(LinguistFriend and Joe the Math Guy not pictured.)
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Happy Halloween from your pals at the Chaliceblog!
(LinguistFriend and Joe the Math Guy not pictured.)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Seeking fondue recipies
TheCSO and I are throwing a "Mad Science" themed party tonight. We're going to have lots of fruit, lots of alcohol and a juicer so people can "experiment" and make their own drinks.
We thought it would be fun to have several fondue pots going as well. But a good friend of ours keeps kosher and we're pretty sure she won't be able to eat a cheese fondue if other people have put meat in it, so we're looking for alternatives.
Any suggestions?
We thought it would be fun to have several fondue pots going as well. But a good friend of ours keeps kosher and we're pretty sure she won't be able to eat a cheese fondue if other people have put meat in it, so we're looking for alternatives.
Any suggestions?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Huh?
I've been hitting the UU theology mailing list pretty hard recently. Someone posted this today:
Both atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson concur that
society has no use for Christianity if its core story is not true and
it's reduced merely to moral and ethical doctrine. But does this view
act as a challenge to 'religious humanism'?
__________
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer [edited]
Monday, October 26th, 2009
If the story of Jesus Christ isn't literally true, then Christianity is
a fraud that promotes "a positively wicked doctrine," Christopher
Hitchens told Fox & Friends Monday morning.
Hitchens discussed the role of religion in American society in the wake
of a recent study that shows the number of Americans who claim no
religious affiliation has roughly doubled in the past two decades, from
8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.
The study, conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut,
predicts that a full one-quarter of Americans will have no religious
affiliation by 2028. The study notes that the number of non-believers
among younger people is considerably higher than among older people,
suggesting that the trend of Americans growing less religious will
continue in coming years.
Hitchens said Americans are increasingly turning against organized
religion "because they want to push back against theocracy and the
parties of God and the awful challenge they pose to us internationally."
"By the way, your side seems to be winning in public schools, at least
across America," host Gretchen Carlson told Hitchens.
Hitchens appeared on Fox with pastor Douglas Wilson, who appeared along
with Hitchens in the recent documentary Collision, which explores the
battle of ideas between the religious and the non-religious.
The two came to unexpected agreement on one issue: They both attacked
the notion, popular among some secular thinkers, that Christianity is a
socially positive thing even if it's not true.
"If Jesus didn't come back from the dead, then Christianity is appalling
-- it's an appalling fraud and delusion and every unbeliever should
attack it," Wilson said. "Christianity is not good for the world because
it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing. At the end of
the day, if it's not true -- if it's not objectively true -- then I
don't have any more use for it than Christopher does."
Hitchens echoed that idea, but made it clear he does actually consider
Christianity a fraud.
"They say, well the Bible story's not really true -- they're morality
tales. Don't listen to it, because if it's based on a fraud, if the
virgin birth and the resurrection and the miracles did not occur --
which they did not -- then those teachings are immoral, they teach that
sins can be forgiven by throwing them on to a scapegoat -- a positively
wicked doctrine."
Is it just me, or does this argument not make a lot of sense?
Admittedly, I was raised by liberal Christian parents who taught me that the less-believable parts of the bible were metaphor. Though the article and the guy who forward it to the list attribute this idea to secular thinkers, I hear it a lot more from liberal Christians than I hear it from secular folks.
To me, the idea that a religious story's meaning and value should be evaluated separately from its literal truth makes perfect sense and I'm not sure why anything else would be the case. After all, Jesus himself acknowledged that not all of his stories were literally true. If inventing a story to get a spiritual point across was good wnough for Jesus, one would think it would be good enough for the Reverend Wilson.
Thoughts?
CC
Both atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson concur that
society has no use for Christianity if its core story is not true and
it's reduced merely to moral and ethical doctrine. But does this view
act as a challenge to 'religious humanism'?
__________
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer [edited]
Monday, October 26th, 2009
If the story of Jesus Christ isn't literally true, then Christianity is
a fraud that promotes "a positively wicked doctrine," Christopher
Hitchens told Fox & Friends Monday morning.
Hitchens discussed the role of religion in American society in the wake
of a recent study that shows the number of Americans who claim no
religious affiliation has roughly doubled in the past two decades, from
8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.
The study, conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut,
predicts that a full one-quarter of Americans will have no religious
affiliation by 2028. The study notes that the number of non-believers
among younger people is considerably higher than among older people,
suggesting that the trend of Americans growing less religious will
continue in coming years.
Hitchens said Americans are increasingly turning against organized
religion "because they want to push back against theocracy and the
parties of God and the awful challenge they pose to us internationally."
"By the way, your side seems to be winning in public schools, at least
across America," host Gretchen Carlson told Hitchens.
Hitchens appeared on Fox with pastor Douglas Wilson, who appeared along
with Hitchens in the recent documentary Collision, which explores the
battle of ideas between the religious and the non-religious.
The two came to unexpected agreement on one issue: They both attacked
the notion, popular among some secular thinkers, that Christianity is a
socially positive thing even if it's not true.
"If Jesus didn't come back from the dead, then Christianity is appalling
-- it's an appalling fraud and delusion and every unbeliever should
attack it," Wilson said. "Christianity is not good for the world because
it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing. At the end of
the day, if it's not true -- if it's not objectively true -- then I
don't have any more use for it than Christopher does."
Hitchens echoed that idea, but made it clear he does actually consider
Christianity a fraud.
"They say, well the Bible story's not really true -- they're morality
tales. Don't listen to it, because if it's based on a fraud, if the
virgin birth and the resurrection and the miracles did not occur --
which they did not -- then those teachings are immoral, they teach that
sins can be forgiven by throwing them on to a scapegoat -- a positively
wicked doctrine."
Is it just me, or does this argument not make a lot of sense?
Admittedly, I was raised by liberal Christian parents who taught me that the less-believable parts of the bible were metaphor. Though the article and the guy who forward it to the list attribute this idea to secular thinkers, I hear it a lot more from liberal Christians than I hear it from secular folks.
To me, the idea that a religious story's meaning and value should be evaluated separately from its literal truth makes perfect sense and I'm not sure why anything else would be the case. After all, Jesus himself acknowledged that not all of his stories were literally true. If inventing a story to get a spiritual point across was good wnough for Jesus, one would think it would be good enough for the Reverend Wilson.
Thoughts?
CC
Monday, October 26, 2009
People who angrily storm out of churches
We've all had seen the dramatic exit from church by somebody. ("I'll have you know I've been running the membership committee for FIFTEEN YEARS. If everyone really wants someone else to run it this year, well, I can certainly see when I'm not wanted!," "I can't be a UU because the UUA is full of theists," "I can't be a UU because the UUA is full of atheists") Etc, etc, and soforth.
But rarely has a church been exited with the verbal panache displayed by Screenwriter and Movie Director Paul Haggis who writes a two-page letter so succinct and thoughtful to the leaders of the church of Scientology that it is frankly amazing that it came from the same dude who wrote "Million Dollar Baby."
CC
But rarely has a church been exited with the verbal panache displayed by Screenwriter and Movie Director Paul Haggis who writes a two-page letter so succinct and thoughtful to the leaders of the church of Scientology that it is frankly amazing that it came from the same dude who wrote "Million Dollar Baby."
CC
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Oh, and for the record
You can add calling Michelle Malkin a "mashed up meatbag with lipstick" to the ongoing list of reasons why Keith Olbermann creeps me out.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Ten terrible Halloween costumes
From The Washington City Paper's Column The Sexist
Possibly not work safe, at the very least a quick glance might make your coworkers think you're tacky.
CC
Ps. If you're reading this, Hill, don't look, there's a sexy clown.
Possibly not work safe, at the very least a quick glance might make your coworkers think you're tacky.
CC
Ps. If you're reading this, Hill, don't look, there's a sexy clown.
Friday, October 02, 2009
I initially suspected this was a hoax
After all, it kinda looks photoshopped.
But no, Liu Bolin is a real dude who camouflages himself. He's been written up in the London telegraph for example.
Weird, but awesome.
CC
But no, Liu Bolin is a real dude who camouflages himself. He's been written up in the London telegraph for example.
Weird, but awesome.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)