Monday, August 13, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Hilarious
Don't miss The Daily Gut sidebar, where I found this story (and the related Gregalogue) .
UPDATE: Different topic, but another great Gregalogue.
UPDATE: Different topic, but another great Gregalogue.
I haven't quit blogging
Sorry; put away the champagne! Enjoying the last weeks of summer, nothing new to write about, just check out the blogs in the sidebar, that's all you need. I have one week left at Harvard, my last week here ever, so I've just been spending time with friends, blogging will probably remain light to non-existent until I get home.
UPDATE: Now that's what i call perfect light summer vlogging.
UPDATE: Now that's what i call perfect light summer vlogging.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Not-So-Dangerous Book for Boys
Beyond parody. Then again, what isn't, these days? Another hilariously pathetic detail from the original article is that there is even an internet station set up in the camp so the scouts can all keep checking their email.
The story does leave us with a very difficult question, though, one that is at the heart of conservatism. The Boy Scouts changed their name to the Scouts in the 60s, and who can argue with that? I'm an obsessive when it comes to women's equality, and I despise misogynistic institutions with a true vehemence, from the finals clubs [Harvard's frat houses] in my backyard to, well, basically the entire Muslim world. But (there's always a but!), I probably have to admit that this departure from tradition, this decision to change something as fundamental as the very name of the organization, likely jeopardized the institutional resistance to further, less savory, changes. In other words, it probably wasn't that long a slide from girl scouts to vegan pacifist scouts. So, how can we insist upon some changes and put our foot down over others? Is there any way to stop the ball once it starts rolling? I have no idea! But this is why I fear change. I also fear bright lights and loud noises.
The story does leave us with a very difficult question, though, one that is at the heart of conservatism. The Boy Scouts changed their name to the Scouts in the 60s, and who can argue with that? I'm an obsessive when it comes to women's equality, and I despise misogynistic institutions with a true vehemence, from the finals clubs [Harvard's frat houses] in my backyard to, well, basically the entire Muslim world. But (there's always a but!), I probably have to admit that this departure from tradition, this decision to change something as fundamental as the very name of the organization, likely jeopardized the institutional resistance to further, less savory, changes. In other words, it probably wasn't that long a slide from girl scouts to vegan pacifist scouts. So, how can we insist upon some changes and put our foot down over others? Is there any way to stop the ball once it starts rolling? I have no idea! But this is why I fear change. I also fear bright lights and loud noises.
Argh
I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate this (via HotAir). They (the Republican politicians) know this is stupid, know it makes no economic sense, know it's outright wrong, but they do it anyway - because they don't want to seem mean. God forbid they stand up for their principles and tell some charity off; no, they must embrace it, pander to it, in order to get some good press (which they aren't gonna get anyway) and the votes of a few bleeding hearts (who aren't gonna vote for Republicans anyway).
This issue came up at Harvard earlier this year, when the Harvard Republican Club (HRC) voted to endorse the STOP campaign (Students Taking on Poverty, your basic socialist nightmare). I don't want to repeat myself, so I figured I would just post an excerpt from an email I wrote to the Republican open list in response (The Salient, btw, is the campus conservative publication - real conservative, nothing to do with the gladhanders in the HRC):
"The HRC, just like the GOP, appears to be made up of a bunch of incredibly nice and polite individuals. The national republicans just grin wider whenever the dems attack them with lies, Bush and his White House never ever fight back and rebut even the most blatant slanders, the Republican leadership goes out of its way to pander to minority groups, and the HRC dutifully and kindly follows their example. I personally find this distateful and politically autistic, but attacking party republicans for gutlessness is like attacking birds for flying (i'm sorry i can't be more witty, i'm on day two of my hunger strike and feeling woozy). My only major problem with the HRC is that their desire to be all things to all people, their kindness towards their political opponents, and their willingness to join up with campaigns like STOP does not extend to some conservatives themselves. That is to say, there is apparently nothing on this campus they are willing to vociferously denounce except The Salient."
Shorter version: For God's sake, Republicans, grow a pair!
This issue came up at Harvard earlier this year, when the Harvard Republican Club (HRC) voted to endorse the STOP campaign (Students Taking on Poverty, your basic socialist nightmare). I don't want to repeat myself, so I figured I would just post an excerpt from an email I wrote to the Republican open list in response (The Salient, btw, is the campus conservative publication - real conservative, nothing to do with the gladhanders in the HRC):
"The HRC, just like the GOP, appears to be made up of a bunch of incredibly nice and polite individuals. The national republicans just grin wider whenever the dems attack them with lies, Bush and his White House never ever fight back and rebut even the most blatant slanders, the Republican leadership goes out of its way to pander to minority groups, and the HRC dutifully and kindly follows their example. I personally find this distateful and politically autistic, but attacking party republicans for gutlessness is like attacking birds for flying (i'm sorry i can't be more witty, i'm on day two of my hunger strike and feeling woozy). My only major problem with the HRC is that their desire to be all things to all people, their kindness towards their political opponents, and their willingness to join up with campaigns like STOP does not extend to some conservatives themselves. That is to say, there is apparently nothing on this campus they are willing to vociferously denounce except The Salient."
Shorter version: For God's sake, Republicans, grow a pair!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
New York Times, I apologize
I made fun of you over your story on The New Victorians. I suggested, on my own blog and in the Althouse comments, that this supposed trend, which appeared laughably false on its face, was just the latest example of a reporter from your renowned newspaper making up a story (I mean, a "tale") based on an inspired concoction of overheard anecdotes, shoddy analysis, and completely unrepresentative close personal acquaintances. However, I must now eat my words. I can be a big man, and I will admit when I'm wrong. You see, a reporter from Washington City Paper did something your reporter did not do - that is, engage in actual reporting. This devoted young journalist may not work for the Times, or for a newspaper of any prominence at all for that matter, but she would not be dissuaded. "I may not write for The Paper of Record," she surely thought, "I may not Print all the News that's Fit to Print, and I sure as blazes ain't no Grey Lady, but, gosh almighty, I will do whatever I have to do to get this story - and if that means actually talking to and spending time with my subjects, then so be it! Even if - yes, even if - they aren't my old college pals! Indeed, I will dare to throw all caution to the wind and even try to read their private correspondence!" She did all this, and more, knowing that it was all in vain, knowing that her story would never, could never, make it onto the most-emailed list at the Times.
Yet, and this is why I must apologize, her conclusions are the same. Go, read them for yourselves. See the New Victorians at work and at play. Bask in the candlelit glow of their refined dinner soirees, pinch the cheeks of their happily spoiled offspring, feed gourmet treats to their lovingly groomed french poodles, gasp at the rebellion against their free-loving elders. Demeaning sex-crazed lives lived in an alcoholic haze? The stuff of legend and Tom Wolfe novels! No, these young adults are too busy being upwardly mobile, too focused on playing catch with their sons, to even momentarily contemplate casual sexual encounters. Go forth, New York Times, and cast your eyes upon the new generation. Behold: The New Victorians!
Oh, wait.
(major profanity warning at that link, btw)
h/t to my dear friend Meghan over at Modestly Yours.
Yet, and this is why I must apologize, her conclusions are the same. Go, read them for yourselves. See the New Victorians at work and at play. Bask in the candlelit glow of their refined dinner soirees, pinch the cheeks of their happily spoiled offspring, feed gourmet treats to their lovingly groomed french poodles, gasp at the rebellion against their free-loving elders. Demeaning sex-crazed lives lived in an alcoholic haze? The stuff of legend and Tom Wolfe novels! No, these young adults are too busy being upwardly mobile, too focused on playing catch with their sons, to even momentarily contemplate casual sexual encounters. Go forth, New York Times, and cast your eyes upon the new generation. Behold: The New Victorians!
Oh, wait.
(major profanity warning at that link, btw)
h/t to my dear friend Meghan over at Modestly Yours.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
I hate UNICEF
They're disgusting jew-haters, for one. They're the UN, for another (but I repeat myself). Even if they were neither of these things, though - sending kids around on Halloween to collect money for others instead of candy for themselves? Bastards.
This random thought brought to you courtesy of today's Gregalogue. If you aren't watching RedEye (or, at the least, RedEye Recap), you probably lead a healthy and fulfilling life, and I hate you.
This random thought brought to you courtesy of today's Gregalogue. If you aren't watching RedEye (or, at the least, RedEye Recap), you probably lead a healthy and fulfilling life, and I hate you.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Scientists take one step closer to understanding Canadian identity
Though maybe using sheep would have been a safer bet.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Not feeling smug enough this evening?
Friday, July 27, 2007
"The fear of being alone"
In the midst of a typically fun and charismatic Althouse vlog, a moment of deep truth.
A lot of people seem to want to be in love just to be in love, to have somebody to love and who loves them. Who that person actually is becomes a bit of an afterthought. Me, I'm not so much into falling in love in general, I'm more concerned about the person in particular. In plain english, I'm just really really picky, and I'm in no hurry (quite fittingly, alas, my high standards are met by even higher ones - that is to say, the ladies in question say 'no'!).
Also, my problem (well, one of them!) is the exact opposite of what Prof Althouse says - I have a fear of not being alone! I grew up basically (long story...) a single child, with no close friends my age (shocking, I know!), keeping to myself and so on. I'm still very anti-social, much preferring to be by myself, so I have no idea how I will ever manage to share a life. I don't mean in an odd couple, getting annoyed at a girl for leaving towels on the floor way (though it wouldn't help!), but in more of a "honey, i love you, i'm just gonna go off and spend the next month in a shack in the woods, don't forget to walk the dog" sort of way. So yeah, that's probably not healthy.
Anyway, enough about me, hope y'all have a wonderful weekend!
A lot of people seem to want to be in love just to be in love, to have somebody to love and who loves them. Who that person actually is becomes a bit of an afterthought. Me, I'm not so much into falling in love in general, I'm more concerned about the person in particular. In plain english, I'm just really really picky, and I'm in no hurry (quite fittingly, alas, my high standards are met by even higher ones - that is to say, the ladies in question say 'no'!).
Also, my problem (well, one of them!) is the exact opposite of what Prof Althouse says - I have a fear of not being alone! I grew up basically (long story...) a single child, with no close friends my age (shocking, I know!), keeping to myself and so on. I'm still very anti-social, much preferring to be by myself, so I have no idea how I will ever manage to share a life. I don't mean in an odd couple, getting annoyed at a girl for leaving towels on the floor way (though it wouldn't help!), but in more of a "honey, i love you, i'm just gonna go off and spend the next month in a shack in the woods, don't forget to walk the dog" sort of way. So yeah, that's probably not healthy.
Anyway, enough about me, hope y'all have a wonderful weekend!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
"There were always more Trojans in an envelope on the college dean's door,"
"which sort of diminished the seriousness of a visit to him." Just one of a few great lines in that post, check it out. (via Dawn Eden)
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The New Atheists are a bunch of obnoxious jerks
If you're as big a Barbara Kay fan as I am (and you should be!), make sure not to miss her latest article, here, some very good stuff. (via HotAir)
For whatever it's worth (and it ain't worth much!), my earlier comments on this, as a very reluctant atheist thoroughly embarrassed by the company I must keep, are here.
For whatever it's worth (and it ain't worth much!), my earlier comments on this, as a very reluctant atheist thoroughly embarrassed by the company I must keep, are here.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Calling B.S. on Planet Earth
Another entry in my series of writing about stuff I know absolutely nothing about:
I love nature photography (see Althouse, Ann), so, naturally, I adore the Planet Earth series - absolutely stunning. But I was watching an episode today, and my liberal b.s. detector went off. In an episode on the oceans, the narrator introduces us to the blue whale, the largest creature ever. He explains that because of the oceans' vastness, we know almost nothing about the movements of these huge whales, and we have no idea where they go to breed. Then, maybe five minutes later, as the episode is wrappping up with some final shots of the whales, the narrator goes into earnestness mode and explains that because of climate change, the whales' habitat has been endangered, and their numbers are dwindling. Where there used to be hundreds of thousands, there remain now just a few hundred. So my question is: if they can't track the whales, have no idea where they go, don't have a clue where they breed, how on God's green and exquisitely photogenic earth do they know how many of them there are? And know with such precision that they can make apocalyptic claims about there being an extinction rate of 97 percent? Maybe the whales just moved, or are just smart enough to stay away from British people.
Anyway, I don't care about this at all, I just thought it was a bizarre statement for them to make. And screw the whales. As long as there are enough baby seals around for our natives to club every day, I'm happy!
I love nature photography (see Althouse, Ann), so, naturally, I adore the Planet Earth series - absolutely stunning. But I was watching an episode today, and my liberal b.s. detector went off. In an episode on the oceans, the narrator introduces us to the blue whale, the largest creature ever. He explains that because of the oceans' vastness, we know almost nothing about the movements of these huge whales, and we have no idea where they go to breed. Then, maybe five minutes later, as the episode is wrappping up with some final shots of the whales, the narrator goes into earnestness mode and explains that because of climate change, the whales' habitat has been endangered, and their numbers are dwindling. Where there used to be hundreds of thousands, there remain now just a few hundred. So my question is: if they can't track the whales, have no idea where they go, don't have a clue where they breed, how on God's green and exquisitely photogenic earth do they know how many of them there are? And know with such precision that they can make apocalyptic claims about there being an extinction rate of 97 percent? Maybe the whales just moved, or are just smart enough to stay away from British people.
Anyway, I don't care about this at all, I just thought it was a bizarre statement for them to make. And screw the whales. As long as there are enough baby seals around for our natives to club every day, I'm happy!
Monday, July 23, 2007
More on the New Victorians
RC picks up on the supposed New Victorians trend. I thought I should elaborate on my skepticism. I think this is just a case of poor reporting and social commentary, where a few legitimate cases (Erica Jong's daughter, for instance - wonderful to see!) are confused with a whole bunch of unrelated people. Every article on the New Victorians that I've read has commented on their careerism - in other words, on their self-involved materialism. A far leap from a modest, family-first life. And then there are the comments about fancy dinners and french poodles and similar retro-yuppie waspish class markers. Sounds to me like these people are treating marriages and children not so much as true callings, but as status symbols. Can't afford that nice apartment in the Upper East Side? No worries, you can still get that promotion and impress your friends with your tennis club membership, your golden retriever, and your nuclear family!
Yes, having kids as status symbols is a step up from having drugs and hookers as status symbols, but I don't know how long something built on such a shaky foundation can last. The reporters marvel that there is no hint of infidelity or unhappiness in these families - um, hey, they're twenty-something newlyweds, give 'em a few years!
Finally, as a young twenty-something myself, I have to say that I have never encountered anyone even remotely like the people in these articles. I remain very skeptical about whether these reporters aren't just making this whole story up.
Yes, having kids as status symbols is a step up from having drugs and hookers as status symbols, but I don't know how long something built on such a shaky foundation can last. The reporters marvel that there is no hint of infidelity or unhappiness in these families - um, hey, they're twenty-something newlyweds, give 'em a few years!
Finally, as a young twenty-something myself, I have to say that I have never encountered anyone even remotely like the people in these articles. I remain very skeptical about whether these reporters aren't just making this whole story up.
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends."
Came across that MLK line today, made me feel guilty for not linking over to Relapsed Catholic's secular fatwa post. I'm not a wimp, I'm just not a follower, don't like getting involved with movements and crowds and stuff. But I owe her one (well, quite a few, really), so here's my link. Please click on the 'religion of peace' tag below if you're interested in my thoughts on this gay-murdering, woman-oppressing, barbaric death cult that calls itself a religion.
UPDATE: The actual quotations they're in trouble over:
“I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”
“I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada.”
UPDATE: The actual quotations they're in trouble over:
“I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”
“I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada.”
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Great Links
Over at Rachel Lucas. The IMAO Condensed one is especially good.
As for the water in Darfur one, I just got back from a big Harry and the Potters concert in Harvard Yard (warm up act: Draco and the Malfoys, with the very memorable lyrics "My dad is rich, your dad is dead"). No, I'm not a Harry Potter fan, haven't read them, maybe I will one day, just had to be there on account of some friends. Anyway, the MC for the concert tells the audience, made up largely of wildly screaming young children, "Harry uses the power of love to fight evil, and we can, too! [crowd screams] We're our very own Dumbledore's Army [crowd screams], and we're gonna use all our love - to save Darfur! [crowd screams] Yeah!" I just thought that was a weird intrusion, considering the kids probably haven't a clue what he was talking about. And what is the deal with saving the world through rock concerts, anyway? Oh well, at least he didn't say "to bring our soldiers home"!
As for the water in Darfur one, I just got back from a big Harry and the Potters concert in Harvard Yard (warm up act: Draco and the Malfoys, with the very memorable lyrics "My dad is rich, your dad is dead"). No, I'm not a Harry Potter fan, haven't read them, maybe I will one day, just had to be there on account of some friends. Anyway, the MC for the concert tells the audience, made up largely of wildly screaming young children, "Harry uses the power of love to fight evil, and we can, too! [crowd screams] We're our very own Dumbledore's Army [crowd screams], and we're gonna use all our love - to save Darfur! [crowd screams] Yeah!" I just thought that was a weird intrusion, considering the kids probably haven't a clue what he was talking about. And what is the deal with saving the world through rock concerts, anyway? Oh well, at least he didn't say "to bring our soldiers home"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)