HOW DID YOU GET SO PATRIOTIC?
Blogdaughter Tammi of Tammi's World got asked that question and gave a good answer. Comments are closed over there, so I'll answer over here.
Well, growing up, I never noticed anything about this country that particularly sucked, so I always thought America was pretty cool. The question of NOT liking my country never crossed my mind.
The notion that America was actually GREAT and thus worthy of a deep and abiding love... probably somewhere in 1988 when I was 21, and in my 3rd of 6 years in the Navy. I was just about to embark upon my first real visit to a foreign nation: The Philippines.
At a "cultural briefing" before setting us loose on the town, they explained about a quaint Philippine law: unjest vexation.
They explained it thusly: if you're in a bar, and you piss off a local so bad that he breaks his camera over your head, he's not guilty of assault. YOU are guilty of "unjust vexation" and have to buy him a new camera.
Which was the most fucked-up thing I'd ever heard of, and led me to conclude that America truly rocks.
What's YOUR story?
Posted by: Harvey at
09:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.
The following text appears at the first link:
The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:
Dear friends, family and associates,
As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.
As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.
My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.
May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.
Quent Cordair
Again, I say...
Higher, please.
Posted by: Harvey at
07:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.
DO IT AT YOUR OWN RISK
Bloggranddaughter Rave of Quid Nunc is toying with the idea of "extreme honesty":
"What I am talking about is if you look like crap and ask me what I think of your outfit, I'm going to tell you I think you look like crap."
As a married man, I know that questions like these are actually just poorly-phrased requests for self-esteem boosting, and grading of physical appearance is not the intent of the questioner.
I answer the question the person wants to know the answer to ("how much do you love me?" - "lots"), and avoid taking things literally when it's not called for.
Unless I'm feeling grumpy or trying to be funny ;-)
Posted by: Harvey at
08:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
As much as I love the tea parties, I find the use of children as props a little distasteful. I didn't like the anti-war yahoos doing it, and I don't like it from folks on the right.
Don't get me wrong. By all means, take the kids, show them what "free speech" and "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances" means in practice.
But don't give them signs to hold with messages that they're too young to understand.
Just give them a nice flag or colorful balloon, slather them with sunscreen, and have a fun day, instead.
Posted by: Harvey at
02:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
I PREFER TO THINK OF IT AS "DEITY IMPAIRED"
Steven Crowder (whose comedic works I adore, by the way) thinks that Atheism is a "Mental Handicap" and wants atheists to tell him if he's correct in that evaluation.
As an atheist, I have to say, "it depends on WHY you're an atheist".
Me, I'm an atheist-by-reason. I just don't see enough evidence to believe in a being that both created the universe and also occasionally intercedes in day-to-day events on behalf of individuals. I'm more of a "the universe just is, and things just happen" kinda guy.
The atheists Steven spends most of his time talking about are atheists-by-morality. They're actually immoralists who claim to be atheists. They see the Christian code of morality, find it inconvenient or uncomfortable, then reject the existence of God as a means of rejecting Christian morality and often ANY hard & fast sort of moral code.
And I would agree that lacking a moral compass constitutes a mental handicap, because my observations indicate that embracing a moral code leads to a happier, healthier, longer life, all things being equal.
A functional moral code requires accepting responsibility for one's actions, and reflecting on those actions from time to time for the purposes of correcting past mistakes and avoiding future mistakes.
For Christians, this takes the form of prayers for forgiveness of sin, and prayers for God's guidance. For me, it's just "thinking things over".
The other part is how you treat others. For Christians, it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and "turning the other cheek". For me, it's "be courteous" and "don't waste time pursuing revenge against idiots - get on with your life".
People who reject morality usually do so in order to avoid either self-accountability and/or self-correction and/or good manners. After they make the conscious decision to be thoughtless jerks, they cover their asses by saying, "it's ok to act like a reality show contestant all my life, because I refuse to believe in a God that tells me otherwise".
So, Steven, you don't HAVE to be a mentally-handicapped Hollywood jerk to be an atheist, it's just that a lot of people get there that way, and they give the rest of us a bad name.
Posted by: Harvey at
10:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.
Will we EVER get back to the point of wanting to take care of ourselves? Will we EVER stand up and tell the government ENOUGH!?
Because 1 or 2 voices are not enough. And right now the majority of folks are enjoying having someone take care of them.
And I just hope it doesn't come to a "blowout" (on a grander scale) like the one Mama and I had all those years ago. That......would NOT be a good way to see this end.
Well, the bad news is - yes, there will be a revolution.
The good news is - it will happen at the ballot box.
Historically, entrenched government power always becomes corrupt and oppressive. And it never just goes away on its own. It has to be forcibly removed. Usually by bloody revolution every 20 years or so.
America is a little different, because its citizens have options besides killing the bastards. We can move to another city or state that's less oppressive, or we can forcibly remove political dirtbags merely by voting. In America, NO politician has ever ignored the results of the ballot box. The winner wins, the loser goes home, and everybody tries again later. The game is fair, and nobody screws with the rules. It's sorta like football. Everybody might cheat a little - a hold here, a late hit there - but no one tries to shoot the refs and declare the scoreboard results invalid.
And personally, I don't think it's actually the MAJORITY of the folks looking for a handout. I think it's just that the usual suspects are making more noise than normal.
Fortunately, they've stopped being polite about it. They no longer say "please" or "thank you". Now they're just grabbing & saying "GIMME!".
Big mistake. Americans don't like rude, greedy, grabby people. Our mommas raised us better.
Which means the time is right for the responsible adults to ACT like responsible adults and start punishing the spoiled children who are misbehaving. That means saying "No! Bad! Don't!" out loud, with feeling, and as often as it takes to correct the unacceptable behavior.
Hopefully a lecture and a time out will be sufficient.
But still, I admit that there's a part of me that wouldn't mind carving a hickory switch.
I found that my first thought was "I should send Hannah a card!". Which is VERY strange, because I haven't mailed a Christmas card since my wedding day. Anyway, I was looking around the room for an envelope, when a second thought occurred to me:
It's lovely that I'd like to do something nice for a complete stranger hundreds of miles away, but there are also people who are NOT complete strangers - who live in my house, for example - who also really enjoy it when I do nice things for them.
Maybe I should start a little closer to home.
Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't send a card to 704 Orchard Rd., Lititz, PA 17543. By all means, mail away.
I'm just saying you might want to hug everyone under your roof before you do.
Posted by: Harvey at
09:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.
Now, it's been a while since I've had Frosted Flakes. Decades, in fact. But I ate them anyway so that I could show you the box.
I thought "Tigre Tono" looked... off... a bit... from his American cousin, and after comparing this picture:
I think I notice two differences.
Tono has a squarer jaw.
Tono has one eyebrow higher than the other, giving him a bit of a leer. Plus the eyebrows are more angular than Tony's.
What does it mean? I speculate wildly as follows: although the kids ask for the cereal, it's moms who plunk down the money, so both tigers have to be a compromise between cartoony and masculine. So I'd say that Mexican women prefer men with thick eyebrows and angular jawlines, while American women only care about the muscles (although Tony DOES still have a big, strong, manly chin, albeit rounder).
Maybe I'm way off on that, but the fact is, Kellogg's DID decide to make the Tigers different for the different countries, so they must have some sort of market research to justify the cost and bother of tweaking their mascot, since messing with a brand they've spent years and millions to develop is not something they'd do lightly.
Comments welcome.
Posted by: Harvey at
04:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
OREOS VS. BREAD
If you leave a package of Oreo cookies sitting out, they will get stale and soft.
If you leave a slice of bread sitting out, it will get stale and hard.
Why?
I would think that both of these baked goods would end up with moisture contents related to the household's internal humidity, and thus end up with similar degrees of pliability.
1
The Staleness Gnomes are whimsical and capricious, and should never be challenged! Their wrath is fearsome and terrible to behold!
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it has to do with the specific densities of each item causing the discrepancy. Oreo cookies are a denser bread than bread, so, absorbs more water vapor, while bread, being less dense, actually loses moisture. But, that's about two steps below a WAG.
Posted by: the Humble Devildog at March 20, 2008 07:28 PM (TL8Kz)
2
I think it probably has something to do with the amount of fat, specifically saturated fat (which stays liquid at room temperature) in each. With the Oreos, the just get soggy with their fat.
but they are still good.
This is all just a guess.
:-D
Posted by: tommy at March 21, 2008 06:08 AM (Ffmbd)
3
It's the sugar. Sugar is hygroscopic. It absorbs water. Starch (bread) is not. Starch in bread causes it to lose moisture, the sugar in Oreos causes them to absorb moisture.
Posted by: Phelps at March 21, 2008 11:11 AM (F1XeB)
MMMbop tick a ta ba do ba
dubi da ba do ba
tick a ta ba doo
yeah eh yeah
Here's the horrible thought:
That's what they recorded.
At some point, there was a first draft, and it was so mind-bogglingly horrible that it was rejected in favor of the wretched demon-flatulence listed above because - by comparison - said sickly ear-barf actually sounded GOOD.
Just pray that no copy of that first draft ever falls into the wrong hands, or we're all doomed.
Posted by: That 1 Guy at March 01, 2008 05:59 PM (F8ULw)
2
Oh, for the good old days, eh Harvey? Back when Jeremiah was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine, never understood a single word he said, but he always drank a mighty fine wine.
Ahhh...
When lyrics made sense!
(FYI: Yes, I am mocking you.)
Posted by: Roses at March 01, 2008 08:00 PM (I/pU7)
3
I'm not sure whether that'd be better or worse than the obama commercials
Posted by: ChrisA at March 02, 2008 12:46 PM (TnrKn)
4
someone left the cake out in the rain. I don't think that I can take it, 'cuz it took so long to bake it, and I'll never have that recipe again.
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at March 02, 2008 05:29 PM (0Pi1o)
5
Roses - as a Blue Oyster Cult fan, I guess I'm just throwing stones from my glass house, huh? :-)
Posted by: Harvey at March 02, 2008 05:54 PM (VSEpa)
SPOON IN THE GLASS TO PREVENT BREAKAGE? BULLSHIT!
My old favorite cobalt blue glass coffee cup finally bit the big one after years of use. Got a crack in the bottom, probably from years of sitting on a coffee warmer all the time.
I immediately set out to replace it. One does not simply "just go on" after losing a favorite coffee cup.
Ebay was helpful in this regard, and I bought a set of 4, so as to prevent future states of cuplessness.
These came with a note that said "THE GLASS FACTORY RECOMMENDS PLACING SPOON IN CUP BEFORE POURING HOT LIQUID INTO MUGS!!!"
"What a retarded urban legend", I thought, as I proceeded to pour fresh coffee into my [room temperature] mug, only to watch said mug split apart, leaving me with 2 chunks of cup, a counter full of coffee, and that horrid still-caffeine-free feeling.
No, I didn't put a spoon in, first.
Neither did I put a spoon in the old cup that lasted for I don't know how many years getting hot coffee poured directly into it.
I say the spoon thing is just a cover for either A) shoddy workmanship or B) the piss-ignorant notion of using non-tempered glass in a COFFEE cup in the first place.
Now, having Googled this, I know that there are plenty of smug fucks out there who say "I always use a spoon and my cups don't crack". Well, since cups hardly every crack in the first place, that doesn't mean much. I'd like to hear from someone who DID use a spoon and their cup cracked anyway, thus falsifying this suspiciously unscientific wives tale once and for all.
Any takers?
And please don't talk to me about how "the spoon acts as a heat sink". That would only help cool the coffee and "protect" the cup if you poured all the coffee down along the length of the spoon to cool it. Why not just recommend putting an ice cube in the coffee pot to cool it off instead? It'd be even more effective, since the specific heat capacity of ice is 5 times that of iron.
1
I have NEVER heard about the whole "spoon in the coffee cup" phenomenon - but then I don't drink coffee. Probably just me...
And you have 3 more to experiment with! Yay!
Posted by: Richmond at February 02, 2008 08:34 PM (VbTiz)
2
Do you drink your coffee black, Harvey?
'cause I'm just wondering, if you're gonna stir cream or sugar in anyway, how difficult is it to put the spoon in the cup first?
But, like Richmond, I don't drink coffee either.
Posted by: Roses at February 02, 2008 09:09 PM (pZ9hq)
3
I don't drink coffee (I'm a Postum man, myself). But of all the Postum and hot chocolate and other hot drinks I've poured into mugs I've never had one crack on me.
However, as a college student I have a high amount of ramen in my diet, and once, I was pouring hot ramen into a bowl and my bowl broke.
I did, in fact, have a spoon in the bowl.
I don't think it was a heat-tempered bowl, though.
Posted by: Joey at February 02, 2008 10:31 PM (4wcQq)
4
My brother's friend knew this guy who's sister's friend's third cousin was married to a guy who's great uncle broke a glass with a spoon in it. I think. Maybe I've got it wrong.
My brother's friend. This guy who's sister's friend. Third cousin married. Great uncle. Yeah. I was right.
What the hell were you asking?
Posted by: That 1 Guy at February 02, 2008 10:57 PM (O6lVU)
5
Also, this morning I found a beer bottle my roommate had left in the freezer all night (the cap had blown off, but the whole bottle was still intact) so I set it in the sink and boiled some water to pour over it to try and break it.
Nothing happened. I was furious.
Posted by: Joey at February 03, 2008 01:29 AM (4wcQq)
6
For shits sake....
At first, I Couldn't see who it was that left the comment about their sister's cousin's friend's dad...and after reading the first line....I knew. I just flat out knew....flippin' freak! ;-)
OK, now, Harvey. You KNOW I drink coffee, and tea, and yeah....I have NEVER heard of this thing you say with the spoon and breaking. Ever. And I go either way. (sorry couldn't resist) Coffee? No spoon. Tea? Spoon....
just sayin'......
Posted by: tammi at February 03, 2008 06:53 AM (SM1LR)
7
i'm just so freaking jolly to hear tammi say "I go either way" i can't remember what i was going to say about coffee anymore.
and wives tales, like marriages, prolly only have a 50% success rate, if that. good luck on your research.
Posted by: SuperGurl at February 03, 2008 09:16 AM (9YQ1m)
8
I drink tea and coffee never put a spoon in either and never heard the spoon theory. I pour boiling hot water into my tea mug. Only time I broke a mug in hot water was while washing dishes. (to preface, I don't use cold water). Put the mug in went to swipe around it with a sponge, it broke and went through my hand. At least you just had coffee on the counter, LOL.
Posted by: Tink at February 04, 2008 12:22 AM (ZW8U5)
9
Goodness... never heard of that ol' wives tale. And doubt it is true for all the reasons you stated. I break cups all the time. But only because I'm likely to sit them down to hard on the counter (which causes a small crack that causes problems later) or I drop them. A spoon wouldn't have helped in either case. ;-)
Posted by: vw bug at February 04, 2008 05:27 AM (FPOeI)
10
Harv, if you'd take the spoon out of your...
oh, you didn't want people to know about that, did you? Sorry.
Posted by: Ogre at February 04, 2008 06:50 AM (oifEm)
11
So, did you put a spoon in the next cup?
And just so you know, the spoon isn't about heat displacement. Rather, it's to break the pointed end of the liquid, keeping it from driving through the cup's material and possibly beyond.
You didn't split your counter or table, too, did you?
Posted by: That 1 Guy at February 04, 2008 06:50 AM (O6lVU)
12
You are talking about a pure glass coffee "mug" correct?
Are the others?
Glass should not crack upon hot water being added to it.
Unless there is a minute crack or scratch, or the glass was make poorly to begin with.
I speak with authority as I use to work at Ford Glass Division and know glass pretty intimately and how it's made.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at February 04, 2008 08:44 AM (R6yie)
13
You are talking about a pure glass coffee "mug" correct?
Are the others?
Glass should not crack upon hot water being added to it.
Unless there is a minute crack or scratch, or the glass was make poorly to begin with.
I speak with authority as I use to work at Ford Glass Division and know glass pretty intimately and how it's made.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at February 04, 2008 08:45 AM (R6yie)
14
I've never put a spoon in a cup before pouring coffee, never had a cup crack either.
Not even the crappy WalMart coffee cups I seem to always get for Christmas.
Someone needs to order another cup, test this, and take this company to task!
Just not me.
Posted by: Uber at February 04, 2008 02:13 PM (GU97P)
15
Specific heat of water: 4.184 J/dl
Specific heat of many common metals: 0.80+/-
Strangley, BOTH the above numbers (yeah, I'm such a nerd) are still higher than the IQ of any idiot that designs a coffee mug lacking, oh, I don't know, HEAT RESISTANCE!
Another thing, IF the company recommends the spoon treatment, you'd think they'd 1) offer a damn spoon with the shoddy mug they were selling you; or 2) figure out better materials to use than the obviously sub-standard crap that's also used to make Christmas lights.
Posted by: Hapkido at February 04, 2008 02:13 PM (+cC9w)
16
Nope, never heard the spoon in the mug thing either. I've used many a mugs, have never put a spoon in first and have never had one break when pouring coffee into it either.
With my luck, if I did put a spoon in the mug would break.
Posted by: Dawn at February 08, 2008 12:02 PM (Kk+Kv)
17
Before I pour my first cup of coffee in the morning, I usually go take a leak. That must be the secret to not breaking mugs.
The closest I've ever seen to that color in real life was the middle of Lake Michigan while taking a ride on a Navy Frigate. That was cool.
Posted by: ChrisA at February 09, 2008 09:51 AM (TnrKn)
Saddam may or may not ever started dealing wholesale with terrorists, but you can bet his boys - in their effort to outshine their father's brutal and stupid legacy - would've ramped up the anti-American rhetoric and followed it with action, whether covert or overt.
The war was worth it, if for no other reason than removing the region from the shadow of an insufferable Hussein dynasty.
1
And Sally Field didn't kill them, either.
It was big, strong US Troops who made a lot of Iraqi moms very happy, and a lot of Iraqi girls finally safe when they insisted on Saddam's boys assuming room temp.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at September 18, 2007 06:22 AM (8F+iI)
2
It reminds me of why Bush won in 2004: More dead terrorists and less taxes.
Posted by: Ogre at September 18, 2007 10:45 AM (oifEm)
3
Amen, Harvey. Those two taking a big dirt nap is nothing but net.
Posted by: Richmond at September 18, 2007 02:53 PM (Yw9zM)
4
Amen! And can we add spammers to the list of military objectives? IP-homing JDAMs - the next Internet Revolution!
Seriously, every time I hear the "no weapons of mass destruction" charge, I call bullshit and tell 'em, "Ouday and Qusaywere weapons of mass destruction, and now they're DEAD, Jim!" Then I ask them where's my damned FREE OIL, and why is Alec Baldwin still here?!!
Posted by: Bitterroot at September 18, 2007 11:15 PM (jZGuZ)
This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.
The following text appears at the first link:
The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:
Dear friends, family and associates,
As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.
As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.
My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.
May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.
SERIOUS QUESTION
Asked by blogdaughter Machelle of Quality Weenie in the comments to this post:
Why is it that teenage/early adult males can not handle a gay man being around them?
Do they fear "catching" it?
Does it make them feel less of a male?
Does it make them feel that uncomfortable that they just don't want to deal with it?
I've mulled this over, and I'm not really sure myself. About the only thing I can think of is "they're insecure about their manhood".
Which sounds like a cliche, but this is what I mean - teen males know that they're expected to act "manly", but they don't yet understand what all that would entail (they're probably a little fuzzy on the honesty, integrity & discipline aspects of manhood at that point - hopefully they'll figure out that those are the REAL keys). What they DO understand about manhood at this point is the concept of penile-vaginal copulation. That's the one aspect of manhood they're certain about. So, when placed in a situation of uncertainty, they fall back on what they can count on to demonstrate their manhood - defending their love of vagina.
That's my theory. Others are welcome in the comments.
1
Personally, I don't mind being around gays and I never have.
If I have a friend who I find out later is gay it doesn't change my opinion of them.
However, what bothers me are the flamboyant ones. Many seem like, since they are attracted to men they have to make themselves into an annoying stereotype. They don't understand that it's their demeanor and not their sexuality that gives everyone around them the urge to punch their teeth out.
I know flamboyant guys who are straight (or at least claim to be)and I can't tolerate them either.
Also, one of the most annoying things anyone can do, gay or straight, is be compelled to bring up their sexuality at least every four sentences.
Most gay men I have known do this. As well as lesbians and frat guys.
And that's why I can't stand any of them.
To sum up: It's not the sexual preference that bothers me, it's having to constantly be reminded that I'm in the presence of a gay man.
And, of course, I can't speak for all young men, but I do know quite a few that agree with me about this.
Posted by: Joey at August 26, 2007 11:56 AM (4wcQq)
2
Could be that being young, they look at all the women they're attracted to and don't like the idea of another dude being attracted to them.
IMHO
Posted by: ChrisA at August 26, 2007 01:20 PM (TnrKn)
3
I don't think all teenagers are that way, but I know many that are. I think that some of them just don't like the thought of another guy hitting on them. Hell I'm an adult and really don't care if someone is gay or not, but I really am not comfortable with a guy hitting on me. I may not care if someone is gay, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong.
Posted by: Contagion at August 26, 2007 02:51 PM (loeSs)
4
Given the harvest of homosexual activities that the world has been blessed with I can understand the reaction of young men to hyomosexual contact. Would a visit to an AIDs ward would be a tremendous boaster to the gay lifestyle? As if there aren't enough problems and misery in the world, do we really need more such problems?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at August 26, 2007 06:32 PM (A2ZNt)
5
It's because the gay guy dresses better.
All joking aside, I agree with Joey. I've known several gay flaming drama queens who go out of their way to annoy the shit out of everyone around them then cry "homophobia" when you call them on it. My response is usually something along the lines of "I'd think you were an asshole even if you were straight"
Posted by: Graumagus at August 26, 2007 06:46 PM (YUKdz)
6
In my case it was real simple. When I was 19 and 20 I spent time in the San Francisco Bay Area, first at the body and fender shop called the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, then in the Marine Barracks at Treasure Island there in San Francisco Bay.
Oddly, before then I had no particular thoughts about gays, they were none of my business. Getting propositioned twelve times in a block was just a little much.
Posted by: Peter at August 26, 2007 09:11 PM (d5KYk)
7
Also, a few years ago I had a flaming gay roommate.
One time I walked in on him masturbating.
Ten minutes later I was the drunkest I've ever been.
Posted by: Joey at August 26, 2007 11:46 PM (4wcQq)
8
Adolescent males are still finding their identity, and really aren't comfortable around anyone that they can't identify with. They also cannot handle being around elderly people, babies, and toddlers. Since a large part of the adolescent male's identity is the Search for Trim, then someone whom he should identify but has actively rejected this identity (and especially one who advertises with every sentence through characteristic speech patterns) is someone assaulting his world-view.
Posted by: Phelps at August 27, 2007 01:40 PM (0Nw5i)
In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:
Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?
Fine.
Let's stop mincing words.
We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.
After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims before they killed us.
Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any. In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region. It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is from Kuwait.
And now Muslims have two choices:
They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they can become productive members of the civilized world, much like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
OR
They can be exterminated like vermin.
All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious, deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief system must either change their minds or be killed.
I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that, hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not, there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.
Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.
Posted by: Susie at August 17, 2007 09:20 AM (Dw6Z5)
4
Harv, STOP beating around the bush and just tell us how you REALLY feel, I mean stop being so PC and just speak your mind.
JEEZ your just getting soft In your old age.
Posted by: blogless brother at August 17, 2007 09:50 AM (JeWGX)
5
It also has the side benefit of exposing the traitorous bastards and useful idiots in our own midst.
Unfortunately the powers that be have gallowsphobia
so none of the assholes have swung like they should.
Posted by: Graumagus at August 17, 2007 12:53 PM (msvPA)
6
Ah, must be nice to live in such simplistic ignorance. It's so much easier to let someone else tell you what to think instead of actually doing some research and knowing something about the subject you discuss - in this case 2000 years of history (until the 16th century, Islamic lands were centuries ahead of Europe medically, philosophically, economically, scientifically, etc.), the history of the Crusades (no, Christians weren't the good guys there), or the history of the Cold War (no, the U.S. wasn't the good guy there either).
Not to mention this large group of men who attacked people from hiding, running away when a counterattack was mounted, using snipers to pick off officers and terrorizing those who sympathized with the enemy . . . these men were, and still are, lauded as heroes . . . in the 1770s when they fought the British using terrorist, sorry guerilla, tactics.
Let's also look at reality:
Before the U.S. invade Iraq, according to the CIA and U.S. State Dept., Iraq:
a) was a second world country
b) was politically, economically stable, and
c) had no terrorist presence or leanings whatsoever.
After the U.S. invasion, according to the U.S. military, CIA, and State Dept, Iraq:
a) is a third world country
b) is politically and economically unstable, and
c) is a terrorist training ground.
Not only has the invasion failed to make the U.S. safer, it has actually made us less safe. But, the administration's misson has been accomplished: Cheney's company got a multi-billion dollar no bid contract, Cheney's gotten his kickback from that, and Dubya's personal vendetta has been successfully ended.
Yeah us!
Posted by: John at August 18, 2007 05:18 PM (I4ooZ)
7
Oh, and for Graumagen . . .
It was Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (heard of them?) who said it is the duty of every true citizen and patriot to question their government rather than blindly accepting everything their leaders say. The latter is the surest way to destroy a democratic republic.
Related note, the previous post was not intended to support the tactics used by terrorists around the world (even the American and Irish terrorists, or those we funded throughout Central America in the 80s). Rather, it is meant to point out that the mess we are embroiled in right now is a direct result of screw ups made throughout the Cold War, especially during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations which abandoned our Middle Eastern Cold War allies after completely screwing up their countries (Iraq and Afghanistan especially). Sadly, the present administration has chosen to remain utterly blind to history and this basic fact, therefore the administration refuses to understand the fact that this country is not an innocent and utterly blameless nation. At teh same time, by ignoring the history, they completely lack understanding of the motives of Terrorist leaders like Bin Laden (one of our Cold War allies, like Hussein, whom we abandonded when the Soviet state fell).
As we can learn from history, those who do not understand the enemy, whether deliberately or not, and those who do not respect their enemy are doomed to failure by underestimating the enemy - as this administration has done time and time again over teh last six years.
Posted by: John at August 18, 2007 09:06 PM (I4ooZ)
Posted by: unkawill at August 19, 2007 09:47 AM (YwdKL)
9
Hey John, why don't you move to another country? I'll bet Iran would welcome you with open arms. You sure don't belong in our country.
And when you get there, please drop dead!
Posted by: kodiakken at August 21, 2007 06:09 PM (quEoP)
IF YOU WERE *REALLY* EXTREME, YOU'D SKIP THE HELMET
Found this video in the comments to this post at Twenty-Sided:
Although I do admire the rider's skill, and I'm in awe at the amount of work that obviously went into perfecting that skill, I'm mostly centered on a different thought while watching this:
I'm just glad I live in a country where it's SO incredibly safe to live that kids have to go WAY out of their way to find danger.
In a lot of countries, the extreme sport is avoiding government death squads.
1
That was an impressive display of skill, balance, and strength.
Of course, he DOES live in a country so poor, he can only afford half a bicycle, so, has to make do with what he has...
(if I read the e-mail address right at the end, he's from fwance.)
Posted by: The Humble Devildog at June 02, 2007 10:15 AM (lFmwa)
THEY'RE NOT, BUT...
Shamus of Twenty-Sided tackles the complicated question of "are video games art?" after noting that Roger Ebert answered "no" and "HELL no". Lots of good discussion in Shamus's comments, if you're interested in the topic.
Here's my take on it:
I don't believe video games are art. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion through contemplation. The purpose of video games (the story-lined kind, not the repetitive-motion kind) is to evoke emotion through interaction.
In art, you get to watch the hero. In video games, you get to BE the hero.
This does NOT make video games inferior to art. Quite the opposite. Their immersive quality has the potential to be more than mere art could ever dream. However, as Jimmy noted in his comment, the form is still in its infancy:
itÂ’s a young medium; artists are still working out how to use it. We had motion picture technology from the 1860s, but Metropolis (one of the earliest truly great films) wasnÂ’t made until 1927. Check back around 2040 and see how weÂ’re doing.
I agree. The greatest days of video gaming are still ahead.
1
"I agree. The greatest days of video gaming are still ahead."
...and there will still some 12 year old punk who knows all the cheat codes killing you for the hell of it and ruining the experience.
Posted by: Graumagus at April 23, 2007 07:55 AM (V+7lV)
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION OF AN AWKWARD TOPIC - STRAP ON YOUR THICK SKIN, PLEASE
Ann Coulter said:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'..."
A lot of conservatives have repudiated Ann's remarks.
Ann herself, however, did not. She clarified them as follows:
"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."
Well, since she's 45 years old, I imagine the first part of that is true for her. Being 40 years old myself, it certainly was for me. Although we inevitably shortened it to fag, since one-syllable insults somehow seem more insulting.
And let's not forget that in 1985, there was a #1 pop tune with a #1 pop video - Dire Straits "Money For Nothing" - that used the word "faggot" three times. How offensive could it possibly be?
Then there's the second point. John Edwards is NOT, in fact, gay.
Sure, he's a baby-faced man with delicate features and girlish mannerisms who stars in a YouTube video where he fusses over his hair like a supermodel, but he is NOT gay.
So Ann says it's not a gay epithet, because the target obviously isn't gay, and everyone knows he's not gay.
Fair enough - but let's take it to the next level.
Would it be ok to call John Edwards a nigger because he's not black?
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'nigger,'..."
Well, that one's probably indefensible, since - while "nigger" is frequently used to describe gansta-thug rap artists in their own songs and videos - John Edwards has never rapped, pimped, or worn excessive bling, so it's hard to pass it off as a joke, because in order for something to be funny, it needs an element of truth.
But how about this - checking my dictionary, one of the meanings of "nigger" is "Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: 'Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society' (John Aquilino)."
Would it be ok to call John Edwards a nigger because he's not deprived?
Something like "I'm not going to talk smack about John Edwards, because I just feel so sorry for him. Big house, millions of dollars, but when it comes to running for the Whitehouse, he's just a nigger."
Personally, I wouldn't go there, because when I skewer folks with political humor, I try to make it as accurate and unambiguous as possible. Using a term that can be construed to make a point that you are not, in fact, trying to make, is just sloppy communications. It's always better to say exactly what you mean.
So maybe Ann IS a verbal-bomb-throwing lunatic who should be shunned by conservatives as a too-pricey political liability, but then again, maybe she just really sucks as a humorist and desperately needs to hire herself a speech writer.
1
She's a really bad humorist! It seems to me that she needs a speech writer with a realy good sense of humor.
Posted by: michele at March 07, 2007 10:30 AM (etwyR)
2
She's a really bad humorist! It seems to me that she needs a speech writer with a realy good sense of humor.
Posted by: michele at March 07, 2007 10:31 AM (etwyR)
3
You've probably seen my takes on it, but I think she is just trying to be sensational to get in the news. This wasn't her first time using the term. In 2006 she called Al Gore a fag, and Bill Clinton a latent homosexual in the same interview. I think she was using it in the same context here.
Personally I just think it does wonders for the Democrats while hurting the Conservatives. We don't need any help in that department. Our politicians do enough without Ann Coulter stepping in to help.
Posted by: Nick at March 07, 2007 10:57 AM (sBEqJ)
Posted by: Nick at March 07, 2007 11:22 AM (sBEqJ)
6
Here's my bitch about this. I don't give a rats ass what she said. If she wants to call Edwards a cum felching drag queen, I could care less.
But she should do it on her OWN time. If she wants to throw some offensive shit out there to stir up the pot and keep her name in the news: fine. Do it in a press conference, or on a talk show, where the focus is on HER.
CPAC is not about Ann Coulter. Like it or not, if you're invited to CPAC you're not just representing yourself, you're representing conservatives as a whole while you're there. Ann Coulter is a very intelligent woman. She's made a deliberate decision to use CPAC to attract media attention to herself twice now with calculated offensive statements for the glory and profit of Ann Coulter and Ann Coulter alone.
I'm not going to denounce her (in fact, I enjoy her columns and her books), but if I were the organizers of CPAC, it would be a cold day in hell before I invited her back.
Posted by: Graumagus at March 07, 2007 11:57 AM (ZEzoY)
7
Oh yeah, on a side note, if gun owners are the new niggers, I am SO going to start slangin' at the range.
"Yo' homey, pass me that gat...."
Posted by: Graumagus at March 07, 2007 11:59 AM (ZEzoY)
8
Considering that I am an equal opportunity swearer, there I some words that I WILL NOT USE. Ever.
Not for fun, not in anger, not trying to make a point. Because there are better ways to make a point (or crack a joke). Ann needs to grab a clue and eat a sandwich for heaven's sake. You can practically see through her...
Posted by: Richmond at March 07, 2007 04:09 PM (e8QFP)
9
Blunt and outspoken. So far as I am concerned, PC is for politicians. Period. Citizens can say anything they please so long as they are prepared for the consequences. The Dixie Chicks did. Sadly, they misjudged the reaction they would receive. Silly girls. Ann says what she means and if Gays dislike the word fag, they should grow thicker skin. It is an old word and will continue to be used. My lover is a black woman and I hear the word nigger often. I don't use it. Not true. I rearly do and only in jest and only to those who know me. I am, so to speak, an honorary nigger.
I don't care to be an honorary fag. Hmmm. So far as that goes I am pissed off about the hijacking of the word gay by our homosexual bretheren. I have a good many friends of that persuasion too and gay is not a word I would apply to their lives. Everrybody just needs to get over the thin skinned language problem. Sticks and stones and all that. Words do hurt and cut deeply, but only from those one truly cares about. Everybody else can piss-off!
Posted by: Blane Burns at March 07, 2007 04:42 PM (gHba6)
10
And by the way; I like this place! Just found it today and I think I can fit right in!
Posted by: Blane Burns at March 07, 2007 04:45 PM (gHba6)
11
The best part about Ann's non-apology was the part where she said to the Republicans tripping over themselves apologizing for HER remarks: "You might want to keep those statements handy for the next year or two. There's going to be more."
Or something darn similar to that.
If she'd just EAT SOMETHING, she'd be the hottest woman on the planet: looks (when she's not facing perpendicular to you), brains, wit...and the proven temperment to club your sorry ass to oblivion when you're getting out of line.
*sigh*
Too bad I'm already in love with someone else.
Posted by: The Humble Devildog at March 07, 2007 08:21 PM (Njev1)
12
The woman is a frickin' stick. Personally I blame Sean Hannity. The guy practically has a free ticket to Ruth's Chris Steakhouses. He needs to drag her skinny butt in there for some serious reeducation
Posted by: Graumagus at March 08, 2007 11:12 AM (ZEzoY)
13
I grew up believing that a nigger was anyone, of any color, who was shiftless, low-class, criminal, etc.
Ever seen actual "white trash", folks? I have. I grew up surrounded by it. Those, like my former neighbor who broke into my trailer last Thanksgiving & stole some of my firearms, are niggers.
Posted by: Tennessee Budd at March 08, 2007 01:30 PM (L7a63)
14
Last I looked the Jihadis were trying to kill us and the Libs to put us in jail.
So, here we are throwing away our friends. That's the way.
We see how the Left treats minorities who stay of the Leftist plantation.
How about the left's famous tolerance of adventuresome sex? Jeff Gannon or that Sanchez feller can tell us all about that.
Yeah, throw Ann under the bus. She used a word.
Posted by: Peter at March 08, 2007 09:15 PM (gsOue)
15
Peter - ya know, I'm surprised that Edwards didn't try taking the "faggot" label as a compliment in an attempt to show solidarity with homosexual voters.
After all, wouldn't it be considered a leftist honor to be associated with an oppressed minority?
Like calling Clinton "the first black president".
Posted by: Harvey at March 09, 2007 07:44 AM (L7a63)
16
Like I said, I like Coulter and I wouldn't throw her anywhere (although, as stated, she's skinny enough to use as a javelin).
But if the organizers of CPAC disapprove they are well within their rights to not invite her back.
Posted by: Graumagus at March 09, 2007 02:59 PM (ZEzoY)
17
(The following is said with Love)
Folks give too much damned power to "a word"!
I like Ann. I'm GLAD she didn't apologize for using the word "faggot".
Contrast what she said to what Leftards have been saying for ages: calling Bush "Hitler", expressing disappointment over the fact that Cheney has survived heart maladies and a freakin' bomb & wishing Al Qaeda "better luck next time", and so on. Oh no, no hatred *there*.
But we're supposed to be outraged 'cause Ms. Coulter said "faggot" while making a joke?
I think all the folks crying about it are just a pack o' poofters & whiny bitches.
Suck it up people!
"people aren't rejecting the dollar coin because of who is on it. They are rejecting it because, first of all, old habits are hard to change, second, people prefer dollar bills and finally, possibly most important, most of us have never even seen one of the darn things except in magazine ads selling them for twenty or thirty dollars each as "collectors' items""
I'd like to add that it's not just the "we have a choice and we prefer bills" issue, there's an infrastructure issue, too. A lot of vending machines don't take dollar coins, and - here's the biggie - cash drawers at most supermarket checkouts don't have a slot for them. Which is the same reason for the unpopularity of the half-dollar. In the cases where cash drawers DO have a 5th slot, it's already designated for half-dollars.
By the way, if anyone out there works at a checkout, please comment about how you handle halves and dollar coins.
In the comments to her post, Lynn wonders why she never sees half dollars anymore. Well, in addition to the above problems, there's also the fact that a half weighs the same as two quarters. So besides being inconvenient to use, there's no weight benefit to carrying one, either. Unlike, say, the advantage of 1 nickel to 5 pennies, or 1 dime to 2 nickels.
By the way, if for some reason you WOULD like to get some half dollars, just ask for them the next time you're at the bank. One of the tellers probably has a few she'd like to get rid of - since she doesn't have any place to put them.
1
Maybe the dollar coin would work IF they did It right, theres talk of phasing out the penny once those are pulled from circulation...Oh and get rid of those F@ckin fifty cent pieces too these are MORE useless then the penny....sorry i drifted there for a minute.
Now those two are out of the way start pulling the dollar bill out and start pushing a dollar coin into circulation preferibly somthing with Washingtons face and in double height letters accross the top ONE DOLLAR.
Don't give the vending machine companys a choice, I think thats part of whats holding back a sucsessful change from paper to coin, as long as the paper bills around why would they spend the money to upgrade there machines to use a NEW coin that may not last the year??
Posted by: Blogless Brother at February 23, 2007 12:07 PM (Gm3j4)
2
I like to get the dollar coins as much as possible. I leave them as tips at the bar. It bugs the dickens out of the bar-gal, but not too much cause I tend to tip well.
Australia uses both one and two dollar coins. They can not be mistaken for any of their other coins. Their half is huge by the way, and they use a lot of them.
Posted by: Skul at February 23, 2007 12:47 PM (3/Pql)
3
If you stuff a stripper's G-string with coins it will throw off her balance and cause her to fly off the pole, injuring herself and others.
Just say no to dollar coins: Think of the strippers!
Posted by: Graumagus at February 23, 2007 12:52 PM (DrRYD)
4
Yes but what of smaller busted strippers?? they could get hollow Implants and put there tips in them...It'll give the term "money bags" new meaning
Posted by: Blogless Brother at February 23, 2007 01:22 PM (vSzrA)
5
Are there any other denominations in more than one form?
There aren't two kinds of quarter dollars.
There aren't two kinds of five dollar pieces.
Why add a different form of dollar?
The paper one works fine.
Instead of eliminating the penny to advance the dollar coin, you'd actually have to eliminate the dollar bill to promote the dollar coin.
That, and you'd have to redesign the g-string.
Posted by: Roses at February 23, 2007 09:28 PM (+WckC)
6
I've already had one friend nearly hospitalized by a strippers boobs in his face, now you want to pack them with coins??
Posted by: Graumagus at February 24, 2007 11:10 AM (DrRYD)
7
I hate both the half & the full dollar because it weighs more. I hate the silver full dollar even more becuase its shape resembles that of a quarter.
Posted by: michele at February 24, 2007 01:12 PM (SzW/m)
8
And... let's be honest... Susan B. Anthony was a bit butch, and it's possible to mistake her portrait for Washington's during a quick glance.
Posted by: Harvey at February 24, 2007 01:28 PM (L7a63)
9
The perils of being old...I remember silver dollars from back when they were silver.
Coins have their uses. Ever try to bust somebody in the beezer with a roll of dollar bills? A roll of quarters or those new dollars works a lot better.
Posted by: Peter at February 26, 2007 01:29 AM (kkQ1n)
10
As one who traveled to Canada way to much for business in the brief 2 months I worked for GM having all coins and no paper money sucks.
I had a pocket full of coins and it was heavy so I would take the coins out then have to break paper money again and I ended up with 10 lbs worth of Canadian money.
Paper money makes more sense as it is much lighter in weight.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at February 26, 2007 10:46 AM (BksWB)