With fresh news today that Franken still is tankin', rapid response is required. Conventional political wisdom says Al Franken should change the subject back to the issues that poll best for him. I agree with that, but he should also a) candidly admit his own mistakes and b) expose the ridiculous way Norm is portraying Minnesotans. That core condescension ultimately may be the biggest vulnerability of Norm’s increasingly campy bowling series.

Maybe something along these lines would help people understand what is going on here:

Male Bowler #1: Hi, we’re not bowlers

Male Bowler #3: ...but we play them on TV!

Female Bowler #2: You know, like the phoney bowler-actors scripted by Senator Norm Coleman in his cheesey little TV ads.

Male Bowler 3#. Norm and George Bush have been giving mongo tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens, so now Norm is trying to make it look like he’s in touch with Minnesotans like you.

Male Bowler #1: So I guess Norm thinks you Minnesotans talk like this (in the accent used on TV)

Female Bowler #2: …and look like this (using moronic facial expressions used in Coleman campaign).

Male Bowler #3: And only care about what is happening in the bowling alley, not what is happening in Basra. (as the other "bowlers" make more moronic faces in the background)

Female Bowler #2: Norm thinks Minnesotans only care about hockey, not the urgent issues impacting our kids and grandkids.

Bowler #1: Honestly, I gotta say, this Coleman guy of yours...must not think much of you guys.

Franken: I’m Al Franken. Look, I know my comedy isn’t for everyone. And I’ve made mistakes that I’m fixing. I’m far from perfect. But I approve this message, because I will never talk down to Minnesotans, and I will always, always shoot it to you straight.

The Frankenistas need to pull back the curtain on Coleman's campaign. Franken is an unconventional candidate, and his only hope is to run an unconventional campaign.

- Loveland

Just couldn't resist this lesson on healthy, low-fat eating

Where's the error?

The teacher we had at our review maintained that it was A. :| Had been looking daw. I maintained it was a D, being unable to maintain the parallelism of the previous two verbs. The teacher, in a seemingly apparently condescending tone, said that the "looking for" and the "work long hours..." were not simultaneous actions in the advertisement. The advertisement stated. Who the hell puts "We were looking for candidates who are willing..." in an advertisement? :|

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. But dammit, explain properly and don't do it in an effing "oh I'm a teacher and you're a student" tone.

I think this idea stems mainly from the idea that asexuality affects sexual relationships in a way that sexuals are not accustomed to, rather than from any difficulty getting along with everyday life. But even so... what the hell?

Why is it that “special treatment” is required in order to deal with asexuality, whereas homosexuality is dealt with without any such treatment? Certainly, there are differences between the way one would treat a gay man as opposed to a straight one. One wouldn’t walk up to a straight guy and try to set him up on a date with another guy, unless one is looking for a punch in the face. Likewise, a tolerant person would never walk up to a non-closeted gay man and try to set him up with a woman. These are just differences based on different people’s personal preferences. Failing to appropriately modify one’s behavior based on the known sexual orientation of the person one is interacting with would essentially be the same as serving meat to a vegan, or strawberries to a person who is known to be allergic to strawberries. Just a little more insulting.

The essential difference here is that when one makes these kinds of changes to one’s behavior in order to deal with different types of people, it is not demeaning to those people. Their basic humanity and maturity is not in question. But when dealing with asexuals, most sexual people either do not make these adjustments to their behavior, or make negative adjustments to their behavior, believing that asexuality is not real, or if it is, it must be a disorder or in this case, a disability. It is not seen as a natural and healthy pattern of sexual attraction (or lack thereof), but rather as a flaw that prevents us from living a fulfilling life.

Because of course, having sex is the only possible way an adult can find fulfillment.

And so, in order to uphold their own ideology, sexuals must find some way to discount asexuals as fully developed human beings. There is no room for us in their picture of the world, just as there is no room for any evidence backing evolutionary theory in a young Earth creationist’s picture of the world. Accepting us would be inconsistent; therefore we must not count as real human beings. We must be underdeveloped, we must be lacking basic emotions, we must be delusional, we must have some kind of disorder or disability. Thus the idea of "special treatment" which, in any other circumstance, would not be considered special treatment but just regular old consideration for people who are different from you--in other words, tolerance.

This is basically the same attitude that people who think asexuality is a phase have--"Oh, we'll humor her because she's going through this phase, just let it be and she'll come out of it by herself." Just dressed up in a different mindset. "Oh, I'll have to humor her because she is disabled." Instead of being treated as an adult human being whose way of thinking just happens to be different, I am being compared to (direct quote!) "a 5 year old, cross-eyed child." Yeah, thanks.

 The medium (Community, Person, Persons—the First Estate, the Second Estate, Third Estate, Fourth  Estate and Electronic estate  ) telepathizes (verb of telepathy) four states of  teleogenetic interferences. They are: Submission,  Conversion and Tertiary -Apostasy States. 

The first state (Submission))

Submission is permeance progression and occurs when the medium is receptive and interactive   to processes  of creating binary-essence of info-civilization.  It is to be assumed that the first-estate, second-estate, third estate and electronic estate interact at this stage as informant-participators, and the process becomes one of  of  data accumulation, storage, retrieval and access.  
    

 The second state(Conversion)

Conversion  is permanence of identification as acceptance in confirmation.  At this stage the first-estate, second-estate, third estate and electronic-estate, multiply  laterally into many  peripheries of shared information with core-nuclei (individual pages)
     

  Third State (Tertiary-apostasy)

The tertiary state  as: the -being -becoming -beyond- the -medium, is, a create-urgical state of transforming realization where receptors are no longer mediums, but control information— creating-outlets-for-submission-within primary and secondary medium states.  At this stage there is selection, appropriation, condescension and channelization.

 Selection and appropriation would become synonymous with information for dissemination and  information borne to stay  within cultural choice.

Appropriation would involve prioritization and systemic selection through widely known, read, populated and circulated pages.  This activity would be initiated by the first, second, third   and fourth and the electronic estate.

The role of the ‘lumpen- electronic -proletariat’ within selection and appropriation would be diminished depending upon choices, selection and circulated population (pages). It can be discerned how the fourth estate is being eaten away by the intrusion of greater allocation, exploration and interaction made possible by the moguls of the electronic -estate.

The fourth –estate and the electronic estate intrude upon each other in order  to  become sufficient sustainability of information.  In the competitive struggle,  elimination of the fourth estate would be matter of prediction. What ever is represented within the fourth estate will be past information! 

Condescension would involve,  how the electronic proletariat would utilize the operational system of the electronic estate. Representation within the electronic estate is channel –appropriate, and given in terms of allocation, storage and representation.

Channelization would be a selective allocation of circulation. It will be partially,  a beastly process, automated by the machine which counts, measures and recognizes data circulated. It will also be a selective process where the product is determined by the cultural-fertility of choice.

The level of participation at channelization would be left to the determination of providers of the electronic estate. The factors contributing to their provision would not be ideological but ‘provisional’ in terms availability, ‘technological’ in terms of productivity,  and optimization  of the  ‘financial’ in terms  of  investment-realization.
     

© reserved 2008

It must be exhausting slobbering over all that globalism. Imagine the knee pads he must go through. All those back room meetings, just how much global cum can one man consume? According to all reports, McCain is sucking this up like manna from Heaven.

Being a McCain fan is being a globalist. Being a McCain fan means the end of the Sovereignty of the United States of America. Mr. McNasty, potty mouth and all, is devoid of any and all American Ideals. The man with no morals, (as evidenced by his leaving his first wife for a younger model), doesn't even bother to hide his agenda. And all those who cheer him on are patently UN-AMERICAN too!!! Just look at old bushy boy rooting for his comrade! A man is judged by the company he keeps!

McCain will do anything for money and power. His voting record reflects how much influence lobbyists have over him. Line his pockets with enough cash and he'll bend over for you! This un-American, American has spent a lifetime living off his reputation as a Vietnam veteran all the while making sure other veterans didn't get the same benefits he's enjoyed. And he doesn't want you to enjoy them either!

An article about McCain and his globalist ambitions can be found here: It is a testimony to the duplicitous nature of the man who would be president and a must read!

While his speech likely made the left swoon, conservatives, red-blooded patriots, and independent-minded Americans who love this country and its Constitution, felt cold chills go up and down their spines.

Since the stinging defeat of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive ‘amnesty’ bill, Senator McCain has begrudgingly paid lip service on the campaign trail to Americans concerned about illegal immigration. Chanting his new mantra that “he gets it” and “we must secure the borders first,” he has avoided discussing his plans for amnesty. His dubious promises on border security have clearly been intended to manipulate conservative voters, the same voters he treats with obvious disdain and condescension. Mocking Ronald Reagan’s conservatism, McCain has even declared himself a “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution,” a reference surely prompting our fortieth president to turn over in his grave!

~snip~

McCain boldly declared, “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies…..” and “we must also lead by… creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish.” [1]

The obvious question is – haven’t we had enough of the massively corrupt United Nations and other international institutions trampling on U.S. sovereignty, interfering in American policy, and draining the life-blood from our country? What has the U.N. accomplished in its 60-year existence other than the largest theft in world history with the oil-for-food program and turning its back on the Darfur, Rwandan and other genocides? With moral leadership, why can’t the U.S. be an upstanding citizen of our world without becoming ensnared in new international treaties that would forever alter the guardian of our republic, the Constitution?

Oh ya, while the global third world countries suffer, McCain is on his knees sucking the syrup of Globalism straight from the cocks and tits of those who desire the dismantling of the United States of America. This is an evil bastard pretending to be an American. Pretending to stand for American values while polishing the knobs of every pecker he can find that will bring him the power and wealth he craves. What a guy!

Consider his remarks concerning Mexico and our southern border:

Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.

Considering the lawlessness of Mexico, the deaths, the mass fleeing of the people, the drug cartel violence, I'd say there is every reason to be cautious of this man. He obviously lives in an alternate universe, right next door to bush. Everything there is hunky dory and not like in this reality where the statistics, facts, job market, and housing crisis do not match his words of wisdom!

McCain's pro amnesty views have been soundly rejected by the American people and yet time and again he continues to try to force them through Congress. Although McCain says he "gets it" obviously, he doesn't! Mr. Open wide insert whatever, will say whatever it takes to get what he wants while doing exactly what HE wants to do when you aren't looking!!! I aught to know since he has been my representative forever and I've never received word one from him about any concern I've ever expressed. Being his constituent I would have thought at least ONCE he would have addressed an issue of mine, but NO, that has never occurred to him. His lifetime career of voting is proof of that! Check HERE:

The Center for Public Integrity practically accused McCain of influence peddling. Yet more proof this man is nothing if not a true slut to his pockets. But your needs? Mine? The United States of America is just another asset McCain is looking to peddle!

And all those awards McCain has that he flaunts his war hero status from? They are all hype and blather. According to the Pentagon:

None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnam era) POWs."

McCain's Silver Star narrative for the period 27 October 1967 the day after he was shot down to 8 December 1968 reads: "His captors? subjected him to extreme mental and physical cruelties in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes. Through his resistance to those brutalities, he contributed significantly towards the eventual abandonment?" of such harsh treatment by the North Vietnamese.

Yet in McCain's own words just four days after being captured, he admits he violated the U.S. Code of Conduct by telling his captors "O.K, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."

A Vietnam vet detractor says, "He received the nation's third highest award, the Silver Star, for treason. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy!"

There is so much evidence out there to support this claim too. Try here: Or Here: So, as long as you have a hand up in the military, you reap rewards you are not due. Interesting huh? But such is the life of McCain. Seldom do we get to see such evidence of created heroism. But don't look too closely or the stories fall apart and the Real McCain comes shining through!

Cindy McCain, John McCain's second wife, is another piece of work. Her father was purported to have mob ties. And she carries grudges too. Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it???

Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc.

IRE reporters Amy Silverman and John Doherty, writing in the Phoenix New Times, note that the father of McCain's wife, James Hensley, was convicted by a federal jury in U.S. District Court of Arizona in March 1948 on seven counts of filing false liquor records. Hensley also was charged with conspiracy to hide from federal authorities the names of persons involved in a liquor industry racket with two companies he managed, United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson.

The umbrella company, United Liquor, at that time held a monopoly in Arizona, organized and managed by Kemper Marley, who was accused of mob ties by a reporter who was murdered in 1977.

Silverman and Doherty report that by 1955, Hensley had launched a Budweiser distributorship in Phoenix, "a franchise reportedly bestowed upon him by Marley, who was never indicted in the 1948 liquor-law-violation case – or a subsequent one – despite his controlling role in the liquor distribution businesses."

Now, I know the men in this world feel it is just fine for a man to be a womanizer and a slut, but personally, I don't want to spend the next four years discussing the definition of *sex* for some intern he finds attractive. I don't want a man in office who disrespects veterans when he claims to be one himself. And I don't want a man in the White House who is so disrespectful to women and children that he could abandon a wife who didn't abandon him while he was a POW.

I think it shows the type of man he is going to be if you look at his history. He sold out the military and his country while a POW, he sold out his first wife when he found something better, and John McCain can't wait to sell out America just as soon as he is handed the White House.

Given McCain's medical history the chances of his having another bout with melanoma are very great within the next year or so. From CNN's Lou Dobbs on Friday we have this:

PILGRIM: Our chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta was among a small group of reporters who were allowed to review Senator McCain's medical files and Sanjay Gupta joins us now.

Sanjay, what did we learn more about McCain's cancer history?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well you know he had the extensive operation back in 2000. That's what most people have paid attention to those scars on the left side of his face. But found out today, for example, in addition to removing the melanoma, they always took out 34 lymph nodes from his neck, which is why probably he has continued swelling in that part of his face.

We also found, for example, that he had a squamous cell carcinoma. That's a skin cancerous lesion removed from his leg in February of this year, so there was some news there you know that we hadn't heard before, lots of things to look for. You know it was interesting it was 1,200 pages of records, Kitty, and going through them in three hours was kind of like combining medical school and residency and all into one, a lot of things to look for.

His heart history, for example, something that you know needed to be paid attention to. He takes several medications including a cholesterol lowering medication, a baby aspirin; he takes hydrochlorothiazide, which is a medication to control kidney stones. But you know his heart, as Mary said, and his overall health seemed to be pretty good. For example, he had a stress test this year of his heart, which looked almost identical to a stress test from 2000, so you know it looks like overall you know he's fit to lead.

PILGRIM: You know, Sanjay, you bring up this point about you know this volume of material to get through. Someone with your expertise even having difficulty absorbing that much information, you weren't allowed notes or anything in the room, were you?

GUPTA: It was interesting. It was -- I had never experienced anything quite like it, I think it's fair to say. We were sort of taken to this private room, first they told that we couldn't leave except to go to the restroom and then had to come back. And once we left, we were no longer allowed into the room. I'm not sure and as you pointed out with Mary, this is the Friday before Memorial Day. Who knows what to make of all of that? It was a very interesting process for sure.

PILGRIM: Yeah, it is an interesting process, but I guess the sort of bottom line is there is no reason why McCain can't be president medically, correct?

GUPTA: Yeah, I think you know if you look some of the specific numbers, again people paying attention to the melanoma I think probably more than anything else. The most significant melanoma was operated in 2000. At that time they said he had a chance of having recurrence about 66 percent over 10 years. That was eight years ago.

And the further out you get from it, the better your odds are, so it looks like he's done pretty well. He's seen eight different doctors this year alone, so he's really seemingly committed to taking care of his health.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Sanjay Gupta. We could not do without your expertise.

GUPTA: Thank you, Kitty.

Melanoma is a cancer that loves to come back. The light of my life died for it after being cancer free for 8 years. It had metastasized and gone inward becoming metastatic melanoma. It wasn't pretty. And of course, once it reaches the brain, there is nothing they can do. Is this something that we want to deal with? I don't. I don't think this man ever should have presented himself as a candidate. He is both unworthy and unfit for this hight office and I'm highly sick and tired of those type running for office. Not one of the three being presented is worthy of the office, not one.

So, do we want entertainment with the slut of the year for the next 4 years or do we want someone serious about saving America and our Constitution and Bill or Rights? Do we want someone who will lie and cheat, give lip service to us while screwing us royally? Frankly, I'm not in the mood... I want my country back and this guy isn't going to get it right for us. The only one who will profit is McNasty!

This is somewhat of the word which he now speaks unto you: Why will ye die? why will ye perish? why will you not have compassion on your own souls? Can your hearts endure, or can your hands be strong, in the day of wrath that is approaching? It is but a little while before all your hopes, your reliefs, and presumptions will forsake you, and leave you eternally miserable. Look unto me, and be saved; - come unto me, and I will ease you of all sins, sorrows, fears, burdens, and give rest unto your souls. Come, I entreat you; - lay aside all procrastinations, all delays; - put me off no more; - eternity lies at the door. Cast out all cursed, self-deceiving reserves; - do not so hate me as that you will rather perish than accept of deliverance by me.

These and the like things does the Lord Christ continually declare, proclaim, plead, and urge on the souls of sinners; as it is fully declared, Prov. i. 20-33. He does it in the preaching of the word, as if he were present with you, stood amongst you, and spake personally to every one of you. And because this would not suit his present state of glory, he has appointed the ministers of the gospel to appear before you, and to deal with you in his stead, avowing as his own the invitations that are given you in his name, 2 Cor. v. 19, 20.

Consider therefore, his infinite condescension, grace, and love herein. Why all this towards you? Does he stand in need of you? Have you deserved it at his hands? Did you love him first? Cannot he be happy and blessed without you? Has he any design upon you, that he is so earnest in calling you unto him? Alas! it is nothing but the overflowing of mercy, compassion, and grace, that moves and acts him herein. Here lies the entrance of innumerable souls into a death and condemnation far more severe than those contained in the curse of the law, 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. In the contempt of this infinite condescension of Christ in his holy invitation of sinners to himself, lies the sting and poison of unbelief, which unavoidably gives over the souls of men unto eternal ruin. And who shall once pity them to eternity who are guilty of it?[1]

Note that there is only one Cabela's store in the entire state of PA, and the people who go there are not all rural -- or Pennsylvanian. Fortunately, this particular store is located close to the highway and easily accessible to big-city reporters interested in barely scratching the surface.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I would have been in that parking lot in 1986 with my high school friends had it not been for family trip to the beach.

They just don't get it!

Hillary mispoke about herself. It was a reflection on her and her memory.

Barack mispoke about rural Americans ... about other people, not himself. He has set himself up as the person able to judge others. In the process, he is deriding and demeaning other people, not himself.

Everything about Barack Obama permeates of arrogance, condescension ... elitism.

Do we really need a president who feels it's his purpose to judge and demean people ... rather than identify with them?

Barack doesn't identify with average Americans ... because he's incapable. It's not in his life's experience.

His comments ranging from Annie Oakley and six guns to bitter and clinging regarding firearms, religion and immigration exemplify that he has no concept of how Americans view their rights and the world in general.

Do you really want to trust your Second Amendment rights to a person who doesn't seem to understand the difference between a six gun and a shot gun?

And, if I remember correctly, Annie Oakley was a dead shot with a rifle, not a six gun or a shot gun.

Get your history right, Barack. It looks like you need a remedial course in more than English.

Hopefully, you are an expert in Foreign Policy ... because you sure don't seem to know much about this country.

Sure, there's an iceberg. Everyone who pays attention knows THAT. Don't call Sibel's case a red herring simply because she hasn't chosen to highlight that iceberg as much as you might wish. She is, after all gagged. Unlike you. How did that mess you wrote end up as a top scoop, anyway?

 Title of piece- How to derail 'imperial mobilization'
getting to the meat-

the idea is that enormous public pressure is immediately put on the Congress to create public hearings to examine the devolution of their powers to declare war, and to seek the pulse of the nation through direct public ratification in a public referendum, before using their own Constitutional powers to declare (or not declare) war. Please do examine this approach.

Well, first off, it seems likely that only Kiwis are actually going to be able to read and understand your article, so I fail to see how the enormous public pressure can be gathered to bring to bear on Congress in the first place...

Skipping down a ways...

The solution-space outlined in the preceding paragraphs is but one institutional approach. There may be others. But whatever the case, the resistance to “imperial mobilization” must be elevated to the national institutional-level framework somehow.

(emphasis in original)

In other words, you don't really know how to derail 'imperial mobilization', except to say that resistance must be elevated "somehow" am I right? Next time, try this as a title for your article "How to derail 'imperial mobilization'?"

And what's worse, the questions.... "Will you stay in Army?" "Will you continue with science or change to arts?" Like what the hell? Am I THAT underestimated? Of course I'll stay in Army, you DIPSHITS. Because first of all, I'm no coward, and I don't RUN AWAY from shame or failure. I will face it full frontal with my head in the books this time. And no, I will not change to arts. Whats with that question anyways???

I mean. First of all ARTS is looked down by most people here, because somehow they have the false notion that Humanities is for the non-intelligent. These kind of people are the very people who should make up arts if Arts was that. At least the arts people can develop ideas, and read in-depth about the mistakes the human race has committed and about foreign philosophy and unusual trades. At least they would know how politics work. (That's been one of my wants by the way. Not that I want to get INTO politics, but I want to know HOW politicians work and what the rules are WITHOUT having to take some time wiki-ing it)

Second of all, if they really think that Arts needs a "lesser brain", and for them to ask ME the question, hmm. Wow. She FAILED! she MUST go for something EASIER now. WTF??? WHO has that kind of attitude anyway? Talk about "unintentional" condescension.

I want to be vindicated, I want to prove people wrong. I want to earn my PLACE. And this sounds very determined of me, because God knows whether I will or not... since I'm not really a woman of her words. But I will definitely work on it. I will work to get un-underestimated.

Mindjack - Taste Tribes

The piece itself is rather unremarkable. Although, it does contain comments about a few things which became important topics in the meantime such as recommendation systems and the importance of music listeners for individual artists. I'm not too concerned about the piece and I realize it's "nothing new." It mostly made me think about a number of things about which I've been meaning to blog.

I could react to the use of the term "tribe." And there are obvious things to say in terms of social groups (family resemblance, community of experience, community of practice, communitas, homogamy, in-group knowledge, social network analysis, etc.).

But I guess my take is at the same time more personal and more cultural.

Contrary to what my Facebook profile may lead some people to believe, I am not a fan of anything or anyone. I'm not saying that I don't like things or people. I do. In fact, I pretty much like everyone. But fandom isn't my thing. Neither is fanboyism. So I don't relate so well to Ellis's description of networks based on appreciation of a band. Sure, in the past, I've participated in similar groups, such as online discussions about one of my favorite tv shows (which still has a fairly active online fanbase). And I did join several Facebook groups about things or people I like. But my personal attitude makes me react rather negatively to fanclubs and the kind of "taste-based community" Ellis so regrettably called "taste tribes."

Nobody's fault but my own. I just feel these groups tend to be too restrictive, too inward-looking and, well, too opinion-based.

I'm too much of a social butterfly to spend much time in any one of these groups. My engagement to a group of people can run deeply and my allegiance and faithfulness are sometimes rather strong. But I don't like to restrict myself to certain groups.

Maybe I'm an "alpha socialiser" after all.

The cultural dimension also seems quite important to me, but it's harder to explain without giving off the wrong signals. Not only do I react to what I perceive to be abuses of "pop culture references" (in part because I find them exclusionary), but I perceive a kind of culturally significant attachment to individual "cultural items" ("media," as Ellis seems to call them) in "English-speaking North American popular culture." I'm not saying that this tendency doesn't exist in any other context. In fact, it's likely a dimension of any "popular culture." But this tendency is quite foreign to me. The fact that I conceive of myself as an outside observer to popular culture makes me associate the tendency with the common habits shared by a group I'm not a member of.

I'm sure I'll post again about this. But my guess is that somewhat shorter blog entries encourage more discussion. Given the increasing number of comments I'm getting, it might be cool to tap my readership's insight a bit more. One thing I've often noticed is that my more knee-jerk posts are often more effective.

So here goes.

Many might find it condescending that I refuse to get into debates with theists, or that I immediately delete anti-atheist comments on this blog. Then again, I never said it wasn't.

I've recently come across the perfect example to show you all exactly why I refuse to dignify theism-laden arguments with a response. The main reason is that I hate it when they drop by our blogs to lay on the stupid, because we don't drop by their blogs and write crap about theism. At least, I hope not, y'all.

Cleverly Disguised Theist (CDT for short) left a comment on my blog one day, and because he didn't once mention theism in it (although it was still a dumb and condescending comment), and because a lot of his blog posts are tagged "atheism," I assumed he was just the special "pretentious" brand of atheist.

Before I move on, please be aware of two things: 1) I'm not leaving a link to CDT's blog because I don't want you guys to up his view count, so no matter how curious you are (or if CDT drops by and leaves a comment), please don't encourage the stupid or give him more "atheists are big meanies!" fodder; and 2) if you have any comments on the "logic" of his arguments, or if you have anything to say to him, leave it here. He's one of those theists that likes to drop by atheist sites to angry up the blood, so I'm sure he'll come across this post and be like "Satan strikes again!"

Anyhoo. It all started when he called me condescending and ageist (two things I may or may not be, I don't really care to figure it out). I wrote a response, he wrote something unintelligible which I didn't bother responding to:

Then he blogged about this exchange, because I guess he thought he was being clever? Something about how people were insulting his beard and waah, I called him a dipshit and yada yada. I said:

I was like, "Noncondescending? LULZ."

I thought he was just being sarcastic, because I was still under the assumption that he was an atheist.

This only confused me further, because apparently he believed in Satan? And like, I'm the one with no argument ("your statement is condescending because [reasons]" = valid argument, FYI), while his retort of "Satan has got a hold of you" is "perfectly logical"? Something wasn't right here. I didn't bother replying, because why should I when he's just saying weird, nonsensical things? (Even though I wanted to say, "Please don't insult logic by using that word to describe your argument." Oy, gevalt.)

Then I re-read his "About" page, and he lists himself as a "Christian." So it kind of irked me that he kept tagging his posts "Atheism," because ugh, so totally piggyback-riding, you know? Well, haters are haters.

And I admit, I was probably being totally condescending when I exclaimed, after finding out that he was a Christian after all, "Oh, that's why! Well, I'm glad. At least I can stop wondering, 'Since when did atheists get this stupid?' now." But, condescending or not, I dare you to prove me wrong. The stupidity was rooted in the belief, wasn't it?

All in all, it was a big waste of my time. Had I known that CDT was a theist -- and not just a theist, but an anti-atheist theist -- I wouldn't have bothered responding in the first place. Because, as I have said in my disclaimer: the whole atheist vs. theist thing never goes anywhere.

It's not a matter of only choosing to argue with atheists. I'll argue with anyone, believer or not, but once you start bringing Jesus and Satan into your arguments, that's a dealbreaker right there. Logic only, please.

[Note: May I remind you all: please do not make any attempts to visit CDT's site. It would be a huge disservice to me. All opinions go in the comments section of this blog post. Thanks, y'all.]

Another thing that this jezebel blurb about the whole thing points out is that the women chosen are overwhelmingly Caucasian. With the exception of Maya Rudolph and Wanda Sykes, every woman featured is white. Jezebel proposes some minority alternatives which I agree with, but Particularly, I'm really pretty pissed that Jenna Fisher's included in this shoot, while Mindy Kaling isn't. Kaling is an Indian-American and writer/actor on The Office (Kelly, who is probably one of my favorite characters because she wants to name her baby "Usher"), and she's nowhere to be found. Don't get me wrong, Fisher is great and I love her in everything I've seen her in, but she's in that shoot for being Pam. And Mindy Kaling is the one writing all the funny things Pam says and does. So where's Kaling?

I 'm also a little pissed about how condescending some of the headlines are. "Funny Girls?" These comedians are WOMEN, goddamnit! Their profiles page on Vanity Fair is titled "Chicks with Schticks", GET IT?!?! (hint: you need a dick to be funny lawl!!!) Also annoying, the video of the behind the scenes at the shoot is titled "Girls behaving badly". How come when women are funny it's somehow against the rules?

Related (kind of): Oh my God I hate Leslie Mann so much. I don't think she's funny at all and her characters are always these horrible crude stereotypes of shrewy bitchy nagging women, yet in her profile in Vanity Fair, the writer talks about Knocked Up having "the most three dimensional characters to be found in a comedy film in recent memory." What?

edit: Hooray, Gawker hates it too!, albeit gawker seems to hate it in wholly different maybe-kind-of-sexist-kidding-but-maybe-not sort of way than I do.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION:
“The majority of African Americans or blacks (we use the terms interchangeably) in the United States trace their roots to West Africa. They were torn from their cultures of origin between the 17th and 19th centuries when they were brought here as slaves. Blacks represent the only migrants to come to the Americas, North and South, against their will. Blacks from Africa were literally kidnap victims, kidnapped by Europeans, as well as purchased as captives by Yankee traders. This experience has made African Americans, as a group, very different from immigrants who chose to come to the United States to better their lives, and different from refugees who fled their homelands to escape religious or political persecution.

The very word slave carries the connotation of an “inferior” being; slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person during census-taking. Slave owners inwardly understood that treating people as animals to be owned, worked, and sold was immoral, but they wanted to think of themselves as good, religious, moral people. Hence they had to convince themselves that their slaves were not really human but a lower form of life. They focused on racial differences (skin color, hair texture, etc.) as “proof’ that black people were not really people, after all. Racism began, then, as an airtight alibi for a horrifying injustice. The notion of the slave (and by extension, any African American) as less than human has created great psychological and social problems for succeeding generations of both black and white citizens. Slavery led to a system of inferior housing, schools, health care, and jobs for black people, which persists to this day.

The institution of slavery formally ended in 1863, but the racist ideas born of slavery have persisted. These ideas continue even now to leave deep scars on many African Americans. Today, particularly in the lower-socioeconomic classes, many blacks continue to suffer from the psychological heritage of slavery as well as from active, current discrimination that still prevents them from equal opportunity in many realms of life.” (Shusta, Levine, Wong, Olson, Harris, 2008: 170-71)

The people of color, the African-Americans in America, are still contending for equality under the law and in the eyes of the more populous white people. The black people are still treated as inferiors; they are still being treated as second class citizens. And; if you do not believe what I am telling you, all you have to do is listen to the words being spoken by the likes of Hillary and her ilk, condescending racist words and actions. Why else would she treat Barrack Obama as an inferior? Because that is exactly how she views him, still a slave, still an animal to be subjugated to her plantation master domination. She is the plantation master and Barrack Obama is the runaway slave.

As a firm believer in the first amendment right of free speech, I think you are entitled to your say and I am to mine. Lately Limbaugh and Hannity (and others) are missing the point of Barrack Obama’s key center point and focus of his campaign. And that being hope, that being change! Personally; I cannot endure those criminals AKA Clintons; period. I cannot endure that sack of fecal matter called McCain either. So; where does that leave us, in a quandary? Not necessarily! A vote for Barrack Obama is not a vote for Clinton. A vote for Barrack Obama is not a vote for McCain. Or; you could refuse to vote for anyone, but; what would be the change in that? You could end with Clinton or McCain in the presidential role, then what? Or; you can pimp yourself one time if you are a conservative and vote for Barrack Obama and give the parties time to adjust, time to select reputable candidates and not refuse for choices! The bottom of the garbage can is not the choice of most Americans. And yes; I am one of those angry white people that has had enough! We want change, now!

1. No dumb questions to the candidates on our behalf about diamonds vs. pearls, or boxer shorts vs. briefs. Even if we'd like to know.

Even if we’d like to know? This runs counter to your premise.

2. No questions on our behalf about money, sex, or religion. I know, dears, those are tough ones to leave alone. But do the right thing: honor they audience. Remember how the American people got tired of the Monica Lewinsky story while you media folks were still flogging it to death? If that happens again, ask not for whom the bell of mistrust tolls. It tolls for thee.

I guess the “no money and sex” stories ban means that you can’t ask Rudy Giuliani about using the money of the city of New York to possibly go off and have sex with his mistress. I mean, come on, stick to the politics and policies here people, not gossip!

3. Get the relevant facts and get them right -- but a dollop of context too, please. Don't be afraid to explain, to be serious, to shun meaningless fluff and mayhem. Are you listening, daytime producers for CNN?

So I guess that means no context-free soundbites like “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Bah. Also directly contradicts your next point:

4. Ask tough but relevant questions on our behalf that are not intended simply to provoke a gaffe. It's newsmakers' job to embarrass themselves -- not yours.

No questions on drivers’ licenses for illegals, I suppose (“gotcha” question!), or questioning why a candidate previously supported abortion/gay marriage/tax increases/issue x, and now doesn’t.

5. If a question asked on our behalf elicits an evasive answer, please ask it again, or ask a follow-up. Otherwise you are an accessory to a hoodwinking.

Directly contradictory to the fourth right. Which was contradictory to the third right.

6. If public figures treat you with disrespect (remember President Reagan cupping his ear over the din of a waiting helicopter?) please remind them that you represent us, the people, at least as much as they do -- you are our surrogates in seeking accountable government. Contempt for the press is contempt for us all.

Unelected employees of giant media conglomerates represent the people at least as much as politicians, beholden to a popular vote quite often. Hey, at least when the approval numbers for a President or Congressman are as low as most reporters’ are, the politician can be replaced! Also, many many many people other than elected officials have contempt for the press. Does that mean they hate you too?

7. Ask about things that really matter to us -- including in places like Iran and Somalia. Cover the horse race, sure, but don't be like Lady Godiva, who put everything she had on a horse. It matters who's ahead and who's trailing, but it shouldn't drive out coverage of issues, and it shouldn't drive events.

Whether it should or shouldn’t is up for discussion. The fact is that it does… and that’s not the media’s fault, it’s the people (who you yourself are claiming to represent right now). Witness Mike Huckabee’s meteoric rise with minimal media exposure.

8. Finally, never debase the First Amendment by using it as a shield against criticism. Criticism of the media doesn't abridge freedom of the press -- it is freedom of the press. Get over it. You're not gods. Just guardians of democracy.

I sure as hell hope that Katie Couric is not a guardian of democracy. Because if that’s the case, we’re really in trouble.

The point of this is that progressives in America today seem to think the media can be an enlightened bastion of hope and justice, when that’s impossible. The media will always have their own agenda and, if unchecked, could be dangerous. The best thing evolution of the media in recent times is precisely that it has become more beholden to popular opinion and more accountable for what they say. So even if it leads to stupid questions like “boxers or briefs?”, it’s better than allowing them unchecked free reigns. And the last point is that, if you think the newsmedia’s been corrupted, you dislike American popular opinion in general. Which is fine. But I don’t want the media (or anyone else in a position of power, for that matter) taking a holier-than-thou we-know-better-than-you approach.

Condescension is defined by Websters as "voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior" or as "patronizing attitude or behavior". The second of these definitions is the one that we generally think of. The definition I am interested in here is the first.

I have been preoccupied by the ultimate act of condescension this morning. This act was carried out by one so far above each of us in station, that we can't possibly comprehend the gap. It was carried out on behalf of people at direct enmity with the one who chose to condescend in their favor. The condescender was perfect in every way, free from vice or sin. In this perfection, he condescended to become one of us. This perfect one condescended to take all of our sin onto himself and to suffer and die for us. He condescended to impart his righteousness to us and to give us the gift of his Holy Spirit. He continues to condescend by interceding on our behalf.

How sweet beyond measure is this beautiful condescension.

I have to admit that this article nailed me on the "um" habit.  The message goes along with the Taylor Mali video below on dumbing down our speech, as this is our doing the same in our writing.  So these related posts seem to be a rising call for more original thought in our communications and less filler/rhetoric.

http://www.gawker.com/news/blogs/bad-lingo-blogmedia-clichs-222162.php 

The readers' comments beneath with even more examples made me chuckle, too. [eyeroll] LOL

Cited: Gawker (through Metafilter)

If by “them” you mean minorities such as Jews, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans and other people of Asian descent, then the ongoing national obsession with diversity probably isn’t good. Indeed, that’s why Jian Li, a freshman at Yale, filed a civil-rights complaint against Princeton University for rejecting him. Li had nigh-upon perfect test scores and grades, yet Princeton turned him down. He’ll probably get nowhere with his complaint — he did get into Yale after all — but it shines a light on an uncomfortable reality.

“Theoretically, affirmative action is supposed to take spots away from white applicants and redistribute them to underrepresented minorities,” Li told the Daily Princetonian. “What’s happening is one segment of the minority population is losing places to another segment of minorities, namely Asians to underrepresented minorities.”

Li points to a study conducted by two Princeton academics last year which concluded that if you got rid of racial preferences in higher education, the number of whites admitted to schools would remain fairly constant. However, without racial preferences, Asians would take roughly 80 percent of the positions now allotted to Hispanic and black students.

In other words, there is a quota — though none dare call it that — keeping Asians out of elite schools in numbers disproportionate to their merit. This is the same sort of quota once used to keep Jews out of the Ivy League — not because of their lack of qualifications, but because having too many Jews would change the “feel” of, say, Harvard or Yale. Today, it’s the same thing, only we’ve given that feeling a name: diversity.

The greater irony is that it is far from clear that diversity is good for black students either. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, notes that there is now ample empirical data showing that the supposed benefits of diversity in education are fleeting when real and often are simply nonexistent. Black students admitted to universities above their skill level often do poorly and fail to graduate in high numbers. UCLA law professor Richard Sander found that nearly half of black law students reside in the bottom ten percent of their law-school classes. If they went to schools one notch down, they might do far better.

Kirsanow asks: “Would college administrators continue to mouth platitudes about affirmative action if their students knew that preferential admissions cause black law students to flunk out at two-and-a-half times the rate of whites? Or that black law students are six times less likely to pass the bar? Or that half of black law students never become lawyers?”

But all this misses the point. Today’s diversity doctrine was contrived as a means of making racial preferences permanent. After all, affirmative action was intended as a temporary remedy for the tragic mistreatment of blacks. But as affirmative action drifted into racial preferences, it became constitutionally suspect because racial preferences are by definition discriminatory. If I give extra credit to Joe because he’s black, I’m making things just that much harder for Tom because he’s white.

The brilliance of the diversity doctrine is that it does an end-run around all of this by saying that diversity isn’t so much about helping the underprivileged, it’s about providing a rich educational experience for everyone.

When the University of Michigan’s admissions policies were being reviewed by the Supreme Court, former school president Lee Bollinger explained that diversity was as “as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare” because exposure to people of different hues lies at the core of the educational experience. That’s another way of saying that racial preferences are forever, just like the timeless works of the immortal bard. That business about redressing past discrimination against blacks is no longer the name of the game.

It’s difficult to put into words how condescending this is in that it renders black students into props, show-and-tell objects for the other kids’ educational benefit.

There was a time when condescension, discrimination, arrogant social engineering along racial lines and the like were dubbed racism. And, to paraphrase Shakespeare, racism by any other name still stinks.

C.a.r.d Source: National Review Online