Categories
Short Subjects

Give to the Red Cross

Sheila Dixon and 18 month daughter in New Orleans
A vibrant, historical American city is no more. It will be rebuilt, but until it is, a half of a million Americans have been displaced. Many of these people are don’t have the resources to secure any sort of necessities such as shelter, medicine, clean water, or food. A small donation to the [Red Cross][1] will help hundreds of people.
This is a shocking and disturbing catastrophe. That it takes place in the richest nation in the world, and that we still lack the infrastructure to manage it, is more disturbing. No one could have prevented a hurricane, but we had [plenty of warning][2] that one would do such damage. We must do what our government would not and apparently cannot do, and help the people of the Gulf Coast.
[1]: https://www.redcross.org/donate/redir.asp?splashpagebutton
[2]: http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm

Categories
Silliness

Raw Babelized

Take the first stanza to my poem “[Raw][raw],” and put it into [Altavista’s Bablefish][babel] translation service, translate it to a foreign language and back to English again, and the results are pure beatnik heaven. Continuing to send that translation back and forth until it stabilizes is referred to as *Babelizing*. Confused? Check out these examples.
First, the stanza as originally written by me:
>Slipshod and raw
>pink faces in the early light
>It

Categories
Friday Cat Blogging

Friday Cat Blogging: Natural Light

Jinx in natural light
I like photographing Jinx in natural light, because the flash tends to make her squint, making it difficult to see her amazing green eyes that constantly glow. It’s tough to catch her in the proper lighting though, because she doesn’t like sunlight, and her face is pitch black. Sometimes I have to blow out the levels in Photoshop just to make out any depth in her face. This photo wasn’t too bad, though.

Categories
Silliness

Bumper Angels

Bob Cesca, on the [Huffington Post] [1], asks why more traffic accidents don’t happen. The obvious answer: [Bumper angels] [2].
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/is-our-children-learning-_b_6206.html “Including my favorite Bush malapropism.”

Categories
Friday Cat Blogging

Friday Cat Blogging: Jinx in the box

A little late for Friday, but it’s my first one, so deal.
Friday Cat Blogging with Jinx

Categories
Satire/Farce

James Dobson thinks I am gay

Over at the [Huffington Post] [1], Gene Stone [writes] [2] about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his possible connection to those horrible gay people. It seems that Roberts did some pro bono work on a gay rights case in Colorado, and now some scary right-wing fundies are all twisted in their knickers over this.
Stone continues with ultra-fundie, and super-dolt, [James Dobson’s] [3] warning signs for parents that their sons might be gay. Let’s take a look at some of these:
>1. Your boy has a strong feeling he is “different from other boys.”
>2. “A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.”
>3. “A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.”
>4. “A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.”
>5. “A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them ‘queer,’ ‘fag’ and ‘gay.'”
>6. “A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even ‘think’ effeminately.”
>7. “A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.”
A quick tally gives me at least 5 out of the 7 warning signs that I was going to turn gay/am gay/will one day admit that I am gay. This would bother me, if I believed that, a) there is something wrong with homosexuality, and b) humans are either homosexual or heterosexual and that their is nothing in between, which is a subject for a much more in-depth discussion, but nevermind that for the moment.
Instead, let’s look back at that list. 1) different from other boys. I would think is common to a vast majority of little boys. We’re all taught to be heroes, and since heroes rise above the crowd, we’d have to feel different. I believe Sesame Street would call it Being Special. That’s a ridiculous warning sign for homosexuality, but a perfectly good warning sign for children who are beginning to think independently and will separate themselves from their family unit. I believe this is what causes James Dobson to think individuality is the Devil’s work.
2) crying, less athletic, disliking roughhousing. Shit. That’s me in a nutshell. I broke down every time one of those stupid birds died in [March of the Penguins] [4]. I am not physically fit, and I hate when my friends start smacking each other in the guise of “practicing ninjitsu.” Honestly, I think obsessing about the body and touching other men indicates a propensity for homosexuality! But not being a man’s man, I wouldn’t really know.
3) playing feminine roles. Sure, I’ve played the sorceress in [Diablo II] [5], and a couple of my main characters in my short stories have been female. I kind of think of this as “relating to the opposite sex” or “indulging in fantasy.” I can understand why this would scare the crap out of Dobson.
4) likes spending time with girls and engaging in feminine pastimes. This one cracks me up. Okay, first, is not the definition of a heterosexual man, “a male attracted to females of the same species”? Why would I not like to spend time with girls? As a little boy, the girls were always so much more interesting to me. They smelled better, wore prettier clothes, and tended not to hit me (see #2). Then, too, I took to cooking before I ever took to baseball (I am assuming to a guy like Dobson, cooking is a feminine pastime). This isn’t to say that I didn’t have male friends growing up. In fact, it never made a difference to me as a kid. Kids were kids, and if you were in the same neighborhood as me, you either were my friend or my hated enemy, usually both within the same day. This one is really stupid. Dobson is beginning to confuse homosexuality with being comfortable with feminine roles. I think only 5 year-olds confuse gays with sissies.
5) being bullied. Right. This has nothing to do with the cruel child pecking order. If you are picked on by larger boys, you are gay. Great. I went to school with a kid with an obvious glandular problem. He was my age, but about four times my weight and twice my height. He was also a grade lower than me. I wore glasses, kept to myself, and didn’t engage in roughhousing, so, like Dobson, this kid thought I was gay. Well, maybe not gay, but always a “faggot.” He called me that so often that the bus driver took pity on me and told everyone that a faggot is just a bundle of sticks. Strangely, the teasing didn’t stop. Dobson really does have the logical powers of a pre-teen.
6) walk, talk, and think like a woman. I know a couple of homosexual men, and I think they’d say that they walk, talk, and think like themselves, but if forced to lump themselves in with a gender, they’d say, “men,” homosexual men, of course. Being attracted to men doesn’t make one a woman. This is the dangerous aspect to ignorance. Now some male children may “think” like women, and determine that they actually want to be women. I bet most of them grow out of it. I bet those that do not are so confused by their sexuality that they can’t judge for themselves whether they are hetero- or homosexual. Sexuality and gender is a bit more complicated that most of us want to believe.
7) wanting to be girl. See #6.
And whatever. These ignorant, but supposedly pious people, like James Dobson, can’t even be trusted to interpret the Bible correctly. Why would anyone look to them for advice on determining homosexuality in children?
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/gene-stone/is-my-child-gay-and-if-s_5383.html
[3]: http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/dobson.htm
[4]: http://wip.warnerbros.com/marchofthepenguins/ “Those little guys were pretty cute.”
[5]: http://www.blizzard.com/diablo2/ “and the barbarian, and the necromancer, and the druid…”

Categories
Lexijon

The Lexijon: Crackhead

I drive like a maniac. Well, I don’t think I do, but I’ve been told that I do by passengers and the pedestrians that narrowly escape my car’s fender. I think I drive passive-aggressively. I speed, but only to get out of the way of other drivers, because hell is other drivers.
In attempting to get away from other drivers as fast as I can, I curse at anyone incompetent enough to get in my way. Usually this is the moron who decides to ever so slowly slide into the left lane on a three lane parkway. Idiot! But, in the heat of the moment, I usually yell something different, questioning their sexuality, which, of course, has nothing to do with driving ability.
In my normal day-to-day sedentary existence, I couldn’t care less about the ways in which we swing. Anyone can stick anything into anyone as long as all parties involved are happy with it. So I’m making an effort to change the invective that I fling uselessly at the driver in front of me.
Steve, a coworker who sits beside me at work, often calls people “crackhead.” I like this one, because, really, crackheads aren’t a demographic that should be worrying about what people are calling them. Words flung at them are the least of their problems. I have made it my mission to bring “crackhead” into my vernacular.
So if you ever hear, “F-ing crackhead!” whilst driving in the left-hand lane, give a friendly wave with your middle finger. The person you’re flipping off just might be me not questioning your sexuality.

Categories
As seen in media

Idiots' letters to Newsday

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while. My local paper, [Newsday] [], gets letters from some real pieces of work. Long Islanders are notoriously worried about immigration, property taxes, and traffic conditions, for good reasons, so most of the letters to Newsday are related to those categories, but sometimes a letter rises above it all to shine a bright light on its writer’s sheer idiocy.
This letter was in [today’s edition] [1], entitled Lefty Schumer. Schumer, of course, refers to New York’s senior senator. The letter is written by William Schroeder of Rockville Centre, and it deals with Chuck Schumer’s warning to the president that John Roberts, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, will have to face some tough questions when he goes in front of Congress. Here is an excerpt:
>[Schumer] will [define what is mainstream] from his far-left perch of the Democratic Party that suffered one of its most crushing defeats in history last November. Not only did the presidency remain in the Republicans’ hands but their majorities in both the House and Senate have been substantially increased.
Crushing defeat? 51% versus 48%? I admit it is crushing to still have Bush as president and that a bare majority in our nation voted for this asshole, but it wasn’t a crushing defeat. Bush (Senior) versus Dukakis, now there was a crushing defeat! The majorities in Congress were increased for the Republicans in the last election, but that was a gain of 4 seats in the Senate and 4 seats in the House. Bad news in the Senate, for sure, but not surprising in the House, where Tom DeLay used undue influence to squeeze out Democratic representative in Texas with a bogus redistricting.
But here is the thing that makes me laugh. “Far-left” Schumer *easily* won re-election in 2004. The people of New York gave Schumer a huge 70% of the vote. His nearest competitor got 24%. That, Bill Schroeder, is a crushing defeat. The people of New York, therefore, *want* their senator to stand up against Bush and his far-out agenda. Schroeder sarcastically continues:
>How dare George W. Bush think that his impressive victory entitles him to select a Supreme Court candidate when mainstream maven Schumer should be the arbiter of who is qualified and who is not?
Okay, Bill. How dare Chuck Schumer think that his impressive victory entitles him to do the people of New York’s work when idiots like Bill Schroeder should be the arbiter of who is out of the mainstream and who is not?
[Newsday]: http://www.newsday.com/”
[1]: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/letters/ny-opltr304364078jul30,0,778549.story “Scroll down to the last letter.”

Categories
Short Subjects

Brush with Greatness

I got a letter posted on The Amazing Randi

Categories
Metablogs

So far, Bush has not found the science

There is a great article, titled “Science Wars II,” on CSICOP about the Bush adminstration’s total disregard for scientific data, and scientists and researchers are getting pretty sick of it. The author makes a conclusion:
>We don’t have to postulate a nefarious conspiracy, then, to explain the war on science that has manifested itself during the Bush administration. We need only point to an army of political appointees in government agencies who are going about their jobs the only way they know how–i.e., talking a lot to their industry or religious right allies and frequently rewarding their lobbying attempts in scientific areas. In short, it’s a politico-scientific spoils system. And as this particular spoils system proceeds to allocate rewards, it simultaneously undermines, cheapens, and compromises federal agencies as reliable, public-oriented sources of scientific analysis and information.
To which I would add, a huge segment of the conservative movement in America is aimed at the dismantling of the federal government. So the very act of being pro-business and anti-fact is helping conservatives make more money while destroying the institutions that they hate. It feeds into itself. Since we can’t trust the government to remain neutral in matters affecting our health or environment, we have to ask ourselves, “Just what good is government at all?” And this very question helps the conservatives who designed the government to fail for the American people. Party of Lincoln, my ass.