Looks like I'm not alone.
CC
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Good article on Roman Polanski
Answering the many "defenses" people have come up with for him.
The amount of sympathy Polanski gets blows my mind. There are lots of sex-related criminal cases out there with a lot of gray areas. This is not one of them.
CC
The amount of sympathy Polanski gets blows my mind. There are lots of sex-related criminal cases out there with a lot of gray areas. This is not one of them.
CC
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
CC's favorite Onion Article
Over the weekend, I was telling FortiesGirl about how several years ago TheOnion.com did this awesome story about Gonzo journalists meeting to discuss the death of Hunter S. Thompson.
So for your edification and hers, here's:
National Gonzo Press Club Vows To Carry On Thompson's Work
In other news, the when you search the Onion's website for "Gonzo," the other story you get is really funny, too:
Stoner Uncle All the Kids' Favorite
CC
So for your edification and hers, here's:
National Gonzo Press Club Vows To Carry On Thompson's Work
In other news, the when you search the Onion's website for "Gonzo," the other story you get is really funny, too:
Stoner Uncle All the Kids' Favorite
CC
For sale, amazing speech, never used
It must have been strange to be William Safire, have written at least hundreds of speeches and be, I don't doubt, delighted that the finest thing you ever wrote was never read in public.
Gawker has the speech William Safire wrote for Nixon to give if the Apollo 11 astronauts became stranded on the moon. It's really beautiful and sad to even consider those brave guys going up to the moon and the strong likelihood that something would happen and they wouldn't make it back.
CC
Gawker has the speech William Safire wrote for Nixon to give if the Apollo 11 astronauts became stranded on the moon. It's really beautiful and sad to even consider those brave guys going up to the moon and the strong likelihood that something would happen and they wouldn't make it back.
CC
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Push Polls: They aren't just for politics anymore
So theCSO and I, dull suburbanites that we are, are headed to the Washington Home Show this weekend. You could save three bucks a ticket by ordering online, so of course we did that. One of the questions that you were REQUIRED to answer before you could but a ticket was:
TheCSO and I, who only have trees that are set back from our house and thus don't really have gutter problems, wanted to write in "Mosquitos? We want our gutters replaced because the pooling water is attracting Mothra."
But alas, that option was not allowed.
Even more annoying, the next option asked how many times per year our gutters clogged and there was no option for "They don't."
So, do you think the discount for online purchases was sponsored by the gutter companies?
And do you think we're going to be getting gutter mail in the future?
Oh well. We saved six bucks.
CC
- Please choose the factor that would be most important to you in considering replacement gutters?
- Potential Water Damage in basement caused by clogged and overflowing gutters
- Fear of falling off ladder or roof while cleaning clogged gutters
- Potential damage to walkways, foundations, driveways, patios or landscaping caused by clogged and overflowing gutters
- Expense of cleaning clogging gutters
- Interest in upgrading current conventional gutters to a maintenance free, clog free system
- Protecting your home’s resale value and give it an edge in today’s highly competitive housing market
- Eliminating standing water where disease carrying mosquitoes can breed
TheCSO and I, who only have trees that are set back from our house and thus don't really have gutter problems, wanted to write in "Mosquitos? We want our gutters replaced because the pooling water is attracting Mothra."
But alas, that option was not allowed.
Even more annoying, the next option asked how many times per year our gutters clogged and there was no option for "They don't."
So, do you think the discount for online purchases was sponsored by the gutter companies?
And do you think we're going to be getting gutter mail in the future?
Oh well. We saved six bucks.
CC
Marilyn Manson comments on how he has swine flu
""I know everyone will suggest that fucking a pig is how this disease was obtained. However, the doctor said, my past choices...in 'no way' contributed to me acquiring this mysterious sickness. ... Unfortunately, I am going to survive." "
Friday, September 25, 2009
Quick FAQ on ENDA
Q: What's ENDA?
A: It's the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act." It's a bill currently before Congress.
Q: What would ENDA do?
A: Extend the protections of title VII to gays, transgendered people and the disabled.
Q: What's title VII?
A: Title VII was the "Equal Pay Act of 1963." It has been subsequently amended, and mostly in liberal directions by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Here's what the US Code looks like now.
Q: What does it say?
A: Very briefly, it says that you cannot fire, refuse to hire, or generally mistreat employees because of their gender.
Q: Bitchin'. I'm a woman and I've always wanted to be a Catholic priest. I'll start calling lawyers.
A. Not so fast...er...Sister. Religious institutions are exempted.
Q: But what about a Catholic-owned bookstore?
A: They aren't exempted at all. They cannot refuse to hire you based on your gender. Or your not being a Catholic, which would legally get in the way of the priest thing, too, by the way. Or because you're black. Or because you're French.
Q: We even have to hire the French?
A: If they are the most qualified person for the job. Sucks, don't it?
Q: What will happen if ENDA passes?
A: As far as I can tell, it will simply add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the list of protected traits. The church won't have to hire gay people, but the bookstore still will if they are the most qualified for the job. Also, it will not allow for "disparate impact" claims, though frankly I don't really see those being relevant to sexuality or gender identity. My guess is that it has some implications for the disability part, though I will have to think that one through.
Q: What's a disparate impact claim?
A: It's a claim that a hiring practice not directly mentioning a protected class still functionally excludes many members of a protected class. For example, if you have a company rule that all employees have to be at least 5"8' then you will exclude many, many women and relatively few men. The Ricci case made famous in the Sotomayor hearings (the one about the firefighter exam that few black people passed) would be an example. The more common firefighter disparate impact case is when firefighters require people to have a high amount of upper body strength, higher than most women have. That's a fun one because it really makes sense to have that.
Q: Can you get fired for "acting Gay"?
A: Oddly enough, that is pretty much already protected as long as you can define "acting gay" as "acting like the opposite gender." Back in 1989, Price Waterhouse denied a woman a partnership, stating that she wasn't "feminine enough" and the SCOTUS made it illegal to discriminate against someone for "not conforming to gender stereotyping." Here's an example of that ruling protecting a flamboyant gay hairdresser.
Q: Do you think "not feminine enough" was code for "lesbian" in that case?
A: I don't know, the SCOTUS didn't seem to take it that way, but I know at least one hairdresser who was protected anyway because of the way they wrote the ruling.
Q: Anyway, what does Title VII mean for religious freedom?
A: It means that Congress has not defined "the freedom to hire, fire and mistreat people based on your religion" as part of religious freedom since at least 1968.
Q: So people who are complaining that ENDA will reduce religious freedom should not be believed?
A: I don't see how anything they are saying is accurate.
Q: Will this get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell"?
A: Nope. The military is exempted.
Q: This is interesting stuff. I want to read more about it.
A: Well, this post is pretty cool.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I WAS ASKED IN THE COMMENTS:
Q: Does it apply to Congress? Many of these kinds of laws don't.
A: As for members of congress themselves, I don't think a claim that one wasn't ELECTED because of a protected trait would fly with the courts.
As for congressional staffers, they are federal employees as far as I know, and sexual orientation has been protected since the Clinton administration and Obama has extended that to gender identity.
As far as people with disabilities are concerned, they are covered by the ADA and the Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Q: Do you understand what the term "gender identity" means? The definition seems very broad. Are the only possible identities "male" and "female"? How about, "drag queen", "all of the above", or "depends on what time of day we are talking about"?
I was struck by the contrast with the definition of "sexual orientation", which says that you have to be gay, straight, or bi for the law to matter.
"Gender identity" seems much more open ended. If "all of the above" isn't an acceptable identity, why not? And if "all of the above" is an acceptable answer, how does one make sense of the facilities clauses, which seem to assume only two possible "gender identities". (Edited for length, full version is in the comments.)
A: The non-binary genders thing is an excellent question, albeit one that's a little rudely phrased at the beginning. My impression is that a large number of local areas have non-discrimination laws that include transgender folks. I don't recall that the bathroom issue has resulted in a need for transgender bathrooms which is not to say that they don't effectively exist all over the place labeled as "family bathrooms" and usually used by parents and opposite gender children.
Indeed, as I have a husband, I have three bathrooms in my very own house that are not limited to one gender and we have considered putting in a fourth with a Japanese soaking tub.
As for public areas, due to the existence of stalls, I don't care and am not sure what non-discriminatory reason other people have for caring who else is in the bathroom with them, what their philosophy of gender is and least of all what their physical equipment is.
Seems both polite and practical not to speculate on such things.
CC
A: It's the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act." It's a bill currently before Congress.
Q: What would ENDA do?
A: Extend the protections of title VII to gays, transgendered people and the disabled.
Q: What's title VII?
A: Title VII was the "Equal Pay Act of 1963." It has been subsequently amended, and mostly in liberal directions by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Here's what the US Code looks like now.
Q: What does it say?
A: Very briefly, it says that you cannot fire, refuse to hire, or generally mistreat employees because of their gender.
Q: Bitchin'. I'm a woman and I've always wanted to be a Catholic priest. I'll start calling lawyers.
A. Not so fast...er...Sister. Religious institutions are exempted.
Q: But what about a Catholic-owned bookstore?
A: They aren't exempted at all. They cannot refuse to hire you based on your gender. Or your not being a Catholic, which would legally get in the way of the priest thing, too, by the way. Or because you're black. Or because you're French.
Q: We even have to hire the French?
A: If they are the most qualified person for the job. Sucks, don't it?
Q: What will happen if ENDA passes?
A: As far as I can tell, it will simply add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the list of protected traits. The church won't have to hire gay people, but the bookstore still will if they are the most qualified for the job. Also, it will not allow for "disparate impact" claims, though frankly I don't really see those being relevant to sexuality or gender identity. My guess is that it has some implications for the disability part, though I will have to think that one through.
Q: What's a disparate impact claim?
A: It's a claim that a hiring practice not directly mentioning a protected class still functionally excludes many members of a protected class. For example, if you have a company rule that all employees have to be at least 5"8' then you will exclude many, many women and relatively few men. The Ricci case made famous in the Sotomayor hearings (the one about the firefighter exam that few black people passed) would be an example. The more common firefighter disparate impact case is when firefighters require people to have a high amount of upper body strength, higher than most women have. That's a fun one because it really makes sense to have that.
Q: Can you get fired for "acting Gay"?
A: Oddly enough, that is pretty much already protected as long as you can define "acting gay" as "acting like the opposite gender." Back in 1989, Price Waterhouse denied a woman a partnership, stating that she wasn't "feminine enough" and the SCOTUS made it illegal to discriminate against someone for "not conforming to gender stereotyping." Here's an example of that ruling protecting a flamboyant gay hairdresser.
Q: Do you think "not feminine enough" was code for "lesbian" in that case?
A: I don't know, the SCOTUS didn't seem to take it that way, but I know at least one hairdresser who was protected anyway because of the way they wrote the ruling.
Q: Anyway, what does Title VII mean for religious freedom?
A: It means that Congress has not defined "the freedom to hire, fire and mistreat people based on your religion" as part of religious freedom since at least 1968.
Q: So people who are complaining that ENDA will reduce religious freedom should not be believed?
A: I don't see how anything they are saying is accurate.
Q: Will this get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell"?
A: Nope. The military is exempted.
Q: This is interesting stuff. I want to read more about it.
A: Well, this post is pretty cool.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I WAS ASKED IN THE COMMENTS:
Q: Does it apply to Congress? Many of these kinds of laws don't.
A: As for members of congress themselves, I don't think a claim that one wasn't ELECTED because of a protected trait would fly with the courts.
As for congressional staffers, they are federal employees as far as I know, and sexual orientation has been protected since the Clinton administration and Obama has extended that to gender identity.
As far as people with disabilities are concerned, they are covered by the ADA and the Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Q: Do you understand what the term "gender identity" means? The definition seems very broad. Are the only possible identities "male" and "female"? How about, "drag queen", "all of the above", or "depends on what time of day we are talking about"?
I was struck by the contrast with the definition of "sexual orientation", which says that you have to be gay, straight, or bi for the law to matter.
"Gender identity" seems much more open ended. If "all of the above" isn't an acceptable identity, why not? And if "all of the above" is an acceptable answer, how does one make sense of the facilities clauses, which seem to assume only two possible "gender identities". (Edited for length, full version is in the comments.)
A: The non-binary genders thing is an excellent question, albeit one that's a little rudely phrased at the beginning. My impression is that a large number of local areas have non-discrimination laws that include transgender folks. I don't recall that the bathroom issue has resulted in a need for transgender bathrooms which is not to say that they don't effectively exist all over the place labeled as "family bathrooms" and usually used by parents and opposite gender children.
Indeed, as I have a husband, I have three bathrooms in my very own house that are not limited to one gender and we have considered putting in a fourth with a Japanese soaking tub.
As for public areas, due to the existence of stalls, I don't care and am not sure what non-discriminatory reason other people have for caring who else is in the bathroom with them, what their philosophy of gender is and least of all what their physical equipment is.
Seems both polite and practical not to speculate on such things.
CC
Thursday, September 24, 2009
CC gets evangelical
If you enjoy the ChaliceBlog's bleeding-heart-smartass tone, then you should probably be watching "Glee." If you want to catch up, Hulu is keeping five trailing episodes. There have only been four episodes so far, so you should have two weeks to watch the first episode before they take it down.
Fellow fans of "Criminal Minds" will recognize beloved-by-CC character actress Jane Lynch, who plays Spencer's mother on Criminal Minds and does a wonderful job subtly sharing similar facial expressions and little mannerisms with the actor who plays Spencer*. Lynch is in Glee and is amazing as an evil cheerleading coach and has none of those little tics in this performance. Fellow fans of "Boston Legal" will know her as Alan's sex therapist.
I appreciate actors like Queen Latifah who can do a modern Falstaff thing and play essentially the same character over and over and always make it entertaining. Yet actresses like Jane Lynch and Alison Janney who can play vastly different characters in both serious and comic roles, just blow me away. One could argue that this is the baseline definition of "acting," but you don't see it all that much, at least not to the degree that Lynch and Janney can do it.
Anyway, Lynch is good stuff and the show is good stuff. Glee is both sarcastic and sweet and mixes those elements so masterfully that there are plenty of moments when you have no idea what is coming next or how a situation will turn out. It's very hard to surprise me with a plot twist, but Glee has done it. If there seems to be a critical mass of mean characters in the first couple of episodes, you should know that on Glee, as in life, a lot of mean people are that way because they are scared. Glee doesn't shy away from that and things calm down a bit by the third episode as the characters open up a bit and you start seeing their motivations for what they do.
Also, it's set at a high school. A lot of us were pretty mean then.
CC
*I have literally never seen actors playing a parent and child who did this as perfectly as Jane Lynch and Matthew Gray Gubler do in these roles. That Lynch plays a schizophrenic, though a different sort than what I'm used to, makes this subtle playing up of the similarity between mother and son all the more poignant. Not to mention it does a very different riff on the "FBI agent and insightful mentally ill person" dynamic that has been imitated since "Silence of the Lambs" but never equaled.
Fellow fans of "Criminal Minds" will recognize beloved-by-CC character actress Jane Lynch, who plays Spencer's mother on Criminal Minds and does a wonderful job subtly sharing similar facial expressions and little mannerisms with the actor who plays Spencer*. Lynch is in Glee and is amazing as an evil cheerleading coach and has none of those little tics in this performance. Fellow fans of "Boston Legal" will know her as Alan's sex therapist.
I appreciate actors like Queen Latifah who can do a modern Falstaff thing and play essentially the same character over and over and always make it entertaining. Yet actresses like Jane Lynch and Alison Janney who can play vastly different characters in both serious and comic roles, just blow me away. One could argue that this is the baseline definition of "acting," but you don't see it all that much, at least not to the degree that Lynch and Janney can do it.
Anyway, Lynch is good stuff and the show is good stuff. Glee is both sarcastic and sweet and mixes those elements so masterfully that there are plenty of moments when you have no idea what is coming next or how a situation will turn out. It's very hard to surprise me with a plot twist, but Glee has done it. If there seems to be a critical mass of mean characters in the first couple of episodes, you should know that on Glee, as in life, a lot of mean people are that way because they are scared. Glee doesn't shy away from that and things calm down a bit by the third episode as the characters open up a bit and you start seeing their motivations for what they do.
Also, it's set at a high school. A lot of us were pretty mean then.
CC
*I have literally never seen actors playing a parent and child who did this as perfectly as Jane Lynch and Matthew Gray Gubler do in these roles. That Lynch plays a schizophrenic, though a different sort than what I'm used to, makes this subtle playing up of the similarity between mother and son all the more poignant. Not to mention it does a very different riff on the "FBI agent and insightful mentally ill person" dynamic that has been imitated since "Silence of the Lambs" but never equaled.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I would stop posting about ACORN if the story would stop developing
Latest news on ACORN
Entire content of link posted below"
"Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.
Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple’s high-profile expose.
Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.
The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.
Vera was fired on Thursday."
Ok, my bad, at least one of the ACORN offices did take the videographers seriously and on the video is just playing along with them to get as much information as possible out of them. This explains why the tax information Vera gave to O'Keefe and Giles was fake and likely to get them caught by the IRS.
Ironically, several posters here and on other blogs have said that the ACORN guys should have all thrown the videographers out of their offices and called the cops like the Philly office did. That would have covered ACORN's ass.
What this guy did would actually have stopped a potential human smuggling operation. If you think about it, playing along with them to get information was a very courageous thing to do that had they been for real could have put him in very real danger. He did it anyway, though.
But don't worry, guys, the ass-covering approach you guys favored won out. The Philly ACORN folks who called the cops still have their jobs. I'm sure staff at the seven other offices who just threw them out do too. The guy who actually tried to stop the human smugglers has been fired because of the outraged cries of people like you.
Congratulations?
CC
Entire content of link posted below"
"Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.
Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple’s high-profile expose.
Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.
The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.
Vera was fired on Thursday."
Ok, my bad, at least one of the ACORN offices did take the videographers seriously and on the video is just playing along with them to get as much information as possible out of them. This explains why the tax information Vera gave to O'Keefe and Giles was fake and likely to get them caught by the IRS.
Ironically, several posters here and on other blogs have said that the ACORN guys should have all thrown the videographers out of their offices and called the cops like the Philly office did. That would have covered ACORN's ass.
What this guy did would actually have stopped a potential human smuggling operation. If you think about it, playing along with them to get information was a very courageous thing to do that had they been for real could have put him in very real danger. He did it anyway, though.
But don't worry, guys, the ass-covering approach you guys favored won out. The Philly ACORN folks who called the cops still have their jobs. I'm sure staff at the seven other offices who just threw them out do too. The guy who actually tried to stop the human smugglers has been fired because of the outraged cries of people like you.
Congratulations?
CC
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Got some extra money? Want to give it to a good cause?
One of my law student buddies has done some work here. They are nice folks and have raised half of what they need.
You can donate here and they will keep your money separate from everyone else's. If not enough money is raised to save the organization, you get your money back.
I know almost nobody has extra cash these days, but if you do, please think about it.
Thanks,
CC
You can donate here and they will keep your money separate from everyone else's. If not enough money is raised to save the organization, you get your money back.
I know almost nobody has extra cash these days, but if you do, please think about it.
Thanks,
CC
From the ChaliceMailbag
Someone wrote to ask me if this makes my head explode.
Yes. Yes, it does.
Also, a reader points out that you can get the Chaliceblog (or any other blogger blog) in bound form here. Of course, for $14.95 for the first 20 pages plus 35 cents for each additional page, I'd be happy to READ you the Chaliceblog, tuition bills being what they are.
CC
Yes. Yes, it does.
Also, a reader points out that you can get the Chaliceblog (or any other blogger blog) in bound form here. Of course, for $14.95 for the first 20 pages plus 35 cents for each additional page, I'd be happy to READ you the Chaliceblog, tuition bills being what they are.
CC
CC realizes the obvious- last post on ACORN for awhile, I swear
Question: If the ACORN employees at every single office O'Keefe and Giles visited had taken them seriously and those kids had hours of footage of themselves getting kicked out of a dozen ACORN offices, what would they have?
Answer: They would have footage that could be edited into "evidence" that ACORN kicks out white people who come to ACORN looking for help. As long as O'Keefe and Giles edited out the images of what they were wearing and never released all of their tapes, ACORN would be able to claim that they wanted help buying a whorehouse, but O'Keefe and Giles could just say that was a crazy lie on ACORN's part and O'Keefe and Giles's fans would believe them much as many of them continue to believe in that ACORN employee's non-existent dead ex-husband.
There would be videos all over the internet of angry looking ACORN employees throwing them out and threatening to call the police if they didn't stop trespassing, and O'Keefe and Giles could have shown up on Fox and Friends in their Sunday best, denying those crazy rumors that they came dressed as a Pimp and Ho. Giles could call it part of the same sexism of the left that Sarah Palin faced and O'Keefe could have said that he wore the same suit he was wearing today. (And just not mentioned the big hat and fur coat.) I mean, O'Keefe and Giles lie in the video about ACORN's funding and have repeatedly lied to the press*.
No matter what the ACORN employees did, the moment O'Keefe and Giles stepped into their first ACORN office, ACORN was getting defunded.
I never said those kids were stupid.
CC
*They likely lied under the reasonable assumption that if an ACORN office had called the police, the police wouldn't take a report since nothing illegal had actually occurred. Let the record show that for once CC is pleased at some police overzealousness since the image of the Philly PD's police report makes the point far more clearly that ACORN's repeated requests that O'Keefe and Giles release the tapes from Philly and some of the other offices they visited where they made a huge fuss as they were being thrown out.
Answer: They would have footage that could be edited into "evidence" that ACORN kicks out white people who come to ACORN looking for help. As long as O'Keefe and Giles edited out the images of what they were wearing and never released all of their tapes, ACORN would be able to claim that they wanted help buying a whorehouse, but O'Keefe and Giles could just say that was a crazy lie on ACORN's part and O'Keefe and Giles's fans would believe them much as many of them continue to believe in that ACORN employee's non-existent dead ex-husband.
There would be videos all over the internet of angry looking ACORN employees throwing them out and threatening to call the police if they didn't stop trespassing, and O'Keefe and Giles could have shown up on Fox and Friends in their Sunday best, denying those crazy rumors that they came dressed as a Pimp and Ho. Giles could call it part of the same sexism of the left that Sarah Palin faced and O'Keefe could have said that he wore the same suit he was wearing today. (And just not mentioned the big hat and fur coat.) I mean, O'Keefe and Giles lie in the video about ACORN's funding and have repeatedly lied to the press*.
No matter what the ACORN employees did, the moment O'Keefe and Giles stepped into their first ACORN office, ACORN was getting defunded.
I never said those kids were stupid.
CC
*They likely lied under the reasonable assumption that if an ACORN office had called the police, the police wouldn't take a report since nothing illegal had actually occurred. Let the record show that for once CC is pleased at some police overzealousness since the image of the Philly PD's police report makes the point far more clearly that ACORN's repeated requests that O'Keefe and Giles release the tapes from Philly and some of the other offices they visited where they made a huge fuss as they were being thrown out.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Links of the decidedly non-Awesome
--A Washington Post Editorial about what SWAT raids is here. Well worth reading.
--I find the prose here a little purple for my taste, but I have to say that the author's overall point, that if 13-to-15-year olds have a higher number of sexual assault offenses per capita than any other age group, then we have gotten to the point of defining sexual curiosity as a sexual assault, makes sense to me. The mugshots of kids and teenagers got to me too.
-I am, all things considered, pretty soft on crime. I'm not this soft on crime. I was skeptical of the legitimacy of this story at first (particularly since covering up your crime is often treated as evidence that you knew what you were doing was wrong, so I'm not sure how he even HAD an insanity defense, but then I don't know Washington state law,) but it does look like a real AP story.
-Oh, and the Rapture's coming tomorrow. I think I'm kind of down today because I would pretty much welcome it if only as a change of pace.
--I find the prose here a little purple for my taste, but I have to say that the author's overall point, that if 13-to-15-year olds have a higher number of sexual assault offenses per capita than any other age group, then we have gotten to the point of defining sexual curiosity as a sexual assault, makes sense to me. The mugshots of kids and teenagers got to me too.
-I am, all things considered, pretty soft on crime. I'm not this soft on crime. I was skeptical of the legitimacy of this story at first (particularly since covering up your crime is often treated as evidence that you knew what you were doing was wrong, so I'm not sure how he even HAD an insanity defense, but then I don't know Washington state law,) but it does look like a real AP story.
-Oh, and the Rapture's coming tomorrow. I think I'm kind of down today because I would pretty much welcome it if only as a change of pace.
ACORN guy's pimp outfit. (Last post on ACORN for awhile I hope)
At this point, I'm assuming that anyone who is saying that James O'Keefe looked like a realistic pimp hasn't actually watched the video carefully enough to see O'Keefe's outfit.
Luckily, he wore said outfit for a Fox and Friends interview. Here it is, though he wore big sunglasses and a hat in some of the videos and he's omitted them here, and I'm pretty sure he was wearing a wifebeater rather than a suit in at least one video*:
If you can look at the fake fur jacket alone and think anything but "Attendee at a Frat House Pimp and Ho party," then I am forced to believe you've never seen an actual tough guy.
CC
*Hint to all potential fake pimps, that's a step in the right direction.
Luckily, he wore said outfit for a Fox and Friends interview. Here it is, though he wore big sunglasses and a hat in some of the videos and he's omitted them here, and I'm pretty sure he was wearing a wifebeater rather than a suit in at least one video*:
If you can look at the fake fur jacket alone and think anything but "Attendee at a Frat House Pimp and Ho party," then I am forced to believe you've never seen an actual tough guy.
CC
*Hint to all potential fake pimps, that's a step in the right direction.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Total fluff on a Saturday
In June, our Tivo broke. TheCSO and I were totally like "We should fix that," but I was like "Eh, we have until August 20."
August 20 came and went, and we still have no TIVO.
I was complaining about my Project-Runway-denied-existence to Random Ranter last weekend, and she said "You realize that the old episodes are all online?"
Erm, no, I didn't.
So anyway, I'm caught up on Project Runway now (Team Gordana). But almost even better than that, someone realized that online episodes of PR were the perfect place to do commercials that were actual LESSONS on hair and makeup teaching people to USE L'Oreal and Garnier products to make themselves look awesome.
Very clever.
CC
August 20 came and went, and we still have no TIVO.
I was complaining about my Project-Runway-denied-existence to Random Ranter last weekend, and she said "You realize that the old episodes are all online?"
Erm, no, I didn't.
So anyway, I'm caught up on Project Runway now (Team Gordana). But almost even better than that, someone realized that online episodes of PR were the perfect place to do commercials that were actual LESSONS on hair and makeup teaching people to USE L'Oreal and Garnier products to make themselves look awesome.
Very clever.
CC
Friday, September 18, 2009
I hear often that the internet isolates us and makes us narcissistic antisocial parodies of our former selves
But it also enables half a dozen guys to get together and be like "You know what would be awesome? Let's make a parody of 'Fight Club' set in the late 1910's - early 1920's" and achieve that and put their efforts where the world can find them.
I'd call that about a wash.
Anyway, here's "Fisticuffs Club:"
CC
who views isolation as an inherent part of the human condition and loves her some fisticuffs.
I'd call that about a wash.
Anyway, here's "Fisticuffs Club:"
CC
who views isolation as an inherent part of the human condition and loves her some fisticuffs.
I have a bad habit
of not pointing out racism when I see it because it is obvious and other people are pointing it out already. But I do sometimes point out that I think something that other people are calling racism ISN'T racism. Thus, I'm later accused of NEVER seeing racism since I only seem to point at things that I think aren't racist.
So, for the record, from that clip from that's going around where one of the guys who made the ACORN film is getting interviewed and the interviewer goes: "So let's get this straight: you're NOT a pimp?"
And the little shit responds, "No. I'm like the whitest guy ever."
Yes, kids, that's racism.
CC
who wouldn't have bothered if her whole blogroll was writing about this, but for once she's the first.
So, for the record, from that clip from that's going around where one of the guys who made the ACORN film is getting interviewed and the interviewer goes: "So let's get this straight: you're NOT a pimp?"
And the little shit responds, "No. I'm like the whitest guy ever."
Yes, kids, that's racism.
CC
who wouldn't have bothered if her whole blogroll was writing about this, but for once she's the first.
And in sillier law news...
A lawyer's jailing for My-Cousin-Vinny-like behavior was upheld on appeal.
But if the lawyer should take his case to a higher court, he might be in luck because as the article notes, My Cousin Vinny is one of Justice Scalia's favorite movies.
Told ya I liked the guy.
CC
But if the lawyer should take his case to a higher court, he might be in luck because as the article notes, My Cousin Vinny is one of Justice Scalia's favorite movies.
Told ya I liked the guy.
CC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)