|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
4.30.2005
KUTV: Alabama Bill Targets 'Gay' Books: "'I don't look at it as censorship,' says State Representative Gerald Allen. 'I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children. | My new favorite "driving to work" song? Jeff Buckley -- "Last Goodbye" Which has displaced the New Radical's with "I Hope I Didn't Just Gave Away the Ending". What makes a good "driving to work" song? Well, for one it has to build up some emotional momentum. You have to feel really good when you walk through those doors to work. Because if you start out your day feeling like you'd rather be in bed you're only going to go downhill from there. You don't want to hit rock bottom too early in the day. At least not before lunch, when hopefully you can steal a few minutes to put on the headphones and recharge. Of course this only applies to people that need music for mental fuel. That is me. I've even created a playlist specifically for the drive to work. 1. John Vanderslice - Speed Lab (3:28) 2. Beck - E-Pro (3:22) 3. Modest Mouse - The View (4:13) 4. Wilco - Pot kettle black (4:00) 5. Frou Frou - Let Go (4:13) 6. Tesla - Try So Hard (5:44) 7. New Radicals - Gotta Stay High (3:06) 8. Weezer - The Good Life (4:17) 9. John Vanderslice - Pale Horse (2:40) 10. Genesis - Turn It On Again (3:51) 11. Badly Drawn Boy - Four Leaf Clover (4:19) 12. Coheed And Cambria - Time Consumer (5:41) 13. Modest Mouse - Float On (3:28) 14. Radiohead - The National Anthem (5:51) 15. Rilo Kiley - With Arms Outstretched (3:42) 16. Jason Mraz - Who Needs Shelter (3:12) 17. Emery - By All Accounts (Today Was A Disaster) (4:06) 18. A.C. Newman - Miracle Drug (2:19) 19. Maroon 5 - Sunday Morning (4:06) 20. Modest Mouse - Ocean Breathes Salty (3:49) 21. Cake - I will Survive (5:10) 22. Jeff Buckley - Grace (5:22) 23. Jeff Buckley - Last Goodbye (4:35) 24. Metric - Raw Sugar (3:47) 25. Coldplay - Yellow (4:29) 26. Beck - Girl (3:29) 27. Beck - Hell Yes (3:17) 28. Wilco - Summer Teeth (3:21) 29. John Mayer - Something's Missing (5:05) 30. Wilco - Heavy metal drummer (3:09) 31. Pixies - Where Is My Mind? (3:46) 32. John Vanderslice - Amitripyline (3:44) 33. John Vanderslice - Bill Gates Must Die (3:43) 34. New Radicals - I Hope I Didn't Just Give Away The Ending (6:37) It doesn't always work. Sometimes there's just nothing you can do. | VOA News - Astronomers Take 1st Picture of Planet Outside Solar System: "European and American astronomers have taken the first pictures of a planet five times the size of Jupiter that is orbiting a star in a different solar system." All lies, I don't believe in your Theory of Optics. What a horribly biased story, pushing a radical liberal agenda. Liberal media, liberal media!!! Can you prove that its really there? Have we actually set foot there? 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth. --- Genesis 1:14-17 Does this planet give light to the Earth? If not, why is it even there? | 4.29.2005
Boston.com / Business / Polaroid sale worth$47 to each retiree: "Polaroid retirees will get $47 each. You know the name of this blog. (more from Sign on San Diego) "It's such a shame, because we got killed," said Peter Bass, a 72-year-old Lexington resident who retired 13 years ago after 35 years at Polaroid. Bass, who used his $47 to take his wife out for pizza, said he's considering searching for work to make ends meet – as are many other Polaroid retirees. Polaroid, who has seen its business destroyed by digital photography declared bankruptcy in 2001. At that time it turned out its pockets to its long time employees and cancelled promised medical and life insurance benefits. The pension plan was dumped on to the federal government even while employees took pay cuts to stave off a hostile takeover. The new owners banked $122 million and recently took the company public again last year. Now, Peters Group is buying Polaroid for $426 million, a $2 a share gain for investors. The employees, the people that built up and made the company profitable for shareholders for years will get cancelled benefits, reduced pensions and a check for $47. The management that took over after the bankruptcy will get millions in compensation. | 4.27.2005
JackLewis.net Ok, here are the rules for getting on my shitlist. 1) Badmouth evolution Honestly people, if you believe in creationism in this day and age you might as well put a "I'm a dumb ass" sign on your forehead. I can forgive some ignorance, but if you're active in badmouthing evolution because your church tells you to, then you're a dupe. Evolution is good science, in fact, evolution is damn good science. Very few theories rank up there with evolution for its usefulness and its robustness. The only reason people attack evolution more so than other scientific theories is simply because it contradicts a literal reading of the Biblical creation story. Smart religious people have learned to reconcile that contradiction with a more metaphorical or "poetic" reading of the creation story. I can understand that. But fundies think they can make evolution go away by yelling at it, or worse yet, pretending it doesn't exist and inflicting children with ignorance. But that isn't going to happen, because evolution is here to stay. Whether or not we choose to believe in something does not change the evidence. Without evolution, the entire science of genetics makes no sense. Why do we have mechanisms that enable an organism to adapt to change if they serve no purpose? The entire debate betwen creationsim and evolution boils down to about a dozen or so easily debunked claims by creationists that have little or no basis in actual science. So next time your preacher makes a claim about evolution being false because of "X" fact, do all of us a favor, pick up a book or read some actual science before you go spouting off on the internet. 2) Favorably link to: Little Green Goofballs, Townhall (Oliver North especially) Powerline Free Republic They're either dangerous idiots, shills, or both. I've found nothing redeeming in these site/blogs. They are the internet equivalent of huffing -- it just makes you dumber. ... and that's about it. | AllAroundPhilly.com: "'Offering young workers a 1930's-era retirement system is like trying to persuade them that vinyl LPs are better than iPods,' Bush said." | 4.26.2005
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - International News - MSNBC.com: "“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. Whoa, who saw that one coming? Operation Iraqi Liberation rolls on. I have to wonder at what point will the "Clever Republicans" peel away from the party? These are the smart people that have realized all along that the GOP is full of shit, but consider it a strategic advantage to be for the party of the corporate bigwigs and the religious whackjobs. They love the aura of patriotism and machismo that the GOP confers upon them and at the same time makes them look like a team player in the corporate world. After all, you don't want to be caught sympathizing with those union people, or the environmentalists. Co-worker: "You're not a Democrat are you Peterson? Or heaven forbid, a Green?" Peterson (chuckles): "Fuck no! I'm a Libertarian that always votes for Republicans." Co-worker: "Yeah, me too." | 4.25.2005
MercuryNews.com | 04/25/2005 | Taxpayers get too many breaks, panel concludes: "``We have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund government,'' according to President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. The quote cracks me up, because for years politicians have been using the tax code as a way to punish their enemies and to reward their friends, or as a way to promote activities that they deem beneficial to our society. As the federal government continues to slide deeper and deeper into debt, the bean counters are looking around trying to find ways to raise revenue without punishing their political allies. For the Republican party, cuts in spending for horribly overpriced weapons programs are out of the question. Bush has already cut income taxes for the rich and has called for the elimination of the estate tax. So as we drain money out of one side of the treasury it has to come in from somewhere else. I live in a heavily Republican state, but we're not rich. If they start cutting tax breaks for homes, children and health insurance its going to be a tough hit against some of their own political constituents. Unless they counter those increases with a big fat tax break for church attendance, there's going to be some pain here in the red states. So why alienate your own voters by making it harder for them to get by? Why would Republicans gamble with their own political fate? They believe (whether rightly or wrongly remains to be seen) that they can keep working and middle class Republican voters in the fold with social issues. In case you haven't heard, Democrats hate God, and people who go to church. They will pack the Supreme Court with judges that eat babies for breakfast, wipe their mouths with the flag and piss on the ten commandments. Republicans like Sen. Frist are waving around the Terri Schiavo case a proof that judges are running amok in this country and that democrats are against people of religious faith. This, despite the fact that 13 of the 22 judges that ruled in that case were republican. This, despite overwhelming evidence that a large majority of democrats are church goers as well. But there I go again, trying to insert facts into an emotional argument. "The White House budget office ranks the cost of a deduction for businesses that provide health insurance to employees as the top tax break, worth $126 billion next year. Also high on the list are the popular mortgage interest deduction, a capital gains break for home sales, a deduction for charitable contributions and the child tax credit." | 4.24.2005
Weather info could go dark: "'It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free,' Santorum said." In case you hadn't heard already. Santorum has introduced a bill (with help, no doubt, from PA company, and campaign contributer AccuWeather) that would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing free data over the internet that might compete with commercial providers. Earlier we had a guy in Dallas who wanted to provide free wireless internet access but was threatened with lawsuits if he did so. Let's extend that logic. Any free service that the government, business or individual provides that might compete with a commercial enterprise that seeks to sell that same service would be rendered unlawful. So how long until we have to shut down the public schools? Would we have to disband the police because of private security firms? How about the Fire Department? Would we have to stop building roads if some business decides to get into the pay-road business? Let's take a look at charities... food pantries, free shelters, free legal advice, tax preparation, credit counseling.. and the list goes on. All deemed a threat to free markets if we subscribe to this zero sum line of reasoning. But this goes further than that. We already pay for the information on this website. The National Weather Service and and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are federal agencies paid for by our tax money. The information they provide for us over the web is ours. We fund those agencies so that we can get good, accurate information about the weather. This is in our own best interests. If you don't believe me, ask anyone living in one of the Tsunami wrecked countries how important it is to monitor for potential dangers. Even though the bill would not prevent the NWS from warning us about potential severe weather dangers, I think this quote from Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, explains it best: "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time," Johnson said. "You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is." And this leads us into a larger debate about the role of government and infrastructure. Personally I feel that without a substantial public investment into a nation's infrastructure, private interprise cannot flourish. Just take a look at the world's healthiest economies and the world's poorest countries and tell me what you see in common. Nations with governments that take a more active role in investing in research, building infrastructure and protecting its citizens from corruption are better off. To a point. This has been a special report from Tornado Alley. | 4.22.2005
Microsoft Caves on Gay Rights The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch. The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company's products if it did not change its stance on the legislation According to some reports Microsoft has backed off its support for an anti-discrimination bill once it was threatened by a national boycott of evanagelists. Boy, who to cheer for in that fight huh? If I was Microsoft I would have laughed at the evanagelicals. What are they going to do? Stop using Windows at work? Switch to Apple products? Install Linux on their home PC's? Many people like myself dislike MS simply because we find it so hard to get away from their buggy and bloated products. I want to see the evangelicals launch their own "biblically friendly" operating system. Still it would have been fun to watch thousands of evangelicals dump their windows PCs and get Macs. Who would have guessed that evengelicals, led by a former Seattle Seahawk linebacker, were such an important market segment for computer software? | One of the reasons that I like writing and keeping this blog up to date is because sometimes, whilst in the middle of a post, everything will get wiped out by blogger and I'll have to write everything all over again. Well no, not really. Actually, that pisses me off. I now write my posts in notepad and copy it over when finished. What I do enjoy, is that in the process of writing I'll stumble upon new ideas. I suppose that's the concept behind journaling? Its free association but with a trail of breadcrumbs so you can get back to those thoughts that flitted through your brain for just a brief moment. For a while I've been trying to discover the link between right wing Christianity and Republicanism. What is the key that ties the two together? What could a religion that is centered around a humble carpenter who preached compassion, who cared for the sick, who mingled with the outcasts, and who challenged the ruling authorities have in common with a political party so intent on pandering to the powerful and turning its back on the meek and needy in society? Before I give my answer I first want to make it clearly known that I am only referring to a subset of mainstream Christianity and not necessarily all Christians. I think of them more as a cult, revolving around the person of Jesus as a means of self-glorification. The gospel, the "good news" is that "Jesus loves you!". You are god's little light in the world. He made you in his image. He created the world for your enjoyment. He sent his son to Earth to save you from an eternity of pain. It is, quite literally, all about you. The whole reason we are here, and why everything happens revolves around self. God wants to be your buddy and he wants to whisper in your ear. And when you die, you, and only others just like you will ascend into heaven and spend eternity in the presence of the creator. I was raised to believe that to be a Christian one had to be Christ-like. This meant reading the New Testament and trying to live in a manner that emulated Jesus. It wasn't until later in my life that I learned of a Christianity that focused less on the works one does in their life, but on the act of becoming "saved". Becoming a Christian involved accepting Jesus as your personal lord and savior. Once this was accomplished you were saved, you were redeemed, the door that had been opened by the resurrection was there for you to enter. All that was left was living out the rest of your life here on Earth. You are encouraged not to sin, but you would still be forgiven if you did. As long as you have the lucky Jesus' foot in your pocket all is well. You are blessed. Acting like a selfish prick is not a sin. It follows from the belief that you are god's chosen. Your wants are god's wants. So if you want to make a killing in the stock market investing in companies that use third world sweatshop labor then that too must be what god wants. Everything flows from that understanding. | 4.21.2005
I wish I could remember better, what it was like when I was a kid. I would want to remember if this city, Tulsa, was always so full of fundies. Is it just now, with nearly every car sporting multiple magnetic ribbons, Jesus fish, "I love Jesus" and Bush-Cheney stickers and people peppering their conversations with "I've been blessed" or has it always been this way? Or is it that I've become oversensitive to it all now that I've staked out my own political identity? Try to imagine living in a city where every car has one of those "Starfleet Academy" stickers in the back window? You would feel like you've been transported to the surface of an alien planet. I view fundies the same way I view trekkies. I can see the appeal and I don't care what you do with your own personal life. If you have a passion for building models out of popsicle sticks, or if you're trying to form a nude basketball league, I care not. I can choose not to participate. That's all that matters to me. Personally I would rather watch an episode of Star Trek than go to church. What I'm trying to convey to overtly religious people is this: imagine how you would feel if a normal looking person walked up to you one day and started trying to get you to watch Star Trek, when you've already seen the show and decided that its of no interest to you. This person insists that you join them at the next convention, loaning you a copy of the original series on DVD and then starts telling you about how life is so much better with Star Trek in their lives? You would be amused, maybe even slightly annoyed. You would appreciate this person's passion for Star Trek, but you would try to find a polite way of letting them know that you're just not that interested. Now imagine that a Trek convention came to town and this happened nearly every day. Then imagine that they built a real Starfleet Academy in your hometown and Trekkies from all over the country came there to live and study Star Trek; stores started stocking shelves with trek merchandise and advertising themselves as "trek friendly". People in coffee shops would be carrying around copies of trek literature. The people sitting in the corner would be debating the latest plotline of Enterprise. No matter how ambivalent you felt about the show, you might start to feel a little annoyed by the constant barrage of people telling you how great it is. Here in Tulsa we have at least two first-rate fundie magnets; Oral Robert's University and Rhema Bible College, plus a network of associated businesses and individuals. If you desire, you can get fundie plumbing, fundie pizza, fundie art supplies, and for your fundie shopping needs, there's Wal-Mart. At almost any given time you can look around and and see a fish on either a sign, a passing truck or a person. I normally try to avoid any conversations about religion by avoiding the topic altogether. So when someone starts telling me how "Jesus loves me" I just turn the topic back around to something else. Like the other day, when a customer reffered to herself as "being blessed" to explain how they could spend $7,000 on a trip to Disneyworld, I kept quiet when I would have rather asked them why they didn't think of using that money to help poor people or needy kids. But I doubt even Jesus' own words, the Beatitudes, would have helped. Its gone far beyond Jesus, the person, or his words. He's just a brand, a personality that justifies a philosophy that revolves around self glorification. The important part is that he "died for them". People accuse secularism of being too focused on the material and self-gratification. But I wonder if those accusers have ever seen the fundies in their SUVs, with DVD's playing in the back seats for the kids, as they speed their fat asses down to 71st street to pack the restaraunts. For this particular strain of fundie religion, its all about the glorification of self. Jesus sacrificed himself for them. The wealth of the world is here for their amusement and power. They've turned the teachings of Jesus around and have used his image to construct a worldview of self-glorification. And I seem to live right in the middle of it. | 4.20.2005
New pope = YAWN. I don't get the people that are disappointed that the new pope is a conservative. Much like I don't get people like Horowitz that complain that academia is full of liberals. What did you expect? I consider myself a "cultural catholic", my family is all catholic and I was raised as such; going to chapel, confessing my sins, choking on incense, the whole works. But around the time of confirmation I found myself thinking about the path I was going to take. I would either become an individual, free to think as I please (a liberal) or I would become a servant of doctrine. I could either shut my brain off, or become a human being. I chose the latter, and my relationship with the church came to an end. Some people seem to think they can have it both ways. Sorry folks, as much as you might wish it, the Catholic church is not going to transform itself into some humanitarian organization that accepts people as they are. Ultimately, they believe that a big man-head in the sky imparted upon us all the knowledge that we would ever need some two thousand (and more) years ago. If you agree that the church speaks for god, then god hates gay people and thinks that women are inferior. How you can agree with that and be a liberal is beyond me. For the Catholic church to embrace liberalism is to embrace its own irrelavance. Freethinking people have little patience for an institution that lags behind common sense by about 100 years. Even most of the Fathers and Brothers here in the U.S. have moved beyond official church teachings. Still, it was sad to see that the new pope was not South or Central American, a huge snub to a part of the world that has been faithfully catholic for years and is facing a competant threat from protestantism. The new pope is still old, white and European. Just like god himself. What did we expect, a Muslim pope? So the new pope still thinks that god only talks to celibate men? Why are we surprised? I just wanted to take a second here to state that I think that Brain C. Anderson, of the Manhatten Institute's City-Journal, is a Mega-Idiot for thinking that a South Park character that has a sex change so he can have an abortion somehow represents liberalism. You stupid fucker, get a fucking clue. We know the money's flowing to your "cause" and you're feeding off the teat (oil and steel), but you're still full of shit. Stupid does not equal liberal Stupid does not equal conservative Stupid equals stupid. How is that I can read six pages of the Dallas Morning News full of people complaining about the "Liberal Bias"? How does that make one lick of sense? At what point does this go beyond the line of ridiculousness? | 4.19.2005
My friend "Billy Bob" emailed me a recent "Let's be friends" letter. I offered my (cynical) translation for him and he agreed to let me repost the letter and my interpretation here for you. Italics = Her letter. Bold = My interpretation The names have been changed to protect the innocent. "Hello, Billy Bob" "Well, I didn't get a chance to talk to you much this weekend. Didn't go to church since I had too much to do after the party." I'm avoiding you so I can dump you over email "Anyhoo, I just wanted to give you a quick email response since I didn't call you last night." That was the plan after all... "I appreciate the nice things you've done for me and how thoughtful you've been. " You're just too "nice" to screw. But I like that you're desperate, its been a real boost to my ego. "As I also already told you, I love going to that church, and I'm really enjoying getting to know all the people there. I wouldn't want anything between you and me to put a damper on that, and it does make me feel very hesitant to date you for that reason." There's a hot guy at church I want to see if I can win over, and I'm afraid that if I'm seen with you it might scare him off. So could you please sit somewhere else on the off chance he might look my direction? Church is my 'fishing hole' and I can't keep fishing if I still got you on the line eating the bait now can I? "There is a lot about you that I like, Billy Bob. I think we connect pretty well intellectually and politically. But, I'm not feeling the spiritual connection that I would need to in order to feel comfortable dating you." When I say "spiritual" I mean sexual. "It may be that I just don't know you very well yet, but I think it could be that emotionally, you and I are on different planes." Mine's full of women circling Hotguyville and your's just lost an engine "I know that I am feeling hesitant to date anybody right now, and I also know that in the end I would like to find someone to spend my life with." I'm keeping my options open because ... any ... day ... now... he's going to notice me and I'll bear his pretty little babies as Mrs. Hotguy. I really can't be tied up with you while I'm waiting for my dreams to come true, you understand? "I really would like to still get to know you as a friend. If you are up for that, just give me a call sometime and let me know. Either way, I will see you around." On the off chance that Mr. Hotguy never notices me or he decides to go for that hot blonde who always sits off to the right front, I'd like to know that I can always come back to you for a little ego boost. I can't tell you how great its been for my self-confidence to squash you like a bug! Angelina That girl you really wanted to have sex with, too bad about that, better luck next time! | Life and Deatherage:Why normal politics don't work against Republican leaders Matt discovers that Republican's have no shame, though I suspect that, like most of us already, he already knew that. Judo Talking Points. Sure we're callous and opportunistic, ethically challenged and hellbent on political victory at all costs, dragging the personal plight of one family into the spotlight because we thought we could score a few political points, but its worse of you to point this out, you should be ashamed of yourselves. | 4.17.2005
Damn. I never should have picked up the newspaper. But it was a copy of the Dallas Morning News that my family brought back from their visit there. I thought it might be interesting to see what's happening there. At the bottom of page 6P is see a cool picture of a massive building that I learn is the Arches de la Defense. What I read, an article by George Weigel, was right in line with my thinking on the previous post. (Go read it first, its right before this one.) Weigel's article makes the argument that I was ascribing to social conservatives. Namely, that religion is important for the sake of protecting tribal identity and self preservation. His points as I read them: Europe chose instead a set of ideas that centered around the notion that the God of the Bible was an oppressor, and only by overthrowing him would human's be free, mature and capable of creating a truly human future. Ironically, Weigel uses the creation of a monument the size of the Notre Dame cathedral as a example of this malaise. Europeans it seems are so dead on the inside that they build massive monuments to celebrate their own boredom. The alternative viewpoint might see a culture that is celebrating its own accomplishments. Never mind that Weigel's proof that Europe is in decline is its low birth rates. Apparently only happy people, infused with the goodness of God and Bible see any point in having more children. Why is a continent that's richer, healthier and more secure than ever before failing to create the human future in the most elemental sense of creating successive generations? Weigel makes the assumption that only good Christian babies will be able to carry forward the torch of human civilization. Science has already gave us the answer to Weigel's question. Its been found that people that are richer, healthier and better off have less children. The reason it seems, is that people who feel more secure about their futures feel more confident in only having one or two children. The chances of that baby being able to survive are much greater, so there is no need to have a large brood of kids just to increase survival rates. Weigel's theory is that Europeans are too bored and self-centered to make time for children. If you are focused on me, myself and I all the time, you are eventually going to bore yourself to death. Its only when we understand - and this is part of what becoming an adult means - that living outside of ourselves, to live for the well-being of others, that we fulfill ourselves. Cultures and societies can forget that, too It would be interesting to know what Europeans think of this view. And its amusing to note that Weigel himself only has three children. Perhaps the more threatening aspect of this is it seem that the forms of Islam taking hold in Europe right now are not pacific but aggressive. The interaction of Islamic immigrants with European culture is not producing a softer form of Islam, and its not forcing Islam to grapple with questions like, Can there be an Islamic case for religious tolerance, for social pluralism? Its doing precisely the opposite. Its hardening the edges. Never mind that Christianity did not originate in Europe, and that it spread there through a progression of conquests and conversions. Never mind that the height of Christianity in Europe was also called the Dark Ages. Never mind that there were great civilizations before Christian Europe (Rome, Greece and China) and that there are currently vast and growing civilizations that are not Christian (India, China). Weigel does not simply argue for the embrace of religion. He wants Europeans to return to his religion. In fact he lays out another religion, Islam, as the threat, not to secularization which he sees as the problem, but to Christianity, which he sees as the "cultural seed corn" of freedom and democracy. "It takes a certain kind of people possessed of certain virtues, certain habits of mind and heart, to make freedom and democracy work." Yes, we're talking about that democracy, first invented by the Greeks. I won't argue with his general sentiment on democracy, that it takes a commitment to freedom and democracy to make it work. But I would argue with his assumption that only Christians are capable of such a thing and that the secular children are going to piss it all away. As he so innocently asks, "All right, what culture is most likely to protect the human rights that this monument is meant to celebrate?" I might even argue that freedom and democracy have become our new spiritual values. That maybe its not malaise that's the problem with some people. Maybe they care less about religion because they have a higher dedication to other spiritual ideals; freedom, education, multiculturalism, peace, community, and self determination. Weigel seems to assume that without religion, namely Christianity, we are without purpose. Because a lot of our high culture and a lot of blue America is European. Its far more secularized than the rest of the country and far less confident in the capacity of biblical faith, be it Jewish, Protestant or Catholic, to inform and shape the great public issues of the day. Its more materialist, more consumption-driven and, frankly, less reproductive. Never mind that Weigel lives in a blue state and I live in a red state. But this, ultimately, is his point, that Godly people should be pumping out babies to reclaim America for Christianity, and one can only assume, Europe as well. Wow, the war against sexual freedom doesn't seem so detached anymore does it? Not when you view women as baby machines that need to crank out the little tykes for the sake of out-populating the enemy, who, in their greater numbers or lack of proper spiritual enlightenment, will drag humanity down into the depths of... what? | New Scientist Will cancer vaccine get to all women? - News: Sometimes we might be deluded into thinking that we've turned the corner into the age of civilization. The people around us all seem to have their knuckles a sufficient distance off the ground. But when they open their mouths, such things come out... "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex" Don't put away the tools just yet. There's still work to be done, especially amongst some cultures where the conservative attitude is still dominant. "We found that some Asian women in Britain are afraid even to get tested for HPV infection, because they say if it is positive they will be killed, never mind that their husbands probably gave it to them" So, men who sleep around and give their wives a sexually transmitted virus might kill them if they are tested to prevent cancer? What kind of backwards thinking is this? Sex is a sin, especially for women, who are to remain chaste and pure and innocent till the day they are married. So the argument goes, but why is this important? One fortunate by-product of my Catholic school upbringing has been my exposure to the Bible. Not because I think its the inerrant word of God, or that I think its a useful guidebook to a moral life; because I don't. But it does give people a common framework to talk about history and society. If you read through the middle of the Old Testament its mostly just a historical accounting of a tribe of people trying to survive. Except for the supernatural aspects of the story (which I regard as mythmaking) its a remarkable account of what it was like to live through an era where many of the rules of society where just being formed. But, and this is the mistake that modern day biblical adherents fail to grasp, the rules for that place and time were very specific to that way of life. I can look at the social behaviors of the Israelites and conclude that swapping livestock for women might have been a useful way to build alliances across family networks. So protecting the "value" of women with strict laws of conduct were vital in maintaining family wealth and power. Marriage was important for family prosperity and keeping women pure was important in securing a good marriage arrangement. I'm a firm believer that most of what we ascribe to the will of God is simply our own traditions and laws given the weight of divine rule. Religion has always been about government; the control of people. What higher form of law is there? I won't knock the usefulness of religion in making people conform to social norms. I don't think its merely a coincidence that the more successful civilizations to rise to power placed a high priority on religion. Social cohesion has its benefits, especially when it comes time to smite your enemies, or to defend your tribe from annihilation. But I don't think that its an accident that modern societies have begun to reject religion in favor of greater personal freedom. There's always been a tradeoff between greater individuality and greater national/tribal unity. As long as the benefits of religion outweighed the drawbacks, people were willing to make some sacrifices. After all, what good is being free if tomorrow a highly motivated group of people come along and kill you. There's not much freedom in being dead. Social conservatives still make the appeal, that even now we still need religion. Religion, they say, is the tool we need to survive the threat of terrorism. We have let ourselves become too focused on individual gratification and have ignored the will of God. Much of the conservative appeal comes from an innate sense of self preservation. I can go along with the idea that we need to have a general agreed upon approach to deal with such New World threats like terrorism and nuclear weapons, but what I can't agree with is the idea that we should adopt the social laws of an obsolete culture, even if we do think it "God's Will". Forcing women to remain virgins, and making sex taboo is not going to help us. Controlling the sex lives of women just doesn't have the same value that it might have once had. Ironically you can't fight stupidity with stupidity. (more at eschaton and The Light of Reason) | 4.16.2005
SNL's Robert Smigel cartoon.... How to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits at work: Be Handsome Be Attractive Not Be Unattractive Na na na na naaaa!!!! (content will return soon...) | 4.14.2005
 Note to cat people: Posting pictures of them on the internet will not make them love you. Its a lost cause, give it up. |  Every so often a well meaning friend or associate will interpret my appreciation for some girl as an excuse to prod me into asking her out. I have trouble explaining that even though I might say things like "most beautiful girl I've ever seen" or "holy shit, she's hot!" it doesn't necessarily mean I think that me and this girl would make a good match. I'll be the first to admit that I need to be a little more proactive about my love life. Trust me when I say that I beat myself up often enough when I know that I've let a legitimate opportunity slip me by. Sometimes I'm just being stupid and not looking for the signs when they come around. Other times I might be in the midst of self denial about ever finding the right girl. So yeah, some criticism is warranted and some prodding is understandable. But really, I know what I like and I have a pretty good idea of what kinds of girls like me. Every so often I run across a girl that I not only find attractive, but I also feel that I might get along with. It doesn't happen as often as I might like, which contributes to my extended lengths of singlehood, but when it does, I surprise myself by finding the will to go after what I want. It usually doesn't work out, but at least I know that I'm not just running around hitting on any just girl I think is hot. Last week I wrote a post about the difference between attractive people and unattractive people and how we perceive the actions and words of the two groups differently. I also wanted to take a minute to say that this perception affects the way in which we see the dating world. You either see the dating scene as a great way to meet new people, go out to fancy restaruants, movies etc. and an ego booster, or you see it as a source of constant frustration and an ego killer. After a while you just want to stop beating your forehead against the brick wall and lay back for a while. You learn to pick and choose your battles. If you're going to fail, you decide that it should be in a battle you actually want to win. Otherwise you find yourself starring in a romantic comedy turned stalker flick. Not good. | 4.13.2005
I really should keep my camera with me at all times, but I don't, and as such I don't have a picture of what the sky looked like on Monday night. It was a bizarre sight that messed with my sense of place. You see, I've lived in this town most of my life, except for the couple of years when I lived in Dallas. I drive around in my car, taking various exits and turning down streets just because I've never done so before. So to say that I feel at home here is an understatement. I could never feel lost in this town. And its a very rare occasion when I come across a place I've never been before. But the sky.. it was different. A big dark cloud covered the horizon and rose up into the air like a dark mountain that stretched from the north of the city to the south of the city in the west. Its edges were wispy like treetops. Above this dark imposing mass was the sky, solid blue and still brightly lit by the setting sun hidden behind the wall. Its a weird feeling to look up into the sky on a dark night and see blue. Not just the faint light blue of a summer day and not the murky grey-blue of rainy days. It was blue like stained glass, stark and luminescent. And below I squinted as I drove in the dark, trying to see the exits I should have known so well. I felt out of place, like a traveler navigating around a strange city. I could have been back driving through Colorado, Tennessee or Mexico; places where mountains live in the background. Here, nothing is supposed to be there. Its clear horizons every day. I thought about driving back for my camera but I knew that this moment, when the massive cloud covered the horizon and the sun shone from behind it, would not last long enough for my return. So I just enjoyed it for a few minutes and drove on. | 4.11.2005
 Meet the new girl in my life. Her name is Sasha. I'll be taking care of her for the next couple of months. She's a sweet dog. When you look at her, she comes running. She doesn't bark, she loves to be rubbed and hugged, and she's good with kids. What more could you ask for? A human girl. One that makes you feel like an idiot, but at the same time, like you belong right there with her. Maybe I met one of those too. We'll see? | A quick post on Social Security; an example of class warfare in government. First, a few fundamental facts. If you earn less than 90,000 dollars then you are taxed on 100% of your income twice for the sake of Social Security and income taxes. As your earnings surpass that cap, your contributions to SS stop and you are only taxed once on your income. Thus there are two types of taxes, one that double taxes the working class on all their income and one that double taxes the wealthy on a small portion of their income and single taxes the rest of their income. So its safe to assume that payroll taxes are a tax on the working class. For many years the amounts collected from payroll taxes have exceeded the payouts to Social Security. Those extra proceeds have been used by the federal government to meet operating expenses. In return the federal government has issued bonds to the trust fund that, by law, have to be repaid. So remember this: The federal government has been spending excess payroll taxes at a time that it has been giving out income tax cuts. This is a clear transfer of wealth from the working class to the wealthy. It is shifting the burden of government financing to lower income earners. This is class warfare. This money, about 1.7 trillion dollars has been taken by the federal government to make up for lost revenue due to cuts in income taxes. And now they are talking as if they don't have to repay this money. Listen to this language. The government cannot “unspend” what it has spent in the past, and even if it could, the system would still be on a course toward insolvency. No, no, no. Its called borrowing. And you "pay back" what you have borrowed. Imagine that if you called up your credit card company today and told them that you cannot "unspend" the money that they gave you, and that you won't be able to pay them back the full amount that you own them, but that you would be willing to give them a small amount, that they could this money to invest in the stock market to make up for the whole amount that you won't be able to pay them, and that you predict that if they invest wisely, they should be able to earn the difference between what you owe them and what you gave them, and that they should consider the small check you've sent them payment in full... They would laugh at you. Because that money you spent has to be repaid. And according to the constitution the federal government must honor its debts as well, even if it is to the working class. Other people have pointed out that its incredibly irresponsible for the federal government to refer to its debts as simple IOUs. Especially given the enormous amounts that we have borrowed from foreign markets. Any money that is not used to pay for today’s Social Security benefits is loaned to the rest of the federal government to finance its current operations. The government, in return for the use of the money, issues an IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund. This IOU represents a promise to produce money when needed at a future time, money that the government can only acquire through future borrowing or taxation. Thus, even if there are assets in the Trust Fund, future taxpayers will still shoulder the cost of paying for Social Security benefits. In short, we have spent the money taken from the working class and spent it. In order to pay it back we would have to tax the wealthy. To avoid doing this we will instead look at ways to cut benefits from Social Security. Its a case of priorities. We can create the means to pay for a war in Iraq. We can create the means to pay for bigger military spending. We can create the means to pay for tax cuts. But when it comes time to create the means to pay for better education, better health care, and to secure retirement? We get outturned pockets. And that is how class warfare works. | 4.09.2005
4.08.2005
Looks matter. Not so long ago I asked a simple question of the Demistifying Divas: "Would you ever date/marry a man that has neither money, good looks or charm? If so what does your current significant other lack in this regard?" Silk, I feel, pretty much dodged the heart of the question. I should have known better than to include money and charm in that question. Her answer: Alas it is true, I once dated a guy who had neither charm, money or wit! I was bored out of my skull and made a hasty retreat to my nun status. Let's face it, looks fade, money gets spent quickly and charm is often a barf inducing trait on most people if they aren't sincere. I love a guy with humor and who can take as good as he gets otherwise he's gonna end up crying and I'm gonna be bored a lot of the time. Some moves in the bedroom gets him double points I've emailed Silk to find out if the guy in question was good looking or not. Because, otherwise, why would you date someone that wasn't interesting? I want someone to admit that their significant other is unattractive. Someone? Anyone? What really bugs me though, is the way in which looks affect the way people treat you. And don't you even dare to deny that it does. The other day I was talking to a friend at work and he made a unflattering remark about a female co-worker. The C word was used. He felt that she spent way too much time complaining about work and acting like a martyr. But let's face it, grousing about the job has a grand tradition. Its what people do when they work together. What else do we have in common but a mutual dislike of our job and our co-workers? But the irony of this statement is that this friend of mine is also chasing after another girl we both work with. Personally, I've never had a conversation with this girl that didn't include a liberal dose of complaining about work. In fact, I would say that the girl he likes spends more time complaining to me than the other girl, about whom he himself was complaining about. The difference? Girl #2 is a little hottie, Girl #1 is a "large" girl; tall and wide. I'm not judging my friend on his opinions. He's just being honest about how he feels. I don't think he consciously factors in looks when he judges a girl's personality. Its just natural that we think more highly of people that we find attractive and would like to "know". There are three gates that one must pass through to get into a relationship. 1) Attraction 2) Personality 3) Sex They go in that order. If you get stopped at gate one, then you're stuck. You may get to gate three based on attraction, but you're not going to stay in that relationship long, unless its one of those weird ones where the mutual partners don't like each other but stay together anyways. But no amount of personality is going to save you if you can't make their juices flow. You might as well be speaking a foreign language at that point. I thought I might include a handy guide to understanding how looks change perception: If you are good looking, and you are... Being quiet -- you're mysterious/broody Dressing sloppy -- you're cool Being flirtatious -- you're a player Acting aggressive and domineering -- you're confident Dressing in skimpy clothes -- you're hot Talking too much about yourself -- you're fascinating Telling crude/stupid jokes -- you're witty and funny If you're not good looking, and you are... Being quiet -- you're invisible Dressing sloppy -- you're a slob Being flirtatious -- you're a creep Acting aggressive and domineering -- you're a prick/jerk Dressing in skimpy clothes -- you're a skank Talking too much about yourself -- you're a bore Telling crude/stupid jokes -- you're a pervert There's more, but you get the general idea. I'm not saying that looks will carry you through. Because as is often the case, once that initial attraction wears off you're really going to have to be all those things that he/she thought you were. Its at this point that Prince (or Princess) Charming "turns into" a creep, bore, prick, slob, mental patient, etc... when in reality they were always that way. Still, its always amusing to watch the new guy flirt with the girl that everyone knows is nuts. | Nikon UK confirms entry-level D-SLRs for end of April: Digital Photography Review: "Following recent speculation, Nikon UK is pleased to confirm the launch of two new digital SLR cameras to be launched towards the end of April 2005." I have a weakness for cameras. I also have a birthday in May. |  I haven't posted a picture in a while, so I made an effort to grab my camera before I set out today. I didn't get any good pictures. I'm in a bit of a funk regarding my photography. I see all sorts of interesting sights but I can't quite see how they would translate into good photographs. I long for a better camera. My little Canon A70 is cool to plunk around with, but it has serious limitations when it comes to capturing good scenes. I think I need a change of scenery too. I'm thinking... Australia. Anyone want to take me? Also... I've been doing a bit of guestblogging over at Freakishly Prompt while the fabulous Heather is off traipsing about Victoria in her neverending hunt for smooches, and good photos. I want to thank her for her trust in my blogging abilities. I tried to make it "literate and fun". Hopefully we'll see some good pictures posted up on her site soon. Also... I didn't realize it but that cute Indian girl from Bend It Like Beckham is on ER. Which is a shame because I don't really like ER that much. But I do like her. What a dilemma. Television shows set in a hospital environment have to be very careful. You don't want to make light of illness and suffering, but you can't keep going "balls to the walls" white-knuckle drama either. A hospital-comedy like Scrubs just seems too light-hearted for such a sober place. People only go to hospitals for health issues. The only time people actually enjoy going to a hospital is for births, and even those can be gut-wrenching. With a show like ER, where the drama comes from the break-neck, high tension, life and death situations, the problem becomes, how to top that level of drama the next week. If you have a busload of pregnant nuns colliding with a trian full of HIV/AIDS children this week, you have to find something even more dramatic the next week. ER lost me when I tuned in for a couple minutes one night to witness one doctor getting his hand chopped off by a helicopter blade while they were all trying to save a critical patient. I have a hard enough time suppressing my own tragic imagination without ER putting those fears in front of me as well. No thanks, I'd rather just watch poker. Which means, not at all. Also... If you've come over from Life of Trillian, looking for some sort of Divine Secret of the Smoothie Bloggerhood, I have nothing for you. Nothing. You hear that? So quit tapping on my window at all hours of the night. Unless of course you're bringing me some delicious soup. In which case, the secret code is "tap tap (pause) tap tap (pause) tap". Also... (while I wait for Blogger to actually let me post something!) Beck - Girl is going to be my summer theme music. | 4.07.2005
Salon.com News: "'This is like being for the Civil Rights Bill in 1960,' said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., emerging from a weekly meeting of the GOP rank and file. 'You may not win but it makes you feel good and you're on the right side.'" Pop quiz: What issue is Tom Cole, Idiot from Oklahoma referring to? a) Balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. b) Privitizing Social Security c) Reducing infant mortality worldwide in honor of World Health Day d) Spending an additional $80 billion in Iraq e) Investigating the ethical abuse allegations of Tom Delay So, what is the new Civil Rights Bill for our age? Answer in the comments. (via Pandagon) | .. a few changes, color-wise. If there is anything too out of whack, let me know. I won't even load up IE to check how this page looks. If you're still using Explorer I have little hope for you. Just so this post is not entirely devoid of content, the other day some guys at work were commenting on my eighties hair. Its no longer Hugh Grant-ish. Its grown out. Now I have a mop on top. But they decided I needed a make-over. Included in that was some advice on body language. I learned that I should stand with my legs apart, "so you can let the ladies know you're hung". Um, sure... whatever. Nod. Grin. | 4.05.2005
I find the current crop of "adults" to be pretty pathetic. I can only assume its the result of growing up in a world where you can have anything you want, and the world has been presented to you from day one as a shiny playground of earthly delights, each carefully marketed to appeal to your particular brand of "being". You need only decide "who you are" and surround yourself with the proper accessories -- leaf blowers, riding lawmowers, motorcycles, big ass pickup trucks, kids, wife, big screen televisions... and it goes on and on. Day after day these "adults" wander from store to store looking for the next defining consumer experience. All the while ignoring their own life experiences. And I just loathe the sense of fucking entitlement that some people have. How dare you stand between them and their toys. How dare you even suggest that their little fantasy world is destroying the lives of others and causing irrevocable harm to the world on which we live? "Why can't I have everything I desire?" I know it sounds melodramatic, but the reason is that you'll lose your soul, you'll be a soulless child for your entire life here on earth. And I don't refer to the soul in a religious sense, because these "adults" loves them some religion. Because it promises that the party here on earth will continue on even after they've kicked the bucket. Today's religious appeal is simply an extension of the consumer mindset. Just add "eternal life among the clouds" to the shopping list. I say soul, the inner person that you are when you're not chasing after "lifestyles". We've become individualized. We are told that unless we move out and start a life of rapid consumption we've failed to "grow up". When did that become our defining rite of passage? Can we even still define our lives in the absence of material life? The ideas of "community" and "sacrifice" have become obsolete, because we're all convinced that our individual decisions have no consequences, and that we don't need to share responsibilty with anyone. We firmly believe that this is a world without limits and that those who forsake our god granted right to pursue gluttony are simple not "trying hard enough". Everything in moderation, nothing in excess. We've tossed that concept on its head and shook it for loose change. Moderation is for losers, the very idea that we can find more with less is an absurdity that has been burried beneath those pretty ruins. I desire, therefore I am. But we let so little into our hearts. We let so little define our lives. We scoff at ideas, concepts, theories, and philosophies except where we can find them useful to push product. We are frightened to be alone with our own thoughts, realizing that the emptiness we hear is an echo. I think we missed an exit somewhere and we keep circling back to where we've been. The point of wealth is the accumulation of ever more wealth so that we all die with our own little piles of stuff; but we contrubuted little to the world around us. We even resent that we should give a little for the betterment of anyone around us. If we can't value self-betterment, why should we value cultural betterment? Civilizations with less did more with it. The accumulation of wealth and material goods used to be a burden, that when conquered would free us to pursue greater goals; the building of institutions, the enjoyment of culture and traditions, and the edification of self. But we've just ratcheted up the process and keep passing GO. Collect $200 | Politics has been pretty slow now that the vultures of the newsmedia have descended on the Pope. Its at times like these, that some worldwide event is eating up the airwaves, that I often wonder, what minor story would we otherwise be fixated upon if it wasn't for this? Are there station managers who can't get to sleep at night because they can't decide whether to lead with a dead pope or a freakazoid singer on trial for child molestation? "Why, oh why, did the Pope have to die in the middle of the Jackson Trial?" You know, at least it didn't happen while the vegetative women was still alive, or else some CNN or Fox News exec might have been tempted to kill her themselves. Because, let's face it, no matter how compelling the story of TS was to many people, it was filler. It was baby down the well, it was husband kills pregnant wife, it was baseball player takes steriods to look like the incredible hulk, it was celebrity kills someone... whoever. There always has to be something happening in the "news" world. If nothing newsworthy is ongoing they start digging up whatever they can find; killings, celebrities... anything that will keep people glued to their TV's. Wouldn't it be nice to turn on the news one night and have the anchor say "Tonight, we were going to bring you a story about a horribly obese women who was crane-lifted out of her roach-infested house but then we realized, 'That's just tacky!' So instead we will be cutting our broadcast short to make room for more paid programming from SMC"? Maybe not. Maybe Jerry Mander was right. Maybe its just the medium that is the problem? Here's an idea for a news story; OIL -- Its going to run out. Maybe we could do a voice over while they play footage of the crane-lifting? | 4.01.2005
Its a strange day, today is, when I agree with Skippy, a Republican Senator and a Baptist. And no, this is not an April Fool's Day joke. First Skippy: To watch the Republican philosophy of governance in the last decade, it is as if Ronald Reagan never existed. Under Republican rule, the federal government has grown as it has been starved of the resources it needs. There is now no part of American life that the Republicans want to be free of government influence. And conservative commentators have been rather muted in the face of this. Read any conservative blog or commentary. The most you will get is, "while I don't agree with everything President Bush is doing..." Of course, I might say that the Republicans were never really serious about some of their core conservative principles. Rank and file members probably were to a large degree, but the party itself used phrases like "small government" and "tax and spend liberals" as levers to use against their opponents until they could get back in power. "It is almost as if they don't mind a statist big government, so long as it is not a Democratic one" - Skippy. I'd say that was a true sentiment. Partisanship over principle. You see this in Oklahoma all the time. Whenever there is a Democrat elected to state or local office all of a sudden the uproar about taxes fires up again. Op-eds and editorials denouncing any project spring up on local papers. Any type of bond issue is derailed with venom. The phrase "tax and spend" seems to just float in the air. Never mind that it is Republican Mayor Bill LaFortune that is now leveling a block of downtown, seizing property and spending millions of new money building an arena and engaging in many new infrastructure projects. Projects that would have never been approved under a Democratic Mayor. While a few principled conservatives spoke out about their usual dislike of new taxes, it was quite amazing to see the rest of the city line up behind the new spending proposals. Its not taxes that most are opposed to, its letting the other side get to spend those taxes. Next up, the Republican Senator: John C. Danforth During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans. Of course that sounds oddly like what I said. But I'm just some guy with a blog that needs to learn to play nice. If I may propose an alternative hypothesis? Maybe God sent us a vegetative women to reveal the true nature of Tom Delay's hypocrisy and the declining relevancy of the Republican party? Of course I wouldn't suggest such a thing, because trying to convince people that what I want is also what God wants is the work of a charlatan. So, some final parting words from the Baptist: It is good to see that Republican politicians are awakening to the theocratic agenda of the Religious Right. I hope they will be able to help rank-and-file moderate Republicans wake-up. I doubt that they will be any more successful than moderate Baptists were when many of the same people took over the Southern Baptist Convention. Soon, I'll try to write something about Democrats. But like Skippy says, there's just not much to write about. They are a party in search of a message. Only recently, as people who knew better have died off, have the bad ideas of the past become appealing once again. | My Top Artists: Via Audioscrobbler. 1. Elliott Smith 2. Modest Mouse 3. Wilco 4. Badly Drawn Boy 5. Nick Drake 6. John Vanderslice 7. Rilo Kiley 8. The Shins 9. Death Cab for Cutie 10. Coheed and Cambria And the runners up... 11. Pinback 12. Beck 13. The Postal Service 14. Radiohead 15. Emery | Confronting the Judicial War on Faith: "SPEAKERS INCLUDE Its like the Legion of Doom, but for dumbass theocrats. They're making the world a better place, much like spam is making the internet a better place. Dear kind readers, when it is ever ok to call people stupid? I didn't have to compile the list, they found themselves. I just drew the flashing arrow.... Apparently the creator of a device called the Fox Blocker, that blocks out Fox News, hails from Tulsey. Proving once again that being close to the heart of the beast provides some measure of useful perspective. I'm so proud. The Tulsa, Okla., resident also has received thousands of e-mails, both angry and complimentary - as well as a few death threats. Ah yes, Fox News viewers are stupid and violent. Why does that NOT surprise me? I would like to extend a formal invitation to Sam Kimery, fellow resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dear sir, free beer(s) on me if you so choose. For you contribution to the betterment of society. And for those screaming censorship: "The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery. Formerly a registered Republican, even a precinct captain, Kimery became an independent in the 1990s when he said the state party stopped taking input from its everyday members. Big flashing arrow. The new Beck cd Guero is Bueno. The DVD with weird video content is Taco Bueno. Someone gets it. If the problem is that people are downloading the music for free, you offer a better product that people will pay for. The RIAA is mad because their easy profits are going down the tubes and they're too lazy to compete. Maybe they should email CATO and ask them to explain the phrase "creative destruction"? That, would require way too much effort. Especially when you've spent twenty years exploiting the profits gained from dumping recordings onto cheap plastic discs and charging twice as much for them. In most cases the record companies didn't even bother to remaster the original analog recordings to improve sound quality. They have the gall to act surprised that people refuse to pay their outrageous prices? The bassline from Beck's Scarecrow reminds me of Michael Jackson's Billie Jean. Some people think its witty to play Michael Jackson's "Beat It". And it was, once, a long time ago. Now its just getting old. I get it. She's dead. He's about to die. I'm sure the Pope would be ok if we keep a petri dish of living cells alive to lead the Catholic Church for eternity? Right to Life and all? ... and yeah, I'd rather have a link to David Neiwart on my blog anyday over one to hacktacular Michelle "the mother of all neighborhood watch programs" Malkin. Just so you know. As if its so hard to tell who is talking out of their asses? But in a world where shit-covered words are currency... | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
