RAWbservations |
||||
| "You've run out of cigarettes, and even roses gotta die" -Stoney LaRue | ||||
|
Some like it RAW! R. Alex Whitlock is the primary author of the site. He is a freelance writer presently working on his second novel and working a solo IT position for an oil services company in the Houston area. -- Lovely Assistant Poster Girl helps RAW out with posts from time to time. She is a college student also based out of Houston, Texas. CONTACT US!
Archives
|
Friday, January 31, 2003
LETTERS TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ THIS BLOG To The Guy Who Was At The Boland Show And Is Probably Someone I Should Recognize But If I Ever Did I Disavow It And Have Lost All Respect For Said Person I Should Probably Know, Are you bloody blind? I mean, I don't mean to be mean here, but damn, get a clue, buddy. She doesn't dig you! If you would have realized that as early as I did, you would have saved yourself a hell of a lot of trouble. That laughter when you were flirting with her? That wasn't flirtatious laughter. That was nervous laughter. Not even nervous like "Ohmigod I can't believe the guy who was on stage with Jason Boland is talking to me" nervous, but rather "If I laugh I might not pee in my pants cause I'm so afraid of this guy" laughter. Between the numerous times she turned away from you to talk to someone, anyone, else and the way she managed to dance with everyone (male or female) but you, I am uncertain as to how there might have been mixed signals. And no, that stunt you pulled by picking up another girl just so you could not look pathetic didn't work. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing this if it wasn't for that cause you really screwed her over. So the lesson of the day: Find a chick that digs you. Sincerely, Author of the blog that you do not read -30- Thursday, January 30, 2003
THE GRAY TOLL OF THE PRESIDENCY My hair is in the process of changing from blond to brown. This does not mean that every strand of hair is uniformly blondish brown. Rather, it means that I have blond hairs, brown hairs, and numerous in between. What I find interesting is how different my hair looks in different situations. For instance, as noted below, when it's short it's more blond, as it grows longer it darkens. Of course, lighting plays an even bigger roll. People who look at the picture to the left would say "That's reddish brown" and the second "blond, for the most part" when long or short it's neither brown nor blond and there is no red whatsoever. What's interesting is that small things such as how I comb it make a difference. Which hairs are exposed determined the color. (for what it's worth, my interest in my hair color is based on an ongoing debate with my friend Silk, who assures me that it is unquestionably "dark brown.") Liberals are digging into George W. Bush because he is allegedly coloring his hair. The proof is in two pictures, one from November where it's gray, the other from a day or two back and it's brown. You don't have to look at the pictures too hard to see that the lighting is quite different. Jane Galt: Well, my first thought was "He's dying his hair gray?" Because I'd just watched him on the State of the Union, and I recalled it as pretty, y'know, gray. My roommate and I watched the SotU and I can't remember who commented first, but we were in such agreement that it didn't matter. We both noticed how much President Bush has aged in the last two years. In controlled lighting, his hair was graying. It's not completely gray, but it's obviously in (very fast) transition. As his hair turns gray (much like mine turning brown), it means that he has gray hairs, brown hairs, and some in between. Therefore, depending on the lighting, the length, the comb, and how is hair is feeling on any given day, there's going to be some variation. Jane helpfully links up to a number of pictures in which Bush's hair looks quite gray. More gray, in fact, than in the "gray hair" picture that the original poster, Chris Something, uses. Drudge even commented on his hair color recently, pointing out that it's becoming gray. It's not unusual for the Presidency to do that. Clinton's transition to gray didn't take long and by the end, it was quite apparent that he'd gone from one of the youngest looking presidents into an old man. Bush, about the same age as Clinton (and will thus leave office older than Clinton was) is likely in for the same makeover. -30-
It was something I meant to comment on, but I wanted a picture to accompany it, which I just now got off the camera. I am just now beginning to recognize myself in the mirror. You can't see the difference in hair length or color so well, but the shorter my hair is, the blonder. -30- GIA PUNKARELLI NEVER TOOK ADVICE* It's amazing how a few misheard words can totally change a song. I was listening to what I thought was an unfamiliar Jackopierce song. This is what I thought I heard: "It's 5:58, I can't be late Then the song suddenly lead into the familiar song "Vineyard" which was not some abstract protest song (which is what it was sounding like prior to The Vineyard). Turns out it was a live version of Vineyard with a little intro that isn't in the recorded version. So I rewound and listened again, this time catching the actual words: "It's 5:58, I can't be late *- "... she a punk who rarely ever took advice" -Verve Pipe -30- THOSE ANNOYING MP3 FILE TAGS A while back I complained about the ID3v2 file tags attached to MP3's. They're annoying because the conversion from ID3v1 to ID3v2 was problem-ridden and required a LOT of user work in order to correct all the problems (and for very little in return). Apparently, according to an old Wired article, there are some more security problems with those little buggers. -30- IF I HAD 4,500 EUROS FOR EVERY TIME SOMEONE CALLED ME UGLY... I might not have minded so much going to the snotty high school that I did. But alas, Clear Lake is not Bucharest. [Thanks to Tony for the heads up.] -30- YOU KNOW, THAT WORD, THAT FOUR-LETTER ONE THAT STARTS WITH... Arthur Silber echoes my previously unexpressed thoughts on newspaper self-censorship: In case you can't figure it out, the ellipses are for the word FAGS. Fags. Good lord. This isn't the point I started this post to make, but it just occurred to me: if you're going to report an incident, REPORT IT. All this political correctness is way past the point of being ridiculous. If the person said FAG, use the word FAG. If he said NIGGER, use the word NIGGER. If we don't know what they said, how the hell are we supposed to evaluate it? And for God's sake, don't make us guess when we're reading the newspaper. Report what the person said! How hard is that? Be the word either of the above, or any other four letter word in which the word used is important, newspapers do us no favors by editing it out. If someone was shot after yelling an ethnic slur, I want to know what the ethnic slur was. If he was "taunting him" with cuss words and the cuss words underscore the nature of the taunting, say the goddamn words. I know, I know, plugging the ears of the children, but come on. They know the words. They know how they're not supposed to use them and, in the case of articles like this, it's obvious that they are being used offensively. Of course, that might make them use it when they want to be offensive... but you know what? They're going to anyway. In a similar note, Susanna reports that a newspaper has changed its policy so that when they reference the Washington Redskins, they will not actually say the word "Redskins" because it's derogatory against the tribes. Now, for what it's worth, I do think the Redskins should change their mascot. I don't believe that every Indian-related mascot everywhere should be (could someone please tell me how a Brave, which is a word synonymous with courage, can be offensive in respect to the tribes?), but Redskins is the most suspect and I don't believe that it's generally a good idea to have mascots that offend large numbers of people. I don't believe they should be forced to change it, but I believe if they can change the Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards, they can make the Washington Redskins the Washington Warriors and replace the Indian with a Spartan or something. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. That being said, this policy is moronic! Now, they are completely within their rights to have a moronic policy, but it's moronic. If Washington calls themselves the Chinks or the Wetbacks or the Micks, that's between the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Irish and the franchise. It is not the job of the newspaper to pick up the fight for them. Fighting Whities? I don't care, but if I did it's my job to organize a boycott (if they were more than an intramural team, that is) or get them to change their name. The Lincoln Journal-Star even phrases it as joining ranks with an advocacy group. That's objectivity? Is that even a goal anymore? In any case, if a teach calls themselves the Honkeys or Rednecks, it is the newspaper's job to refer to the team as such. If a Public Enemy-eque band chooses to go by the name Kill All White People, then the music critics should refer to them as such, not KAWP or That Band With The Offensive Name. Report the objections to those names, sure, but do not join them in protest. On a last note: Finally, we've decided to drop the stereotypical modifier "Fighting" when used with team nicknames such as Fighting Sioux or Fighting Illini. No word yet on the Fighting Irish... -30- ENGLE DIDN'T INVENT CONDESCENSION, HE JUST MAKES IT MORE OBNOXIOUS Spinster Lee Ann Morawski rips into Matthew Engle's latest piece on how the Superbowl reflects American character. I thought about commenting on it when I followed her link to it, but there isn't any way I could do it any more beautifully than she does. (She doesn't have archiving, so search for "Engle") -30- GOO-GOO FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT Don't get me wrong, I'd vote against him, but I'd almost feel bad about doing so. Those who wonder if there are "any good liberals left" with Wellstone's tragic death should keep Feingold in mind. He's not quite as liberal and not nearly as professorial, but even when I've disagreed with him I've always believed he was sincere. I believe McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional and bad law, but I am inclined to be more trustful of Feingold's motives than McCain's. Articles like this one, which my friend Mike sent me this morning, remind me why: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) yesterday (Jan. 28) reintroduced his Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which he says will help consumers, small and independent radio station owners, and indie concert promoters by prohibiting anti-competitive practices in the radio and concert industries, Billboard Bulletin reports. And yes, below it says that McCain is co-signing the legislation, so I am remotely grateful to him as well. Give'em hell, Russ! -30- Wednesday, January 29, 2003
GREAT DIVIDE UPDATE Mike McClure has hit the ground running with news of his exodus from Great Divide becoming public. Though there is no band name yet, he's assembled his team which disturbingly includes Bleu Edmondson's (soon to be former) lead guitarist Coby Weir. The Lester Brothers haven't announced that TGD is in fact a former entity, so it's possible that they will find another lead singer and continue under that name. McClure isn't the most replaceable person, though, as he has a rather distinct voice and wrote a good number in the TGD catalogue (in other words, he wasn't just a pretty boy frontman). But whether it's under the Great Divide name or Lester Brothers Band or whatever, I look forward to hearing them. It's a little tough now, but the prospect of two good bands coming of this leaves me room for hope. -30- THE HIERARCHIAL ECONOMY (or WHY I DON'T HAVE A GIRLFRIEND, PART #575125671) A little while back, I was perusing KAZAA for a couple missing Matchbox Twenty songs (note to Owen: I have already purchased their entire collection). It's not uncommon for files to be mislabeled, so I searched for Rob Thomas (lead singer) to see what came up. One extremely large file called "4 Millionaire Next Door." Thinking to myself that there may be a song I didn't know about (and that it might be a mislabeled .wav justifying the size), I downloaded it. Apparently, it was an excerpt from Robert J. Stanley's well-known Millionaire Next Door series. However, once it was playing, I couldn't bring myself to delete it. It was just too... interesting. Methinks perhaps I am a bit of a nerd and that might explain my lack of a social life, but I listened to the entire half hour, captivated by Stanley's speculations about where the economy was headed. What he said, quite optomistically, I found quite disturbing. What it mostly came down to was that the rich were going to get richer and that the job opportunities for the less wealthy would primarily be serving the rich. As the rich get richer, the boom industry will be in wealthy luxuries and narrow services. For instance, he suggested that someone looking to make a lot of money go into law school. "But aren't there too many lawyers?" he was asked. No, he explained, there are too many people with law degrees. There are too many plaintiff's attourneys and defense attorneys, but not enough estate attourneys and retained attourneys under one or two (uberwealthy) employer. Medical school is another option, though not to be a surgeon or general medical practitioner (of which there are plenty), but rather a doctor specializing in the needs of the wealthy. Enough dentists, not enough orthodontists. Enough demotologists, not enough plastic surgeons, and so on. Once I recalled who the author was and what he was selling, I tried to just dismiss him as another late-night get-rich-quick infomercialite. The more I thought about it, though, the more he really was convincing before he got to his sales pitch. The numbers he through out and rationale he used were sound. When it ended, I found myself feeling rather concerned. Now, I'm pro-capitalist and don't have a problem with people amassing large amounts of money, so it wasn't a sense of injustice that got to me. It was a sense of fragility. The economy that he described in the first half is one in which not only do the wealthy get wealthier, but it's going to be required to keep the economy going. The rich will have to get richer or there will be a lot of people who got in the career of serving them out of work. It doesn't take an economist to know that when times get bad, it's the luxury providers that get hit most of all. Bologni sales go up, veil sales go down. The Millionaire Next Door was written during the height of the economic boom, so much of it may not apply anymore. Had it continued (or if this is just a blip and things will return to normal), the economy that Stanley prognosticated would return. An economy in which a significant proportion of the GDP goes towards catering to the super-wealthy. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing and I'm worried over nothing. After all, if a middle to upper-middle class can be provided by serving the wealthy, isn't that better than no middle class or upper-middle class at all? If people can get work serving the wealthy where they otherwise wouldn't do as well, is that not a good thing? Ideologically, I'd say it's a good thing. I just can't get myself to believe that such a vertical plantation-style (not referring to slavery, just structure) economy is such a good thing. It doesn't produce anything. Then again, a lot of what we do (all the service-based industries, whomever they are servicing) doesn't actually produce anything and I've had little reason to complain so far. I even applaud it in some cases where it gives the poor jobs they otherwise wouldn't have (such as lawn care). So I'm stumped. What do y'all think? Am I turning into a pink hippie liberal or does anyone else see this as a little disturbing? -30- Tuesday, January 28, 2003
I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE Yesterday had the lowest hit-count of any day in recorded RAWbservations history. Including November when I wasn't here and didn't actually post anything. Perhaps when I hooked up the Comments to the new/old/new/old template, I should have put the hit counter on there. Ya think? Oops. -30- A COUPLE MORE THOUGHTS ON IRAQ Despite my derogatory reference to the Idiot Mothers For Global Peace below, I do want to say that I don't consider those who oppose the war idiots. Just those ladies. I think Bush did a good job on Iraq, though others will disagree. I think it all comes down to "job doing what?" People looking for new evidence obviously came up disappointed. I'm not sure what those looking for a "smoking gun" are looking for precisely. I don't think there will be one in regards to Iraq as whatever links exist are infirm. For those of you looking for a smoking gun in regards to his building up weapons with intent to use them, what precisely are you looking for? The weapons inspectors to find something? Hussein has become very skilled at making sure that doesn't happen. Do you honestly doubt that Hussein intends to build up his arsenal? If so, what for? Even if he's not capable of attacking us directly he can pull all the same tricks that the leader of North Korea presently is. Those who point to Korea as a reason why we shouldn't be so obsessed with Iraq are, it seems to me, missing a rather large point. Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if our ability to move and operate throughout the world is hindered by nuclear threat because you don't think we should be acting aggressively anyway. Maybe not, but can you imagine how much tougher Afghanistan would have been if Hussein decided to pull a stunt and making threats about an agressive military campaign in his back yard? What about if he invades Kuwaitt again and threatens a nuclear response if we interfere? For my part, there is no leader presently more isolated, ambitious, and dangerous than Saddam Hussein. North Korea may be isolated and dangerous, but they are not ambitious. China is dangerous, but neither isolated nor ambitious (despite what many right-wingers argue). Saudi Arabia is dangerous, but neither isolated or ambitious. The ambition is important because it helps explain what they will do with the power once they have it. Do they intend to use it defensively as China has? China is largely a protectionist government with no real ambitions outside what it already considers its own (Tibet and Taiwan). North Korea just wants food and a little respect. Hussein, on the other hand, wants power and as much of it as possible and as far reaching as possible. Since he's isolated, there are little diplomatic relationships with the US that he could harm. When his days are numbered, and they will be someday whether we attack now or not, he will have nothing to lose. Do we want to wait until he has the better weaponry before that loose cannon lines up to fire? Prior to 9/11, I opposed invading Iraq vigorously. I even supported lifting sanctions. If there's one thing that 9/11 taught me, it's that we can't wait around for things to keep getting worse before we act. I was more or less supportive of Clinton's lackadaisical approach to bin Laden, believing that there was more harm in going to war than he could possibly accomplish. Besides, he knows if he does that we will bring the wrath of god down upon him, doesn't he? Apparently he didn't. Who knows what's going through Hussein's head and who wants to gamble Hussein's virtue and capability against American lives? These are questions I can't answer. Until I can, I support the invasion. There are others with other questions that I believe are answered, but at least they're asking the questions. What gets my goat about Idiot Mothers For Global Peace is that to them there are no questions and there is no discussion. They oppose it because war kills children and other living things. There is no arguing with that and, quite frankly, that's not an even remotely sustainable position. The likes of ANSWER don't have a problem with war or bloodshed or dead children, just America, which is ten degrees worse. But I recognize that there are a lot of people with more brains than IMFGP and more heart than ANSWER. I don't understand their point of view all that well, but I do accept it as earnest. -30- LETTERS TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ MY BLOG Dear Dude Who Was On Channel 13 Denouncing The Idiot Mothers For Global Peace Women, Next beer is on me. Next five beers are on me, dude. Sincerely, Author Of The Blog You Do Not Read -30- I didn't agree with a lot of what Locke had to say, but I still maintain that he is a lot more impressive than any of the candidates I've seen step up to the presidential plate. He's probably waiting for 2008 or beyond and that's probably wise, but I'm not sure what a 2 term governor of a mid-to-large-sized state has to prove. Locke complains that we shouldn't be drilling in Alaska because we should invest in technology to reduce need. Uhhhh Gary, Bush had a plan for that. AND IT'S NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION!!!! I'm watching Gary Locke now... Democrats have a "specific plan?" Greg, can you tell me what the hell this specific plan is? One of the camera angles they're using makes the auditorium look a lot like a small room like a VFW hall. Bush is talking about Iraq right now... and talking and talking. It's quite potent stuff and it's rather obvious that Bush feels very strongly about it. I haven't actually seen him talk about it before, just read clips of what he's had to say. It's much stronger delivered in person. The plain language (for the most part) is more penetrating than would be Clinton's more gusto speech. I think this style hurts him on the speeches on the domestic programs, it really, really helps here. "It's more than to follow a process, it's to achieve a result."... I like that line. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others"... BEAUTIFUL! Bush's point about a single location for all terrorist threats to go is one of the reason I'm not as uncomfortable with the DHS as I otherwise would be. If there was one thing that I took from it, it's that we had all this information in all these different places, but no one could do a whole lot with it. It'll be big and bloated, sure, but it's necessary. Those who say "this war will be fought overseas" act as though it's an either/or. That's like saying "World War II will be fought in Japan" and leaving Europe aside. We can follow them across the globe, but as long as they can come here, the war will be brought home to us. God willing, the DHS will help us fight that war. The lack of Civil Service Protection hopefully means it will stay limber enough to be as big as necessary, but not become an aggregate interest in its own via the government workers unions and the like. "And look at it this way, they are no longer a threat to America and their allies." -GWB Is it me, or did the Democrats take an unusually long time to stand up. Not intending innuendo, I think they were just caught off-guard. I was a bit. Mark my words: John Kerry will never be President. If he ever becomes such, God help us. Not because he would screw things up that badly (he would be bad, but not that bad), but because if the United States turns to him as the answer, I'd hate to know what the problem is. It would have the be the stuff of apocalyptic science fiction novels. The partial birth abortion issue is a winner for Republicans and those who have been suggesting that it's a sign of Republican overreach are out of touch with the public discomfort with abortion in general, particularly the more gruesome methods. Politically, abortion is a loser for Republicans... but that's the exception. I actually appreciate Bush's plans to throw more money into research. It's one of the few things that the government really can compete with the private sector on, in part because it's usually done through contracts. If the University of Houston fails, University of North Texas might get the next contract. And, despite my political leanings, I am in favor of much greater gasoline efficiency, if it's carried out right. I'd feel more comfortable with General Motors at work on it, but if the government can help, then by all means. Republicans say that our dependence on foreign oil means that we should drill in Alaska and so forth, Democrats say it means that we should create more efficient cars. I think both are a good idea. That was beautiful! Bush is complaining about frivolous lawsuits and they show John Edwards! Beautiful! You tell'em, Dubya! End the Dividend tax now! That's not just a lower-taxes thing, I'd rather see regular rates higher without a dividend tax instead of lower rates with one. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Tax credits. Dammit Bush you're a Republican. Throwing more credits and nonsense in the tax-code just makes it that much more complicated. I strongly hope what he means when he says that we won't put the problems off a generation that he is serious about reforming Social Security. Has a president ever said "We are now at a time when there isn't anything important happening whatsoever." ? You hear that potential assassins? John Ashcroft is the designated survivor. They should do this year around so as to make sure that President Bush is safe... BLOGGING THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS At the request of a friendly blogger, I will be blogging my thoughts throughout President Bush's State of the Union speech. No, no, hold the applause. It's the least I can do. Really. No, really, it's too much! Anyway... on with the show. -30- THE OLSEN TWINS, MATCHBOX TWENTY, AND ME I have a confession to make. When I was little, I watched and enjoyed the TV show Full House. What can I say? When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid. So as such I will always remember the Olsen Twins as being little baby Michelle. Post-Full House, all they are is the excess-growth of the cute little baby/kid. The things they were in after Full House annoyed me to no end because, well they were just really stupid and unlike the days where I watched Full House, I was smart enough to see how stupid they were. Then at some point they ceased being people at all and suddently became properties. They weren't selling a TV show or a movie, but rather themselves. Making a pretty buck doing it, for sure, but would you sell your soul for that kind of money? I can honestly say that I wouldn't. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one. Anyhow, to put it nicely, they're just little spoiled brat plastic doll media whores that annoy the living hell out of me. Not that I feel particularly passionate about this. A year and a half or so ago, I made the acquaintence of an attractive young lady named Tiana. She had connections and those connections gave her eighth row tickets to a Matchbox Twenty show. All she needed was a ride. Cool, I thought, I'll drive out to pick her up in return for 8th row M20 tickets. Good deal. Well, turned out that she needed a ride because she was fifteen. Okay, I rationalized, since there is obviously this glaring age difference there is obviously nothing there (nor was there any indication of something their prior to the revelation), so it was all good. Except that she was interested. Very interested. That became obvious by the way she was looking at me during the show. Just relax, Alex I told myself, a couple more hours and it will all be over. And I managed to convince myself this when simultaneously she put her arm around me and I had the revelation: She's younger than the Olsen Twins. OH MY GOD SHE'S YOUNGER THAN THE OLSEN TWINS! There was no relaxation after that. My shoulders and back were stiffer than a board. I was practically standing in the walkway to get as far away from the girl that was younger than the Olsen Twins. After that night, I determined that I had found my permanent lower threshold. Even when I am 40 and they are 33, I will not date someone 32. Period. They would be, you see, younger than the Olsen Twins! It's analogous to most guys I know that will not date someone younger than their kid sister. Little alarms go off in their head, even if there is only three years of difference, if their sister is only two years. So I've built some of my disdain for this pair into my eternal philosophy. So now comes the revelation (to me, anyway), that they are two frickin' geniouses. Not only that, but they actually have interests more intellectual than any of mine, such as in Nanotechnology, which they will be studying at a prestigious school. My reaction is best summed up in this IM conversation with my friend John H: RAW: Check this out. -30- WELL THIS IS FRUSTRATING I just got an awesome email from my Dad that I read over break. It's a first-hand account of someone caught up in the moonrock scandal (and how it involves Roy Orbison). I sooooo want to provide a link to it, but it's not on the web. Sigh. -30- THE SUBJECT OF WHICH I DARE NOT SPEAK (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION) While I'm not inclined to talk about it myself, two bloggers (Rob Lyman and Gary Farber) have done a good job articulating each side of my mixed mind. Excerps below, both worth reading the entire thing on. Pro - Gary Farber: Those are all entirely valid, important, points, frequently, and necessarily made. Anti - Rob Lyman: I've said before that I don't really care about statistics showing that such-and-such a racial group has such-and-such and average income, or does so well on the SAT, etc. My interest is, and remains, individual people. My opposition to AA and other racial remedies is based on the fact that I don't believe that present racism is a significant obstacle to success, in school, in homeownership, etc. etc. -30- QUESTION OF THE DAY Why is it that knowledge with cars and whatnot is considered masculine and therefore attractive to the opposite sex and knowledge of computers is a neutral quality, at best, and usually considered nerdy? -30- KIDDIES IN LOVE Lex has a touching story about the abrupt cancellation of his four year old daughter's intended wedding to a silly boy by the most excellent name of Alex. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't have any kids with cute little stories to tell. So I'll just self-indulge a bit and show you a picture of the girl I shoulda married. Something tells me she would have taken good care of me [nodnod]  -30- CONGRATULATIONS TO AUSTIN, TEXAS I usually nitpick MSN lists to death, but I can't argue with an list that places Austin as one of the top six cities to live in. 1. Austin, Texas. On the Colorado River, in the heart of the Hill Country, Austin offers an affordable cost of living, low utility costs, clean water, and easy access to outdoor activities in the surrounding wooded, rolling hills. You'll find an extensive park system with many recreational opportunities, such as boating. Austin boasts a low unemployment rate, and average commute time is only 21.4 minutes. Through its willingness to support economic diversification, Austin's job rate has grown fast in recent years and promises to grow even faster in the future, especially in the high-tech fields. Experts predict an incredible job growth rate (33.19% to 2010). I've thought about moving to Austin, but the job situation there isn't as benign as the article suggests. There are a lot of recently graduated UT students looking for work that don't want to leave the city. Because of Compaq and Enron, the job situation in Houston is worse. Where's a good ole' boy to move to? Dallas? Yeepers. Oh, and before I get too high on MSN lists, they list San Fransisco as #2... -30- RETURN OF THE GENDERBOTS: THE SLUT/PRUDE MYTH THAT JUST WON'T DIE Can we please put the feminist whining about slut/prude to rest? Pretty, pretty please? It's dead. It died some time ago. I am referring to this piece by Nigella Lawson, who writes a column for Guardian about a new study that shows, shocker of shockers, women are more inclined to have sex drunk than when they're sober. If Ms. Lawson had left her column at "duhhhhh" I would be nodding and laughing in agreement. But nooooooooooooo. She had to go on and rant that society is having a concerted effort to suppress women by not allowing them to accept their urges, such as sex. She is upset about the "shock" people felt when they read the survey. She didn't provide any examples of this shock, she just said it was there and the shock is an example of how we seek to suppress womanly sexuality. Suppress womanly sexuality? Men are trying to do this? Tell us who, please, and I'm certain that there are a number of men who would like to pay these people a visit. Most men do not have a problem with aggressive women, sexually or otherwise, anymore. Not some men or enlightened men or liberal men. Most men. Some men might prefer the silent woman, but, ahem, the "strong silent type" has been known to appeal to certain women, too, and I strongly doubt that's an attempt to supress masculinity. Of course women, men too, tend to wild behaviour when drunk, but that must be the point. People drink for a number of reasons - I'm not talking about alcoholics here, which is a deeper issue - and one of them surely is to lose their inhibitions. And maybe that is why some consider even these tame findings alarming. Drunk women are looked upon more harshly than are drunk men because femininity - as a construct - relies on, is defined by, inhibition. What is natural - sexual appetite, anger, body hair - is deemed unfeminine. Being drunk is worse: it's a brazen refusal to be quiet, well-behaved and ladylike. Well cry me a fraggin' river. Some women have to get drunk before losing their inhibitions. But, as she says, "men too." At the Bleu Edmondson show on Saturday night, a girl in a green sweater caught my eye. I never pick up women in bars (though I've been picked up a couple times), but I'll tell you that just going up and talking to her seemed like a lot better idea at the end of the evening than it did at the beginning. Of course, I don't have gender repression to rely on as an excuse. Or, I guess, in a way I do. The way my mind works, and why I never pick up women in bars, is that I figure they get guys coming up to them looking to get some that I would seem like all the rest, even if my intentions were more pure (and being who I am, they are). So then do I get to whine about gender roles and how they screw up my social life because they inhibit me from just going up to every woman that catches my eye in a bar? No, because it's not gender roles, it's me. I could if I wanted to, but sans a whole lot of beer, I don't want to. I'd be willing to bet that most women don't really care to just go up to a random man and take him home with her, either. Some want to, of course, and they probably do. If they don't, don't blame me (singularly or as a man). Let's just say a woman doing that is more likely to meet with success than a guy is. Unless of course she's looking for such with me, in which case she's going to be disappointed most likely. Oh wait, is that because she's aggressive and I don't like aggressive women because I'm hardwired not to and age-old gender oppression tells me not to? Or, more likely, is it because I'm just not interested in one night stands with random women? It's hard to tell, isn't it, since you don't know me or know what really goes through the mind of any man (only they individually know). Which is why the way she frames the entire subject is a losing proposition. You can infer or dismiss anything by applying it sociologically to gender. If a woman picks up a man in a bar, has sex with him, and regrets it the next day, well it's naturally because she's oppressed, right? What happens when a man, as in Charlie Robison's "Life of the Party" song, wakes up and realizes that the woman she took home "gained herself two-hundred" pounds? Oh wait, that's probably because of the gender oppression of men's excessive weight of importance on weight (no pun intended). No matter what we say and do, it can be traced back to our role as the oppressor. No matter what women say and do, it can be traced back to their role as the oppressed (or, in this case, inhibited). I don't think this is a game I really want to play. -30- Monday, January 27, 2003
WELL DOESN'T THIS JUST FIGURE... RAWbservations is four days within closing down and I screw up the template. Majorly. -30- THERE'S KEVIN AGAIN, ALWAYS HAVING TO OUTDO ME I may have gotten to drive Mark David Manders to the airport, but Kevin got into a political discussion with Randy Rogers. Politics and country music. What's not to love? -30- WATCHING THE SUN SET ON YOU Kris Lofgren is on a roll. If's not easy to get a good jibe at France these days. Not because France isn't deserving, but because so many are doing it that few stand out. Well, Kris's stands out as someone who is not a warhawk and falls left of center, he says: Why do the French think they have so much power? They have almost no military power, their economy, along with the rest of Europe, is struggling under the weight of a burdening social safety net that no longer provides security but rather retards their prosperity, yet they cling to the remnants of Cold War political power that no longer hold any worthwhile significance. They cling to these institutions, such as the U.N., because without them the U.S. could easily dominate the world agenda. They finagle the methods of change and action because with every day that passes, the façade of French influence is undermined by the will of the powerful. Start there and just keep reading down the page. Not a bad post among'em. -30- IT'S 1987, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE? 1987 or 2003, judges have ruled that the X-Men and their fellow mutants are not human. [link via Amygdala] -30- THE HAMMER HAS FALLEN When I first saw The Great Divide play, I hadn't seen a good show in several weeks. In fact, I was wondering if I was losing my taste for live music. Mike McClure and the gang changed all that. It was there first show at the Firehouse, so there weren't all that many people there, just the usual Oklahoma State contingent that makes an appearence at all the Ragweed and Boland shows, so it was a unique opportunity to see a truly awesome band without the crowds. I was only familiar with a handful of their songs, but it didn't matter. I usually don't like a band until my second or third outing with them, but they are one of the few exceptions. In the closing encore, they played the best version of Everclear's Santa Monica I've heard to date. As readers of RAWbservations know, I've been fearing that they were on the road to breaking up. Today I learned lead guitarist (and vocalist) J.J. Lester has confirmed my fears. The time has come for me to let you know what is going on with the band. As of March 31st Mike McClure will no longer be a part of TGD. We (Scotte, Kelley, and myself) apologize for holding this as long as we have. I will elaborate more on the They are doing another show at the Firehouse in February. I don't know whether to stay sober and appreciate every drop of it or get drunk and mourn their passing. -30- WWTOTD: IN HUMOR, THIS TIME I suppose in this case it's alright to put forth a WWTOTD scenario since Susanna doesn't actually suggest Republicans do what Democrats would regarding George Clooney's insensitive comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimers. I just thought her scenario is almost Simpsons-worthy: When someone like Clooney pops off like that, unless it's hammered into our faces most conservatives just shake their heads, say, "idiotarian extraordinaire" and go on with their lives. But in a similar situation, the professional victims segment of the left would immediately descend on Selleck (to continue using him as the example) en masse, and demand not only that he apologize, not only that he donate the proceeds of his last five films to their organizations for the victims of conservatives (no self-interest there), but also that the entire country wear mourning for three days and pass a tax hike to fund educational program throughout the country to teach our young people that Tom Selleck is a cancer on humanity. -30- QUESTION OF THE DAY Why do makers of mechanical pencils seem to go so far out of their way (a) to make worthless erasers and (b) design their butts to make it impossible to put a cap eraser on them? -30- Sunday, January 26, 2003
I AM ONE DEGREE FROM SINGING WITH THE ROLLING STONES The Rolling Stones were in town on Saturday night. Two people of note (other than the band, of course) were there. Blogger Heidi Rogers and Texas country singer Mark David Manders. It didn't even occur to me until Bleu Edmondson mentioned at his show how honored he felt that we all chose to see him instead of the Stones. Manders had mentioned at his previous show that one of his sponsors had given MDM's latest CD to Keith Richards, who loved it and invited him to see the show from the 15th row and get backstage passes. I briefly hoped MDM was having a blast before starting to move and groove to Bleu's next song. I spent my Superbowl at the Firehouse, where lo and behold, hanging out amongst the commoners was Mr. Manders himself (as was Derryl Dodd, another local who used to play with Martina McBride, if I recall). I asked him how the show went and he just lit up. We talked about it as we watched the Bucs lay it on the Raiders. He booed and I cheered, he let me mooch off his crawfish and bought me a couple beers, and he went on and on about what will likely be the best musical night of his life. Apparently, they'd reserved him a room at the Four Seasons where they all ended up after the show. Learning of Texas's no-beer-after-two law, Mark somehow ended up at his suite ("Bigger than my house! More TVs!" he exclaimed) where they hung out, smoked, and jammed. Mark mentioned previously that he'd kill for the Stones to do a version of his (stellar) song "Just Me" and the ones that were they sang backup for him as he sang it (the chorus is from "Sweet Chariot", so it wasn't hard for them). Around three or four with some damage done to the room, they kicked him out, adding the prestige of getting escorted out of the Four Seasons to the incredible evening. From his point of view, I cannot imagine how it could get any better. Later in the night, I gave him a ride to Hobby Airport for his trip back home to Dallas. In the tape player in the car was a mix-country tape. The first song that started was Jack Ingram's awesome single (and I'm not an Ingram fan) "Biloxi" in which we both preceeded to sing along with, followed by Charlie Robison's "Caviar and Cocaine"* for which we did the same. The next song was a somewhat obscure West 84 tune with a really soothing melody. A minute into it Mark fell asleep. I raced over to the airport to meet the 9:30 deadline. Took a lot of work getting him back awake, but I managed to. He stumbled out and I handed him his suitcase and got back into my car. A minute later I noticed that he was so dazed that he was walking the wrong way so I drove up beside him and pointed him the right way and drove off. I must have been in that parking lot all of ten minutes. It was pretty quickly in and out. Only I could manage to somehow lose my fraggin' parking ticket in ten daggum minutes! But I did. I searched the car up and down, no luck. I told the guy at the ticket-taking counter, who had me fill out a long form. I then had to wait for airport security to get there so they could make sure I was legit (for a missing parking ticket? Apparently). The charge for a missing ticket is $30, but I managed to convince them of... something... I don't know what exactly, and they only charged me $6. They photocopied my drivers license, took a picture of my license plate, and let me go on my way. So what was the point of this story? Oh yeah, I sang with a guy who sang with the 'Stones! Go me! -30- BE BACK LATER As much as I'd like to give the play by play, I got some crawfish poundage calling to me right now... -30- THE HULK AD The upcoming Hulk movie looks to be quite good, but didn't they get the memo that Superbowl ads are supposed to be funny? I didn't laugh at that one at all... -30- FEDEX SUPERBOWL CASTAWAY AD I laughed out loud at it. I don't do that often. Congratulations, FedEx! -30- THAT WAS SOOOOO NOT A FUMBLE (AND MADDEN IS A MORON) So I'm watching the Superbowl. That wasn't a fumble. It was quite obviously not a fumble, but the refs goofed. Now Tampa Bay loses one of their two challenges because the refs are blind. That's a pisser. Oh, and Madden is an idiot. Michaels is trying to make a legitimate point as to why TB has the right to be pissed, and Madden just can't seem to get it through his thick skull. Yes, there was a wrong and it was righted. But now Tampa Bay has lost the right to challenge a future wrong. I think that rule needs to be changed. Challenges that are accepted should not count against the wronged team. So say'eth Alex (whom, in case you can't tell, wasn't entirely familiar with this rule and doesn't watch football all that often, though used to be an avid fan) -30- THE THINGS I DO TO AVOID DRINKING AND DRIVING... One of the great things about where I live is that it's about a 20 minute walk from the Firehouse. I just thought I'd mention that the twenty minute walk is a LOT longer in 40 degree weather, winds, and rain. -30- Saturday, January 25, 2003
WHY WE WATCH JOE MILLIONAIRE Okay, well I don't actually watch it. I haven't watched a TV show regularly since the first season of West Wing. But if I was watching a show, that would be it. Why? Ask Richard Roeper: 'Joe Millionaire" is one of the most morally bankrupt shows in the history of television--and I wouldn't miss a minute of it. This is must-glee TV, an electronic elixir that makes me feel so smugly wonderful about myself, my family, my friends, my enemies, my favorite banjo players and the entire population of these United States that, when I watch it, I want to trampoline up and down on my sofa and sing, "We're all so much BETTER than these people!" That explains about a lot of what's on television, doesn't it? -30- WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT Maybe it's me and my historic fear of the terms "forever" and "always." But is this not just a little bit creepy? Especially that bold "Forever." at the end. -30- SPEAKING OF SITCOMS Take a look at this and tell me they didn't get the idea from watching the animal-driven machinery on the Flintstones: 
It's powered entirely by hamsters. -30- EVERY GEOGRAPHY TEXTBOOK I'VE EVER READ IS WRONG... cause according to the EU, Britain is not an island. I certainly hope that they go back and change the definitions in all the textbooks to reflect the changes. Dictionary.com will also have some changes to make (in italics for your convenience): island They're also going to have to go back and correct a whole bunch of episodes of Gilligan's Land Mass Smaller Than a Continent And Surrounded Entirely By Water But Not Legally An Island: Skipper: Ever since we've been trapped on this land mass surrounded entirely by water that is not legally an island due to the lack of fifty residents, I haven't had an ounce of steak! -30- Friday, January 24, 2003
HONKY TONK WITH A DRESS CODE? I needed to get out of the house last night, and it just so happened that Phil Pritchett was playing at Big Texas, a honky tonk down near my old neck of the woods in Webster. At least, I thought it was a honky tonk. I mean, the people there had on cowboy hats. There was a big dance floor. It was called Big Texas. The motif was certainly country/western. However, it must be the first "honky tonk" I've ever been to where they had a dress code that I didn't meet! It's ironic because I spent more time than usual figuring out what to wear, mostly because I didn't want to wear anything I'd want to wear later, and I'm running out of clothes before the next laundry day. I settled on a simple white t-shirt and jeans which, apparently, is against their dress code (and he said, specifically, "we don't ordinarily let people in a plain white shirt and jeans in, but I'll let it slide this time"). He let me in anyway because he could tell I hadn't been there before (I spent five minutes trying to find the door), but nonetheless, what's up with that? Phil was great, as per usual. He even did the first Cross Canadian Ragweed cover that I've ever heard from a non-Oklahoma band. -30- LETTERS TO PEOPLE WHO (PROBABLY) DON'T READ THIS BLOG (ANYMORE) Camryn, I'm sorry. Best wishes, Author Of The Blog You Probably Will Not Read Anymore -30- JUST A CLARIFICATION For those of you wondering, the post below with just "-30-" is not actually my last post. It isn't even a post and I'm not sure how it got there. Sorry for the lack of postage today, it was a doozy. There will be at least one post tomorrow (already completed, but it's two in the morning and I'm going to need to edit it at least a little before showing it off to the world. Expect it around 1pm. UPDATE: And the blank post disappeared... odd. -30- Wednesday, January 22, 2003
MAYOR BROWN AS THE GOOD GUY? Not really, but when you frame it the way this USA Today article does, his administration comes off quite well. It's hard not to when you tell Microsoft to go to hell. The SimDesk controversy has been hovering around the Bayou City for some time now. Honestly, I didn't know what it was about and didn't have any opinion on it. Basically, this company called SimDesk was given a lucrative contract from Houston to supply the office software for city and library computers. A lot of people raised a stink about how much it was going to cost to replace Microsoft Office, but apparently the city was being pressured into upgrading anyway and SimDesk was a hell of a lot cheaper than that would have been. City dealing aside, this is yet another big example of Microsoft's arrogance in dealing with companies. They essentially participated in blackmail. They didn't say as much, but when you recieve a letter stating that you may or may not be audited for licenses and that it could cost you millions upon millions of dollars along with a brochure for their new licensing program, one can assume their participation in the new ($12 million) contract might have an impact as to whether or not they're going to get audited. A few things to mention. First of all, Microsoft Office is a stellar program. Anyone who says otherwise is jaded by their hatred for the software company. It takes up a lot of resources, but there is so much you can do with it and every version has been better than the previous (Don't know about XP, though). That said, most people don't need it. Most people need to use the basic functions and could probably get by on Microsoft Works quite well. Except there's a catch. Microsoft Works (last I checked) can't save documents in Office formats (.doc, .xls, etc). The reason for this, of course, is so that people who only need Works will buy Office for compatibility's sake. There is no other plausible explanation when third party companies can save effortlessly in a Microsoft format and a Microsoft product can't. For better or worse, Microsoft Office file formats are the standard. For better because at least there is a standard, but worse because they charge obscene amounts of money for the program (twice as much for Office as for the Windows Operating System). Between the 97-2K transfer they finally make their files forwards and backwards compatible except MS Access (which they do in 2K-XP), but then turn around and extort business and organizations to upgrade by threatening to audit. Now, there is nothing wrong with auditing a company if they believe they are being short-changed. However, that should be done by an auditing department and the sales department should not be involved in that at all. The last thing that needs to happen is to have a sales rep warning them of an audit while making a sales pitch. That's beyond inappropriate. Not just inappropriate, it appears to be quite intentional. Microsoft could, if it so chose, audit 500 companies at random and probably 350 would come up wrong somewhere. Tracking software licensure is not an easy task. The bigger the organization, the harder it becomes. Who wants to take bets that Microsoft targets those that, like the City of Houston, don't sign on to its new program. What's tragic, though, is that their new licensing service could be a beneficial service. It could help companies (who, for the most part, have no interest in ripping MS off) keep track of their licensing better and therefore be able to pay for outstanding licenses. But even when providing a new service, they simply cannot do so without their trademark arrogance. The intent is apparently not so much to help companies pay Microsoft what they are due, but apparently to pressure companies that upgrade every five years or so to do it every three, whether they need it or not, and whether their computers can handle it or not. Even when they have a situation (or licensing package) where everyone wins, they still can't stop being a bully. How sad. And typical. -30- I'M TECH SUPPORT, IT'S MY JOB TO BE SNOTTY Lex clarifies and extends his comments regarding his reluctance to upgrade his computer and OS. Just a few points: My point is not that I am so wedded to Win98 that I want to keep it even if I get a newer, faster computer. My point is that the computer I've got right now does what I need it to do while running Win98, so why should I want to upgrade my OS before I'm ready to upgrade my hardware? As a consumer I just think it's reasonable that Microsoft provide at least security upgrades for Win98 as long as it remains in wide use, however "wide use" is defined.Well, to the extent that Lex is satisfied with Windows 98, he can keep using it. It's not going to up and die the day they decide to stop providing updates for it. They're just not going to spend much time and money on driver and security updates. For what Lex uses his computer for (and several of my coworkers around here, many of which I bumped down from Win2k to Win98 because their computers make Lex's seem like the latest and greatest model (for those of you wondering, Windows 2000 can run on a Pentium 166 with sixteen megs of RAM, though Win98 runs a lot better)), Win98 should work well for a while. It's only when he upgrades his computer that he'll upgrade his OS. Of course, Lex states that he doesn't wish to upgrade OSes when he does upgrade his computer, in which case that's tough luck. Windows 98 is four years and four releases old and I don't believe MS is duty-bound to provide support indefinitely. Which is not to say that I can't relate to Lex's disgruntledness at Microsoft or over this issue. Heaven knows I spend enough time railing against the corporate giant and I don't believe they should have intentionally retired the text-interface shell, but to the extent I'm bound and determined to keep them I can just hold on to Windows 3.1 and 95 and buy hardware that'll go with it. I back up as much as is possible, feasible and practical, which is what I've always done. But "get out of the Stone Age"? Dude, that's harsh, and it leads me to my original rant point, from which I somehow got temporarily sidetracked. As I pointed out in the comments, my wife and I have a number of financial commitments -- our kids' day care, the mortgage, her MBA program, pets -- that compete with computers for funding. Moreover, we're journalists. We don't work in tech support, which means we damn sure don't get paid like we work in tech support. And even if, as Alex pointed out in his comments, a decent upgrade were available for $300, most of the time I just don't have the $300 to spend. The stone age comment wasn't meant seriously or as an insult (it was my impersonation of a techie Dr. Phil). For the most basic purposes, a Pentium 200 will get the job done. Half our fleet here are Pentium 166s and if it weren't for our constant use of Microsoft Access (and complex queries therein), they'd work, albeit slowly and sometimes reluctantly. My parents have a 200 machine that is used as a glorified typewriter and if it hadn't died on its own accord, it'd still be usable as such. That being said, I really would stress the tangible difference between a 200 and 400MHz machine. I'd state that it's more substantial than 400 to 800 or even to 1GHz. I feel like a dermotologist pointing out the importance kiwi facial lotion. My file server is a 350 and my parents have a 600 and for what they're used for, they work. To the extent that that Lex's computer is used for a typewriter/ledger/internet box, then a 200 is fine and should be perfectly fine without anymore help from Microsoft. And we're relatively well off. There's a helluva lot of people out there in worse shape financially than we, and when some of them are at the public library surfing the Web because they can't afford a computer at any price and they read what some of these techies have to say, I imagine they get even more incensed than I do. Which I'm pretty well aware of. My coworker still runs on a 486 that I helped her get working again. She just doesn't have the money to upgrade. I've offered to help her find the best deals and to build it for her, but the money just isn't there. I also spent a little time with an organization called "Technology 4 All" which takes refurbished computers and puts them in "computer gymnasiums" so that children without access to computers can learn how to use them and become familiar with them. To an extent, though, Lex is right and we are removed. Not so much by money (I'm sure many of us are surprised to learn that tech support pays "well"... I'm well paid for tech support, but that's because it's only one of many hats that I wear) but in large part by culture. When I was in college, I determined that i needed a file server, but I didn't have any money for one. It was rather important, though, because I kept losing my data because whenever I had to format and restore a machine (it was a lot, I was a student), I kept accidentally deleting my data. Unfortunately, new computers costed around $1000 at the time and I just didn't have anywhere near that kind of money. But my then-roommate Adam (who posts and comments here), a fellow techie, had a spare motherboard and processor. My friend Brian had a spare case. Another friend had a spare CD ROM. I already had an extra network card. Bits and pieces, here and there I was able to build it for around $50. All being computer professionals (and we all are now, save one who is still getting his CS degree) we were just surrounded by the stuff. We'd help someone out and take payment in computer parts (which was where the case came from) or replace a part we thought was bad and find out that it was another part that had cratered, or replace a part that was okay, but not good enough for what it was being used for (the motherboard had a couple issues). You get the idea. Some of us have better computers than others (I'm pretty sure Adam is ahead of me, I'm ahead of Brian), but we all have something and when we help each other out, it invariably involves computers. Christmas a couple years back, we bought a friend a new machine because he couldn't afford it, and, well, what else are we gonna get him? So even the poorest among us are well stocked. I've never thought about it, but apparently my friends and I are a bunch of damned communists! There's also another cultural difference that I believe applies to this Alex/Lex brawl specifically. Lex says: Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about lacking the money. I chose this career with my eyes wide open on that point. I am, however, complaining about the tendency of techies -- not necessarily Alex, mind you, but a lot of techies, particularly younger, single, unattached ones who get a new scream machine every year at work because their employer needs them to have one to do what they do -- to presume that everyone ought to get a faster computer every year or two whether they need one or not and that the only reason I haven't laid out $300 for a faster computer is because I don't want to. My initial response upon reading that was "Wait, you expect to buy a computer and that's it until you want to upgrade to another one?" Lex seems to view purchasing a computer as though he is purchasing an appliance and that's probably the way most people see it. I (and I suspect most people like me) view purchasing a computer like purchasing a car. That's only the start. Parts break down and need to be replaced. Upgrades are required here and there, most free, some requiring money. Eventually the whole thing will need to be replaced. I don't know about most people, but I earmark money I get every month into my "computer fund" the same way my parents do for their "car fund." I don't go out and blow it every month, but it's there just in case I need it because, at some point, I will. And yes, Lex, no argument that the cat is more important than the new computer :). -30- CACHETRACKER UPDATE It's done, but I haven't told him yet. Oh, and for those of you wondering, all posts related to this will be taken down on 1/31/3 -30- Tuesday, January 21, 2003
I WONDER WHAT THE PRECISE HISPANIC BEAN-COUNT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON IS That question is apparently important: WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — President Bush will propose spending $371 million, a 5 percent increase, for grants to historically black colleges and those where at least 25 percent of the students are Hispanic, the White House said today. We'll just have to make sure not to ask Jesse Jackson. For those who recall the UH-TSU funding flap, UH is a "white" school. News to the minorities who made up a majority of my classmates, I'm sure. [crap, I had the link, but I lost it] -30- D-DAY IS UPON ME I was ordered to have the Cachetracker ready before I leave today. I will continue to post until the end of the month, though probably less. -30- WWTOTD: THEY STARTED IT! WWTOTD would be short for What Would The Other Team Do. I can't help but get the feeling that's the gist of the debate going on in this Kuff post and its comments. It can be more or lessed summed up in Charles's addendum: UPDATE Max has a pretty clear conscience, too. Patrick, in my comments, thinks I'm bending too far backwards to be fair, and that I'd get no such consideration in return. He's very likely right. My take is this: Allying with ANSWER is either right or wrong, regardless of what Republicans and conservatives say. Republicans can try to draw links between ANSWER and Trent Lott and Democrats can point out the distinctions all day long, but at the end of the day it's right or wrong independent of Trent Lott. ANSWER is pretty obviously a crummy organization and I'd say that few bloggers (that I would read with any regularity) would dispute that. So does that make marching with them against a war you oppose wrong? Personally, I wouldn't do it. Then again, I am the type to write 10,000 words in front of a keyboard about it rather than march, so it's easy for me to say. As noted in the post below, I see a key distinction between ANSWER taking part in the march and organizing it. To look at it another way, politics is merely a series of coalitions. Readers of RAWbservations know that I have recently posted on the major ideologies of the Republican Party and plan to on the Democratic ideologies soon, as well. Those are the broad strokes. Look closely enough at the painting, and there are plenty of things not to like about both parties. Members of the KKK are more likely to vote GOP than Democratic. Communists are more likely to vote Democrat. So does that mean that the GOP has to spend all its time rooting out those sympathetic KKK and Democrats rooting out those sympathetic to Communists? That's merely a parlor trick played by members of one side to put the other on the permanent defensive. I can talk all day about how racism is wrong and the KKK are a bunch of idiots, but at the end of the day they agree with me on enough policies that we stake our tent in the same political party. Ditto for Democrats and Communists. It's depressing, but there is little we can do about it in a free country. To pull it away from the strawmen of the KKK and Communists, let's talk about racists and race-baiters. Confederate-Americans make up part of the GOP coalition. These people are, if not outright racists, guilty of serious racial and historical ignorance. Personally, I'd rather they go away. I'd rather they not be a member of my party. However, if we were to lose all of them and the Democrats did not stop catering to the likes of Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters, we'd be at an inherent disadvantage. Similarly, if the Democrats were to clean there house and the Republicans didn't, they'd be the ones to start losing. It would be nice if all the reasonable people of the country could get together and boot out the malcontents and undesirables, but the rules of Game Theory suggest that when two people are supposed to (a) do something against their interest and (b) rely on someone else to do something against their interest for mutual benefit, it's unlikely to happen. Particularly when so much is at stake. But with that in mind, there has to be limits. We have to have parameters if we're going to have a civil discourse. When someone on our own side does something clearly wrong and makes no apologies, action must be taken. When Trent Lott pondered how good things would be if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, that was so clearly wrong that many Republicans jumped on board quite quickly in denouncing him. These are times that you speak out because you know that they're wrong and not because of some face-saving distancing. I hope those of you who read my comments at the time believe that they were, if nothing else, heartfelt. What we cannot do is always think of things in terms of WWTOTD, What Would The Other Team Do. Neither side ever believes that the other side plays fair so it becomes carte blanche to do whatever you choose. During the Lott affair, some Republicans suggested that those of us who spoke out were merely being tools for the Democratic Party, Sid Blumenthal and James Carville. Others (Novac and Coulter) suggested that we should circle our wagons because that's WTOTWD. To a degree, many Democrats were demonstrating that this was just a partisan ploy. One thing that struck me about the incident was that the many of the Democrats who raised a ruckus quickly would denounce what Lott was said and then quickly tuck it in to terms of Republican hypocrisy. Joe Klein said something to the effect of "Republicans would be raising hell if a Democrat had said this about Henry Wallace and they're silent now, damn hypocrites." Before most of us were even given a chance to respond, we were deemed hypocrites. This is similar to the tactic used by Tacitus, which was posed less as a "Do you agree with ANSWER and if so how do you justify marching with them?" and more a "Denounce them now or you prove yourself to be the authoritarian-loving American-haters you claim not to be." This is obviously not the stuff any real dialogue is made of. Nor was it apparently meant to be. But the Republicans can say "You did it with Trent Lott" and it's true, many of them did do it with Trent Lott, and when they finished with him they found an obscure congressman from South Carolina and a senator from Montana. They decided that the speckles here and there constituted an entire painting and then put the ball in our court to prove that our party wasn't racist. So then Republicans can then do what Tacitus did and claim that they are only returning the favor, because Democrats did that before. Next time Democrats can say Republicans (or conservatives or anti-Democrats or whatever Tacitus is) did it, so they can do. Slowly, we start taking on the most embittered, partisan faces of our parties. Charles bent over backwards to be fair and told that he shouldn't cause the other side wouldn't show the same courtesy. That's true insofar as many on the right would not show the same courtesy. If the situation were reversed, many on the left wouldn't, either. But many on the right have (see my post below), and of course many (Tacitus) haven't. The question is, which type of person would you rather be? -30- HPD'S ESTEEMED FORMER POLICE CHEIF "I categorically deny what you cannot prove and do not recall what you can" -Clarence O. Bradford, more or less. -30- Monday, January 20, 2003
I ALWAYS WONDERED IF THERE WAS A CHARACTER CAP ON DOMAIN NAMES Authoritarian Opportunists Who Cozy Up To Genocidal Dictators - for Peace (dot org) apparently prove that there isn't. By now, just about everyone knows about ANSWER's dirty connections, but I give these guys points for demonstrating it with style. Frustrated Anti-war-in-Iraqer Sean Church ponders: Nice work there. It associates the management of the bulk of public anti-war protests with the Workers World Party. Communists? Communist sympathizers? What!?! I'm not inclined to judge the anti-war effort by its worst elements. God knows every view has its share. There is a problem insofar as the effort is spearheaded by these types. It's analogous to the difference between the GOP's problem with having a racist legislator from South Carolina and a racist legislator who is Senate Majority Leader. There really should have been more of a debate than there was, but the reason there hasn't been isn't because of George W. Bush's secret police as it has been by the ineptitude of the opposition. They are either spineless itchy-backs like Daschle and Hillary Clinton or creeps like ANSWER. [AOWCUTGDFP link via Frankenstein] -30- MAYBE IT'S CAUSE I HAVEN'T EATEN IN A COUPLE DAYS... but this non-work-friendly thinger makes me hungry. [via Fat Guy via Ravenwolf] -30- AOL TO USERS: UPGRADE OR BE BUGGED TO DEATH I am a big fan of WinAmp, save for one thing: The constant hit-ups to upgrade. I intentionally install version 2.64 because that is by far the best version available. It was before they had those damn ID3 File Tags that screw up every fourth song on my playlist. It was before they added a series of pointless and stupid features that bog the system down. It was before they ran out of things to do and paid programmers to just "come up with something." While the old versions always worked, I always got that darn "upgrade to 2.8!" message every time I opened it. I'd ask my friends if I could get rid of it, but they all told me to upgrade. It'd be worth it, they said. It is better, they said. Poppycock. MP3s loaded slower, the damn ID3 tags screwed things up, I'd always have to go to the trouble of uninstalling the newer version and reinstalling the old. Then I would install Netscape and have to start all over (Netscape automatically installs the latest WinAmp, the bastards). I experienced the same thing with ICQ a couple years back. Every version of the internet chat program was bigger (ICQ 2001! With Calendar!) and better (ICQ 2002! With satellite image integration!!) than the last. They got so good that my brother and I just stopped using the program because it took up way too many resources (My old 512MB RAM machine couldn't handle WinAmp and ICQ at the same time!). Only with the advent of Trillian do I actually talk to my ICQ friends these days. Then something strange happened. I was needing WinAmp and didn't have access to the file server. I groaned and downloaded WinAmp 3.0 from their webpage... and it's good! It's not quite as flexible as 2.8 or 2.64, but it's got a much better interface. I hope to the heavens they never come out with WinAmp 3.1... -30- MICROSOFT TO USERS: UPGRADE OR DIE Lex Alexander laments Microsoft's decision to cease support for Windows 98. I think both he and ABC News, the host of the article he sites, are overstating matters. Most people who are still using Windows 98 are quite obviously not too concerned about being up-to-date and Microsoft's support for Windows 98 has never been too great. In fact, the only way I see this being a problem for 98 users is when it comes time to upgrade their computers. New hardware will undoubtedly not be registered with 98 and drivers will not be available. For the most part, though, those that are looking for hardware upgrades are going to need to look for a new computer, anyway. As SDRAM gets phased out, they're going to need motherboards that can hold DDR RAM. PCI video cards are also getting harder to find so upgrading video (on older computers or any stock machine) isn't fun, either. Many of their faster processors are going to need better cases to supply sufficient power and cooling. Half of the office I administer runs Windows 98 and most of them will require complete replacement when the time comes. If individual part breaks, parts compatible with Windows 98 will still be available for some time, I suspect, though increasingly hard to find (even know it isn't easy with some parts). Dr. R. Alex's diagnosis is to get out of the stone-age (200MHz Lex? [shakes head]) and upgrade. Quite honestly, I wouldn't feel safe working on a machine that old. At least be sure to back up all your information if you are. Windows 2000 is a substantive improvement over 98. It's not one I could have appreciated until I had one running along-side the other. Indeed, the difference was so stark that I threw out a perfectly good sound card because Win2k drivers were not available for it and I wanted both running 2000. Win2k is much more stable, less buggy, and an all around better OS. I upgraded somewhat reluctantly because of all the warnings (55,000 bugs!! 55,000 bugs!!), but it turns out that most of the Chicken Littles were people who hated MS anyway. Same with XP, actually, which is running on 3 of my four systems presently. -30- THE TYPES OF DEMOCRATS OUT THERE, WARLIBERAL'S TAKE I meant to post this a while back, but Mac Thomason was kind enough to respond in email to the question I posed on how the Democratic Party divides up. I'm about to post mine, but before I do, read Mac's uninterrupted analysis: UNIONISTS are an obvious group, if declining. The labor unions are the fiscal core of the Democratic Party still. They tend to be socially/culturally more conservative than the rest of the party base, more likely to favor government intervention in the economy while opposing foreign trade -- though I think that's less of a problem than it once was. However, they have little problem with military intervention. Unlike Labourites in some other countries nationalism trumps class among American union members. Coming up: Ted Barlow's (when he writes it), links to those who have responded, and my own take on it. -30- ERRING IN FAVOR OF LIFE: WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY I've had this post in the Drafts folder for a while. I thought I'd take the time to actually post it. This is one of the issues where I've moved to the left over the past few years as my views on abortion have moved to the right. My reasoning on the two is very similar today as it was when I held the opposing positions half a decade ago. To make it short, my old philosophy was that life was for the priviledged. Life is for those fetuses that are wanted and those grownups that don't go around killing people. I don't know if I would have phrased it as such, but that's more or less the guts of it. When the two subjects are combined, the argument focuses on the hypocrisy of each side: "How can the (left / right) say that it's perfectly okay to kill (an innocent fetus / a living human) but not to kill a (murderer / piece of tissue)." Both sides might have a point, but it's trying to compare apples to oranges. To the liberal, it's not about the fetus insomuch is it's about the rights of the mother. Pro-lifers can argue till their faces are blue, but it'll still be about the mother. With pro-capital punishment folks, it's less about actual people and more about the concept of justice. Those that oppose capital punishment can similarly blue themselves pointing out the flaws int he system and how killing them makes us no better than they, but they'll get nowhere. I take the tact that they're both about people, potential people, or deeply flawed people. To me, they're all people and ought to be allowed to remain as such. As a former death penalty advocate, I am aware of the arguments in favor. The utilitarian argument suggests that it's a deterrant. The idealistic argument is rooted in justice being served. As for deterrance, I am personally unconvinced. It's nearly impossible to gauge the impact of crimes not committed, but I can't imagine a person screwed up enough to go out and deliberately kill someone (the only way you can get capital punishment in most states) would reconsider because they might get executed instead of spending their life in prison. Might is an operative word. Even if you're convicted of capital murder, you're still not guaranteed the death sentance. Particularly if you're wealthy and have a good lawyer. That means that most people who get the death penalty are the ones that fall through the cracks and the ones who don't care about the penalty because either they think they're going to get away with it or they're too depraved to care. If they're not afraid of spending 30 years in a prison with a bunch of killers, I doubt that death in ten or fifteen years will have too much effect. Measures could be made in order to make the system act as a deterrant, but it would involve mandatory sentences and speeding up the system. The first would run the risk of people getting the gurney that aren't deserving of it or juries giving someone who ought to be in prison the rest of their lives a 2nd Degree conviction because they don't believe he should be killed. The second increases the likelihood of a false conviction, which of course is a reason in and of itself a reason to oppose capital punishment. The more that happens, the more reason to oppose. So, discounting the deterrance factor, there remains the argument that justice is served by killing the killers. To that, I can only say... they're probably right. Most of the people on death row deserve to be there. Most of them have taken a life and therefore have forfeited the right to live themselves. I've difficulty saying that there's no justice to be found there because there is. But I can't help but ask: to what end? How is society served by justice and what limitations should we put on it? If justice was all that we were interested in, we would torture those who tortured their victims and we'd sodomize those who raped and molested. As a society, though, we've moved beyond that. We have said "Even though there would be justice and symmetry here, we will not do these things because they are an indignity to the rights of all people." Instead, even when we kill people, we do it in as humane a way as possible. They may have taken a pick-ax to the forhead of their victims, but we simply place a needle in their arm. In our own way, we've tried to humanitize the taking of a life. Why? Again, because even though there may be justice and symmetry in a grotesque, painful death, we've decided that there ought to be something better. I propose that we take that mentality and apply it to the death penalty at-large. Just as we don't need to torture or mutilate someone to kill them, we don't need to kill them to incapacitate them. There is a better way. There is one argument that death penalty advocates argue that is unquestionably true: If we don't execute them, they'll end up back out on the streets. As a civil society, it is our first responsibility to maintain a semblance of order. Having a revolving door prison would unquestionably undermine that. This is where liberals seriously undermine their opposition to the death penalty. Before the death penalty can be abolished, there must be life without possibility of parole as an option in every state. There must be a way where juries can sentence someone to life and remain confident that they will never be able to get out. Furthermore, juries must be assured that the prisons these criminals go into will not be a country club. That it will be, as intended, punishment. That means in addition no early release, no cable TV. Nothing that has given our prisons a reputation for being anything other than something to fear. As liberals often argue for softer prisons in addition to the abolition of the death penalty, they try to have it both ways. I may agree with Amnesty Internation on the death penalty, but I am certain they'd be horrified with the rest of it. So why should we go through all this extra effort? For the sake of murderers? In part, perhaps, but also for the sake of ourselves. As a Christian, I firmly believe in the power of redemption. I believe that anyone, regardless of where they've been and what they've done, has the ability to be forgiven. With the death penalty, they either find that redemption or don't prior to their execution. If they do, then what's really the point in killing a reborn person? If they don't, then maybe they still might. Not many, perhaps, but more than would if executed. Ironically, many liberals argue that views based in a religious pretext would be therefore invalid, but that you go. If during prison they become trouble-makers or hurt or injure someone else, they can be thrown into The Pit or The Gulag or, more conventionally, a Supermax prison. The place where they don't get human contact enough to do damage. Only four walls, a cot, a Bible (and/or other religious material), and a lot of time to reflect on matters. A whole lot of time. Maybe they'll find their way, maybe they won't, but I'd feel better in a country that is receptive to the redemption of the human spirit than one that puts people to sleep. So, in ending the death penalty, we'd have nothing to lose and souls to save. Sounds like a good bargain. -30- |
BLOGROLLODEXICAL BLOGCRITICS!!! From The Right Stuart Buck Susanna Cornett Owen Courreges Martin Devon Jane Galt Orrin Judd John Hawkins Andrea Harris Mike Hendrix Frank J. John LeBoutillier LILEKS!! Kevin McGehee Lee Ann Morawsky Michael Morgan Polywhatever Andrew Sullivan Doctor Weevil Kevin Whited Anne Wilson From the Left Ted Barlow William Burton Da Coop Gary Farber Get Donkey Daniel Goldberg Charles Kuffner Kris Lofgren Frank Martin Rittenhouse Mac Thomason Wilde Greg Wythe From 1776 Asparagirl The Cheeseman John Cole The Comedian Colby Cosh Happy Fun Guys InstaProf Andrew Olmstead Bill Quick Ravenwood VodkaLush Team Volokh From the Front Lines American Kaiser NZ Bear Charles Johnson Kathy Kinsley Hawkgirl Dr. Manhattan Mike Trossman From Hell Amish Tech Support From Houston From the Heart The Vole Heidi Rogers Miss Singleton James Durbin From the Mind The Texas Mercury Arts & Letters Daily From the Funnybone Something Positive The Onion Ironic Times Scrappleface Girls Are Pretty From the NoneOfTheAbove Last Page TPB, Esquire |
||
