So, I watched this show that my mother suggested from Facebook. I went in with fairly low expectations, which is always a good thing.
I was somewhat impressed by the first episode, a few groups were entertaining and performed quite nicely. In fact, I enjoyed it enough that I wanted to see the next one, even though each episode is an hour and a half long.
Really, though, the "expert" panel of judges was a letdown... They could have been scathing (one of them at least), like Simon on Britain's Got Talent, or something like that. But no, they had praise for every group. And Nicole... don't even get me started, but that woman needs to learn how to gut a performance when it deserves that.
The announcer? All he seemed good for was repeating a bunch of cliches and tag phrases and stating the obvious. Not sure why they need him at all.
While watching the first two episodes, I was rating most of the groups on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being basically impossible to attain, and 1 being... well... we won't go there.
The Whiffenpoofs were the best group, of course. Also the most traditional in style, but whatever. That had nothing to do with my opinion. Almost nothing. The worst were probably Men of Note, and they got eliminated in the first round. So, no problem there.
But tragedy of tragedies, the Whiffenpoofs, for no logical reason whatever, were eliminated in episode two. Seriously, that was a misguided decision.
And, for those of you who haven't seen the show, and if this does not make any sense, I wouldn't strongly recommend it. It is interesting though. It does seem as if it would mostly appeal to the ignorant masses who are led by pop music, however. Nevertheless, it is always interesting to see some truly skillful coordination of singing and sound.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
A most humiliating revelation
It was a sad day for that son of Hoyt blood when he discovered a comment from one sister on his Facebook page:
"wEIrd"
That is all. Of words, no more; of meaning, no greater explanation. But, it did not take him long to discover its import.
Was she correcting his spelling of the word in his wall post: "wierd"? But, how could it be, since he was so certain of that spelling? With doubt increasing in his mind, he explored a new browser tab and entered his own spelling of the disputed adjective into that ever popular and useful dictionary, the Google search engine.
Imagine his emotions when he discovered this caption in the first result to be produced: "Used by people that cannot correctly spell the word 'weird.'" The incredulity, and then the shame! He groaned and threw himself to the ground, dragging his countenance in the dust. From childhood he had been misled! And, to be classed with "people who cannot correctly spell..."!
I perceive now that it was an ill-timed piece of advise for me to note that had he given a greater application to the language arts for his own improvement, he probably would have been spared this incident which occasioned so much remorseful agony. Indeed, he would have been spared the mortifying realization that he, who readily criticized the illiteracy so often found in the utterances of the American tongue, was also guilty of such a simple misuse of language. Needless to say, he did not receive these accurate assertions with an impartiality that I would have hoped of him.
Generally, sage advice is not wasted upon him, but this time I thought it had been. Entirely irregardless of that matter, I thought I would make it known to others so that they might take note and improve their minds by it.
With sincere regards,
Trallferd (JALGT)
"wEIrd"
That is all. Of words, no more; of meaning, no greater explanation. But, it did not take him long to discover its import.
Was she correcting his spelling of the word in his wall post: "wierd"? But, how could it be, since he was so certain of that spelling? With doubt increasing in his mind, he explored a new browser tab and entered his own spelling of the disputed adjective into that ever popular and useful dictionary, the Google search engine.
Imagine his emotions when he discovered this caption in the first result to be produced: "Used by people that cannot correctly spell the word 'weird.'" The incredulity, and then the shame! He groaned and threw himself to the ground, dragging his countenance in the dust. From childhood he had been misled! And, to be classed with "people who cannot correctly spell..."!
I perceive now that it was an ill-timed piece of advise for me to note that had he given a greater application to the language arts for his own improvement, he probably would have been spared this incident which occasioned so much remorseful agony. Indeed, he would have been spared the mortifying realization that he, who readily criticized the illiteracy so often found in the utterances of the American tongue, was also guilty of such a simple misuse of language. Needless to say, he did not receive these accurate assertions with an impartiality that I would have hoped of him.
Generally, sage advice is not wasted upon him, but this time I thought it had been. Entirely irregardless of that matter, I thought I would make it known to others so that they might take note and improve their minds by it.
With sincere regards,
Trallferd (JALGT)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
This guy is kind of awesome.
Talk about discussing the controversial and hot topics--he takes on Linux.
I could not help erupting in laughter when he mentioned wireless drivers.
I could not help erupting in laughter when he mentioned wireless drivers.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Movie Review
So, after recently procuring the two latest Batman movies, I proceeded to watch them both this weekend and give myself a second taste of what they had to offer.
Definitely, they rank high on my list of favorites. (An interesting thing can be observed about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight: They aren't so very much like another superhero series: Spiderman. They strike me as a lot more serious and grown-up than the Spiderman series, sort of like they recognize more of what life is actually like. Perhaps, that's they are more appealing. The action is nearly as good, if not better, and... Bruce Wayne does not have any super powers--further increasing the realism.)
Now, one thing I was particularly keen on observing this round of seeing the two films is that degree to which they form a single entity or are continuous. That subject has plagued the fullness of my approval for the movies, and especially The Dark Knight. I was somewhat disappointed that Dark Knight is so very different than the first one. It seems to take the series down a very different direction. I can think of a couple examples of this observed deviation.
1. They discontinued or changed several characters. Rachel Dawes is the most obvious example of this. Now, far be it from me that I should make such a big deal of their choice of actress for a particular role. But, she is nothing like the first Rachel. But, since this isn't a very easily defended point, I don't think I am going to press the issue a whole lot. I'll just say that she looked and sounded like a regular Carrie Fisher. Perhaps, a stronger point can be made for the fact that there are no flashbacks with Bruce's father. He was such a key figure in Bruce's decisions and thoughts of the first film. Now, it's like he is forgotten.
2. The Dark Knight is so much more... dark. Now, that may seem like a stupid quibble, but one must admit that the characteristic greatly alters the bent started in the first film. Don't get me wrong. The dark atmosphere is a very valuable asset for what the movie does accomplish--delivering a masterpiece of plot and the study of human character.
Upon further reflection after finishing The Dark Knight this evening, I decided that the difference between the aura of the two films is actually very realistic. When you consider the lives of real people, you do not see a consistency in how events play out in their lives or the nature of their environment. You see changes, not just between the triumphs and the failures, but also with the circumstances over which we have no control.
The second Batman movie takes this into account. Perhaps, they did not intend it. But, whatever the case, we see in the second movie, that even while Batman gains a respected although necessarily vicious role (having come from somewhat scummy roots) in the first chapter of the series, he becomes a somewhat ominous character that is causing more pain than happiness in the lives of those around him, whether he intends it or not. Life does not play out like a straight road, or a consistent set of circumstances. It plays out in such a way that we cannot predict to where it will lead us next.
So, in a way, I think I appreciate the Batman movies so much because they teach us a little bit of truth. But, one can push that point only so far. Ultimately, they still form a godless (I mean that in the literal manner, not in the more denouncing way it is usually used.) story. What that means, taking the second movie as an example, is that the cure for chaotic evil is the steady purpose and good that come out of us as humans. In reality, we can only do that because God helps us do it. Because He first did it Himself.
Definitely, they rank high on my list of favorites. (An interesting thing can be observed about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight: They aren't so very much like another superhero series: Spiderman. They strike me as a lot more serious and grown-up than the Spiderman series, sort of like they recognize more of what life is actually like. Perhaps, that's they are more appealing. The action is nearly as good, if not better, and... Bruce Wayne does not have any super powers--further increasing the realism.)
Now, one thing I was particularly keen on observing this round of seeing the two films is that degree to which they form a single entity or are continuous. That subject has plagued the fullness of my approval for the movies, and especially The Dark Knight. I was somewhat disappointed that Dark Knight is so very different than the first one. It seems to take the series down a very different direction. I can think of a couple examples of this observed deviation.
1. They discontinued or changed several characters. Rachel Dawes is the most obvious example of this. Now, far be it from me that I should make such a big deal of their choice of actress for a particular role. But, she is nothing like the first Rachel. But, since this isn't a very easily defended point, I don't think I am going to press the issue a whole lot. I'll just say that she looked and sounded like a regular Carrie Fisher. Perhaps, a stronger point can be made for the fact that there are no flashbacks with Bruce's father. He was such a key figure in Bruce's decisions and thoughts of the first film. Now, it's like he is forgotten.
2. The Dark Knight is so much more... dark. Now, that may seem like a stupid quibble, but one must admit that the characteristic greatly alters the bent started in the first film. Don't get me wrong. The dark atmosphere is a very valuable asset for what the movie does accomplish--delivering a masterpiece of plot and the study of human character.
Upon further reflection after finishing The Dark Knight this evening, I decided that the difference between the aura of the two films is actually very realistic. When you consider the lives of real people, you do not see a consistency in how events play out in their lives or the nature of their environment. You see changes, not just between the triumphs and the failures, but also with the circumstances over which we have no control.
The second Batman movie takes this into account. Perhaps, they did not intend it. But, whatever the case, we see in the second movie, that even while Batman gains a respected although necessarily vicious role (having come from somewhat scummy roots) in the first chapter of the series, he becomes a somewhat ominous character that is causing more pain than happiness in the lives of those around him, whether he intends it or not. Life does not play out like a straight road, or a consistent set of circumstances. It plays out in such a way that we cannot predict to where it will lead us next.
So, in a way, I think I appreciate the Batman movies so much because they teach us a little bit of truth. But, one can push that point only so far. Ultimately, they still form a godless (I mean that in the literal manner, not in the more denouncing way it is usually used.) story. What that means, taking the second movie as an example, is that the cure for chaotic evil is the steady purpose and good that come out of us as humans. In reality, we can only do that because God helps us do it. Because He first did it Himself.
Monday, September 6, 2010
November this year.
This year's elections may prove to be very interesting. There are interesting projections for the results of the elections. And, a fair number of people seem to be already sick of not only liberal policies, but the whole slew of politicians in general. This sounds positive, but I am not overly excited.
Why? We still have political parties! Okay, well maybe that is rather too high of a hope for the outcome of a turnaround in people's minds. But, really... that is what it is going to take. Or, something akin to it. I don't know... maybe candidates being people with public trust and virtue who are asked to rise to the occasion by the people, instead of self-focused political tryouts and status quo-oriented politicians.
Remember the days when it was inappropriate to run a campaign? No, of course not. That was before any of us were born. Do you remember reading about it?
And yes, two hundred years back it wasn't all light and glory. Not only was there corruption and dangerous economic schemes, we also had a lot of blight: some of the worst of which was a loathsome trade and traffic in human beings.
But, getting back to the point... when I scrutinize the arena of our government and the practice of this trade called politics, I come upon with at least two big problems, which, if not fixed, will hinder satisfaction with our role as the voters.(It will hinder my satisfaction, at least.)
1. Long-term service. Oh yes, it's nice that they are willing to serve their country so long--do you wander why?--but really, after a little bit of time in there (maybe even before they get in), they just seem to pickle and sour or start to rot outright. And part of it, I am sure, is the bureaucracy, special interest leverage, and this new devious practice called 'getting bills through.' But, yes, that comes with practice and that beautiful asset--experience.
What if you stuck a fisherman or an engineer or such in a Senator or Representative's seat, gave them minimal staff (maybe none--certainly not any with any experience on Capitol Hill or as lawyers), and swore them in to perform their duties as outlined in the Constitution (you know, that document that nobody reads anymore). Imagine also that this person was elected knowing he would only be able to serve one term--the people of his district/state were that fickle. What would happen? Think about it for a few minutes.
I quiver to think what would happen.
I guess that is one of the best ways I can illustrate the problem of long-term service. Needless to say, I will be giving the incumbent candidates this election cycle automatic doubt--unless there is really good reason to hedge that doubt.
2. Political parties are perhaps one of the greatest dangers to our governance of any malady that can beset it. I think President Washington warned about the rise of political parties in his farewell address (but I really need to double check that, and read the rest of it anyway).
The point is that political parties are one of the best ways to throw a wrench into the spokes our self-governing process--but such a malleable and slowing working wrench that we don't notice its insidious results. Do we wonder why elected officials listen more to their fund-raising buddies and political clubs than the people who voted them up there on their word to represent them?
Do we get tired of how choosing our leaders means tallying up the number we need to have to own the majority? And, why making laws for our nation means lining up the two sides for a political duel where, if you're not on one side, your not even in?
Do we notice that Republican conventions (I am just using them as an example because I have had some familiarity with this party's conventions. Feel free to fill me in on the way Democratic, or another party's, conventions go if they don't follow this paradigm.) are rallies for glorifying our wonderful party values, agenda, and mediocre candidates, when maybe, for once, we would just like more real discussion over the issues or not have to wonder why we can't just vote for the person who actually lines up the most with our convictions?
I could probably go on. I just wanted to emphasize how annoying, frustrating, and downright dangerous political parties are for leadership selection. Who ever thought they were necessary? Rather, I think they are the natural byproducts of a vicious competition for gaining power.
So, yes, this year's elections will be a good opportunity to use the political voice--something I have hardly yet been able to do. But, no... barring something akin to a breakdown of our entire political process, I don't see dramatic improvement coming out of it.
Why? We still have political parties! Okay, well maybe that is rather too high of a hope for the outcome of a turnaround in people's minds. But, really... that is what it is going to take. Or, something akin to it. I don't know... maybe candidates being people with public trust and virtue who are asked to rise to the occasion by the people, instead of self-focused political tryouts and status quo-oriented politicians.
Remember the days when it was inappropriate to run a campaign? No, of course not. That was before any of us were born. Do you remember reading about it?
And yes, two hundred years back it wasn't all light and glory. Not only was there corruption and dangerous economic schemes, we also had a lot of blight: some of the worst of which was a loathsome trade and traffic in human beings.
But, getting back to the point... when I scrutinize the arena of our government and the practice of this trade called politics, I come upon with at least two big problems, which, if not fixed, will hinder satisfaction with our role as the voters.(It will hinder my satisfaction, at least.)
1. Long-term service. Oh yes, it's nice that they are willing to serve their country so long--do you wander why?--but really, after a little bit of time in there (maybe even before they get in), they just seem to pickle and sour or start to rot outright. And part of it, I am sure, is the bureaucracy, special interest leverage, and this new devious practice called 'getting bills through.' But, yes, that comes with practice and that beautiful asset--experience.
What if you stuck a fisherman or an engineer or such in a Senator or Representative's seat, gave them minimal staff (maybe none--certainly not any with any experience on Capitol Hill or as lawyers), and swore them in to perform their duties as outlined in the Constitution (you know, that document that nobody reads anymore). Imagine also that this person was elected knowing he would only be able to serve one term--the people of his district/state were that fickle. What would happen? Think about it for a few minutes.
I quiver to think what would happen.
I guess that is one of the best ways I can illustrate the problem of long-term service. Needless to say, I will be giving the incumbent candidates this election cycle automatic doubt--unless there is really good reason to hedge that doubt.
2. Political parties are perhaps one of the greatest dangers to our governance of any malady that can beset it. I think President Washington warned about the rise of political parties in his farewell address (but I really need to double check that, and read the rest of it anyway).
The point is that political parties are one of the best ways to throw a wrench into the spokes our self-governing process--but such a malleable and slowing working wrench that we don't notice its insidious results. Do we wonder why elected officials listen more to their fund-raising buddies and political clubs than the people who voted them up there on their word to represent them?
Do we get tired of how choosing our leaders means tallying up the number we need to have to own the majority? And, why making laws for our nation means lining up the two sides for a political duel where, if you're not on one side, your not even in?
Do we notice that Republican conventions (I am just using them as an example because I have had some familiarity with this party's conventions. Feel free to fill me in on the way Democratic, or another party's, conventions go if they don't follow this paradigm.) are rallies for glorifying our wonderful party values, agenda, and mediocre candidates, when maybe, for once, we would just like more real discussion over the issues or not have to wonder why we can't just vote for the person who actually lines up the most with our convictions?
I could probably go on. I just wanted to emphasize how annoying, frustrating, and downright dangerous political parties are for leadership selection. Who ever thought they were necessary? Rather, I think they are the natural byproducts of a vicious competition for gaining power.
So, yes, this year's elections will be a good opportunity to use the political voice--something I have hardly yet been able to do. But, no... barring something akin to a breakdown of our entire political process, I don't see dramatic improvement coming out of it.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Okay, so I am impressed
with this article.
He has ten reasons, but this one (number 8) was the one of most poignant interest to me:
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
I'm not going to start on a rant against Obama, or even avid praise of Nile Gardiner. But, I'll say this.
One of the most striking things (to me) about Obama's role in the presidency has been his failure to act like a leader. He talks (a lot) to these people and those people, about this thing and that thing. He talks like every nation, race, religion, sect, foreign opinion is equally right and deserving of gratifying attention. It's like he is trying to hold his hands out to everyone and appease them all. The result may be that everyone will hate him. When you try to please everyone, your friends feel betrayed and your enemies no longer respect you.
While many people disliked the decisions of George W. Bush, at least he made them and stuck by them. (He changed some in his later years, but that's a different story.) He was a leader.
He has ten reasons, but this one (number 8) was the one of most poignant interest to me:
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
I'm not going to start on a rant against Obama, or even avid praise of Nile Gardiner. But, I'll say this.
One of the most striking things (to me) about Obama's role in the presidency has been his failure to act like a leader. He talks (a lot) to these people and those people, about this thing and that thing. He talks like every nation, race, religion, sect, foreign opinion is equally right and deserving of gratifying attention. It's like he is trying to hold his hands out to everyone and appease them all. The result may be that everyone will hate him. When you try to please everyone, your friends feel betrayed and your enemies no longer respect you.
While many people disliked the decisions of George W. Bush, at least he made them and stuck by them. (He changed some in his later years, but that's a different story.) He was a leader.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
An Exercise in Story Telling
As Carolyn, Ethan, and I were riding back from the Hoyt reunion in Jason's car, I decided to do an activity with them that involved writing a story together. Starting it out, I wrote one paragraph and then handed it to Carolyn, who wrote another. She passed it to Ethan, and then he, in turn, passed it my way and we made another round. This was the result:
Mousas was a Villanese rat, simple, yet clever. He lived under the wooden floor of a house set on a hill. The life he led was not very complicated. His main occupations were finding his daily food, avoiding the pathetic attempts of his human neighbors to trap and poison him, and leaving a confusing trail for his only real predator, the people's dog.
One of his favorite pastimes was to use his spare time to take long walks. These walks took him down the hill into the fields below, crisscrossed by occasional irrigation ditches. Mousas did not always return from these strolls with something worth saving, but when he did, his talents enabled him to make useful inventions and contraptions, which saved him from some of his daily efforts.
One day, when he was walking along, he saw an animal by one of the irrigation ditches. It was a snake. It saw him before he saw it. It rushed over at him at top speed.
To his horror, Mousas was watching a vicious reptile come at him. Although the scaly beast was only about twice his size, the large rat was nevertheless truly surprised at this new enemy. Not only did he have to mentally add to his list of roving threats, but also he had to develop and implement a defense strategy in a matter of a second or two. Quickly noting the features of the snake so that he could avoid such a creature in the future, Mousas simultaneously developed a plan to defend himself, carefully noting the snake's approach velocity, the wind speed, and the air's humidity.
He pulled from the pack on his back a rope, something which he was, luckily, never without. Even more luckily, the rope had a slip-knot in it already. Using his rapidly made calculations, he lassoed shut the snake's comparatively large jaws. Pulling with the strength that a life-threatening situation can give, Mousas leaped into the flowing current of the ditch, pulling the creature in after. Unfortunately, this sudden strength took little time to be spent, and Mousas found himself in a worse predicament than before, now being in danger of drowning as well.
He was switching gears to swimming when he saw a four-foot pike rushing at him. Quickly, he pulled out his fully automatic assault rifle with water-vision goggles and scope. He stitched the pike across the stomach and swam ashore.
The danger past, our hero dragged his soaked body out of the water and up onto the ditch's muddy bank. He sighed a great sigh, mentally running through the particulars of his fearful adventure. Yes, songs would be sung about this one day. “But, in the meantime”, thought the rat, “it was all in a day's work, and life must go on.” Using his assault rifle as a crutch, he hauled himself upright, unaware that the ribbon hanging down from his neck was stuck under the butt of his firearm. Pulled tight, the ribbon loosened and came off his neck, causing his head to drop to the ground. In this manner, the life of Mousas the Villanese rat ended.
Mousas was a Villanese rat, simple, yet clever. He lived under the wooden floor of a house set on a hill. The life he led was not very complicated. His main occupations were finding his daily food, avoiding the pathetic attempts of his human neighbors to trap and poison him, and leaving a confusing trail for his only real predator, the people's dog.
One of his favorite pastimes was to use his spare time to take long walks. These walks took him down the hill into the fields below, crisscrossed by occasional irrigation ditches. Mousas did not always return from these strolls with something worth saving, but when he did, his talents enabled him to make useful inventions and contraptions, which saved him from some of his daily efforts.
One day, when he was walking along, he saw an animal by one of the irrigation ditches. It was a snake. It saw him before he saw it. It rushed over at him at top speed.
To his horror, Mousas was watching a vicious reptile come at him. Although the scaly beast was only about twice his size, the large rat was nevertheless truly surprised at this new enemy. Not only did he have to mentally add to his list of roving threats, but also he had to develop and implement a defense strategy in a matter of a second or two. Quickly noting the features of the snake so that he could avoid such a creature in the future, Mousas simultaneously developed a plan to defend himself, carefully noting the snake's approach velocity, the wind speed, and the air's humidity.
He pulled from the pack on his back a rope, something which he was, luckily, never without. Even more luckily, the rope had a slip-knot in it already. Using his rapidly made calculations, he lassoed shut the snake's comparatively large jaws. Pulling with the strength that a life-threatening situation can give, Mousas leaped into the flowing current of the ditch, pulling the creature in after. Unfortunately, this sudden strength took little time to be spent, and Mousas found himself in a worse predicament than before, now being in danger of drowning as well.
He was switching gears to swimming when he saw a four-foot pike rushing at him. Quickly, he pulled out his fully automatic assault rifle with water-vision goggles and scope. He stitched the pike across the stomach and swam ashore.
The danger past, our hero dragged his soaked body out of the water and up onto the ditch's muddy bank. He sighed a great sigh, mentally running through the particulars of his fearful adventure. Yes, songs would be sung about this one day. “But, in the meantime”, thought the rat, “it was all in a day's work, and life must go on.” Using his assault rifle as a crutch, he hauled himself upright, unaware that the ribbon hanging down from his neck was stuck under the butt of his firearm. Pulled tight, the ribbon loosened and came off his neck, causing his head to drop to the ground. In this manner, the life of Mousas the Villanese rat ended.
Monday, July 19, 2010
I've always been rather stalwart against illegal immigration...
but, this video is rather hard to advocate.
In fact, I think it is insulting.
But, you're welcome to disagree if you like.
In fact, I think it is insulting.
But, you're welcome to disagree if you like.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Entertained.
Designing your computer on NewEgg is nearly as fun as doing it for real. You haven't made your choice yet, so you're options aren't closed. You haven't been faced with the bill yet, so you don't have qualms about looking at the name brand merchandise. What's not to love?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
What has happened to Pelosi?
If Pelosi is talking like this, I will wonder if her party has any chance in the fall. And, I may be even more surprised if people do not wonder out loud about Obama's integrity.
I mean you don't just open the door for your opponent to find out well-kept secrets by acknowledging something exists there. Maybe, it's a new strategy. Be direct, be bold, and stop them in their tracks. Or, maybe she thinks people aren't suspicious yet.
"'Subpoenas and investigations'"? Oh no! Don't even mention the idea. What would your political opponents do that for?
It is possible that many a Republican has refrained because they do not have the majority. I would like to believe it (and yet, it would probably do little for my opinion of their allegiance to truth and justice), but I kind of doubt it...
I mean you don't just open the door for your opponent to find out well-kept secrets by acknowledging something exists there. Maybe, it's a new strategy. Be direct, be bold, and stop them in their tracks. Or, maybe she thinks people aren't suspicious yet.
"'Subpoenas and investigations'"? Oh no! Don't even mention the idea. What would your political opponents do that for?
It is possible that many a Republican has refrained because they do not have the majority. I would like to believe it (and yet, it would probably do little for my opinion of their allegiance to truth and justice), but I kind of doubt it...
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Move slowly and wait for the turtles.
This is something else.
Okay, its bad enough that in Iowa, you aren't supposed to kill bats that you find sharing your residence with you.
And, yeah, its bad enough that in Colorado you have to have a bear visit you twice before you can take lethal action.
But turtles? Is anybody aware how slow those things move?
While I like to think I am no animal lover (a tree hugger, but with an eye instead on anything from cute, furry creatures to ugly, hide-your-face beasts), reckless abandon is another kind of animal treatment. We should care about the Creation that has been put under our dominion. Indeed, turtles are so cute... who would want to hit one anyway. But, sometimes, bureaucracy amazes me to no end... (and the states' version is more funny, partly because it is less agonizing)
If anything, this policy is going to bring a whole new meaning to the idea of falling asleep at the wheel.
Okay, its bad enough that in Iowa, you aren't supposed to kill bats that you find sharing your residence with you.
And, yeah, its bad enough that in Colorado you have to have a bear visit you twice before you can take lethal action.
But turtles? Is anybody aware how slow those things move?
While I like to think I am no animal lover (a tree hugger, but with an eye instead on anything from cute, furry creatures to ugly, hide-your-face beasts), reckless abandon is another kind of animal treatment. We should care about the Creation that has been put under our dominion. Indeed, turtles are so cute... who would want to hit one anyway. But, sometimes, bureaucracy amazes me to no end... (and the states' version is more funny, partly because it is less agonizing)
If anything, this policy is going to bring a whole new meaning to the idea of falling asleep at the wheel.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Elections.... bah!
So, as the primaries approach in Iowa, I thought I would take up on one of my favorite agenda topics: voting.
...
Before everybody thinks they know what I am going to say, let me say this, "Relax, I'm not going partisan today."
When I think of voting (and all its attendant woes, both in choice and influence), I recall some peoples' conclusions in 2008 when we (supposedly) had such bad choices. In such a situation--when people assert their choice to be only the lesser of two evils--they start to get frustrated with the whole idea of voting and would rather forgo it. I can hardly tell you what I feel when I hear of this reaction.
But, I will keep myself under control.
Practically needless to say, there are never only two choices in any election. (However, the assumption is just one more reason why I loath the two party system.) Usually, there are a handful of minor parties with candidates who often may capture our ideas better but who are also so highly unlikely to win, we think it is unwise to vote for them or that it is a vote for the guy we really want to stop from winning.
Not only that, there are also all those independents the media keeps trumping up (by alternately almost never mentioning the minor party candidates).
Besides, one can always enter an alternate name in the ballot--someone who is not even on the list. You could vote for Stephen Hawking, Rick Warren, George Clooney, Jason the Awesome... the possibilities are endless.
Yes, there is no excuse for complaining that there is no one to vote for.
So, please don't let me hear this year, in two years, or any time, that there is no point in voting because of the choices. Actually, I believe (and dare to express this belief) that it is the duty of every eligible American citizen to vote.
I realize that the primaries are only just now coming on us. Things are not quite that desperate yet (assuming they ever are to begin with). Perhaps, though, if people vote now in the primaries, they might have some choices in the fall.
Worth thinking about.
Maybe next time, I should talk about the difference between a smart vote and a needing-more-thought vote. Heh heh.
...
Before everybody thinks they know what I am going to say, let me say this, "Relax, I'm not going partisan today."
When I think of voting (and all its attendant woes, both in choice and influence), I recall some peoples' conclusions in 2008 when we (supposedly) had such bad choices. In such a situation--when people assert their choice to be only the lesser of two evils--they start to get frustrated with the whole idea of voting and would rather forgo it. I can hardly tell you what I feel when I hear of this reaction.
But, I will keep myself under control.
Practically needless to say, there are never only two choices in any election. (However, the assumption is just one more reason why I loath the two party system.) Usually, there are a handful of minor parties with candidates who often may capture our ideas better but who are also so highly unlikely to win, we think it is unwise to vote for them or that it is a vote for the guy we really want to stop from winning.
Not only that, there are also all those independents the media keeps trumping up (by alternately almost never mentioning the minor party candidates).
Besides, one can always enter an alternate name in the ballot--someone who is not even on the list. You could vote for Stephen Hawking, Rick Warren, George Clooney, Jason the Awesome... the possibilities are endless.
Yes, there is no excuse for complaining that there is no one to vote for.
So, please don't let me hear this year, in two years, or any time, that there is no point in voting because of the choices. Actually, I believe (and dare to express this belief) that it is the duty of every eligible American citizen to vote.
I realize that the primaries are only just now coming on us. Things are not quite that desperate yet (assuming they ever are to begin with). Perhaps, though, if people vote now in the primaries, they might have some choices in the fall.
Worth thinking about.
Maybe next time, I should talk about the difference between a smart vote and a needing-more-thought vote. Heh heh.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Let me introduce a colleague.
In case any of you were wondering what the deal was with Trallferd and whether I had finally lost my mind...
Trallferd is a troll. A little green troll. We share similar beliefs, and if I may say so myself, get along fairly well. He is my colleague and scribe. Thus, each post is in his name. Nevertheless, most of the time, I am the author. But, only most of the time...
Trallferd is a troll. A little green troll. We share similar beliefs, and if I may say so myself, get along fairly well. He is my colleague and scribe. Thus, each post is in his name. Nevertheless, most of the time, I am the author. But, only most of the time...
Monday, May 31, 2010
So this is how it has come...
Another Hoyt blogger.
Yes. But, bear in mind, my readers, that I intend to delve into new depths and blaze new paths in the science of blogging.
Perhaps, several from my family will recall that I had often talked about getting a blog. They will also recall that I intended to use it for different purposes (different, that is, than what everybody else in my family has used it for). Yes, what is the good of running a blog, when you can't use it for discussion...
argument...
intellectual exploration...
and yes, everyone's favorite... propaganda.
Yes. But, bear in mind, my readers, that I intend to delve into new depths and blaze new paths in the science of blogging.
Perhaps, several from my family will recall that I had often talked about getting a blog. They will also recall that I intended to use it for different purposes (different, that is, than what everybody else in my family has used it for). Yes, what is the good of running a blog, when you can't use it for discussion...
argument...
intellectual exploration...
and yes, everyone's favorite... propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)