Moonpanther

Meme time

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:31:07 GMT

Remember the game 'Ten minutes in heaven'?

If we were locked in a dark closet together for ten minutes, no consequences and no questions asked, what would you do with me?

Comment and you'll get a comment back, but then you have to post this in your own journal to see what others would do with you. ;)

Comments screened.

My Hero: Congressman Barney Frank

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:42:36 GMT

So, this is probably not the most expected of choices, but I've gotta say that I wish more Democrats would show the same kind of attitude as Congressman Barney Frank from the 4th District Massachusetts. While he's been elected by huge margins time and time again since he first got into the House in 1982 (which means he was elected about three weeks before I was born), he's really made a name for himself on the national stage since this banking crisis because he's Chairman of the House Financial Services committee.

Now, let's look at the virtues of this particular elected official:

1. This man is the second openly gay member of the House ever (the first being Gerry Studds who was outed rather than coming out himself). While it probably wasn't as hard as Rep. Studds's effort, it still takes a lot to come out publically in a political office. This is even more impressive when you consider the viciousness with which he was pursued during the 1990 Steve Gobie scandal which, ironically, was lead by an opponent who was later involved in his own gay sex scandal.

2. The man is just a badass when it comes to using the power of the majority. I loved watching him talking to the CEO of AIG who said he would only provide Congress the names of their executives that received unearned bonuses if they would be kept confidential and Frank refused. More to the point, he then threatened to subpoena the names. He's been a strong voice throughout this crisis, he continues to press hard and make a point of representing the outrage of the American people.

3. The guy interviews like a fiend. He's as entertaining in interviews as he is on the House floor grilling business executives. He's intelligent, well-spoken, well-read, and aware of the situations he's facing. I really enjoy seeing him speak, and his voice is so distinctive. It's actually somewhat comforting to hear Barney Frank calling company CEOs names. I feel like the government actually wants to make sure these guys don't get away with this stuff.

4. I agree with most of his politics. He was one of three Representatives to oppose the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act which, while I like the sentiment, restricts free speech because we're annoyed by what people have to say. He is a staunch supporter of First Amendment Rights. He's, of course, behind LGBT issues. He believes in medical marijuana and online gambling rights. He's pro-choice and agrees with the military that their budget needs to get cut and that other elements of government should be doing some of the foreign relations work.

There are many reasons to like this particular Congressman. I'd like to see more Democrats exhibit the same level of sheer gumption that he's been exhibiting in the past couple of weeks alone. Let's face it, Barney Frank has balls. He's aware that his party is in power and gaining popularity by the day and has absolutely no fear of doing exactly what the country wants him to do. Part of this stems from basically having a safe seat, but that wasn't always the case and his career shows a genuine lack of political caution. Top that off with the time he spent as a teacher, and you have a recipe for heroism the likes of which I rarely see.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to meet my hero, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA).

I can't believe this

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:12:12 GMT

My bail: $860. That's just not right. Who would have guessed?

EDIT:

Sorry. I didn't post the meme this was about. This will make more sense.

Just read the 'offense' and if you've done it, you owe that fine. Keep going until you've read each 'offense' and added up your total fine. Title your bulletin 'My Bail is $........' You don't have to confess your answers, just the amount of your fine.

1) Smoked pot -- $10
2) Ever got drunk at work, or went to work while still drunk --$50
3) Cheated on your significant other -- $10
4) Been in love with two people or more at the same time -- $50
5) Said you love someone but didn't mean it -- $25
6) Went streaking -- $5
7) Went streaking in broad daylight -- $15
8) Kissed a co-worker-- $ 20
9) Kissed your boss --$50
10) Been arrested -- $5
11) Spent time in jail -- $15
12) Peed in the pool -- $5
13) Played spin the bottle -- $5
14) Done something you regret -- $20
15) Slept with your best friend -- $20
16) Been in love with a stripper -- $20
17) Went skinny dipping -- $5
18) Been slapped-- $5
19) Slapped someone-- $5
20) Beat up someone -- $20
21) Been jumped -- $10
22) Ever had sex at church -- $25
23) Dated someone you met online -- $25
24) Cheated on test -- $50
25) Vandalized something -- $20
26) Slept with someone in your parents' bed -- $100
27) Crossed dressed -- $10
28) Given money to stripper -- $25
29) Flirted with an officer to get out of a ticket-- $30
30) Been in love with a stripper -- $20
31) Kissed some one who's name you didn't know --$10
32) Hit on some one of the same sex while at work-- $15
33) Ever drive drunk -- $20
34) Used toys while having sex -- $30
35) Got drunk, passed out and don't remember the night before -- $20
36) Had sex in a pool -- $20
37) Masturbated -- $10
38) Cheated on your significant other with their relative or close friend --$20
39) Done oral -- $5
40) Got oral -- $5
41) Done / got oral in a car while it was moving-- $25
42) Woke up in the morning and did not know the person who was next to you-- $40
43) Stole something -- $10
44) Slept with someone who has been in jail -- $25
45) Made a dirty home video -- $15
46) Plan on making a dirty home video in the near future --$30
47) Had a threesome -- $50
48) Had sex in a public place-- $20
49) Been in the same room while someone was having sex -- $25
50) Stole something worth more than a hundred dollars --$20
51) Had sex with someone 10 years older -- $20
52) Kissed a teacher while you were still a student--$25
53) Lied to your mate -- $5
54) Lied to your mate about the sex being good -- $25

Happy Valentine's Day

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:45:40 GMT

My Hero: Archie Andrews

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:46:17 GMT

I've been meaning to do this series for quite some time. I'd like to do several posts on my personal heroes, both real and fictional. Since this is the person that originally prompted this idea, I'm going to start here.

So, please let me introduce you to my personal hero, Archie Andrews.

Ok, I know some of you are thinking, "Why Archie?" Those are the kinder ones among you. But seriously, there are some wonderful things to love and respect about that rascal of a teen from Riverdale, MO. Let's make a list:

1. He's a really good kid when it comes down to it. Most of the trouble he gets into is related to his clumsiness, which actually makes him more endearing. But there's something to be said for a good guy trying to do the best for his friends and neighbors. It's not often that this sort of character makes and retains popularity in any culture, yet for some reason we like stories that might revolve around preventing an old lady from losing her fortune to a local con man, assisting in an understaffed nursery, or planting trees in a deforested area.

2. He's the lead singer in a rock band. I make no secret of the fact that if it weren't for my blasted and ironic inability to sing, this is really the career I was born for. I have the energy, I have the passion, I have the moves. Archie also has the voice. Not a great voice, mind you, but one passable enough that, while they are nowhere near as popular as Josie and the Pussycats (another Archie Comics property), they still are a fairly in demand entertainment. Thanks to the inclusion of the wealthy Veronica Lodge, trips to places as far flung as Alaska, California, and even India are not uncommon, nor impossible for the Archies. Did I mention that he managed to get the band named after him with no argument?

3. He's been shamelessly dating two women for almost seven decades. I mean, he doesn't even hide it. And he randomly dates other girls in between those two, who are not only not upset at him, but fight over him! I'm tempted to agree with Banky in Chasing Amy that Archie is attempting to get both together in a three way. If he hasn't already. And when Betty or Veronica isn't available? Well, there's any of the other girls at Riverdale High, including Cheryl Blossom, the hot red head from upscale Pembrooke. While I freely admit that I prefer Betty Cooper to Veronica Lodge, Cheryl's in a class by herself. None of which matters, because Archie doesn't seem to have to make a choice!

4. He's a letterman in roughly 78 sports. Now, I'm not much of a sports fan, we all know this, but I can at least respect athletic ability, and Archie has it in spades. While not as good as Reggie Mantle or Moose Mason, Archie still holds his own on most competitive fields. I suppose when you spend 67 years in high school, you have the opportunity to get really good at your school sports, but there has to be at least some iota of actual talent there for this to work at all. From hockey to soccer to surfing, Archie knows sports.

5. He has a love/hate relationship with every adult in Riverdale. While being a genuinely good guy helps him quite a bit, his clumsy nature often causes problems for people like Mr. Weatherbee, Miss Grundy, and Hiram Lodge. The interesting thing is that despite his mistakes and foibles, Archie seems to continually gain their goodwill. This is partially attributed to different writers taking different interpretations of the characters (another rant on how Betty in the latest Betty and Veronica is a lot like a Lost character I know), but mostly seems to be that while, for example, the 'Bee considers Archie the bane of his existence, he still also acts in a protective and almost fatherly manner to the wayward teen, and they seem to enjoy a structured kind of friendship both in and out of school, somewhat related to Weatherbee's status as a Marine. Archie gets a similar reaction from Mr. Lodge who can't stand the kid, yet realizes that the awkward boy treats his daughter like the princess that Lodge himself would have her be, and gives him the benefit of the doubt on several occasions because of it. Being able to annoy every person of responsibility and still be liked by them is a huge success in my book.

6. Travel to fabulous destinations. Archie Andrews is far more well-traveled than I am. While, again, we have to understand that he's had almost 70 years to do this, it's still quite a bit for the middle-class son of a home maker and a mid-level business executive. Still, Archie has been to places as far away as Japan, Scotland, Italy, and Zambia. He's traveled all over the United States and North America. He seems to wing it with Veronica to popular travel destinations on a regular basis, often bringing his friends with them. This man knows how to travel, and he does it both frequently and well.

There's so much more to say about a great man like Archie Andrews (like having a best friend named Forsythe Pendleton "Jughead" Jones), but I think this is more than enough to give a good idea of why I might consider this kid from the comics to be a role model of sorts. He lives a life of fun, but tempers it with responsibility. He doesn't shrink away from hard work or good deeds, but this is no hindrance to his social life. He tries to make the most of his place in the world, and does so with grace and good will.

Archie Andrews, you are a bro among bros, a gentleman's gentleman, and one of my personal heroes.

Good news

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:09:10 GMT

Today I got a call with an offer for a job interview. Haven't gotten the job yet, but it's teaching high school English. 80% position, so I'll likely have four classes a day, and that qualifies me for benefits, I think. Interview isn't until after the holidays, but it's set and the guy on the phone sounded excited, so I'm really hoping on this one.

Since it's tradition

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:31:36 GMT

It's a tradition now that every year I post this particular editorial around Christmas-time. I think it's important that we realize how important certain ideas are, how endemic to our culture, how vital to our spirit. I'll let Francis Pharcellus Church say the rest.

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/clipping.htm

Need to get this out

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:06:50 GMT

So, I have to get this out of my system before I continue going. There's a lot I have left to do, and yet I still need a bit of venting.

Today my laptop died on me. I think it has something to do with the power source after consulting an expert. However, I cannot get on it and am using the big computer now, which is a pain in the ass. Between that, having to cancel a dinner I was looking forward to because of lack of time, being stuck inside a box in the middle of a building with no windows and uncomfortable chairs, and various other annoyances today, this has not been a great day for me.

The laptop is what worries me most. I rely on that thing. I have no idea how I'm going to get it fixed, or get to the stuff on it that I need, or anything of the sort. All I know is that this annoys me more than I can possibly articulate, and I know that's not good. I should be thinking good thoughts. Here are a few:

1. Maybe I'll actually see snow this weekend. Maybe not, and then I don't have to be in snow. Win-win.

2. I have great friends, many of whom I miss, many who I enjoy seeing on a regular basis, but all incredible.

3. M'lady loves me and is trying so very hard to make me happy. If more problems weren't piling up during this, She would be successful (yay, Daily Show/Colbert Report!)

4. Things are going to be great and surprising this weekend.

I think I need to do what I used to do, which was spend an entire day thinking about how something amazing will happen to me that day. Inevitably, something always did.

So, I'm trying to feel good in my adorably naive, Panglossian way. In that vein, I'll end this with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "...the World is a pretty good sort of a World; and 'tis our Duty to make the best of it and be thankful." I'm trying. Really, I am.

Thanksgiving post

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:01:33 GMT

Well, it's my favorite holiday of the year. I'm at my parents' place watching the Macy's parade and making phone calls. I got up semi-early because I was up late doing legal research (don't ask) and have been relaxing since.

Also, viewers of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade were just Rickrolled. This amuses me.

A quick list of what I'm thankful for:

1. I have, bar none, the greatest friends in the world. Too many people have shown how much they care in too many ways to list them all, but you guys are among the most precious people in the world to me, and I couldn't be more thankful for that.

2. I have the greatest girlfriend in the world. She's honest, brilliant (much more so than I), understanding, sweet, and loving. I don't know how I managed to get so lucky, but somehow I did and will never doubt my own good fortune again.

3. I live in a beautiful world filled with magic. Yes, there are problems, but they're fixable. Focusing on the great things around us, the prodigous bounty of wonderful that I'm blessed to be able to experience on a daily basis, brings more of those things into my life.

4. I get to learn more about myself every single day. I'm confident, honest, and no longer afraid to be myself. That's more of a gift than I could possibly hope for.

Things I want to be thankful for next year:

1. I've been able to help more people and do more things for others.

2. I've been able to write more and even get more stuff published.

3. I've made even more incredible friends.

4. Neil Patrick Harris guest starred on House (wouldn't that just be awesome?)

I wish you all the happiest of holidays. You mean more to me than can be expressed here, and I wish you nothing but joy, laughter, good food, and good times.

"Thanksgiving, after all, is a word of action." - W.J. Cameron

[Politics] Prop. 8 and the African American vote

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:34:27 GMT

I had originally written a reasonably calm and passionless piece about this in which I attempted to study the reasons why 7 out of 10 African Americans voted for Proposition 8 in California, trying to look at this from a rational, unbiased viewpoint. However, I admit that my original writing was based on a news bite and I planned to flesh it out once I've done the research. I find that the flesh is rather biased, flabbergasted, and, quite frankly, astoundingly angry.

Now, there are likely several reasons why the Prop. 8 vote passed by 52%, and I'm not suggesting that the black vote made that happen. There are some, like Melissa Harris-Lacewell, author of Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought, who suggest that Democrats, the party opposing this technically non-partisan issue, took the black vote for granted. Honestly, this is a very good point. Is it racist of me to assume that one oppressed minority that had to fight for their own civil rights less than fifty years ago (and still do to some extent) would automatically support another oppressed minority that is basically where it was in 1957 or thereabouts? This seems like a fair assumption to make. However, I also think it's a fair assumption that a person would want to stay out of the private life of another person, so I suppose that theory is blown out of the water.

The problem, of course, is that this isn't a racial issue, it's a religious one. Once again, we're talking about faith intruding on the fair and equal running of the country. Religion crosses racial boundaries in a way that no other cultural phenomenon can. Otherwise rational human beings continue to do stupid and short-sighted things in the name of faith and have for centuries, so why on Earth would one assume that they would bother to question the authority of spiritual leaders who are determined to place centuries of Biblical misinterpretation into the lawbooks? If you're curious about the evolution of the horrendously malformed assumption that certain aspects of the Bible are anti-gay, drop a comment.

But let's look at some of the quotes from the Washington Post article linked above, shall we?

"I think it's mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don't agree with it," said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black."I'm not really the type that I wanted to stop people's rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that's what I'm going to do.God doesn't approve it, so I don't approve it. And I approve of Him."

- You're right, it is the way you're brought up in church, and "your beliefs" are that people's rights should be stopped. You've been taught something incorrectly by religious leaders who were taught something incorrectly and so on, and so on, and so on. However, the blatant arrogance that you have any idea what God does and does not approve of, especially considering the woeful misinterpretation of scripture that this involves, speaks only to an upbringing that doesn't encourage the challenging of authority. The irony is that if the first two numbers in the year were "19" instead of "20," there'd be people saying the same about your rights. Wasn't that long ago that the Bible was telling whites that they were superior to minority races, after all.

"The reason I feel they came out so strong on the issue is one, for them, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a marriage issue. It's about marriage being between a man and a woman and it doesn't cut into the civil rights issue, about equality.The gay community was never considered a third of a person." (Derek McCoy)

- Ok, first of all, it's the three-fifths compromise, jackass, not "one-third." Nit-picking aside, Loving v Virginia was a marriage issue too. And while the gay community was never considered a third of a person (or two thirds for those of us who can do math), it's never been illegal just to be black, so I think that balances out.

"I'm sorry for the gay people. They have feelings. Legally, I don't want that for the children. They will be confused and think it's okay. They might think they're gay, too." (Flor Guardado)

- The varying levels of ignorance that the above quote goes through is astounding. I hate to break it to you, Mrs. Guardado, but it is ok. The very idea that simply being exposed to gay culture will encourage children to be gay, or that hiding it from them will prevent it, shows both a lack of education and tolerance. Again, this seems to turn on the premise that sexuality is chosen and that a child might, upon learning of it, decide that they want to be discriminated against, that they want their lives to be more complicated, and yes, that they want to not be able to get married to the person they love.

"I don't discriminate against people...But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family." (Pablo Correa)

- Protect them from what? I've asked this question so many times, but I cannot get a single satisfactory answer for it. If somebody like this, any of them, can give me one answer that actually makes sense and is neither based on abject homophobia or a series of circular logic, I will personally give them $100. And yes, Mr. Correa, you do discriminate against people. You're a bigot and a hypocrite. Sadly, it seems your culture is one, as Mrs. Guardado implied without her knowledge, with a tradition of hatred. All your little shop proves is that you're more than willing to take money from gay people. I'm somehow not surprised by this.

That's what this boils down to: tradition and faith. People have been raised, largely through their churches or church-going authority figures, to hate and fear the Other. It's practically an American value to despise those who are different, who disagree, or who simply live in a way that we would prefer not to. How is it that we haven't yet realized that that hatred in no way serves us as human beings, brings us no closer to peace, enlightenment, or any of the esoteric goals by which we measure human progress and that elusive quality: happiness? Instead, it prompts the weak-minded to repeat acts that we teach our children in school are cruel, but teach them otherwise at home in a sick tradition reminiscent of the one mentioned by Mrs. Guardado and Mr. Correa, a tradition of exclusion, fear, and hatred.

In what way is "domestic partnerships not marriage" anything other than "separate but equal"? How is this not reminiscent of the lynch mobs of such a large part of this country's history?

It's too soon to expect that people will simply learn to accept others for who they are, but in the meantime, is it too much to ask that you simply mind your own business? You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to agree with them, but do you have to take rights away from them? I'm not sure whether it's worse if you're actively a bigot or if you're passively willing to discriminate against people, but if you've come from a place of discrimination yourself, either way is a betrayal of the sacrifices of the people who suffered for your equality. Falling on your faith is not an excuse, it's the act of a coward, somebody too afraid to admit their own irrational fear of people not themselves.

I'll allow people much more eloquent than myself speak on this: http://www.alternet.org/sex/105213/why_african_americans_should_oppose_california%27s_proposition_8/

And one from Keith Olbermann:

[Politics] And now for something completely different

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:01:35 GMT

I've made it a habit of writing very strong prose in this segment of my LJ for several months now. I enjoy righteous anger. It keeps me young.

But you know what else keeps me young? Video games.

Which is why I was so excited to see this.

That's right, left-wingers: Super Obama World. This little game follows the trials and tribulations of a young president elect fighting his way into Alaska to confront the evil governor of the state. Along the way he'll battle lipstick pigs, lobbyists, people with racks of expensive clothing from Sak's Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, and so much more.

This game has already eaten a good hour of my life, and only my desire to share with you, my faithful readers, pulled me away from it. As a game itself, it's pretty bad and basically cobbled together. Things like points, the spinning flag pins that you collect as you go along, and even completing levels means very little in this side scroller. However, the creator spent a lot of time incorporating what future generations will consider inside jokes from the election into the game. The levels seem to be named after Sarah Palin quotes and actions ("Thanks but no thanks," "For everything else, there's the RNC," etc.), there are signs and backgrounds that allude to gaffs or comments, and the general feel is one of light-hearted fun. I especially liked the Bridge to Nowhere in the first level, as annoying as it was to walk all the way across it only to find a sign for "Nowhere, Alaska" and the unpleasant realization that I'd have to walk back.

I have something serious to talk about in another post, but I thought this would be fun for somebody looking to kill a couple of hours that you'll never get back. Good luck on achieving "Level Completion We Can Believe In."

[Politics] Enough for now, but the future is still in play

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:39:44 GMT

Well, it's over. Honestly, now that Election Day has come and passed, I feel a little empty. So much of my energy has gone toward this election, now I'm not exactly sure what to do with myself. I almost wish I had a sub job Wednesday, if only because it would be something to do other than sit and consider the various implications of this election.

I think what I'd really like to do is analyze why John McCain lost. The fact of the matter is, there's no real reason why he should have. He followed the Karl Rove playbook perfectly. He slimed his opponent, told half-truths, didn't really talk about policy when there was a possible character issue to develop, and ignored both criticism and responses to his own questions.

The question is, why would these techniques not work when they were so effective in 2000 and 2004 (not to mention other, non-presidential races)? Well, there are several reasons why, but I hope that the primary one is that somehow, in some fashion, the electorate has become tired of negative, distracting campaigning and is now actually interested in facts, those little things that John McCain had so much trouble with that the Republican party has been roundly dismissing for years now.

I mean, let's take a moment to compare campaigns here. Barack Obama spent most of his time discussing policy, something the McCain campaign said early that this campaign wouldn't be about. Instead, the Party tried to make it about associations, middle names, fake plumbers, more associations, even more associations, and attempts to play on the xenophobia carefully cultivated in this country since 9/11. The level to which this campaign sunk goes far beyond and at an exponentially faster rate than their poll numbers.

The irony, and this relates to this post on retrograde_spin, is that every slander or attempted smear leveled against Barack Obama applied to John McCain and Sarah Palin in a much more heinous fashion. They called him a rock star and an elitist. The RNC spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothing out of campaign donations. They said that he "pals around with domestic terrorists" because he served on a charity board started by a conservative Republican, the wife of whom John McCain listed as a supporter with Bill Ayers. Sen. McCain has gotten consistent support from domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, also the person who planned the Watergate break in and who held a McCain fundraiser at his home. They said Obama was an anti-Semite because he was at a party with Rashid Khalidi. John McCain gave Khalidi nearly half a million dollars. At least this attack produced one of the funniest interviews of the election season.

It doesn't stop there, though. I've heard the "Michelle Obama said she isn't proud to be an American" meme quite a bit. Of course, if we're holding family members accountable, then Cindy McCain seems to think that people with PTSD don't "know what they're doing" and Meghan McCain said that "No one knows what war is like other than my family. Period." Way to support the troops, McCain family!

As the campaign got desperate, the attacks began to degenerate along with their message, which became a weekly revolving fashion show of slogans and smears using the US electorate as a test audience. This was when I feel the Republican party hit its lowest point as it fell entirely on the politics of division to fire up their base, which seems to be, in their eyes, the extremist, bigoted, religiously fanatic lunatic fringe that the elected representatives of this party, ironically, claim as a significant part of its core.

This is when we started seeing John McCain claiming that western Pennsylvania is somehow more patriotic than the rest of the country, Sarah Palin claiming that small towns are "real America,"vicious slanders against liberals, Joe McCain calling northern Virginia "communist country," and, of course, Michelle Bachmann calling for the media to investigate Congress to see who is "pro-American" and "anti-American." As a side note, I can assure Congresswoman Bachmann that nobody who chooses to serve out country in government is "anti-American," though I realize that when she was spewing her McCarthyist rhetoric, what she meant was "disagrees with me."

Things became worse as they grew bleak, and the Party started brandishing God like a weapon. And yet, even trying to present themselves as the chosen party of the Almighty didn't work. Maybe there's something to this "tempting God" idea. For the record, there is so much wrong with that last quote behind the link, I don't think I have the energy to go into it.

The object of this late campaign strategy was to divide the country, create an "Us vs Them" scenario, reaching out to the insane and deranged members of their party with dire warnings of an Islamic terrorist president who won't salute the flag and really hates the country. Barack Hussein Obama, fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, who will plunge our country into an era of Muslim oppression and liberal decadence (a neat trick, I would think). And to an extent, it worked.

The problem is, it also pushed away a lot of reasonable conservatives and Republicans who just want a responsible fiscal policy and less government. It became pretty clear that neither of these would be possible with a McCain presidency, even as the rats who were scrambling to board the SS George Bush as late as last June jumped ship in droves. Several of the staunchest Republicans realized that even if the representatives that failed us were exiting that sinking ship, they were still swimming in the same direction. I know several who voted third party and applaud them for it.

Despite an awful campaign filled with hatred, lies, gaffs, and the worst that politics has to offer, Senator McCain showed a little bit of the hero that he once showed all the time during his concession speech. Had he run his campaign with the amount of class that he showed there or when he corrected his supporter in Minnesota, I would have at least considered him. Unfortunately, those were bright spots in a predominately dark campaign.

John McCain is a good man, but these last few months have brought out the worst in him. He has been twisted by his party, which in turn has been twisted by extreme elements of its faith until it has become nothing but a great Machiavellian machine with theocracy and oligarchy as its ultimate goal. If you doubt that, look at the triumph of Amendment 2 and which party was primarily behind it, spinning the issue so that it somehow "protects our children," though neither they nor I can say from what. Or which party wants Judeo-Christian beliefs taught in public schools? Or which one considers "We can't yet explain it, so it must be a higher power" a competing scientific theory? Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the evidence really does seem to be in my favor on this.

There has been a lot of crying from the Right as well because of the election. Believe me, I know how you feel. I felt the exact same way in 2004. I thought that President Bush would take away more of our civil liberties, extend the war in Iraq, and tank our economy. Then again, I had four years on which to base these predictions. Ignoring the fruitcakes with the same vehemence that I ignore the morons who, in '04, said President Bush would make himself into an all-powerful emperor for life, you're probably not entirely wrong about Obama, but it's won't be as bad as you think. Tangent: I hate that my favorite book's title has been bastardized into the name of a site for right wingnuts to develop conspiracy theories about liberals. Hate to break it to you, if we had a vast conspiracy to take the country out of the hands of the fanatic extreme Right, we'd have put that plan into effect a long time ago.

The thing is, I'm not ready to forgive the GOP for the way they ran this campaign. It was despicable. There are some who would argue that the majority of Republicans are reasonable, moderate conservatives, and my experience with many of them leads me to believe this as well. If that's the case, then please, I implore you, offer us something other than corrupt old men(how is this contest even in question?), religious fanatics, and whackjobs. If you're the majority and disagree with these people, then why do you keep sending them into office? If they don't represent your views then why, for the love of God, do you continue to have them represent you? How the hell did Michelle Bachmann get re-elected again? It's like crowning the court jester.

So, please, I'm begging you, if reasonable people are the majority of Republicans, next time around send somebody sane to represent you. Like the people at http://firedoglake.com/ who have a program where they actively search for progressives and try to talk them into running for higher office. Do the same with moderates, or even paleoconservatives. I'll happily debate the merits of the free market, the role of government, or the best approach to national defense with you. But we cannot have a meaningful debate until you stop sending people to Washington who don't even believe in their own plans, and for whom abortion, gay marriage,and school prayer are given higher priority than the economy and foreign relations.

That's about it, really. I've gotten very vitriolic through all of this, but I think it's time that I start to cool down a little bit. We've all been asked to work together for at least the next four years. As much as us liberals think we can fix it all ourselves, we can't. The election's over, can we now try to listen to the message of unity that has cut through the calls for division? I am still angry, but I'll put that aside for the sake of this country that I love. I don't expect the Right to be silent. In fact, I hope that you'll call us on our mistakes with the same vehemence that we called you on yours. But please, we can't fight one another over every little thing if we plan to set things right.

"This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can." - President-elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008.

ICC: A Fond Memory by Moonpanther the Pundit

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:13:22 GMT

Oh, ICC. Fickle and brief though your love is, it burns with a passion so great as to leave my stomach in knots, and take from me my vital life essence...fuck it, I'm already bored with this format.

So, ICC was a total blast. I've gotta say that I was highly and explicitly impressed with so many aspects of it. But why speak in generalities (and rhetorical questions), when I can simply go into details?

First, as per usual, the best thing was seeing people that I rarely get to otherwise. Granted, some I saw just a few short months ago at the wedding, but even ten days out of a year is not really a sufficient amount of time to really enjoy their company. And those whom I've only seen roughly three times in the past year or less, it made this con really worthwhile.

The venues were a blast. I had fun in Requiem in one of those rare instances that that happens outside of my home venue. A part of me is disappointed I missed the explosion and everybody frenzying, but I'm happy that I arrived just in time to see the throng of people flooding out of the room and being able to react to that IC. I had a moment where I heard Nick thinking, "Am I too late?" and really understood the depth of his feeling in that. The previous night was a pretty standard Req night until Gregorio turned human-ish. Loved the roleplay with Joe (sorry, don't know your LJ), netbard, and northernminx during all of that. Also, got to broach the subject of the IC change I'm thinking of pulling with the character, which should be interesting. It occurs to me that I'm doing a lot of course correction with my characters as I've spent several years learning about them and now better understand where they should really be. This is providing a lot of fascinating roleplay for me.

Mage was one of the best games of its type that I've ever played. It's chief advantage was that it managed to focus on personal stories without losing the con-oriented feel. More to the point, it was positively spun. The story didn't deal with the end of the world, the corruption of souls, or the mass murder of the Sleeper population. There were no Seers trying to blow things up in the most spectacularly magical fashion. Rather, the goal was to gain something: conquer the mages' fears and have a greater sense of self and purpose. The fate of reality wasn't at risk, but rather continuing to live life without direction, having gained no knowledge of who you really are. It was a powerful and deeply spiritual plot that seemed to resonate with almost everyone there.

Lost was great. Playing Bandy was particularly interesting as I really got to explore how Bandy balances responsibility and his sense of fun, and started to get a better grasp on his role in the Praesidium and why he hangs around. The line that came to me and I said to Gaius that crystallizes that feeling is, "I keep seeing people I'd like to talk to, and in the back of my head I hear your and Kalen's voice saying, 'Stop playing with the pretty girls, you have work to do.'" Drove him nuts that I couldn't flirt with everything and everyone, but he at least got his share in. And rescued five children from the Hedge, wondering why he was trailing bait for the Baba Yaga through the Hedge and all the hooks went in the other direction. "Here, Bandy, take all these things that we know the creature wants and will probably perceive as us having stolen them from it, and we'll go over here and look for her far away from them." Fortunately nothing happened, and the kids got Happy Meals instead. My only complaint is that I would have liked a more in-depth pre that mentioned important things like, "The host, who is claiming to be the ruling monarch, has no crown." Otherwise, it was well-done and I have vast props for the ST staff for the wonderful job that they did.

My lips are pretty chapped and I'm just happy this didn't happen until the day I left. I needed these lips this weekend for...stuff. Like licking them randomly and profusely during the Sabbat game. Yea, that's the reason. Seriously, I think it was the cold that finally dried them out.

And on a vaguely related note, the Drinking Venue was really killer. Had a great time with some wonderful people. Got a few surprises that I cannot say I'm displeased with. Didn't get an opportunity to demonstrate some of my more...esoteric talents, like lawn bowling and competitive linguistics (take what you will from that), but I did get to dance, I learned a bit about how good whiskey can actually be, and hung out with friends both old and new. Really had a great time meeting Ronan, a wonderfully interesting and friendly guy who is very easy to talk to, and I appreciate his relaxed attitude toward life and often subtle sense of humor. He also pointed me toward Middleton whiskey and within twenty-four hours of me being home had already emailed me a link to a place I can get it here in the States. Got closer with some old friends. Feel like I've moved away, emotionally from others, which is a bit of a shame. It's not that I don't think of them as friends, but I no longer feel like the level of intimacy we had achieved is there, and while that's disappointing, it's a natural cycle in human interaction and I can't get too upset about it.

I'd also like to thank my fabulous room mate who put up with me with little or no complaints and had no comments about my stumbling in and trying to be quiet early in the morning, but in an inebriated fashion, which I think rather defeats the whole exercise.

Not even going to go into the horror of trying to get home other than to say that I got here safely and at a reasonable time. I missed M'lady quite a bit all weekend and seeing Her again was a real treat. For all the wonders and freedoms of con life, there's a certain pleasure to be taken in being home with the people you've missed and can spend your time building up anticipation for the next time you'll be able to let go for a few days. There are still people I'm looking forward to seeing whom I haven't in a while and couldn't make it, but this at least helped a little when it came to hanging out with others. Now that I'm home, I can enjoy things more here.

I didn't really want that job anyway

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:57:41 GMT

Well, I just washed out of the Kaplan program. Basically, if they don't feel after five weeks of training that you're capable of running one of their classes, you don't get fully hired. For me, while I was great at following their program, kept within time, had wonderful board work, was engaging and explained things well, my lack of practical math skills ended me. I could teach the math section, but if it required me to answer questions that we're laid out for me, I couldn't translate the information in my head onto the board or into understandable explanations.

I'm trying to put a positive spin on this. For one thing, did I really want to work for a company that couldn't get me any information I needed for them on time? That couldn't figure out how to get four people in a room for three weeks? That wasn't even prepared for the first lesson?

I can also take sollus (somebody spell that for me, my spellchecker isn't working and I don't feel like looking it up further) in the idea that everybody in my training class washed out as well. There were four of us to begin with. One made it two of five sessions. Tonight there were only two of us left and neither of us will be getting classes.

At least I made a friend and met a really interesting person out of this that I plan to remain in contact with. And there will be other jobs, new, better jobs that will make me happy that I don't get to continue with this one. And I have a nice vacation this weekend to take my mind off of it. I'm trying to remain positive. It just always sucks not to succeed.

[Politics] Presidential Debate 2: The Reckoning

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:07:00 GMT

Well, we've now been through a second presidential debate and I'm not really willing to call this one one way or another, mostly because I know I'm biased and am not sure if Obama actually did win or if I'm only seeing that because I already favor the candidate. There are points that I think both had a good handle on it, and points where both fell through. But, since I'm an unabashed liberal, I think you know where my focus will likely be.

As Keith Olbermann pointed out, it's strange to think that the town hall format favored John McCain going into it considering it's a format that makes him shuffle around like a doddering old man. He needs to learn to relax his shoulders, because this is the oldest he's seemed since he was doing his wheeze/laugh about all the fish swimming around oil rigs in the ocean. He was an "In my day..." comment from Mr. Magoo out there. Why, again, did we think this format was a benefit for McCain? Was it simply to lower expectations for Obama?

That aside, let's look at some of McCain's major gaffs hidden as policy initiatives during the debate:

1. The suggestion that the government will buy bad mortgages and negotiate them down to reasonable levels. I have a couple of points on this, the first being, "Didn't we just do that?" We paid investment banks almost a trillion dollars. Does that fall into the category of "free money," or did we actually buy something? According to John McCain, "free money." Barack Obama was the only one of the two who said that the American people should get a return on their investment. Again, I argue that the government should have an equity share in every company it bailed out and its votes should go toward forcing these institutions onto a more responsible track.

My other point on this is that I feel like John McCain is desperately searching his pockets for his "Maverick" card. He is actually pissing off his party by essentially suggesting further Socializing the mortgage industry and I have a feeling he's going to see his party base start to back off a little because of it. Of course, when McCain does find his wallet, he's likely to find that expired Maverick card and nothing else as he apparently plans to pay for everything with fairy dust and revenues from the Tickle Me Sarah adult toy. But that's another point altogether.

2. What will you fix first, Sen. McCain? Everything!

That's right, when asked what he would prioritize first, second, and third among health policies, energy policies, and humanitarian reform, Sen. McCain apparently would do them all at once. While juggling flaming torches, no less.

This is a guy who apparently couldn't run a presidential campaign (well, technically he didn't really stop anything) while wandering aimlessly around Washington trying to get involved in fixing the financial crisis when he wasn't on any of the committees that would have given him the ability to do something and when the President did him a solid by calling an entirely pointless meeting, sat there silently for forty minutes. And he thinks he'll be able to take care of three of the largest problems facing Americans today all at the same time.

There are some things in his favor on this. He doesn't have to worry about finding a way to bring our troops him from Iraq until...I'm not sure what he's waiting for. Victory? Some sort of nebulous idea of when we've won? When there are no longer people willing to blow themselves up to kill others? When nobody is ever afraid any more? I've always been curious how you win a war against a group of criminal sociopaths (or concept, for that matter)with no country by invading and occupying for indefinite periods other countries. We have to stop treating al-Qaeda like a nation and start treating them like what they are: an international criminal syndicate. You don't send the military after most criminals, you send the police who use entirely different tactics. More on that metaphor in another post.

Back on topic, the only thing John McCain has said he wants to do with Medicare is destroy it. In order to pay for his idiotic health plan which involves taxing health care benefits as income and paying a $5,000 tax credit to (guess who?) insurance corporations, John McCain will either have to raise taxes, which he won't consider, or make some cuts. In this case, McCain advisor and personal hero Douglas "John McCain Invented the Blackberry" Holtz-Eakin has told reporters that McCain plans to cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. His proposed cuts will not allow Medicare to keep pace with inflation and enrollment increases over the next ten years for either program, resulting in cuts to benefits, eligibility, or both. So, it shouldn't be too difficult for John McCain to deal with health reform while doing other things. How hard is it to simply dip your hand in the tiller? Of course, he didn't say this during the debate. Instead, Sen. McCain suggested...a commission! Like his solution to the economic crisis when it first hit, John McCain wants to pay people to talk about what's wrong with Medicare and Medicaid, hopefully long enough for him to take all of their funding away.

Democrats should be going door to door in Florida telling people about that plan. And likely are.

Regarding Entitlement reform, John McCain apparently doesn't think it's that difficult. "Look, it's not that hard to fix Social Security, Tom," McCain said during the debate, "It's just tough decisions." What are those tough decisions, though? He wouldn't actually say. His solution seems to be, as he said it twice, getting his hero Ronald Regan and and his hero Tip O'Neill to sit down and talk with one another. Or some West-coast conservative and East-coast liberal. Or maybe just have somebody talk about...something. Again, he wasn't really clear on this as he immediately went into attack mode after waxing nostalgic about wasting time discussing Social Security instead of fixing it, accusing his hero Sen. Obama of never going against his party.

The worst part about McCain's answer is not that it's possible that he'll deal with all three by killing two to save one, it's that his answer lacked balls. I remember when the question was asked thinking to myself, "Wow, I'm glad I'm not running for president, because that's a really tough question." You are almost guaranteed to alienate some group by answering at all. John McCain had to answer first, a highly unenviable position that I wouldn't trade him for all the tea in China, but instead of taking a stand, he wussed out. So afraid of offending any of his dwindling base and even more dwindling pool of swing voters, he gave a safe answer that I feel made him look weak. That McCain's personal hero Sen. Obama came out and actually made a choice looked even worse for McCain, raising questions of whether, as president, he'd be willing to make people mad to do what's best for the country. Granted, I have no doubt intellectually that he'd be able to do that; most of his policies make me mad right now. But his unwillingness to actually make a statement really came off poorly for McCain in this respect.

Since I'm feeling gracious, I do want to mention where I felt that John McCain's hero Sen. Obama failed, and that was in respecting the debate format. Neither of them really listened to the timing warnings, but Obama needs to learn that you can't always respond to everything whenever you want. "Can I just respond to that, Tom?" No, Senator, you can't. I know you're frustrated, I know John McCain stubbornly insists on accusing you of things that are demonstrably false over and over again, I know you'd like to clear up the record. You can't. Save it for the campaign trail. This is necessarily the drawback of a formal debate: somebody has to go first and somebody has to go last on every question, and the somebody who goes last, if they're a smart debater, uses that advantage to make claims that you can't respond to. It's the nature of the beast, deal with it and accuse him of being senile and unable to understand your words when you speak on the next question.

Of course, Sen. McCain's hero Sen. Obama couldn't have gotten away with this if Tom Brokaw, a wonderful journalist and John McCain's hero, actually moderated the debate. Tom, tell them to shut up when they run out of time. I know it's difficult, but it's your job. When a candidate asks, "Can I respond to that?" the answer is "no." That way you don't also have to give the other candidate equal time. If they want to duke it out and just have an argument, they can go on a Sunday talk show and do it. You're here to run an organized debate, and damn it, it's important that you keep a rein on those two. They're both running for president and, almost by necessity, are both overpowering personalities. You can do it next time, Tom. Just keep your chin up and ask Jim Lehrer how it's done.

So, as the McCain campaign continues to spiral into oblivion, so much so that even the clueless Gov. "I Read Every Newspaper" Palin (John McCain's favoritest hero) must have noticed by now, and attempts by the McCain campaign to link Obama to John McCain's most despised hero William Ayers and thereby to terrorists and terrorism (didn't see that plot coming) are simply not working, we see this debate as what it was: a decent way for John McCain to stay in this race. For the past couple of weeks I've held the quiet opinion that maybe John McCain is a Maverick still. He's going to stick it to all of his heroes in the Republican party that have treated him with such disdain for years now by running the world's worst campaign and making sure they lose control of the White House at the very least. That'll show them. Unless one of these despicable and desperate ploys actually does work. Then I can only imagine how Maverick McCain will have to screw up this country to get people to vote Democrat in 2012.

[Politics] SCOTUS Meme

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:24:24 GMT

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.)For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun. OR, if you've done it already, just comment here (withthe case).

Of all the Supreme Court cases I could choose for this, my favorite case is and probably always will be TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST. (1969). For those who don't know, here's a quick summary of the case from Findlaw.com:

Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students,subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

What this case did was demonstrate that the rights of students did not end at the schoolhouse door. When the school bell rings, whether they can vote or not, students are still citizens of the United States and have, by right, the same authority over themselves and their behavior as any other citizen. They are allowed to state their opinions openly and without having to worry about any form of government, be it federal or the local school board, punishing them for expressing those opinions in a peaceful way.

I like this passage from the opinion written by Justice Fortas:

But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive,often disputatious, society.

This states, quite plainly, that the nature of American freedom is not passive and easily controlled. In an era where we have the government taking larger and larger liberties, we have a VP who's found a way to squirm out of having to follow any rules, we have the pushing of greater executive power and the disappearance of the rights of the people to say what they want or expect that the government will stay out of their private affairs, all in the name of "safety" because we're afraid of "terrorists," it's important to remember that it's better to be perfectly free than perfectly safe.

The rapidity with which citizens are accused of being disloyal or unpatriotic in this country is frightening, often for opposing the policies of a government that has turned its back on the American people in favor of personal friendships, unrelated grudges, and unchecked greed and avarice. We are in the middle of a crisis and there are people who have shifted their loyalty from a lame duck president whom they would have followed off a cliff (and did, metaphorically) a year ago to the Republican nominee for that same position, arguing that anyone opposed to their policies somehow hates America. However, what this case demonstrated, and what Mr. Justice Fortas articulated, was that it is the free, unfettered exchange of ideas that makes this country special.

Another quote from this opinion:

Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom.

Fortas also made heavy use of quotes from other cases in his opinion, all of them poignant, on point, and inspiring in their own ways. This one is one of my favorites, and I've been using it since I was trying to argue for my own behavior in high school. It comes from West Virginia v Barnette and was written by Justice Jackson:

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."

When I was in high school I was, rather condescendingly, told by adults that when I got older I would agree with them. They said that if I worked in a school and saw how hard it was to deal with students, when I was also an adult, I would see with a different perspective that would reveal to me, quite clearly, that abridging the rights of students is the only way to run an educational institution with any sort of efficiency or teach anything worth value.

Well, I'll be turning 26 next month. I have a job of my own, a life of my own, a place of my own, a college degree, and have been making choices for myself for years, so I think I qualify as an adult. Not only do I work in the school system, I'm a substitute teacher, who is given less authority and held to nearly the same scrutiny as full-time teachers, and I still don't believe that the rights of a student should be stopped because it's inconvenient for teachers and administrators or has the potential to cause problems. So often people are willing to abridge the rights of others in the name of "potential." I'm not willing to prevent a single person from exercising the rights assigned to them by the greatest law in the land until something "actual" is presented.

[Politics] By George, I think I've got it

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:57:45 GMT

I think I finally figured it out. I've been wondering for weeks now why so many voters know that John McCain is lying and either seem to believe his obvious and vicious untruths against their better judgments or simply don't care. And it occurred to me a little while ago that that's the answer: they don't care that he's lying because he's not lying to them! He's lying to his opposition. His supporters already know what he stands for and what he's going to do, so rather than having to discuss issues, he simply spins out yarn after yarn of meaningless drivel and, with a metaphorical wink and a nod to his supporters, he smiles and repeats. It's like they're in on some little secret together, the big joke on the Obama campaign. He's lying, but he's lying so that he can get into a position to give his supporters a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage, Christian prayer in public schools, less pay for women, and every other thing that they want. Do the lies really matter if he's not lying to you?

This furthers the whole anti-elitest, yokel-vote, "I'd drink beer with him" mentality that has become so prevalent in this country. Listen to me and listen to me carefully: the president has better things to do than drink beer with you. Theoretically, they should be running the country. The sitting president has made time for quite a bit of beer-drinking while taking vacations at his ranch, but when he drinks a beer, it's with rich CEOs who make multi-million dollar bonuses every year. He doesn't care about you. John McCain doesn't care about you, he cares about the corporate officers that fund his campaigns, the lobbyists who are running his campaign (including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who's a lobbyist for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), and the religious extremist leaders who form his base. He will never have a beer with you, ever, not in your entire life. You can knock on the door of all nine (not seven, as originally reported) of his houses and you will be turned away from each and every one. Do you know why?

Because John McCain is an elitist. He is the son of an admiral, the grandson of an admiral, never wanted for anything in his life, married to a beauty queen heiress, has more houses than he can count, and has no clue what the average American goes through. He is certainly more of an elitist than the guy who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents and worked his way through three world-class colleges. Please, for the love of God, let's stop pretending that John McCain is somehow a man of the people.

And even if he was, so what? You know what, I want my leaders to be smarter than I am. I want them to have loads of doctorates on every subject from Economics to Poli Sci to International Relations. I want them to have written papers, taught classes, and advanced new and innovative ideas regarding the subject of governing. If at all possible, I want them to have a vocabulary that makes me look like George W. Bush and use words so big and impressive that television network execs wring their hands over whether or not they have time in the broadcast to show the clip. Our leaders should be wiser, more thoughtful, and quicker witted than us, or we wouldn't need them. The ability to get schnockered with a leader should not be a qualification that we seek out. In fact, from the minute you take that oath of office, I'd prefer if your blood alcohol level never rises above .02 until your term or terms are over.

Today I was listening to several radio programs on the long trip back from Coral Springs, all of them political. I had downloaded Friday's edition of The Rachel Maddow Show (I love podcasts), the audio from Friday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and the Sunday edition of the Sean Hannity Show. Now, I try very hard to be objective when I can. I make every effort to listen to opposing points of view and consider them objectively. It's not always easy, but I do try. And you know what?

I wouldn't trust Sean Hannity to wash my windshield. I'm not sure if he's deluded, or deliberating trying to deceive the American people (he has one of those faces that makes it seem like he could be a genuine idiot meat-puppet), but he does realize that it takes roughly ten seconds to fact-check the things he says, especially when real journalists are broadcasting the truth on a near constant basis on any reputable station in the country, right? He was harping on the idea that it's ridiculous that Obama is claiming that McCain's ad about him wanting to teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners" is a lie. More to the point, he presented what he claimed was the proposed curriculum for sex education had this piece of legislation passed in which it describes exactly what would be taught. He claimed that Level 1, ages 5-8 suggested "That there are places on boys and girls that feel good to touch..." should be taught. Hannity goes on, and I don't have the audio handy to get an exact quote so I'll paraphrase that the suggestions get more and more ludicrous (conveniently, they rise in possible offense), suggesting that internal and external genitalia, STDs, and full descriptions of sexual intercourse be taught as well.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this "curriculum" was made up. However, I did try to find it and haven't yet been able to. I've read the law and can't seem to find a specific curriculum with "levels" outlined in it at all. He did quote part of the actual legislation, "Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ...how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance," however he claimed that this was part of the "Level 1 agenda. To be taught to 5 to 8 year-olds!"

Mr. Hannity, I know you work for Faux News and have a rabid, thoughtless, and fully-Party-approved agenda that doesn't include novel concepts like facts, tolerance, or human decency, but do you have no scruples whatsoever? I mean, this type of world-class misrepresentation of the truth cannot be a natural talent, so I wonder where you learned how to make it seem to natural? This type of lazy, biased, partisan reporting is beyond reproach, and what's sad is that you and your friends capture the attention of a good portion of this country, people who are supposed to be educated adults. Perhaps we do need a change from the "public school monopoly on education" as Senator McCain has put it if it's produced that many people who view and listen to your show not for contrast or even a good laugh, but because they believe that you're being straight with them. I can only assume that you, like Senator McCain, have a loyal following who listen to your deceit and hear that wink and smile in your voice promising them that all they have to do is repeat after him and soon all their dreams of over the counter firearms, Christian public schools, and state-enforced abstinence will be the reality of America.

Does it even matter any more, Mr. Hannity, that you've discredited yourself time and time again among people who bother to check your outrageous and slanderous claims? Does it matter to you that you've subverted the very purpose of human communication, to transfer information? Perhaps this sounds melodramatic, but when things have gotten to the point that the number of lies is larger than the number of truths you tell, doesn't it then render everything you say meaningless?

Perhaps none of that bothers you, though. And I, watching both you and Senator McCain repeat the blatantly false to the American people, cannot help but be sad to live in a country where my fellow citizens are so easily fooled. Senator McCain is only a fit leader if you want the American people lead astray. However, I can tell from the way you abhor honesty that that is precisely what you do want. And the 47% of Americans who are in on the joke will likely take comfort in that when they are jobless, homeless, and unable to make medical decisions for themselves without state approval.

[Politics] How often must they lie?

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:07:21 GMT

OK, I know that politics is generally a lot of people lying about things. I'm aware that we are unlikely to get the truth from either party. But you know what I like about Democrats? If they're lying to me, it's not something I can immediately identify as lies. Maybe it's elitist of me, but I think my leaders should be smart enough to effectively pull the wool over my eyes if they're going to try. Thus far, I've seen very little of that from the Obama camp.

However, the hamfisted attempts to deceive the American people from the McCain campaign frankly makes me want to laugh. The Republican party has been informed that we've had recording devices for several years now, and repeating over and over again that something is one way when it is not does not actually erase those images, sounds, and confirmed words. Jonathan Swift had a phrase for this sort of tactic: "Saying the thing that is not." Well, Senator McCain, you and your running mate, Governor Palin, have spent every moment since her premiere saying the things that is not.

Among the most famous are her claims that she fired her personal chef and put her private plane that came with her governorship on Ebay. Credit to Palin, she did not say she "sold" her jet on Ebay, at least not in this stump speech, just that she put it on there, which is true. She did three times, and eventually when nobody met the reserve she went through an aviation broker and lost money on it. Please observe the speech, the parts I refer to are at around 1:55 and 2:40 respectively:

Of course, according to an Anchorage Daily News article from 1/08/08, long before Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, the chef thing is a lie: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-09/msg00614.html You can't claim you helped the budget by firing somebody when you didn't fire them, just employed them elsewhere. The question, ma'am, is if you are trying to lead by example, what example do you think this sets for the American people?

I could go on about how she campaigned on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2006 and claims now that she was against it and even "stopped" it rather than taking the money from it and running:

But let's instead talk about John McCain and his false and outlandish mockery of outrage at Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. Other than the sheer hypocrisy derived from what I have to assume is the fact that John McCain was born before the invention of Talkies and therefore didn't know that he's on record using this exact same phrase at least four other times, once actually referring to Hilary Clinton, but the fact that his campaign is so false, so divisive, so lacking in substance that he has to manufacture scandal in order to hit at Obama. That he has the audacity to question Obama's audacity in this matter sickens me:

However, I have nothing but wonderful things to say about Obama's response. Thank you, Senator, for actually hitting back! I've been waiting for so long for you to actually respond to these lunatics. It's like watching the climatic scene in The American President when Andy Sheppard actually responds to Bob Rumson's comments. It was forceful, eloquent, and damn it, I was inspired. "I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phoney outrage and Swiftboat politics.":

Sadly, I can continue posting these clips all day long. The one where John McCain blames the Bridge to Nowhere for the I-35 Mississippi Bridge disaster, where his people reverse opinions when it's convenient for them, where his supporters apply one criteria to liberals and people they are already predisposed to dislike, and another to people they are obligated, either by enlightened self-interest or the complex web of friendships and favors they've developed, reminiscent of the powder keg preceding the first World War or the society of Looters from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, to agree with regardless of the emptiness of their words, the contradictions in their statements, or the hatred and bile they are willing to spew on most of the American people.

And yet, I have to ask myself, with the polls in a dead heat at the moment, is Barack Obama naive when he says, "The American people aren't stupid"?
I'm reminded of the words of a former president, Harry Truman, who asked the American people, "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you figure out who’s hitting you?" We have seen time and time again the unveiled hatred and contempt that the Republican party has for the poor, for racial minorities, for women, for homosexuals, for Muslims, for people who believe in a free and uncensored media, for people who don't want to be spied on in their own homes, and basically for anybody who doesn't agree that the only way to run this country is to teach anti-scientific Christian values and either segregate or disenfranchise anyone who doesn't fall into their narrow version of propriety.

What's worse, I'm still a little nauseated by the blatant, disgusting, and insulting way in which 9/11 was used at the RNC for political advantage. I refer mostly to the "tribute" video that shows scene after scene of the most horrible footage available from that day. This is footage that the mainstream media agreed to stop showing, or only show after the most stringent warnings as to its content, and they showed it with impunity on national television and had the audacity to suggest that John McCain is the only person who can prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I described it as I was watching as "horrendously exploitative," and I stand by that remark, adding that it is an insult, a sick and inappropriate joke, to all of the survivors of that day, those related to the dead, and those who risked their own lives in the following weeks working in the wreckage. Senator McCain, you and your party disgust me, from your political opportunism in showing this video, to Rudy Guiliani's surprise that the Democrats "hardly mentioned 9/11." Well, perhaps in your world it's ok to take whatever political advantage you can get at the expense of the memories of thousands of American dead, Mr. Guiliani, but I for one would not feel comfortable selling the lives of my fellow citizens, members of my country, my state, and my city who elected me to watch out for their welfare for political bargaining chips and a keynote position at my party's nominating convention.

Perhaps that's the difference between us, Mr. Guiliani, Senator McCain, Governor Palin, Senator Graham, and every one of your colleagues that is trying to use 9/11 to purchase the presidency. And, much like Senator Obama, I too love my country too much to see you steal this election by playing to the fears you've spent eight years painstakingly implanting into the hearts of Americans and deftly avoiding having to deal with any of the issues facing our country today. As far as I can tell, since you haven't told me anything that would contradict this notion, you have no intent to fix the economy, end the war in Iraq, or even pay attention to any aspect of the Constitution other than the Second Amendment. Further, I see nothing but more attempts to deny rights to homosexuals, limit women's ability to get equal pay for equal work and control their own bodies, and try to force learning institutions, with less money, to teach an extra curriculum based not on objective fact, but on the tenets of your faith. You have lied time and time again, Senator McCain, and my sadness that 46% of the country still thinks you're a fit leader is only overshadowed by my anger that you, a war hero who also once served this country honorably in the United States Senate, would stoop to the level of Karl Rove politics where if you say a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

With that, I would like to leave you all with Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from 9/10 regarding the branding of 9/11^tm where he says much of what I did in a much more eloquent way.

[Politics] RNC coverage, as it's going on.

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:25:22 GMT

The saddest thing is that Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to actually believe what he's saying. Now I know what the person in the Parable of the Cave must have felt like.

Now, I'll grant that there has been some progress in Iraq, but it's based on the false premise that a stable Iraqi government will somehow stop a band of mountain-dwelling guerrillas from prosecuting a war around the world using techniques that ignore national boundaries and have no allegiance to any recognized state. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a stable Iraqi government, but the propaganda surrounding this war and how the Republican party is hanging the life of every kid who's died or been wounded there on this idea that if we just hang out a little longer, terrorism will be defeated and nobody will ever blow themselves up in a crowded area to prove a point ever again is almost too thick to slog through.

I mean, he's harping on about how our troops are winning in Iraq. He insisted that if we hadn't gone into Iraq, al-Qaeda would have taken over America, sectarian violence would have spread through the Middle East, and Iran would have filled the void. I really wish I was exaggerating, but he actually said all of those. Exactly what is this fantasy based on? Maybe it's the rhetoric of our Communist masters that slowly took over the world after winning Vietnam, afraid for their own power.

And all of this after the horrendously exploitive 9/11 video. Followed by the craziest, most pointless, most misdirecting video about Sarah Palin I've ever seen. How can somebody who wants to drill in a wildlife refuge be described as "loving her environment"? How can somebody who is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling, pro-censorship, pro-Bible values, and pro-deficit-spending be described as a "maverick"? They used that word so many times that, had he been watching it, pen_dragon would have been blitzed beyond belief.

Cindy McCain talking about how you need a steady hand on the wheel. "But you know what, I've always thought you need a woman's hand...at the wheel as well." For the record, that is not where my head went after heading the first half of that sentence. Secondly, yes, I get that this is the political puppet show. And yes, I understand that the Democrats were just as self-congratulatory and sentimentalist, but they also had some sort of grounding in reality. I feel like I've watched an hour and a half, so far, of insistences that we're winning in Iraq and Sarah Palin is a great leader with a vast amount of experience. It's like, if they say it enough, it'll be true. Are there no other issues in this country?

As far as Cindy's speech, it wasn't bad, but it seriously read like an Alger Hiss novel. Rags to riches family, taught special needs kids and migrant families, worked with Mother Theresa, was rejected for sainthood for being a good Protestant. And this was all her describing herself. There was a bit about Palin and how she's going to shake things up. She had a section in which she talked about less government, and that makes me wonder if she only means when it comes to taxing business or if she means keeping the government from spying on me.

Took them 45 seconds for the introduction video for McCain to use the phrase, "prisoner of war." I love how nobody mentions that McCain himself admits in his "Prisoner of War: A First-hand Account," that he agreed to give them military secrets if they brought him to the hospital. That there are records of him being quoted in Hanoi newspapers during that time. That some of his comrades from the Hanoi Hilton have called him "Songbird McCain" for years because of his behavior at that camp. I really don't think the POW thing, when put under scrutiny, stands up.

What I will say about McCain's speech is that I can at least respect that he didn't directly attribute 9/11 to Iraq or say that we would have been attacked again if we didn't go into Iraq. He did say that "many people believe" that we would have been attacked again, but I can grant that that's the Party line and he has to at least toe it. I also will grant him that he tried to be gracious when it came to Obama and it came off as almost being sincere until he paraphrased the opening line of the Declaration of Independence. However, his bit about "once we win, we will reach out our hands to any willing patriot," really bugged me, if only because I know what his definition of "patriot" is.

That aside, please, please watch September 3rd's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/episodeId=184082. The second segment is brilliant. And Jon Stewart's face when Newt Gingrich agreed with him that Sarah Palin has more experience than McCain...priceless.

Warning Labels

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:57:43 GMT

If you came with a warning label what would it be?

Warning: Wandering hands.

Caution: Exposure to hair may become addictive.

Neo-Cons going for each other

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:23:26 GMT

OK, so it's no secret that I'm relatively to amazingly liberal. I also make no bones about my pure and righteous hatred for the terrible human beings that have twisted a once valid political ideal (Conservatism) into the great hulking anti-conservation monster that it is today.

However, when I think of the blatant lies perpetuated by the extreme nut-jobs of the right wing (I'm drawing a distinction here for the moderate or even sane conservatives), I expect that at the very least they'll confine their attacks to the Democratic party, Socialists, environmentalists, and homosexuals (which many claim are all the same entity). It really shocks and astounds me when they turn on each other.

That's right, kids, Jerome Corsi, best known for his book Unfit for Command which called into question John Kerry's service record in 2004 and started the so-called "Swift Boat" attacks, has, at least once in his professional career, plagiarized another journalist's work. Now, I will admit that this happened in 2006, and everybody makes mistakes, but what gets me is that he refused to own up to it publicly. No, actually what gets me is that he plagiarized another conservative journalist's work without apology. I disagree with most of what Debbie Schlussel has to say, but I can't help but agree that this sort of thing calls into question all of his work. Or, in the pundit's own (correctly attributed) words, "We can assume, then, that everything else he writes is similarly shop-lifted from others."

Of course, Debbie, that's not really true. Some of it he makes up whole cloth. Such as the idea that President Bush is trying to make one big nation out of North America, or that the DNC has been funding the Iranian nuclear program, or, as he writes in his newest book The Obama Nation, that Barack Obama tried to pass a bill that would give .7 percent of the GDP to foreign aid, promotes infanticide (aboration after the baby is born), and that he didn't dedicate his book to his mother, father, or grandparents (not that it should matter, but he did). It was pointed out on Countdown tonight that while he painstakingly footnotes all of his "facts," of the first eleven footnotes in the book, nine of them refer to his own work. This was most likely based on the idea that he's a trustworthy, honest fellow with no agenda.

But seriously, while we all know that Jerome Corsi is an idiot, this is really out of the water for his type of idiot. I mean, at least Anne Coulter consistently lies about the other side in a mindless fashion. Corsi kind of makes it up as he goes along, spewing friendly fire occasionally along the way. If it weren't so sad, it would be supremely amusing. The question becomes, will his lies be nearly as effective this election term?

Odds are, not as much. While the Kerry campaign laughed off Corsi, assuming that the American people were too smart, too educated, possessed of too much common sense to believe the often crazy and blatant lies (such as he was awarded his medals based on writing "spot" reports that highlighted or even lied about his activities on missions), the Obama campaign is making no such assumptions. In all fairness, they have the hindsight to realize that Americans elected George W. Bush twice. What was it the president said, "Fool me once..." something? I don't know, I get lost after that.

And, as The Obama Nation premieres at #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list (largely due to bulk sales to conservative groups, hence the little bullet that will appear next to its name), the Obama campaign has already put together the really well-written and conceived Unfit for Publication, a forty-page document focusing on the lies published in Corsi's latest attempt at political storytelling. He's got nothing to lose by making a reasoned argument pointing out the false, bordering on libelous claims made in this book, and I'm happy to see a Democrat with the balls to actually fight back, but rather than doing so with smear ads and catchphrases, he does so through reasoned debate in which his campaign "[takes] you through the allegations point by point." That's what I'm looking for in a leader: somebody willing to take the time to explain himself and actually respond to attacks rather than trying to clear his name in a series of sound bites. We live in the era of instant communication: if you're not willing to use it, you're doomed to failure. Barack Obama is using any tool at his disposal to run a reasonably clean (I do remember one negative attack in which he claimed that McCain received $2 million from Big Oil when he only received $1.3 million, but that's the only one I can think of at the moment) campaign against McCain and essentially keep taking to high road while continually pointing out every dirty trick John McCain uses to try to bring him down.

I <3 Linux

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:44:38 GMT

I've gotta say, I'm really liking my new Linux box. I've finally gotten the system on there and I'm slowly putting the applications I need onto it.

The best thing is, Gentoo makes things like this so remarkably easy. All I have to do is type "emerge" followed by the name of the application that I want and it accesses the ebuild, figures out what other programs I'll need, downloads all the appropriate files, compiles them, and puts them in the right place so all I have to do is wait for it to be done and use it. And it's so quick about it! And with so little RAM since I lost one of my chips!

I'm compiling KDE on the computer itself, and I was using another terminal to try and get my printer working, specifically so I can use it over the network. Now I'm ported into it from my laptop using an SSH client doing basically the same thing, making all of this so much easier. Then I need to work on being able to access my ntfs partition, which shouldn't be too hard, and figure out how to display on my television, but that might have to wait for a GUI.

In general, I love having the ability to do whatever I want with this system, from wherever I am. One of the best parts is, anything I can think of, somebody smarter than I has already likely thought of it and written something to make it happen. And if they haven't, I guess that's a reason for me to learn how to do it. And since Gentoo seems to have the most helpful community of people to help as compared to any other Linux distro, if I have problems I know who to ask.

So, I'm going to go back to loving Portage and watching Charlie Bartlett (great film, BTW). But I wanted to geek out a little on Gentoo Linux.

Can't sleep

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:24:21 GMT

Can't sleep at all. I want to, I don't want to watch a movie, don't want to read, exhausted, but just can't seem to sleep. I should work. I don't want to work. I want to work in Linux. Sometimes I get the Linux bug and simply want to play around in that environment for a while. There was only one time that I was fully functional in Linux for a significant period. It was awesome. I think I'd like to do that again. I would on my laptop if I didn't have to repartition to make it happen. Could do it on my desktop, but I think my hard drive is fried. Could get a new hard drive, but I need to be paid first. Want to play guitar, but not really. Rambling, only half-ironically. Does this count as crazy if I realize, in my head, that I'm typing like this in order to make an amusing point about sleeplessness and therefore am not crazy, but am driven to make this point despite the possibility, however unexplored, that I might want to write a straightforward, clear post?

Gonna try to get some rest.

Further frustrations

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:03:40 GMT

So, the other day I get a message on my big computer that ntfs.sys is missing or corrupted, and I need to use my Windows CD to repair it. No big deal, right?

Except that my Windows CD doesn't boot. But this also isn't a big deal, I just need to get in there and transfer the stuff off my F partition. I don't care about C since I don't keep anything on there, so erasing is no issue. I decide to break out my old Knoppix DVD and try that. I get the initial screen where it gives me boot options, but then the screen goes blank and nothing happens.

I figure, at this point, the hell with it. I'll simply install Linux on this computer. Format the C drive, install Gentoo, everything's set. Except that the Gentoo install CD does the exact same thing as the Knoppix DVD did. I don't know why. Anybody have any suggestions on what I can do? At this point either to get Windows working again or, better, to get Gentoo going on there. As long as I can use BitTorrent, network with my laptop, and play videos on my TV, I don't much care what OS is on there, but I do want one that is reasonably stable and doesn't pick up spyware like gum on the bottom of my digital shoes.

EDIT: And the Cam site is down so I can't check on my Legacy app, which really annoys me. I think I need a hug.

EDIT 2: Gonna kill, gonna kill, gonna kill.

Andy M. Stewart Collection update

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:33:38 GMT

Still haven't found it, but on cellshade's advice, I decided to see if any public libraries have it that I might be able to get a copy via ILL.

Well, no such luck. I can't find a copy of the book ISBN # 0825694205 anywhere. The Library of Congress and the New York Public library have copies of The Andy M. Stewart Songbook (which I'm considering getting anyway), but that's ISBN # 0951330403. The former is 104 pages and 60 songs, while the latter is only 44 pages and I can't find a song list anywhere since every search leads inevitably back to the former, which is ironic because I can't find a physical copy of the former but the latter has popped up in two places.

It's just a book of sheet music. It shouldn't be nearly this difficult to find. I even contacted the publisher for advice, though I doubt that'll go anywhere. Still, I continue to search. Eventually one of these books will show up, and then I'll be able to have it for my own.