May 31, 2004
About
Possibly the best about page I've seen in quite a long time. We hope to have one as good someday. Don't we, Liz? I said, "DON'T WE, LIZ??"
May 26, 2004
Stanley Cup v. Federal Election
There is something seriously wrong with the country if we are split evenly between caring about hockey and our elected officials.
Obviously hockey is more important than whatever monkey is sitting in office.
May 23, 2004
Bringing Back the Draft
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
Looks like they are trying to bring back the draft in the US. Scary. Reason #57 why I am glad to live in Canada.
Apparently they are going to make it much tougher to dodge the draft this time around. College won't keep you safe (especially since college is almost worthless anyway). Freshmen can only defer their service until the end of the current semester, and seniors only until the end of that academic year. This is all in a move to make class less effective as a way to get out of the draft. This draft will cut across more lines of gender, class, etc.
Canada is no longer a haven, either. John Manley and Tom Ridge signed an accord that makes entering and leaving either country impossible without some extra kind of screening. I don't know much about it.
The most insidious thing about this is how sneaky it is—the administration is quietly trying to get this stuff passed while everyone else is focused on the election, or Nick Berg's head. (Nick Berg's Head could be the name of some sick band, or some sick blog. I'll have to keep that in mind.)
May 21, 2004
Forest Family
Four years in park for Forest Family
This is a story for proponents of alternative education. A man and his 12-year-old daughter have been living in the forest in Portland's largest park for four years. It seems as though the mother has been institutionalized and is legally out of the picture. They lived under a tarp. They built a pond for water and to clean themselves, and they went into town to get supplies and attend church. They survived on a $400-a-month disability check. They were found by a hiker, who was the first person to report them in all this time.
But even better than that, the girl was educated by her father using old encyclopedias and a bible. The father is an ex-marine with a university degree, so he knew how to teach the basics (and more than the basics, it seems) and how to survive. The girl would be in the seventh grade, but is functioning at a 12th-grade level. That's incredible.
But why would a 53-year-old jobless man with a daughter hide out in the woods for so long? Because, according to the father, society seems to abhor poor single men with children, and he was afraid that they would be separated. A legitimate fear. They checked out this girl, who is very intelligent, well-mannered and in better shape than probably 90% of girls her age, with no signs of any abuse whatsoever, and still some were thinking of separating her from her father. Luckily, the police officer overseeing them actually evaluated the situation and did what was right for them, which in this case was to keep them together and make sure that they got a place to live and a job. I don't know about her being in a public school, though. Doesn't sound like a good idea.
Now there is a college fund for "Ruthie" that anyone can donate to at any Bank of America branch. That's a lot of branches. I hope it works out well. I should like to revisit Ruthie and her dad in a few years.
May 20, 2004
We's gonna kill us some heathens!
I try not to comment much on this terrorism business. I prefer to leave that to other people, because I try to view other points of view. Trying to see the points of view from those that want me dead is quite hard, so I forget about it. I probably shouldn't. I like to think that it is some crazy organization that wants me dead, and rather not a whole people or religion. I still believe this.
This above article is sickening. It's some of the worst kind of us vs them shit I've seen since Bush mad that speech two and a half years ago. Unless I am misinterpreting the article Al-Qaeda says that because we don't support Al-Qaeda, we are against them and must be destroyed. It brings to mind images of Hatfields and McCoys who simply want to kill for the sake of killing. Zaynab Khadr, daughter of the Canadian Al-Qaeda terrorist killed in action and brother of the wounded boy had this to say:
| "We're not al-Qaeda," she said yesterday in her first interview since the family set off a public outcry in Canada with its pro-al-Qaeda comments. "We respect them, we've had some interactions with them, we disagreed with them and we just wanted to go to live along side-by-side helping each other in whatever way we can." |
I suppose I could say the same thing. I might respect Al-Qaeda, or Timothy McVeigh, for that matter. I might have had interactions with them, but it's technically true: I'm not Al-Qaeda, and I didn't do anything. However, if I say that I am going to help any way I can, and everyone knows that I believe in bullshit martyrdom, and that non-Muslims should convert or die, then it shouldn't be a surprise if people want me out of the country for being a terrorist because, well, that's pretty much what you are.
Anyway, Ray at Canadian Political Observation dissects Khadr very well, and I have nothing to add here, although I may be keeping a closer eye on all this stuff now.
May 19, 2004
Hammy Hamster's daddy dies
| CBC News: Creator of Hammy Hamster dies
Does anyone remember this show? I sure do. Every episode was filled with riverbank adventure performed by small live rodents! It was incredible. Hammy Hamster, Matty Nouse, and the inimitable G.P. I loved that stuff. and the narrator was amazing. Every time he said "But that's another story..." at the end of the episode I was shocked. No matter how obvious it was that the episode was over, I was always surprised to see it end, and those words would always take me by surprise. Well, I hope someone else takes up the show. But where are they going to get another narrator like that? |  |
May 18, 2004
Cicada Delight
| BBC NEWS | Americas | Trillions of cicadas to plague US
Trillions. That's huge. Imagine all the fun the radio stations and bars will have when they hold cicada-eating contests. Or the fun the doctors will have when they are pumping stomachs. |  |
Its always "wife swapping" isn't it? Not "man swapping"
| Zap2it - TV news - ABC Picks Up British Show 'Wife Swap'
Reality shows are not anything I have ever watched with interest, or without, for that matter. I generally don't like the premises of them. At least call them ongoing game shows, or contests. But reality show? How can I take a show seriously (the way I would take any real and interesting entertainment seriously, I mean) that spawns things like showmances? But this is a show that I might actually want to see, if it is done like a social studies experiment/documentary rather than a scripted soap opera. Fat chance of this happening, of course. In particular, I like the one where the white bigot gets sent to live with the sexist black man. Could be interesting. |  |
May 17, 2004
Links in New Windows
There's a neat little feature I added that works very well. You can now decide whether or not links open in this window, or in a new window. Check the checkbox in the sidebar to make your choice.
May 16, 2004
May 14, 2004
I'd choose 24, I think
USATODAY.com - 'Idol' and '24' fans annoyed at White House.
I love the woman that says: "On the one hand, I'd like to think that the American president speaking is more important than a singing contest," says Idol fan Sarah Brown, 23, of Muncie, Ind. "On the other hand, I can't think of anything that President Bush could say right now that would make me want to tune in."
Doesn't that just say it all?
May 11, 2004
Casual Conservatives
via Arianna: Casual Conservatives are making their political views fashionable. The website pokes fun at liberals (in an aggressive way, although no more aggressive than "liberal" sites), promotes their ideas (narrow as they are) and makes some cash, too through cool T-shirts, if the idea of cool is being a neo-con.
What I don't understand is why conservatives seem to put such venom into the word "liberal". I don't understand it. Do "liberals" do that? I know that there is venom on both sides, but do liberals use the word "conservative" like a swear word? When I hear someone say, "This wouldn't be a problem if is weren't for those liberals in power," it sounds more like, "This wouldn't be a problem if is weren't for those complete fucking assholes in power." But that's probably just me.
I do like this shirt, though.
May 10, 2004
Information Nation
via christophe: Reason Online, a libertarian online offshoot of Reason Magazine, has a supercool gimmick for June's print subscribers: the cover features their name and a satellite photo of their neighbourhood.
I put this one under the "society" category rather than the as-yet non-existent "technology" category because of the social implications of having this much technology. Despite the obvious dangers of having so much information available about us and the possible intrusion on our privacy, the article does a good job of frankly telling us that the same technology that endangers us empowers us. It's another example of just how tied to technology we are. Some like to complain about it and imply that it was better when we weren't so dependent on technology, or business, or government or the church.
But the fact is, we are and always have been dependent on external factors. Even without all the things that civilization offers, we are still dependent on the good fortune given us by the gods such as good harvests, etc., which is exactly the very thing that we originally wanted to NOT be tied down to. But that is a philosophical discussion for another time, I guess.
May 6, 2004
Not my Friends
To the surprise of exactly no one, Friends is ending tonight. I can't say I ever watched with any regularity, but I will tonight. I never identified with the stick-thin-must-have-a-man/woman-crapfest that it was. I can't remember ever laughing along, or even nodding along with it. It was ok, for what it was: a sitcom.
I don't begrudge people their favoured TV shows, but for one writer to say : [italics mine]
"Friends isn't actual reality, has taken pains to avoid anything remotely controversial -- no real talk about politics or religion -- and has had a notable paucity of racial diversity. It's not a complete picture of anything in the real world, and it's not supposed to be.
But it has successfully captured a slice of life. And if, decades from now, people look back on this show -- among other things, of course -- to get some insight into the pop culture zeitgeist of 1994-2004, that's fine by me."
It's fine by you that future generations will judge ours by a "paucity of racial diversity?"
Really? Or that it was too "impolite" to discuss politics or religion? What slice of life is that? Certainly not life from 1994-2004. Maybe 1894-1904.
May 3, 2004
Curvy Christianity III
Perhaps I should create a separate category called "Curves". Never thought I'd be talking about it this much. I'd like to respond to wynona, who commented (scroll down) in the last Curves entry.
I think a boycott will stop Heavin dead in his tracks. I totally agree with Pound - Curves CEO Gary Heavin's morality will take a back seat to his pocket book if it comes to a choice.
I do agree with this in theory, but as far as it actually happening, I'll believe it when I see it. (See the update on April 30).
I would say that is the only choice men tend to understand, but it isn't fair to overgeneralize here.
Even though you so clearly want to. ;)
As a man, Heavin talks a good game, but his actions speak much louder than his words. He professes he became wealthy because of his love and concern for women and because of his "christian values". If true, then his public stance on a woman's right to choose is puzzling to me and his stint in prison for failing to pay child support even more so. Come ON - guys who don't pay child support don't go to jail unless they are total deadbeats! Oh that's right - he got religion in jail. That is almost as hokey as his story about looking for his mother in the crowd.
I really do not see this as puzzling at all. He is saying that bcause of his love and concern for women, he is creating a place for them to exercise in a cozy love-fest environment. Big deal. That has nothing to do with abortion at all. Curves wasn't made so that he can kill abortion, Curves was made to help women and make him money. Yes, to make him money. And I don't see any problem with this. There is clearly a need for it, and he filled the gap. Now that he has some power, he can make effective change as he sees fit. I might do the same thing if I had the time and power (although it wouldn't be for anti-choice). So would you, I would imagine, but I could be wrong.
As for the child support thing, well, I am loath to condemn someone forever because of a mistake or even series of mistakes unless I have proof that there is nothing to be redeemed there. If he was sleeping in his bar because he had no place to live, then I doubt that he could have paid for a child. But even if he'd rather drink and party and carry on instead on pay for the child, I believe that people can and do change. I see no reason why he couldn't be one of them. But we shouldn't even be going down this road anyway: child support is about the love for a child, not the love of women, but I guess that's just semantics.
It seems to me that his "love and concern for women" are more likely tied to his pocketbook rather than his morals.
The amount that he can contribute to these projects is directly connected to the size of his pocketbook, yes. If your boycott were to work, then I seriously doubt he could continue to contribute. This seems pretty elementary to me.
I mean, what else WOULD he say in interviews? That there are millions of fat women out there with money to burn and low self-esteem and he has found a way to profit from it?
Is that what he should have said? Does it even need to be said? This is almost certainly true. The question is, is this wrong? Even if he is making money hand over fist, is it wrong? I can't see any reason why he can't have money and concern for women. If he had been giving money to pro-choice organizations, would you be questioning his moral fortitude? I seriously doubt it.
But even giving the benefit of the doubt and saying they're evenly distributed across the board, he must realize that they are all women who are personally and deeply affected by these issues.
Which is why he is doing what he does, I would imagine. He just disagrees with you regarding what these women need.
Heavin is taking a huge financial risk and I am wondering why? If moral issues are the real reason, he could easily donate all the millions he wants in private without making any public reference at all.
It's the same reason why so many people who believe strongly in things (most religious organizations, pro- and anti-choice zealots) tend to proselytize. They believe stronly in something, and are working to achieve what they see as a worthy goal through public promotions. They aren't ashamed of who they are or what people think.
Why take such a huge risk? The whole media thing reeks of plain and simple arrogance to me. What if his wealth was obtained via his "disdain for fat women" rather than the moral virtues he professes and he simply found a way to profit from it?
I have no idea. I guess it probably isn't as media-friendly, so it wouldn't work that well. So? Is that a reason to suggest that the Christianity thing is a sham?
When it comes down to it - business is business and politics are politics. Morality doesn't mix well with either - not that it shouldn't, it just doesn't. Chances are if a businessman is "only looking out for you" they spell morality m-o-n-e-y. If a person is virtuous and moral then he will act accordingly. But if money is important, then you and your pocketbook stand to lose.
I fully agree about business being business. If things are dire, then he will have to do what he needs to do in order to save the business (keep his job, and the jobs of thousands of others). Despite what you think of the man, he has a responsibility to the millions of people who look to Curves as a source of gainful employment or a sanctuary where they can work on their self-esteem in that special way that can only be found at Curves (apparently). Then again, we don't know what kinds of back-room deals he can work out with his powerful friends (the ones that can influence millions of people relatively easily), so for all we know, such a boycott could work out in his favour.
Yes, a boycott is just the ticket to stop him dead in his tracks. The individual franchise owners will suffer first, but they will begin complaining that members are quitting, or not renewing their memberships because of his anti-abortion stance. Some will threaten and actually file lawsuits. Yes, the smell of money will get to a lot of them too. After all, Heavin "gives" away millions why not get a piece of it too?
Lawsuits? What would they sue for? Why would Heavin have to give money to these people? I don't really understand this paragraph.
Ultimately Heavin may not stop funding the anti-abortion cause - who can say - because it is his right to do so, but he will assuredly avoid public disclosure if possible. I personally think he will be too busy funding the blood sucking lawyers to further any private or public funding of ANY moral issue, much less anti-abortion.
Maybe, but I wouldn't underestimate him or his supporters. Or perhaps I should boycott Domino's pizza.
