Another day's material - 2 May 2008
May. 2nd, 2008 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptEnd of week, all sorts of fun things in order. Although I'll be doing little bits of work all over the weekend, so it's not a complete amount of time off. Still, work pays bills, which is a good thing, and keeps me employed and happy.
And it's news time.
News starts with the death of the D.C. Madam, apparently by suicide. althoguh I can't get my hands on a transcript, when AmSam linked this, they included a quote supposedly from her that said she would be murdered, and that it would look like a suicide.
Further upping the potential for paranoia, from Radar Magazine, although hosted on 911truth.org, rumors that the government has a master file of persons of interest in case of an emergency where the Constitution is suspended. With the focus on the upcoming elections, the media has almost oblivated the fact that any candidate elected doesn't take office until January of next year. And depending on the candidate, it may be more years of paranoia and worry over martial law.
Following up on a previous item, the principal accused of outing students, calling parents, and keeping a list of couples at the school has done nothing wrong, according to the school system. Supposedly, the list itself was started when reports of students engaging in sexual behavior in public view on the collge campus surrounding the school was reported back. The system response also denies that the principal listed orientation or displayed the list in any public place. I'm still wondering why the school feels it needs to police the behavior of students outside the school's grounds, and why the principal considers informing the parents of romantic attachments to be a correct and useful deterrent to that kind of behavior.
After the Walter Reed incident, one would think that the military would ahve a look at its facilities and find things that needed repair and refurbishing, but it is apparently taking a video of barracks in excedignly poor repair to inspire action. I'm wondering how much of military contract money has been wasted in graft or poor ideas. They probably could pay for the repair of the barracks several times over. Our helpful friends at National Priorities have compiled graphs that show where all of our tax money goes. Almost 40% of our tax dollars go toward current military spending and paying interest on military debts. That's an expensive war to fight, and we're still probably borrowing a lot more money than just the tax revenues.
After Senator Clinton basically assured a nuclear response should Iran attack Israel with nukes, a statement that Iran has claimed is offensive,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bradhicks mentions that a nuclear retaliation is actually in line with American policy, and that it might be the right hypothetical policy to pursue. The critics tend to mention that Israel can probably relaliate in kind, and that the method of delivery of this hypothetical policy can't do much more than make relations and tensions worse.
China considers Donald Rumsfeld an innovator in logistics and troop sizing, in a statement accompanying the announcement that they would be reducing the size of their armed forces personnel.
The United States is not the only country with military overtures in Iraq - Turkey has again stepped up strikes on PKK forces in Iraq.
Family Security matters engages in wankery over terminology, specifically the choice to use "extremism" over "jihad" when discussing the War on a Concept. This is a "surrender", according to the piece. If the only thing the government was gonig to fight was Islamic fundamentalism, then they might have a case, but I have a feeling that mission creep and the nature of the War on a Concept will mean that there will be more than just Islamic extremism on the docket. In my most optimistic world, the government would turn the Eye of Sauron on Christian extremism, too, like clinical bombings, assassinations, and "ministries" that openly espouse violence against other members of the country.
David Limbaugh joins in on the Muslim-baiting, accusing the scriptures of Islam of inciting violence, while conveniently neglecting to note that most religious writings, and even several of the documents that led to the founding of the government advocate struggle, if not violence, against an enemy perceived to be tyrannical. Apparently, because most people don't have firsthand experience with this extremism, we can't understand how real and dangerous it is. And that lack of understanding is why we continue to insist that prosecution and trial occur within the framework of laws, rather than by tribunal or field justice.
John Hawkins gives a rah-rah speech for America, saying that Americans don't need to apologize and that America has been a great force for good over the last century. Apparently, America saved the world three times, once in WWI, again in WWII, and thirdly by winning the Cold War. It sounds a lot like a jingoist throwback to me, more suited for five or fifty years ago than now. I'm also thrilled that liberals are the reason why everyone else doesn't have this same thunderous unqualified praise for the country. Furthermore, as Liberal Eagle notes with aggravation, every liberal and/or Democrat is an elitist and out of touch with Joe American, if Republicans are to believed. Despite many liberals having populist ideas and policies, while Republicans fawn over soul-crushing corporations, and other such reversals of rhetoric. It's rather funny - almost all "major" political candidates come from a wealthy elite, with the backing of wealthy political parties, soliticing large amounts of wealth. Yet, one of the parties claims to be in tune with Joe American, because they have the same religion as the people (despite their strain being opposite to the founder's expressed wishes in several places), they drink the drinks of the people (since when do candidates get seen with PBR?), and like girls, guns, brawls, and any opportunity they can get to have, hold, or engage in them to prove their manliness. Including picking fights. If that's the average Joe American, then this country has a far higher population of Cross-Eyed Knuckle-Scraping Morons than I want to believe. So I think it's probably more how Atrios and Eagle end up concluding - anything that's different from the prevailing social norms is "elitist", and that when society sees someone acting independently, one of the strongest reactions to it is to crush that individual until they conform again. I'm hoping that Eagle's challenge goes through, and that Joe American proves just how intelligent he really is by not buying into the whole "elitist" crap being spouted by talking heads and Republicans.
Adbusters reaffirms an old idea while bringing it forward into the current times. By saying the way to get the revolution we want is to finance it ourselves, using subsidiaries and affiliations that will then either go out and do change or funnel cash into non-profits, avoiding the strings or the possibility of offending donors. Plus, it also alleviates a lot of the worry about getting grants and funding and donations and appeals and having to spend lots of resources on obtaining more resources.
Well, considering that Rockstar has released Grand Theft Auto IV, the negative reviews were bound to arrive sometime. Brent Bozel III complains about the content and the ability of children to buy GTAIV, spinning stress-relief and role-play quotes into material more suited for Jack Thompson, adding in a couple distasteful incidents at the lines, and trying to convince us that every game retailer in the country happily sells GTAIV to children, no ID check needed, and that parents are more than willing to buy the game for their kids.
Khaled Diab complains about a perception that men can''t be feminists because they're men, pointing out that one can wok for a cause without having to be one of those affected by whatever negative status is inflicted. I Blame The Patriarchy pokes holes in the reasoning, hinging on the idea that the oppressed do not trust their oppressors, and so full male membership in feminism is inherently not possible.
It's from 2007, but I wonder if it's still true in these days. Anna Greer notices that the passive voice shows up more in stories that involve gender-based violence. As if the writers didn't want to admit that one being did harm and damage to another, or to take on the active role - it certainly changes the dynamics of the example sentences. Instead of stuff happening to women (it's mostly women suffering in these cases) who display characteristics, making it their fault for displaying those characteristics and inviting the response, the active voice plants the blame squarely on the men who engage in harassment. By changing the actor, the attitude on who gets the blame changes, too. We could use more active voice in these cases, then, if it gets the fault placed in the right spot.
Last remarks for this segment is soemthing a little lighter - Oak Lawn's message-enhanced stop signs had to be taken down after the Illinois Department of Transportation found them to be non-uniform traffic control devices. Which is a shame, because the additional signs and phrases were loved and probably helped achieve the purpose of getting motorists to stop for the signs rather than blazing through intersections.
In science, looking a little backwards on some meterological devices, like a storm predictor that relied on leeches. Peeking into the brain, Scientific American looks at the psychological games that happen with product pricing. Mac Tonnies also gives 10 must-see first contact movies, which could easily have become 15 or more if memory had been working full-throttle at the time.
Last for tonight, an old Masonic manual written in shorthand. If you can read it, I'm sure it's a handy way of carrying a lot of information in a small package. Same idea (reading dense info in small packages) happens with Slow Wave, which takes dreams and draws them out into the comic strip medium. Soon enough, I'll be having my own dreams.
And it's news time.
News starts with the death of the D.C. Madam, apparently by suicide. althoguh I can't get my hands on a transcript, when AmSam linked this, they included a quote supposedly from her that said she would be murdered, and that it would look like a suicide.
Further upping the potential for paranoia, from Radar Magazine, although hosted on 911truth.org, rumors that the government has a master file of persons of interest in case of an emergency where the Constitution is suspended. With the focus on the upcoming elections, the media has almost oblivated the fact that any candidate elected doesn't take office until January of next year. And depending on the candidate, it may be more years of paranoia and worry over martial law.
Following up on a previous item, the principal accused of outing students, calling parents, and keeping a list of couples at the school has done nothing wrong, according to the school system. Supposedly, the list itself was started when reports of students engaging in sexual behavior in public view on the collge campus surrounding the school was reported back. The system response also denies that the principal listed orientation or displayed the list in any public place. I'm still wondering why the school feels it needs to police the behavior of students outside the school's grounds, and why the principal considers informing the parents of romantic attachments to be a correct and useful deterrent to that kind of behavior.
After the Walter Reed incident, one would think that the military would ahve a look at its facilities and find things that needed repair and refurbishing, but it is apparently taking a video of barracks in excedignly poor repair to inspire action. I'm wondering how much of military contract money has been wasted in graft or poor ideas. They probably could pay for the repair of the barracks several times over. Our helpful friends at National Priorities have compiled graphs that show where all of our tax money goes. Almost 40% of our tax dollars go toward current military spending and paying interest on military debts. That's an expensive war to fight, and we're still probably borrowing a lot more money than just the tax revenues.
After Senator Clinton basically assured a nuclear response should Iran attack Israel with nukes, a statement that Iran has claimed is offensive,
bradhicks mentions that a nuclear retaliation is actually in line with American policy, and that it might be the right hypothetical policy to pursue. The critics tend to mention that Israel can probably relaliate in kind, and that the method of delivery of this hypothetical policy can't do much more than make relations and tensions worse.China considers Donald Rumsfeld an innovator in logistics and troop sizing, in a statement accompanying the announcement that they would be reducing the size of their armed forces personnel.
The United States is not the only country with military overtures in Iraq - Turkey has again stepped up strikes on PKK forces in Iraq.
Family Security matters engages in wankery over terminology, specifically the choice to use "extremism" over "jihad" when discussing the War on a Concept. This is a "surrender", according to the piece. If the only thing the government was gonig to fight was Islamic fundamentalism, then they might have a case, but I have a feeling that mission creep and the nature of the War on a Concept will mean that there will be more than just Islamic extremism on the docket. In my most optimistic world, the government would turn the Eye of Sauron on Christian extremism, too, like clinical bombings, assassinations, and "ministries" that openly espouse violence against other members of the country.
David Limbaugh joins in on the Muslim-baiting, accusing the scriptures of Islam of inciting violence, while conveniently neglecting to note that most religious writings, and even several of the documents that led to the founding of the government advocate struggle, if not violence, against an enemy perceived to be tyrannical. Apparently, because most people don't have firsthand experience with this extremism, we can't understand how real and dangerous it is. And that lack of understanding is why we continue to insist that prosecution and trial occur within the framework of laws, rather than by tribunal or field justice.
John Hawkins gives a rah-rah speech for America, saying that Americans don't need to apologize and that America has been a great force for good over the last century. Apparently, America saved the world three times, once in WWI, again in WWII, and thirdly by winning the Cold War. It sounds a lot like a jingoist throwback to me, more suited for five or fifty years ago than now. I'm also thrilled that liberals are the reason why everyone else doesn't have this same thunderous unqualified praise for the country. Furthermore, as Liberal Eagle notes with aggravation, every liberal and/or Democrat is an elitist and out of touch with Joe American, if Republicans are to believed. Despite many liberals having populist ideas and policies, while Republicans fawn over soul-crushing corporations, and other such reversals of rhetoric. It's rather funny - almost all "major" political candidates come from a wealthy elite, with the backing of wealthy political parties, soliticing large amounts of wealth. Yet, one of the parties claims to be in tune with Joe American, because they have the same religion as the people (despite their strain being opposite to the founder's expressed wishes in several places), they drink the drinks of the people (since when do candidates get seen with PBR?), and like girls, guns, brawls, and any opportunity they can get to have, hold, or engage in them to prove their manliness. Including picking fights. If that's the average Joe American, then this country has a far higher population of Cross-Eyed Knuckle-Scraping Morons than I want to believe. So I think it's probably more how Atrios and Eagle end up concluding - anything that's different from the prevailing social norms is "elitist", and that when society sees someone acting independently, one of the strongest reactions to it is to crush that individual until they conform again. I'm hoping that Eagle's challenge goes through, and that Joe American proves just how intelligent he really is by not buying into the whole "elitist" crap being spouted by talking heads and Republicans.
Adbusters reaffirms an old idea while bringing it forward into the current times. By saying the way to get the revolution we want is to finance it ourselves, using subsidiaries and affiliations that will then either go out and do change or funnel cash into non-profits, avoiding the strings or the possibility of offending donors. Plus, it also alleviates a lot of the worry about getting grants and funding and donations and appeals and having to spend lots of resources on obtaining more resources.
Well, considering that Rockstar has released Grand Theft Auto IV, the negative reviews were bound to arrive sometime. Brent Bozel III complains about the content and the ability of children to buy GTAIV, spinning stress-relief and role-play quotes into material more suited for Jack Thompson, adding in a couple distasteful incidents at the lines, and trying to convince us that every game retailer in the country happily sells GTAIV to children, no ID check needed, and that parents are more than willing to buy the game for their kids.
Khaled Diab complains about a perception that men can''t be feminists because they're men, pointing out that one can wok for a cause without having to be one of those affected by whatever negative status is inflicted. I Blame The Patriarchy pokes holes in the reasoning, hinging on the idea that the oppressed do not trust their oppressors, and so full male membership in feminism is inherently not possible.
It's from 2007, but I wonder if it's still true in these days. Anna Greer notices that the passive voice shows up more in stories that involve gender-based violence. As if the writers didn't want to admit that one being did harm and damage to another, or to take on the active role - it certainly changes the dynamics of the example sentences. Instead of stuff happening to women (it's mostly women suffering in these cases) who display characteristics, making it their fault for displaying those characteristics and inviting the response, the active voice plants the blame squarely on the men who engage in harassment. By changing the actor, the attitude on who gets the blame changes, too. We could use more active voice in these cases, then, if it gets the fault placed in the right spot.
Last remarks for this segment is soemthing a little lighter - Oak Lawn's message-enhanced stop signs had to be taken down after the Illinois Department of Transportation found them to be non-uniform traffic control devices. Which is a shame, because the additional signs and phrases were loved and probably helped achieve the purpose of getting motorists to stop for the signs rather than blazing through intersections.
In science, looking a little backwards on some meterological devices, like a storm predictor that relied on leeches. Peeking into the brain, Scientific American looks at the psychological games that happen with product pricing. Mac Tonnies also gives 10 must-see first contact movies, which could easily have become 15 or more if memory had been working full-throttle at the time.
Last for tonight, an old Masonic manual written in shorthand. If you can read it, I'm sure it's a handy way of carrying a lot of information in a small package. Same idea (reading dense info in small packages) happens with Slow Wave, which takes dreams and draws them out into the comic strip medium. Soon enough, I'll be having my own dreams.
