Brains, Down in Recovery

[elfs]

Brad Delong with the zinger of the day!

The Bush administration, having entered office as social conservatives, leaves office as conservative socialists, proprietors of the most sudden large expansion of the state's role in the US economy since mobilisation for the second world war.

How to pair books and alcohol

An excellent guide to what to drink when, although the recommendation of "light, American-style lagers" for extruded fantasy product is an invitation to a double-dipping of bad taste.

Cheery thought for the day:

We owe something to people who don't exist yet. People who don't exist yet are waiting in line to take our places. They can't do that unless we die. Don't nonexistent people have rights? Damn right they do. The right to demand our deaths. Luckily, nonexistent people have Bill McKibben and Frances Fukayama speaking up for their right to kill you. Which they can't do, since they don't exist. So Kass and Fukayama will kill you for them, by legislating against doctors interfering with your long slow death.

(via H+ Magazine, a new magazine for Transhumanists, and transhumanist critic Bryan Appleyard)

Children of the... broccoli?

I'm going to have to buy a box and confirm this, but Bread & Honey is claiming that Cascadian Farm Frozen Broccoli has little tiny faces photoshopped onto the broccoli florets on the package.

Sarah's $150,000 shopping spree

The Republican National Committee spent nearly $150,000, including $4700 for hair stylists, for Sarah Palin and her brood in the weeks since her nomination. Now, why isn't that as newsworthy as John Edwards' hair?

Jim Horne argues that, really, we're getting enough sleep.

Jim Horne argues in New Scientists that, contrary to popular belief, we're mostly getting plenty of sleep, that the link between sleep deprivation and obesity is oveblown, and if we had a 25 hour day, most people wouldn't spend the extra hour sleeping.

Homeschooling Hints recommends "blowing up gay schools."

In an article entiled "Sodomites in School," Homeschooling mom Raani (that name is so going to some heavy bottom queer cumdump Mephit character) says,

I've also known of people personally over the years who were known as gay yet "experimented" with the opposite sex. The term bisexual is an unnecessary distinction, because a faggot wants to defile anyone or anything he can get his hands on.

If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school.

Aren't these people charming? (via Pharyngula)

Comments

[solarbird]

Now, why isn't that as newsworthy as John Edwards' hair?
Because you can't imply she's a FAGGOT because of it, you know? It's Girly! <naughty wink>

And really, that summarises what the modern GOP actually thinks of women.

[tagryn]

"And really, that summarises what the modern GOP actually thinks of women."

Thank goodness the Democrats were mature enough to nominate a woman for President, and were able to look beyond her image to her substance!

Oh, right.
oops.

Well, how about for a woman for VP? After all, Hillary got nearly as many delegates as Obama, right?

Nope. Sorry. No room at the inn.

Then we get all the hyperfocus on Palin's appearance by a lot of the same folks who were pettily critical of Hillary for much the same things. This campaign has not been kind to the idea of America as a post-sexist nation; if anything, its demonstrated for all to see that the cultural glass ceiling and double-standards are as real as neo-feminists have been saying it is. As this columnist said, "Compare (the attention given Palin's clothes) with the attention given to Sen. Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or Sen. John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison."

[solarbird]

Do you mistakenly think I am a Democrat or something?

[tagryn]

As long as we agree its not limited to the GOP, that's all. I messed up the formatting on the last paragraph of my reply, but the gist was that that (how women candidates are treated in the U.S.) is a cultural issue, not just a Republican one.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

You could compare it to the media attention given to John Edwards' $500 haircut.

Thank goodness the Democrats were mature enough to nominate a woman for President, and were able to look beyond her image to her substance!

Oh, right.
oops.

I was a delegate in Washington State up through the legislative caucus. I looked beyond Hillary's image to her substance...it sucked. This is one of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama. The other reason is because Barack Obama has the substance I was looking for.

You might want to reconsider your comment, as you not only slight everyone who voted for Barack Obama in the caucuses because they are sexist pigs (even the women) and couldn't look beyond image, but you also are seeming to claim that they only voted for Barack Obama because they hated Hillary Clinton's image, not because Obama had anything to offer.

Personally, I find that rather offensive.

[tagryn]

It was an admittedly snarky and generalized response, but no more so than solarbird's original comment that the entire modern GOP is sexist. I guess that's just accepted as a given by everyone else?

I do believe that both Hillary and Palin have had standards applied to them on appearance and style that weren't considered for the male candidates (or in Edwards' case, considered to nearly the same degree) and it does affect how their substance and statements were taken. If it didn't apply to you and you hated Hillary's ideas after due consideration, great, that doesn't mean sexism wasn't a factor in the campaign as an aggregate, either. If you had been a Hillary supporter, you might have a very different opinion on whether she had been considered solely on her merits or not (such as these folks do).

To a limited degree, this cuts both ways - if any male candidate had teared up when talking about how his campaign had gone, it've been a death knell for him; in Hillary's case, she got a boost in the polls out of it. I still don't think that (factors working against women candidates vs. certain liberties they have that men do not) all evens out in the wash, though, and that's a problem if the goal is consideration on merit.

Let me put this another way: if McCain somehow beats Obama, and a McC supporter said afterward "I looked beyond Obama's race to his substance...it sucked. This is one of the reasons I voted for McCain. The other reason is because McCain has the substance I was looking for," would you take that as enough evidence that racism wasn't a factor in the race? Recalling there's already been one thread here that veered into that...

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Wow, your response is full of suppositions that everyone around will automatically presume sexism, racism, etc. I'm just not sure why you think, automatically, that any one individual will automatically respond in these ways, and therefore you can "confront" them with stuff like:

Let me put this another way: if McCain somehow beats Obama, and a McC supporter said afterward "I looked beyond Obama's race to his substance...it sucked. This is one of the reasons I voted for McCain. The other reason is because McCain has the substance I was looking for," would you take that as enough evidence that racism wasn't a factor in the race? Recalling there's already been one thread here that veered into that...

Why do you think that I would automatically *presume* racism? What evidence is there? Again, you make assumptions about the people around you which is rather offensive. Everyone sees something differently. Someone could perfectly well (and I'm sure there are many, many who do) see some substance within McCain and not trust what they see in Obama, or believe his substance is full of holes. They don't have to be "racists" to be that way.

Unless they call him "nigger" in the process of making the declaration, I certainly have no reason to believe they are racist. Unless they talk about black people trying to take over the white people (a thread becoming common in people who now attend McCain rallies, sadly) I have no reason to believe that they are racist. Unless I have evidence that they are a racist, I don't assume that they are.

I am a scientist. I require evidence before I make conclusions. Hillary Clinton ran a negative campaign that showed she would be no different than any other traditional politician there today. She would be Ted Kennedy. She would be Nancy Pelosi. And though I am a Democrat, I know full well that all of these individuals follow the same path because I've watched them do it. I've watched them state a particular virtue, value, or cause, then compromise it again and again. Sometimes, you just don't compromise. I had no reason to believe she would do otherwise based on her own words. I was also disturbed by her foreign policy.

Those from the http://community.livejournal.com/hilldogs4mccain/ seem to want to punish the Democratic party for perceived wrongs (whether those wrongs have a basis in factual evidence or not) rather than make a protest.

Protest: write-in Hillary Clinton's name in the presidential ballot, and watch the number of votes for the name in the final count.

Punishment: vote for McCain, and make sure to hurt everyone (even those who are innocent) by putting into office someone who has shown through his actions and words that he will be the wrong person for president by all accounts. A typical 4-year-old stunt. Doesn't make me want to take them seriously.

[tagryn]

Speaking scientifically, then: generalizations break down when applied to any one individual's situation, that's the ecological fallacy. At the same time, though, anecdotal evidence doesn't inform as to the larger trends of campaigns consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals. You can certainly say "I don't assume racism" speaking for yourself, and you can declare that you rejected Hillary on her merits as you saw them, again speaking for yourself. But in trying to argue out and understand aggregate things like whether sexism played a role in the campaigns, whether the GOP or Democratic party showed sexist inclinations in their primary selections, or whether racist accusations will come up in the wake of an Obama loss, talking about one person's experience doesn't really help out much, unless it can be demonstrated that its a good example of the group as a whole. Even then, there's the danger of generalizing from the individual's experience to the group, which isn't valid either.

So while I can't presume or make assumptions for your particular situation, that's not what I'm talking about, either. Aggregate trends are what matter on these things, not any one person. I generalized about the Democratic Party as a whole, I didn't say "well, Omaha, you were sexist, you have a double-standard." If I meant that, I've said that. On the racism statement, my point was that if one person says they didn't use racist criteria, it doesn't inform as to whether racism is a factor in the race by the electorate as a whole. It's all aggregate level, not individual.

[solarbird]

Also, please say there's a screencap of the Homeschooling Hints blog entry, because it's gone now. Please.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

No, there isn't. And dammit, it was there an hour ago!

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Google cache of the page (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:4ZO7pDgo7NAJ:http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/perilous-times-sodomites-in-school.html+Raani+gay+schools&hl=&ct=clnk). I've got a screenshot of that in case the cache dissolves.

[hydrolagus.livejournal.com]

A small apologia from someone whose mom works with homeschoolers: They're not all pseudochristian wackjobs. Seems like most of the ones that are noisy on line are, though, which makes finding resources a pain.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

It's unfortunate. Even among the homeschoolers that are very dedicated Christians, not all are wackjobs. Our next door neighbors are very Christian and homeschoolers, but they are comfortable with the idea of us being a Pagan/Atheist family, and our kids play together all the time.

Shopping spree

[kitsap_charles]

Re: Shopping spree

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Hey, if he wants to stop and get those resoled, I won't mind. =};-3

[lovingboth]

That Homeschooling Hints page now 404s...

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Upthread, I linked to the google cache of the page.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:4ZO7pDgo7NAJ:http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/perilous-times-sodomites-in-school.html+Raani+gay+schools&hl=&ct=clnk

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Other bloggers have been more blatant about listing her real name, address, etc.

'90-Raani Anderson Starnes
raanistarnes@yahoo.com

Class of 1990, Victory Christian Schools. Their motto: "Train up a child in the way he should go..." Proverbs 22:6

Her precise comment:

A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.

IMHO, epic fail for a VCS alumni.

I see Sarah's drones shop at Saks here in St. Louis

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

The only good thing that comes out of this, and I have to bend over backwards to find it, is that the Saks in question is in
Plaza Frontenac in St. Louis County. A rake of the hefty sales tax in question goes to County Government and some will go to the Election Board and will help pay my extremely tiny wages (since I have no idea when we will go home, probably way less than $9 per hour) on Election Day.

[slutdiary.livejournal.com]

Loving the broccoli.

Emailing the bigot.