Recently the Redhead Who is to be Feared and I took a drive to the coast for seafood and fresh air. While there, we met a couple visiting from New Jersey. In the midst of their effusive praise for the beauty of Oregon, they observed that you don't see that many Oregon license plates outside the state. the gentleman theorized that it's because there's so much to see and do here, Oregonians don't feel the need to cross state lines.
Interesting theory. I wonder if there's ever been a study or survey done on the ratio of states' populations that travel to other states versus those who stay nearer home. I'll have to do a google search one of these days, if I ever get the time.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Mom.
The same day I posted this, my mom then sent me an email pointing out that USAToday has rated Florence, Oregon the best place in the country to retire.
I'm a bit too young to be thinking about retirement yet, but I can tell you, Florence is a great place tio visit at the very least. It's about an hour west of me on the coast, and it's pretty much the border town between Oregon's South Coast and Central Coast. South of Florence lie the Oregon Dunes, to the north the Coast Range returns to the sea and PCH rises up to skirt sheer cliffs and fir-covered mountains. Sea Lion Caves and Heceta Head Lighthouse are within 20 minutes drive. One of the oddest and most interesting things to see in Florence is the Darlingtonia Wayside, where you'll find an entire bog filled with carnivorous pitcher plants (Darlintonia california), also known as the hooded cobra lily. Also, Moe's, famous for its clam chowder, and a great waterfron shopping district.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Quote of the Day
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I Love Living in Oregon
Reason #244:
That Fresh Rain on Dry Dust smell, and the frequency with which you experience it here.
That Fresh Rain on Dry Dust smell, and the frequency with which you experience it here.
Doom on you, Islamicists
Originally posted at 10:20 AM PDT 01 September 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
By now most of you know that the 12 Nepali hostages have been brutally murdered, including one who was beheaded.
What you don't know is that Nepal is the home of one of the world's fiercest, most elite fighting forces, the Gurkhas. They are not to be... ahem... "trifled" with. The history of their service to Britain and to Nepal is a history of bravery, toughness, and ferocity.
Now, Rusty shares some letters from Nepali readers that reflect the Gurkha spirit. If these letters are indicative of the popular consensus in Nepal, this may be one of the stupidest decisions the Islamofascists have made to date.
Quite frankly, while I offer my condolences to Nepal for their loss, I couldn't be more delighted by this response.
Update I:
Again thanks to Rusty, but I had heard of this on NPR. Apparently the expressions of Nepali anger are not limited to letters to blogs.
Update II:
Bravo Romeo Delta sets me straight on the distinctions between Gurkhas and Nepali warriors in general, called Gorkhali. Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the lesson. I don't think the distinction will mitigate just how badly the terrorists may have screwed themselves by deciding to pick on Nepal.
Update III:
Apparently the Nepalis have been to Drink This as well. I almost pity the Moongod worshippers. But no.
Update IV:
Keith at Anthroblogogy reminds us of a Rudyard Kipling poem about Gurkhas that the islamiscists may have wanted to read beofre pulling this.
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
By now most of you know that the 12 Nepali hostages have been brutally murdered, including one who was beheaded.
What you don't know is that Nepal is the home of one of the world's fiercest, most elite fighting forces, the Gurkhas. They are not to be... ahem... "trifled" with. The history of their service to Britain and to Nepal is a history of bravery, toughness, and ferocity.
Now, Rusty shares some letters from Nepali readers that reflect the Gurkha spirit. If these letters are indicative of the popular consensus in Nepal, this may be one of the stupidest decisions the Islamofascists have made to date.
Quite frankly, while I offer my condolences to Nepal for their loss, I couldn't be more delighted by this response.
Update I:
Again thanks to Rusty, but I had heard of this on NPR. Apparently the expressions of Nepali anger are not limited to letters to blogs.
Update II:
Bravo Romeo Delta sets me straight on the distinctions between Gurkhas and Nepali warriors in general, called Gorkhali. Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the lesson. I don't think the distinction will mitigate just how badly the terrorists may have screwed themselves by deciding to pick on Nepal.
Update III:
Apparently the Nepalis have been to Drink This as well. I almost pity the Moongod worshippers. But no.
Update IV:
Keith at Anthroblogogy reminds us of a Rudyard Kipling poem about Gurkhas that the islamiscists may have wanted to read beofre pulling this.
Crow Schnitzel
A few days ago, in the comments to my post on Hollywood and celebrity activism, I likened Arnold Schwarzeneggar to a Republican version of the Hollywood nutjobs who are continually opening their mouths and removing all doubt. Well, last night I listened to him speak at the RNC.
I was wrong.
His Austrian accent was still classically thick, but he was eloquent, moving, and revealed a mind sharper than I expected. I Pulled a Liberals on him and seriously underestimated him. The story he told of his childhood in Austria, the things that maotivated him to become an American and then a Republican, were all articulate and moving. I'm still peeved at him for using advertising in Portland to try to steal Oregon buisinesses to California, but that's his job. I take my hat off to him, he has my newfound respect.
Oh, and Democratic speakers, take a note: THAT is how self-deprecating humor should be done.
I was wrong.
His Austrian accent was still classically thick, but he was eloquent, moving, and revealed a mind sharper than I expected. I Pulled a Liberals on him and seriously underestimated him. The story he told of his childhood in Austria, the things that maotivated him to become an American and then a Republican, were all articulate and moving. I'm still peeved at him for using advertising in Portland to try to steal Oregon buisinesses to California, but that's his job. I take my hat off to him, he has my newfound respect.
Oh, and Democratic speakers, take a note: THAT is how self-deprecating humor should be done.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
>Like Screwing for Virginity
UPDATE:
Usually I add updates to the end of posts, but this time, it's important enough to merit bringing to the top.
If you read the original post, you notice a series of links to articles and blog entries highlighting incidents, some more recent than others, in which the left's response to individuals supporting the war or the president were, shall we say, less than respectful.
Well, in the comments section, reader and Blogmother Da Goddess alerted me that she would have more fuel to add to the fire, and boy does she ever! Read the whole article at her site.
In checking out her trackbacks, I was led to this article by a Protest Warrior currently on the front lines in NYC. The signs and reactions from the left are particularly telling.
Things are getting uglier and uglier all the time. I think it's time for me to join protest warrior -- we can't let those who hate our country and our freedoms have the street without a challenge. Might doesn't make right, but right certainly makes might. It's time we flex our moral muscles.
Originally posted 11:49 AM, 30 August, 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for getting the ball rolling.
Republicans are brutal, right-wing, war-mongering, jackbooted thugs who disdain the First Amendment and resort to violence to supress the voices of dissent which oppose them.
Bear that in mind as you view this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
And the Beat-Down goes on. So the next time you hear that tired old lie about how oppressive Republicans are, just ask yourself who's resorting to violence. Methinks the left doth project too much.
Usually I add updates to the end of posts, but this time, it's important enough to merit bringing to the top.
If you read the original post, you notice a series of links to articles and blog entries highlighting incidents, some more recent than others, in which the left's response to individuals supporting the war or the president were, shall we say, less than respectful.
Well, in the comments section, reader and Blogmother Da Goddess alerted me that she would have more fuel to add to the fire, and boy does she ever! Read the whole article at her site.
In checking out her trackbacks, I was led to this article by a Protest Warrior currently on the front lines in NYC. The signs and reactions from the left are particularly telling.
Things are getting uglier and uglier all the time. I think it's time for me to join protest warrior -- we can't let those who hate our country and our freedoms have the street without a challenge. Might doesn't make right, but right certainly makes might. It's time we flex our moral muscles.
Originally posted 11:49 AM, 30 August, 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for getting the ball rolling.
Republicans are brutal, right-wing, war-mongering, jackbooted thugs who disdain the First Amendment and resort to violence to supress the voices of dissent which oppose them.
Bear that in mind as you view this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
And the Beat-Down goes on. So the next time you hear that tired old lie about how oppressive Republicans are, just ask yourself who's resorting to violence. Methinks the left doth project too much.
Anonymous Alcohol
I thought it was hard admitting to my teetotalling family that I liked to imbibe the occasional beer, scotch, or rum and Coke. My father was the son of an alcoholic, and abhorred the stuff. I developed a taste for it in moderation. But I was always diplomatic about the subject around him.
These days, there's a cultural inference associated with one particular alcoholic beverage that makes my next confession even more likely to distress some of my fellow conservatives:
I like wine.
Like beer, wine was for me an acquired taste, but I do like it now. and for some conservatives, especially those of the sort who tend to disdain the hollywood/East coast connection liberal upper crust, view wine as snobbish and pretentious, embodying everything they dislike about the other side.
But I view wine differently. First, my introduction to wines I could actually enjoy was not with immpressive vintages, but with a common, semi-sparkling sweet red from Italy called Lambrusco. Here at last was I wine I could drink -- but not one I could admit to in polite company. Or so I thought.
Then I learned an important lesson that also explains why I can enjoy wine without feeling pretentious. The summer after I discovered Lambrusco, I made a trip up from San Diego to my old stomping grounds in Southern Oregon. While there I made a visit to the tasting room of the Girardet Winery. Phil is from the French-speaking portion of Switzerland, but he's beenin Oregon for decades. He met his wife Bonnie while they were both university students in California. There he decided to get into winemaking. He wanted to start his winery somewhere in the US where the climate, soil composition, rainfall, drainage, all of the factors would as closely resemble his Swiss home as possible. After years of research, he found Tenmile. I met him because his family attended my father's church. Phil was the second most intelligent, friendly man in that town (after my father), and its mellowest.
So there I was in his winery, looking to expand my palate beyond Lambrusco. I was explaining to him what I liked, and in mentioning Lambrusco, I made the apologetic comment, "It's not exactly the best wine, but I like it." Phil got this sly grin on his face, leaned in conspiratorily, and said, "You know Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
*blink. blink. blink*
Well, duh. It sounds stupidly obvious, but so many people miss the point (and not just about wine). I took that advice to heart, and it has governed my view of wine ever since. While I've developed specific tastes and favorites (I love Pinot Noir, especially with salmon), it's all about what I like, not what is the latest craze or fanciest, most impressive vintage not that I could afford that anyway).
And really, isn't that what is important in life? Following your likes and beliefs and convictions, even if they're unpopular?
These days, there's a cultural inference associated with one particular alcoholic beverage that makes my next confession even more likely to distress some of my fellow conservatives:
I like wine.
Like beer, wine was for me an acquired taste, but I do like it now. and for some conservatives, especially those of the sort who tend to disdain the hollywood/East coast connection liberal upper crust, view wine as snobbish and pretentious, embodying everything they dislike about the other side.
But I view wine differently. First, my introduction to wines I could actually enjoy was not with immpressive vintages, but with a common, semi-sparkling sweet red from Italy called Lambrusco. Here at last was I wine I could drink -- but not one I could admit to in polite company. Or so I thought.
Then I learned an important lesson that also explains why I can enjoy wine without feeling pretentious. The summer after I discovered Lambrusco, I made a trip up from San Diego to my old stomping grounds in Southern Oregon. While there I made a visit to the tasting room of the Girardet Winery. Phil is from the French-speaking portion of Switzerland, but he's beenin Oregon for decades. He met his wife Bonnie while they were both university students in California. There he decided to get into winemaking. He wanted to start his winery somewhere in the US where the climate, soil composition, rainfall, drainage, all of the factors would as closely resemble his Swiss home as possible. After years of research, he found Tenmile. I met him because his family attended my father's church. Phil was the second most intelligent, friendly man in that town (after my father), and its mellowest.
So there I was in his winery, looking to expand my palate beyond Lambrusco. I was explaining to him what I liked, and in mentioning Lambrusco, I made the apologetic comment, "It's not exactly the best wine, but I like it." Phil got this sly grin on his face, leaned in conspiratorily, and said, "You know Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
*blink. blink. blink*
Well, duh. It sounds stupidly obvious, but so many people miss the point (and not just about wine). I took that advice to heart, and it has governed my view of wine ever since. While I've developed specific tastes and favorites (I love Pinot Noir, especially with salmon), it's all about what I like, not what is the latest craze or fanciest, most impressive vintage not that I could afford that anyway).
And really, isn't that what is important in life? Following your likes and beliefs and convictions, even if they're unpopular?
Parsing "Sages" Older than Time
Update 10 September, 2004
Reader Elisabeth pointed out several errors in my text. It's Humphrey, not Humphreys. News reporting is two words. and yes, it was meant to be others, not ithers.
Of course, if Mr. Humphrey is to be believed, this never happened, since there is no such thing as proofreading on the internet.
Thanks for the Memory to Russell at Mean Mr Mustard 2.
When I read the phrase dottering[sic], clueless Old Media jackass, I must confess that my first reaction was, "Andy Rooney?" But no, sadly, Andy's not the only codger out there with a Word Processor, heart pills, and the "Truth".
So I followed Russell's link to this blog entry. One look at the picture and my second reaction was, "What the hell is George Carlin doing writing a blog for a newspaper in Tennessee?"
But no, this is Tom Humphrey, Nashville Bureau Chief for the Knoxville News Sentinel. And he has his very own blog, courtesy of his employer. Ironically, this newspaper editor has posted a blog entry that, by his own admission, is full of "ramblings." Now, that's a pretty common thing for blogs to do -- ramble, rant, and rave. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly no reason to criticize the man. But when he decides to impugn the quality of writing and newsreporting in blogs, implying that traditional newspaper writers are superior to mere bloggers, while displaying some horrendous writing skills, I just can't let it pass. And so I decided to attempt my first fisking.
Now, to give credit where due, I must say that many of the observations I make have already been made by those who have commented on this entry before I read it, including the esteemed Mr. Lileks. And while in some of those cases I had the same immediate reaction, often they say it better than I can, and so I will acknowledge my peers and/or superiors in these regards. But now, on with the show. Mr. Humphrey's words are in normal type, mine in italics.
Ramblings on Republicans
Let me guess, you don't like us, do you? And you're a journalist? That's newsworthy.
The boss lady of blogs at the News Sentinel has advised that I need to file something for this site on Saturday, though it apparently will not be visible to anyone until activation on Sunday, for technical reasons that are utterly beyond my comprehension. Just a brief will do, she said in the email.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of complex sentences. But there's a fine line between complex and run-on. Mr. Humphrey has snapped it like the tape at the Olympic marathon. The sentence structure is nigh unto incomprehensible, and the information conveyed is as uninteresting as it is unintelligible. Not an auspicious start.
But, what the heck, if I'm going to sit here the evening before deserting my family for almost a week to watch Republican worship ceremonies for George W. Bush, not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry, might as well ramble a bit.
Wha... huh? What the hell does "not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry," mean? I'm guessing it's a typo, and I think I know what he meant to type, but this is a newspaper bureau chief we're reading. You'd think he would be familiar with the concept of "proofreading." As for rambling "a bit", that's being demure.
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such
Have you actually read many blogs, buddy? Have you read their comments section? You know, like the one on yours where you get your ass handed to you? If anything, as it has been pointed out, blogs get fact-checked even more than newspapers. All those readers are just waiting to catch you in an error, and will not hesitate to rub your face in it if you err (especially the ones that dislike/disagree with you). Also bear in mind that we have no Bloggers Union Local 123 to defend us, and there's no such thing as "job security" for bloggers. If you screw up, you get caught, and you lose readers. Period. As for attribution, take a stroll through the blogs and take a gander at that thing called a trackback. Attribution is usually practiced even more religiously, since giving proper credit to another blogger, especially a popular one, increases the likelihood of attracting readers. Furthermore, improper attribution is just as vigorously monitored by readers as is fact checking. Logic? Pot and kettle, buddy. Some blogs display a better grasp of logic than others, a comment that is equally true of newspaper writers.
that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches.
Lileks has a great comment on just how cliche and irrelevant and utterly asinine this bit is. go read it.
You can just babble like a talk show radio guy.
Apparently he's taken the "Logic-free" advice to heart, and immediately tosses in an ad hominem dig at talk radio.
Ergo, to babble a bit:
Again, that's putting it mildly.
Tennessee Republicans are pretty darn cocky these days about the presidential race in their home state. It's the one thing they are united about. All on message, got their talking points and so on.
That's a pretty apt description of any politico from a state where the party in question pretty much has a wrap on the presidential race. What Mr. Humphrey fails to do is explain how this makes the Republicans any different, or why anyone outside the Volunteer state should give a tinker's damn. This just sounds whiney and petty.
Otherwise, there's quite a bit of infighting, interspersed with the occasional embarrassment.
Again, how does this distinguish them from any other group of politicians? Shouldn't you have added "irrelevant" to the word ramblings, just to, you know, warn us?
For the most recent embarrassment: Hey, what about that 8th District Republican nominee for Congress, James Hart, the eugenics yahoo who won the primary despite the somewhat belated disavowal of his candidacy by state party officialdom? Check out his website at www.jameshartforcongress.com. Reports circulated last week that Mr. Hart might just show up at the GOP Convention in New York to promote his doctrine of 'favored races.' Beth Harwell, state party chairman, says he will not be welcome.
Good for her. The guy's a dim bulb who doesn't represent mainstream Republican values, and shouldn't be embraced by the GOP. And before any supported of the other party gets smug about this, do a Google search for the words Democrat and Ku Klux Klan.
This would, of course, provide some novelty. Republicans are worried about left-wing yahoos disrupting things in New York. Tennessee's Republicans could find themselves under attack from another direction. That would be special.
Whoops, I guess it's too late to heed my smugness warning. Seen the streets of the city you're visiting, Tommy? Been to DU or Indymedia? Listened to Michael Moor or Kos or any of their ilk screeching away? I wouldn't be too quick to play the extreme elements card.
Hart's candidacy, incidentally, has spurred talk of Harwell being available as a sort of stand-in Republican nominee for governor against Phil Bredesen if no one credible steps forward to challenge the Democrat doing darn well in popularity polls lately. She’s a nice lady, well-spoken, proper credentials, etc. And having her there would assure that no incredible idiot wins the Republican nomination.
Because we know that's all most Republicans are. Once he has that ad hominem ball firmly in hand, he runs for the end zone.
Haven't asked Beth about that rumor, but what the heck, this is blog babbling. Will try to do so in the days ahead, and predict that she will be non-committal, refusing to rule out anything, etc., etc. (Keen insight, eh?)
At least he's capable of making an attempt at self-deprecation, lame as it is.
The Republican infighting is mostly political, though every now and then personal.
That reads like a freaking fortune cookie, not a political commentary.
Heck, you can even get emails from a Tennessee Republican group poking fun at 'part-time Beth' ( that's Harwell, who is also a state representative, a mom, a wife, etc. ) and 'Deputy Bob,' a reference to state party deputy Bob Davis, the former right-hand man to Sen. Fred Thompson and perhaps the most media-shy of all those enclosed in the offices above Amerigo's Restaurant in Nashville (OK, my non-blogging mode would make that state GOP headquarters).
Again, more blather that nobody outside Tennessee gets or gives a damn about.
One email I recall centered on the salaries of Beth and Bob and, when rummaging through disclosure forms recently, I noticed that Deputy Bob makes more than Part-time Beth. If he would talk to me occasionally, I might think he was worth it.
My dear God, that's the most self-important, narcissistic thing I've heard in a while. That's quite an accomplishment.
But I digress, as authorized in blogging it seems.
Ha ha. Back to the little digs about bloggers not being worth taking seriously. Given how glib and sloppily written your schtick has been, my friend, I'd avoid attributing color schemes to kettles.
Back to the aforementioned infighting, political, not personal.
At which point, Humphrey's post continues on with inane insight regarding the nuances of Republican politics which is vaguely disdainful and smug, but again, conveys nothing that cannot be gleaned by reading any amount of conservative commentary already available, and doesn't actually make what we lowly bloggers like to call a point. Really not worth reading. The only other item of note is a Technical note on the side, referring to an earlier version of the post that referred to "web-only" blogs, and was justly taken to task:
TECHNICAL NOTE
The description was modified by a content producer to remove reference that this is a "web-only blog." Familiar with the blogging world herself, she should have known better.
Yeah, you'd think that someone who worked for an institution that has "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" would have caught that the first time.
Enough rambling. Time to finish packing.
If you write for the paper as poorly as you write for your blog, the only thing you should be packing is your desk into a box.
UPDATE:
The comments section of Humphrey's blog included quite a few really cutting retorts to his post. Some of the commenters expressed concern that the News Sentinel would delete those comments, so I've posted them here:
Comments
Laugh riot! Most blogs I read are actually more interested in the truth, rather then putting a spin on the news to bulk up Kerry in the polls. You may not like President Bush, but I bet you would loathe "President Kerry."
PS: you aren't doing it correctly, if you are trying to run a political blog.
Posted by: Porter G at August 30, 2004 08:11 PM
Humphrey: You are either a liar or a fool, and it is obvious at a glance that you did not attribute this alleged "instruct[ion]" in order that a reasonable investigator could determine which.
You're fired.
Posted by: Billy Beck at August 30, 2004 08:18 PM
What a chuckle this is. And by the way "Hey, look at me, I am commenting on a 'Web-only blog'!!!!"
( Must now go google "Gore +invents +"new blogging medium" )
Posted by: Dusty at August 30, 2004 08:49 PM
"After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches. You can just babble like a talk show radio guy."
While it's true that bloggers have nobody checking their stories BEFORE they publish them in their blogs, it's NOT TRUE that bloggers have NO fact checkers AT ALL. Blogs have MORE, and better, fact checkers than traditional media.
Bloggers' fact checkers and critics are the blog's readers and commenters. The 'great unwashed', if you will, of people who read blogs and may have more expertise on a subject than the blogger does. If it's a big story, or a large error, there will be multiple blogs all chiming in with corrections.
I don't see the same thing happening in traditional media. Very rarely will one media outlet's error be reported on the others, as happens with blogs.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 30, 2004 09:06 PM
I'm sorry but old media has nothing to be smug about when it comes to fact-checking. If this post is any indication, you wouldn't be able to hack it as a blogger.
Posted by: Joel Fleming at August 30, 2004 09:58 PM
Hey Tom,
Those that can, blog.
Those that can't, whine.
...and the readers move on.
Posted by: Don at August 30, 2004 10:48 PM
Couldn't resist, and had to use this as a "the media don't get it" example on my own weblog! http://www.greg-brooks.com/000445.html
Posted by: Greg Brooks at August 30, 2004 11:05 PM
Am I the only one that skimmed through this "blog" and skipped to the comments for feedback to see if the article was worth reading? I just saved myself 15 minutes. LMAO. Tom, your prose wore thin in merely 10 sentences. Enough silliness, I need to get back to real reading.
Posted by: Caleb Charles at August 31, 2004 12:48 AM
Caleb Charles,
No, you're not!
Posted by: Ron Weiner at August 31, 2004 01:44 AM
I've read the 2nd paragraph several times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. This from a bureau chief!
Then this: "After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such ...", followed by rumor, speculation, and innuendo at length without reference. Bloggers (1) publish links to their references; (2) publish all feedback, not just selected "letters to the editor;" (3) did not create Jayson Blair.
Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2004 07:03 AM
So if this is a "web-only" blog, does that mean my comments are... ON THE INTERNET?
Seriously, Tom, it would appear that you have been hiding in the broom closet for several years. Chris J. hits the nail on the head- bloggers are much better at reporting the real story these days, for the simple reason that readers can call them out when they get it wrong. I doubt your paper would publish the criticism you've received here, meaning this type of back-and-forth can only exist on... A WEB-ONLY BLOG (cue Scooby Doo ghost noises).
Posted by: Rob at August 31, 2004 08:11 AM
I linked from Lileks (at Lileks.com) because he too made fun of Mr. Humphrey, in his gentle, but critical, James Lileks like manner.
For the record - I'm an ordinary citizen - no computer knowledge as such, not a writer, not a blogger, not particularly politically active, etc.
I get all of my hard news from blogger or alternative internet sources. I can fact check that news in seconds.
When I read a newspaper or magazine or even, G-d forbid, watch television news, I can usually spot the lies (intentional slants providing just the information that the media author wants to give you).
However, I have to take it all with a grain of salt, because I have no way to source the material.
Hence, I do not get my news from the old sources.
Posted by: Moishe at August 31, 2004 08:52 AM
Please tell me you're just attempting bad humor, Tom. It's less painful to think of it that way.
Posted by: Prague at August 31, 2004 09:16 AM
Caleb Charles,
Yes, you got it right!
I linked in from Lileks, scanned the first paragraph, jumped to the comments, LMAO, left this comment and then left for the real blogs. (Lileks is first, every morning!).
Old media = chicken-filled weiners
Posted by: Donald Campbell at August 31, 2004 09:32 AM
"...bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches."
This guy is Too Much! Although he looks old enough to have been around when the "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" might have kinda-sorta applied to his media, those days are long past. Now it's not-too-well-disguised editorializing in the "hard" news, "toe-touches" and outright fabrications (Jayson Blair). Meanwhile, serious bloggers hone their craft through with the help of almost instantaneous (and very public) feedback and fact-check the bejezus out of the "old media" fact-checkers, often with hilarious results.
Speaking of which, something tells me that in the dog-eat-dog world of the blogosphere, Mr. Humphrey and his attributed, fact-checked, logical writers have just donned dog-bone underpants. Should be fun to watch (for those of us that read "Web-only blogs"!)
Posted by: Wylie Merritt at August 31, 2004 09:57 AM
I think it's brilliant:
step one: say something stupid and unverifiable.
step two: Wait for reynolds and lileks to link you.
step three: traffic
He has this blogging thing down.
Posted by: SayUncle at August 31, 2004 10:37 AM
I really do hope the comments and post stick around, but I fear that when the editors wake up there will be some house cleaning.
If it does stay, I expect it will soon be a Wiki object lesson. If it's around in a day or two I may make a "Web-Only Blog" entry to memorialize it.
In the meantime, someone explain to him that one of the nice things you can do with a "Web-Only Blog" is make those URL whatchamacallits in your text body into these things called 'hot links'
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 10:50 AM
Ah, the irony. I think Mr. Humphrey has just experienced blog-based "fact-checking."
Here's another "AYE" to Caleb Charles. I did indeed slog through a couple paragraphs before jumping down to the comments...
Posted by: Out4Blood at August 31, 2004 11:23 AM
As I read through this "web-only" excrement a couple of dozen pithy comments came to mind. Unfortunately I was too late as more timely commentors beat me to the punch.
Posted by: tim at August 31, 2004 11:36 AM
Unfortunately, I read it all the way through to the end. That the comments make infinitely more sense than the column tells the story: the war is over. Old media lies bleeding on the field.
Posted by: Cato at August 31, 2004 12:14 PM
Whistling in the dark from the moribund old media, and a pathetic demonstration that "journalistic integrity" is now an oxymoron.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2004 12:23 PM
They've already removed the "Web-only" line. I wouldn't be surprised if our comments go bye-bye too.
Not to worry, all of the comments posted up to this point have been copied and pasted at my own "web-only" blog, along with my comments on the article.
Posted by: Brian B at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM
I pointed out the byline change in a comment on his next entry.
http://web.knoxnews.com/mt-static/rnc/archives/000597.html#comments
In fairness, they posted the explanation for the change when asked about it. (See "Technical Note" in the Nav bar on the left).
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 01:18 PM
Mr. Humphrey, you're WAY out of your league. It wasn't even a valiant effort. You're not nearly disciplined enough to write a respectable blog. Go back to the op-ed pages, old man.
Posted by: Tyler F at August 31, 2004 07:10 PM
Very good, Tom. I am glad to see that you are seeking "instruction" to remedy your obvious ignorance of the nature and etiquette of the blogosphere. However, a few more remedial lessons may be in order:
1. Don't use the passive voice. Say, "X instructs me" not "I am instructed". The latter formulation violates one of those "ironclad rules of attribution" that you should have learned from your days among the ink-stained wretches. Also, the passive voice sounds weak, stuffy, effete, French ... you get the picture.
2. I applaud you on enabling the comments section on this blog. I actually only browsed to this site to see if you had, since you seem unaware of the way that fact checking works out here. But even those blogs who do not enable comments, such as my own humble effort, can be fact-checked through the use of links. I found your post through Instapundit but evidently James Lileks has also linked to you. By now you probably have several hundred links, as the sampling of comments above should indicate.
3. You have handled the little gaffe about this being a "web-only blog" adequately, but it is traditional to do this kind of error correction in the text of the blog itself rather than in a side-bar. I realize there are aesthetic considerations here, and styles vary on this matter, but it makes it much easier for people to find. And admitting your mistakes forthrightly makes you seem more intelligent (if you caught the error yourself) or more honest (if you didn't).
One final note about self-deprecating humor: lots of bloggers use it and it can be a helpful device in spicing up a post. But, like all humor, you need to be make sure that it is actually funny. Repeating the joke that this is only a blog so the normal standards don't apply isn't all that clever. It sounds too much like you are making excuses. This is more an art than a science, though, so I can't really offer instruction on this point. But a careful review of some of the comments above might give you a clue as to how it is done.
Posted by: R. C. Smith at August 31, 2004 07:19 PM
Reader Elisabeth pointed out several errors in my text. It's Humphrey, not Humphreys. News reporting is two words. and yes, it was meant to be others, not ithers.
Of course, if Mr. Humphrey is to be believed, this never happened, since there is no such thing as proofreading on the internet.
Thanks for the Memory to Russell at Mean Mr Mustard 2.
When I read the phrase dottering[sic], clueless Old Media jackass, I must confess that my first reaction was, "Andy Rooney?" But no, sadly, Andy's not the only codger out there with a Word Processor, heart pills, and the "Truth".
So I followed Russell's link to this blog entry. One look at the picture and my second reaction was, "What the hell is George Carlin doing writing a blog for a newspaper in Tennessee?"
But no, this is Tom Humphrey, Nashville Bureau Chief for the Knoxville News Sentinel. And he has his very own blog, courtesy of his employer. Ironically, this newspaper editor has posted a blog entry that, by his own admission, is full of "ramblings." Now, that's a pretty common thing for blogs to do -- ramble, rant, and rave. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly no reason to criticize the man. But when he decides to impugn the quality of writing and newsreporting in blogs, implying that traditional newspaper writers are superior to mere bloggers, while displaying some horrendous writing skills, I just can't let it pass. And so I decided to attempt my first fisking.
Now, to give credit where due, I must say that many of the observations I make have already been made by those who have commented on this entry before I read it, including the esteemed Mr. Lileks. And while in some of those cases I had the same immediate reaction, often they say it better than I can, and so I will acknowledge my peers and/or superiors in these regards. But now, on with the show. Mr. Humphrey's words are in normal type, mine in italics.
Ramblings on Republicans
Let me guess, you don't like us, do you? And you're a journalist? That's newsworthy.
The boss lady of blogs at the News Sentinel has advised that I need to file something for this site on Saturday, though it apparently will not be visible to anyone until activation on Sunday, for technical reasons that are utterly beyond my comprehension. Just a brief will do, she said in the email.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of complex sentences. But there's a fine line between complex and run-on. Mr. Humphrey has snapped it like the tape at the Olympic marathon. The sentence structure is nigh unto incomprehensible, and the information conveyed is as uninteresting as it is unintelligible. Not an auspicious start.
But, what the heck, if I'm going to sit here the evening before deserting my family for almost a week to watch Republican worship ceremonies for George W. Bush, not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry, might as well ramble a bit.
Wha... huh? What the hell does "not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry," mean? I'm guessing it's a typo, and I think I know what he meant to type, but this is a newspaper bureau chief we're reading. You'd think he would be familiar with the concept of "proofreading." As for rambling "a bit", that's being demure.
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such
Have you actually read many blogs, buddy? Have you read their comments section? You know, like the one on yours where you get your ass handed to you? If anything, as it has been pointed out, blogs get fact-checked even more than newspapers. All those readers are just waiting to catch you in an error, and will not hesitate to rub your face in it if you err (especially the ones that dislike/disagree with you). Also bear in mind that we have no Bloggers Union Local 123 to defend us, and there's no such thing as "job security" for bloggers. If you screw up, you get caught, and you lose readers. Period. As for attribution, take a stroll through the blogs and take a gander at that thing called a trackback. Attribution is usually practiced even more religiously, since giving proper credit to another blogger, especially a popular one, increases the likelihood of attracting readers. Furthermore, improper attribution is just as vigorously monitored by readers as is fact checking. Logic? Pot and kettle, buddy. Some blogs display a better grasp of logic than others, a comment that is equally true of newspaper writers.
that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches.
Lileks has a great comment on just how cliche and irrelevant and utterly asinine this bit is. go read it.
You can just babble like a talk show radio guy.
Apparently he's taken the "Logic-free" advice to heart, and immediately tosses in an ad hominem dig at talk radio.
Ergo, to babble a bit:
Again, that's putting it mildly.
Tennessee Republicans are pretty darn cocky these days about the presidential race in their home state. It's the one thing they are united about. All on message, got their talking points and so on.
That's a pretty apt description of any politico from a state where the party in question pretty much has a wrap on the presidential race. What Mr. Humphrey fails to do is explain how this makes the Republicans any different, or why anyone outside the Volunteer state should give a tinker's damn. This just sounds whiney and petty.
Otherwise, there's quite a bit of infighting, interspersed with the occasional embarrassment.
Again, how does this distinguish them from any other group of politicians? Shouldn't you have added "irrelevant" to the word ramblings, just to, you know, warn us?
For the most recent embarrassment: Hey, what about that 8th District Republican nominee for Congress, James Hart, the eugenics yahoo who won the primary despite the somewhat belated disavowal of his candidacy by state party officialdom? Check out his website at www.jameshartforcongress.com. Reports circulated last week that Mr. Hart might just show up at the GOP Convention in New York to promote his doctrine of 'favored races.' Beth Harwell, state party chairman, says he will not be welcome.
Good for her. The guy's a dim bulb who doesn't represent mainstream Republican values, and shouldn't be embraced by the GOP. And before any supported of the other party gets smug about this, do a Google search for the words Democrat and Ku Klux Klan.
This would, of course, provide some novelty. Republicans are worried about left-wing yahoos disrupting things in New York. Tennessee's Republicans could find themselves under attack from another direction. That would be special.
Whoops, I guess it's too late to heed my smugness warning. Seen the streets of the city you're visiting, Tommy? Been to DU or Indymedia? Listened to Michael Moor or Kos or any of their ilk screeching away? I wouldn't be too quick to play the extreme elements card.
Hart's candidacy, incidentally, has spurred talk of Harwell being available as a sort of stand-in Republican nominee for governor against Phil Bredesen if no one credible steps forward to challenge the Democrat doing darn well in popularity polls lately. She’s a nice lady, well-spoken, proper credentials, etc. And having her there would assure that no incredible idiot wins the Republican nomination.
Because we know that's all most Republicans are. Once he has that ad hominem ball firmly in hand, he runs for the end zone.
Haven't asked Beth about that rumor, but what the heck, this is blog babbling. Will try to do so in the days ahead, and predict that she will be non-committal, refusing to rule out anything, etc., etc. (Keen insight, eh?)
At least he's capable of making an attempt at self-deprecation, lame as it is.
The Republican infighting is mostly political, though every now and then personal.
That reads like a freaking fortune cookie, not a political commentary.
Heck, you can even get emails from a Tennessee Republican group poking fun at 'part-time Beth' ( that's Harwell, who is also a state representative, a mom, a wife, etc. ) and 'Deputy Bob,' a reference to state party deputy Bob Davis, the former right-hand man to Sen. Fred Thompson and perhaps the most media-shy of all those enclosed in the offices above Amerigo's Restaurant in Nashville (OK, my non-blogging mode would make that state GOP headquarters).
Again, more blather that nobody outside Tennessee gets or gives a damn about.
One email I recall centered on the salaries of Beth and Bob and, when rummaging through disclosure forms recently, I noticed that Deputy Bob makes more than Part-time Beth. If he would talk to me occasionally, I might think he was worth it.
My dear God, that's the most self-important, narcissistic thing I've heard in a while. That's quite an accomplishment.
But I digress, as authorized in blogging it seems.
Ha ha. Back to the little digs about bloggers not being worth taking seriously. Given how glib and sloppily written your schtick has been, my friend, I'd avoid attributing color schemes to kettles.
Back to the aforementioned infighting, political, not personal.
At which point, Humphrey's post continues on with inane insight regarding the nuances of Republican politics which is vaguely disdainful and smug, but again, conveys nothing that cannot be gleaned by reading any amount of conservative commentary already available, and doesn't actually make what we lowly bloggers like to call a point. Really not worth reading. The only other item of note is a Technical note on the side, referring to an earlier version of the post that referred to "web-only" blogs, and was justly taken to task:
TECHNICAL NOTE
The description was modified by a content producer to remove reference that this is a "web-only blog." Familiar with the blogging world herself, she should have known better.
Yeah, you'd think that someone who worked for an institution that has "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" would have caught that the first time.
Enough rambling. Time to finish packing.
If you write for the paper as poorly as you write for your blog, the only thing you should be packing is your desk into a box.
UPDATE:
The comments section of Humphrey's blog included quite a few really cutting retorts to his post. Some of the commenters expressed concern that the News Sentinel would delete those comments, so I've posted them here:
Comments
Laugh riot! Most blogs I read are actually more interested in the truth, rather then putting a spin on the news to bulk up Kerry in the polls. You may not like President Bush, but I bet you would loathe "President Kerry."
PS: you aren't doing it correctly, if you are trying to run a political blog.
Posted by: Porter G at August 30, 2004 08:11 PM
Humphrey: You are either a liar or a fool, and it is obvious at a glance that you did not attribute this alleged "instruct[ion]" in order that a reasonable investigator could determine which.
You're fired.
Posted by: Billy Beck at August 30, 2004 08:18 PM
What a chuckle this is. And by the way "Hey, look at me, I am commenting on a 'Web-only blog'!!!!"
( Must now go google "Gore +invents +"new blogging medium" )
Posted by: Dusty at August 30, 2004 08:49 PM
"After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches. You can just babble like a talk show radio guy."
While it's true that bloggers have nobody checking their stories BEFORE they publish them in their blogs, it's NOT TRUE that bloggers have NO fact checkers AT ALL. Blogs have MORE, and better, fact checkers than traditional media.
Bloggers' fact checkers and critics are the blog's readers and commenters. The 'great unwashed', if you will, of people who read blogs and may have more expertise on a subject than the blogger does. If it's a big story, or a large error, there will be multiple blogs all chiming in with corrections.
I don't see the same thing happening in traditional media. Very rarely will one media outlet's error be reported on the others, as happens with blogs.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 30, 2004 09:06 PM
I'm sorry but old media has nothing to be smug about when it comes to fact-checking. If this post is any indication, you wouldn't be able to hack it as a blogger.
Posted by: Joel Fleming at August 30, 2004 09:58 PM
Hey Tom,
Those that can, blog.
Those that can't, whine.
...and the readers move on.
Posted by: Don at August 30, 2004 10:48 PM
Couldn't resist, and had to use this as a "the media don't get it" example on my own weblog! http://www.greg-brooks.com/000445.html
Posted by: Greg Brooks at August 30, 2004 11:05 PM
Am I the only one that skimmed through this "blog" and skipped to the comments for feedback to see if the article was worth reading? I just saved myself 15 minutes. LMAO. Tom, your prose wore thin in merely 10 sentences. Enough silliness, I need to get back to real reading.
Posted by: Caleb Charles at August 31, 2004 12:48 AM
Caleb Charles,
No, you're not!
Posted by: Ron Weiner at August 31, 2004 01:44 AM
I've read the 2nd paragraph several times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. This from a bureau chief!
Then this: "After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such ...", followed by rumor, speculation, and innuendo at length without reference. Bloggers (1) publish links to their references; (2) publish all feedback, not just selected "letters to the editor;" (3) did not create Jayson Blair.
Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2004 07:03 AM
So if this is a "web-only" blog, does that mean my comments are... ON THE INTERNET?
Seriously, Tom, it would appear that you have been hiding in the broom closet for several years. Chris J. hits the nail on the head- bloggers are much better at reporting the real story these days, for the simple reason that readers can call them out when they get it wrong. I doubt your paper would publish the criticism you've received here, meaning this type of back-and-forth can only exist on... A WEB-ONLY BLOG (cue Scooby Doo ghost noises).
Posted by: Rob at August 31, 2004 08:11 AM
I linked from Lileks (at Lileks.com) because he too made fun of Mr. Humphrey, in his gentle, but critical, James Lileks like manner.
For the record - I'm an ordinary citizen - no computer knowledge as such, not a writer, not a blogger, not particularly politically active, etc.
I get all of my hard news from blogger or alternative internet sources. I can fact check that news in seconds.
When I read a newspaper or magazine or even, G-d forbid, watch television news, I can usually spot the lies (intentional slants providing just the information that the media author wants to give you).
However, I have to take it all with a grain of salt, because I have no way to source the material.
Hence, I do not get my news from the old sources.
Posted by: Moishe at August 31, 2004 08:52 AM
Please tell me you're just attempting bad humor, Tom. It's less painful to think of it that way.
Posted by: Prague at August 31, 2004 09:16 AM
Caleb Charles,
Yes, you got it right!
I linked in from Lileks, scanned the first paragraph, jumped to the comments, LMAO, left this comment and then left for the real blogs. (Lileks is first, every morning!).
Old media = chicken-filled weiners
Posted by: Donald Campbell at August 31, 2004 09:32 AM
"...bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches."
This guy is Too Much! Although he looks old enough to have been around when the "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" might have kinda-sorta applied to his media, those days are long past. Now it's not-too-well-disguised editorializing in the "hard" news, "toe-touches" and outright fabrications (Jayson Blair). Meanwhile, serious bloggers hone their craft through with the help of almost instantaneous (and very public) feedback and fact-check the bejezus out of the "old media" fact-checkers, often with hilarious results.
Speaking of which, something tells me that in the dog-eat-dog world of the blogosphere, Mr. Humphrey and his attributed, fact-checked, logical writers have just donned dog-bone underpants. Should be fun to watch (for those of us that read "Web-only blogs"!)
Posted by: Wylie Merritt at August 31, 2004 09:57 AM
I think it's brilliant:
step one: say something stupid and unverifiable.
step two: Wait for reynolds and lileks to link you.
step three: traffic
He has this blogging thing down.
Posted by: SayUncle at August 31, 2004 10:37 AM
I really do hope the comments and post stick around, but I fear that when the editors wake up there will be some house cleaning.
If it does stay, I expect it will soon be a Wiki object lesson. If it's around in a day or two I may make a "Web-Only Blog" entry to memorialize it.
In the meantime, someone explain to him that one of the nice things you can do with a "Web-Only Blog" is make those URL whatchamacallits in your text body into these things called 'hot links'
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 10:50 AM
Ah, the irony. I think Mr. Humphrey has just experienced blog-based "fact-checking."
Here's another "AYE" to Caleb Charles. I did indeed slog through a couple paragraphs before jumping down to the comments...
Posted by: Out4Blood at August 31, 2004 11:23 AM
As I read through this "web-only" excrement a couple of dozen pithy comments came to mind. Unfortunately I was too late as more timely commentors beat me to the punch.
Posted by: tim at August 31, 2004 11:36 AM
Unfortunately, I read it all the way through to the end. That the comments make infinitely more sense than the column tells the story: the war is over. Old media lies bleeding on the field.
Posted by: Cato at August 31, 2004 12:14 PM
Whistling in the dark from the moribund old media, and a pathetic demonstration that "journalistic integrity" is now an oxymoron.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2004 12:23 PM
They've already removed the "Web-only" line. I wouldn't be surprised if our comments go bye-bye too.
Not to worry, all of the comments posted up to this point have been copied and pasted at my own "web-only" blog, along with my comments on the article.
Posted by: Brian B at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM
I pointed out the byline change in a comment on his next entry.
http://web.knoxnews.com/mt-static/rnc/archives/000597.html#comments
In fairness, they posted the explanation for the change when asked about it. (See "Technical Note" in the Nav bar on the left).
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 01:18 PM
Mr. Humphrey, you're WAY out of your league. It wasn't even a valiant effort. You're not nearly disciplined enough to write a respectable blog. Go back to the op-ed pages, old man.
Posted by: Tyler F at August 31, 2004 07:10 PM
Very good, Tom. I am glad to see that you are seeking "instruction" to remedy your obvious ignorance of the nature and etiquette of the blogosphere. However, a few more remedial lessons may be in order:
1. Don't use the passive voice. Say, "X instructs me" not "I am instructed". The latter formulation violates one of those "ironclad rules of attribution" that you should have learned from your days among the ink-stained wretches. Also, the passive voice sounds weak, stuffy, effete, French ... you get the picture.
2. I applaud you on enabling the comments section on this blog. I actually only browsed to this site to see if you had, since you seem unaware of the way that fact checking works out here. But even those blogs who do not enable comments, such as my own humble effort, can be fact-checked through the use of links. I found your post through Instapundit but evidently James Lileks has also linked to you. By now you probably have several hundred links, as the sampling of comments above should indicate.
3. You have handled the little gaffe about this being a "web-only blog" adequately, but it is traditional to do this kind of error correction in the text of the blog itself rather than in a side-bar. I realize there are aesthetic considerations here, and styles vary on this matter, but it makes it much easier for people to find. And admitting your mistakes forthrightly makes you seem more intelligent (if you caught the error yourself) or more honest (if you didn't).
One final note about self-deprecating humor: lots of bloggers use it and it can be a helpful device in spicing up a post. But, like all humor, you need to be make sure that it is actually funny. Repeating the joke that this is only a blog so the normal standards don't apply isn't all that clever. It sounds too much like you are making excuses. This is more an art than a science, though, so I can't really offer instruction on this point. But a careful review of some of the comments above might give you a clue as to how it is done.
Posted by: R. C. Smith at August 31, 2004 07:19 PM
Monday, August 30, 2004
Quote of the Day
He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose.
- Jim Elliot
- Jim Elliot
Fried, Fried In His Memory
Originally posted 8:58 AM, 27 August 2004
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John ForbesKurtz Kerry regarding the death of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John Forbes
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
No Torch Relay for Me, Thanks
Thanks for the memory to Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
Cue Soundtrack: Also Spracht Streisand, or "My God, It's Full of Sh**..."
Originally posted 9:18 AM, 28 August 2004.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Simply Indefensible
Being a good husband means, in part, enduring the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games with your spouse. I made it, but just barely.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
Friday, August 27, 2004
The Last Thing I Needed to Hear
At 4 PM on Friday afternoon: "I just talked to my OB/GYN's nurse, and she said to check in to Urgent Care right away."
This from my 14-week-pregnant wife, who should be getting over "morning" sickness by now, but who is instead throwing up at the rate of 2-4 times per day, has lost 12 lbs. In 5 weeks (trust me, not a weight loss plan I'd recommend), and is feeling light headed and has heart palpitations all of a sudden today.
The doctor at Urgent Care doesn't seem to be TOO worried, they're going to run a few tests (just enough time for me to slip out, eat, update the blog and get back), pump some fluids in her, and prescribe a new drug. The downside is, the new drug is pretty pricey, and money's tight.
I swear to God, as much hell as this child is putting her through now, after it is born and grows, it WILL treat her with a level of regard usually reserved for heads of state and pop singers, or it WILL answer to me!
This from my 14-week-pregnant wife, who should be getting over "morning" sickness by now, but who is instead throwing up at the rate of 2-4 times per day, has lost 12 lbs. In 5 weeks (trust me, not a weight loss plan I'd recommend), and is feeling light headed and has heart palpitations all of a sudden today.
The doctor at Urgent Care doesn't seem to be TOO worried, they're going to run a few tests (just enough time for me to slip out, eat, update the blog and get back), pump some fluids in her, and prescribe a new drug. The downside is, the new drug is pretty pricey, and money's tight.
I swear to God, as much hell as this child is putting her through now, after it is born and grows, it WILL treat her with a level of regard usually reserved for heads of state and pop singers, or it WILL answer to me!
Quote of the Day
Thanks for the Memory to my friend & coworker Ricky V.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Maybe You Shoulda Thought About That Sooner....
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
More sheer insanity from the lips of the erzatz Empress Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Zha Zha Evita Peron Dixie Wetsworth Heinz Ketchup:
Heinz Kerry: Swiftvets Hurting Troop Morale in Iraq
Well, we know of one Swift Boat Veteran whose words and actions long ago started hurting troop morale...
Breaking her silence on criticism of John Kerry's war record by the group Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Teresa Heinz Kerry said this week that such attacks are undermining the morale of troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe that discussions or attacks on [my husband's] service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country," she told the Dayton Daily News.
"Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future," she added.
You might want to avoid using the word "nefarious" when discussing the issue of your husband's past, darling.
Heinz Kerry reacted to the Swiftvet criticism after speaking to the AFL-CIO Coalition of Labor Union Women in Ohio on Tuesday.
The Rich Boston Brahmin reacted... after speaking to working women with whom she has nothing in common beyond her gender.
Asked Monday about the Swiftvet criticism by the Gannet News Service, Heinz Kerry responded less forcefully, saying, "I honor my husband's work. I honor his past."
Funny, "honor" and your husband's past don't exactly create a strong association to many of us.
"I may be wrong," she added. "But I have to believe that no veteran today, including those who don't plan to vote for my husband, feels very good about these attacks."
Except, of course, for the veterans making the allegations, as well as, oh, almost every vet I know.
All I can say is, please, please, PLEASE, Milady, keep talking. You're doing WONDERS for the campaign, REALLY.
Which one? Oh, you didn't ask me that.
More sheer insanity from the lips of the erzatz Empress Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Zha Zha Evita Peron Dixie Wetsworth Heinz Ketchup:
Heinz Kerry: Swiftvets Hurting Troop Morale in Iraq
Well, we know of one Swift Boat Veteran whose words and actions long ago started hurting troop morale...
Breaking her silence on criticism of John Kerry's war record by the group Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Teresa Heinz Kerry said this week that such attacks are undermining the morale of troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe that discussions or attacks on [my husband's] service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country," she told the Dayton Daily News.
"Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future," she added.
You might want to avoid using the word "nefarious" when discussing the issue of your husband's past, darling.
Heinz Kerry reacted to the Swiftvet criticism after speaking to the AFL-CIO Coalition of Labor Union Women in Ohio on Tuesday.
The Rich Boston Brahmin reacted... after speaking to working women with whom she has nothing in common beyond her gender.
Asked Monday about the Swiftvet criticism by the Gannet News Service, Heinz Kerry responded less forcefully, saying, "I honor my husband's work. I honor his past."
Funny, "honor" and your husband's past don't exactly create a strong association to many of us.
"I may be wrong," she added. "But I have to believe that no veteran today, including those who don't plan to vote for my husband, feels very good about these attacks."
Except, of course, for the veterans making the allegations, as well as, oh, almost every vet I know.
All I can say is, please, please, PLEASE, Milady, keep talking. You're doing WONDERS for the campaign, REALLY.
Which one? Oh, you didn't ask me that.
Starting My Christmas Wish List Early
Just got this email:
Dear Mr. & Mrs. B,
With great pride, we are pleased to announce the release of the long awaited CD, “Mourning in America: Music and Eulogies from the Funeral Services of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.” This official CD, produced by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation will benefit the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. While many other unauthorized CD’s of the funeral services have already been released, this official CD, “Mourning in America”, has been sanctioned by Mrs. Reagan. Proceeds from the sale help the Reagan Foundation to fulfill the vision of President Reagan’s life’s work and to ensure that America’s future remains bright for our generation and generations to come. To order the CD, please visit the Reagan Library’s online Museum Store at http://www.reaganlibrary.com/store/ .
This touching CD includes:
• Exclusive remarks by Mrs. Ronald Reagan
• Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Band: Ruffles and Flourishes, Hail to the Chief, and My Country 'Tis of Thee
• The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
• U.S. Air Force Singing Sergeants: America the Beautiful
• The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Ave Maria
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• The Cathedral Choir/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Jerusalem
• The Right Honourable Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S.
• Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Battle Hymn of the Republic
• The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D.
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Amazing Grace
• The Honorable George H.W. Bush
• U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra/ Congregation: Ode to Joy
• The Honorable George W. Bush
• The Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: The Mansions of the Lord
• Michael Reagan
• Patti Davis
• Ronald Prescott Reagan
• Eric Rigler/Bagpiper: Amazing Grace
• 11th Marine Artillery Regiment: 21-Gun Salute
U.S. Army Band Bugler: Taps
Thank you for supporting the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. May we continue to be blessed with your friendship as we work to preserve the legacy of President Ronald Reagan.
“I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT MAN IS GOOD
THAT WHAT IS RIGHT WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH
AND THAT THERE IS PURPOSE AND WORTH TO EACH AND EVERY LIFE.”
-Ronald Reagan, November 4, 1991 at the Dedication of the Reagan Library
Warm regards,
R. Duke Blackwood
Executive Director
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation
http://www.reaganfoundation.org
I got teary-eyed just reading the email. I can't imagine what it will be like listening to it.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. B,
With great pride, we are pleased to announce the release of the long awaited CD, “Mourning in America: Music and Eulogies from the Funeral Services of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.” This official CD, produced by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation will benefit the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. While many other unauthorized CD’s of the funeral services have already been released, this official CD, “Mourning in America”, has been sanctioned by Mrs. Reagan. Proceeds from the sale help the Reagan Foundation to fulfill the vision of President Reagan’s life’s work and to ensure that America’s future remains bright for our generation and generations to come. To order the CD, please visit the Reagan Library’s online Museum Store at http://www.reaganlibrary.com/store/ .
This touching CD includes:
• Exclusive remarks by Mrs. Ronald Reagan
• Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Band: Ruffles and Flourishes, Hail to the Chief, and My Country 'Tis of Thee
• The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
• U.S. Air Force Singing Sergeants: America the Beautiful
• The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Ave Maria
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• The Cathedral Choir/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Jerusalem
• The Right Honourable Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S.
• Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Battle Hymn of the Republic
• The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D.
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Amazing Grace
• The Honorable George H.W. Bush
• U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra/ Congregation: Ode to Joy
• The Honorable George W. Bush
• The Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: The Mansions of the Lord
• Michael Reagan
• Patti Davis
• Ronald Prescott Reagan
• Eric Rigler/Bagpiper: Amazing Grace
• 11th Marine Artillery Regiment: 21-Gun Salute
U.S. Army Band Bugler: Taps
Thank you for supporting the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. May we continue to be blessed with your friendship as we work to preserve the legacy of President Ronald Reagan.
“I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT MAN IS GOOD
THAT WHAT IS RIGHT WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH
AND THAT THERE IS PURPOSE AND WORTH TO EACH AND EVERY LIFE.”
-Ronald Reagan, November 4, 1991 at the Dedication of the Reagan Library
Warm regards,
R. Duke Blackwood
Executive Director
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation
http://www.reaganfoundation.org
I got teary-eyed just reading the email. I can't imagine what it will be like listening to it.
Riiiiiiight.... I'll make sure you get the memo......
Stumbled across this list on funkylady's blog. If you work in an office, you get it:
BLAMESTORMING: Sitting around in a group, discussing why a deadline was missed or a project failed, and who was responsible.
SEAGULL MANAGER: A manager who flies in, makes a lot of noise, craps on everything, and then leaves.
ASSMOSIS: The process by which some people seem to absorb success and advancement by kissing up to the boss rather than working hard.
SALMON DAY: The experience of spending an entire day swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end.
CUBE FARM: An office filled with cubicles.
PRAIRIE DOGGING: When someone yells or drops something loudly in a cube farm, and people's heads pop up over the walls to see what's up.
MOUSE POTATO: The on-line, wired generation's answer to the couch potato.
SITCOM: Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage. What yuppies turn into when they have children and one of them stops working to stay home with the kids.
STRESS PUPPY: A person who seems to thrive on being stressed out and whiney.
SWIPEOUT: An ATM or credit card that has been rendered useless because the magnetic strip is worn away from extensive use.
XEROX SUBSIDY: Euphemism for swiping free photocopies from one's workplace.
IRRITAINMENT: Entertainment and media spectacles that are annoying but you find yourself unable to stop watching them. The O.J. trials were a prime example.
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE: The fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it to work again.
ADMINISPHERE: The rarefied organizational layers beginning just above the rank and file. Decisions that fall from the adminisphere are often profoundly inappropriate or irrelevant to the problems they were designed to solve.
404: Someone who's clueless (from the World Wide Web error message "404 Not Found," meaning that the requested document could not be located).
GENERICA: Features of the American landscape that are exactly the same no matter where one is, such as fast food joints, strip malls, subdivisions.
OHNOSECOND: That minuscule fraction of time in which you realize that you've just made a BIG mistake.
CROP DUSTING: Surreptitiously farting while passing through a cube farm, then enjoying the sounds of dismay and disgust! (leads to'PRAIRIE DOGGING'.)
BLAMESTORMING: Sitting around in a group, discussing why a deadline was missed or a project failed, and who was responsible.
SEAGULL MANAGER: A manager who flies in, makes a lot of noise, craps on everything, and then leaves.
ASSMOSIS: The process by which some people seem to absorb success and advancement by kissing up to the boss rather than working hard.
SALMON DAY: The experience of spending an entire day swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end.
CUBE FARM: An office filled with cubicles.
PRAIRIE DOGGING: When someone yells or drops something loudly in a cube farm, and people's heads pop up over the walls to see what's up.
MOUSE POTATO: The on-line, wired generation's answer to the couch potato.
SITCOM: Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage. What yuppies turn into when they have children and one of them stops working to stay home with the kids.
STRESS PUPPY: A person who seems to thrive on being stressed out and whiney.
SWIPEOUT: An ATM or credit card that has been rendered useless because the magnetic strip is worn away from extensive use.
XEROX SUBSIDY: Euphemism for swiping free photocopies from one's workplace.
IRRITAINMENT: Entertainment and media spectacles that are annoying but you find yourself unable to stop watching them. The O.J. trials were a prime example.
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE: The fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it to work again.
ADMINISPHERE: The rarefied organizational layers beginning just above the rank and file. Decisions that fall from the adminisphere are often profoundly inappropriate or irrelevant to the problems they were designed to solve.
404: Someone who's clueless (from the World Wide Web error message "404 Not Found," meaning that the requested document could not be located).
GENERICA: Features of the American landscape that are exactly the same no matter where one is, such as fast food joints, strip malls, subdivisions.
OHNOSECOND: That minuscule fraction of time in which you realize that you've just made a BIG mistake.
CROP DUSTING: Surreptitiously farting while passing through a cube farm, then enjoying the sounds of dismay and disgust! (leads to'PRAIRIE DOGGING'.)
Top Ten List for Friday, August 27, 2004
From the Home Office in Tenmile, Oregon
Top Ten Reasons I, a Conservative, Still Live in Oregon:
10. What, leave? I just got back!
9. At least it's not California.
8. Three words: Target Rich Environment
7. Beer strong enough to make even Howard Dean calm down.
6. Patchouli makes excellentmosquito repellant.
5. For sheer comic brilliance, nothing beats watching Kucinich supporters and Nader supporters debate.
4. Plenty of "Free Mumia Benefit Sitar Concert" fliers for the fireplace to keep you warm on those rainy Northwest nights.
3. There's entertainment value in asking the dredlocked Barrista for an "ANWR Crude Oil Latte in a Paper cup made from old growth firs" and watching the look on their face.
2. Spotted Owl tastes like chicken, but with less cholesterol.
1. THIS IS MY BIRTHPLACE AND HOME, BY GOD, AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL LET THE FREAKS HAVE IT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right on January 18, 2005.
Top Ten Reasons I, a Conservative, Still Live in Oregon:
10. What, leave? I just got back!
9. At least it's not California.
8. Three words: Target Rich Environment
7. Beer strong enough to make even Howard Dean calm down.
6. Patchouli makes excellent
5. For sheer comic brilliance, nothing beats watching Kucinich supporters and Nader supporters debate.
4. Plenty of "Free Mumia Benefit Sitar Concert" fliers for the fireplace to keep you warm on those rainy Northwest nights.
3. There's entertainment value in asking the dredlocked Barrista for an "ANWR Crude Oil Latte in a Paper cup made from old growth firs" and watching the look on their face.
2. Spotted Owl tastes like chicken, but with less cholesterol.
1. THIS IS MY BIRTHPLACE AND HOME, BY GOD, AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL LET THE FREAKS HAVE IT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right on January 18, 2005.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
You like? I Like!
Frightening likeness:
Now if only John Edwards would bleach his hair, we'd have Pool Boy!
Now if only John Edwards would bleach his hair, we'd have Pool Boy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)