Gah. John Edwards.

I should clarify that, again, I'm not that interested in the "cheating on his wife" aspect, except as it relates to the election. I am not completely without sympathy to either the Edwardses having had "an arrangement" (which I doubt) or John Edwards just plain wanting to fuck somebody who wasn't dying, and indeed, in doing so affirm life (seems more likely), I really think the American people wouldn't sit for cheating on the cancer patient and it would have cost the Democrats the election had he become the nominee, particularly as he was running as a values candidate and a (snort) "women's candidate" in a way that Clinton didn't.

I can see wanting to run for president and getting people to believe in you. I can see wanting some pleasure when looking at your wife just depresses you. I just think you need to pick one because if you try to do both, you're asking the people who support you to risk a lot on your ability to keep things hidden and you really have no business doing that.

I've noticed that whenever a politician has an affair, I'm never pissed about the affair itself. Indeed, Clinton pretty much got a pass from me because the Starr report makes it so very clear that Monica came on to him over and over and that he really seemed to do his best to try to be responsible about it, all things considered. (Having read the Starr report makes so many of the assumptions people make about how L'affaire Lewinsky actually happened fascinating. My favorite is when people call him a "sex addict." Lewinsky freely admits that Clinton only got like something like four orgasms out of the whole affair. Know any alcoholics who only have four drinks a year?)

But Clinton aside, whenever a politician has an affair, there seems to be some extra kick of selfish asshole behavior that always gets me. Spitzer doesn't want his hooker to wear condoms*, Giuliani steals from the poor to fund getaways with his mistress, and yes, now Edwards has to do it right before he runs for president, having to know that his wife's cancer means that if the information ever gets out he's screwing over the people who believed in him.

But THIS just plain sucks if it's true. (If I find out it isn't true, I will retract this post or at least put up a correction.)

I'm trying not to make too much of this, despite the fact that I to some degree feel like I saw it coming because I got such a self-serving shmuck vibe from Edwards.

It's pretty difficult to truly disgust me, yet I feel disgusted by the whole thing.

CC


*Yes, I know that pretty much no man wants to wear condoms. But this is a HOOKER we're talking about! And your wife is awesome!

On proper use of the word "Zen"

James takes me to task, and justly so, in the comments on my previous post.

He writes: I realize this is an exercise in futility, particularly against the cultural weight of the Daily Show's "moment of Zen," but I am saddened to see my religious tradition trivialized by this precious term being reduced to mean non-sequitur...

Or not...


My intention with using the word "Zen," was to nudge at how the game was pointing at a simple kind of self-exploration and examination of what one desires (and in my case that all I really know about Alan Rickman is that he's a nice looking actor with a rich and sexy voice, and anything else I might crave in him is something I put there with my own perceptions,) with the "or not" as a reminder that this was, after all, a Honda website I was looking at and a game at that.

At the same time, it was still trivializing and I've used it even less correctly before as my circle of friends tends to use "I'm pretty zen about not getting the promotion" to mean "I have dealt with the inherent badness of not getting the promotion and have attained a sort of balance and mental peace with the idea that I'm not getting promoted."

But that's still misusing and trivializing and I will try not to use it badly again.

Sorry about that.

CC

That's, like, zen, or not.

"Do you crave Pizza?" the google ad asked.

"Not really," I thought.

"Whatever you're craving, the Crave Reader can figure it out. Try it!"

Ummm... OK. I thought. I was needing a break from the tedious thing I was doing anyway.

So I clicked. It made me watch a little video about the Honda CR-V, then we settled down to business.

Is what you're craving "Animal, Vegetable or Mineral, other or unknown?"

Well, I thought, Alan Rickman is certainly an animal.

"Does it like to run?"
He doesn't look like a runner to me, but he is in good shape. Unknown

"Is it larger than a microwave oven?"
Heh. Yes.

"Is it furry?"
Judging by the video where he takes his shirt off, No.

"Does it bring joy to people?"
Hell, yes.

"Can you control it?"
Umm... Well, what Mr. Rickman and I do behind closed doors is nobody's business but our own, I'd say. But yeah, I'd say he can be controlled Sometimes, most people can.

Is it larger than a country?
No.

Can it be used for transportation?
No.

Can you dress it up?
I think, of course, of Neville imagining Snape in the old lady dress in Harry Potter 3. Yes

Does it hop?
Alan Rickman doesn't strike me as a hopper. No.

Would you find it in an office?
Well, Snape has an office but the Sheriff of Nottingham didn't. So, Sometimes.

Does it like to be petted?
Who doesn't? Yes.

Is it worth a lot of money.
Yes, most movie stars are.

Is it brown?
Well, he tans nicely, but I'm going to say No.

Can you stretch it?
No.

Is it commonly used?
No.

Is it usually colorful?
No. He plays pretty drab characters.

Is it subject to interpretation?
Yes. Isn't everything?

Is it a wild animal?
Heh. I always imagine him that way. But I'm going to go with a literal interpretation of that question and say "no."

Does it play music?
I think I've seen him do so in one movie or another, so, "sometimes"



I think I've got it, the website says. Fabulous, because I was getting bored.

What you crave is... YOURSELF!

It shows a picture of a CR-V with a mirror in the back.

I think of Robertson Davies' line "I don't think he means it quite that way. When he talks about Sweden, I think it is a mystical rather than a geographical concept. When he talks of Sweden, he means himself, whether he knows it or not."

And I click away.

CC
who had to go through that whole thing again to write this.

Postcard from CC

Having a wonderful time, wish you were here. Ok, perhaps not all of
you. It's a small museum

Heh.

Why did the dinosaur cross the road?

Because the chicken hadn't evolved yet!

CC
Who has a major soft spot for nerdy kids

Sent from my iPhone

Guest Post from Joe-the-Math-Guy

I read up on a few 1st amendment cases on which the Supreme Court has ruled, and I thought I would comment on this free speech thread. I am getting some of the information on these cases from Wikipedia, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

The "clear and present danger" language that PG uses apparently comes from the case that fausto referred to: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). During World War I, Schenck had distributed literature opposing the military draft to men eligible for the draft. The Federal Government held that this violated the Espionage Act of 1917. The Supreme Court upheld Schenck's criminal conviction unanimously, with Holmes writing the opinion. Holmes' "clear and present danger" standard reads as follows:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

The "substantive evil" in this case is obstruction of the recruiting or enlistment service during a time of war. I read through the opinion and could not find a general criterion for determining which things these "substantive evils" are. I may be being somewhat unfair to Holmes and the other justices, but to me the content of this seems to be: your freedom of speech can be curtailed whenever, in the view of the government, your speech would lead to bad results.

I am very sorry for the innocent people who were killed, but in my view the 1st amendment must have more force than that.

__

 

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st amendment has been considerably liberalized since the Schenck ruling. As far as I can tell, PG's interpretation is indeed the interpretation currently in force, but that is a fairly recent thing. The key here is "imminent lawless action," not "clear and present danger." The key case was Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Clarence Brandenberg was an Ohio KKK leader who had been convicted of advocating violence under an Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute.
During a KKK rally, Brandenburg had called for "revengeance" against "niggers," "Jews," and those who support them. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, reversed the conviction. Justices Black and Douglas wrote concurring opinions. The view here was that inflammatory speech could not be punished unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. I think that the "imminent" aspect gets at what PG was referring to when she indicated that the victims have to be concretely specified and available at the time the speech is occurring.

This is just about the most absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendment I could imagine. I am delighted at the thought that this is not some fantasy of the way our country might be run, or should be run, or maybe somehow someday could be run, but rather simply the rules down on paper for how it is to be run right this minute. Most certainly we should not give this up for a security that surely would be temporary and illusory.

If it is saddening to think that the 1st Amendment protects the likes of Hannity and Coulter, please keep in mind that it might well be the single most substantial piece of legislation protecting you--from them.

Joe the Math Guy

 

(JTMG put this in the comments today and I liked it and asked him if I could make it a guest post.  He kindly agreed.  He's an old friend of mine and wicked smaht.)
--
___________________________
http://chalicechick.com/

"Friends? Hah. These are my only friends. Grown-up nerds like Gore Vidal.  And HE's kissed more boys than I ever will."

--Lisa Simpson

Become a misanthrope—Get a SmartCar

As I sat in the parking lot of the Calabash, North Carolina Hardee’s, changing a tire as half a dozen people watched me and asked questions, I realized my SmartCar was seriously making me start to hate humanity.

And I don’t know what to do about it.

I realize I do own a red convertible. That said, I’m not intentionally being the person who exhibits attention-seeking behavior, then complains about the attention. I suppose some comparison in this direction is inevitable, and maybe I deserve it a little bit. But I like small cars and I’ve always wanted a convertible. TheCSO insisted we buy a red or yellow car because SmartCars are, well, really really small and he wanted me to be as easy to see as possible. I really didn’t buy a SmartCar to meet people.

But meet people I do, constantly.

And I really hate it. I’ve started to look at the world with a suspicious eye. When people approach me in parking lots, I’m already thinking “Don’t ask about the mileage, don’t ask how much I paid for it and for the love of God, don’t make fun of it.”

I mostly drive with the top up, in part because when people know it’s a convertible, they talk to me about it all the more

I can be, I think, a pretty nice person. I do a lot for other people and a lot for my friends. I am fond of almost everyone I know.

But I am seriously starting to dislike strangers.

I’m chubby and fairly plain with nice, even features but on the whole am not particularly impressive physically. When I was younger, I fantasized about being really, really, beautiful and how wonderful it would be. As I got older, I started to suspect that I would find the attention would get old. Now I’m certain I would despise it. I can’t even take people fussing over my car.

This all hit an apex this afternoon, when a tire that had a slow leak suddenly went completely flat. I noticed it in the parking lot of a CVS. There was a Hardee’s two blocks away. I had postcards to write and I just didn’t feel like I could deal with the flat tire this very second. So I drove the car two block and parked it behind Hardee’s, flat tire facing away from the restaurant.

I went in to Hardee’s, got a soda and wrote my postcards. Perhaps half a postcard in, one of the employees comes up to me.

“Does that thing run on water?”

“Huh?” I said. I always play dumb when people ask me about my car. Might as well make the conversation a little annoying for them, too.

“Is that your red car?”

“Yes.”

“Is it one of those cars that runs on water?”

“No,” I said. “It runs on gas.”

She went away. Half a postcard later, she was back.

“Does it cost twenty dollars to fill the gas tank?”

“More like thirty,” I said.

I was almost done with the postcards when she came back again. “My manager was taking out the trash and he said you have a flat tire.”

“I know. I’m going to take care of it now, I just wanted a drink first.”

“Ok, because the tire is flat. He saw it when he was taking out the trash.”

“I’ll take care of it.” I said. At this point the lady really was trying to be nice, but I really, really wanted to be left the fuck alone. I threw out the soda, stuffed the postcards in my pocket and headed for the door.

I have a full-sized spare and could have changed it there, but I just wanted to be out of there, so I pulled out the tire pump, a little machine that attaches to a bottle of fix-a-flat-type-stuff. As I attached the pump to the tire and to the cigarette lighter in the car, the lady who worked at Hardee’s and a guy who I assumed was her manager came out to watch. They were soon joined by a couple who had been in the Hardee’s and some teenagers who had been walking across the parking lot.

“It’s such a cute little thing.”
“What’s she doing?”
“Pumping up the tire.”
“I could never fit my kids in that car…”

I couldn’t get to 36 psi fast enough. Finally, it was done and I unhooked the pump and threw it into the passenger’s seatwell. The crown dispersed, I drove away.

But I was left with a sense of unease about the whole situation. Sure, it was annoying, and it would have been nice if someone had actually offered to help, but this IS appreciation, right? I mean people fuss over my car because they think it’s cool.

I tell myself this over and over.

CC

Back on the road

Quick notes from the road

- Boy am I ever cheesed off at John Edwards. IMHO, not much could straight-up give McCain the election right now, but if Edwards had been the nominee, him having to admit that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife would have done it. Yet he was running anyway. I feel justified in every bit of my prior snark about him. His seeming willingness to risk handing the election to the Rs seriously pisses me off. Did he REALLY think he could get away with it? Was he REALLY willing to risk four years of the presidency over it? Did the poor folks he claimed to care about, who will surely suffer under McCain REALLY actually mean that little to him? His entitled asshattedness appalls me.

You want to fuck someone who isn't your cancer-stricken wife? Fine. But don't fuck over the people who believe in you.

- Clarifications of the previous post.

1. I am a firm believer in Gary Larson's image of God having jars of people labeled "black people," "white people," "brown people," "Jerks," though the sort of person who shoots up a church certainly deserves a harsher term than "jerk."
IMHO, it's not an accident that school shootings have gone up as lynchings have gone down. I'd say that there are always violent fuckups in the world and when it is societally acceptable to some degree to call their actions part of some sort of ideologically-based war, they are happy to do so, but they would have been just as happy to claim another purpose as long as they got their evil little rocks off.

2. If Hannity et al are calling for actual violence against specific people, give me a torch and I will join the mob and/or you can save us all some lighter fluid and call the cops. Barring actual threats of violence, I don't see the "fire in a crowded theatre" connection. Could someone provide me with some specifics on what exactly these folks have said that could theoretically have moved somebody to violence? I don't think calling liberals evil or comparing them to despots qualifies, or if it does, we need to take a hard look at ourselves.

OK, back to vacation.

CC
Noting that she writes a lot of things in a sort of modified outline form these days. It'e like she's a law student or something...

Almost there

Ann Coulter and the TVUUC

Part of me loves and appreciates posts like these.

At the same time, I worry about the anger toward the right wing. I'm no fan of Ann Coulter, but frankly, everything I've ever heard about this guy has had me thinking about that I don't like Mondays woman. I really doubt that the shooter's ex-wife's church became the focus of his anger by much more than chance. Yes, we're liberal, but this guy certainly sounds like he could have just as easily started fixating on her bowling alley.

Or to put it another way, if he was going to shoot up a symbol of liberalism, the local offices of the Obama campaign would have made more sense. My guess is he wanted to shoot up someplace where his ex-wife had been happy and found support, and scrawled some concerns about politics to give his actions greater meaning.

Yeah, he liked Sean Hannity. But there are a hell of a lot of people who like Sean Hannity who don't shoot up our churches and I don't think this incident should be used to paint them all with the same brush, much as I disagree with them.

I know, most people are making some distinctions here, but I'm still worried about what I'm reading. People of all faiths and all political perspectives have been reaching out to us. I don't want our worries about what's on their bookshelves to keep us from reaching back.

CC

See you at the debates, Bitches!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Awesome. Just awesome.

CC

Hat tip to Druuid

Sweet mother of all that's swell, my tags are caught up!

I devoted a lunch hour to catching up my tags.

As always, I've only tagged posts that I thought were worth tagging. If my post was only a link or a photo or I just decided I didn't like it very much, I didn't bother.

I added some new categories, too and will at some point go back through and update some of the old posts to add new tags.

As always "Livejournal-Esque" is my narrative tag and tracks my more narrative posts.

"Padawans enlightened" is about YRUU.

I think the rest are pretty self-explanatory.

CC

By oddly, I'd say, popular request

Here's a closeup of the robot


No, seriously, I've gotten at least three e-mails on the subject.

CC

Dr. Steven Hayne is toast, wahoo!

I don't know that I've written about him, but for quite some time I've been following this guy's career and becoming more and more appalled at what a universally recognized fuckup he seems to be, despite the fact that prosecutors kept calling on him to perform autopsies because they know he's their bitch.

For the full story on this shmuck and why his firing is a blow for justice check out Radley Balko's story about him in Reason

Yay!

CC

XKCD rocks mightily.

CC

I played this song for Joe-the-Math-Guy and he loved it.

I apologize for the utter crappiness of the picture quality. It's the best that YouTube had.

This is the bootleg version of the video of Bree Sharp's "David Duchovny" that the X-files cast and crew made for Duchovny's birthday. It has a fuckton of celebrites including Alex Trebek, Jeanine Garafalo, Melissa Etheridge and Sarah Michelle Geller. And Kiss.

Trust me, this thing is so awesome it's like sex and a pizza wrapped up in a burrito and served by Mr. T*.

CC
who wants the Chaliceblog to be everybody's source for ridiculous YouTube videos about moody, sexy actors.

*Simile stolen from somebody else. But worth repeating.

Today in church, we did something really great.

We prayed for the guy who shot up the congregation in Tennessee.

I don’t pray often, to be honest. My conception of God is that God is a force not at all unlike gravity, pulling at us all the time and changing the way things behave in ways that are so seamless with our reality that we can be forgiven for missing God’s presence. (Yes, you can argue this one out with me if you wish, but that’s not really the point of this post.)

So when I do pray, I’m pretty aware that I’m talking mostly to myself.

I’m also aware of Robertson Davies’ comment “Prayer is petition, intercession, adoration, and contemplation; great saints and mystics have agreed on this definition. To stop short at petition is to pray only in a crippled fashion. Further, such prayer encourages one of the faults which is most reprehended by spiritual instructors -- turning to God without turning from Self”

But I think I can be aware that I’m talking mostly to myself while at the same time trying to remove myself from selfish concerns. But am I motivated to try to remove my thoughts from selfish concerns by Pride or by wanting to feel good about myself for having done so? Eh… Dunno. Either way it seems like a good practice. And besides, we can’t ever completely leave ourselves out. We can look beyond ourselves to some degree, but we’re kind of stuck in the perspective we’re in. A dog who loves one still expresses his affection as dogs express affection.

Still, even among people who do pray as a regular thing, I don’t think praying for those who attack us is very common, even though the bible pretty much straight up says we should pray for everyone. (Ok, that’s the way I read I Timothy 2: 1-4*, given what jerks most of the biblical kings were.) It has given me great pride in Unitarian Universalism to hear about how forgiving we have been and how we have been reaching out in all directions spiritually, not just the easy ones.

Even though I’m a humanist who doesn’t pray much, I see it as crucial for our own dealing with this tragedy to look to the shooter with compassion in any way we can, prayer included**. When we reach out, to heaven and to one another, and call out to those whose personal concerns are well beyond our own, by the very nature of the act we are increasing our own awareness and growing spiritually. Will compassionate thoughts lead to compassionate action, leading to compassionate acts and feelings on the parts of others, setting off a chain of events that makes the world suck less?

Maybe not, but, hell, let’s give it a shot.

CC

*1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

**Ok, if prayer straight up doesn't work for you spiritually, you don't have to pray. Note again that I stretching the concept of prayer somewhat. But the ideas are still worth contemplating on and considering.

Thing is, I know if I ever go to ComicCon, I will be a certified geek forever.

But goodness, I'm tempted every year.

CC