British teacher in a Muslim-dominated country asks her class of seven-year-olds what the class teddy bear should be named. They vote on Mohammed. Each weekend, a student brings the teddy bear home with them a logs a journal of what they do together. A parent or school administrator (correspondents are unsure which) gets hella pissed and the teacher was convicted of blasphemy. Her sentence was seven years in jail and 40 lashings, but it was reduced to 15 days in jail. Muslims leaving their mosques on Friday called for execution by firing squad.
This is why I don't think anyone should hold any single value to be sacred. One can commit themselves to an ideal, but need to realize they're not above slanders and critical humor. Every news story concerning Muslim extremists makes me think that they're not so extreme, that among them punitive assaults are casual and bloodlust is normal. The class named a teddy bear. It's a compliment by the transitive property. The teddy bear is soft and cuddly and a source of affection, the teddy bear is named Muhammed, Muhammed is therefore soft and cuddly and a source of affection. Isn't that basic?
Family Guy showed the funniest joke the other today. This Muslim goes into heaven with dynamite around his chest, rubbing his hands together gleefully anticipating his 72 virgins, and then from a crowd of teenage boys one with thick glasses a heavy lisp looks up from his laptop and says, "We're playing Magic: The Gathering. Wanna play?" The Muslim looks to the sky (even though he's supposed to already be in heaven) and screams, "Curse you, Allah!"
Oh my god, how funny. Totally deserved it. I hope they're received by 72 white nerds playing Magic: The Gathering after suicide bombing or jihad. They bring it upon themselves with their Dark-age irrationality and intolerance.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
a blast from the--now?
The first thing I'd like to point out is the truth of my previous blog in regards to the Speech-Comment Negative Correlation Especially Applicable to Younger Voters Principle (SCNCEAYVP) (seen-see-ah-why-vip) detailed in paragraph one (1), because as my shortest blog it did in fact receive the most feedback (there's some other blog that's got four comments, but I think one of them was mine).
In light of that, I'm going to abandon the typical "subject-predicate" form of structuring sentences. Stop using subjects. Just write important things. You can call it incorrect, I call it streamlined.
Newsweek article says we're living in the past. 60s. Talked about the worst week ever, starting with March 31, 1968. LBJ says he's not running again. MLK's assassinated. Bobby Kennedy tells some inner-city Indianapolis blacks that America needs compassion after informing them of the assassination (no e-mail, few phones, that was the first most of citizens had heard of it). 110 cities riot that night, Indianapolis isn't among them.
Jena 6. (Schools still segregate, and so do towns.) Pat Robertson sues Guiliani regarding potential legalization of same-sex marriage. (Gays are still under fire.)
America likes to get hung up on the past. 68 or 01, it doesn't matter. The Republican platform statement Gwaltney passed out references "terror" or "terrorism" or "terrorists" 33 times in those 3 pages. Get out the 60s, but get out of 2001 faster. Segregation and civil rights are decades-old issues. They don't go away when the interest does. War isn't a necessary issue at all. Take away the media, public loses its entranced captivation, America wouldn't fare worse. With the right minds, the middle class would probably receive some extra money, Social Security would strengthen a bit, welfare a little bit, too, perhaps.
These issues aren't blasts from the past as my 80s comrades may have said. Nothing's a blast from the past because we're still in it. We need some blasts from the present though, and one from the future would be kickass right now. What would it say?
[Soft voice entreating from the wings]: "Fix things at home, fix things at home!"
In light of that, I'm going to abandon the typical "subject-predicate" form of structuring sentences. Stop using subjects. Just write important things. You can call it incorrect, I call it streamlined.
Newsweek article says we're living in the past. 60s. Talked about the worst week ever, starting with March 31, 1968. LBJ says he's not running again. MLK's assassinated. Bobby Kennedy tells some inner-city Indianapolis blacks that America needs compassion after informing them of the assassination (no e-mail, few phones, that was the first most of citizens had heard of it). 110 cities riot that night, Indianapolis isn't among them.
Jena 6. (Schools still segregate, and so do towns.) Pat Robertson sues Guiliani regarding potential legalization of same-sex marriage. (Gays are still under fire.)
America likes to get hung up on the past. 68 or 01, it doesn't matter. The Republican platform statement Gwaltney passed out references "terror" or "terrorism" or "terrorists" 33 times in those 3 pages. Get out the 60s, but get out of 2001 faster. Segregation and civil rights are decades-old issues. They don't go away when the interest does. War isn't a necessary issue at all. Take away the media, public loses its entranced captivation, America wouldn't fare worse. With the right minds, the middle class would probably receive some extra money, Social Security would strengthen a bit, welfare a little bit, too, perhaps.
These issues aren't blasts from the past as my 80s comrades may have said. Nothing's a blast from the past because we're still in it. We need some blasts from the present though, and one from the future would be kickass right now. What would it say?
[Soft voice entreating from the wings]: "Fix things at home, fix things at home!"
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Cuttin' It Short
There's a striking negative correlation between passage length and comment numbers. The shorter a blog is, the more comments it gets.
I think that correlation is a trend applicable to the majority of teenagers, one may even claim to the majority of 18-24 year-olds. If people want responses, they should shut up faster. This is why the young voting demographic is statistically the most likely not to vote. Politicians ramble pretty frequently, so they create long speeches that simply don't elicit as much feedback because of the Speech-Comment Negative Correlation Especially Applicable to Younger Voters Principle (SCNCEAYVP) (seen-see-ah-why-vip) detailed in paragraph one (1). If concerned American historians and citizens want more of the nation to get involved, politicians need to realize that they're boring to listen to most of the time and stop talking much more quickly.
I think that correlation is a trend applicable to the majority of teenagers, one may even claim to the majority of 18-24 year-olds. If people want responses, they should shut up faster. This is why the young voting demographic is statistically the most likely not to vote. Politicians ramble pretty frequently, so they create long speeches that simply don't elicit as much feedback because of the Speech-Comment Negative Correlation Especially Applicable to Younger Voters Principle (SCNCEAYVP) (seen-see-ah-why-vip) detailed in paragraph one (1). If concerned American historians and citizens want more of the nation to get involved, politicians need to realize that they're boring to listen to most of the time and stop talking much more quickly.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Attorney General Candidacy under Question
Remember Alberto Gonzales? He's the attorney general who resigned a few weeks ago. Couldn't handle the impassioned condemnations of his questionable C.I.A. policies, I guess (among other things).
Well, now there's Michael Mukasey. He's a former federal judge and the Republican candidate for attorney general, and he's been under some heat recently because of his ambiguous stance regarding the C.I.A.'s methods and interrogation policies.
So there's this thing called waterboarding. With a combination of hot and cold water and probably a big guy in kevlar who's unnecessarily rough, the victim experiences a simulation of drowning. A bunch of people consider it torture and are hella opposed to it on ethical grounds, especially the Democrats. A few weeks ago, Republicans were hoping for bipartisan support of Mukasey's candidacy, but his lack of commentary on the issue has made some Democratic groups and politicians rescind their approval and instead decry his voicelessness.
"Hey fellow Democrat, who's that guy on his high horse coming to back up Mukasey?"
"Dude it's totally Bush, what a frickin' ho."
That's a hypothetical conversation between two Democratic politicians who sound a little stoned, but it's regarding actual events. I guess after some adviser interpreted Bush's world for him and told him what all the fuss meant, Bush realized he ought to assist his Republican buddy in achieving attorney-generaldom.
“I believe that the questions he’s been asked are unfair,” George says pensively and with a hint of Socratic thought dribbling acrossing his Texan brow. “He’s not been read into the program — he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he’s not been briefed. I will make the case — and I strongly believe this is true — that Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly.”
Hm. Well, let's consider this. Shouldn't a candidate for attorney general who is replacing someone for his inadequate job concerning the C.I.A. and its interrogation techniques be familiar with the C.I.A. and its interrogation techniques? Won't we have the same problem? Gonzales' resignation may not have stemmed from his ignorance of what happens in the intelligence agency, but it did stem from his inactivity about it. If Mukasey isn't informed enough to even develop an opinion, there seems to be something odd with this whole issue.
Apparently, Bush doesn't have an opinion either. (Is he uninformed as well? What is happening!) He declined to address waterboarding in an Oval Office press conference. “I’m not going to talk about techniques,” he said. “My view is this: The American people have got to understand the program is important and the techniques used are within the law.”
That translates to: "Shut up, stop turning on the lights, let us work in the dark and we'll get the job done. We'll show you the product, but don't ask how it's made."
Shady deals, man, shady deals.
Here's a song to the tune of Cat's Cradle that started out pertaining to my blog and then stopped at about the same time.
Deals go down when the lights are cut
Cameras tape walls and the shades are drawn shut
George says "Mike, Repubs are in a rut,
Show me all the stuff that you've got to strut"
"Well George, let me tell ya,
I've been a judge for so long
I've maintained this facade
It'll keep going strong
I'll say I don't know nothing
'Bout torture and drowning"
"And if they wanna hear something?"
"I'll look concerned and start frowning"
"That's my favorite trick in the book," George laughs
Mike says "I know, I saw you frown at your staff"
The Democrats wonder, does Mukasey have a voice
If we brought up waterboarding, would he have a choice?
Would he call it torture like a noble human being,
Or has his eyesight been adjusted to see what the amoral are seeing?
Make him step down, nation,
Tell him he's not in charge
Tell him "Abandon your station
And we'll steer the Barge"
And we'll sail upstream to a beautiful place
Where there are rainbows and pixies and a sympathetic race
Where torture drowns beneath its own atrocity
And there's enough love for you and me
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/washington/02bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Well, now there's Michael Mukasey. He's a former federal judge and the Republican candidate for attorney general, and he's been under some heat recently because of his ambiguous stance regarding the C.I.A.'s methods and interrogation policies.
So there's this thing called waterboarding. With a combination of hot and cold water and probably a big guy in kevlar who's unnecessarily rough, the victim experiences a simulation of drowning. A bunch of people consider it torture and are hella opposed to it on ethical grounds, especially the Democrats. A few weeks ago, Republicans were hoping for bipartisan support of Mukasey's candidacy, but his lack of commentary on the issue has made some Democratic groups and politicians rescind their approval and instead decry his voicelessness.
"Hey fellow Democrat, who's that guy on his high horse coming to back up Mukasey?"
"Dude it's totally Bush, what a frickin' ho."
That's a hypothetical conversation between two Democratic politicians who sound a little stoned, but it's regarding actual events. I guess after some adviser interpreted Bush's world for him and told him what all the fuss meant, Bush realized he ought to assist his Republican buddy in achieving attorney-generaldom.
“I believe that the questions he’s been asked are unfair,” George says pensively and with a hint of Socratic thought dribbling acrossing his Texan brow. “He’s not been read into the program — he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he’s not been briefed. I will make the case — and I strongly believe this is true — that Judge Mukasey is not being treated fairly.”
Hm. Well, let's consider this. Shouldn't a candidate for attorney general who is replacing someone for his inadequate job concerning the C.I.A. and its interrogation techniques be familiar with the C.I.A. and its interrogation techniques? Won't we have the same problem? Gonzales' resignation may not have stemmed from his ignorance of what happens in the intelligence agency, but it did stem from his inactivity about it. If Mukasey isn't informed enough to even develop an opinion, there seems to be something odd with this whole issue.
Apparently, Bush doesn't have an opinion either. (Is he uninformed as well? What is happening!) He declined to address waterboarding in an Oval Office press conference. “I’m not going to talk about techniques,” he said. “My view is this: The American people have got to understand the program is important and the techniques used are within the law.”
That translates to: "Shut up, stop turning on the lights, let us work in the dark and we'll get the job done. We'll show you the product, but don't ask how it's made."
Shady deals, man, shady deals.
Here's a song to the tune of Cat's Cradle that started out pertaining to my blog and then stopped at about the same time.
Deals go down when the lights are cut
Cameras tape walls and the shades are drawn shut
George says "Mike, Repubs are in a rut,
Show me all the stuff that you've got to strut"
"Well George, let me tell ya,
I've been a judge for so long
I've maintained this facade
It'll keep going strong
I'll say I don't know nothing
'Bout torture and drowning"
"And if they wanna hear something?"
"I'll look concerned and start frowning"
"That's my favorite trick in the book," George laughs
Mike says "I know, I saw you frown at your staff"
The Democrats wonder, does Mukasey have a voice
If we brought up waterboarding, would he have a choice?
Would he call it torture like a noble human being,
Or has his eyesight been adjusted to see what the amoral are seeing?
Make him step down, nation,
Tell him he's not in charge
Tell him "Abandon your station
And we'll steer the Barge"
And we'll sail upstream to a beautiful place
Where there are rainbows and pixies and a sympathetic race
Where torture drowns beneath its own atrocity
And there's enough love for you and me
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/washington/02bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
