Yeah, I know. You didn't need me to tell you that. But seriously, vote.
The election is actually a prime reason for my significant drop off in posting. Its just so overwhelming. On the one hand, I'm trying not think about it, but on the other hand, I can't think about anything but. And honestly, I just don't feel as if there is anything I can offer to the discussion about it. I respect the hell out of the bloggers who can keep reporting about the election, but I just feel so useless in the face of it. Story after story of voter suppression, deadly incompetance, blatent lies. I wanted to report them all here, but it just felt like, well, what's the point? GOP paid opperatives destroyed unknown numbers of Democratic voter registrations. Others committed fraud in registering people in South Dakota and got fired and indicted. But then they were all given jobs doing the same thing in Ohio. A GOP leader who helped plan an illegal attack on Democratic phone banks in 2002 was named a regional director of Bush's campaign. Until word got out of his role in the 2002 crimes and only then did he resign. Across the country, the GOP is sending people out the polls not to encourage participation, but the stymie it. To slow the process down and discouage voters. A judge in South Dakota actually had to order the GOP to not write down the liscence plates and follow home voters on an Indian Reservation. Its just all too much. The Onion did a story months ago about "outrage fatigue" and its becoming frighteningly true. Today, I'm an optimist, though. I just hope I'm not wrong.
So yeah, with today past, I'll probably be posting more. Actually, I'll probably post a couple toss-away posts later today. Thanks for anyone who still bothers to check in. I appreciate your patience.
11.02.2004
10.11.2004
Fat Television
A lot of fat issues on television right now. A puzzling little convergance considering how shut out fat people normally are.
The worst is the disgusting new reality show NBC is debuting next Tuesday, The Biggest Loser. A far more apt title than they realize. Alas, the US is finally getting hit with the diet competition reality show. A concept which spiked then flopped in Europe and I can only hope hurries up and dies here. Its getting to where I can hardly watch NBC. I tried recording or downloading the NBC shows I watch to avoid the insulting promos for Loser, but now they are doing these in-episode promots that are beyond obnoxious. Used to be they'd put a little text and maybe a little graphic in the corner of the screen. For Loser they are putting a full cast photo that fills up about a quarter of the screen. It should stop when it premieres, but it can't happen soon enough for me. Here is to hoping it is an enormous failure so we don't have to deal with this nonsense. It reminds me of my favorite diet analogy. Losing weight is as easy as holding your breath. Maintaining the weight loss is as as easy as continuing to hold your breath.
In a slightly less insulting development, the FX show Rescue Me has been doing a storyline involving a moderately fat character. Moderately fat is quite a big deal for TV considering what passes for fat. (and for more on that, see my last item) The show focuses on a group of New York City Firefighters, one of whom ends up in a relationship with a fat woman. In the first episode of the story arc, he's hesitant towards her initially but she eventually tempts his curiosity and they have sex. Suffice to say, he is entirely pleased with the experience and describes it as the best he's ever had. But he also still seems to be generally concerned with what other people will say, although by the end of the show it seems clear that he is developing genuine feelings for her. We also see the first hints of what will define her character in the second episode when she mentions that she was so hungry during their date because she hadn't eat all day. This would get a pay off in the second episode when its revealed that the woman is bulimic. A somewhat annoying development, I'd say. Why is it so hard to simply have a young, cute, fat woman who is sexual and confident without giving her a flaw. All of that is a unique enough character, something wildly unexplored in popular media. But no. She has to be bulimic. Indeed, a very successful bulimic as its suggested she used to weigh 400lbs or so. Which is not exactly realistic since the actress weighs around 250 at the most. Bulimia doesn't really work like that. Still, I'm holding out hope that they could do something with this. They aren't establishing her bulimia as a good thing and indeed she is visably upset when her firefighter boyfriend is supportive and doesn't challenge her about her eating disorder. And fat people do have eating disorders and it would be interesting to explore the way they are permited to act in such an unhealthy manner so long as it is in service of a thinner body and the way it doesn't change their life. The other firefighters see the couple together and make a series of rather vicious jokes. The only counterpoint was someone saying that its nice that he says past her body. Normally, that is the best a fat woman can hope for on a TV show, but not here. He is absolutely thrilled with her body, so I think there is an interesting dynamic here. He also clearly is not supportive of her bulimia despite his actions, but doesn't seem to know what to do with it. Like I said, I'm holding out hope, but stories like this almost always end badly for the fat positive perspective, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
Amazingly, though, Rescue Me is not the only show with a conventionally attractive young male expressing a preference for a larger woman. Sure, the other show is more a matter of TV fat as opposed to actually fat, but its something. On ABC's new Life As We Know It, we see another guy who desires a larger woman but is concerned with what his friends will think of him. So he spends most of the episode being a real dick about it before finally getting over himself. Alas, the fat girl is Kelly Osbourne, which is by no realistic definition fat. Not emaciated, sure, but I'd still liked to have seen something a bit more challenging. Still, even TV fat tends to be slimmer than Kelly and they didn't run for her fat. For most of the second act she was wearing a snug fitting blue t-shirt that rather clearly displayed her belly. Downright shocking most weeks, but with Rescue Me setting the bar a bit high this week, its pleasantly normal. That is how girls in high school dress. Even the moderately chubby ones. And here, we get a resolution all in the pilot episode as he quickly learns that despite his friends less than cheriable remarks about Kelly Osbourne's character, they ultimately don't really give a damn who he dates. Though those less than cheritable remarks were annoyingly cruel considering how not fat she was and how these friends are the co-stars of the show and supposed to be likeable. Also, Kelly's character was established as little more than a fat girl, but she is a regular cast member so presumably more will come. She's also not a bad actor.
Interestingly enough, this wasn't even all Life As We Know It did last week. In a seperate story we see a dance troupe rehearsing at school. Very contemporary hip hop stuff. I happened to notice that at least one of the dancers was conspiciously not thin. But she was up there dancing with everyone else, purely background. And while the outline of Kelly's belly was shown, the chubby dancer was baring it as she wore a revealing outfit perfectly in-line with the other dancers. Now that was shocking. I'm usually happy if a fat girl is even allowed to be a background extra in a high school show. Here, one is a lead and another is an extra in a role normally fat girls aren't allowed to be seen in. A welcome dose of reality, I must say.
The worst is the disgusting new reality show NBC is debuting next Tuesday, The Biggest Loser. A far more apt title than they realize. Alas, the US is finally getting hit with the diet competition reality show. A concept which spiked then flopped in Europe and I can only hope hurries up and dies here. Its getting to where I can hardly watch NBC. I tried recording or downloading the NBC shows I watch to avoid the insulting promos for Loser, but now they are doing these in-episode promots that are beyond obnoxious. Used to be they'd put a little text and maybe a little graphic in the corner of the screen. For Loser they are putting a full cast photo that fills up about a quarter of the screen. It should stop when it premieres, but it can't happen soon enough for me. Here is to hoping it is an enormous failure so we don't have to deal with this nonsense. It reminds me of my favorite diet analogy. Losing weight is as easy as holding your breath. Maintaining the weight loss is as as easy as continuing to hold your breath.
In a slightly less insulting development, the FX show Rescue Me has been doing a storyline involving a moderately fat character. Moderately fat is quite a big deal for TV considering what passes for fat. (and for more on that, see my last item) The show focuses on a group of New York City Firefighters, one of whom ends up in a relationship with a fat woman. In the first episode of the story arc, he's hesitant towards her initially but she eventually tempts his curiosity and they have sex. Suffice to say, he is entirely pleased with the experience and describes it as the best he's ever had. But he also still seems to be generally concerned with what other people will say, although by the end of the show it seems clear that he is developing genuine feelings for her. We also see the first hints of what will define her character in the second episode when she mentions that she was so hungry during their date because she hadn't eat all day. This would get a pay off in the second episode when its revealed that the woman is bulimic. A somewhat annoying development, I'd say. Why is it so hard to simply have a young, cute, fat woman who is sexual and confident without giving her a flaw. All of that is a unique enough character, something wildly unexplored in popular media. But no. She has to be bulimic. Indeed, a very successful bulimic as its suggested she used to weigh 400lbs or so. Which is not exactly realistic since the actress weighs around 250 at the most. Bulimia doesn't really work like that. Still, I'm holding out hope that they could do something with this. They aren't establishing her bulimia as a good thing and indeed she is visably upset when her firefighter boyfriend is supportive and doesn't challenge her about her eating disorder. And fat people do have eating disorders and it would be interesting to explore the way they are permited to act in such an unhealthy manner so long as it is in service of a thinner body and the way it doesn't change their life. The other firefighters see the couple together and make a series of rather vicious jokes. The only counterpoint was someone saying that its nice that he says past her body. Normally, that is the best a fat woman can hope for on a TV show, but not here. He is absolutely thrilled with her body, so I think there is an interesting dynamic here. He also clearly is not supportive of her bulimia despite his actions, but doesn't seem to know what to do with it. Like I said, I'm holding out hope, but stories like this almost always end badly for the fat positive perspective, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
Amazingly, though, Rescue Me is not the only show with a conventionally attractive young male expressing a preference for a larger woman. Sure, the other show is more a matter of TV fat as opposed to actually fat, but its something. On ABC's new Life As We Know It, we see another guy who desires a larger woman but is concerned with what his friends will think of him. So he spends most of the episode being a real dick about it before finally getting over himself. Alas, the fat girl is Kelly Osbourne, which is by no realistic definition fat. Not emaciated, sure, but I'd still liked to have seen something a bit more challenging. Still, even TV fat tends to be slimmer than Kelly and they didn't run for her fat. For most of the second act she was wearing a snug fitting blue t-shirt that rather clearly displayed her belly. Downright shocking most weeks, but with Rescue Me setting the bar a bit high this week, its pleasantly normal. That is how girls in high school dress. Even the moderately chubby ones. And here, we get a resolution all in the pilot episode as he quickly learns that despite his friends less than cheriable remarks about Kelly Osbourne's character, they ultimately don't really give a damn who he dates. Though those less than cheritable remarks were annoyingly cruel considering how not fat she was and how these friends are the co-stars of the show and supposed to be likeable. Also, Kelly's character was established as little more than a fat girl, but she is a regular cast member so presumably more will come. She's also not a bad actor.
Interestingly enough, this wasn't even all Life As We Know It did last week. In a seperate story we see a dance troupe rehearsing at school. Very contemporary hip hop stuff. I happened to notice that at least one of the dancers was conspiciously not thin. But she was up there dancing with everyone else, purely background. And while the outline of Kelly's belly was shown, the chubby dancer was baring it as she wore a revealing outfit perfectly in-line with the other dancers. Now that was shocking. I'm usually happy if a fat girl is even allowed to be a background extra in a high school show. Here, one is a lead and another is an extra in a role normally fat girls aren't allowed to be seen in. A welcome dose of reality, I must say.
9.30.2004
Oh, that's right. I have a blog.
Yeah, long draught, I know. I really don't have a good excuse. I haven't been busy. I haven't been stuck at work. I haven't been kidnapped by aliens. Just felt like I didn't have much to say.
I'll have something shortly, hopefully. But I didn't want it to get to October before I posted again, so here is my pity post.
To make it worth your while, go check out Fame Tracker. Its one of the most intelligent and witty pop cult sites around. Be sure to enjoy their archive. Much funny to be had.
I'll have something shortly, hopefully. But I didn't want it to get to October before I posted again, so here is my pity post.
To make it worth your while, go check out Fame Tracker. Its one of the most intelligent and witty pop cult sites around. Be sure to enjoy their archive. Much funny to be had.
8.30.2004
Big Tent
So, the GOP is in New York pretending they are a party of inclusion this week. Given the speakers, you'd almost think they were a moderate party what with pro-choice Republicans like Pataki and Guiliani and pro-gay rights Republicans like Governor Terminator, John McCain (well, he opposed the FMA, anyway), and Dick Cheney apparently. But they are making sure their far right base knows that they'll be taken care of when it matters. Sure, McCain will get trotted out to make W. seem moderate, but behind his back, you'll see reassurances made to the hyper-conservatives that their needs will be met. The GOP knows that to be elected, you have to play to the middle, assuring America that will seek coalitions and cooperation instead of simply imposing an ideology on the country. Democrats do that, too, except we mean. We are about building coalitions and working together with people of different ideologies. Doesn't mean we've abandoned our left-wing base, as some leftists often complain. Its just a nod to the fiercely divided political climate we live with. We need to compramise to get anything done. The only other solution is to just outright lie.
That, it would seem, is the GOP solution.
For all the talk of a "Big Tent" and all the moderate voices that will be seen in prime time this week, its all just a big lie. The GOP makes little plays for the far right knowing that they can count on them to be understanding. There is some concern that they might express discontent at some speakers, but those people will be prodded into speeches that don't offend right-wing sensibilities. Play moderate, but don't mean it. Because the GOP knows that it would look very bad if a prime time speaker, say, compared gay marriage to the Nazi's slaughter of the Jews. But that doesn't mean they really have a problem with it. Why, they'll just have them lead the opening prayer.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish. Alas, the woman who led the opening prayer for the Republican National Convention DID suggest that gay marriage was an equivilant to Hitler's Final Solution. Not decades ago. Not even privately. It was in March at a high profile meeting of a Conservative group. Specifically, she said that those who do not oppose gay marriage are akin to those who did nothing to stop Hitler's rise to power. Atrios has a more extended text for you to read if you think can stomach it.
The true face of the GOP. What happens this week in NYC is just a bit of theater.
Although this was clearly the most offensive thing I read from a Republican today, it was not the stupidist. That honor goes to none other than the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Showing that clearly there are no depths the GOP won't sink to smear people who disagree with them, he suggested on FoxNews Sunday that financier George Soros ( who supports liberal causes like MoveOn.org) was a drug dealer. His proof? Um, he doesn't have any. But of course, he was really just saying that we "don't know" if Soros is a drug dealer. Much how I don't know that Dennis Hastert isn't really an alien sent to enslave the Earth. I mean, we don't know, right?
That, it would seem, is the GOP solution.
For all the talk of a "Big Tent" and all the moderate voices that will be seen in prime time this week, its all just a big lie. The GOP makes little plays for the far right knowing that they can count on them to be understanding. There is some concern that they might express discontent at some speakers, but those people will be prodded into speeches that don't offend right-wing sensibilities. Play moderate, but don't mean it. Because the GOP knows that it would look very bad if a prime time speaker, say, compared gay marriage to the Nazi's slaughter of the Jews. But that doesn't mean they really have a problem with it. Why, they'll just have them lead the opening prayer.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish. Alas, the woman who led the opening prayer for the Republican National Convention DID suggest that gay marriage was an equivilant to Hitler's Final Solution. Not decades ago. Not even privately. It was in March at a high profile meeting of a Conservative group. Specifically, she said that those who do not oppose gay marriage are akin to those who did nothing to stop Hitler's rise to power. Atrios has a more extended text for you to read if you think can stomach it.
The true face of the GOP. What happens this week in NYC is just a bit of theater.
Although this was clearly the most offensive thing I read from a Republican today, it was not the stupidist. That honor goes to none other than the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Showing that clearly there are no depths the GOP won't sink to smear people who disagree with them, he suggested on FoxNews Sunday that financier George Soros ( who supports liberal causes like MoveOn.org) was a drug dealer. His proof? Um, he doesn't have any. But of course, he was really just saying that we "don't know" if Soros is a drug dealer. Much how I don't know that Dennis Hastert isn't really an alien sent to enslave the Earth. I mean, we don't know, right?
8.20.2004
Swift Boat Liars get Debunked
Daily Kos links to a great article in the NY Times which carefully reviews the claims made by the ironically titled group "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" and discovers (drumroll) its all a lie. This condenses all of the truth behind why these people don't merit any consideration all in one helpful source. Even with diagrams! Check it out.
8.18.2004
See, this is why I'm not a Catholic
The folks over at Jesus' General (a wickedly funny satire blog I should read more often) have shined a spotlight on an unforgivably stupid offense by the Catholic Church. Sure, we all know about the whole rabid anti-gay thing and the institutional discrimination of women. We're used to such annoyances. Heck, most Catholics I know have just gotten used to tuning the church out on such things. I can respect that position. Although such issues prevented me from joining the Church at a time I felt some pull to do so, I can understand why others who agree that these positions are wrong would still be a member of the church and even do little to influence the church.
Lately, though, the Church has started attempting to enforce Republican voting on its members, with bishops suggesting the denial of communion to a Catholic who takes the public position of being pro-choice. Well, if they are a Democrat, anyway. For all the denoucements of Kerry, there seems to be little said of Pro-Choice Catholic Republicans (and there are more than a few of them). The blatent political bias even led to an employee of the national Bishop's Conference getting fired for organizing a Catholics for Kerry discussion group. The singular focus on Democrats is all the more questionable when you see the chart Senator Durbin put together examining voting patterns in the Senate and their relation to Catholic teachings. Guess which party's Catholics consistantly vote more "Catholic".
It upsets me and reinforces my disagreement with the Church. I know lots of good Catholics, even went to a Catholic university, but the Church shouldn't be threatening people of faith with a denial of their faith simply because those people acting on their conscience. It just seems wrong to me, but such is the way of the things.
This, however, I cannot even remotely begin to understand. Denying someone religious rites because they don't vote how you want them to vote is wrong, but denying them religious rites because having them exactly as you require would KILL them is just outrageous. I cannot see how that is defensible. Why should an 8 year old girl be damned to Hell because she has a rare diagestive disorder. This girl has faith, is practicing her faith, and that's a good thing. For the Church to slam the door in her face over something some minor strikes me as absurdly inflexible and cruel. Jesus' General writes to the Bishop responsible in his appropriately sarcastic manner. I think I might right, too. I have a profound respect for those who practice faith, even as it is something I cannot do myself. So to deny this girl's chance to practice faith just seems terribly wrong to me. Its just not right, and I felt compelled to say so.
Lately, though, the Church has started attempting to enforce Republican voting on its members, with bishops suggesting the denial of communion to a Catholic who takes the public position of being pro-choice. Well, if they are a Democrat, anyway. For all the denoucements of Kerry, there seems to be little said of Pro-Choice Catholic Republicans (and there are more than a few of them). The blatent political bias even led to an employee of the national Bishop's Conference getting fired for organizing a Catholics for Kerry discussion group. The singular focus on Democrats is all the more questionable when you see the chart Senator Durbin put together examining voting patterns in the Senate and their relation to Catholic teachings. Guess which party's Catholics consistantly vote more "Catholic".
It upsets me and reinforces my disagreement with the Church. I know lots of good Catholics, even went to a Catholic university, but the Church shouldn't be threatening people of faith with a denial of their faith simply because those people acting on their conscience. It just seems wrong to me, but such is the way of the things.
This, however, I cannot even remotely begin to understand. Denying someone religious rites because they don't vote how you want them to vote is wrong, but denying them religious rites because having them exactly as you require would KILL them is just outrageous. I cannot see how that is defensible. Why should an 8 year old girl be damned to Hell because she has a rare diagestive disorder. This girl has faith, is practicing her faith, and that's a good thing. For the Church to slam the door in her face over something some minor strikes me as absurdly inflexible and cruel. Jesus' General writes to the Bishop responsible in his appropriately sarcastic manner. I think I might right, too. I have a profound respect for those who practice faith, even as it is something I cannot do myself. So to deny this girl's chance to practice faith just seems terribly wrong to me. Its just not right, and I felt compelled to say so.
8.13.2004
Important Things
So, to kick off my second year of blogging, I thought I would tackle a very important issue. Sports jerseys! (for visual aids, might I suggest this site)
Actually, this has been on my mind a bit for a couple weeks. Living and working in a diverse community like Boston, I very frequently see men on the subway wearing Soccer Jerseys. Now, while Soccer is gaining in popularity in these United States, its not there yet. Mostly, I'm seeing these on men who are presumably immigrants who proudly show the colors of their native country's soccer teams. And the occassional poser who wears British jerseys. Well, and the occassional super-Irish guy who wears their Jersey. Its a sharp relief from all the folks sporting football, basketball, hockey, and of course, baseball jerseys.
One thing I've noticed is how much nicer the Soccer jerseys are. I mean, they all look so designer. Many have the sharp collar, the empowered stripe, colors balanced so delicately as to create a smooth appearance. Sure, they are the early adopter for sports uniform advertising, but its almost balanced by the inconspicuous nature of the team logos. They are always small, usually either center top of the chest or top left. Very different from the bombastic logos often seen on Hockey and baseball Jerseys. Soccer jerseys are always so contemporary without feeling forced.
America sports teams haven't quite grasped that concept.
Baseball I think had the best overall record. Baseball Jersey's have their own simplicity. Sure, the team logo will be broadcast across the chest, but the designs are usually quite fetching and iconic. The current trend is for a retro look that harkens back to the 50's and 60's. Simple lines, understated stripes, attractive use of pinstripes. Sure, there are too many alternate uniforms (inevitably black) and some of the newer uniforms are too self-consciously contemporary (I'm looking at you Arizona Diamondbacks), but the overall record is quite good.
Even the goofy uniforms of the 70's and 80's that are the rage among the throwback set are still very cool. They were VERY 70's and are just so individualistic. Can't beat the powder blue of the 1980 Phillies or the Astros rainbow with matching orange hat. Sure, there were miscues. Like the all burgandy get up the Phillies briefly wore of the awful shorts and wide collar offered by the Chicago White Sox. But even some of the bad uniforms have an endeering quality to them, like the all yellow and all green variations on the 1973 Oakland A's uniform.
Football isn't awful, but the jerseys themselves tend to be quite plain. Probably for the best. The teams that have tried to do something creative tend to make it look just stupid. The best football jerseys are the simple ones.
Basketball is a total mixed bag. Some are cool and iconic, others are disgustingly modern and "futuristic". Even the iconic ones get mixed up in black alternate uniforms now a days. It looked cool the first couple of times I saw it, now it just looks dumb.
And then we have hockey. I just hate Hockey sweaters. The old-school ones are cool, but the newer ones all look too busy. They took the idea of Soccer jerseys and just screwed it up. And don't even get me started on all the "modern" team logos and uniform design. They all have the designed by committee look to them. I swear, its like no one can design good sports logos, anymore.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Actually, this has been on my mind a bit for a couple weeks. Living and working in a diverse community like Boston, I very frequently see men on the subway wearing Soccer Jerseys. Now, while Soccer is gaining in popularity in these United States, its not there yet. Mostly, I'm seeing these on men who are presumably immigrants who proudly show the colors of their native country's soccer teams. And the occassional poser who wears British jerseys. Well, and the occassional super-Irish guy who wears their Jersey. Its a sharp relief from all the folks sporting football, basketball, hockey, and of course, baseball jerseys.
One thing I've noticed is how much nicer the Soccer jerseys are. I mean, they all look so designer. Many have the sharp collar, the empowered stripe, colors balanced so delicately as to create a smooth appearance. Sure, they are the early adopter for sports uniform advertising, but its almost balanced by the inconspicuous nature of the team logos. They are always small, usually either center top of the chest or top left. Very different from the bombastic logos often seen on Hockey and baseball Jerseys. Soccer jerseys are always so contemporary without feeling forced.
America sports teams haven't quite grasped that concept.
Baseball I think had the best overall record. Baseball Jersey's have their own simplicity. Sure, the team logo will be broadcast across the chest, but the designs are usually quite fetching and iconic. The current trend is for a retro look that harkens back to the 50's and 60's. Simple lines, understated stripes, attractive use of pinstripes. Sure, there are too many alternate uniforms (inevitably black) and some of the newer uniforms are too self-consciously contemporary (I'm looking at you Arizona Diamondbacks), but the overall record is quite good.
Even the goofy uniforms of the 70's and 80's that are the rage among the throwback set are still very cool. They were VERY 70's and are just so individualistic. Can't beat the powder blue of the 1980 Phillies or the Astros rainbow with matching orange hat. Sure, there were miscues. Like the all burgandy get up the Phillies briefly wore of the awful shorts and wide collar offered by the Chicago White Sox. But even some of the bad uniforms have an endeering quality to them, like the all yellow and all green variations on the 1973 Oakland A's uniform.
Football isn't awful, but the jerseys themselves tend to be quite plain. Probably for the best. The teams that have tried to do something creative tend to make it look just stupid. The best football jerseys are the simple ones.
Basketball is a total mixed bag. Some are cool and iconic, others are disgustingly modern and "futuristic". Even the iconic ones get mixed up in black alternate uniforms now a days. It looked cool the first couple of times I saw it, now it just looks dumb.
And then we have hockey. I just hate Hockey sweaters. The old-school ones are cool, but the newer ones all look too busy. They took the idea of Soccer jerseys and just screwed it up. And don't even get me started on all the "modern" team logos and uniform design. They all have the designed by committee look to them. I swear, its like no one can design good sports logos, anymore.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
8.10.2004
obligatory happy birthday
Well, today is the 1 year anniversary/birthday of my blog. It all started with my first posts on August 10, 2003 as I sat around my apartment on a lazy Sunday afternoon and was ceremonously interrupted by a parade marching down my little side-street. Of course back then the name of my blog was obligatory title, which still exists out in cyber space for any of my old-school fans. All of the posts have been transferred over here, though, so don't feel like you are missing out. Ah, those young and innocent days when all of my titles were uncapitalized for self-conscious effect and when I wasn't getting troll attacks on a semi-daily basis.
I've been reading back through my archives in advance of my Blog Birthday. I've been struck by a few things. First off, I'm a really awful speller. I mean, I knew that, but even I'm blown away by how bad I get. Blogger really needs to add a spell check to save the world from my pitiful attempts and spelling. I always was surprised how frequently I used to post and how well I did concentrating on the pop culture commentary and poliblogging. I've kind of let both things flounder as I've allowed myself to wallow and seethe here on occassion. My apologies. I'll try to be better.
Overall, I meant my blogging to reinvigorate my writing sensibilities. I think it did that at times, but its also exposed a lot of my flaws as a writer. It has kept me more actively thinking about writing and I have been scribbling notes for a script to a few graphic novels I intend to write one of these days. But I never seem to have the time to get as much work done on them as I'd like.
Its also drawn me into the political blogging community, and I obviously have become quite taken with it. Also just a little bit jealous that these folks have the time and talent I lack to post so aggressively about progressive causes. I've gone back and forth on my favorites. I always love Atrios and Pandagon. I don't read Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos in the last month and have occassionally contributed diary entries there.
Over all, I don't think its been as good as I want it to be, but its had some good moments. I'm a harsh critic of myself, but a fair one, I think. I hope in the next year, I can manage to be at least a little bit better for both of my readers.
I've been reading back through my archives in advance of my Blog Birthday. I've been struck by a few things. First off, I'm a really awful speller. I mean, I knew that, but even I'm blown away by how bad I get. Blogger really needs to add a spell check to save the world from my pitiful attempts and spelling. I always was surprised how frequently I used to post and how well I did concentrating on the pop culture commentary and poliblogging. I've kind of let both things flounder as I've allowed myself to wallow and seethe here on occassion. My apologies. I'll try to be better.
Overall, I meant my blogging to reinvigorate my writing sensibilities. I think it did that at times, but its also exposed a lot of my flaws as a writer. It has kept me more actively thinking about writing and I have been scribbling notes for a script to a few graphic novels I intend to write one of these days. But I never seem to have the time to get as much work done on them as I'd like.
Its also drawn me into the political blogging community, and I obviously have become quite taken with it. Also just a little bit jealous that these folks have the time and talent I lack to post so aggressively about progressive causes. I've gone back and forth on my favorites. I always love Atrios and Pandagon. I don't read Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos in the last month and have occassionally contributed diary entries there.
Over all, I don't think its been as good as I want it to be, but its had some good moments. I'm a harsh critic of myself, but a fair one, I think. I hope in the next year, I can manage to be at least a little bit better for both of my readers.
8.04.2004
Oh, the OTHER evil dictator with WMDs!
North Korea has gotten a hold of weapons systems that would allow them to stage a nuclear attack on the United States. How the hell did that happen?
Because the publisher of the hyper-Conservative Washington Times GAVE IT TO THEM.
I could on about the faults of Unification "Church" founder Rev. Moon's faults. There are so many. The man George H.W. Bush has called a "Man of Vision" has called for Genocide against gays. He has been repeatedly recognized by the Bush administration and even got $450,000 from the government to teach faith-based sex education. Because I know I want my kids taught sex-ed from someone who wants all gays killed and who suggests people being raped should commit suicide. Regretably, Democrats and Republicans both have given the rub to Rev. Moon, such as the bipartisan Coronation (yes, Coronation) at the Senate office building earlier this year. Lets just say, there is a LOT wrong about Rev. Moon.
But I'm guessing supplying a sworn enemy of the United States with the technology to stage a nuclear attack on the US is going to push to front of the line of his faults. And still, we have no interest in confronting North Korea, a dictatorship we KNOW has WMDs, the technology to use them against us, and the desire to do so. Gotta love that Bush doctrine.
Because the publisher of the hyper-Conservative Washington Times GAVE IT TO THEM.
I could on about the faults of Unification "Church" founder Rev. Moon's faults. There are so many. The man George H.W. Bush has called a "Man of Vision" has called for Genocide against gays. He has been repeatedly recognized by the Bush administration and even got $450,000 from the government to teach faith-based sex education. Because I know I want my kids taught sex-ed from someone who wants all gays killed and who suggests people being raped should commit suicide. Regretably, Democrats and Republicans both have given the rub to Rev. Moon, such as the bipartisan Coronation (yes, Coronation) at the Senate office building earlier this year. Lets just say, there is a LOT wrong about Rev. Moon.
But I'm guessing supplying a sworn enemy of the United States with the technology to stage a nuclear attack on the US is going to push to front of the line of his faults. And still, we have no interest in confronting North Korea, a dictatorship we KNOW has WMDs, the technology to use them against us, and the desire to do so. Gotta love that Bush doctrine.
7.30.2004
Riding Through the DNC- Day 4
Ugh. Can't Boston give me anything to write about? I was all expecting to offer a local's perspectives on the horrific clashes between protesters and police, massive traffic back-ups, and the break-down of the mass transit system. But, oh no! None of that even happened. Didn't they know some two-bit blogger wanted material?
Okay, kidding aside, I'm thrilled Boston went so smoothly. Especially since it completely shows up the Boston Herald for all their fear mongering. Not that they'll notice, but still.
So, in this final installment, read the story of secret trains that were found underneath the FleetCenter! Read the story of the one sorta violent clash between protesters and police! Marvel at how the Boston Herald *again* ignores the actual Convention in order to bash Democrats. And, oh yeah, the Convention.
So, those Secret Trains. Word got out today that the subway authorities ran a special express train from the closed North Station underneath the FleetCenter on all days of the Convention. The trains packed up and went directly to the BackBay station. The idea was to get delegates and press out of the FleetCenter area as quickly and smoothly as possible. Okay, fair enough. But much like the Rider's rep quoted in the story, I have to wonder why the MBTA goes above and beyond for non-paying passangers and continues to provide subpar service to the Million-plus who ride their trains and buses every day. At least I won't need to hear them scape-goating the DNC for their delays anymore.
Also, it looks like the Boston cops finally had a chance to do a little bit of arresting on Thursday. Seems a bunch of anarchists got into a shoving match with the police. It was amusing to read one anarchists protests that they couldn't possibly have started it because why would they go after police in body armor. Unfortunetly, I've met anarachists, so I know that's not really going to bother them. These Bl(A)ck Tea folks set themselves up just to protest the convention. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they'd try to provoke something. It also doesn't surprise me that it wasn't much of anything. 3 people were arrested out of the clash, bringing the total of Convention related arrests to a whopping 4. The other was some drunk guy ranting about Bush.
The front page of the Boston Herald proclaims that "Its Safe to Come Home". An ironic title since the Herald's distribution is virtually exclusively Boston-based. Basically, its continuing their theme of how awful the Convention has been for Boston. See, after they scared everyone out of town, it seems people didn't come into town. But that's the Democrats fault. They also put the minor protester clash mentioned above right on the front page. They sorta mentioned John Kerry, but I suspect just to justify shilling for an article by the detestable Howie Carr where he ignores everything Kerry said and just re-writes it all to his liking. Naturally, he gets in his gigalo line. I feel dirty even linking to that, but I figured I had to.
But moving in, I was happy to see all of Max Cleland's introduction and John Kerry's acceptance speech. Great, great, great stuff. I saw someone say that Cleland isn't a good speaker who veres between shyness and bombast. Well, he had me fooled. I think he went on a touch too long and tying in Boston's history seemed unnecessary, but really a great, great speech. People are already faulting Kerry for not mentioning his anti-war work following Vietnam, but why did he need to? Cleland already framed it so much better than Kerry could possibly do himself.
As for Kerry, he kept to his strengths and didn't try to be something he's not. That's also been one of his greatest skills as a politician. He knows who he is. He knows what kind of a speaker he is. He doesn't push himself to do what he's told will play well, but has faith in his ability to do what he does best. No, its not the personable charm of a Bill Clinton or the easy persausiveness of John Edwards. Rather, he speaks with conviction and strength of character, demonstrating insight over slogans. I think he did an excellant job on all counts. I loved that he brought up "Compassion in Action." I loved his response to complaints about his nuanced views. I love that they basically lowered expectations enough that him doing what he does well gets an even bigger response. Its how Bush "won" the debates, after all. I'm looking forward to the Democratic Party winning its 4th consecutive Presidential Election this Novemeber. Kerry definetly has me excited about his prospects.
Okay, kidding aside, I'm thrilled Boston went so smoothly. Especially since it completely shows up the Boston Herald for all their fear mongering. Not that they'll notice, but still.
So, in this final installment, read the story of secret trains that were found underneath the FleetCenter! Read the story of the one sorta violent clash between protesters and police! Marvel at how the Boston Herald *again* ignores the actual Convention in order to bash Democrats. And, oh yeah, the Convention.
So, those Secret Trains. Word got out today that the subway authorities ran a special express train from the closed North Station underneath the FleetCenter on all days of the Convention. The trains packed up and went directly to the BackBay station. The idea was to get delegates and press out of the FleetCenter area as quickly and smoothly as possible. Okay, fair enough. But much like the Rider's rep quoted in the story, I have to wonder why the MBTA goes above and beyond for non-paying passangers and continues to provide subpar service to the Million-plus who ride their trains and buses every day. At least I won't need to hear them scape-goating the DNC for their delays anymore.
Also, it looks like the Boston cops finally had a chance to do a little bit of arresting on Thursday. Seems a bunch of anarchists got into a shoving match with the police. It was amusing to read one anarchists protests that they couldn't possibly have started it because why would they go after police in body armor. Unfortunetly, I've met anarachists, so I know that's not really going to bother them. These Bl(A)ck Tea folks set themselves up just to protest the convention. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they'd try to provoke something. It also doesn't surprise me that it wasn't much of anything. 3 people were arrested out of the clash, bringing the total of Convention related arrests to a whopping 4. The other was some drunk guy ranting about Bush.
The front page of the Boston Herald proclaims that "Its Safe to Come Home". An ironic title since the Herald's distribution is virtually exclusively Boston-based. Basically, its continuing their theme of how awful the Convention has been for Boston. See, after they scared everyone out of town, it seems people didn't come into town. But that's the Democrats fault. They also put the minor protester clash mentioned above right on the front page. They sorta mentioned John Kerry, but I suspect just to justify shilling for an article by the detestable Howie Carr where he ignores everything Kerry said and just re-writes it all to his liking. Naturally, he gets in his gigalo line. I feel dirty even linking to that, but I figured I had to.
But moving in, I was happy to see all of Max Cleland's introduction and John Kerry's acceptance speech. Great, great, great stuff. I saw someone say that Cleland isn't a good speaker who veres between shyness and bombast. Well, he had me fooled. I think he went on a touch too long and tying in Boston's history seemed unnecessary, but really a great, great speech. People are already faulting Kerry for not mentioning his anti-war work following Vietnam, but why did he need to? Cleland already framed it so much better than Kerry could possibly do himself.
As for Kerry, he kept to his strengths and didn't try to be something he's not. That's also been one of his greatest skills as a politician. He knows who he is. He knows what kind of a speaker he is. He doesn't push himself to do what he's told will play well, but has faith in his ability to do what he does best. No, its not the personable charm of a Bill Clinton or the easy persausiveness of John Edwards. Rather, he speaks with conviction and strength of character, demonstrating insight over slogans. I think he did an excellant job on all counts. I loved that he brought up "Compassion in Action." I loved his response to complaints about his nuanced views. I love that they basically lowered expectations enough that him doing what he does well gets an even bigger response. Its how Bush "won" the debates, after all. I'm looking forward to the Democratic Party winning its 4th consecutive Presidential Election this Novemeber. Kerry definetly has me excited about his prospects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)