Well, I'm back into the blogging business, so look forward to more regular posts from yours truly again.
Now to do something about that spam...
Monthly Archive for February, 2010Page 3 of 6
Sorry, I haven't been around here often- not that I haven't wanted to post anything, I've just been busy. You believe me, right?
Well, I'm back into the blogging business, so look forward to more regular posts from yours truly again.
Now to do something about that spam...
Well, I'm back into the blogging business, so look forward to more regular posts from yours truly again.
Now to do something about that spam...
I just read an article on the BHA's comment on the news today of Ray Gosling's admission to euthanasia;
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has responded to reports that police are to investigate TV presenter Ray Gosling, following his claim that he smothered his terminally ill lover as a result of a pact with him.
Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, commented, ‘Every time a story like this comes to public attention it reinforces the need for an urgent change in the UK law on assisted dying. Nobody should be put in a position where they feel they have no other option than to ask a loved one to help them die should their suffering become unbearable. We believe that legalising assisted dying in UK, with strict safeguards in place, is the most rational and most ethically preferable option, empowering people to make choices over their end-of-life care, including the choice to have an assisted death if they want.’
‘Our elected representatives in Parliament need to take urgent action to make serious reforms to the law, both to protect vulnerable people and to enable people who are terminally ill or otherwise incurably suffering to make autonomous choices at end of life.’
All I can say really is "here, here!". Having a child and a loving family, I couldn't bear the thought of leaving them with the image of me in dreadful pain, a shadow of my former self, and barely recognizable.
Not many countries have a stance on Euthanasia except for the most forward thinking and secular nations. It is noteworthy that three US states have legalised "assisted suicide*. One question to ask is; why hasn't it been legalised yet in the UK? Is it because of the nightmare set of guidelines that would need to exist to make it viable and safe, or, as I fear is the case, because of the minority of religious groups in the country who think that rejecting their loving god's gift of a long, slow, and painful death is sacrilege?
GG
* See link on Euthanasia Legality
I just read an article on the BHA's comment on the news today of Ray Gosling's admission to euthanasia;
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has responded to reports that police are to investigate TV presenter Ray Gosling, following his claim that he smothered his terminally ill lover as a result of a pact with him.
Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, commented, ‘Every time a story like this comes to public attention it reinforces the need for an urgent change in the UK law on assisted dying. Nobody should be put in a position where they feel they have no other option than to ask a loved one to help them die should their suffering become unbearable. We believe that legalising assisted dying in UK, with strict safeguards in place, is the most rational and most ethically preferable option, empowering people to make choices over their end-of-life care, including the choice to have an assisted death if they want.’
‘Our elected representatives in Parliament need to take urgent action to make serious reforms to the law, both to protect vulnerable people and to enable people who are terminally ill or otherwise incurably suffering to make autonomous choices at end of life.’
All I can say really is "here, here!". Having a child and a loving family, I couldn't bear the thought of leaving them with the image of me in dreadful pain, a shadow of my former self, and barely recognizable.
Not many countries have a stance on Euthanasia except for the most forward thinking and secular nations. It is noteworthy that three US states have legalised "assisted suicide*. One question to ask is; why hasn't it been legalised yet in the UK? Is it because of the nightmare set of guidelines that would need to exist to make it viable and safe, or, as I fear is the case, because of the minority of religious groups in the country who think that rejecting their loving god's gift of a long, slow, and painful death is sacrilege?
GG
* See link on Euthanasia Legality
I finally saw Avatar last night. In short, I thoroughly enjoyed it...with a few minor caveats.
First, the story was pretty unoriginal, being little more than Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, et cetera repackaged with aliens. Nevertheless, I don't mind familiar stories if they're told well, and I feel this one was told well. James Cameron made a good choice devoting so much time (almost 2 hours) developing the Na'vi culture, and making it something I cared about as a viewer. Once the inevitable conflict with the human colonists began, I was fully engaged in the story and cared very much about the outcome. Plus, it made the final triumph that much more satisfying. It's something any good story should do. Sure, it was nothing new and totally predictable. But with proper development, it doesn't matter.
Then there were the visuals. Simply incredible. I've often read and agree that science fiction isn't about character development or even plot...it's about the setting. It's about transporting people to new worlds and making them consider the possibilities. In this regard, Avatar was a smashing success in my book. Though the characters were mostly one dimension and the plot was nothing new, Pandora was an incredible world filled with wonder and possibility. Just the kind of thing I want to see in science fiction. Plus, I love movies with cool creatures, and Avatar was chock full of incredibly well imagined and awesome-looking lifeforms.
For one last quibble, I'm really disappointed the Na'vi were humanoids. I understand why from a story-teller's viewpoint. Make them too alien, and human audiences wouldn't connect, thereby destroying the story's impact. However, the Na'vi share no characteristics with the surrounding wildlife. They weren't hexapods, they didn't have four eyes, and they had hair. It seems they would share more features with their fellow creatures if they were actually native to Pandora (maybe they aren't...food for thought).
Also, I found the Eywa concept cool, in that all the lifeforms on the planet are linked together, creating a sort of planetary sentience and consciousness. It might seem far fetched, but it's similar to the Gaia hypothesis, which has been around for a while. Though I doubt there's anything like it on Earth, you never know what might be out there amongst the stars, waiting to be discovered. Maybe there's nothing exactly like what was imagined in Avatar, but there could be planet-wide neural networks out there, formed by lifeforms we can't imagine, creating intelligences with perceptions we can't begin to fathom. See? That's what good science fiction should do.
First, the story was pretty unoriginal, being little more than Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, et cetera repackaged with aliens. Nevertheless, I don't mind familiar stories if they're told well, and I feel this one was told well. James Cameron made a good choice devoting so much time (almost 2 hours) developing the Na'vi culture, and making it something I cared about as a viewer. Once the inevitable conflict with the human colonists began, I was fully engaged in the story and cared very much about the outcome. Plus, it made the final triumph that much more satisfying. It's something any good story should do. Sure, it was nothing new and totally predictable. But with proper development, it doesn't matter.
Then there were the visuals. Simply incredible. I've often read and agree that science fiction isn't about character development or even plot...it's about the setting. It's about transporting people to new worlds and making them consider the possibilities. In this regard, Avatar was a smashing success in my book. Though the characters were mostly one dimension and the plot was nothing new, Pandora was an incredible world filled with wonder and possibility. Just the kind of thing I want to see in science fiction. Plus, I love movies with cool creatures, and Avatar was chock full of incredibly well imagined and awesome-looking lifeforms.
For one last quibble, I'm really disappointed the Na'vi were humanoids. I understand why from a story-teller's viewpoint. Make them too alien, and human audiences wouldn't connect, thereby destroying the story's impact. However, the Na'vi share no characteristics with the surrounding wildlife. They weren't hexapods, they didn't have four eyes, and they had hair. It seems they would share more features with their fellow creatures if they were actually native to Pandora (maybe they aren't...food for thought).
Also, I found the Eywa concept cool, in that all the lifeforms on the planet are linked together, creating a sort of planetary sentience and consciousness. It might seem far fetched, but it's similar to the Gaia hypothesis, which has been around for a while. Though I doubt there's anything like it on Earth, you never know what might be out there amongst the stars, waiting to be discovered. Maybe there's nothing exactly like what was imagined in Avatar, but there could be planet-wide neural networks out there, formed by lifeforms we can't imagine, creating intelligences with perceptions we can't begin to fathom. See? That's what good science fiction should do.
I finally saw Avatar last night. In short, I thoroughly enjoyed it...with a few minor caveats.
First, the story was pretty unoriginal, being little more than Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, et cetera repackaged with aliens. Nevertheless, I don't mind familiar stories if they're told well, and I feel this one was told well. James Cameron made a good choice devoting so much time (almost 2 hours) developing the Na'vi culture, and making it something I cared about as a viewer. Once the inevitable conflict with the human colonists began, I was fully engaged in the story and cared very much about the outcome. Plus, it made the final triumph that much more satisfying. It's something any good story should do. Sure, it was nothing new and totally predictable. But with proper development, it doesn't matter.
Then there were the visuals. Simply incredible. I've often read and agree that science fiction isn't about character development or even plot...it's about the setting. It's about transporting people to new worlds and making them consider the possibilities. In this regard, Avatar was a smashing success in my book. Though the characters were mostly one dimension and the plot was nothing new, Pandora was an incredible world filled with wonder and possibility. Just the kind of thing I want to see in science fiction. Plus, I love movies with cool creatures, and Avatar was chock full of incredibly well imagined and awesome-looking lifeforms.
For one last quibble, I'm really disappointed the Na'vi were humanoids. I understand why from a story-teller's viewpoint. Make them too alien, and human audiences wouldn't connect, thereby destroying the story's impact. However, the Na'vi share no characteristics with the surrounding wildlife. They weren't hexapods, they didn't have four eyes, and they had hair. It seems they would share more features with their fellow creatures if they were actually native to Pandora (maybe they aren't...food for thought).
Also, I found the Eywa concept cool, in that all the lifeforms on the planet are linked together, creating a sort of planetary sentience and consciousness. It might seem far fetched, but it's similar to the Gaia hypothesis, which has been around for a while. Though I doubt there's anything like it on Earth, you never know what might be out there amongst the stars, waiting to be discovered. Maybe there's nothing exactly like what was imagined in Avatar, but there could be planet-wide neural networks out there, formed by lifeforms we can't imagine, creating intelligences with perceptions we can't begin to fathom. See? That's what good science fiction should do.
First, the story was pretty unoriginal, being little more than Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, et cetera repackaged with aliens. Nevertheless, I don't mind familiar stories if they're told well, and I feel this one was told well. James Cameron made a good choice devoting so much time (almost 2 hours) developing the Na'vi culture, and making it something I cared about as a viewer. Once the inevitable conflict with the human colonists began, I was fully engaged in the story and cared very much about the outcome. Plus, it made the final triumph that much more satisfying. It's something any good story should do. Sure, it was nothing new and totally predictable. But with proper development, it doesn't matter.
Then there were the visuals. Simply incredible. I've often read and agree that science fiction isn't about character development or even plot...it's about the setting. It's about transporting people to new worlds and making them consider the possibilities. In this regard, Avatar was a smashing success in my book. Though the characters were mostly one dimension and the plot was nothing new, Pandora was an incredible world filled with wonder and possibility. Just the kind of thing I want to see in science fiction. Plus, I love movies with cool creatures, and Avatar was chock full of incredibly well imagined and awesome-looking lifeforms.
For one last quibble, I'm really disappointed the Na'vi were humanoids. I understand why from a story-teller's viewpoint. Make them too alien, and human audiences wouldn't connect, thereby destroying the story's impact. However, the Na'vi share no characteristics with the surrounding wildlife. They weren't hexapods, they didn't have four eyes, and they had hair. It seems they would share more features with their fellow creatures if they were actually native to Pandora (maybe they aren't...food for thought).
Also, I found the Eywa concept cool, in that all the lifeforms on the planet are linked together, creating a sort of planetary sentience and consciousness. It might seem far fetched, but it's similar to the Gaia hypothesis, which has been around for a while. Though I doubt there's anything like it on Earth, you never know what might be out there amongst the stars, waiting to be discovered. Maybe there's nothing exactly like what was imagined in Avatar, but there could be planet-wide neural networks out there, formed by lifeforms we can't imagine, creating intelligences with perceptions we can't begin to fathom. See? That's what good science fiction should do.
(video below transcript)
Patrician Atheist here with the introductory installment of the "You May Be A Religious Zealot IF…" video series.
You May Be A Religious Zealot IF...
You cry persecution when you are prevented from imposing your religious beliefs on others.
You believe your religious beliefs are more important than your child’s right to proper medical care.
You oppose abortion even in the cases of rape and incest.
You believe a book written by men living in the Bronze Age is infallible.
You are willing to die and/or kill others for your beliefs.
You are convinced everyone who does not believe what you believe is going to suffer for all eternity upon death.
You think homosexuality is a sin and/or homosexuals should be put to death.
You view children as nothing more than props to be used for the survival, expansion and agenda of your religion.
You accuse atheists of being arrogant for denying your god but have no problem arrogantly speaking on behalf of your god.
You think anyone who critiques or disagrees with your religious beliefs is an immediate enemy who must be silenced.
You are convinced anyone who opposes your religious beliefs is under the influence of the Devil and/or demons.
You have the hubris to believe a supremely powerful divine being created you, cares about you and is always on your side.
Patrician Atheist,
Good Day.
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind"
For those that don't know (in which case your musical education was sadly neglected!!) the above lyrics are a song by the prog-rock band Kansas. They are famous for "Carry On My Wayward Son", most excellent!
Anyway, the reason I am posting the lyrics here is that I re-discovered the song the other evening whilst pruning my hard drives. When I heard it again it struck me as a great Atheist theme-song! Hold your objections, if we delve into the meaning for a moment it's not wholeheartedly depressing!! Don't judge a song by its chorus!
If we examine the first line;
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity"
this, to me, describes the ever-changing nature of life, especially ourselves. Look at how you were and what you believed ten years ago, how different is your life now? We live and learn, and our ambitions mature.
Now we come to the main theme of the song;
"Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind"
which in this context is stating how life moves on, everything that you once were is now long gone. However, the remnant of it, the dust in this analogy, is still present in having evolved into your present self.
Some have gone on to translate the next two verses with some religious significance (Kerry Livgren, who wrote the lyrics, was very spiritual and ended up a Christian, although most fans at this point, put him as a "wondering spiritualist" searching for his ethos of choice.). It is true that the verses easily lend themselves to such an interpretation, as the impermanence of this world is described, and that "earth and sky" part is seen as a distinguishing marker between the kingdoms of men and god. It could even be factually accurate that Kerry Livgren was trying to express his general feeling of this spiritual impetus at that time, without yet having fully formed his own philosophy. However, my translation of this section is thus...
"Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see"
This represents the interconnectedness of all matter (Theory of Conservation of Mass, I'm being scientific here, not esoteric!). We can build what we like with what we've got while we're here, but it's only borrowed (I know that sounds all Na'vi crazy, but it happens to be taken from aforementioned theory!!).
"Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy"
I translate "earth and sky" here as just that and nothing more. The natural world itself. The message here is something akin to the old "you can't take it with you" regarding money and material possessions. Don't attach too much importance to the material, enjoy the experiences of life. I think that sentiment is cemented in the final line referring to the limited time we have.
The song is as secular a call to people as I've ever heard to take a more spiritual approach to life. There is nothing more sad than to watch an atheist run their lives totally around the acquisition of things, having missed all the fun and experience of happy relationships that a thoughtful life can bring. So live for the moment folks, and apologies if this took up too many of yours!
GG
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind"
For those that don't know (in which case your musical education was sadly neglected!!) the above lyrics are a song by the prog-rock band Kansas. They are famous for "Carry On My Wayward Son", most excellent!
Anyway, the reason I am posting the lyrics here is that I re-discovered the song the other evening whilst pruning my hard drives. When I heard it again it struck me as a great Atheist theme-song! Hold your objections, if we delve into the meaning for a moment it's not wholeheartedly depressing!! Don't judge a song by its chorus!
If we examine the first line;
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity"
this, to me, describes the ever-changing nature of life, especially ourselves. Look at how you were and what you believed ten years ago, how different is your life now? We live and learn, and our ambitions mature.
Now we come to the main theme of the song;
"Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind"
which in this context is stating how life moves on, everything that you once were is now long gone. However, the remnant of it, the dust in this analogy, is still present in having evolved into your present self.
Some have gone on to translate the next two verses with some religious significance (Kerry Livgren, who wrote the lyrics, was very spiritual and ended up a Christian, although most fans at this point, put him as a "wondering spiritualist" searching for his ethos of choice.). It is true that the verses easily lend themselves to such an interpretation, as the impermanence of this world is described, and that "earth and sky" part is seen as a distinguishing marker between the kingdoms of men and god. It could even be factually accurate that Kerry Livgren was trying to express his general feeling of this spiritual impetus at that time, without yet having fully formed his own philosophy. However, my translation of this section is thus...
"Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see"
This represents the interconnectedness of all matter (Theory of Conservation of Mass, I'm being scientific here, not esoteric!). We can build what we like with what we've got while we're here, but it's only borrowed (I know that sounds all Na'vi crazy, but it happens to be taken from aforementioned theory!!).
"Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy"
I translate "earth and sky" here as just that and nothing more. The natural world itself. The message here is something akin to the old "you can't take it with you" regarding money and material possessions. Don't attach too much importance to the material, enjoy the experiences of life. I think that sentiment is cemented in the final line referring to the limited time we have.
The song is as secular a call to people as I've ever heard to take a more spiritual approach to life. There is nothing more sad than to watch an atheist run their lives totally around the acquisition of things, having missed all the fun and experience of happy relationships that a thoughtful life can bring. So live for the moment folks, and apologies if this took up too many of yours!
GG
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind"
For those that don't know (in which case your musical education was sadly neglected!!) the above lyrics are a song by the prog-rock band Kansas. They are famous for "Carry On My Wayward Son", most excellent!
Anyway, the reason I am posting the lyrics here is that I re-discovered the song the other evening whilst pruning my hard drives. When I heard it again it struck me as a great Atheist theme-song! Hold your objections, if we delve into the meaning for a moment it's not wholeheartedly depressing!! Don't judge a song by its chorus!
If we examine the first line;
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity"
this, to me, describes the ever-changing nature of life, especially ourselves. Look at how you were and what you believed ten years ago, how different is your life now? We live and learn, and our ambitions mature.
Now we come to the main theme of the song;
"Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind"
which in this context is stating how life moves on, everything that you once were is now long gone. However, the remnant of it, the dust in this analogy, is still present in having evolved into your present self.
Some have gone on to translate the next two verses with some religious significance (Kerry Livgren, who wrote the lyrics, was very spiritual and ended up a Christian, although most fans at this point, put him as a "wondering spiritualist" searching for his ethos of choice.). It is true that the verses easily lend themselves to such an interpretation, as the impermanence of this world is described, and that "earth and sky" part is seen as a distinguishing marker between the kingdoms of men and god. It could even be factually accurate that Kerry Livgren was trying to express his general feeling of this spiritual impetus at that time, without yet having fully formed his own philosophy. However, my translation of this section is thus...
"Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see"
This represents the interconnectedness of all matter (Theory of Conservation of Mass, I'm being scientific here, not esoteric!). We can build what we like with what we've got while we're here, but it's only borrowed (I know that sounds all Na'vi crazy, but it happens to be taken from aforementioned theory!!).
"Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy"
I translate "earth and sky" here as just that and nothing more. The natural world itself. The message here is something akin to the old "you can't take it with you" regarding money and material possessions. Don't attach too much importance to the material, enjoy the experiences of life. I think that sentiment is cemented in the final line referring to the limited time we have.
The song is as secular a call to people as I've ever heard to take a more spiritual approach to life. There is nothing more sad than to watch an atheist run their lives totally around the acquisition of things, having missed all the fun and experience of happy relationships that a thoughtful life can bring. So live for the moment folks, and apologies if this took up too many of yours!
GG
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind"
For those that don't know (in which case your musical education was sadly neglected!!) the above lyrics are a song by the prog-rock band Kansas. They are famous for "Carry On My Wayward Son", most excellent!
Anyway, the reason I am posting the lyrics here is that I re-discovered the song the other evening whilst pruning my hard drives. When I heard it again it struck me as a great Atheist theme-song! Hold your objections, if we delve into the meaning for a moment it's not wholeheartedly depressing!! Don't judge a song by its chorus!
If we examine the first line;
"I close my eyes, Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams, Pass before my eyes, a curiosity"
this, to me, describes the ever-changing nature of life, especially ourselves. Look at how you were and what you believed ten years ago, how different is your life now? We live and learn, and our ambitions mature.
Now we come to the main theme of the song;
"Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind"
which in this context is stating how life moves on, everything that you once were is now long gone. However, the remnant of it, the dust in this analogy, is still present in having evolved into your present self.
Some have gone on to translate the next two verses with some religious significance (Kerry Livgren, who wrote the lyrics, was very spiritual and ended up a Christian, although most fans at this point, put him as a "wondering spiritualist" searching for his ethos of choice.). It is true that the verses easily lend themselves to such an interpretation, as the impermanence of this world is described, and that "earth and sky" part is seen as a distinguishing marker between the kingdoms of men and god. It could even be factually accurate that Kerry Livgren was trying to express his general feeling of this spiritual impetus at that time, without yet having fully formed his own philosophy. However, my translation of this section is thus...
"Same old song, Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see"
This represents the interconnectedness of all matter (Theory of Conservation of Mass, I'm being scientific here, not esoteric!). We can build what we like with what we've got while we're here, but it's only borrowed (I know that sounds all Na'vi crazy, but it happens to be taken from aforementioned theory!!).
"Now, don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy"
I translate "earth and sky" here as just that and nothing more. The natural world itself. The message here is something akin to the old "you can't take it with you" regarding money and material possessions. Don't attach too much importance to the material, enjoy the experiences of life. I think that sentiment is cemented in the final line referring to the limited time we have.
The song is as secular a call to people as I've ever heard to take a more spiritual approach to life. There is nothing more sad than to watch an atheist run their lives totally around the acquisition of things, having missed all the fun and experience of happy relationships that a thoughtful life can bring. So live for the moment folks, and apologies if this took up too many of yours!
GG
Just so you know I'm not slacking off on blogging as much as it may look like, I have a few new items on my ever growing number of different places where I write stuff.
New post Castles of Air: Angle math.
Four (yes really!) posts on politics and video games, at my new Daily Kos diary, which I have decided to refer to as "Politics in Plate Mail." Enjoy!
Also, I just joined Google Buzz with my gmail identity, russell.glasser. If you are on Buzz then feel free to add me. You probably won't learn any more from that than you would from reading my Twitter or Facebook feeds; they all update more or less simultaneously. But if you like to collect social media sources, there's another one for you.
Oh and one more thing... Lynnea and I will probably go watch Roy Zimmerman perform at a UU church on Sunday (Valentine's Day evening), assuming we can get tickets once we show up at the door. So if you like Roy, come on over and sit with us!
New post Castles of Air: Angle math.
Four (yes really!) posts on politics and video games, at my new Daily Kos diary, which I have decided to refer to as "Politics in Plate Mail." Enjoy!
Also, I just joined Google Buzz with my gmail identity, russell.glasser. If you are on Buzz then feel free to add me. You probably won't learn any more from that than you would from reading my Twitter or Facebook feeds; they all update more or less simultaneously. But if you like to collect social media sources, there's another one for you.
Oh and one more thing... Lynnea and I will probably go watch Roy Zimmerman perform at a UU church on Sunday (Valentine's Day evening), assuming we can get tickets once we show up at the door. So if you like Roy, come on over and sit with us!
Just so you know I'm not slacking off on blogging as much as it may look like, I have a few new items on my ever growing number of different places where I write stuff.
New post Castles of Air: Angle math.
Four (yes really!) posts on politics and video games, at my new Daily Kos diary, which I have decided to refer to as "Politics in Plate Mail." Enjoy!
Also, I just joined Google Buzz with my gmail identity, russell.glasser. If you are on Buzz then feel free to add me. You probably won't learn any more from that than you would from reading my Twitter or Facebook feeds; they all update more or less simultaneously. But if you like to collect social media sources, there's another one for you.
Oh and one more thing... Lynnea and I will probably go watch Roy Zimmerman perform at a UU church on Sunday (Valentine's Day evening), assuming we can get tickets once we show up at the door. So if you like Roy, come on over and sit with us!
New post Castles of Air: Angle math.
Four (yes really!) posts on politics and video games, at my new Daily Kos diary, which I have decided to refer to as "Politics in Plate Mail." Enjoy!
Also, I just joined Google Buzz with my gmail identity, russell.glasser. If you are on Buzz then feel free to add me. You probably won't learn any more from that than you would from reading my Twitter or Facebook feeds; they all update more or less simultaneously. But if you like to collect social media sources, there's another one for you.
Oh and one more thing... Lynnea and I will probably go watch Roy Zimmerman perform at a UU church on Sunday (Valentine's Day evening), assuming we can get tickets once we show up at the door. So if you like Roy, come on over and sit with us!
I heard something recently that reminded me of something that happened in the 2008 presidential race. During those last few weeks, Arianna Huffington (of Huffington Post fame/infamy) seemed to be appearing on every lefty radio talk show and news show to offer her opinion that Democrats were making a terrible, terrible mistake by focusing on Sarah Palin. They were taking the bait, so to speak. I don't want to listen to all those interviews, but here's an editorial she wrote:
Then Huffington would go on to say that Democrats are only making themselves appear petty and perhaps sexist by focusing on the many, many shortcomings of the eleventh hour VP nominee that McCain shoehorned into his train wreck of a campaign.
But she was absolutely wrong. Focusing on Sarah Palin was awesome. Making the campaign all about Sarah Palin and the terrible error of judgment that McCain made in drafting her was much better than running a campaign against the perceived heroism of McCain himself. They exposed an obvious weak spot. And after all this time, it's become all the more clear that Sarah Palin just wasn't qualified for the job.
I hardly even think that's a matter of opinion anymore. After Sarah's hee-larious book tour in which she was caught reading crib notes off of her hand, popular perception of her has plummeted, to the point where a new poll shows that 55% of Republicans do not now think she is qualified to be president.
55%. Of Republicans. And the question wasn't "Is Sarah Palin the best candidate?" or "Would you vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama (or some other candidate). It was "do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?" And most Republicans don't think she is.
Look, there are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes an individual person just obviously is not up for the job. Sarah Palin appealed to a very narrow demographic which only got narrower, as fewer and fewer people were comfortable with aggressively defending this clueless loon as their future president, no matter how much she appealed to their jingoism. It's simply not a reflection on any broad category she belongs to (i.e., women) to point this out.
Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.
Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.
Then Huffington would go on to say that Democrats are only making themselves appear petty and perhaps sexist by focusing on the many, many shortcomings of the eleventh hour VP nominee that McCain shoehorned into his train wreck of a campaign.
But she was absolutely wrong. Focusing on Sarah Palin was awesome. Making the campaign all about Sarah Palin and the terrible error of judgment that McCain made in drafting her was much better than running a campaign against the perceived heroism of McCain himself. They exposed an obvious weak spot. And after all this time, it's become all the more clear that Sarah Palin just wasn't qualified for the job.
I hardly even think that's a matter of opinion anymore. After Sarah's hee-larious book tour in which she was caught reading crib notes off of her hand, popular perception of her has plummeted, to the point where a new poll shows that 55% of Republicans do not now think she is qualified to be president.
55%. Of Republicans. And the question wasn't "Is Sarah Palin the best candidate?" or "Would you vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama (or some other candidate). It was "do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?" And most Republicans don't think she is.
Look, there are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes an individual person just obviously is not up for the job. Sarah Palin appealed to a very narrow demographic which only got narrower, as fewer and fewer people were comfortable with aggressively defending this clueless loon as their future president, no matter how much she appealed to their jingoism. It's simply not a reflection on any broad category she belongs to (i.e., women) to point this out.
I heard something recently that reminded me of something that happened in the 2008 presidential race. During those last few weeks, Arianna Huffington (of Huffington Post fame/infamy) seemed to be appearing on every lefty radio talk show and news show to offer her opinion that Democrats were making a terrible, terrible mistake by focusing on Sarah Palin. They were taking the bait, so to speak. I don't want to listen to all those interviews, but here's an editorial she wrote:
Then Huffington would go on to say that Democrats are only making themselves appear petty and perhaps sexist by focusing on the many, many shortcomings of the eleventh hour VP nominee that McCain shoehorned into his train wreck of a campaign.
But she was absolutely wrong. Focusing on Sarah Palin was awesome. Making the campaign all about Sarah Palin and the terrible error of judgment that McCain made in drafting her was much better than running a campaign against the perceived heroism of McCain himself. They exposed an obvious weak spot. And after all this time, it's become all the more clear that Sarah Palin just wasn't qualified for the job.
I hardly even think that's a matter of opinion anymore. After Sarah's hee-larious book tour in which she was caught reading crib notes off of her hand, popular perception of her has plummeted, to the point where a new poll shows that 55% of Republicans do not now think she is qualified to be president.
55%. Of Republicans. And the question wasn't "Is Sarah Palin the best candidate?" or "Would you vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama (or some other candidate). It was "do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?" And most Republicans don't think she is.
Look, there are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes an individual person just obviously is not up for the job. Sarah Palin appealed to a very narrow demographic which only got narrower, as fewer and fewer people were comfortable with aggressively defending this clueless loon as their future president, no matter how much she appealed to their jingoism. It's simply not a reflection on any broad category she belongs to (i.e., women) to point this out.
Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.
Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.
Then Huffington would go on to say that Democrats are only making themselves appear petty and perhaps sexist by focusing on the many, many shortcomings of the eleventh hour VP nominee that McCain shoehorned into his train wreck of a campaign.
But she was absolutely wrong. Focusing on Sarah Palin was awesome. Making the campaign all about Sarah Palin and the terrible error of judgment that McCain made in drafting her was much better than running a campaign against the perceived heroism of McCain himself. They exposed an obvious weak spot. And after all this time, it's become all the more clear that Sarah Palin just wasn't qualified for the job.
I hardly even think that's a matter of opinion anymore. After Sarah's hee-larious book tour in which she was caught reading crib notes off of her hand, popular perception of her has plummeted, to the point where a new poll shows that 55% of Republicans do not now think she is qualified to be president.
55%. Of Republicans. And the question wasn't "Is Sarah Palin the best candidate?" or "Would you vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama (or some other candidate). It was "do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?" And most Republicans don't think she is.
Look, there are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes an individual person just obviously is not up for the job. Sarah Palin appealed to a very narrow demographic which only got narrower, as fewer and fewer people were comfortable with aggressively defending this clueless loon as their future president, no matter how much she appealed to their jingoism. It's simply not a reflection on any broad category she belongs to (i.e., women) to point this out.
The various stages of greed and selfishness
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
