State of the Union

The one time a year I make myself watch that... I have no word sufficient to describe him, but you know whom I'm talking about. I feel bad for my neighbors, who have small children and with whom I share a wall, because every year I know they've gotta hear me screaming obscenities at the television as I watch him spew his crap and lie to the nation and to the world.

This year I'm looking at this speech as an opportunity to practice patience. I'm going to sit here and watch him and refrain from swearing, refrain from screaming. That doesn't mean it won't take quite a bit of restraint, but getting angry is ultimately just damaging to myself, no matter how much I want to smack that smug, grinning, i-can't-believe-i'm-getting-away-with-this expression right off his face.

Update:
Ok...watching...almost yelled when he asked that the so-called Patriot Act be reauthorized.

Update 2:
Whoa. That was close. I nearly clamped my hand over my mouth to stop myself from screaming at thim when he asked that his ridiculous insane greedy bastard taxcuts for the rich be made permanent. It's getting hard now, because he's gotten to the issues that one side (the WRONG side) of the aisle stands up and applauds for and the right, ie. "correct", side stays seated for.)

Update 3:
When he talks about "putting aside partisan poltics," he means "Do it my way."

Update 4:
I totally agree with him about the oil addiction. I don't believe that he means a word he's saying, but I'm impressed that he's at least saying it. Still, a little odd coming from someone who's personally responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Iraq from an illegal war fought entirely for oil.

Update 5:
Human... animal... hybrids... I... see....

Update 6:
"Sanctity of life" ??!! I repeat: personally responsible for te deaths of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. Plus the death penalties he's responsible for when he was governor of Texas.

Update 7:
Oh thank heaven it's finally over. I'm going to go eat some chocolate.

Fishy Quote #13

"I didn't know how unhappy i was until Madison Avenue told me."

Passion Fruit Altoids

Three words. Passion Fruit Altoids. Or two words (Passionfruit altoids) if you prefer. Either way, it's been a most difficult item for me to acquire, and in fact is the last major Altoids tin missing from my otherwise-nearly-complete collection. Plus I'm a huge passion fruit fan. I got them on ebay. 3 Tins, actually. I thought they were the same as the other sours tins, but they have a larger diameter and they're not quite as tall. They hold 2.3oz instead of the 1.76oz in a normal sours tin. Apparently they were released last year for Valentine's Day (there's a big heart on the tin, and they are PASSION fruit, after all), and given the timing of my acquisition, it may be that they've released them again this year (although not in any of the stores that I've been in yet).

I'll be honest. i'm not impressed. Like I said, i'm a passionfruit fan, and although the taste is definitely there, and passion fruit certainly is sour by nature, these candies just don't do it for me. Still, it's great to be able to finally add the tin to my collection.

update: these have grown on me considerably. especially after a 2 hour car ride where they were my only caloric intake. And fishy likes them even more than the mango ones.

Hateful and Offensive

You'll remember that the previous entry ended with the sentence, "Why is it that describing a negative phenomenon in accurate terms shows a lack of neutrality?" The discussion continues after a related incident...

A wikipedian expressed concern today that the aforementioned Straight Pride article in wikipedia is linked from the Gay Pride article. Said person thought that the link should be deleted:

"I feel it should be removed until the Straight pride article is cleaned up to be less hateful and offensive. For example, there's a sentence in it that says "Most supporters of Straight pride feel that homosexuals are inferior in some way to heterosexuals." Unsourced and untrue! Gay pride certainly does not make any such absurd assertions."

"Hateful and Offensive," he says.

This is interesting for so many reasons. First of all, judging from this user's wikipedia page, he is most likely both gay and fairly liberal, so his statement is not based on a homophobic bias, as you might otherwise suspect. Why would such a person defend homophobes against accurate accusations of homophobia?

Second, read his argument again. He claims that straight pride advocates don't claim to be superior simply because gay pride advocates don't claim to be superior. One has nothing to do with the other (as I responded on the relevant Talk page)!

This is a fault that many liberals (myself included, at times) have, usually resulting from a desire to be fair. They go so far out of their way to be unbiased and impartial that they end up overcompensating and defending the very people who have no qualms whatsoever about harboring rather severe biases against the liberals defending them. Wake up and smell the coffee, people! Look who's running the country and the world today. Look what they're doing to us! Stop defending them and start spreading the truth for a change!

POV

Something I've seen happen quite a bit in Wikipedia is that people interpret any statement that can be perceived as "negative" as bias. In one version of the Michael Jackson article, it read:

"Michael Joseph Jackson'', also known as ''The King of Pop'' and ''Wacko Jacko''...

I changed it so that it read:

"Michael Joseph Jackson'', also known as ''The King of Pop'' and (disparagingly) as ''Wacko Jacko''...

Soon after that, someone changed it back, claiming that they "removed POV" (point of view).

Wikipedia aims at neutrality, and personal point of view does not belong in its articles. This is an admirable goal. But I don't think that the above counts as POV. "Wacko Jacko" is in fact a disparaging term. It is not positive, it is not neutral. His friends do not call him Wacko Jacko. "Hey, Wacko Jacko! Mary and I are going to the movie. Wanna come?" To simply say that he is "also known as Wacko Jacko" implies some degree of neutrality, I think. Compare the two items below:

1. George W. Bush, also known as "Dubya"...
2. George W. Bush, also known as "that asshole"...

The first example simply lists a nickname, neutral in every way. Not so in the second case. It would not show bias or POV to refer the words "that asshole" as "disparaging," even if he were in fact referred to that way by people. In fact, it is the people who refer to the president as "that asshole," and to Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko" who are showing bias.

This issue has arisen more recently with the "Straight Pride" article. It begins:

A controversial topic, Straight pride arose as a reaction to and in protest of the Gay Pride movement. Advocates of Straight Pride believe that the "Gay Pride" movement promotes inequality, animosity, and division in society by setting apart gay people as a "special" group. It manifests primarily as marches or rallies.

It goes on from there (and you should read it; it's short), and includes the paragraph:

"Straight pride" rejects the message that gays and lesbians are discriminated against by society or that they lack the same rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do. Most "Straight Pride" adovcates believe that homosexuality is inferior in some manner to heterosexuality. Because the Straight Pride has the appearance of promoting a group (heterosexuals) who do not lack civil rights and who are not discriminated against, one widely-held view is that Straight Pride is a discriminatory movement analagous to White Pride.

The article ends with a list of citations spanning 15 year supporting the notion that "Straight Pride" is in fact an anti-gay movement.

All of the above is true, but someone recently tagged the article with the POV-check template, which adds an official message at the top stating, "This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy." and stated, "This article is clearly biased," on the Talk page. I ask you, why is it that describing a negative phenomenon in accurate terms shows a lack of neutrality?

Verizon Goth Boy

Holy crap! I just saw a new Verizon wireless commercial that had this really cute--ok, downright HOT--goth boy in it. He totally reminds me of my own goth days (sigh... was I ever that young?) from my early days of college, going clubbing with Chris and Steve at Revival and at Pulsations. (Chris was a hot goth boy, too. Where is he these days, anyway?) Has anybody else seen this commercial? Have a video or screen capture? Know who Hot Goth Boy is?

Love Monkey

So i'm watching this tv show called Love Monkey. Stars the guy from Ed who played Ed. It's about this music exec/talent scout (i can't tell which, exactly) who's great with music, but not so good with relationships. At first, the show started and it was all about music and plot, and I'm loving it. Then, all of a sudden, the plot disappears and it's all about relationships and character development, to the point where you need a vagina just to watch the crap. And I'm about to turn the channel, when it goes back to the cool music stuff, so I start watching again, and I realize they've skipped some important plot stuff, or at least shortcutted some of it to make time for the relationship crap.

And it finally hits me what this show is about. They made this show for women to watch with their boyfriends. But instead of appealing equally to them both (which would be the preferable way to go), each person will like half and hate the other half. They've made a show that's half-crap. Half-crap doesn't last. It's gotta make up its mind and go guy or go girl.

One interesting twist that has piqued my interest is the hot ex-baseball star friend of "Ed"'s who is secretly gay. (Gays are all the rage on chick-shows.) But even here, look what they did. They took a character who's an athletic baseball star (to make the boyfriends happy) but who is also gay (to make the girls happy). They can't even make up their mind on a character-by-character basis!

TvDetective Quote #10

Itchy: Nobody ever died from an erection.
TvD: Thank you! My pussy is constantly wet, and am I dead?? No!

Truely, she deserves her own chapter in Barlett's.

Fishy Quote #12

Itchy: I get lonely at times, don't you?
Fishy: [thoughtful pause] I get bored.

Fishy Quote #11

"Ignorance is bliss until it comes back to bite you in the ass. But until then, hey! No worries!"

The best part was that he said this with no hint of irony. He was dead serious.