Castle

Hmm...So, I don't usually think of zombies as sexy, but day-am--Castle looked very yummy tonight :-D

Firelight (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

One of my penpals told me that one of her favorite websites is a "bloggy" thing about Christian women who are against feminism. And then there is the Pope who want to crack down on Nuns in America who are getting too feminist in their ways. In reading that blog, it's obvious that these women have no idea what real feminism is.

It's not a bunch of wild women burning their bras, sleeping around, and acting like heathens, which is what they seem to think. Yes, those are symbols, but for the most part, they're pointless and most feminist women will say that while it's our RIGHT to do such things, they don't make us CEOs or whatever our hearts desire are.

Real feminism is what's portrayed in this show--strong women able to do for themselves without a man. Real feminism takes the life that those Christian women want and makes it practical. Having a loving husband, taking care of loved children, but only when we choose, not because it's expected of us. And doing what we want because we CAN, not being forced to act in a certain way because that's what's expected of us.

One of the biggest complaints you can read in the comments section is that these women are teaching their daughters to be servants to their husbands. They're automatic defense is that they aren't servants, but partners where the husband has the ultimate say (debate that as you wish). But first and foremost, they say that they would support whatever life choices that their daughters make. If that is true, then those mothers are the biggest feminists in the world--because if their daughter came up to them and said that she's going to be the next President of the US, then that mother is going to do everything in her power to make sure that it happens.

Again, debate amongst yourselves as to whether these mothers are serious about their commitment to supporting their daughters decisions--the last article I read was on how mothers should teach their...children or was it just daughters?...to not follow their dreams, but to follow what Jesus wants them to do. My argument, and one many women agreed with, was that how can a human (who most Christians will agree are sinful and flawed) can sit there and tell their child that their dreams AREN'T sent by God.

More Favorite Quotes

(Since I can only post 200 characters of labels.)

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
--Maya Angelou

"Death should be a celebration. Like a birthday. I want to go up like a rocket when my time comes, and fall down in a cloud of stars, and hear everyone go: ahh!"
--Joanne Harris

"I not only use all the brains that I have, but all I can borrow."
--Woodrow Wilson

"I let out a battle cry. Sure, a lot of people might have mistaken it for a sudden yelp of unmanly fear, but trust me. It was a battle cry."
--Jim Butcher, My Big Fat Supernatural Wedding

"I don't want to live in a world where the strong rule and the weak cower. I'd rather make a place where things are a little quieter. Where trolls stay the hell under their bridges and where elves don't come swooping out to snatch children from the cradles. Where vampires respect the limits, and where the faeries mind their p's and q's. My name is Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden. Conjure by it at your own risk. When things get strange, when what goes bump in the night flicks on the lights, when no ne else can help you, give me a call, I'm in the book."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front

"I think that men aught to treat women like something other than weaker men with breasts."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front
[yes: we're definitely not weaker, and more importantly, we're smarter :-)]

"It came charging toward me, several hundred pounds of angry-looking monster, and I did the only thing any reasonable wizard could have done. I turned and ran like hell."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"Hope is a force of nature. Don't let anyone tell you different."
--Jim Butcher, Changes

"Christ, Dresden! You almost got me killed!"
"Don't be a baby. You're fine."
Thomas frowned at me. "You at least could have told me!"
"I did tell you," I said. "I told you at Mac's that I'd give you a ride home, but that I had to run an errand first."
Thomas scowled. "An errand is getting a tank of gas or picking up a carton of milk or something. It is not getting chased by flying purple pyromaniac gorillas hurling incendiary poo."
--Jim Butcher, Blood Rites

Favorite Quotes

"Apocalypse is a frame of mind." [Nicodemus] said then. "A belief. A surrender to inevitability. It is a despair for the future. It is the death of hope."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
--Robert Frost

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
--Oscar Wilde

"Insanity is doing the same thing, overandover again, but expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
--Mark Twain

"There's more magic in a baby's first giggle than in any firestorm a wizard can conjure up, and don't let anyone tell you any different."
--Jim Butcher, Fool Moon

"Bow ties are cool."
--Steven Moffat

"Every now and then I like to do as I'm told, just to confuse people."
--Tamora Pierce, Melting Stones

Plato's "The Cave"

I really liked this story when we discussed it in the "Scientific Revolution" course I took a couple years ago. I'm liking it even more as I watch this "Hallmark Hall of Fame" program called "Firelight"--it's about girls in a correctional facility. I think that the story is a great one to use for this--everyone's a prisoner until they start asking questions and expanding their world.

The fire fighting program that is also a key part of the plot is also a great idea. Normally I think Hallmark is too sappy for me, but I highly recommend this episode. However, they could seriously afford to lose the Hallmark commercials, but then I'm probably not in their target audience, which is actually kinda sad. I mean, who would really benefit from watching a program on troubled girls learning to be independent, self-sufficient, and not a bane on society? Troubled girls, right? Well, I don't think that troubled girls would sit through sappy commerials that kinda make me want to puke. The girls can relate to the bad girls in the episode--I highly doubt that they can relate to the loving families and sentimental BS (no offense) in the commercials.

Still, leave the commercials out and maybe they'd be a good week-end movie at the local young ladies correctional facility.

Lobbyists

(That word looks funny...just saying.)

I propose that lobbyists stay out of Washington. Oh don't look at me that way, you know that the world would be a much better place if lobbyists had to stay away from our representatives. Now, don't get me wrong. I think lobbyists are great for teaching our representatives about the issues that are important to their constituents, but the whole "wining and dining" and he who has the most money wins situation is ridiculous. This is why I've come up with the following proposition:

Professional lobbyists cannot speak with representatives or their assistants. Instead, they must submit video and written pamphlets for their requests. There can be no phone calls, dinners, or other favors. This puts all issues onto the same playing field.

Professional lobbyists can instead transfer their persuasive powers to the public sphere since I see no problem with individual citizens talking with their representatives about the issues that are important to them.

I think that this simple proposition would greatly increase transparency in government.

Romney

Romney said something interesting the other day. He was asked if he or Obama was funnier (because of his possible appearance on SNL) and he didn't know him personally to be able to make a judgment. This got me thinking.

I propose that at some point during any campaign, all the candidates (fringe or not) regardless of their party affiliation, eat dinner together. It should be completely private, media free, and in neutral territory.

I think that 90% of the hateful speech is made during the campaign because they're making assumptions about the other. I mean heck, how well do the Republican candidates know each other personally? And they know Obama even less. Maybe if they got to know each other without a camera catching all the soundbites, they might understand eachother's positions a little be a little more progressive, instead of reductive.

Biggest Loser Week 16

Well, that was an interesting way to start the episode. I'd really like to know who exactly got wind of the "leak", who leaked it, and whether it was even true. Because it really wouldn't surprise me if one of the contestants wanted to make up something to stir up some controversy (Condra) and it got out of hand. What I can't believe is that 2 contestants actually left--I figured that it was obvious that they'd either all stay or all go. I'd seriously be pissed if I left thinking that everyone was going with me and no one did.

I also am pretty surprised by the numbers the contetants are putting up this week--they're huge! Weirdness.

Secret Service in Trouble

First off, I have no problem with our government workers taking a break every once in awhile. This means that the President can go spend the afternoon on the golf course and if Secret Service guys want to spend the night with a legal prostitute, fine.

I can kind of see the problem of counter-intelligence, but then, ANYONE could break their supposed shell. Are they supposed to live in a bubble? If there was evidence that they'd let vital information leak, I could see freaking out, but really? The reaction they're having right now is BIGGER than when some CIA guy leaves his laptop on the Metro. We need to understand that they're human and if they decide to pick up prostitutes or get drunk after spending 8,10,12 hours DOING THEIR JOB, then so be it. If they're spending their own money and not shirking their duties, let them.

"Stand Your Ground"

I haven't commented yet on the Trayvon Martin case because I haven't felt that it's my place to do so. But after listening to what the NRA had to say on the Today show this week. They apparently want to expand the "Stand Your Ground" laws. I have a problem with Zimmerman's probable defense--that it was self denfense because he was standing his ground. Well, honey, wasn't Martin standing his ground when he defended himself from a man that was following him? If the NRA had their way, Martin would have been carrying a gun himself and the situation would have been reversed with Zimmerman as the dead man...and then we wouldn't care because it'd be just another case of a "rogue black man killing someone."

All shootings should be investigated fully. I support any and all "Castle" laws because when someone decides to enter another's home unwelcomed and warned, then it's their own fault for getting shot. But I think that we should encourage people to do like the woman did a few months ago: she was on the phone with 911 when she warned the men she shot, repeatedly that she had a gun and was going to use it.

But outside of the home, there's no real way to know what was happening when the shooting happened. The gunman can lie, so there needs to be an investigation in all cases. It seems to me that the police used the law to be lax in their investigation, which is a severe problem.

Big Oil

This is important. I know that you've all seen the comercials recently about how Obama is against Big Oil because he won't let them drill off shore or up in Alaska or whereever they want to put their tankers, and how this is hurting the economy because gas prices are just increasing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's what you really need to understand.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. This is more a matter of common sense in action.

What Big Oil wants is the rights to own said tracts of land and sea. Currently, all the land they want belongs to the government (and therefore technically everyone) for them to do with as they see fit. Yes, there may or may not be oil, coal, natural gas, the Holy Grail, located under the ground, but that is beside the point. What Big Oil/Natural Gas/Coal/Catholic Church want government to do is to let them be the sole owner of those lands so that they can do what they want to, when they want. This includes, but isn't limited to, keeping their competators from owning the land and removing the resources.

What you need to look out for is what exactly the plans are of the companies that want to use the land. The key phrase is whether they are actively planning to drill or if it's just "exploration". I have no qualms about drilling when the drilling is going to happen within the next 5 years because that's how long it takes to build a platform. But VA's Governor is trying desperately to "open Virginia's coast to off-shore drilling"--which since there's a pretty hefty wait before any oil will come up, I can't help but wonder how this drilling will help TODAY to bring down gas prices. Unless it's bringing down gas prices because some company knows that when they need it, they'll have that much supply waiting for them.

I challenge you to find out something. I want you to know how much land and sea area BP, Shell, and Exxon currently own but are not drilling. Separately, how many acres do they have that have the pumps currently in place, but aren't pumping even though they haven't been exhausted. Do these companies REALLY need access to more acreage or are they out to get something that will hurt their competators and therefore our economy.

Politics and Family

My dad and his brothers are all variously politically interested. There's the hard core economic conservative (who is too anti-democrat for his own good, in my opinion), there's the, I guess you'd call it, social justice guy, there's the slightly left leaning moderate (my dad), and the slightly right leaning moderate. One of the uncles had a house warming party this afternoon and the boys, being the only ones in attendance, got into the political discussions that their mother and sisters usually stop. I actually enjoy listening to the debates because the two "wingers" are very passionate while the moderates have their bullet points of, well, moderation. You can hear all the sides of the role of government argument without leaving the combination of Mother and Father DNA.

It's no wonder that I ended up, politically, where I did. And since I'm a product of the slightly left moderate primarily, I can't help but disagree with the right winger on a few key points, which I shall share here. I love my uncle, but he's too narrow minded when it comes to taxes and government.

For instance, he blames Obama. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. When my left-ish uncle blames Congress for the current economic climate, he blames Obama for supposedly signing off personally on companies like Solendra. (Point 1: I don't like using one example to describe everything--it makes a person look uninformed if they cannot name a fair few examples (of anything) and be comfortable saying that this is a majority of cases). I pointed out that at least the money was getting spent, which, since this is my dad's biggest gripe, is a good thing. The rebuttal was that the money went into the pockets of a few rich, which is debatable since I'm sure there were a few engineers involved who took a paycheck at some point before they went out of business. It is shallow-minded to ignore the role of Congress since Congressmen will throw the President under the bus if they don't like him and that it isn't the President's job to write laws, so you really can't get mad at a man who has no control when a budget with who knows what comes onto his desk at the last possible moment. Granted, we need a president who is going to walk into congress, stand at the podium, show a video of a group of kindergarteners solving problems, and explain why calling Congress a bunch of children because they can't work together is insulting to the children. (Much like calling murderers animals is insulting to animals since animals do not kill for vengence or anything more than defense or food.)

And I'm going to write this now before I forget: Romney, working for Bane Capital bought failing companies and either turned them around or eased them out of business. So it's okay for business to work properly under him, but not in the case of when government is involved? The rule of business is that many businesses will fail. Period, end of statement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But if government uses their self-imposed rules to choose which businesses to support, and said businesses fail, it's suddenly a problem? It's like telling government that they can only fund sure-things, but every gambler (and investor) knows that there's no such thing as a sure-thing. I don't know how my uncle feels about governmental investments, but by the previous logic, he shouldn't support any. That includes investing ANY money in schools, roads, or anything since there's no garantee that it will work out the way that it was intended. My libertarian self can agree with this ideology, but my, dare I say it, smart self, says that that is ridiculous.

And that brings us to point number two. The three not right wingers are in favor of a government which encourages the super-rich to spend their money. My left-leaning father is in favor of an 80% tax bracket with deductibles a mile long, much like we had until Reagan. I can agree with this (though we disagree where the top bracket should start), but of course, my uncle says that it's not government's job to point industry towards the future (hence his opposition to Solendra). The three others say that this is EXACTLY what the point of government is. I mean, the guy who is heading one of the space-adventure companies thanks NASA because without them, there would be no industry. And what if we were to wait until the last possible moment to seek energy independence because THAT is when there will be economic incentive to do so? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Because gas skyrocketed in the 1970s and we made how much advancement until the government stepped in with incentives?

The market (which isn't capitalist and you wouldn't want a capitalist market) can only go so far. Look at how the automobile industry squashed electric cars until the government was like "hey, why aren't you doing this?" Can you imagine where electric cars will be in 100 years? Now imagine where they'd be if we'd spent the past 100 years inovating them instead of sweeping them under the rug.

Week of the Fire

Sheesh--this week has been fire week in this "city" (there are technically 7+ cities). First we had the jet crash (I know you heard about that), then a medical tower caught fire on Monday or Tuesday. Then yesterday the local news was hijacked by a 4 alarm, 5 houses involved fire. Someone was finally killed (that's the amazing part of all those stories--no fatalities) when 2 senior citizens perished in a condo fire this morning.

Fires, and shootings, are common enough stories on our local news, and there's rarely a day that passes without either or both. But we don't normally have so many big fires (apartment fires and larger). Normally they're single family homes where fatalities are relative to the number of working smoke detectors in the home. 

Robert Kennedy

I cannot believe that that man is trying to make his case look like he's a good dad just doing the right thing. Jerk!

For those who don't know, he's going to court because he assaulted two nurses who tried to stop him when he attempted to take his 3 day old son out of the hospital without proper permission.

He gave a press conference yesterday and didn't even address the serious issue of babies being kidnapped from hospitals because of nurses who assumed that the person carrying the child past them had permission. In a world where the complaint is that there are too few nurses working too many hours and are making too many mistakes, shouldn't a parent be THANKING each and every nurse that asks if the person has permission to remove the child?

My dad told me that fathers aren't even offered a wristband like mothers have. If to many fathers are inconvienced by nurses asking the same questions, then maybe this could be an alternative, though the mother should be the one to decide whether he gets a band or not. But my dad said that he never had a problem because he only took me and my brother through the halls when he was also walking with my mom. And yes--the nurses would periodically match mother to baby via the bracelets.

I hope that Kennedy gets the biggest punishment possible to send a message to stupid, and dare I say arrogant, fathers (and really anyone else) who think they are above these rules. They may seem like stupid rules when you aren't the one breaking them, but if someone tried to abduct your child you'd be thanking the nurses who otherwise were 'annoying' you.

Amazon and Blogger

So, what happened with the ability to create links to books available on Amazon.com? I mean, I'm having a love/hate relationship with Amazon right now, but it would be nice to make a buck or two from Amazon for linking to a book that someone already cares to buy. Now all I can find is a wonkey widget that is more a pain in the butt to create than I think it's worth (but it exists if you care to look through some of my favorite books).

I love Amazon because they have the simplist system for selling books (the only thing that I am selling at the moment) and I don't have pay a hosting fee (my problem with ebay and etsy).

I dislike Amazon because they're fighting on-line sales tax to the detrement to the community (they're fighting VA's lawmakers by threatening to not move here unless they get like 5 years exemption from sales tax--a tax exemption that other on-line retailers will not get--at least the law they're fighting there will benefit all on-line retailers...while making it cheaper to do business online rather than with a brick and motar).

And on Amazon, I don't understad sellers who sell for $0.01--I mean, are they trying to make it impossible for people like me to make a buck or two? For instance, I have books that I paid $7.99 for. I read them and now want to turn them over. They're in great shape and I think $5 is a fair price, but they'll never sell because I have 100 books to compete with, selling for $0.01. This means that their turn over is so high that they can still make a profit selling books for less than $1.00 (you pay $4.00 and Amazon takes $1.50, the post office takes another $1.50)--it makes you wonder where their supply comes from that the books cost, what, $0.20 wholesale.

I don't buy $0.01 books. I'd rather pay $3 for the book, plus the $3.99 for shipping, plus tax, and know that I'm not funding something that I don't even know what it is. I guess the assumption is that they are brick and mortar stores that also sell their inventory on Amazon, but if so, what store doesn't have it's own website? GoogleSites makes setting up one easy, so there's really no excuse in today's economy. Heck, if I owned a small bookstore, I'd sell on Amazon, too, and probably at a reduced price so that with shipping costs the prices are comparable, and just pull books off the shelf when they sell online. I think that that's what it's supposed to be (besides people like me who have books that they just want to get rid of), but random people with access to very cheap books, who take advantage of Amazon's storage facilities, now open "bookstores" which may or may not be contributing to the demise of the brick and mortar bookstores that we know and love.

And before I hear from the complaint department, I use the library primarily. I've only bought books on Amazon during college for class (and saved a ton rather than the campus bookstore). And when I do buy books I like to buy used.

So, I ask you to take an extra minute or two and see who you're buying from. If it seems fishy that they'd sell for $0.01, even though they have thousands of positive reviews, maybe you should buy from someone else.

Duggar House

For the most part, I like the Duggar family. There are much worse families in the world and for those who play the "they're brainwashing the kids" card, please remember that you yourself were brainwashed by your parents. You didn't come out of the womb thinking what you think; you were influenced by your parents from day one. They made you the person you are whether you were following in their footsteps or rebelling for all it's worth. So there.

What I don't like about their house is that the guest suite is located where you can only access it through the laundry room. The way they go through clothes, that seems like a terrible oversight. It's no wonder that Grandma Duggar does laundry every time she visits--she can't get to her room without tripping over 3 piles, probably.

Probably the only thing I don't really like about the way the kids are raised is that they are so dependent on people other than the two parents to care for the children. My grandmother (who had 8 kids) and my dad and aunts and uncles on that side say that that's the way kids were raised, with the older ones looking after the younger ones and the chores (my youngest uncle complains that he was left with all the chores when the older ones moved out). But I think that that is completely different from the way the Duggars do things because it doesn't appear to be voluntary. I mean, the kids are obviously willing and it doesn't seem to be much of an opposition (is that the right word?), but it just seems like the girls do more raising than is fair, even split between so many of them. I don't know if any of the women in my family watch the show, but I think that if they did they'd say that they weren't faced with as much without mom stepping in. But there was a reason my grandmother had my grandfather get a vasectomy on the ship when she did (though Uncle Paul being a premie also had a big part of that).

Colbert Shoutout

I'm digging Colbert's guest last night who ranked UVA with MIT as the best in Humanities education...and Colbert knew his "Wahoo-Wa"! [End Brag]

And if you care, the guest is Richard Hearst who wrote: We're losing our minds

The 700 Club

Umm...okay, that makes no sense. The co-host (i.e. not Pat Robertson) just said that the incentive she uses to get motivated to excercise/eat healthier is her pocket book. But they started the show complaining about over taxation and such. Does that mean that she would agree to the government putting a tax onto junk food? Because those ideas seem contradictary.

First of I believe many passages from "The American metropolis, from Knickerbocker days to the present time; New York City life in all its various phases" by Frank Moss

There is a mysterious and startling lack of harmony between the constituents of the [New York] City's life. The people do not know their next-door neighbors, and are not concerned with what happens on the block next to theirs; and they bustle about their business without seeing or knowing vast secitons of the City that are directly affecting their social affairs, and indirectly touching all of their interests The City bounds forward under a general impulse of growth, leaping along the pathway of material progress with incredible speed; and yet its citizens, in large part, are indifferent to the concerns of their neighbors, and are oblivious to the advantage of mutual civic interest and popular combinations of civic effort.

Political organizers alone powerfully use the advantages of cooperation and coordination of popular forces for public purposes. Those who are unselfishly interested in the advancement of virtue and true prosperity have not yet learned to combine their large numbers and to pull together.

Is there a single trait, characteristic of the entire City, continuous through its history and dundamentally connected with its development? There is great philanthropy--in streaks; there is corruption--in places; there is old-time Americanism--in sections; there is Continental liberality--in spots all over; there is Puritanism--to match the LIberality; but the Spirit of Tolerance is New York's peculiar characteristic. This  spirit operates in all affairs--busniness, social, religious, political--and proceeds from an unconscious but all-controlling realization of the duty of minding our own business and letting other people mind theirs.

Tolerance was essential to the development of the commerce for which New York has always been preeminent. It was the natural outgrowth of the commercial spirit. Even in the strained relations arising from the "excise question," when one class of citizens parades tableax of LIberty, in tears, surounded by the Muses weeping because they cannot have free beer on Sunday, and another class demands that the liquor business shall be entirely extirpated--between these two extremes stands the conservative mass of citizens, who manage to see some claims on each side, to tolerate both sections of extremists, and to provide a middle course between them. This spirit of tolerance causes religious factions that have been making holy attempts to cut each other's throats on other continents, to live together, holding their religious services separately, but buying and selling, associating in political and other ways, and crossing the bloody line with intermarriages.

--written in 1897

Machine Gun Vegas

I'm happy with this concept. My feeling on the subject is that those heavy machine guns, assault rifles, etc. are fine to use on the gun range wherever it is. I'm against the owning of these guns because they're impractical at best for defense and hunting and otherwise a pointless, but deadly toy. My dad brought up the issue of "professional" gun users not wanting to use the rental at those gun ranges because they're not as accurate as their own guy would be and I've come up with another compromise--leave the guns at the range. The range should have a bare minimum of security that repels thiefs anyway, so they'd be responsible for the security of all those personal weapons.

I get that people want to feel big and bad with guns, but like I said, there's no person who can convince me that it's sane to want to own even one large weapon. Gun ranges should be the answer.

On historical fiction/non-fiction

I HATE it when I read something that is historically related and it leaves me wondering where truth ends and fiction begins. There is a distinct variety of historical writing:

*Non-fiction and has well documented resources. I like these and I respect them.

*Historical Fiction that mearly glances at the historical era. I enjoy these books for the most part since the history isn't a focus and it's more like "oh, this is set in 1840--there shouldn't be any automobiles". There is a general rule, but it doesn't need to be historically accurate.

*Historical Fiction that attempts to bridge history and fiction. This is where some gray area exists. If an author is creating a fictional world which just happens to exist within a historical era, then I don't mind a lack of references. Many of my favorite books "live" here--Catch 22, Briar Rose, Hospital Sketches, etc--they tackle well known events and don't try to change the status quo. Most importantly, they do not tackle real people. They serve to give a human element that non-fiction often can't. For example, memoires, biographies and autobiographies, while they do attempt this always run into the question of "is this true or are you trying to make yourself/the subject look as good/bad as possible?" Fiction avoids this because we know it's fake, but at the same time a great author can create a character that portrays a life that those who lived through the event can all look at and say "that was me".

*Historical novel that tries to humanize real people/events. This is essentially putting words into the mouths of, well, gods. I think that these authors should be tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. I know that there are historical scholars out there who will disagree with me on some books, saying that the author did a great job portraying whomever/whatever they're writing about. But I'm not a historical scholar. I have a great grasp for finding the B.S., but not much in terms of factual knowledge. I don't like this type of writing because the people that read it might have even less factual knowledge than I do, but without even the B.S. filter--a poor author could create a portrait that is complete fiction and the naive reader wouldn't know any differently. I only have one example of a book of this type that wanted me to pull out my hair: Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford. If you are going to make a commentary on history, do not hide it in fiction. Admit your references with pride--and refer to them often. Write a historical novel, but you'd better have something factual to stand on that doesn't involve a written demand of the author to provide evidence for his case.

And on this note, I begin my efforts for full disclosure on the historical accuracy of my novels. You'll notice that Historically Dead (sorry if it's name has been changed since I wrote this) makes a strong attempt to bridge history and fiction. I've already admitted to being an expert on nothing more than an ability to call the B.S. card, so I welcome you to peruse my "references". Now, before you say anything, Wikipedia is my general go-to source and I'm okay with that. This isn't a scholarly paper/book and I'm not checking my references for accuracy, just some kind of platform to build off of without looking entirely ignorant.

One of my classes in college involved the professor reading us a passage from Wikipedia on one of the subjects we were studying. The point was that while yes, every item in the article was technically true, it didn't fully emcompass everything that we were talking about. If you've ever read anything on a subject then I know that you can find the exact opposite argument also in existence using equally relavent examples (it's one reason why I suck at writing argumentative essays--I can't convince myself that I'm right). This strategy for finding real "facts" doesn't work for a publically edited encyclopedia, so Wikipedia is stuck stating the facts and nothing but the facts (except when a troll decides to say that Socrates worked as a bouncer in a strip club in New Jersey).

So, don't knock my sources, but please do tell me if something I've written is blatently wrong (be nice). I mean, if it's something that I don't care to debate in my writing, you'll have to settle with my technically wrong, technically right facts as they stand, but I would like more information on the subject for my own mental encyclopedia, so do share what you know on the subject and, if it's not already obvious, I would appreciate a few bits of evidence to support whatever you have to say :-).

Flags on America's Next Top Model

I'm just throwing it out there that the American flags on the American's next top model t-shirts are wrong. The rule is that no matter the orientation (verticle or horizontal) the stars go in the top left. The t-shirts have the stars on the top right. Do conservatives not watch ANTM? Or has this just been overlooked?

For the record, I don't care. Period. I just point out what I see, especially when there been complaints like this made public by conservatives before. I mean, there are some who would say that this means that the show is Communist or some other such non-sense. I'm calling out those people for not doing their homework. If you are going to make a mountain out of every mole hill, then please don't forget the really small stuff.

Bill O'Reilly, Master of the Televerse

Sigh, yesterday I caught up on a weeks worth of Bill's "Talking Points" (the only 3 minutes of his show that he shares with the "free world" of hulu). Once again, Bill took the top spot as the most trusted news source. Sigh. And once again, I fee the need to qualify his pride.

The problem with comparing Fox News to the rest of the "lame stream" media is that the aren't comparable. It is a fact that Fox leans right while NBC, CBS, ABC, and they're siblings lean left (or rather, more left, though since I watch only their local channels not on cable, I cannot judge their content fully--our local NBC and Fox station are "married" for all that they share a studio and news anchors). For all that I comment on Fox News, I have no real desire to watch their programing--just as I have no real desire to watch MSNBC or CNN. I don't want to listen to the excessive bashing that is a news commentary show (except for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who bash both sides equally). Sorry I ramble.

Here's the real point. There are only a handful of people who watch BOTH Fox News and the "liberal left". These are the people who also watch Jon Stewart looking for the real nuggets of truth (not the dick jokes). If I ask a conservative, then they will probably say that they trust Fox. If I ask a liberal, they will probably say MSNBC. If I ask a poor person living in the slums, they will probably say none of the above since they don't generally care about the news. Now, where does that leave the population that could reply to the poll in question? Generally speaking, I'd guess Conseravatives who watch Fox News: Older Americans who have some money tucked away. I'm afraid that I didn't pay enough attention to know the actual percentage points, but since I think one of the things this country needs to do is get more people interested in current events, we need to take into consideration that of the "don't know" there are enough people to maybe make a difference in those figures that Bill is so proud of.

What upset me most (besides the fact that Bill will repeat these facts for the next month as though they actually mean something to me) is that when he informed us that he was either tied with or beating Jon Stewart in the popularity contest (whatever) he was snide and rude, as though because of what one poll said he is better than Stewart (his long standing rival). I decided long ago, though careful observation and a healthy appreciation of what television psychologists say, that anyone who has to constantly tell everyone how much better they are over someone else is jealous...and probably has low self-esteem. Not that telling him such would do anyone any good. I prefer the smile and nod and don't take them seriously method.

Am I a hypocrit? I don't know. I don't try to belittle Bill with a lot of passive aggressive "I'm better than you" or "You're an idiot (cough: pinhead)" comments, but I do use him a lot as an example. It's not personal--he's just my only real access point to Fox News since they won't show more on Hulu (I do like their "news minute" show, even if they are a bit too blatent about the hulu-ness; I mean, hulu isn't really about hulu programing--it's about streaming a variety of media in a central location). I also don't think that my ultimate message is meant to make me look better, smarter, more handsome/beautiful, or be able to fly.

Polio and DDT

Huh. I didn't know that people were spraying DDT to combat Polio, even though scientists told them that there was no connection between the disease and flies.

It's also interesting that it was good hygene that helped spread the disease. Before modern plumbing, infants were exposed to a mild dose of the virus and became immune. After, well, there was no real way to get the immunity. Just one more example of why we don't necessarily want a sterile world.

West Point Oddity

I just watched  a "Book of Secrets" episode about West Point Academy. It's interesting that they're happy to tell everyone about how the students/soldiers are tested daily to think critically and that they spend a whole semester on Combat Leadership with a focus on explaining why missions are necessary, since soldiers are increasingly demanding such information.

My problem is that one of the oldest traditions is making students/soldiers memorize obscure answers to random questions and other such, well, nonsense found in a book (sorry, I cannot recall the name of said tome). Now, I get that there is probably some meaning that they will never share with the outside world, and it's probably just some big inside joke, but as a person who opposes the cumpulsory memorization of ANYTHING, I just wonder where the line is drawn. When is a student allowed to say "this is stupid"? I mean, I can also buy the idea that it helps train the students/soldiers into mentally challenging themselves, but why not let them memorize the Periodic Table or the birthdays of the Presidents...at least then they can put such knowledge to use outside of a West Point Alumni meeting.

Health Care

What annoys me the most about the Health Care debate (and I'm probably repeating myself) is that WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE. Seriously. When someone goes into a hospital and cannot afford to pay the bill, do you think that the costs magically disappear?!? No, in the real world, which is where I live, I don't know about you, my insurance company is mandated by the law to pay hospitals to treat those who cannot pay. And since those people ONLY go to the doctor when they are, well, dying (or at least they feel like they're dying), there is no such thing as preventative medicine (like having a doctor tell you that your cholestoral is too high BEFORE you have a massive heart attack--last I heard, Lipitor is cheaper than a quadruple bi-pass).

So, the question is--do we keep the status quo and keep paying for the dying people, or do we, gasp, mandate health insurance so that everyone will see a family doctor at least once a year, dealing with problems WHILE THEY ARE SMALL AND THEREFORE CHEAP, and who knows, maybe making progress with the obesity epidimic, too.

And if you think like one of my Uncles, and that mandating health insurance will increase everyone's premiums, then let us look at this LOGICALLY:

1. Part of your premium is ALREADY paying for these people's health coverage. This is money that can be moved from the hospitals and into a fund for said BASIC mandated insurance (for those who cannot afford insurance and whose employers do not offer coverage).

2. When people who CAN afford health insurance, but CHOOSE not to have it, will no longer be able to mooch off the hospitals, which will reduce costs to insurance companies and the hospitals (any money not funding the basic insurance, can be invested like insurance companies and hospitals would like to do. This will also increase the monitary base that the insurance coverage pools from.

3. I've already talked about how identifying and treating illnesses while they are small is cheaper than waiting for all the shit to hit the fan.

And finally 4. If after all this analysis your premium does increase, then we need to look at the insurance company and see how their profits are doing compared to their expenses. I understand that the gut reaction is that "if it's mandated, they can charge whatever they want," but car insurance is mandated--do THEY charge whatever they want? And also, we pretend to live in a capitalist society: doesn't that mean that companies CAN and SHOULD charge whatever they want? Because we all have the freedom to start a competing company which charges less, but makes up for it in total number of customers. When we start complaining about companies charging whatever arbitrary amount that we want, we need to start really fearing Socialism.

Day-am!

GCB just showed me which way they're choosing to lean! And it was a brilliant, laugh out loud, punch the shark on the nose masterpiece of comic glory. In the case of sending Sharon's son to a new boarding school after he was expelled from the last one with sleeping with the wrong girl (he seems to have too high a sex drive for these Christian ladies) he agains is caught with someone's daughter--Cricket's. So, during the climatic fight where the "children" are repremanded, Cricket comes out and says that she's heard that Alaska is a good place to send him and that there's an excellent abstinance program at the one in Wasilla.

For those of you not in the know, Wasilla is where Sarah Palin was mayor and we all know about her daughter Bristol.

hahahahaha. I think this just made my week.

Edit: 4-3-12

I was watching my back issues of the Today Show and apparently Sarah Palin co-hosted this morning (for some reason my videos aren't queueing as fast as they normally do today, so hopefully I can watch them tomorrow) and yesterday she called to check in. Matt Lauer, being my hero in many ways, decided to poke some fun at her expense, asking how she was preparing for the 'event'--reading any newspapers? I nearly died. Why yes, he was poking fun for no other reason to poke fun. Why yes, he did say something that probably hurt her feelings. And why yes, he picked something that those of us who care too much about politics could laugh at too. Will she go on her blog (or Fox News) next week and cry foul? Hells yes. Do I care? No, not at all. If I went out into public and claimed that I read newspapers and then couldn't name them when asked, I'd expect someone to bring it up years later. Here's the difference: I know how to call BRAIN FART when and where it happens. I do it all the time, usually right in the middle of a sentence. I'm no 54 seconds of Rick Perry then try to play it off. I'm a good old "Crap--what in the world was I saying?" girl. Ask me again in 5 minutes. Anybody who's walked into a room to either say or get something knows exactly what I'd be talking about--no harm, no foul.

Saving the Titanic

I guess this is the name of the documentary I'm watching on PBS. Wow. It has all the drama of James Cameron's Titanic, but is told from the bowles of the ship, inside the boiler rooms where brave men were the first line of defense against the ship sinking. I'm not sure how much is artistic license, and how much is from credible sources, but I have a feeling that when she finally goes down, I will be in tears. These men know that the ship is going to sink and a select few decided to stay and do whatever they could to help. Of all the films/documentaries/museum exhibits I've seen, it's never hit me as to exactly how heroic those men were. I think Cameron did them a disservice when he left them out of his "masterpiece", though maybe I should forgive him since he did show that the steerage passangers were hurt. This documentary is totally ignorning the passangers so far, which is okay, since they aren't the point. At least they aren't trying to tell the whole story, unlike Cameron who seemed like that was his attempt.

RIP Titanic and all those who went down on her.

Edited all of 30 seconds after my initial posting:

Wait, where did he come from?!? I guess that's the artistic license because they just said that it's doubtful that there were any engineer survivors and the documentary ended with that figure on the screen. I guess it's like the story Briar Rose by Jane Yolen; we know that 4 men escaped Chelmno, but it's entirely possible that a woman did in such a way that Gemma did.

By the way, if you haven't read Briar Rose, you really should. I mean, it's pretty obvious that it was written in the early '90s without the strict feminist leanings of most modern works (I mean, more than once Stan has to come to her rescue and I'm just shouting to myself "Duh woman, use your brain!"), but beyond Becca not being my favorite "heroine", I'm not sure if she's supposed to. The story is Gemma's, Becca is just the conduit. And Gemma's story will have you crying.