trackbacks on this, but if you haven't heard from me, you will.
Thank you again.
Posted by dean | PermaLink |
February 27, 2004
John Kerry and John Edwards are having a tough time with Same-Sex Marriage. I heard their positions on Larry King last night and Al Sharpton took them both to task.
Both of them are personally against SSM. Both of them think it should be left up to the states to decide. Both of them feel it is a basic human right and an equal protection under the law issue.
The problem with their position is, as Rev. Al pointed out, if they believe this is a human right and an equal protection under the law issue then it is NOT a State's Right's issue.
IF SSM is an "equal protection under the law" issue; then it is the Federal government's responsibility, according to the 14th amendment, to ensure all people have it.
IF SSM isn't a basic human right or about equal protection under the law; then it is a State's Rights position.
Kerry and Edwards current position is that any State has the Right to deny what the 14th Amendment has accorded them. That doesn't follow.
They are both desperately trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Time is running out boys. It either is one or the other. Pick one.
Both of them are personally against SSM. Both of them think it should be left up to the states to decide. Both of them feel it is a basic human right and an equal protection under the law issue.
The problem with their position is, as Rev. Al pointed out, if they believe this is a human right and an equal protection under the law issue then it is NOT a State's Right's issue.
IF SSM is an "equal protection under the law" issue; then it is the Federal government's responsibility, according to the 14th amendment, to ensure all people have it.
IF SSM isn't a basic human right or about equal protection under the law; then it is a State's Rights position.
Kerry and Edwards current position is that any State has the Right to deny what the 14th Amendment has accorded them. That doesn't follow.
They are both desperately trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Time is running out boys. It either is one or the other. Pick one.
My mom and Adam (my brother) passed their tests a couple days ago. In a few short weeks, they will become citizens of the United States of America. I'm so happy for them both.
All Hail the Queen's Mum and Brother!
WooHoo!
All Hail the Queen's Mum and Brother!
WooHoo!
Martha Stewart ate a very light lunch today. She had Chicken and Dumpling soup. I'm not sure why it's important. But there must be a reason because Fox News reported it 6 times in the last hour.
Carbon isotopes of an organic nature have been found in Interplanetary Dust Particles, and dated to at least as old as the Solar System itself.
These aren't cells or anything. Just building blocks that are found in all life on Earth. Very interesting.
These aren't cells or anything. Just building blocks that are found in all life on Earth. Very interesting.
That was a hard title to type without chuckling. I know many of you out there hate Howard Stern. I've heard all the reasons. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. To each his own.
I love Howard Stern. I always have. I read his book, saw his movie and listen to his show most mornings. He's perverted and vile, what's not to love?
On the eve of a House hearing on broadcast indecency, the nation's largest radio station chain suspended Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards. One of Stern's callers dropped the N-bomb. Stern hung up on the caller but he is being held accountable for the callers racist slur.
He won't put up with a lot of crap from his callers. When idiots he is familiar with call, he puts them on and gives us all a good listen to the ignorance. He will taunt them and eventually hang up.
This incident isn't the same thing as "Boobiegate".
Bottom line: Unless you live under a rock you know Stern is a shock jock. You know before you listen that he is a nasty bastard. If you don't like him you are free to turn the dial. I don't want to lose my ability to listen because you might be offended.
You have a choice, I'd like to be able to keep mine.
I love Howard Stern. I always have. I read his book, saw his movie and listen to his show most mornings. He's perverted and vile, what's not to love?
On the eve of a House hearing on broadcast indecency, the nation's largest radio station chain suspended Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards. One of Stern's callers dropped the N-bomb. Stern hung up on the caller but he is being held accountable for the callers racist slur.
Chaunce Hayden, a celebrity journalist and past guest of the radio program said Clear Channel's actions against Stern are "quite frightening."
"It is 100 percent a freedom of speech issue," he told Fox News on Thursday, acknowledging that the show sometimes does "go too far."
But he said, "that's what the show is. You don't have to watch the show. You can turn the dial...You have a choice...How can government take choice away from us?"
He won't put up with a lot of crap from his callers. When idiots he is familiar with call, he puts them on and gives us all a good listen to the ignorance. He will taunt them and eventually hang up.
This incident isn't the same thing as "Boobiegate".
Bottom line: Unless you live under a rock you know Stern is a shock jock. You know before you listen that he is a nasty bastard. If you don't like him you are free to turn the dial. I don't want to lose my ability to listen because you might be offended.
You have a choice, I'd like to be able to keep mine.
Rosie O'Donnell got married in San Francisco. Why do they think we care? Because she married a woman? Sure, but it's also because she's a celebrity.
They thought we cared when Britney Spears got married for a minute.
Did we?
No.
Why not? Why did we not care? We all thought the same thing: slow "news" day.
It's interesting in the land of No-Fault divorce that we care about protecting marriage from those who want in and not those that want out. They should make divorce a little tougher so that people can't run around making a mockery of something so sacred as marriage. I also wish more people got angry and vocal about Spears' disregard for the institution of marriage. That woman crapped on the sanctity of marriage.
Where is the outrage? Where is Congress? Why aren't they acting to protect my marriage from other "Oops I made a mistake" marriages?
What's up with that? If you want to protect it then stop with half-assed measure.
Go full throttle!
They thought we cared when Britney Spears got married for a minute.
Did we?
No.
Why not? Why did we not care? We all thought the same thing: slow "news" day.
It's interesting in the land of No-Fault divorce that we care about protecting marriage from those who want in and not those that want out. They should make divorce a little tougher so that people can't run around making a mockery of something so sacred as marriage. I also wish more people got angry and vocal about Spears' disregard for the institution of marriage. That woman crapped on the sanctity of marriage.
Where is the outrage? Where is Congress? Why aren't they acting to protect my marriage from other "Oops I made a mistake" marriages?
What's up with that? If you want to protect it then stop with half-assed measure.
Go full throttle!
I am still overwhelmed. I don't even know where to begin responding. I wasn't even going to say anymore, just read it all and think about it. But I feel I have to say more.
It's not just the comments. I got hundreds of emails. People offering me their phone numbers and their friendship, many who I've never even met. Comments and links from everywhere, even from people I thought couldn't stand me, all with so many kind and supportive words. 158 of you hit the tip jar. I've never seen anything like it in my entire life.
I won't get all gushy or Arnold Harris will kick my butt. But I can, I will, never forget this.
Nor will I let you down.
I may be offline for a little while. Maybe. Either way, I'll be back. Weblogging is an addiction I have no intention of giving up.
I mean, it may just have saved my life. Go figure.
It's not just the comments. I got hundreds of emails. People offering me their phone numbers and their friendship, many who I've never even met. Comments and links from everywhere, even from people I thought couldn't stand me, all with so many kind and supportive words. 158 of you hit the tip jar. I've never seen anything like it in my entire life.
I won't get all gushy or Arnold Harris will kick my butt. But I can, I will, never forget this.
Nor will I let you down.
I may be offline for a little while. Maybe. Either way, I'll be back. Weblogging is an addiction I have no intention of giving up.
I mean, it may just have saved my life. Go figure.
The Instrutable American has moved to a new online home. You'll find it here.
Update your blogrolls.
Update your blogrolls.
Rosemary had a tooth crack in half last night.
If a meteor would just come crashing through our roof, our week would be complete.
Yes. That's a joke. I can still do that.
We're going to be okay.
If a meteor would just come crashing through our roof, our week would be complete.
Yes. That's a joke. I can still do that.
We're going to be okay.
February 26, 2004
We are in a crisis. Financial, emotional and physical. I am a proud woman. I don't like to ask for help. In fact, I hate to ask for help.
We are leaving for the animal hospital shortly. I may spend more than we can afford but I can't worry about that right now. I will worry later. We are looking at $5K to help get us out of where alcoholism and bad luck has put us.
If you feel inclined to hit the tip jar, we would deeply appreciate any help. Even if it is only a dollar or two. No amount would be too small. I am humbled by all the offers we have had for help.
Thank you all so much. The words of support mean more than you could possibly know.
We do what we do online because we love it. We appreciate that you are here with us. It makes it worth it. It really does.
Thank You.
We are leaving for the animal hospital shortly. I may spend more than we can afford but I can't worry about that right now. I will worry later. We are looking at $5K to help get us out of where alcoholism and bad luck has put us.
If you feel inclined to hit the tip jar, we would deeply appreciate any help. Even if it is only a dollar or two. No amount would be too small. I am humbled by all the offers we have had for help.
Thank you all so much. The words of support mean more than you could possibly know.
We do what we do online because we love it. We appreciate that you are here with us. It makes it worth it. It really does.
Thank You.
Damn it. He just won't stop. Touch him and he shrieks.
Damn it. God fucking damn it.
He has to be put down. God damn it, I hate this shit. Hate it.
It must be done. I just hate it.
Hate it.
**Update**
We suspect it's Cancer. I am out of town and I'm on my way home now. We have a lot of stuff to deal with right now. Say a prayer for our family, if you are so inclined. We need it . Thank you.
---Rosemary
Damn it. God fucking damn it.
He has to be put down. God damn it, I hate this shit. Hate it.
It must be done. I just hate it.
Hate it.
**Update**
We suspect it's Cancer. I am out of town and I'm on my way home now. We have a lot of stuff to deal with right now. Say a prayer for our family, if you are so inclined. We need it . Thank you.
---Rosemary
I am. I need booze. And I have trouble stopping. Big time.
I can't stop. It's affecting my life, and I can't stop.
Damn it.
How pathetic is it that I share this with you publicly?
I can't stop. What's wrong with me?
I can't stop. It's affecting my life, and I can't stop.
Damn it.
How pathetic is it that I share this with you publicly?
I can't stop. What's wrong with me?
He keeps crying.
He'll just be sitting there, and then suddenly starts whining and yelping. No one is touching him, nothing is happening. He'll just suddenly put out his head and start yelping.
2-3 times per day. Yelping, shrieking.
We probably have to put him down. It's probably hip dysplasia, but aspirin doesn't seem to help.
I don't have the money to spend on veterinary medicine. But he won't stop crying.
Damn it.
Life sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
**Update**
Jake and I are coming home. We will do whatever it takes to help our baby. Even if it means ending his suffering.[sniff, sniff] We owe that much to him. He's been a wonderful pet and we won't fail him now because of money. We won't.
---Rosemary
He'll just be sitting there, and then suddenly starts whining and yelping. No one is touching him, nothing is happening. He'll just suddenly put out his head and start yelping.
2-3 times per day. Yelping, shrieking.
We probably have to put him down. It's probably hip dysplasia, but aspirin doesn't seem to help.
I don't have the money to spend on veterinary medicine. But he won't stop crying.
Damn it.
Life sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
**Update**
Jake and I are coming home. We will do whatever it takes to help our baby. Even if it means ending his suffering.[sniff, sniff] We owe that much to him. He's been a wonderful pet and we won't fail him now because of money. We won't.
---Rosemary
Federal Reserve chief says that cuts in Social Security payments are necessary.
Thank God that someone had the guts to say it.
Here is the simple truth: when Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed the Social Security system, he stated openly that he hoped that within 10 years it would be transitioned to a privatized system.
Check me on that. I'm not kidding.
It's time that we do the right thing--the sensible thing, the moral thing--and move Social Security toward a privatized, individual-account system.
It's time to finally do it, dammit. Because it's the right thing to do. For our children, and for ourselves.
Thank God that someone had the guts to say it.
Here is the simple truth: when Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed the Social Security system, he stated openly that he hoped that within 10 years it would be transitioned to a privatized system.
Check me on that. I'm not kidding.
It's time that we do the right thing--the sensible thing, the moral thing--and move Social Security toward a privatized, individual-account system.
It's time to finally do it, dammit. Because it's the right thing to do. For our children, and for ourselves.
February 25, 2004
When push comes to shove, when you really get right down to it, the American system of government works.
It really does.
It really does.
It all seems so minor. And yet, these debates affect the whole country.
John Cole is right.
I just wish more people would think hard enough on these issues to make a difference.
John Cole is right.
I just wish more people would think hard enough on these issues to make a difference.
Presidents have no official role when it comes to Constitutional amendments. None at all. Just look it up. They have no role at all.
And yet they are required by public opinon to take a position.
Damn it. Damn it, damn it, damn it. Did we have to pick this fight right here and now?
Damn it. I'm going to feel like a jerk no matter who I vote for in November.
And yet they are required by public opinon to take a position.
Damn it. Damn it, damn it, damn it. Did we have to pick this fight right here and now?
Damn it. I'm going to feel like a jerk no matter who I vote for in November.
I really am.
He's a good guy, and could talk common sense to his party. The more I see of Kerry, the harder a time I have liking him.
I make fun of Edwards now and then. But I do like him, and wish him luck.
Seriously.
He's a good guy, and could talk common sense to his party. The more I see of Kerry, the harder a time I have liking him.
I make fun of Edwards now and then. But I do like him, and wish him luck.
Seriously.
Can anyone point me to a peer-reviewed study which shows a reduced mortality rate from eating a low-fat or low-cholesterol diet?
Primary or secondary. Can anyone show me even one? Come on, I beg you. Just show me one.
.
I eat a low-cholesterol diet. Now just tell me why it helps me. Why it extends my life.
I want one study. Just one. Can you do it?
Oh, and by the way, have you seen this?
I'm just curious.
Primary or secondary. Can anyone show me even one? Come on, I beg you. Just show me one.
.
I eat a low-cholesterol diet. Now just tell me why it helps me. Why it extends my life.
I want one study. Just one. Can you do it?
Oh, and by the way, have you seen this?
I'm just curious.
I mean, seriously now. Can anyone be more wrong? Is it even humanly possible?
We hates him. Hates him Precioussssss.
We hates him. Hates him Precioussssss.
February 24, 2004
I can't seem to get away from it. Dean's World appears to be "Gay Marriage Debate Central. Which I am fine with, just amused by. If you'd asked me two years ago, "Dean, what would your weblog be about?" I suspect that this would have been about 520nd on the list. All that said, my brother Gary Utter sent me a submission on the subject recently, and I liked enough to reprint it here. --Dean
I've been keeping my mouth shut on the gay marriage issue. Not because I care, one way or the other, but because i don't understand it in the first place.
Clearly, some people take marriage VERY seriously. They see some mystical bond there, something that goes beyond the legal aspect, the contractual aspect and into the metaphysical.
That side of marriage is invisible to me. I see no reason why my gay friends should not be able to marry, if that is what makes them happy. But I likewise see no reason why they SHOULD be able to marry.
There are legal privileges that adhere to marriage that should apply equally to "civil unions", and having those privileges, what more is there to want? The remainder is the metaphysical. Government cannot grant metaphysical rights. That's for the churches.
Obviously, I'm blind to something here. And the reason I mention it at all is that I want to be clear where I am coming from. I just don't see this as an issue in the first place.
But I recognize that some people DO. It would seem, not surprisingly, that George W. Bush is one of those people who has a position that he cares about.
Politically, it would be to his advantage to keep his mouth shut, to NOT take a position. Instead, he has taken a stand that can only be motivated by conscience. He stood up for what he believes.
You may not agree with his position, that's your right, and your privilege. But take a moment to consider, what HAS he done?
George W. Bush has put the activist courts on notice. This matter will be decided by the people of the United States of America, in a manner fully prescribed by the Constitution.
Bush has stated that he will SUPPORT a Constitutional Amendment. What does that mean, exactly?
It means nothing.
That Amendment had already been proposed. IF it can achieve a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, the Amendment will go to the States. Let me say that again. Before the Amendment can be voted on by the States, it must achieve a supermajority of votes in Congress. YOUR elected Senators and Representatives, will have to vote, yes or no, on this Amendment. These people want to be re-elected, they are going to vote whatever way they think the people want.
Let's assume that the Amendment gets a 2/3 majority yes vote. Now it goes to the States, and this time, in order for the Amendment to become law, it must be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
This is NOT "tampering with the Constitution" as has been alleged. This is the full and complete democratic process, as outlined by the Founders. This is democracy in action, and the will of the people will be done. Not the will of the politicians, not the will of the ""religious Right," not the will of the godless left, the will of the PEOPLE.
God Bless The USA.
Gary Utter works for the Rochester, NY Police Department. And is one of my very best and most trusted friends. --Dean.
I've been keeping my mouth shut on the gay marriage issue. Not because I care, one way or the other, but because i don't understand it in the first place.
Clearly, some people take marriage VERY seriously. They see some mystical bond there, something that goes beyond the legal aspect, the contractual aspect and into the metaphysical.
That side of marriage is invisible to me. I see no reason why my gay friends should not be able to marry, if that is what makes them happy. But I likewise see no reason why they SHOULD be able to marry.
There are legal privileges that adhere to marriage that should apply equally to "civil unions", and having those privileges, what more is there to want? The remainder is the metaphysical. Government cannot grant metaphysical rights. That's for the churches.
Obviously, I'm blind to something here. And the reason I mention it at all is that I want to be clear where I am coming from. I just don't see this as an issue in the first place.
But I recognize that some people DO. It would seem, not surprisingly, that George W. Bush is one of those people who has a position that he cares about.
Politically, it would be to his advantage to keep his mouth shut, to NOT take a position. Instead, he has taken a stand that can only be motivated by conscience. He stood up for what he believes.
You may not agree with his position, that's your right, and your privilege. But take a moment to consider, what HAS he done?
George W. Bush has put the activist courts on notice. This matter will be decided by the people of the United States of America, in a manner fully prescribed by the Constitution.
Bush has stated that he will SUPPORT a Constitutional Amendment. What does that mean, exactly?
It means nothing.
That Amendment had already been proposed. IF it can achieve a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, the Amendment will go to the States. Let me say that again. Before the Amendment can be voted on by the States, it must achieve a supermajority of votes in Congress. YOUR elected Senators and Representatives, will have to vote, yes or no, on this Amendment. These people want to be re-elected, they are going to vote whatever way they think the people want.
Let's assume that the Amendment gets a 2/3 majority yes vote. Now it goes to the States, and this time, in order for the Amendment to become law, it must be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
This is NOT "tampering with the Constitution" as has been alleged. This is the full and complete democratic process, as outlined by the Founders. This is democracy in action, and the will of the people will be done. Not the will of the politicians, not the will of the ""religious Right," not the will of the godless left, the will of the PEOPLE.
God Bless The USA.
Gary Utter works for the Rochester, NY Police Department. And is one of my very best and most trusted friends. --Dean.
One of the best webloggers to ever put fingers to keyboard has posted a new entry after months of absence: Letter to the Pocket Man.
So good to see you back, Tony!
So good to see you back, Tony!
An Irishman recently asked me an interesting question:
The Electoral College is not complicated. Nor is it a bad thing. One must merely understand its construction. As an Irishman, a subject of the nascent European Union, you should find this not particularly difficult to understand at all.
The first thing to understand is that America started as 13 different nations. Each of them with their own legislatures, their own governments. Not at all unlike Europe today: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, and so on. But for the U.S., it was Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and so on. Thirteen nations, each of them smaller than any European country today, but each of them a nation unto itself. Its own armies, its own currency, its own system of government, its own traditions.
These little nations decided to band together. Each with their own sovereignty, but surrendering some of that sovereignty to the other nations.
A great debate amongst them occurred. "If we are to band together democratically, but keep our own individual nature, how shall we do it?" This debate went on for several years. Eventually, they established a compromise:
There shall be two forms of legislature. One shall be the House of Representatives, in which each State shall have a minimum of one member, but which shall otherwise be determined by population. So each small nation shall have at least one Represenatative, and yet, the Nations with larger populations shall have a greater amount of representation.
But to guide against the excesses of populism, and to assure that each nation shall have its own unique identity, there shall also be a Senate of wise, learned men. Each State shall have two such Statemen to represent them, no matter how large or small. Thus, a giant nation such as Virginia should have two, and a tiny nation such as Rhode Island should also have two.
The Representatives shall be the Voice of the People. They shall be subject to election every two years. The Senators, however, shall to be subject to loss of office only every six years, so that they may stand aside from everyday politics and be able to vote their consciences.
This is the basic nature of the American governing body.
Yet a great debate continued to rage. "If we should have two Parliaments, two legislatures, who shall preside over them, so that someone should be sure to get things done while debate ensues? Should we be ruled ultimately by a populist? Or should we have a King? And if we are to have a King, how should he be crowned?" Much debate ensued, until a compromise was again reached:
Each nation should have a minimum of one Representative, and two Senators. And so, to elect our head of state, we shall grant each state a minimum of three votes (one Representative, and two Senators), plus a greater number of votes atop this for based upon population.
Ultimately, it is the difference between pure populism, and making sure that each Nation within the Federation is represented.
And so it is today: Each State within the American union has a bare minimum of two Senators, and one Representative. But if a particular Nation is larger than others it shall have more than one Representative, based upon its population.
Thus, a tiny Nation of very few people (such as Minnesota) and a great Nation (such as California) shall have two Senators, but Representatives based upon population.
For our Head of State? He shall be elected based upon the popular vote of a majority of Nations. Each Nation shall have a minimum of three votes (one for each Senator, plus one for each Representative). He who wins the majority of votes from each Nation shall be President, and shall have certain (limited) powers granted to the Head of State.
Which we call our Electoral College: persons from each Nation, from Rhode Island to California, Alaska to New York. The people from each state, based partially upon population, and partially upon the fact that each represents a member of the Union, shall have its vote.
America is one nation. And yet, within that nation, there exists today 50 different small nations. Our Head of State presides over them all.
It seems complicated. But it's not really complicated at all, once you understand it. In America, there are today 50 separate States. Each exerts its own influence, based partially upon its population, but based partially upon its own unique identity.
America is not a collection of counties and provinces. It is a federation of 50 small nations, banded together for their collective good.
I'm writing as an Irishman (hardly the most democratic of countries) and I have to say that I find the American system of election to be very odd and a slight bit undemocratic. Perhaps someone can explain to me what is the reason for the Electoral College System.My answer is as follows:
The Electoral College is not complicated. Nor is it a bad thing. One must merely understand its construction. As an Irishman, a subject of the nascent European Union, you should find this not particularly difficult to understand at all.
The first thing to understand is that America started as 13 different nations. Each of them with their own legislatures, their own governments. Not at all unlike Europe today: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, and so on. But for the U.S., it was Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and so on. Thirteen nations, each of them smaller than any European country today, but each of them a nation unto itself. Its own armies, its own currency, its own system of government, its own traditions.
These little nations decided to band together. Each with their own sovereignty, but surrendering some of that sovereignty to the other nations.
A great debate amongst them occurred. "If we are to band together democratically, but keep our own individual nature, how shall we do it?" This debate went on for several years. Eventually, they established a compromise:
There shall be two forms of legislature. One shall be the House of Representatives, in which each State shall have a minimum of one member, but which shall otherwise be determined by population. So each small nation shall have at least one Represenatative, and yet, the Nations with larger populations shall have a greater amount of representation.
But to guide against the excesses of populism, and to assure that each nation shall have its own unique identity, there shall also be a Senate of wise, learned men. Each State shall have two such Statemen to represent them, no matter how large or small. Thus, a giant nation such as Virginia should have two, and a tiny nation such as Rhode Island should also have two.
The Representatives shall be the Voice of the People. They shall be subject to election every two years. The Senators, however, shall to be subject to loss of office only every six years, so that they may stand aside from everyday politics and be able to vote their consciences.
This is the basic nature of the American governing body.
Yet a great debate continued to rage. "If we should have two Parliaments, two legislatures, who shall preside over them, so that someone should be sure to get things done while debate ensues? Should we be ruled ultimately by a populist? Or should we have a King? And if we are to have a King, how should he be crowned?" Much debate ensued, until a compromise was again reached:
Each nation should have a minimum of one Representative, and two Senators. And so, to elect our head of state, we shall grant each state a minimum of three votes (one Representative, and two Senators), plus a greater number of votes atop this for based upon population.
Ultimately, it is the difference between pure populism, and making sure that each Nation within the Federation is represented.
And so it is today: Each State within the American union has a bare minimum of two Senators, and one Representative. But if a particular Nation is larger than others it shall have more than one Representative, based upon its population.
Thus, a tiny Nation of very few people (such as Minnesota) and a great Nation (such as California) shall have two Senators, but Representatives based upon population.
For our Head of State? He shall be elected based upon the popular vote of a majority of Nations. Each Nation shall have a minimum of three votes (one for each Senator, plus one for each Representative). He who wins the majority of votes from each Nation shall be President, and shall have certain (limited) powers granted to the Head of State.
Which we call our Electoral College: persons from each Nation, from Rhode Island to California, Alaska to New York. The people from each state, based partially upon population, and partially upon the fact that each represents a member of the Union, shall have its vote.
America is one nation. And yet, within that nation, there exists today 50 different small nations. Our Head of State presides over them all.
It seems complicated. But it's not really complicated at all, once you understand it. In America, there are today 50 separate States. Each exerts its own influence, based partially upon its population, but based partially upon its own unique identity.
America is not a collection of counties and provinces. It is a federation of 50 small nations, banded together for their collective good.
It's good to see that Haiti is no longer a problem for the U.S.
It's not like we've tried to straighten that place out before, right?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. For well over 100 years, America has been trying to do right by that little island. No matter what we do, we seem to make it worse. Despite the best intentions of the Clinton adminstation, the Truman administration, the Roosevelt administration, no matter what we do it just gets worse.
Has there ever been a more fucked-up place on Earth? Even Palestine seems like a cake-walk compared to that little island. Leave them alone and the situation just gets worse. Interfere with them, and the situation just gets worse.
I have an urge at times to ask someone to make me dictator of the place just so I can fix it. And then I realize I'd just be the next "Baby Doc" if that were to happen.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done right in that place. Ignore 'em, leave 'em alone, get involved and active, interfere, impose your will, give them their own will.... it just doesn't matter. Nothing ever gets better.
It's like God's little joke on the Western Hemisphere. No matter what you do, it just gets worse on that accursed island.
I defy anyone to tell me what the right U.S. policy is toward Haiti.
It's not like we've tried to straighten that place out before, right?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. For well over 100 years, America has been trying to do right by that little island. No matter what we do, we seem to make it worse. Despite the best intentions of the Clinton adminstation, the Truman administration, the Roosevelt administration, no matter what we do it just gets worse.
Has there ever been a more fucked-up place on Earth? Even Palestine seems like a cake-walk compared to that little island. Leave them alone and the situation just gets worse. Interfere with them, and the situation just gets worse.
I have an urge at times to ask someone to make me dictator of the place just so I can fix it. And then I realize I'd just be the next "Baby Doc" if that were to happen.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done right in that place. Ignore 'em, leave 'em alone, get involved and active, interfere, impose your will, give them their own will.... it just doesn't matter. Nothing ever gets better.
It's like God's little joke on the Western Hemisphere. No matter what you do, it just gets worse on that accursed island.
I defy anyone to tell me what the right U.S. policy is toward Haiti.
It's lies, all lies I tell you!!!!!
He tricks us, Precious, tricks ussssss...... Liar! Liar! We knows, we knows.... hissss.....
He tricks us, Precious, tricks ussssss...... Liar! Liar! We knows, we knows.... hissss.....
We're all doomed. Doomed, I say!
(Oh wait. It's the Washington Times. It must be all lies. But thanks to John Weidner for pointing it out anyway.)
(Oh wait. It's the Washington Times. It must be all lies. But thanks to John Weidner for pointing it out anyway.)
February 23, 2004
For our girl Michele:
You make me feel so young
You make me feel like spring has sprung
Every time I see you grin
I’m such a happy individual
The moment that you speak
I want to run and play hide-and-seek
I want to go and bounce the moon
Just like a toy balloon
You and I, we're just like a couple of tots
Running around the meadow
Picking up all those forget-me-nots
You make me feel so young
You make me feel there are songs to be sung
Bells to be rung, and a wonderful fling to be flung
And even when I’m old and gray
I’m gonna feel the way I do today
’cause you make me feel so young
You make me feel so young
You make me feel like spring has sprung
Every time I see you grin
I’m such a happy individual
The moment that you speak
I want to run and play hide-and-seek
I want to go and bounce the moon
Just like a toy balloon
You and I, we're just like a couple of tots
Running around the meadow
Picking up all those forget-me-nots
You make me feel so young
You make me feel there are songs to be sung
Bells to be rung, and a wonderful fling to be flung
And even when I’m old and gray
I’m gonna feel the way I do today
’cause you make me feel so young
Apparently, Jew-boy Lair has no idea what it looks like when someone has written an Amish Tech Support Satire.
In fact, can I claim a Blogosphere First? The first one to actually write a Laurence Simon satire?
Perhaps I didn't use the word "fag" enough. ;-)
In fact, can I claim a Blogosphere First? The first one to actually write a Laurence Simon satire?
Perhaps I didn't use the word "fag" enough. ;-)
Man, these are classic!
Sure, sure, I admit it. Dean's World gets a mention, and its own piece! Too classic!
But the rest are just as funny!
Sure, sure, I admit it. Dean's World gets a mention, and its own piece! Too classic!
But the rest are just as funny!
The Joe Louis fist was vandalized today.
Two morons covered the fist in white paint. Thankfully, experts say it should be restored without a problem. The paint was water based so firefighters hosed most of it off. Did I mention they were morons yet?
What are the odds that it was just a prank? Yeah, white paint on Joe Louis seems a little obvious.
Two morons covered the fist in white paint. Thankfully, experts say it should be restored without a problem. The paint was water based so firefighters hosed most of it off. Did I mention they were morons yet?
What are the odds that it was just a prank? Yeah, white paint on Joe Louis seems a little obvious.
It is really crappy to say "I told you so," but:
Backlash. Big time.
Push people against the wall and they really, really don't like it.
I at times wonder if Barney Frank is the only gay man with any sense on this issue on the national scene.
Backlash. Big time.
Push people against the wall and they really, really don't like it.
I at times wonder if Barney Frank is the only gay man with any sense on this issue on the national scene.
For some odd reason, Paul Burgess picked up on the fact that I said yesterday that I'd "been online for a bit over 20 years," and requested that I write something up about that fact. I'm not sure why anyone would find that interesting, but what the heck.
There's More...
There's More...