Date: 2/28/13
Morning Weight: 209.4 (BMI: 31.8)
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days Left: 203
Workout Summary:
Eliptical Climber: 33 Minutes, 408 Colries
Ropes: 10 Minutes, 267 Calories
Standard Eliptical: 13 Minutes, 136 Calories
Weights (Short)
Feelin' good.
(No, I can't do most of that. LOL)
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
What clever sounds like to a stupid person
See... Don't try to be clever. Stick to what you're good at. And appearing clever isn't it. Unfortunately Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative.
"Keep your Government hands off my medicare, indeed."
I've lost track of the number of times my parents, or one of my Conservative friends, have sent me one of the Right-Wing, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, or anti-Democrat emails that Snopes has already debunked. (Usually YEARS ago.) If you think what you're saying (or reading) is too good to be true, and no Liberal could ever possibly have an answer for it?
Keep quiet, and do some research first.
You missed something really obvious. You're wrong. And it will take someone like me about five seconds to figure that out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2/27/13
Morning Weight: 208.8
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days remaining: 204
Gym: Not tonight. (DW has Akido/Iado.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Alignment Meme's
As a one-time huge D&D nerd, one of my absolute favorite memes is the "alignment meme." That's the one where you take nine people or characters fitting a given theme and arrange them according to the twin spectrums of AD&D's character morality model: From Good to Evil and from Lawful to Chaotic.
Here's a particularly relevant one (for this blog) that I came across recently:
What I love about these is the possibility for interesting debate. (Among HUGE NERDS, granted but still...)
For example, I didn't really see Truman as "Lawful Evil." Until I read his quote. Then I was was like... "Oh... Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight." (awkward)
Also... I REALLY can't see JFK as "Lawful." Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy but if he belongs anywhere it definitely on the Chaotic spectrum. (But yeah... TR and Jackson? PERFECT choices already. For Lawful Neutral, I'd have gone with either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, both of whom supported the legal, yet morally reprehensible institution of slavery. (And sure, one can argue that they belong in the 'Evil' category of that, but there actions were taken to AVOID a war, whilst Truman's were taken to WIN one, so I can see leaving it as it is as well.
Another brilliant one was this:
Now calling the media "True Neutral" is not suggesting, in the least, that they have been unbiased. On the contrary, the fact that they have even tried to maintain the appearance of neutrality here is proof-positive of the Systematic Conservative bias of our Corporate Press: THIS WHOLE MESS IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.
PERIOD.
It's not even a question of who supported what during the debate, or whether one side of the other (or Obama) supported the sequester deal or not. If the Republicans did play bullshit politics with what should have been a routine piece of maintenance-level legislation, namely RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, then none of this would have happened.
And make no mistake: It WILL harm the economy. (Not our security though: We spend twice as much on defense as France, England, Russia and China COMBINED. So we'll be FINE, militarily. The problem of defense spending is entrierly an ECONOMIC one, just as all other spending questions are!) (What do you know? Eisenhower was RIGTH!)
(Too bad we didn't listen!)
And remember: The Debt Ceiling has NOTHING, at all, to do with either the national debt or the federal budget deficit. Raising the debt ceiling only allows the US to pay the bills it has ALREADY RUN UP when Congress drew up the budget. It has NOTHING, at all, to do with "blank checks" or "new spending" or ANYTHING like that.
But hey: Just as Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) have contended form the beginning that Obama it "trying" to wreck the economy, in order to adopt some [straw-man argument that they keep harping about which has no basis in reality], I have also contended that the Republicans actually WANT to forestall economic recovery, and even force us back into recession. The difference between me and Limbaugh? I can demonstrate actual MOTIVE, and can point to ACTUAL ACTIONS, both taken and obstructed, by the Republicans to demonstrate MEANS and OPPORTUNITY.
Motive: Tank the economy on Obama's watch and the Dem's will get blamed for it. Hey - it has some precedent. (George Bush Sr. in 1992, for example.) And it's also why you only hear about austerity and reducing the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House: Because the ONLY possibly result of Government Austerity is a shittier economy! There is no other possible result! And when there's a Republican in the White House?
"I think Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
~Vice President Dick Cheney
As for means & opportunity?
- Obstructed the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act, and sought only to weaken it.
- Unprecedented use of the filibuster
- All this nonsense about the debt ceiling
- All the anonymous holds on Presidential Appointees, also unprecedented both in terms of number, and the positions in question
- All their talk about cutting spending. Where was that under Bush? Nonexistent, because they wouldn't want to tank the economy under Bush!
(Though they managed to anyway!)
(Now watch as anonymous forces us to rehash the debate over the CRA with the same, tired debunked talking points we already beat in to the ground! LOL)
Evil indeed. Without a doubt in my mind.
Here's a particularly relevant one (for this blog) that I came across recently:
What I love about these is the possibility for interesting debate. (Among HUGE NERDS, granted but still...)
For example, I didn't really see Truman as "Lawful Evil." Until I read his quote. Then I was was like... "Oh... Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight." (awkward)
Also... I REALLY can't see JFK as "Lawful." Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy but if he belongs anywhere it definitely on the Chaotic spectrum. (But yeah... TR and Jackson? PERFECT choices already. For Lawful Neutral, I'd have gone with either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, both of whom supported the legal, yet morally reprehensible institution of slavery. (And sure, one can argue that they belong in the 'Evil' category of that, but there actions were taken to AVOID a war, whilst Truman's were taken to WIN one, so I can see leaving it as it is as well.
Another brilliant one was this:
Now calling the media "True Neutral" is not suggesting, in the least, that they have been unbiased. On the contrary, the fact that they have even tried to maintain the appearance of neutrality here is proof-positive of the Systematic Conservative bias of our Corporate Press: THIS WHOLE MESS IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.
PERIOD.
It's not even a question of who supported what during the debate, or whether one side of the other (or Obama) supported the sequester deal or not. If the Republicans did play bullshit politics with what should have been a routine piece of maintenance-level legislation, namely RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, then none of this would have happened.
And make no mistake: It WILL harm the economy. (Not our security though: We spend twice as much on defense as France, England, Russia and China COMBINED. So we'll be FINE, militarily. The problem of defense spending is entrierly an ECONOMIC one, just as all other spending questions are!) (What do you know? Eisenhower was RIGTH!)
(Too bad we didn't listen!)
And remember: The Debt Ceiling has NOTHING, at all, to do with either the national debt or the federal budget deficit. Raising the debt ceiling only allows the US to pay the bills it has ALREADY RUN UP when Congress drew up the budget. It has NOTHING, at all, to do with "blank checks" or "new spending" or ANYTHING like that.
But hey: Just as Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) have contended form the beginning that Obama it "trying" to wreck the economy, in order to adopt some [straw-man argument that they keep harping about which has no basis in reality], I have also contended that the Republicans actually WANT to forestall economic recovery, and even force us back into recession. The difference between me and Limbaugh? I can demonstrate actual MOTIVE, and can point to ACTUAL ACTIONS, both taken and obstructed, by the Republicans to demonstrate MEANS and OPPORTUNITY.
Motive: Tank the economy on Obama's watch and the Dem's will get blamed for it. Hey - it has some precedent. (George Bush Sr. in 1992, for example.) And it's also why you only hear about austerity and reducing the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House: Because the ONLY possibly result of Government Austerity is a shittier economy! There is no other possible result! And when there's a Republican in the White House?
"I think Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
~Vice President Dick Cheney
As for means & opportunity?
- Obstructed the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act, and sought only to weaken it.
- Unprecedented use of the filibuster
- All this nonsense about the debt ceiling
- All the anonymous holds on Presidential Appointees, also unprecedented both in terms of number, and the positions in question
- All their talk about cutting spending. Where was that under Bush? Nonexistent, because they wouldn't want to tank the economy under Bush!
(Though they managed to anyway!)
(Now watch as anonymous forces us to rehash the debate over the CRA with the same, tired debunked talking points we already beat in to the ground! LOL)
Evil indeed. Without a doubt in my mind.
Goal Update+
Date: 2/26/13
Morning Weight: 209.9
Pounds Down: 5
Pounds to go: 35
Days Left:205
Gym: I did not go to the Gym tonight. It took me 2 hours to get home (normally 45 minutes) due to the shitty (icy) road conditions. So I'm not going back out. I did get SOME excercise though: I shoveled ~3" of heavy, wet snow off of the driveway. Not quite up to the level of my usual workout, but I did at least break a sweat.
I also saw a lot of Snow-Lightning. Damn. You know how the light flicker when the power's diming? The whole sky would look like that for a minute at a time. Eerie.
Morning Weight: 209.9
Pounds Down: 5
Pounds to go: 35
Days Left:205
Gym: I did not go to the Gym tonight. It took me 2 hours to get home (normally 45 minutes) due to the shitty (icy) road conditions. So I'm not going back out. I did get SOME excercise though: I shoveled ~3" of heavy, wet snow off of the driveway. Not quite up to the level of my usual workout, but I did at least break a sweat.
I also saw a lot of Snow-Lightning. Damn. You know how the light flicker when the power's diming? The whole sky would look like that for a minute at a time. Eerie.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Human Sexuality is Complciated...
So here's a GREAT educational video. Right-Wing, Religious Conservatives, in particular, need to watch it and listen...
Now it is with all that in mind that I would also like to post the following from Dan Savage:
"If the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong - slavery - what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong?"
Or this, which I don't know from whence it came originally, but I read in an email the other day:
"Religion is like penis. It's OK to have one, but it's not OK to shove it in my face."
I post all this, as yet another counterpoint to the completely absurd argument that anyone chooses to be gay. Because this is not about gene's, or any other part of science that the Right wants to misuse. It's not a scientific argument. Not YET anyway. Right now? It's a semantic one. We don't yet agree on the TERMS, because SOME PEOPLE insist on refusing to acknowledge what WORDS MEAN. (If there's any question, I'll refer you to the video above. If you have a problem with that, go argue with THEM.)
Being Gay (Bi-, Lesbian, Pan-, A-) is not about one's BEHAVIOR. It is about one's PREFERENCES. That's what ORIENTATION means. Obviously one chooses one's behavior. No one is arguing about that. (Outside of University Philosophy Classes at anyway.) (I married a philosophy major, so I've got to cover all bases.) But you do not choose your PREFERENCES.
And saying that you do only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the fact that there even is a philosophical debate going on between Free Will and Determinism, never mind where you stand in it. I actually happen to hold on to the quaint and romantic notion of free-will myself. But that doesn't means that I don't understand the argument of the Determinists, even if I don't accept it in its entirely. Though, to be fair, it is completely idiotic to reject it in its entirety as well.
Go figure that so many Conservatives do exactly that.
You don't choose you're preferences. Period. They are the things that, consciously and unconsciously, influence you're choices. And that's not being Liberal - that's just not being a moron.
And remember:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
~Jefferson
Remember him? THAT'S what America is all about.
Now would anyway like to try telling me, again, why these people shouldn't have THE SAME rights as everybody else? (And they ARE the SAME rights, BTW. So don't be a fucking moron and try to talk about them wanting "special rights." That only marks YOU as "special!")
--------------------------------------------
BTW...
Date: 2/25/13
Morning Weight: 210.7 (BMI: 32.0)
Pounds Down: 4
Pounds to go: 36
No gym. (DW has Akido & Iado tonight.)
Now it is with all that in mind that I would also like to post the following from Dan Savage:
"If the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong - slavery - what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong?"
Or this, which I don't know from whence it came originally, but I read in an email the other day:
"Religion is like penis. It's OK to have one, but it's not OK to shove it in my face."
I post all this, as yet another counterpoint to the completely absurd argument that anyone chooses to be gay. Because this is not about gene's, or any other part of science that the Right wants to misuse. It's not a scientific argument. Not YET anyway. Right now? It's a semantic one. We don't yet agree on the TERMS, because SOME PEOPLE insist on refusing to acknowledge what WORDS MEAN. (If there's any question, I'll refer you to the video above. If you have a problem with that, go argue with THEM.)
Being Gay (Bi-, Lesbian, Pan-, A-) is not about one's BEHAVIOR. It is about one's PREFERENCES. That's what ORIENTATION means. Obviously one chooses one's behavior. No one is arguing about that. (Outside of University Philosophy Classes at anyway.) (I married a philosophy major, so I've got to cover all bases.) But you do not choose your PREFERENCES.
And saying that you do only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the fact that there even is a philosophical debate going on between Free Will and Determinism, never mind where you stand in it. I actually happen to hold on to the quaint and romantic notion of free-will myself. But that doesn't means that I don't understand the argument of the Determinists, even if I don't accept it in its entirely. Though, to be fair, it is completely idiotic to reject it in its entirety as well.
Go figure that so many Conservatives do exactly that.
You don't choose you're preferences. Period. They are the things that, consciously and unconsciously, influence you're choices. And that's not being Liberal - that's just not being a moron.
And remember:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
~Jefferson
Remember him? THAT'S what America is all about.
Now would anyway like to try telling me, again, why these people shouldn't have THE SAME rights as everybody else? (And they ARE the SAME rights, BTW. So don't be a fucking moron and try to talk about them wanting "special rights." That only marks YOU as "special!")
--------------------------------------------
BTW...
Date: 2/25/13
Morning Weight: 210.7 (BMI: 32.0)
Pounds Down: 4
Pounds to go: 36
No gym. (DW has Akido & Iado tonight.)
My Goal
(No politics in this one.)
Last night my wife and I went out to dinner; not something we do all that often these days. We drank... enough, gorged ourselves until it hurt, and THEN went to another place for desert.
This morning (2/24), when I stepped on the scale I weight 215. lbs.
Ugh.
And I'm 5'8", so yeah... That's lard-ass territory. Or... it's a BMI of 32.7, which is obese. Where I am now, I'd have to lose at least 18 pounds just to be fat! And it's the heaviest I've ever weighed. (I did hit 215 once before - just once. For like a day.)
So today I'm setting a goal. On September 19th of this year, I'll turn 40. By that time I want to be at or below my high school graduation weight of 175.
I know it's possible. I was 210 when I turned 30, and on two separate occasions, a couple of years apart, I've hit that weight. (I actually got down as far as 165 once.) So 175, by the 19th of September, 2013. That's a BMI of 26.6, which is still a little bit high, but then, I've always been stocky - broad shouldered, thick-legged, muscular, though not huge by any stretch. I've never been skinny is what I'm sayin'. (Plus BMI is shit anyway. I'm just using it as a guide.)
So there's my goal.
So why put it here? Mainly because while I know I can do it, and I know how, having already done it twice before in the past ten years, I've really had a hard time keeping my motivation up. It's a long stretch - a marathon, where as I'm a sprinter by trade. So I figure that if I post about it publicly, in front of people I both respect and otherwise... I should be able to keep it up.
If nothing else, the amount it would fucking irk me to fail in front of the likes of William and our recent "Anonymous" should be enough to keep me going. I'm not looking for attention, replies, encouragement or anything else - though it will still be welcome, as will heckling. (ADVICE however, is NOT welcome, unless it is specifically solicited. Just want to make that clear!) And I'm going to post regularly about my progress. Not for any reason, other than to stay in the habit.
On Tuesdays, Thursdays and at least Saturday or Sunday (or both) I'm going to post a brief report lie this one:
Date: 2/24
Morning Weight: 215 (BMI: 32.7)
Pounds down: 0
Pounds to go: 40
Days Left: 207
Workout Summary: Light - 406 Calories on Elliptical/Climber, no weights.
And if I don't post at least that, then I didn't stick to it. I don't know how it's going to go with the weight. Middle of last year I injured my elbow and STILL haven't gotten it looked at. And it still hurts when I lift, so... I need to. And that's part of why I fell out of the habit: If I can't do weights, I don't like going to the gym. Cardio only is FUCKING BORING! I may also post something like "Swam a mile" or "Mountain Biked 10 Miles" or some such thing. And I'd like to get my elbow looked at pretty soon. So...
I'll make an appointment with the Orthopedist by the time I report in on Tuesday!
There: I'm committed.
And now that I'm on my way, here's some inspirational music to keep it going:
Last night my wife and I went out to dinner; not something we do all that often these days. We drank... enough, gorged ourselves until it hurt, and THEN went to another place for desert.
This morning (2/24), when I stepped on the scale I weight 215. lbs.
Ugh.
And I'm 5'8", so yeah... That's lard-ass territory. Or... it's a BMI of 32.7, which is obese. Where I am now, I'd have to lose at least 18 pounds just to be fat! And it's the heaviest I've ever weighed. (I did hit 215 once before - just once. For like a day.)
So today I'm setting a goal. On September 19th of this year, I'll turn 40. By that time I want to be at or below my high school graduation weight of 175.
I know it's possible. I was 210 when I turned 30, and on two separate occasions, a couple of years apart, I've hit that weight. (I actually got down as far as 165 once.) So 175, by the 19th of September, 2013. That's a BMI of 26.6, which is still a little bit high, but then, I've always been stocky - broad shouldered, thick-legged, muscular, though not huge by any stretch. I've never been skinny is what I'm sayin'. (Plus BMI is shit anyway. I'm just using it as a guide.)
So there's my goal.
So why put it here? Mainly because while I know I can do it, and I know how, having already done it twice before in the past ten years, I've really had a hard time keeping my motivation up. It's a long stretch - a marathon, where as I'm a sprinter by trade. So I figure that if I post about it publicly, in front of people I both respect and otherwise... I should be able to keep it up.
If nothing else, the amount it would fucking irk me to fail in front of the likes of William and our recent "Anonymous" should be enough to keep me going. I'm not looking for attention, replies, encouragement or anything else - though it will still be welcome, as will heckling. (ADVICE however, is NOT welcome, unless it is specifically solicited. Just want to make that clear!) And I'm going to post regularly about my progress. Not for any reason, other than to stay in the habit.
On Tuesdays, Thursdays and at least Saturday or Sunday (or both) I'm going to post a brief report lie this one:
Date: 2/24
Morning Weight: 215 (BMI: 32.7)
Pounds down: 0
Pounds to go: 40
Days Left: 207
Workout Summary: Light - 406 Calories on Elliptical/Climber, no weights.
And if I don't post at least that, then I didn't stick to it. I don't know how it's going to go with the weight. Middle of last year I injured my elbow and STILL haven't gotten it looked at. And it still hurts when I lift, so... I need to. And that's part of why I fell out of the habit: If I can't do weights, I don't like going to the gym. Cardio only is FUCKING BORING! I may also post something like "Swam a mile" or "Mountain Biked 10 Miles" or some such thing. And I'd like to get my elbow looked at pretty soon. So...
I'll make an appointment with the Orthopedist by the time I report in on Tuesday!
There: I'm committed.
And now that I'm on my way, here's some inspirational music to keep it going:
Genius
Friday, February 15, 2013
Republicans are scum
I've said it before and it bears repeating...
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Can anyone tell me why they would vote for or support the Republicans when, in order to 'win' the argument, they have to lie with every breath they draw?
William once said that he's a Conservative because he didn't want to be a Liberal. (IOW: He'd rather be wrong than Liberal. Aaaaand... that's idiotic.)
Why am I Liberal? Because the alternative is throwing in with the lying liars who constantly lie to and insult me by either assuming I'm too stupid to see through their lies, or crooked enough to accept their lies anyway.
It always brings back two favorite points of mine:
1) In any argument the Liberal will always prove that you're wrong, whilst the Conservative will always prove that you're Liberal.
2) Conservatives only come in two flavors: Evil and Stupid. One's lyin' and the other's buyin'.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Republicans are scum.
Can anyone tell me why they would vote for or support the Republicans when, in order to 'win' the argument, they have to lie with every breath they draw?
William once said that he's a Conservative because he didn't want to be a Liberal. (IOW: He'd rather be wrong than Liberal. Aaaaand... that's idiotic.)
Why am I Liberal? Because the alternative is throwing in with the lying liars who constantly lie to and insult me by either assuming I'm too stupid to see through their lies, or crooked enough to accept their lies anyway.
It always brings back two favorite points of mine:
1) In any argument the Liberal will always prove that you're wrong, whilst the Conservative will always prove that you're Liberal.
2) Conservatives only come in two flavors: Evil and Stupid. One's lyin' and the other's buyin'.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
A word on SPAM...
No politics on this one.
I just wanted to make you all aware that I've just again had to deleted a shit-ton of comments that were (correctly) flagged as SPAM on both this Blog and over on Utopia.
While most of the comments read like this:
Hello to eνeгу onе, it's truly a fastidious for me to go to see this site, it consists of precious Information. Visit my site: [...]
...some were better camouflaged. It is my own personal policy that I do NOT censor opinions or even attacks in the comments section. Everyone should feel free to post as they will, without regard to how I, or someone else, might react. A bigger defender of free expression you are not likely to find. You are also perfectly welcome to post links back to your own blogs or websites as well. That's fine too.
But if it's just SPAM, like the example above, I will delete it.
That being said, there is the possibility that I inadvertently deleted one or two legitimate comments. (There were some old ones in the SPAM folder that I restored and published, but not many.) If that happens, you have my sincerest apologies. If it seems to be a pattern, feel free to email me (niceguy9418@usa.com) and let me know.
NO ONE gets "banned" form this site. Ever.
That's a Right-Wing practice! *wink*
I just wanted to make you all aware that I've just again had to deleted a shit-ton of comments that were (correctly) flagged as SPAM on both this Blog and over on Utopia.
While most of the comments read like this:
Hello to eνeгу onе, it's truly a fastidious for me to go to see this site, it consists of precious Information. Visit my site: [...]
...some were better camouflaged. It is my own personal policy that I do NOT censor opinions or even attacks in the comments section. Everyone should feel free to post as they will, without regard to how I, or someone else, might react. A bigger defender of free expression you are not likely to find. You are also perfectly welcome to post links back to your own blogs or websites as well. That's fine too.
But if it's just SPAM, like the example above, I will delete it.
That being said, there is the possibility that I inadvertently deleted one or two legitimate comments. (There were some old ones in the SPAM folder that I restored and published, but not many.) If that happens, you have my sincerest apologies. If it seems to be a pattern, feel free to email me (niceguy9418@usa.com) and let me know.
NO ONE gets "banned" form this site. Ever.
That's a Right-Wing practice! *wink*
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Two things that require an explanation...
...And I can only partially explain one.
First of all, can someone explain the Star Wars-Angry Birds-Jenga game to me? Not the Star Wars part, I get that. Licensing is paying George Lucas' daughter's way through college, and then some, so I get that part. It's the combination of Angry Birds and Jenga that I don't get.
The object in Angry Birds is (basically) to knock everything down as quickly as possible.
The object in Jenga is to keep everything standing as long as possible.
How do you mix those two?
I don't get it. Can someone please explain this to me?
Another thing I don't get came out of the last election. Now let's put aside, for the moment, how we feel about who won what. Obviously I'm pleased at the outcome, given the Fox News-created alternative, but the point I'm about to make is one of simple math, requiring no partisan leanings one way of the other.
ONE PARTY won the Presidency, for the Second time.
THAT SAME PARTY made gains in the Senate of of 2 seats.
Yet somehow, despite making gains, the OTHER PARTY (though losing six seats) maintained Control of the House.
Now, yes it was a close election - 51.1% of the Popular Vote (Obama) is NOT a Landslide. But here's the thing...
If there was going to be an odd man out here, it really should have been the SENATE, no? I mean... the HOUSE is more proportionate to the population in general, with seats apportioned accordingly. The Senate is not: two per state, whether you're California or Alaska. So, putting aside whetehr we like it or not, it would make sense for the Senate to be disproportionate to the population.
So why are the White and Senate aligned and the HOUSE out? That doesn't really make sense, right?
Unless you recall how the Republican gerrymandered the SHIT of the districts back in 2010!
Now... I will say this: Even with the 2008 districts, the Republicans STILL keep their majority, though a smaller one. I still don't get it though...
How do you win the White House and the Senate and lose the House?! Winnign the White House and the House and losing the Senate I can totally get. I just don't get this.
And I realize that a lot of people DON'T vote a straight party ticket. I have the last few times, though I didn't used to. (I didn't used to be as Liberal as I am now.) But with the sharp uptick in hyper-partisan obstruction since 2008, I don't see how someone can say...
"Hmmm... I really liked president Obama, so I'll vote for him, but then I will vote for a House that will NEVER support his Agenda."
...just I could not understand someone who would say...
"Hmmm... I really like the Republicans, so I'm voting Republican in the House, but I'm going to Vote for a President that will veto everything they pass."
WTF? How can anyone seriously not vote a straight ticket at the Federal level in this day and age? (Regardless of which side or agenda you support?)
Just for the record:
Obama: 51.1% of the Popular, 61.7% of the Electoral Vote.
Democrats: 54.3% of the Popular Senate Vote, and won 54.1% of the open seats.
These kind of make sense. (Mathematically I mean.) And actually the Senate numbers are almost odd in how closely proportionate they are! (Of course, you can't gerrymander the Senate.) But...
Democrats won 49.2% of the House Popular Vote (to the Republican's 48.0%), but won only 44.4% of the Seats.
Despite the further, more detailed analysis of Mother Jones, which did conclude that the GOP win was not entirely due to gerrymandering, this is still a VERY unusual occurrence: In the previous century, only four times (out of fifty) did the party with a plurality of the popular vote fail to receive a majority in the House. The last time was in 1996, where the GOP kept the House for similar reasons.
Yeah... That smells a lot like gerrymandering to me. (Not to mention a load of horse-shit!)
First of all, can someone explain the Star Wars-Angry Birds-Jenga game to me? Not the Star Wars part, I get that. Licensing is paying George Lucas' daughter's way through college, and then some, so I get that part. It's the combination of Angry Birds and Jenga that I don't get.
The object in Angry Birds is (basically) to knock everything down as quickly as possible.
The object in Jenga is to keep everything standing as long as possible.
How do you mix those two?
I don't get it. Can someone please explain this to me?
Another thing I don't get came out of the last election. Now let's put aside, for the moment, how we feel about who won what. Obviously I'm pleased at the outcome, given the Fox News-created alternative, but the point I'm about to make is one of simple math, requiring no partisan leanings one way of the other.
ONE PARTY won the Presidency, for the Second time.
THAT SAME PARTY made gains in the Senate of of 2 seats.
Yet somehow, despite making gains, the OTHER PARTY (though losing six seats) maintained Control of the House.
Now, yes it was a close election - 51.1% of the Popular Vote (Obama) is NOT a Landslide. But here's the thing...
If there was going to be an odd man out here, it really should have been the SENATE, no? I mean... the HOUSE is more proportionate to the population in general, with seats apportioned accordingly. The Senate is not: two per state, whether you're California or Alaska. So, putting aside whetehr we like it or not, it would make sense for the Senate to be disproportionate to the population.
So why are the White and Senate aligned and the HOUSE out? That doesn't really make sense, right?
Unless you recall how the Republican gerrymandered the SHIT of the districts back in 2010!
Now... I will say this: Even with the 2008 districts, the Republicans STILL keep their majority, though a smaller one. I still don't get it though...
How do you win the White House and the Senate and lose the House?! Winnign the White House and the House and losing the Senate I can totally get. I just don't get this.
And I realize that a lot of people DON'T vote a straight party ticket. I have the last few times, though I didn't used to. (I didn't used to be as Liberal as I am now.) But with the sharp uptick in hyper-partisan obstruction since 2008, I don't see how someone can say...
"Hmmm... I really liked president Obama, so I'll vote for him, but then I will vote for a House that will NEVER support his Agenda."
...just I could not understand someone who would say...
"Hmmm... I really like the Republicans, so I'm voting Republican in the House, but I'm going to Vote for a President that will veto everything they pass."
WTF? How can anyone seriously not vote a straight ticket at the Federal level in this day and age? (Regardless of which side or agenda you support?)
Just for the record:
Obama: 51.1% of the Popular, 61.7% of the Electoral Vote.
Democrats: 54.3% of the Popular Senate Vote, and won 54.1% of the open seats.
These kind of make sense. (Mathematically I mean.) And actually the Senate numbers are almost odd in how closely proportionate they are! (Of course, you can't gerrymander the Senate.) But...
Democrats won 49.2% of the House Popular Vote (to the Republican's 48.0%), but won only 44.4% of the Seats.
Despite the further, more detailed analysis of Mother Jones, which did conclude that the GOP win was not entirely due to gerrymandering, this is still a VERY unusual occurrence: In the previous century, only four times (out of fifty) did the party with a plurality of the popular vote fail to receive a majority in the House. The last time was in 1996, where the GOP kept the House for similar reasons.
Yeah... That smells a lot like gerrymandering to me. (Not to mention a load of horse-shit!)
Amen!
I've always believed that morality exsists independantly from Religion, but I've never seen it put so perfectly.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
For William & my recent "Anonymous" friend...
Gold Star Awards, January, 2013
YAY! The Backlog is cleared!!! I'll do February's sometime in the week and I'll be caught up with these after four months! Also, I organized my long list of candidates yesterday , and I've pretty figured out who the honorees will be through September of 2013. After that, I'm tapped, but I'm sure I'll have some nice discoveries between now and then. The Internet's a big place, after all.That being said, if there are any sites, that any of you would like to nominate, please let me know, preferably by email: (niceguy9418@usa.com)
Here we go, 1983, 2 Golds, one Silver:
The Juan Marichal GOLD STAR #61: Bold Progressives
An outfit with over 950,000 members nation-wide, that believes in fighting for bold progressive change and support heroes in Congress and candidates on the campaign trail that also believe in fighting for these values. Check them out, join their mailing list!
The Brooks Robinson GOLD STAR #61: Credo
Quick: Why is there no such thing as "liberal media"?
Easy: "The Media" is 99% consolidated under just six huge Corporations. And neither are Corporations liberal, nor Liberals corporatists.
Well... Here's an exception. Credo is a cell phone and mobile service provider and a bonafide LIBERAL CORPORATION. In 2012, they put their money and influence behinds numerous progressive Candidate and causes, and fighting hard to enact progressive change and defeat regressive policies is right in their mission statement. Now I'm still in my current contract, but 'llI tell you: These guys sure seem like some of the GOOD GUYS and, assuming I can get coverage, I plan to switch my plan over to them when it's up. (And I plan to let my current provider know why I did!) Not all corporations are bad. Most are, but outfits like Credo deserve our support. Please check them out!
The George Kell SILVER STAR #58: The MetaPicture
Another site that just brings the funny and the awesome. I first discovered it when someone sent me the following, which, having driven there many times, I can totally relate to:
So true. So true. So check 'em out. A lot of funny and a lot of awesome..
Here we go, 1983, 2 Golds, one Silver:
The Juan Marichal GOLD STAR #61: Bold Progressives
An outfit with over 950,000 members nation-wide, that believes in fighting for bold progressive change and support heroes in Congress and candidates on the campaign trail that also believe in fighting for these values. Check them out, join their mailing list!
The Brooks Robinson GOLD STAR #61: Credo
Quick: Why is there no such thing as "liberal media"?
Easy: "The Media" is 99% consolidated under just six huge Corporations. And neither are Corporations liberal, nor Liberals corporatists.
Well... Here's an exception. Credo is a cell phone and mobile service provider and a bonafide LIBERAL CORPORATION. In 2012, they put their money and influence behinds numerous progressive Candidate and causes, and fighting hard to enact progressive change and defeat regressive policies is right in their mission statement. Now I'm still in my current contract, but 'llI tell you: These guys sure seem like some of the GOOD GUYS and, assuming I can get coverage, I plan to switch my plan over to them when it's up. (And I plan to let my current provider know why I did!) Not all corporations are bad. Most are, but outfits like Credo deserve our support. Please check them out!
The George Kell SILVER STAR #58: The MetaPicture
Another site that just brings the funny and the awesome. I first discovered it when someone sent me the following, which, having driven there many times, I can totally relate to:
So true. So true. So check 'em out. A lot of funny and a lot of awesome..
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Gold Star Awards, December, 2012
Third of Four (well, FIVE, since it's February now!) But we're almost done (caught up) with these. I gather from the (lack of) responses that y'all aren't too interested in these posts, but I DO hope you check out some of these sites, at least once. (And it wouldn't kill you to leave a comment letting me know what you think of them! *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*)
OK... 1982... Two Golds, One Silver...
The Hank Aaron GOLD STAR #59: Avaaz
Avaaz is a progressive, international organization focused on bringing to the attention of it's readers those stories that the mainstream media often chooses to ignore or under-report. They also engage in online petitions (my personal favorite form of slacktivism, LOL) to pressure world leaders, Congress, the UN, etc... to act on these important issues. Please check them out, and please support their work by (at least) subscribing to their mailing list. (And they won't spam you - I get about one message from them a day, tops.) Give the Corporate media, and their toadies in Politics one more reason to be accountable to the people!
The Frank Robinson GOLD STAR #60: CGPGrey and his YouTube Channel
A lot of this could fall under the heading "Reality for Dummies" as he endeavours to explain things that most of us already know. (And I'm sure many of my readers can already guess which half of society needs these things explained to them!) But there's also a lot of stuff that he explains that most of us DON'T KNOW (such as the difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom, England and the Crown, for example.) That was the video I first discovered him through, but looking over the rest of his stuff was fascinating. (And useful, should you ever find yourself arguing with morons, as I have recently. LOL) And he has a very nice, strait-forward, yet light and sometimes humorous style, that really leads to some great presentations. Check him out!
The Travis Jackson Silver Star #57: Post Secret
Admittedly this one's been around for a long time, but I've been trying to find a place to include it almost from the very beginning. So here it is. I've made no secret in the past about my appreciation for Dark Humor, nor my interest in examining the hidden underside of polite society. And we are all aware how the anonymity of the interment suddenly allows people to throw off that polite veneer and really let their true selves shine through. (AKA "Keyboard Cojones," which is a mixed bag, to be sure, but I actually believe is a GOOD thing.) Well, this is a collection of all the things people are otherwise afraid to admit to or talk about, posted artistically and anonymously, all in one place. It is sometimes funny, often thought-provoking and at times heart-wrenching. But it is a reflection of that side of us that we never show anyone else. And that's a beautiful thing.
OK... 1982... Two Golds, One Silver...
The Hank Aaron GOLD STAR #59: Avaaz
Avaaz is a progressive, international organization focused on bringing to the attention of it's readers those stories that the mainstream media often chooses to ignore or under-report. They also engage in online petitions (my personal favorite form of slacktivism, LOL) to pressure world leaders, Congress, the UN, etc... to act on these important issues. Please check them out, and please support their work by (at least) subscribing to their mailing list. (And they won't spam you - I get about one message from them a day, tops.) Give the Corporate media, and their toadies in Politics one more reason to be accountable to the people!
The Frank Robinson GOLD STAR #60: CGPGrey and his YouTube Channel
A lot of this could fall under the heading "Reality for Dummies" as he endeavours to explain things that most of us already know. (And I'm sure many of my readers can already guess which half of society needs these things explained to them!) But there's also a lot of stuff that he explains that most of us DON'T KNOW (such as the difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom, England and the Crown, for example.) That was the video I first discovered him through, but looking over the rest of his stuff was fascinating. (And useful, should you ever find yourself arguing with morons, as I have recently. LOL) And he has a very nice, strait-forward, yet light and sometimes humorous style, that really leads to some great presentations. Check him out!
The Travis Jackson Silver Star #57: Post Secret
Admittedly this one's been around for a long time, but I've been trying to find a place to include it almost from the very beginning. So here it is. I've made no secret in the past about my appreciation for Dark Humor, nor my interest in examining the hidden underside of polite society. And we are all aware how the anonymity of the interment suddenly allows people to throw off that polite veneer and really let their true selves shine through. (AKA "Keyboard Cojones," which is a mixed bag, to be sure, but I actually believe is a GOOD thing.) Well, this is a collection of all the things people are otherwise afraid to admit to or talk about, posted artistically and anonymously, all in one place. It is sometimes funny, often thought-provoking and at times heart-wrenching. But it is a reflection of that side of us that we never show anyone else. And that's a beautiful thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)