Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Friday, 30 January 2009

From now on, my blog will be just made up of doofy videos that Rocky makes me watch...


Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

...well, until the republicans do something that bothers me.  :-)

Friday, 30 January 2009 17:05:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [7] |  |  | #
Sunday, 25 January 2009


It seems that Ted Haggard has more skeletons coming out of the closet. color me soooo not surprised.

PZ Myers points out that Haggard is complaining that people don't understand that his homosexuality is special.  People don't understand that it doesn't fit into little stero-typical boxes.

A commenter at Pharngula points out the similarity between Haggard and the anti-choicers who have abortions, protesting that THEIR reasons for having one are good reasons...they're not like all of those loose women who have them.

It's like there's a disconnect between what they think of other people, and what they think about themselves.  The public charactature that they paint of homosexuality, and abortion doesn't fit what they see when they look in the mirror.  They can't reconcile it; there is dissonance.  Haggard is a Christian and a homosexual, but that is impossible in their little world.  Haggard tried to deny it for years and years, live a lie, decieve himself, his family, and the hundreds of thousands of Christians that he lead...and yet, he can't seem to control his behavior...and he even though he engages in the unwanted behaviors with people who he should be able to control (parishoners, prostitutes), even they eventually cannot be controlled.

How, oh how does one solve the dissonance?  Well, apparently Haggard's gambit is to pull arms and legs and vulnerable neck into a little fort of words and insist that he is not a "real" homosexual*.

In a reasoned commentary worthy of Poe's Law, a "real" Christian comes to a slightly different conclusion.

Just think if all of that creative energy was actually bent to solving problems, rather than creating them?

*although, I have heard some arguments that denying closet cases who self-identify as heterosexual should be treated as that is their identity from a socio-political stand-point.  This is a complexity I havn't really needed to think about deeply, so if anyone would like to comment on the issue of identity, I would love to hear it.

My commentary here is only focused on the aspect that Haggard claims to have a uniquely complex and non-steriotypical (and, presumably, special) identity, while denying the rest of humanity the reality of human sexuality as being complex and not fitting neatly into little boxes.

Sunday, 25 January 2009 10:31:52 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] | #
Friday, 23 January 2009

Rocky sent me this mash-up.  it's his fault.





Friday, 23 January 2009 09:09:08 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] | #
Thursday, 22 January 2009

He who must not be named has an entry up linking to a story about a Christian ™ woman who is now “ex-gay” and wants to deny her former partner visitation rights to their child.

Naturally, he makes a snide question “But oxymoronic “same sex marriage” won’t have any impact on us, will it?

The question implies that marriage equality will introduce a new condition to marriage.  That of former marriage partners using the children to get back at and punish the other parent by withholding the child from them.  Which would indeed be a terrible consequence.

Imagine!  What a terrible world it would be if heterosexual divorcees started using their children against their former partners!

Of course, what HWMNBN fails to point out is that it is the newly-minted “heterosexual” parent who is using the child as a pawn.

Another question not asked by our intrepid nameless one’s commentary is, why is visiting the still-gay parent suddenly causing nightmares and behavior disruption?  Is this something that never happens to children of heterosexual couples who divorce?  Does the irrevocable dissolution of a family never cause anxiety and distress in the six-year-old children of heterosexual divorcees?  Or is it that the methods and skills for helping them through it are not expected to work if the parents are homosexual?

The WND article caused me to ask some questions as well.  The article makes a big deal about how the couple was never married.  It appears that they had a civil union.  Apparently, the WND believes that a civil union is not enough to legitimate a parent-child relationship.

So what ever happened to the idea that we don’t need marriage equality because gay people have civil unions, and civil unions are just as good?  I must have a different definition of “separate but equal” than your average fundy.

One thing they DON'T say is whether or not the non-custodial, visitation-seeking parent is up-to-date on her child-support payments...

And remember....these are the same people who also consider the rights of heterosexual women to be "separate but equal".  You know, just a little less equal than men:


(Hat Tip: Pharyngula)
Thursday, 22 January 2009 06:40:00 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [10] |  |  | #

Was it necessary for Obama to re-take the oath of office?  Probably not.

On the other hand, his willingness to re-take it seems prudent since the exact words the president is supposed to say are written down in the Constitution.  It seems only respectful to make sure the required words are done right.

Do I think Obama screwed up?  yes and no.  I don't think it's important, but I DO think that he tripped up when he interpreted Robert's strange pause as a prompt to begin speaking.  He didn't trip up when he waited for Robaerts to correct himself when Roberts got the words wrong.  He DID trip up when he repeated the wrong words that Roberts said in the first place.

All-in-all, less than inspiring, but certainly less worrying than probably a dozen or so of Bush's gaffs over the years.

And I don't think it's bad to have a president who can recognize that something didn't come off right, doesn't make a big deal complaining about how someone else is to blame, and takes the time to fix it, even if it seems like a little thing.

The Bush approach would have been "I nailed it.  Now, let's give the Cheif Justice a Medal".  The change is refreshing.

Thursday, 22 January 2009 06:14:41 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Wednesday, 21 January 2009

All is right with the world.  Democrats are running the show, and Republicans are doing what they do best...finding every chink in the armor of the ruling party, and exploiting the hell out of it.

I am enjoying watching the Republicans slap the nominee for Secretary of Treasury around like a teatherball over his tax difficulties.  Hopefully, it will make them feel better about themselves, and it will bring home to Obama that he will not be allowed to over-look a single screw-up of any person anywhere on his staff.  The watchword of this administration had better be "tight ship".

Just as it should be.  Democrats:  please take careful notes.  You might need this information in the future.  You sure as hell could have used it in the recent past.

I also assume that since they must have known this was coming, there must be some pretty high confidence in this guy despite his drawbacks.

Wednesday, 21 January 2009 16:53:48 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Sunday, 18 January 2009

So say that you are a conservative, and you desperately want to believe that Obama is evil and unprincipled?

Well, you can come up with a story about how he is spending four times more than Bush did on his inauguration.

And how exactly do you do that?  Well, first you pull a number out of your butt without telling how you arrived at it.

Then, you report a number for Bush, but leave out the totals for the most expensive parts.

Then, you say it over and over and over again until people accept it as a fact.

(Hat Tip:  He Who Must Not Be Named linked to this)


Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:16:07 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [8] | #
Monday, 12 January 2009

Hangin's too good for him.



That quote is in my e-mail sig. file.  Now, I wonder if I will ever be able to use it again.  It has been sullied.

What next?  Psalms?  Marquez?  G'Kar?  Someone stop him before he robs us of Blake or Shelly!

Or worse...

William Carlos Williams.

He'll gut the whole English Undergraduate Poetry Cannon if he is not stopped.

He can have Theodore Rothke though.

Monday, 12 January 2009 23:19:16 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #

Don't end up like me.  Don't read over 1,000 pages describing the actions and dialogue of people who wouldn't pee on you to save your life if you were on fire.  Unless you paid them.  Unless you paid them A LOT. 

Especially, you should avoid all of this reading because you will do it only to find out that the whole point of the book is to assert that women, no matter how capable they are, are only looking for that one special man who can make them feel enough pain and insecurity to really fall in love and accept their natural subservient position.  Oh yeah, and wealthy industrialists shouldn't have to test their products for safety, workers have no right to benefit from their own labor, and snap decisions based on partial information are always right if they are made by the economic power-elite who have a magic ability that gives them freedom from accountability to their fellow man.

Just read the Abridged Atlas shrugged.

then, toddle on over to for some Ayn Rand deprogramming.


Pcomeau dug up another fun commentary/parody:

There are several false assumptions made by Randinistas:


1) They are part of the super-elite who will one day run the world.  If the government would just get out of their way, they could roll over all competitors on their path to greatness (forgetting, of course, that their competitors would be similarily unfettered, and similarily ruthless and similarily loath to allow free and open competition once they consolidate a significant amount of wealth)

2) The world cannot get along without them.

3) They will never grow old and usless and become a drain on the system like the usless parents in Rand's books.

4) Nobody ever did anything for them.  They did everything for themselves after they sprung full-formed from the earth, therefore, they owe nothing to nobody.

5) The system which currently rewards them at the expense of others based on artificially-imposed criteria is inherantly moral and natural (of course it is...why else would it choose them?)


Monday, 12 January 2009 17:28:47 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [10] | #
Sunday, 11 January 2009

Remember, Innocent until proven guilty.

And make sure to note, the reason this bust happened after the election was because they didn't want to interfere with the secret service.

Sunday, 11 January 2009 21:11:04 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Friday, 09 January 2009

Here's a quote from this article in Pulse about "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide":

Kids love rock and roll. Everyone

from advertising executives to

Christian ministers have found

if you want to speak to teenagers, rock

and roll is the perfect weapon—a

sucker punch that catches kids by surprise

and delivers the desired message.

If rock and roll ditches its sometimes

running mates, sex and drugs,

and in their place a positive message is

added, then you have a powerful tool

for entering the mind of teenagers.

But what if that message was mixed

with paranoid scenarios of police running

rampant through the streets as

crop dusters buzz overhead, spewing

sickness upon the masses, under the

watchful eye of a government that

monitors every movement of its citizens.

An Orwellian nightmare that

sounds similar to a conspiracy-theory

special airing on some obscure cable

network, it is this type of radical thinking

that can terrify the mind of a susceptible


Now imagine that mind belonged

to your high school son or daughter,

and the message, spiced with religious

flavors, was fed to them by a group

brought into your local district for a

school-sponsored presentation.

Born in 1997 out of the basement

of leader and drummer Bradlee Dean,

You Can Run But You Cannot Hide

tours area high schools in tandem with

the band Junkyard Prophet in the

hopes of enlightening disgruntled

teens to sensible decision-making. In

the process it has raised questions concerning

their intentions and whether

or not they cross the allowable line

separating church and state.

Friday, 09 January 2009 19:20:26 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #

Go and read this and have a good laugh.

Stop the ACLU is claiming that the Democrats are trying to steal the election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

Despite the fact that the process has been allowed to function properly and transparently.

My favorite is where they quote an article that claims that 133 ballots might have been fed through the machines twice on election night.  Do any Minnesota voters think that is possible, considering that the ballots are collected inside the machines, the machines are heavily monitored at the polling site, and the polling site staff does not have access to the inside of the machines?

Nice try Stop the ACLU.

I found the Stop the ACLU post by following a link from He Who Must Not Be Named...who is typically credulous and clueless on this issue, and most likely still doesn't care to be enlightened.

Friday, 09 January 2009 10:14:03 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] | #
Thursday, 08 January 2009

One of my Facebook/real life friends put this link up on his facebook page:

It's really awesome.  One more step closer to creating life in the lab.

Thursday, 08 January 2009 21:29:56 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Wednesday, 07 January 2009

He dissed the business of the family of Blackwater's head Holy Warrior!



Doesn't he know that Amway is run by Christian warriors out to win the world for free-market Jesus?  And one of the DeVoss kids founded Blackwater.  Someone is flirting with being branded a faith-traitor!

Not only is he dissing a fellow Dominionist...he's messing with Blackwater.

Poor Pastor Anderson...nobody tell on him.  Because other than the fact that he is nutty and homophobic, I'm kind of fond of him.

Wednesday, 07 January 2009 20:48:44 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] | #

I know that Jason plays bass guitar, and I thought that he might want to branch out to you know, some mad church guitar skilz.

So what more perfect way to reward him for correctly identifying Pastor Anderson's Faithful Word Church in a recent post, than to give him a guitar lesson from Pastor Anderson.

I would like to point out that Pastor Anderson stresses that they DO NOT use the guitar in church services.  So no dissing his salvation based on any assumptions like that he lets anything contemporary or liberal creep into his services...

...we like to be fair here, after all.



Oh and Jason...YOU'RE WELCOME! :-)

Wednesday, 07 January 2009 09:25:43 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] | #
Tuesday, 06 January 2009

I have a news feed to the headlines of my hometown paper.  I just got three news alerts at once, and two of them struck me as collectivly funny.

Bemidji man injured in collision with horse

Woman charged with ramming her boyfriend's car 20 times

Naturally, the stories are not actually funny...just the headlines struck me so as I scanned them.

Tuesday, 06 January 2009 14:27:46 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] | #
Monday, 05 January 2009

Some of you know that I am fascinated with crazy people.  Most particularly, the creative ways that they interact with consensual reality.  I find it admirable, in a way.  I really enjoy the creativity and energy of their fantastic sky-castles...even as some of their ideas repell me.

It has been described as a sickness.  I won't argue.  Mostly because it takes away from the time I can spend marveling at the creations of the human mind.

My favorite crazy pastor apparently took his church on a soul-saving marathon in Miami, AZ.  Here's a video where they talk about how many Catholics they converted to Chrstianity, and they show all of the Jehova's Witness material that they censored by preventing it from falling into the hands of vulnerable people who might be decieved due to their receptivity to crazy religious ideas.  :-)

I really love this guy.  Who needs TV?  Not even Joss Wedan could make this up.



Monday, 05 January 2009 09:10:43 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] | #
Saturday, 03 January 2009

I was just at the gym working out.  I was on the elliptical, and a young woman from India started working out next to me.

On the wall facing us, a bank of TV's play various things.  I find that I have an unusual ability to follow the close-captioning of more than one television at a time.  Not perfectly by any means, but pretty well.

I was listening to my music and watching CNN as Israel pounded on Gaza.  Not without provocation, but still a lamentable situation. CNN was just covering the situation, some hospital scenes, giving a lot of air-time to official statements from the Israeli government.   Fox was showing old footage of terrorists training, and an interview with a guy who was saying that as long as there are Muslims alive in Gaza, there will never be peace for Israel.

I was deep into reading the close-captioning, when I heard the woman next to me laugh.  A hearty belly-laugh.  I glanced at her in shock, and followed her gaze to the TV in front of me...

...and saw that she was watching Sleepless in Seattle.  They were at the part where the boy asks his dad if he is going to have sex with whatever woman he ends up marrying, and if so, is she going to scratch his back up.

I think she saw my look of horror, however, and was more subdued.  She no doubt now thinks that I am some sort of weird prude who disapproves of her laughing at a very funny scene.

But I'm OK with that...I'm just glad I figured out that she was not someone who laughed at blood-shed, carnage, and wholesale political defamation of entire peoples.  That would be an awkward sort of thing to think about someone.

PalMD has a nice plea for peace in our neighborhoods in America while this goes on.  It's so true.  I know there are some people with conflicting loyalties to their birth countries, and their adopted country...people from both sides.  But you are not in your birth countries.  You are here, and these people are your countrymen and your neighbors, even if their birth country is now the enemy of your birth country.  If you can turn on them in violence, you missed the point of America.


Saturday, 03 January 2009 22:50:23 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [15] | #

It's really amazing, the impact that the devout can have when they remember their priorities, and put God first above all other considerations.

(Hat Tip:  Pharyngula)

Saturday, 03 January 2009 18:40:44 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] | #
Friday, 02 January 2009 act like a bunch of dicks.

this Private Catholic school has the complete right to fire a teacher for marrying someone they don't like.  Its something we have to live with if we want to have freedom of concience.

Not all Catholic Schools do this sort of thing.  Many Catholic schools hire people based on their competancy and desirability as staff...not based on how well they conform to arbitrary church rules...but that's not the point. 

But it is a damned good argument to not allow religion anymore latitude in society than it already has.  The more power you give religion over the rights of individuals, the more individual lives they will mess around with...just because they can.  Not all of them, but enough.  Better to keep their ability relegated to the private sector, rather than allowing it free rein in the public sector.

(Hat Tip:  Pharyngula)

Friday, 02 January 2009 13:23:23 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: