Gazing at the navel
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Greg's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 | | 8:41 am |
Ugh
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-militaryhttp://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/robertson-muslim-fascist/Words really fail. I can honestly only articulate two responces to what is, by and large, shock and rage at this response, that even the insane right of this country would jump immediately to the conculsion that we should be barring a religious group from certain fields based on the incident at Fort Hood. It's clear to me that the right wing really has embraced an extreme nativism and chilling racism that truly does verge on the fascism they so often accuse others of lately. First: let's just clarify one thing about the "terrorism" word. See, it actually has a pretty specific legal meaning, and its overuse has generally contributed to the worst sensationalism and hysteria over the brown people in this country. So, to be clear: attacks against military? Technically not terrorism. Terrorist attacks are those carried out against civilian populations. This is an important definition for us as Americans, because there's no way to expand our definition of "terrorism" such that things like the USS Cole bombing would count, but our own drone attacks against Taliban leaders who are not presently engaged in combat activites, for example, would. To say nothing of the secret assassination squads we almost mobilized. And, even if we chose to ignore the legal definition at work, and use the colloquial overuse of the term, it's very clear from what's emerged thus far that Mjr. Hasan was acting alone, and that his story is far too complex to make it appropriate to jump to the prejudicial and sensationalistic "Terrorism!" conclusion. Criticism of Obama or the liberal establishment for being circumspect about use of the terrorism label is, to whit, dearly misplaced, and reveals a great deal more about the agenda of those critics than anyone else. Second: ( Where are the Southern Baptist suicide bombers? The Methodist market bombings? )And those are just the ones I could find with 15 minutes of research that a)committed unequivocal terrorist acts b) during my lifetime and c)were Americans acting on a American soil. For some reason, there's even more reticence when it comes to referring to the murder of doctors while in pursuit of a political end as terrorism. Obviously, if one counted things like all that terrorism by the IRA, that number would go up considerably. But really, the take-away lesson here is, why haven't we barred Christians from the military? Honestly, until we come up with some ironclad way of telling the Christians who are going to go out and commit terrorist acts from the ones that aren't... | | Friday, November 6th, 2009 | | 7:56 am |
| | Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 | | 10:51 am |
On the Maine results
Yeah, fuck. And echoes of California, in that we were all expecting a different result, but in the end, it was a surprise loss. And yet, Maine was all the more of a surprise, because, even though No on 1 was out-spent, we all saw much more of a vocal reaction to what was (rightly) percieved as heavy pressure from out-of-staters on the Yes on 1 side. Further, the Yes campaign was, in a word, rather bad. Inept. Lame. As we've seen in other places, the campaign strategy seemed to hinge on spreading outrageous lies as far and wide as possible, and hope that they took root with enough people who didn't know better. And while No did an excellent job couching marriage equality as a "Mainer values" issue, it's clear that the incoherent lies (vote yes or THEY'LL TEACH YOUR CHILDREN HOW TO GET GAY MARRIED) weren't adaquitely dispelled enough. Either that, or 50% + a few people really don't think gays should have equal civil rights. Which might also actually be true. It's hard to argue with an 0-in-31 track record. And, that prospect is depressing, obviously. But, it's also worth looking at the history of civil rights in this country: I have little doubt that, for example, in 1954, 50%+ a handful of people in America were proponents of, or indifferent to segregation. And, certainly, more than 50% of the money was. I'm pretty sure, as well, that in 1967, there were *still* 50%+ a number of people who were opponents of, or indifferent to, the prospect of mixed-race marriage. If the laws that were on the books in nearly 30 states even then are any indication. My point being, there's a reason why we shouldn't believe that civil rights is a matter subject to majority votes. The whole point of our civic system is to protect the rights of minorities, even under rule of the majority. Ultimately, the civil rights movement of decades passed succeeeded not merely on the strength of their grass roots, but also because of support on the federal level and because of a judicial system that affirmed those civil rights. In the latter case, we're in a rather unfortunate place judicially right now. But, I do think that for success on marriage equality, it is imperative that we put much more pressure on the federal government, and in particular, President Obama, to demonstrate leadership on this issue. On this, as with too many other issues, the President's reticence is ultimately an impediment: his political capital will rapidly run out, unless he actually starts putting it to good use. And it's time we all remind him of this. Because on this, as with so many other present issues, we're going to be doomed to falter and fail and be stuck with compromises and half-measures that accomplish nothing, absent strong actual leadership from those we put in office. Current Mood:  aggravated | | 8:29 am |
Doug Hoffman's loss is GREAT NEWS... for Doug Hoffman!!!
Okay, I'm just as pissed about the news out of Maine last night as everyone else. And mostly indifferent to the rest of the news. Though, I'm glad to see that Virginia finally elected a governor that will put an end once and for all to those problems caused by working women and "fornicators". Go, you guys. But, in actual good news, NY-23 went to Owens. Much too much, I think, has been made of this race as a bellweather and a referendum on Obama the Republicans ACORN SOMETHING, but the lulziest thing to come out of it is not how thoroughly the fair-right hobbled their own chances of a gimmie Republican vote in the House, but the post election spin from the far-right over it.That's right, people: the take-away message for the right out of this election is absolutely not that capitulating to the right-wing of American politics is something that's likely to drive the remaining moderates out of the tent in greater numbers than it brings in Becktards who would have, I guess, voted for the Constitution Party or something? into the tent, even in staunchly conservative districts such as NY-23. Instead, it's that this is a MASSIVE VICTORY for "conservatives", who have demonstrated that they, umm, can orchestrate an effective enough PR campaign to cripple a moderate's campaign and force them out of the race, but are still so far out-of-touch with the mainstream that they can't win a moderates' race, even under almost ideal conditions. So, the key lesson, according to these idiots, is that Republicans should listen to their right-wing more, and consequentially lose more elections. One can really only hope that "conservatives" decide to angle for a couple more "victories" fashioned after this one. Also: isn't it hilarious how Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steel (the chair of the RNC), Sean Hannity, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the Fox News team are apparently not "the Republican establishment", but the local republican party of NY-23 -y'know, the dudes who decided to run Scozzafasdfioa Scozzafoazz Scuzzlebutt, a moderate running on a platform of revitalizing NY-23's economy- are apparently as establishment as George Bush. That first bunch of people are such mavericky mavericks that just happen to hold positions of massive power and PR clout amongst Republicans! | | Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 | | 10:38 am |
You know who else ignored science when it conflicted with ideology?
So, recently, there's been a bit of a flap in Britain (I guess they would call it a 'row' over there) over the hilariously-named Professor David Nutt, chair of their Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and some public comments he's made recently about the non-danger of certain illegal drug use. Now, just to be clear, I strongly disagree with a few of his conclusions (say, his claim that MDMA is less dangerous than horseback riding, which seems to be predicated in the argument that the absolute number of lives lost is less important than the rate of death amongst those engaging in a given activity- a peculiar argument to cite while arguing against minimizing MDMA use). But, my specific objections to some of his data interpretation aside, this is by far the most hilariously fail-tastic argument against the guy, ever. Honestly, the "logic" hurt my head so much I didn't read all that much beyond the first few paragraphs, but I thought I'd give a crack at two very common types of fail that crop up with startling frequency whenever people try to minimize the relevance of scientific experties in policy discussions: First, and unrelated to the post title, is the hilarious "well, scientists only study how things in laboratory environments, and that's of minimal to no use for questions about The Real World". Now, ignoring for the moment that plenty of hard scientists do work in naturalistic settings (Hi, Biology!), what makes this doubly hilarious is the fact that we are, in fact, talking about social scientists. I'm the first person to argue that social sciences are, indeed sciences, but one of the self-evident limitations of the social sciences is that, in dealing with human beings, they are inherently naturalistic, if to varying degrees. Psychology straddles the same line between experimentalism and naturalism that biology brushes against, but when we're talking about public policy or economics, it's absolutely inane to suggest that the scientists in question conform to the stereotype of the beaker-weilding eggheads cloistered in labs and completely oblivious to The Real World. Put simply, these are fields in which the only "laboratory" people have to work with an examine is the real world. That's all we actually have. The second argument is really the point at whch I stopped reading the damn opinion piece, because it jumped straight to Godwin's Law: ( Failfailfail )This is one line of argument that invariably sticks in my craw. It's a favorite of the Creationists; "The slavish devotion to Science, and not God, as the source of Truth," they like to argue, "is exactly what leads to things like Nazi Germany". The obvious problem is, this is demonstrably false. Nazi Germany was fueled by ideology, by a cultural mythology that they built up that was starkly at odds with reality. As a point of fact, they were not some insane hyper-rationalist society, and indeed, when science and national ideology came into conflict, it was frequently the ideology that won out, even to the point where ideologically-compatable pseudo-science was promoted at the expense of actual science. Not that in the aforementioned case, that was an awful thing in the long view- Nazi Germany may very well have come closer to developing The Bomb, had they not rejected so much of the underlying science for so long. The irony of that, of course, is that both creationism and this article call for a sweeping rejection of established scientific fact on ideological grounds, meaning that their invocation of Naziism and its horrors is not only dearly misplaced, but unintentionally better-applicable to their own positions. But really, this post is perhaps an even better rebuttal to that idiotic Daily Mail piece than anything I can muster. | | Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 | | 10:47 pm |
Well, I *did*.
I guess I should disclaim at some point that this is at least half my fault, as well as being half that of my roommate. | | Saturday, October 24th, 2009 | | 4:00 pm |
On missed connections and "sealing the deal"
And, okay, not literally in the sense that I'm talking about getting a girl that that I'm attracted to into bed, though I suppose it's worth noting that that particular set of challenges are certainly a subset of the issues I'm going to be talking about. Or, at very least, very strongly related. ( Cut for whining and self-pity )Do any Aspies/NTs/undiagnosed Aspies have any insights? Current Mood:  pensive | | Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 | | 5:34 pm |
| | Sunday, October 11th, 2009 | | 10:01 am |
Crawfish
In a gross (but awesome) miscalculation, I bought way too many crawfish for the upcoming recipe I'll be posting. At this point, I've used about half of it, but they won't keep forever, so I'm here soliciting suggestions: What should I do with a pound and a half of excess crawfish? The one idea I've had thus far is to make crawfish salad, such as would be suitable for a crawfish roll, on the grounds that crawfish is something like lobster. Any other ideas? ETA: I thought this was a relatively original idea, but it ends up, Alton Brown beat me to the punch by about six months. Also, did you know that apparently there's a blog for fans of Alton Brown? Weird. | | Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 | | 7:32 pm |
What I've been cooking lately, part II
This one was actually pretty fun, and came out really well. Typically, when I set out to cook something, I look up a few recipes on the Internet, take an average or best-fit approximation of those recipes with what I have, and then add an extra ingredient or several to my own tastes. Usually the end result ranges from roughly as good as the original to a bit better. Anyway, without further introduction, ( Chicken Tikka Masala ) | | 5:11 pm |
Many republican men think that rape is okay.
The vote in question. Standard trigger disclaimers apply. And here's the list of Nay votes: ( Read more... )Seriously, people, if you happen to live in any of these states, just take in for a moment the fact that your elected representatives just voted in favor of rape. That being said, kudos to Bob Bennett (R-UT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orin Hatch (R-UT), George LeMieux (R-FL), Dick Lugar (R-IN), George Voinovich (R-OH) for being the SIX republican men to join Democrats and ALL OF THE WOMEN IN THE SENATE to take the (apparently) controverisal stand against RAPE. Current Mood:  angry | | Monday, October 5th, 2009 | | 11:44 am |
Best. BLTs. Ever.
I'm probably going post something in the next day or two, with pictures this time, but in the mean time, I just wanted to say that this is one of the best ideas for a competition/cooking project I've seen in a very long time. Congrats to all the winners. | | Thursday, October 1st, 2009 | | 12:06 pm |
Food blægging
Poll #1465018 Food blagging
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 16 What should I foodblog about next? What recipe would you like to see me post? Should I start a dedicated food blog? How could this poll be improved? Current Mood:  hungry | | Thursday, September 17th, 2009 | | 9:51 am |
What I've been cooking lately
So, this will come as no surprise to some of you, but I like food. So much so, in fact, that I've infrequently considered starting a food blog, discussing both the awesome recipes that I come up with but seldom have opportunity to share with others, and to discuss and review some of the better eats I've found in the city. The reactions of friends, aware of some of my gastronomic tendencies, have ranged from leeriness to cries of anguish: "But all you'll say is 'Bacon Is Good'!" "LOL MEATBLOG," etc. So, in a quasi-rare moment of having-nothing-better-to-do-while-at-wor k, I decided to prove all of you wrong, and demonstrate that I have both a well-refined palate and do, in fact, eat things other than red meat wrapped in bacon (though, I hasten to add that I am not ashamed to have inherited that particular predilection from my German heritage). Here's what I made last night. Be warned: a lot of my cooking is seat-of-the-pants to-taste without any overt measurements, so these are all really guesstimate measures. ( Citrus Teryaki Salmon ) Current Mood:  workingCurrent Music: workers working | | Friday, September 11th, 2009 | | 1:38 pm |
| | Tuesday, August 25th, 2009 | | 11:37 am |
The fucking bullshit that's been done in our names
Seriously, everyone needs to read this. Honestly, the waterboarding thing was bad enough. I can say with absolute certainty, from my training as an EMT, that there is absolutely nothing "simulated" about the drowning done to someone in waterboarding, and that the attempts to reframe the discussion in that manner were positively revolting. However, even that clear-cut example of torture was nothing compared to what the IG report released yesterday discussed. Let's just recap:
- Threats to rape and/or murder families of captives.
- Putting guns to captives' heads and revving power drills (with the implication that they will be used on them) while they are covered in hoods.
- Severe, physical beatings- several 'detainees' have died in custody or soon thereafter from said beatings.
- The staging of literal mock executions.
- "Pressure points on the carotid artery"- in other words, strangulation.
- And, more drowning, even above and beyond the drowning that the government officially sanctioned.
One of the absurd rationalizations that's been floated is that "America doesn't torture, and therefore anything we did is Not Torture". This perverse reasoning is literally something out of Orwell's 1984. An honest statement would be "America does not torture, and therefore these things that happened are fundamentally at odds with the character of our nation, and are something to be condemned, censured, and punished to the fullest extent of the law." There is absolutely NO rationale or precedent for this sort of treatment of anybody under US law. It is fundamentally at odds with everything the US has stood for, and in several cases, participated in the prosecution of others for. Consider, for a moment, how little grounds we have to condemn Iran's abuse of its imprisoned dissidents. Consider, further, how weak and hypocritical our own pointing to the torture committed by Sadaam Hussein's regime look in retrospect, when ours were committing equally heinous acts at the same time. Reading this report quite simply turned my stomach. Even more noxious was the realization that the people who pushed for this policy- war criminals, by any reasonable standard- have essentially been given a free pass for their crimes. Anyone reading this should follow the link, experience the same, and start talking. In other words, HEY GUYS I THINK IT'S TIME TO GET OUTRAGED NOW. Current Mood: angry | | Thursday, August 13th, 2009 | | 11:08 pm |
You know what's ironic about Republican fearmongering over universal healthcare leading to government interference in family health care decisions and end-of-life planning? This. | | Saturday, August 8th, 2009 | | 6:34 pm |
Random thoughts while at Union Square today
1) I'm willing to grant that there's a dark side to industrial agriculture. I'm further willing to grant that meat from a farmer's market is likely less cruelty-ful and fresher than meat from my supermarket. But, I can also create charts of how much I'd pay to prevent how much cruelty to animals, and how much I'd be willing to pay for each marginal unit of freshness, and to be perfectly honest, at $12.50 for a pack of breakfast sausage, that pig had better still be alive with all of his organs intact enjoying his twilight years in a tropical resort, all the while being sexually serviced by the individual of the pig's preferred gender and species. Think Hedonism II, only slightly classier. In no small part due to the inter-species pig-sex. But, seriously. I would totally pay 12.50 if the pig somehow still was alive with all his organs attached. That would make it worth it. 2) I'm really too kind a person when it comes to sidewalk solicitors. Even when there are much better things I could say, I've already said "Sorry, no" before I've started formulating that response. If someone comes up with me with a clipboard saying "Hey, do you want to save a baby today?", then there is no excuse for not responding with something witty and scathing. Here's a game: let's brainstorm on this in the comments section. I'll count each individual dead baby joke separately. 3) Well, this is more of a story. ( Cut for easily offended types. And homophobes, I guess. )Go me. | | Thursday, July 30th, 2009 | | 10:27 pm |
There, I said it.
If the best thing your state has going for it is that it contains stadiums for sports teams with other states' names attached to them, then your state officially sucks. You are officially the storage locker state. Thank you for your time. | | 2:38 pm |
Government-run Healthcare...
... was signed into law 44 years ago, today. The world didn't end, our government didn't implode, and Republicans in congress fought it tooth and nail. We also haven't started euthanizing our elderly by government policy in the interum, either- in fact, they generally got the better end of the deal, relative to what the poor got out of it. I'm talking, of course, about Medicare and Medicaid, which were part and parcel of the Social Security Act. Also set the groundwork for such intrusive government interference in the doctor-patient relationship as HIPAA, which prohibits healthcare providers from sharing your personal information without your permission, and mandates that healthcare providers take certain steps to ensure that such information remains secure. THE HORROR. So, Happy Birthday, Medicare! I hope you don't take all the mean things that Republicans are saying about government-run insurance to heart- it's nothing personal about you; it's just that they're disingenuous assholes. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mumbly_joe's journal
6 (37.5%)