Saturday, January 22, 2005

Atrios on issues

(R-rated link) Atrios has a transcript of part of a radio interview. The interviewee challenges the host to describe what homosexuals do:
if it's not such a terrible thing, a despicable thing, just in common language, let's put up here[?] what these gays do to each other.
The host dodges the question by describing heterosexual intercourse in shocking terms, uses vulgar, graphic language to accuse Christian conservatives of adultery, and then says that homosexuals do just what heterosexuals do. In other words, the host dodged the challenge and did it in as offensive way as possible to intimidate the interviewee and prevent him from persuing the issue.

Atrios thinks it's hilarious and thinks the interviewee has issues. But the interviewee was trying to get the host to be honest and the host refused. And did it in an enormously rude way. And Atrios thinks it's the interviewee who has issues.

Friday, January 21, 2005


Well, it looks like my last batch of photos has scrolled off the page so I can put up a new batch. I'll try to get to it tomorrow or Saturday.


Wow. I've got to tell you, if you want to get someone to promote your blog, Donald Crankshaw is your guy. I only paid him ... well, I suppose we should leave that confidential, but I did suggest he use the payment to buy a frapuchino ... but regardless of the cost, he wrote such a good article that it got me a link from La Shawn Barber (him too, and I'm sure he didn't mind that...).

I remember La Shawn from when she was just starting out. Now she's doing radio and writing for big web sites and getting regular Instalanches. So we need a word for a link from La Shawn. "Cornerlanche" is taken. I don't care for "Barberlanche". "Lashawnlanche" has some nice alliteration, but it doesn't scan. It would scan with another syllable, perhaps "Lashawn-o-lanche"? Or maybe we need a new metaphor. How about morphing "tsunami" to get a "Lashawnunami"?

Any more suggestions?

Thursday, January 20, 2005


I'm sitting here thinking about how much I want a Diet Pepsi.

I quit caffeine last week because of acid reflux and I just can't seem to get over it. I'm a bit surprised at this. I never really thought that I had a craving before. I'd always have caffeine in the morning just because I knew that if I didn't I'd get a headache in the evening, but unlike a lot of caffeine addicts, I never felt like I needed it to get me going in the morning.

It's been years since I cut down to one caffeine per day (that's one coffee or one soda) and that didn't bother me, so I didn't think cutting down to none would be such a big deal. But I just can't stop thinking about how much I want to go get a soda.

I'm really glad I never got addicted to cigarettes. Nicotine is supposed to be similar to caffeine but a lot more addictive.


Ann Coulter on the breathless hypocrisy of the Democrats that are criticizing the Bush inauguration. Does nothing shame these people?

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

truth and consequences

Michelle Malkin has apparently been annoyed by the way people react to her, uh, primness:
My libertarian friends can keep calling me a stick in the mud, Bible-thumper, or whatever. But parents of all backgrounds and political persuasions have a responsibility to stand up for minimum standards of public decency. Snicker if you want. But when your kindergartener comes home one day asking you what a "motherf***er" is, maybe you'll think differently.
I'm of the opinion that if people are offended by a particular word, one should avoid that word simply out of courtesy. And one should certainly not use that word specifically just because it offends people.

But really, I can't get behind this moralism about simple words. In fact, I think it does more harm than good. It's like Santa Claus. Sure, it's really cute the way a kid's eyes get all big when you tell him how Santa Claus comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve to leave presents. But some day the kid is going to find out that you were lying to him. And then he is going to wonder what else you lied about. Did you lie when you said that Grandma went to heaven? Did you lie when you said that Jesus loves him? I mean, really, to an eight year old, what's the difference between Santa Claus and these other things?

Bad words are the same. You get all shocked and angry when he says the f-word. You get all shocked an angry when he lies to you. You get all shocked and angry when he tries to take something out of the store without paying for it. But someday he's going to realize that millions of people use the f-word on a daily basis and no harm comes of it. And he's going to realize that you were over-reacting when you got all shocked and angry about it. Is he going to wonder what else you were over-reacting about? Lying? Stealing? Maybe later on, drugs? Sex?

blog categories

Are there any independent top-tier left-wing bloggers? The first two that come to mind are Kos and Atrios, but are those guys really independent? They seem to be more political organizers than independent bloggers. Consider the evidence: (1) they are both fully partisan hacks, with not a trace of an independent thought. (2) They both raised tons of money for Democrats in this last election. (3) Neither one of them has much to say that doesn't have a partisan purpose. (4) They have both worked as professional political operatives.

What I'm getting at is that there is a significant difference between these guys and bloggers like Instapundit or Power Line. Those blogs are the personal works of people with various individual interests. By contrast, Kos and Atrios are more properly viewed as semi-official blogs of the Democratic Party, run by semi-professional party boosters. They really ought to be considered organizational blogs like NRO.

This may be another aspect of the Democrat talent for creating submarine organizations such as NOW, NAACP and Move On --organizations that claim to have various political goals but are really just branches of the Democratic Party. Now they are putting out submarine blogs to take advantage of the new medium, and very successfully too.

poor girl

From the Boston Globe:
The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers' talk, saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or thrown up."
All I can say is: there, there little Nancy. We all know how emotional you girls can be. Now you see why you're just a pretender as a scientist? It's because you ladies are too emotional to do objective work. Why don't you just admit that you weren't cut out for this man's stuff and go home to bake a nice cake?

Ooh. I'm going to regret this.

Do I dare push that "publish" button?

Do I? Do I?

Naw. It was fun writing, but I think I'll hit "cancel"...

Monday, January 17, 2005

psychologists and priests

Richard Baehr of American Thinker notes something interesting about blue state/red state statistics: blue (Kerry-voting) states have a much higher proportion of practicing psychologists for the population. He makes rather predictable mockery of the correlation:
Economists will tell you that the number of psychologists per 100,000 residents is related to the percentage of the population who make use of their services. Psychologists, after all, do not work for free. Are there a higher percentage of people with mental health problems in blue states than red states? The listed red states have much higher regular church attendance ratios, by and large, than the listed blue states. Could religious affiliation be a factor in preserving mental health? Will Michael Newdow sue me for suggesting this?
I think, though that there is a more likely explanation: people are religious animals. They have a natural thirst for God. Throw out the religion of their fathers and they will create their own. In the blue states, psychology is their religion and psychologists are the local parish priests.

Where a red stater would have tribulations and go to a minister for comfort, a blue stater has special needs and goes to a psychologist for therapy. Where a red stater would have temptations and go to a minister for counsel, a red stater has issues and goes to a psychologist for justification.

These people are the idolaters of the modern age. They are caught up in a sham religion offering a fraudulent paradise on this earth and defining away sin instead of overcoming it. They deserve our pity, not our mockery.


Oops. I just realized that I never put up an announcement for submissions for the storyblogging carnival this week. I apologize to all of you that use Doc Rampage as your primary news source and were waiting for my announcement to send in your submission. I'll do better next week.

This week, you can see the fine work of those lucky authors who use more reliable news sources and were able to get into [queue deep echoing voice]


TEN TEN ten ten...

UPDATE: Yeah! Donald Crankshaw finally has a new installment of the Eyes In the Darkness!

OK, so yea, I announced the carnival before going to look at it. So sue me. I'm at work here and I shouldn't even be blogging, much less reading blogs. And I'll just have to suffer for a few hourse wondering what's happening to Ryan and Emily. Oh, and Dodgeblogium has a new Sage story up. Neato!