Get Fuzzy gets political
This one elicited a guffaw from me:
(you know the drill: click = bigger)
May 01, 2008
December 21, 2007
Sad Commentary on the State of the World
I wasn't planning to linger on the "Science Friday" podcast I listened to last night discussing the impending demise of the world's coral reefs. But today's "Fast Track" is too similar to ignore:
On the Fast Track by Bill Holbrook 12/21/07
The podcast was especially depressing because the predictions are that even if every country/continent adopts the current environmental treaties like the Kyoto Treaty, the coral reefs will not be able to sustain themselves in the oceans. They'll die, and while their skeletons will slowly erode away, new corals won't be able to compete with the sea grasses that can live in the current state of the waters. This is a prediction for the middle of the century. Within 40 years. The only hope the corals have, the Stanford research guest says, is to completely revamp the way we look at how we live in the world, and adopt measures such as no gas-using automotives within the next two decades. Like that will happen.
The scariest part of the show was his analogy of the coral reefs being like the canary in the coal mine. While the reefs themselves are worthy of protection, they are providing an indicator of danger and a significant need for change.
I'm still looking for a mountain cave in which to hibernate and hermitize. Please let me know of any likely candidates. ;-)
September 26, 2007
"On the internet, they know you're a dog"
One of the earliest (and perhaps funniest) internet-themed comic is becoming less and less true. This article from Wired indicates that we might all be idenitifiable by our writing skills and styles. I particularly like the quote at the end of the article explaining that terrorist websites "10 times more effective [than government websites] in creating a community. Terrorist sites are quick to provide answers and instruction when their users ask questions."
I'm tempted to start including sections from the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, with all of my blog entries. After all, didn't the Colonies act much like terrorists leading up to the War for Independence?
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Take that, Dark Web!
September 24, 2007
Funny + Wrong = Naked Penguins
Had to chuckle at today's "Mother Goose and Grimm":
March 29, 2007
The Gut the Endangered Species Act Act"
Anyone who even remotely knows me should be able to guess my reaction to the new proposals for the Endangered Species Act. See Salon's article for more information. But if even one of these two items are passed, the world is extra-special doomed: 1) limit the numbers of animals that can be covered; 2) limit the amount of acreage for habitat preservation.
I'm going to go out in the snow and eat worms. Oh wait. It doesn't snow here anymore.
March 01, 2007
Art, Dirty Words, and Censorship
Blogger Maud Newton has an excerpt from what might be a very interesting book: Dirt for Art's Sake: Books on Trial from Madame Bovary to Lolita
The excerpt Maud provides discussed Eudora's "Moodwatch" option and the author's attempts to swear while telling friends about email/technological travails. Do you suppose it would flag "WTF"? Lame attempts at humor aside, I am particularly troubled by her account of the Google SafeSearch function at the end of her entry. Apparently just searching for "lolita" raises red flags for Google. Though this could be a good thing to keep students from finding internet sources about the novel (or am I forgetting that they shouldn't be reading that "trash" in the first place? :-) )
October 09, 2006
Literary Elections
Defective Yeti is sponsoring a contest that I might be tempted to participate in: Encyclopedia Brown for District Attorney. The idea is that you choose some sort of fictional character/historical personae and make an election sign for that person. One example on the site is having Matthew Harrison Brady run on an intelligent design platform. Toad of Toad Hall would be an obvious candidate for Traffic Commissioner. Peter Pan for School Board.
March 28, 2006
Appalling
I really shouldn't be surprised by Bush administration stupidity, but how can I help it when I see quotes like this?
"President Bush has appointed crusading opponents of the ESA [Endangered Species Act] to key positions, including Craig Manson, the assistant Interior Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who told the Los Angeles Times in an interview: "If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad, I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."[8] "
Read the full article at BushGreenwatch.
January 24, 2005
I Pledge Allegiance...
This is my version of the Pledge of Allegiance. I'll just be blunt, open mouth, insert feet, and say that I am opposed to requiring it in schools. I particularly abhor the whole "one nation under god" line that was inserted by congress sometime in the 40s or 50s.
I remember as a child repeating the pledge by rote, one hand over my heart, supposedly looking at the flag, but in reality looking around at everyone else, wondering why we were doing this, but not really thinking about what we were unknowingly saying.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands" strikes me in some ways as slightly idolatrous. While I respect the flag, and when flown in appropriate circumstances, it can bring tears of joy to my eyes, I dislike the idea of pledging allegiance to a symbol. And these days, I don't even know if I CAN pledge allegiance to the republic for which it stands, as that republic seems to be going in directions that are contradictory to my own hopes for our country.
"One country, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is just outright hypocritical. Obviously, we're talking about a christian god, if we are truly one country under a god. In principle, yes, I can go along with this, but in practice, there are too many religious faiths here. Does this line blur the boundary between church and state? Probably not legally, but it is a little too much of a slippery slope for my tastes. "Indivisible?" One need look no further than our most recent election to see how untrue that line is...Bush received the most votes of any sitting president ever; Kerry received the second highest number of votes. And I really don't even feel like commenting on the "liberty and justice for all" part. I'll just get too upset.
So there is my rant for the day.
End.
November 11, 2004
Veterans' Day
Other types of public schools have today off, but not universities. Darn. Who knows what kinds of trouble we'd get into with another "bank holiday" vacation.
This comic pretty much says it all for me. I tend to cringe when I see people plastering their cars/homes/bodies with the American flag. In many cases, these people turn out to be the ultra-conservative right-wingers that annoy me so much. I've also noticed that people who put flags and christian "fish" images on their cars are those with whom I have the least in common.
Veterans' Day should really be about the veterans, and what they've fought for, including the freedom of speech and other principles of the Bill of Rights. And now, more than ever, it seems, we should be making our voices heard in continuing to protect these ideals, particularly, in my case, Article I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Or, we should just move to Canada. :-)
November 10, 2004
Defining Marriage
I always enjoy Ambrose Bierce. If the "ideal" marriage is between one man and one woman, it might be defined as such:
"MARRIAGE, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two."
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
November 09, 2004
The Great Divide
I used to live near the Great Divide, a beautiful place in the Rocky Mountains that is the point at which rivers determine to which coast they will flow. I like that sentence, because it gives control back to the rivers/nature/environment/"grand design", rather than relying on human constructions that attempt to make water flow uphill or time move backwards.
I feel like we're moving backwards in time right now with politics and "moral values." The great divide now seems to be focused on the division of church and state, with the religious right controlling the "ideal":
"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal. And the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Rove said.
Does anyone else think that marriage (whether civil or religious) really is more than the gender of the two people? Isn't the ideal marriage a union based on love, respect, mutual goals, etc.? Despite his campaign rhetoric, Bush will indeed be pushing for an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Bleah, I say. Get religion out of government, get government out of religion, and just let people get on with their lives.
UPDATE: Just saw this little nugget of over-whelming wisdom on Stacie's blog. "Let's just pretend that none of the bad stuff happens and teach our children that everyone is as bigoted as we are."
November 05, 2004
Ugly
Scott, 5 colleagues from work, and I were verbally assaulted last night on our way to a going-away party for a dear colleague. Our "crime"? Still wearing Kerry stickers and commenting that the "loser won the election."
As this was something akin to the straw that broke the camel's back, Scott engaged him, mostly just repeating the same thing the kid said back. No real argument, just language for the most part.
I get very, very discouraged when I'm confronted by conservatives on a public university campus. One would think that the students are here because they value education. Do they not realize that they may not have financial aid for much longer? or that tuition won't continue to increase as federal and state funding for higher ed becomes a negative rather than a dwindling number? Some of these people (and now I'm talking about conservatives/republicans at large, not simply students at a university) are only concerned that abortions become illegal and gay marriage remain illegal. Two things about which no one but the one or two people involved has any reason/right/responsibility/choose-your-favorite-word to say a damn thing about! Or, even worse, they do understand all of these things, and just don't care.
But simply calling the president a loser, and still displaying Kerry stickers meant, to this 19 to 22 year old that we were unpatriotic, shouldn't live in America, and were uneducated (at one point he asked why we hadn't graduated yet!--I mean, we'd been at the U for how long and hadn't finished?).
The audacity that this kid showed, to confront seven people, seems to be one of the uglier sides the republicans show these days. I'm reading a lot of commentary right now about the so-called "moral values" upon which many people voted, even if it wasn't in their economic best-interest. People voted for Bush based on "moral values" even if Bush's policies had cost them their jobs, possibly loved ones in various wars, their ability to finance a college education (or even a high school education), and caused them any number of other problems. I find this conservative moral movement profoundly distressing, and I'm not necessarily alone on this: the Ornery Liberal; Confessions of an Errant Mind twice; A Softer World in today's comic; Underblog Rides Again all speak about the "moral values" phenomenon of this election. Of course, in completely separate incidents, I've heard some people comment that others voted for Bush/publicans because they felt that Bush/publicans should clean up their own mess.
November 03, 2004
National Day of Mourning
Bush jr. did what is father was unable to achieve: another four years in the white house. But Bush Sr. would have been far better than his son. W will be able to appoint at least 2 supreme court justices because of the GOP controlled congress. These appointees will be conservative, leading to the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade, and further discriminating against gay rights. And there won't be anything to stop them until 2008. At least W can't run for term 3 (though I've wondered about the possibility that since he wasn't really elected for his first term, does this election count as term 1?).
But there may be some bright spots in all of this murkiness.
1) W can't run again. Whatever else happens, he will not be in office beyond 2008.
2) The dems have a chance to really groom someone who can win--maybe Hillary? As much as I was opposed to a 2nd Bush term, I wasn't terribly excited about Kerry. And if he had won, chances are he would have run for re-election, posing the possibility of 8 bad-ish years under Kerry. Now at least the playing field is a little more open again.
2-a) Don't get me wrong, though. I don't think Hillary is the 2008 candidate. America is not ready to consider the possibility of a female commander in chief, particularly if we are still at "non-war" with Iraq, et al. Americans have proven themselves time and time again that they are not smart enough to look beyond race, class, gender, sexuality.
3) The GOP may once again have been given enough rope with which to hang themselves (remember the 1992 election following our friend Newt's "Contract with America?"). It blows my mind that American people don't remember what happened last time there were no checks and balances in government, but maybe if we go through this again (*big sigh of frustration and much rolling of eyes*), they'll finally get it.
All that aside, I'm still in favor of moving to Canada. or Australia. or Italy. or anywhere else. Even Antarctica... Bright spots or not, it will be a rough 4 years, not counting the number of years it will take to restore everything that will be destroyed:
the environment
women's rights
gay rights
civil liberties
the U.S. Constitution
America's place in world politics (at least what's left of it)
September 17, 2004
Why I try to ignore political discussions
This comic refers to a recent Salon article about the "Ask the President" rallies. You have to suscribe to Salon (for a fee) to read the entire article, but I've attached the text below. Apparently, the Bush camp is screening attendees and their questions, forcing everyone to sign an oath of loyalty to Bush & the GOP. How many things are wrong with this picture?
Continue reading "Why I try to ignore political discussions" »
August 06, 2004
What happens to the children of famous people?
Apparently Ronald Reagan's son, Ron, has written an essay for Esquire denouncing Bush and his politics.
I can't quite tell what Ron's relationship to his father might have been from this article. He seems put out at comparisons of W. to Reagan, which is to be expected, though he doesn't seem to admit that, at least as far as the economy goes, they are enacting similar fiscal policies.
This paragraph, though, I do find particularly interesting:
"And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits. He may find it difficult to relate personally to any of the nearly two million citizens who've lost their jobs under his administration, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to post a net loss of jobs. Mr. Bush has never had to worry that he couldn't afford the best available health care for his children. For him, forty-three million people without health insurance may be no more than a politically inconvenient abstraction. When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush's economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You're the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you'll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet. "
How many of our former presidents have been part of the same America as "normal" citizens? Certainly Reagan's America wasn't my parents' America. And I'm not so sure that Clinton's American was my America.
But can a person realistically become president from "our" America? Has the American perspective that "anyone can become president" become another of our hidden shams (like the "classless" society we believe in; or the separation of church & state, as long as we all agree that the state follow "Christian" rules)? Can you become president if you've had to work your way up and aren't blessed with a family fortune of some variety?
July 19, 2004
That's Unpatriotic!!
Need I say more? I often really appreciate the subtle (?) humor of Non-Sequitur, and this one is just too good. We seem to be in a cultural/political/social climate wherein any type of dissent or questioning of authority presumes social and civic unrest, not to mention un-patriotism of the worst kind.
