- Another day, another endless set of PowerPoint slides. #
- Another day of meetings over. Now to be wined and (lightly) dined by a vendor. #
- So if there's a 30% chance I can expense an iPad, should I risk it? (Probably not, but…) #
 |
{ 0 comments }
Except he was, of course, not innocent. He was tried and convicted by the state of Texas. He exhausted his appeals. The process was followed, thus, he was legally considered guilty and correctly executed. Whether or not he actually did it is secondary to whether the rules were followed (and if they weren't, that's what appeals are for, so they must have been). Right?
It's like Nixon once said, "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
I'm sure that helps Scalia, and the good people of Texas, sleep easier.
Embedded Link
Report: Texas Executed Innocent Man
Carlos DeLuna maintained his innocence from the moment he was arrested in 1983 for the stabbing death of a young Texas woman right up until he was executed six years later. On Monday, a Columbia Unive…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 4 comments }
Then maybe this metaphor from John Scalzi will work with you in understanding about straight, white male, um, privilege.
Embedded Link
Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is – Whatever
I've been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at hi…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 7 comments }
- After an interminable day of presentations (even if two of them were mine), we're done. Now off to bowling, which should be… entertaining. #
- Ready for bowling! Even have a bowling shirt! That helps, right? #
- Bowling alley is called "300"… though the decor is not particularly spartan. #
- Town car's air freshener is almost unbearably nothing like fresh air. #
- You know, a 90 would be perfectly respectable as a golf score. #lowerisbetterright #
- Make that 108. With 3 spares, no strikes. #
- And a 93, so not trending well. Though a strike and a spare. #
- And 130, with 2 strikes and spares. #notquiteuseless #
- 115… Getting better. Or very feverish. #
- Self-destructing. Painfully. #
- Despite my best efforts, my team won. Woohoo! #
| |
{ 0 comments }
Disgusting. Delegate Bob Marshall (dolt) is basically arguing that because the state has legalized discrmination, those being discriminated against cannot possibly be judges. I repeat, disgusting.
Embedded Link
Virginia House Rejects Judge Because He Is Gay
Tracy Thorne-Begland served his country for 20 years in the Navy. After his discharge, he then rose to become one of the top prosecutors in the city of Richmond, Virginia. He was sponsored for a low-l…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 5 comments }
Though it's some cold comfort that it was the state House GOP that did it.
Embedded Link
Tensions remain high after CO civil unions defeat – The Denver Post
DENVER—Supporters of traditional marriage rallied at the Colorado Capitol as tensions remained high one day after a Republican-led House committee killed civil unions legislation.
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 1 comment }
The Illinois Family Institute wants you, as good Christians (assuming you are, and if you aren’t, you’re probably burning in Hell sooner or later anyway, so who cares what you think), to continue vigorously opposing gay marriage.
Now, they could simply say, “Because that’s what God wants,” and that should be the end of it. But they have to actually come up with practical, pragmatic reasons, so as to demonstrate why being street-smart is also being holy. Or something like that. And, to hear them talk, they’ve come up with five such reasons:
1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Polling on public acceptance of gay marriage has shown increased rates of acceptance in a very short period of time. So pointing at too many past states as proof of the matter is hardly conclusive.
Secondly, when asked in a relative vacuum, people have a tendency to say one thing, but in the midst of Apocalyptic Rhetoric a certain number of voters are swayed.
Third, it helps if you’re being deceptive at the same time. If gay marriage is drawing a narrow majority of support, civil unions are much more popular. But NC’s Amendment 1 was advertised primarily as a way to keep those icky gays from getting their gayness all over marriage. That it also forbids the state to allow civil unions, or that it similarly prevents the state from recognizing any relationship between heterosexual couples who are not formally married, got far too little play, and certainly wasn’t what the Amendment ran on.
Why, by the way, if there are such firm majorities in favor of keeping gays out of marriage, do groups like the IFI insist on state constitutional measures? They would argue that it’s to keep state courts from doing silly things like ruling that state provisions for equal treatment under the law should trump statutes that say otherwise. I suggest that it’s more than that — a fear that their demographic majority has a limited life span (literally), and so to make it more difficult for shifting tides to erode those constitutional barriers for some time to come.
2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.
Which is kind of a “sez you” argument. “We think gay marriage causes metaphysical splinters, so it should be opposed because that’s what we think.” Which I guess is a version of the “Because that’s what God wants” argument, and it’s equally unassailable, since it’s all wrapped in metaphorical twaddle about the “grain of divine design.”
3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds.
Yes, it’s a union of family assets, as agreed to by the fathers of both households, giving away the woman as child-bearing chattel along with certain properties, to the benefit of the husband’s household through the production of future male heirs.
What’s that? That’s not what you mean? Funny … in many “traditional” cultures down over the centuries, that’s precisely what marriage has practically (and “traditionally”) meant.
It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married.
Yes, let’s reduce sexual behavior in the context of committed and loving adults to a childhood prank. Classy.
Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, …
Whose ideological and political bent can be seen through a brief skimming of their recent articles.
…is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality.
So heterosexual couples who cannot functionally bear children — due to biological problems, infertility, age, disability, whatever — have a marriage that “is not a reality.” Classy.
And, of course, once the hypothetical kids are raised and on their way (assuming there’s more to it than simply conceiving children), marriages are free to fall apart because their comprehensive conjugal purpose is fulfilled. Nice.
We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage.
Translation: Because the word means what we want it to mean, not what other people want it to mean. And we win because we love Jesus more than you, so there.
What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.
Yes! Of course! We should legislate about marriage based on a religious metaphor. Brilliant!
4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.
Translation: We think gay sex is shameful, so we think that if others think it is not shameful that they are wrong and we should pass laws to make it de facto shameful. Similarly, interracial marriages were, until very recently, considered deviant, indecent, shameful behavior, and so it would serve a noble end by defining marriage as one man and one woman of the same race.
5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until allaccept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.
Okay, they lose me on this one. The argument seems to be that if we allow gays to be married, the next thing you know we’ll be treating gays as normal and, like all humans, to be celebrated for their achievements and so forth. Egad. Even if they hadn’t been spending the whole previous length of the article arguing that gay marriage is being discussed because more people consider homosexuality to be a normal behavior for those so inclined, the argument seems to be that the only way we can keep gays from seeming normal is to make sure they are discriminated against and treated as abnormal, excluded from fundamental social activities like marriage and, preferably, not allowed to openly be in our communities where people might grow used to them and see them as, oh, human beings.
I read something the other day that struck me as fairly wise and profound. The person writing it said that they don’t talk about “gay marriage” because the issue isn’t about gays getting married, any more than there’s an issue about “gay parking” or “gay employment” or “gay baseball.” The person preferred the term “marriage equality” (a phrase I’ve found a scosh PC in the past) because that’s the point — that people, regardless of sexual orientation or skin color or whatever, are seeking to be treated equally regarding marriage. Not a special “gay” marriage, but a simple marriage.
That makes a lot of sense to me, and that may well be the dangerous paradigm shift that folks like the dolts at the Illinois Family Institute are afraid of. As long as they can frame this matter as a small group of “deviants” looking for special treatment, then it’s easy to keep it in a rhetorical ghetto. As soon as it becomes seen a group of people looking to be treated the same as everyone else …
… well, who knows what might happen?
| |
{ 2 comments }
It is perhaps unfair to spend several gloating pages over how awful an artist (and writer, but let's stick to artist) Rob Liefeld is, with many, many, forty even examples to show it.
His shortcomings are not unique. Walt Simonson sometimes plays sketchily fast and loose with proportion. Arthur Adams had foot problems.
But Liefeld exemplifies the wretched Age of Image in comics, and remains considered today a major talent, even if he can't draw women, men, hands, feet, legs, guns, or all those ridiculous belts of pouches he still wraps around people's legs.
This is from 2007. He's not improved with another five years.
[Updated: spelling of his name corrected, dagnabbit. Thanks, +Scott Randel .]
Embedded Link
The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings: CASUALTY OF WAR!! – Progressive Boink
This is Rob Liefeld. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about Rob Liefeld… well, I'm sorry for this in advance. Comic books exploded when Bill and myself were about ten yea…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 4 comments }
Two points:
1. I have literally no choice but to look away prior to an injection. That's just the way I roll (up into a little ball in terror of needles).
2. Lying about how painful something is going to be might provide a minor reduction in perceived pain. Or it might make the pain involved more of a surprise and add a sense of betrayal to the whole process. (Just ask my daughter.)
Embedded Link
To avoid pain during an injection, look away
Health professionals commonly say, "Don't look and it won't hurt" before administering an injection, but is there any scientific basis for the advice? A group of German investigators has found that, …
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 8 comments }
… for acknowledging that in this world of laptops and (especially) smartphones, especially smartphones being used by many as their clocks/alarms, that having an open, easy, available outlet on the nightstand is an extremely useful, practical, and sensible idea.
Now, can you talk to your fellow hotels? Including the Hilton in Houston that I was at last week that had a outlet only down behind the center of the mattress?
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 0 comments }
I'd actually love to see this posted up at airports across the nation … except that, in addition to logically criticizing profiling, it criticizes the whole TSA "security theater" regime, it would never be allowed.
Embedded Link
Schneier on Security: The Trouble with Airport Profiling
"This is what we have a Constitution for: to help us live up to our values and not down to our fears." Indeed. Sadly and almost to the point of being criminal, the US Government has abdicate…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 0 comments }
Really. It's almost damned scary how much this is my brain. WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY BRAIN?!
Reshared post from +M Monica
A scientific mapping of the geek brain.
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 3 comments }
Because firing should be arbitrary and acceptable for any non-genetic circumstance
Rep. Lankford (R-OK) thinks it's perfectly acceptable for an employer to fire someone for their sexual orientation, because it's a "choice."
I won't argue what most biologists seem to agree upon — that homosexual orientation is not a choice — because, more fundamentally, who gives a damn? Because if an employer should be able to fire someone because that someone has made a lifestyle "choice" that they dislike, then certainly it should be okay for them to fire them for their religion.
After all, religion is a "choice." It's not genetic or congenital. Sure, it's often passed on within families — but there are plenty of people who have chosen another religion upon adulthood (or none at all, or gained one where they'd had none). It's all about choice, in fact.
So why should an employer not be able to discriminate based on religion? Or political affiliation? Or sports team preference? Or for being married? Or being single? Or pretty much any other "choice" where said choice has nothing to do with the ability to meet the needs of the job?
"But religion is _special!_" I hear some cry. More special than who you find yourself in love with?
Heck, take it a step further. I presume that most gay people who are out (and therefore eligible for being fired by Rep. Lankford's measure) have considered the moral implications of their orientation and action, and have determined that it is acceptable.
So to fire someone for being gay — for having decided that being gay is a morally acceptable lifestyle (whether or not it is a "choice" or not) is, in fact, discriminating against someone's else's considered moral judgment. Which is the foundation of religion. So if you can discriminate based on that, then certainly you can discriminate against Jews, or Muslims, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Christians, or …
Yeah, I suspect Rep. Lankford would object to that line of reasoning.
Embedded Link
GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: ‘It’s A Choice Issue’
Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress last week that he believes someone should be able to be fired for his or her sexual orientation. In a conversation on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed his…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 6 comments }
- I'm back in / The airport / Again…. #
- Hmm. At #39 on the First Class Upgrade list, don't think my chances are good. Especially with First Class full. On a 727. #premier #
- SwiftKey X has saved me 10,000 keystrokes! Check it out at Link #
- . @pedzz_bd Guh. 737, of course. Or, actually, Airbus 320. Yeesh. #
- Not 1st Class, but I did wangle an exit row. #bumpingelbows #butnotknees #
- Apparently the pilot, indeed, know the way to San Jose. Good thing, that. #
- Now to see if taxi prices closer to hotel page estimate, or 2-3x estimate from IT admin. #
- So taxi ride was actually $25, not $100. Have deduced that's the price from SFO, not SJC. Makes much more sense. #
- Amusing. From my office I can see (formerly Six Flags) Eilitch Gardens. From my hotel here I can see (formerly Six Flags) Great America. #
- Weird driving thru Silicon Valley. "Hey, I know them. Hey, I use them. Hey, aren't they bankrupt yet?" #
| |
{ 0 comments }
They are here to Serve Man! (via http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/14/1090839/-The-Austerions)
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 0 comments }
By pushing abstinence-only sex "education" for kids and teens, the Family Value types not only keep kids in ignorance of ways to be sexually active in a responsible fashion, but distort their understanding of what birth control can actually do (by downplaying its effectiveness) when they do become sexually active later in life.
'[A]fter quizzing a nationally representative sample of 1,800 sexually active Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 on their basic knowledge of contraception methods, Guttmacher reports that “more than half of young men and a quarter of young women received low scores on contraceptive knowledge, and six in 10 underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.”
Although a majority of respondents (69 percent of the women and almost half of the men) agreed that they were “committed to avoiding pregnancy,” they seem to doubt that birth control is an effective means to achieve this goal. 40 percent of respondents said that birth control doesn’t matter because “when it is your time to get pregnant, it will happen.”'
And guess which gender that misinformation will affect the most.
Embedded Link
Because Of Abstinence Education, 60 Percent Of Young Adults Are Misinformed About Birth Control’s Effectiveness
A new study from the Guttmacher Institute unsurprisingly finds that greater knowledge about contraceptive services is directly correlated to a decrease in young adults’ risky sexual behavior. However,…
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 0 comments }
Okay, not enough that some members of the focus groups (and post-revelation civilians) reviewing Canada's new $20 bills were kind of nutso in their observations, but TIME has to basically play along in echoing their arguments?
1. The memorial in questions was unveiled in 1936. Granted, it's in France, but I think the statute of limitations on "it's modern porn!" ran out a long time ago. Like, a whole World War ago. Like, if you can find a formal protest from the Canadian government to France in 1936 over this war memorial to Canadian fallen in WWI, then maybe, just maybe you have a point.
2. Really? Sculpture with nekkid (well, "semi-clad") classical women who represent Justice and Peace is … pornographic? Who are these focus group members, John Ashcroft groupies?
3. Oh my gosh! It's a warlike theme! Well, actually, it's a memorial to Canadian war dead — nothing glorifying or promoting war (indeed, anything but). Indeed, even peacekeepers get killed.
4. Really? Any two upright slabs of stone are now going to be condemned for being too reminiscent of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center? Really? I mean, is this 2002 or something? Get a grip, idjits.
Must have been a slow news day at TIME magazine. A shame they decided to cherry pick the most bizarro objections from Canadians about their new 20 dollar bill (aside from the fact that it's kind of ugly) to publish.
Embedded Link
Canada’s New $20 Bill: More Money, More Problems
Canada's redesigned $20 bill created a stir among focus groups.
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 3 comments }
Margie got to sleep in, and when she came down Katherine made a cinnamon crumble coffee cake for her.
Margie and I also took the opportunity to call both our respective mothers.
Margie and Kay relaxed and played LotRO most of the day. Margie helped with planting the plant sale plants she'd picked up earlier last week.
After I wrapped up some "homework," Margie and I played some City of Heroes, then I BBQed some steaks. We had a lovely dinner, watching Margie's choice of video entertainment (a couple episodes of "Jeeves and Wooster").
Not a bad Mothers' Day, you ask me.
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 0 comments }
- MT @OfficeBatman: Appreciate your mom. Never know when she'll be gunned down by thugs, forcing you to become an animal-themed vigilante. #
| |
{ 0 comments }
We got nice, shiny, low-flow, high-seat, wonderful toilets with our remodel last year. They work like a dream, are comfortable, and, of course, are water-efficient
Until I noticed, when I got home from my business trip, that the one in the master bathroom was leaking, in terms of the water periodically starting up and then stopping, indicating that water was leaking from the tank to the bowl.
Dagnabbit.
Margie finally opened it up. Apparently an internal sticker about not using tank cleaning products had fallen off the tank wall and gotten stuck under the flapper, leading to a leak.
Well, it struck us as funny, at least.
Google+: View post on Google+
| |
{ 3 comments }
