"The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them"
-Stephen King
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the official website on the Internet for all things related to Un. Accept no other imitations. Today's update is another one of those philosophical posts that will ramble to some conclusion. Please let me indulge in this hard-to-break habit.
I don't express myself very well when it comes to speaking. The gift of gab, as some might call it, is just that--a gift. Some practice--OK, quite a lot of practice--is required, but natural talent is needed. I could become a silver-tongued orator...if I practiced speaking for a million years and even then, I probably would feel like I needed more. Supposedly, according to Irish lore, a person who kisses the Blarney Stone will get this gift of being a natural speaker. I'm of the opinion that I could engage in tonsil hockey with the Blarney Stone and not get anywhere. It won't help.
I probably, wait, I know I lack confidence with my abilities, but I can't help it. I guess I am one of those people I self-describe as "cynical realists." There is a literary style called "magical realism" where people accept magical events happening in everyday life without a bat of the eyebrow. I accept life knowing that the cynical view of life--the road that leads to the world of half-empty--most likely will occur because someone else drank from the cup before I did and the situation won't change any time soon. It's a bad philosophy of life, but someone has to follow it. Let's just say I ain't a person who sees the world with pink-colored lenses.
However, I do consider my writing skills to be much better. The Lawyering professor I had might disagree with my personal assessment, but I don't consider their opinion to be of much significance. In the real world, lawyers do not write in the style they teach. Which defeats the purpose of the class. I digress. For some reason, when I write, my hand (or hands) operate at the same speed as my mind. When I talk, things fall apart. My mind works faster than my mouth which results in me ending up with an awkward pause, trying to get back on track. Either that or I speak before I've given serious thought about it, which happened a lot when I was younger and still happens now (less frequently). You know, the "Did I just say that and oh God, I did and now I look like a wacko and I hope you all forgot what I said" moments where everyone looks strange at you. It happens as I get so caught up in a moment that I have to say what I feel like. My comments tend to be sharp and they tend to irk/annoy/hurt people's feelings/verbally give a smackdown to other people. It can be entertaining, though I try to keep the more vindictive/wacky comments to myself. On a sidenote, I think it might be a good career move if I ended up being a TV judge in the vein of Judge Judy.
Some find this concept weird. I'm known to be a quiet person, but most people only remember the times when I go off and lauch several zingers. Like at the Women in Law Pub Night when I did impressions and pulled out a couple (quite a few) decidedly un-PC jokes in a deadpan. Or when I went off the wall in Constitutional Law and derided the Bush administration on their definitions of "justification" and "torture." Blunt sarcasm is a good thing, but it has limits.
When it comes to expressing how I feel, that's a different story. I have problems with that. With the tendencies I have to say mean things (which tend to be the truth most of the times, though I say stuff out of anger and frustration) or amazingly dumb things, I clam up a lot. Which prevents a lot of problems, but sooner or later, I just let loose and put simply, the proverbial "all hell breaks loose." I've done a good job and things haven't gotten out of hand...yet.
It can be a bad thing...this tendency to clam up. Which doesn't work too well when you like someone of the opposite sex and you don't have the guts to walk up to them and say it. When I do have the guts to say it (much, much later), they're gone or they've found someone who could actually say it/show it. Which might explain a whole lot. When that happens, there goes another wasted opportunity. And I move on to another and another. You just can't walk up to a person in a relationship and say, "Hey, I liked you and I didn't have the nerve to tell you, but now I do. You going to TGIT tonight?" and expect nothing to happen or for things to stay the same. At least it doesn't work in the movies or in books and in real life. So I guess that the operating principle of "better unsaid than said" works in these situations, but I might be working under a faulty assumption. Can't change what's happened. And no, I'm not going to name any names and make a bigger fool of myself...as if that's possible. Oh well.
I've already written too much. That's all for now.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Saturday, March 04, 2006
The Un-Zone Weekend Edition: Oscars 2006
Greetings and welcome again to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un on the Internet. Visiting this site on a regular basis has been unscientifically proven to provide a sufficient dose of Un to last until your next fix. Plus it's safe for work and school, unlike some other sites you might be visiting.
The Oscars are tomorrow. It should be like all the other Oscar ceremonies. There will be many long, boring acceptance speeches that thank everyone, including the hairdresser, the makeup people, the lighting people, the caterers, etc. despite the 45 second policy they try to enforce. There will be Joan Rivers, a monument to what can go wrong with too much plastic surgery talking about fashion. Does anyone see something wrong with that? I mean, it's sort of like Fred Phelps giving a talk on tolerance with respect to homosexuals or a Hamas member talking about coexisting with Israel. She's not the first person I think of when talking about fashion or beauty.
Even with Mr. Stewart of The Daily News, I seriously doubt the ceremony will be entertaining or for that matter, worth watching. You know there will be multiple jokes about Brokeback Mountain and gay cowboys. You can't milk any more jokes out of that topic. Someone will make a speech critical of George W. Bush and his policies in Iraq. I'm thinking if George Clooney wins, he'll make one. At least one person will cry while making their speech. An old Hollywood veteran will get a lifetime achievement award.
It will be the traditional Hollywood gives themselves a pat on the back show. Utterly worthless and devoid of any real significance, but millions of Americans will watch it. Actors who get paid millions of dollars playing a teacher will get paid. The real teacher on the other hand, will get paid significantly less and will not get a second of attention. Nor will they get a $30,000 gift basket. As if the actors needed any more stuff than they already have. The morning "news" will devote ten or fifteen minutes to what people wore and who won, treating it like it's a major event worthy of coverage while serious news gets put off on the wayside. You know that they would rather do this mindless "news event" than serious reporting like what's happening in Iraq or Washington DC. It's a lot easier to report and you still get paid several million dollars a year to report it. Which proves that the news is not about news stories of actual value, but topics that get the most viewers. This leads to the general ignorance of the American public at large. Not that it really matters.
Hell, the President of the United States does not watch the news and look where it got him. People watching CBS knew more about the situation in New Orleans than he did. Things look good in Iraq and Afghanistan. Michael Brown of FEMA is doing a heck of a job. I honestly didn't know about the port deal until now. We're doing everything to support our troops, but I didn't know about the body armor problems until now. Everything in his world is going perfectly fine, despite evidence to the contrary. Ignorant of nearly everything, but absolutely sure on everything. Not that it matters. Then again, it's not like the average American knows what is going on in the world. More Americans probably know which celebrity is supposedly dating Nicole Kidman than what is happening in their own city. No wonder why people voted for him. As the pundits say, you always vote for the person who you can relate with. You've got to share something in common with them. Ignorance and simple-mindedness are things people can relate with.
Of course, the Oscars and other awards show that pander to the average American, appeal to the average American because they require little thought to digest. What's so hard about looking at "celebrities" in dresses and suits? Then again, one can also factor in the mindless and idiotic American obsession with "celebrities." Apparently, these shows are appealing because they allow people to escape their world and for a few hours, pretend to live the life of a movie star. Which, in my opinion, if it hasn't become obvious by now, is mindless, idiotic, and stupid. For a more detailed post on this topic, read this post that I wrote on this topic.
My predictions for the Oscars are that someone will win and a bunch of other people won't. Millions of Americans will spend time that could have been spent being productive at work blabbing inanely about who wore what. Millions more will be ignorant about world and local events. Don't watch the Oscars but read the newspapers instead. You might learn something of value.
That's all for now.
The Oscars are tomorrow. It should be like all the other Oscar ceremonies. There will be many long, boring acceptance speeches that thank everyone, including the hairdresser, the makeup people, the lighting people, the caterers, etc. despite the 45 second policy they try to enforce. There will be Joan Rivers, a monument to what can go wrong with too much plastic surgery talking about fashion. Does anyone see something wrong with that? I mean, it's sort of like Fred Phelps giving a talk on tolerance with respect to homosexuals or a Hamas member talking about coexisting with Israel. She's not the first person I think of when talking about fashion or beauty.
Even with Mr. Stewart of The Daily News, I seriously doubt the ceremony will be entertaining or for that matter, worth watching. You know there will be multiple jokes about Brokeback Mountain and gay cowboys. You can't milk any more jokes out of that topic. Someone will make a speech critical of George W. Bush and his policies in Iraq. I'm thinking if George Clooney wins, he'll make one. At least one person will cry while making their speech. An old Hollywood veteran will get a lifetime achievement award.
It will be the traditional Hollywood gives themselves a pat on the back show. Utterly worthless and devoid of any real significance, but millions of Americans will watch it. Actors who get paid millions of dollars playing a teacher will get paid. The real teacher on the other hand, will get paid significantly less and will not get a second of attention. Nor will they get a $30,000 gift basket. As if the actors needed any more stuff than they already have. The morning "news" will devote ten or fifteen minutes to what people wore and who won, treating it like it's a major event worthy of coverage while serious news gets put off on the wayside. You know that they would rather do this mindless "news event" than serious reporting like what's happening in Iraq or Washington DC. It's a lot easier to report and you still get paid several million dollars a year to report it. Which proves that the news is not about news stories of actual value, but topics that get the most viewers. This leads to the general ignorance of the American public at large. Not that it really matters.
Hell, the President of the United States does not watch the news and look where it got him. People watching CBS knew more about the situation in New Orleans than he did. Things look good in Iraq and Afghanistan. Michael Brown of FEMA is doing a heck of a job. I honestly didn't know about the port deal until now. We're doing everything to support our troops, but I didn't know about the body armor problems until now. Everything in his world is going perfectly fine, despite evidence to the contrary. Ignorant of nearly everything, but absolutely sure on everything. Not that it matters. Then again, it's not like the average American knows what is going on in the world. More Americans probably know which celebrity is supposedly dating Nicole Kidman than what is happening in their own city. No wonder why people voted for him. As the pundits say, you always vote for the person who you can relate with. You've got to share something in common with them. Ignorance and simple-mindedness are things people can relate with.
Of course, the Oscars and other awards show that pander to the average American, appeal to the average American because they require little thought to digest. What's so hard about looking at "celebrities" in dresses and suits? Then again, one can also factor in the mindless and idiotic American obsession with "celebrities." Apparently, these shows are appealing because they allow people to escape their world and for a few hours, pretend to live the life of a movie star. Which, in my opinion, if it hasn't become obvious by now, is mindless, idiotic, and stupid. For a more detailed post on this topic, read this post that I wrote on this topic.
My predictions for the Oscars are that someone will win and a bunch of other people won't. Millions of Americans will spend time that could have been spent being productive at work blabbing inanely about who wore what. Millions more will be ignorant about world and local events. Don't watch the Oscars but read the newspapers instead. You might learn something of value.
That's all for now.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Comedian
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un. It's also the homepage for the growing number of The Cult of Un members. You all should join as there are no initiation fees or embarassing ceremonies. Plus it's a whole lot cheaper than therapy and without the guilt.
I'm off on one of those philosophical/rambling post-type moods, so you are all warned. This might be a real long one. As if my other posts were short in any fashion. Not that it really matters. I digress.
According to Voltaire, the noted French author of Candide, "God is a comedian who performs to an audience too afraid to laugh." I tend to agree, though my choice of analogy would be different. I think of God as a playwright directing an absurdist-existentialist comedy. We're all audience members and actors wondering why the plot makes no sense and if the instructions we're receiving are real or made up. Every so often, there's a moment of clarity when everything makes sense, but it's quickly consumed by the mass confusion.
I'm not sure where I belong in this crazy comedy called life. Am I one of those bit players who has a few brilliant lines and quickly fades away, or am I a passive audience member or am I a guy with a more important part but doesn't realize it? I can't even tell if this is a moment of confusion or clarity. Then again, this might all be an elaborate practical joke. I expect God to appear, showered in a blazing halo of light. When God finally shows up, God will act like Alan Funt and say "SMILE! YOU'RE ON CANDID CAMERA!" or whatever the equivalent is called in Heaven. Yeah. God would explain that this is all a giant mixup and I was supposed to be a handsome billionaire dating a supermodel. Either that, just like in the Book of Job, this was all a wager he made with Satan and I had proven God to be correct. "Hey, no tough feelings. Because you've done so well, you're getting big rewards."
Even under that situation, I get the feeling that there's something missing, like the even bigger and crueler punchline. You know. Just when I get the feeling that life will be a whole lot better, it gets taken away. "April Fools! Gotcha!" Not that God has that kind of humor, but you've got to wonder.
I've got a good memory and that is an understatement. I also have the particularly bad habit of dwelling on the past and well, it gets to be problematic sometimes. I also tend to be cynical. I also tend to get angry at things that really shouldn't bother me but do. Things also trigger things in my mind and I wander off and the situation gets so bad that I have to post my mental train of thought onto this blog that seemingly, for some reason or another, at the end, makes some sense. Or at least has some kind of underlying theme.
You would think having a good memory is a good thing. it is, but it gets to be a hinderance when you have a habit of being cynical and you dwell a lot and brood alot and you think as much as I do. Especially when you think about how the most unlikely people get together and you're wondering how is it that you're single. Just liek the following from Michael Buble's "Anyone to Love":
Or in "That's How it Goes" sung by Michael Buble (a great crooner in the style of Sinatra):
I don't know. I'm just hoping that this path isn't leading me to a giant practical joke. If it is, I'm wondering what the punchline is. Hopefully, the laugh comes like this when I'm looking back at how pitiful things were and how much better they are now as in Buck Owen's "Save The Last Dance For Me":
I think I've done enough for today. That's all for now.
I'm off on one of those philosophical/rambling post-type moods, so you are all warned. This might be a real long one. As if my other posts were short in any fashion. Not that it really matters. I digress.
According to Voltaire, the noted French author of Candide, "God is a comedian who performs to an audience too afraid to laugh." I tend to agree, though my choice of analogy would be different. I think of God as a playwright directing an absurdist-existentialist comedy. We're all audience members and actors wondering why the plot makes no sense and if the instructions we're receiving are real or made up. Every so often, there's a moment of clarity when everything makes sense, but it's quickly consumed by the mass confusion.
I'm not sure where I belong in this crazy comedy called life. Am I one of those bit players who has a few brilliant lines and quickly fades away, or am I a passive audience member or am I a guy with a more important part but doesn't realize it? I can't even tell if this is a moment of confusion or clarity. Then again, this might all be an elaborate practical joke. I expect God to appear, showered in a blazing halo of light. When God finally shows up, God will act like Alan Funt and say "SMILE! YOU'RE ON CANDID CAMERA!" or whatever the equivalent is called in Heaven. Yeah. God would explain that this is all a giant mixup and I was supposed to be a handsome billionaire dating a supermodel. Either that, just like in the Book of Job, this was all a wager he made with Satan and I had proven God to be correct. "Hey, no tough feelings. Because you've done so well, you're getting big rewards."
Even under that situation, I get the feeling that there's something missing, like the even bigger and crueler punchline. You know. Just when I get the feeling that life will be a whole lot better, it gets taken away. "April Fools! Gotcha!" Not that God has that kind of humor, but you've got to wonder.
I've got a good memory and that is an understatement. I also have the particularly bad habit of dwelling on the past and well, it gets to be problematic sometimes. I also tend to be cynical. I also tend to get angry at things that really shouldn't bother me but do. Things also trigger things in my mind and I wander off and the situation gets so bad that I have to post my mental train of thought onto this blog that seemingly, for some reason or another, at the end, makes some sense. Or at least has some kind of underlying theme.
You would think having a good memory is a good thing. it is, but it gets to be a hinderance when you have a habit of being cynical and you dwell a lot and brood alot and you think as much as I do. Especially when you think about how the most unlikely people get together and you're wondering how is it that you're single. Just liek the following from Michael Buble's "Anyone to Love":
Seems like I'm living a lieYeah, I've figured out why. Only because I've thought about it and when I think about things, I'm usually right about such things. I can list them off, but I don't want to bore you, if I haven't already. I have this nagging feeling that even if I changed what I thought was hindering me (and I'm sure of what the problems are), it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Sore of like what Billy Joel sings in "A Minor Variation":
So there's a game I just won't learn
And I wonder will I always be alone
I take a sip and wonder
Why I haven't anyone to love
More of the same thing
Don't even hurt it's been part of the pattern
But still in all it's a small consulation
I just define it as a minor variation
Or in "That's How it Goes" sung by Michael Buble (a great crooner in the style of Sinatra):
But I don't know life will get better
I am sure they know,
Sooner or later it shows, I know
That's how it goes
I don't know. I'm just hoping that this path isn't leading me to a giant practical joke. If it is, I'm wondering what the punchline is. Hopefully, the laugh comes like this when I'm looking back at how pitiful things were and how much better they are now as in Buck Owen's "Save The Last Dance For Me":
And don't forget who's takin' you home
And in whose arms you're gonna be
Oh, darlin' save the last dance for me
I think I've done enough for today. That's all for now.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Something on Fred Phelps
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, another blog taking up a slice of space on the Information Highway. It's time for another update.
I'm amused by what Leonard Pitts, Jr. writes in his syndicated column. His article about FEMA and Michael Brown was funny. His article about his twelve year old son getting involved in an accident was touching. But this article takes the cake. It's all about Fred Phelps, the anti-gay crusader who makes Kansas look like a breeding ground for psychotic ultra-conservative Bible thumping bigots. Not that the State Board of Education has done this unwanted promotion for the state already with its science standards.
Anyways, back to Fred Phelps, the Baptist "pastor" (Calling him a "pastor" or any term of relgious leadership is an insult to religion. I can think of many other terms, but I doubt that they would be printed.) that claims that God invented IEDs to kill soldiers that protect the United States and it's immoral values. If it weren't for soldiers fighting for an "immoral country" in World War II, he most likely would be speaking German, singing Deuchland Uber Alles, and celebrating the anniversary of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch. Though I have to admit, I can imagine Fred Phelps doing a Seig Heil to a picture of Hitler. Nazi Germany did send homosexuals to death camps and I think that Fred Phelps, in his hate-filled little world might advocate such actions if he had a chance. Yeah. I forgot to mention "free speech," a concept that the immoral United States has. It allows Fred Phelps and his "church" (if you take the term very loosely and pervert it to an extreme) to spout off his homophobic vitriol. Yes, there are certain restrictions like time-place-manner, the Brandenburg Rule, and so forth, but I think that the general idea, at this moment, is good enough. If Fred Phelps considers the United States immoral, I wonder when is he finally going to leave the US. I'm thinking that people in Kansas would gladly donate money to send him off to whatever country he thinks is less immoral than the US. I digress.
Anyways, Leonard Pitts wrote this article about what fuels Fred Phelps. His answer: Fred Phelps is gay. Yep, in Mr. Pitts' opinion, The Phelpster has climbed up Brokeback Mountain and rode a few cowboys and got some interior decorating tips. I'm not too sure about the interior decorating tips, as I'm sure Mr. Phelps hasn't gone beyond "Going to Hell Red" and white. If you've ever looked at his signs, they only use those colors. I digress again.
To quote from his article:
Thinking of Fred Phelps as the Spawn of Satan seems more satisfying. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, but is doing a bad job at it. A person who can be filled with that much hate has to be devil-spawn. It might explain why he can spout off such hateful rhetoric. He twists the Bible to suit his own purposes and sadly enough, people believe him. It's quite common.
Shakespeare once said in The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene 3:
Most Christians denounce Fred Phelps' teaching as unorthodox and inappropriate. Even the Southern Baptists, one of the more conservative Christian sects consider his teachings as hateful and incorrect. The following is from "ondem Sin - and sinner" by Robert Stacy McCain:
Fred Phelps, if he stumbles upon this, or Mr. Pitts' article, will probably hate this. It's his right. Just like his right to spout off hate-speech. Just like my right to write this. We won't see things exactly the same way, but that's the great thing about America. Trying to get away with this stuff in China is a whole lot harder.
That's all for now.
I'm amused by what Leonard Pitts, Jr. writes in his syndicated column. His article about FEMA and Michael Brown was funny. His article about his twelve year old son getting involved in an accident was touching. But this article takes the cake. It's all about Fred Phelps, the anti-gay crusader who makes Kansas look like a breeding ground for psychotic ultra-conservative Bible thumping bigots. Not that the State Board of Education has done this unwanted promotion for the state already with its science standards.
Anyways, back to Fred Phelps, the Baptist "pastor" (Calling him a "pastor" or any term of relgious leadership is an insult to religion. I can think of many other terms, but I doubt that they would be printed.) that claims that God invented IEDs to kill soldiers that protect the United States and it's immoral values. If it weren't for soldiers fighting for an "immoral country" in World War II, he most likely would be speaking German, singing Deuchland Uber Alles, and celebrating the anniversary of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch. Though I have to admit, I can imagine Fred Phelps doing a Seig Heil to a picture of Hitler. Nazi Germany did send homosexuals to death camps and I think that Fred Phelps, in his hate-filled little world might advocate such actions if he had a chance. Yeah. I forgot to mention "free speech," a concept that the immoral United States has. It allows Fred Phelps and his "church" (if you take the term very loosely and pervert it to an extreme) to spout off his homophobic vitriol. Yes, there are certain restrictions like time-place-manner, the Brandenburg Rule, and so forth, but I think that the general idea, at this moment, is good enough. If Fred Phelps considers the United States immoral, I wonder when is he finally going to leave the US. I'm thinking that people in Kansas would gladly donate money to send him off to whatever country he thinks is less immoral than the US. I digress.
Anyways, Leonard Pitts wrote this article about what fuels Fred Phelps. His answer: Fred Phelps is gay. Yep, in Mr. Pitts' opinion, The Phelpster has climbed up Brokeback Mountain and rode a few cowboys and got some interior decorating tips. I'm not too sure about the interior decorating tips, as I'm sure Mr. Phelps hasn't gone beyond "Going to Hell Red" and white. If you've ever looked at his signs, they only use those colors. I digress again.
To quote from his article:
Not that it would make any difference in the behavior of Fred Phelps. He still will continue to be an ardent homophobic nutjob who protests at funerals until the day he dies and meets his maker, whoever that happens to be. In all likelyhood, I'm thinking it is Satan. You can't explain anyone who hates anybody that much by saying "God created them." The Bible does say "Let us create man in our image." This gives credence to the "God works in mysterious ways." I'd hate to think that.Well, I don't think he's as crazy as he seems. Heck, nobody could be. No, he's not disturbed. He's just gay.
Hear me out. How often have we seen public moralists railing against that which they themselves secretly indulge? Think Jimmy Swaggart with his prostitute. Think Dr. Laura's pose in the nude. And for goodness' sake, how many times have we seen homosexuality condemned by those who
turned out to be closeted themselves? There was Pat Robertson biographer-turned-gay-activist Mel White; Spokane Mayor James West, who spent his days opposing gay rights and his nights in gay chat rooms; and Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee, who founded a group that purported to cure people of homosexuality but gave it up when they fell in love with each other.
Thinking of Fred Phelps as the Spawn of Satan seems more satisfying. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, but is doing a bad job at it. A person who can be filled with that much hate has to be devil-spawn. It might explain why he can spout off such hateful rhetoric. He twists the Bible to suit his own purposes and sadly enough, people believe him. It's quite common.
Shakespeare once said in The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene 3:
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
Most Christians denounce Fred Phelps' teaching as unorthodox and inappropriate. Even the Southern Baptists, one of the more conservative Christian sects consider his teachings as hateful and incorrect. The following is from "ondem Sin - and sinner" by Robert Stacy McCain:
Finally, to quote from Reverend Dr. Byron E. Shafer's sermon delivered on February 29, 2004 at Rutgers Presbyterian Church:“The slogans that Fred Phelps and his group are promoting are unscriptural and very inappropriate,” says Dwayne Hastings, director of communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics and religious-liberty commission. “Southern Baptists stand on the word of God in believing that homosexuality is wrong and that, as the Bible says, it’s an abomination to God. But God does not hate the homosexual…. To those who are unaware of the orthodox Christian view of homosexuality, Fred Phelps presents a distorted and, in fact, perverted view of God’s word in his message of hate.”
I think I smell some fire and brimstone coming from Westboro Baptist Church, whose website address reflects the Fred Phelps message. Ah, it must be a Gateway to Hell, just like the old Stull Church and Cemetery. Though the demons that lived inside were imaginary, but the ones over at Westboro Baptist are real.Certainly, the most dangerous of all the temptations that confront us are those buttressed by the devil’s ability to cite scripture in ways that cloak the falseness of evil and injustice in a goodly
appearance.
This Lent, as we are called upon to face down temptation, I pray that we may succeed in fulfilling an admonition given to us by the apostle Paul (I Cor. 16:13), one of those admonitions from scripture that Satan has never cited and will never cite. For it starts like this: “Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.” And then it concludes with these memorable words: “Let all that you do be done in love.”
So this Lent—and indeed throughout your whole life—whenever you find yourself confused or tempted by Satan, I pray that it will be some words suggested by the Bible that come to your lips: “Let all that I do be done in love.”
Fred Phelps, if he stumbles upon this, or Mr. Pitts' article, will probably hate this. It's his right. Just like his right to spout off hate-speech. Just like my right to write this. We won't see things exactly the same way, but that's the great thing about America. Trying to get away with this stuff in China is a whole lot harder.
That's all for now.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
An Olympic Update
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un. It's time for a semi-regular weekend update to this blog. It's all about the Olympics, or the Visa and Chevrolet Primetime Promotion Sports Unspectacular.
There's nothing like the Olympics. Or so it used to be before it became an over-hyped, over-commercialized, overly-dull not-so-much-of-a-sports event. There's something heartwarming about watching Nike commercials involving a drunken, underachieving, fake-philosopher skier; Chevrolet commercials that whore the Olympic march; and inane commentary that detracts from the sports. In total, the Olympics aren't a showcase of elite athletics, but stupid STFU commercials and stupid STFU commentary with some sports thrown in as an afterthought.
To bring people up to date on the Olympics, an event that less people are watching. NBC wonders why. I guess the amazingly annoying commentary, the frequent ads, and the tape-delay are not to blame for the lack of success according to NBC. It's the lack of "good angles" they can repeatedly talk about over and over again until you want to shoot the TV. Think Tonya/Nancy or maybe the Salt Lake scandal. Yeah. Earth to NBC...your broadcasts suck. Plain and simple.
A recent USA Today article failed to mention any of these more-obvious problems. They had 10 "solutions" to make the Olympics more interesting, and none of the obvious problems were solved. Their solutions were "let's put in experts who know the snowboarding lingo and have them blab inanely about the performances" and other dumb ideas. What ever happened to STFU for more than two seconds and let the viewers see the action? You can stick in your comments and dumb graphics after the performance. Or before the many and frequent commercial breaks, thanks to NBC, which stand for Nothing But Commercials/Crap when the Winter and Summer Olympics roll around every two years.
Sasha Cohen pulled a Cohen and fell not once, but twice, during the long program. It seems like she always falls during the long program. I guess she did what the experts predicted, but much earlier than usual. I really hate the new scoring system, as a person who fell and in general, did miserably, can get a medal if they stick in enough jumps to make up for their flubs. At least in the old system, people who fell, in general, didn't get a medal. Not even a bronze. Unless everyone else sucked and fell also. Thankfully, the gold medal winner from Japan stayed on her feet. If she fell, it would have been choosing from the better of three flawed performances. Either that, or some unknown dark horse would have won.
Bode "I did well subjectively which counts" Miller bombed on the slopes and did not medal. Zero medals in five events. His last name and his proclivities towards drinking booze is so apt. It brings new meaning to the phrase "Miller Time" when he skis and drinks. Or when he drinks before he skis. Though I'm pretty sure he wouldn't drink Miller as he does Nike commercials. Maybe a nice European import. He can be a brilliant skier, but his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance schtick is pretty annoying and quite possibly, the most false thing a person can say. "It doesn't matter if I don't get a medal. I give it my all when I go out and ski. I'm an individual and it doesn't matter what others say about me or my performance." Yeah right. STFU. I don't believe that patent BS and nobody else should either.
The last time I checked, athletes didn't go out to the Olympics to watch the scenery. They go out there to do their best, represent their country, and hopefully, win a medal. Bode Miller had done very well in world competitions (assuming he stayed on his skis and actually completed a race) and for him to say "it doesn't matter if I win" is crap. Even the people who don't medal go out there to win. Even those who don't have a prayer and end up last do their best to win.
Yes, everyone does their best and gives it "their all." Bode Miller would never give less than a hundred percent effort when he skis. Everyone might be able to give 80% effort and win a medal, even gold. OK...that's nice...and your point? If not practicing at all, partying all night, getting drunk, and hitting the bars is his idea of "giving it all," then his "100%" ain't worth jack squat. If spouting philosophical bullshit and drinking beer were an actual Olympic event, then he'd easily win the goal. Anyone else who tried the "I gave it my all" and did half of what he did (the boozing), they would get fired immediately and searching for a new job. He's done a lot more practice in drinking than in skiing. Resume your drinking Bode; it's the only thing you're good at. Hope that the DUI slalom is an event in Vancouver.
The USA Ski Team touted themselves as the "Best in the World" with Bode as the one to watch. I guess the Austrians and everyone else showed Team USA who was the real number one. Yes, Team USA was number one, but not in skiing. More like number one in over-hyped.
The closing ceremonies are on Sunday night. Bode Miller might show up...if he isn't hungover from a night of drinking. Bode, now that you've shown your amazing talents in skiing, you can resume drinking with skiing on the side. Unlike in the slalom, it's OK to go through the gate leading to the stadium. Next stop on the Olympic Train is Beijing, China, where I hear the USA basketball team might actually show up, make baskets, and play defense unlike in 2004.
That's all for now.
There's nothing like the Olympics. Or so it used to be before it became an over-hyped, over-commercialized, overly-dull not-so-much-of-a-sports event. There's something heartwarming about watching Nike commercials involving a drunken, underachieving, fake-philosopher skier; Chevrolet commercials that whore the Olympic march; and inane commentary that detracts from the sports. In total, the Olympics aren't a showcase of elite athletics, but stupid STFU commercials and stupid STFU commentary with some sports thrown in as an afterthought.
To bring people up to date on the Olympics, an event that less people are watching. NBC wonders why. I guess the amazingly annoying commentary, the frequent ads, and the tape-delay are not to blame for the lack of success according to NBC. It's the lack of "good angles" they can repeatedly talk about over and over again until you want to shoot the TV. Think Tonya/Nancy or maybe the Salt Lake scandal. Yeah. Earth to NBC...your broadcasts suck. Plain and simple.
A recent USA Today article failed to mention any of these more-obvious problems. They had 10 "solutions" to make the Olympics more interesting, and none of the obvious problems were solved. Their solutions were "let's put in experts who know the snowboarding lingo and have them blab inanely about the performances" and other dumb ideas. What ever happened to STFU for more than two seconds and let the viewers see the action? You can stick in your comments and dumb graphics after the performance. Or before the many and frequent commercial breaks, thanks to NBC, which stand for Nothing But Commercials/Crap when the Winter and Summer Olympics roll around every two years.
Sasha Cohen pulled a Cohen and fell not once, but twice, during the long program. It seems like she always falls during the long program. I guess she did what the experts predicted, but much earlier than usual. I really hate the new scoring system, as a person who fell and in general, did miserably, can get a medal if they stick in enough jumps to make up for their flubs. At least in the old system, people who fell, in general, didn't get a medal. Not even a bronze. Unless everyone else sucked and fell also. Thankfully, the gold medal winner from Japan stayed on her feet. If she fell, it would have been choosing from the better of three flawed performances. Either that, or some unknown dark horse would have won.
Bode "I did well subjectively which counts" Miller bombed on the slopes and did not medal. Zero medals in five events. His last name and his proclivities towards drinking booze is so apt. It brings new meaning to the phrase "Miller Time" when he skis and drinks. Or when he drinks before he skis. Though I'm pretty sure he wouldn't drink Miller as he does Nike commercials. Maybe a nice European import. He can be a brilliant skier, but his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance schtick is pretty annoying and quite possibly, the most false thing a person can say. "It doesn't matter if I don't get a medal. I give it my all when I go out and ski. I'm an individual and it doesn't matter what others say about me or my performance." Yeah right. STFU. I don't believe that patent BS and nobody else should either.
The last time I checked, athletes didn't go out to the Olympics to watch the scenery. They go out there to do their best, represent their country, and hopefully, win a medal. Bode Miller had done very well in world competitions (assuming he stayed on his skis and actually completed a race) and for him to say "it doesn't matter if I win" is crap. Even the people who don't medal go out there to win. Even those who don't have a prayer and end up last do their best to win.
Yes, everyone does their best and gives it "their all." Bode Miller would never give less than a hundred percent effort when he skis. Everyone might be able to give 80% effort and win a medal, even gold. OK...that's nice...and your point? If not practicing at all, partying all night, getting drunk, and hitting the bars is his idea of "giving it all," then his "100%" ain't worth jack squat. If spouting philosophical bullshit and drinking beer were an actual Olympic event, then he'd easily win the goal. Anyone else who tried the "I gave it my all" and did half of what he did (the boozing), they would get fired immediately and searching for a new job. He's done a lot more practice in drinking than in skiing. Resume your drinking Bode; it's the only thing you're good at. Hope that the DUI slalom is an event in Vancouver.
The USA Ski Team touted themselves as the "Best in the World" with Bode as the one to watch. I guess the Austrians and everyone else showed Team USA who was the real number one. Yes, Team USA was number one, but not in skiing. More like number one in over-hyped.
The closing ceremonies are on Sunday night. Bode Miller might show up...if he isn't hungover from a night of drinking. Bode, now that you've shown your amazing talents in skiing, you can resume drinking with skiing on the side. Unlike in the slalom, it's OK to go through the gate leading to the stadium. Next stop on the Olympic Train is Beijing, China, where I hear the USA basketball team might actually show up, make baskets, and play defense unlike in 2004.
That's all for now.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Research on Dancing
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the only site on the Internet devoted to all things related to Un.
It's amazing what great discoveries researchers at universities make. Researchers up at Rutgers have completed a remarkable study. After much time doing computer-generated graphics, video-analysis, and much time, they have come up with a result that will change the world. Their amazing conclusion: men who can dance well generally have a better chance at attracting females. Not only do they attract more females, but the more desirable ones (i.e better looking ones). Yes...that's the result of their research.
Wow...that's an amazing conclusion. There's got to be a Nobel Prize for this seminal and life-altering research. Most likely, an IgNobel Prize.
Given this conclusion, one can assume that a male can hypothetically, look like they fought ugly for fifteen rounds and won, but, with the right dance moves, get an attractive female to go out with him. Um...highly unlikely. Oh, I forgot one thing. Body symmetry. The more symmetrical your body is--your left side being a mirror image of your right--the more likely you will be a good dancer. If you look at research, people find body symmetry, especially in the facial region, to be attractive in mates. So yeah, the corollary is relatively true also. Ugly person equals ugly dancing.
However, this does not mean that if you look like Tom Cruise or for that matter, a Victoria's Secret model, you will be blessed with Fred Astaire dancing abilities. Dancing like you're suffering from an epileptic fit (complete with spastic arm and leg movements) may not attract members of the opposite sex, unless they stragely find the behavior ironically sexy.
Then again, it might depend on what kind of dancing you do, especially if you are a male. Imagine, I don't know, the latest so-called Hollywood Hunk in a flamboyant costume doing the salsa with reckless abandon. Something from The Birdcage. Not so good...right?
A wit once said that dancing is the vertical representation of a horizontal action. Another person once said how you put out on the dance floor is analagous to well...you get the point. I'm not so sure about that. Then again, I don't dance in public since I know I'm lousy at dancing. I'm not going to embarass myself.
As Genesis once sang:
Oh and checking everything is in place
You never know who’s looking on
A perfect body with a perfect face - uh-huh.
No, I can’t dance, I can’t talk.
The only thing about me is the way I walk.
No, I can’t dance, I can’t sing
I’m just standing here selling everything.
That's all for now.
It's amazing what great discoveries researchers at universities make. Researchers up at Rutgers have completed a remarkable study. After much time doing computer-generated graphics, video-analysis, and much time, they have come up with a result that will change the world. Their amazing conclusion: men who can dance well generally have a better chance at attracting females. Not only do they attract more females, but the more desirable ones (i.e better looking ones). Yes...that's the result of their research.
Wow...that's an amazing conclusion. There's got to be a Nobel Prize for this seminal and life-altering research. Most likely, an IgNobel Prize.
Given this conclusion, one can assume that a male can hypothetically, look like they fought ugly for fifteen rounds and won, but, with the right dance moves, get an attractive female to go out with him. Um...highly unlikely. Oh, I forgot one thing. Body symmetry. The more symmetrical your body is--your left side being a mirror image of your right--the more likely you will be a good dancer. If you look at research, people find body symmetry, especially in the facial region, to be attractive in mates. So yeah, the corollary is relatively true also. Ugly person equals ugly dancing.
However, this does not mean that if you look like Tom Cruise or for that matter, a Victoria's Secret model, you will be blessed with Fred Astaire dancing abilities. Dancing like you're suffering from an epileptic fit (complete with spastic arm and leg movements) may not attract members of the opposite sex, unless they stragely find the behavior ironically sexy.
Then again, it might depend on what kind of dancing you do, especially if you are a male. Imagine, I don't know, the latest so-called Hollywood Hunk in a flamboyant costume doing the salsa with reckless abandon. Something from The Birdcage. Not so good...right?
A wit once said that dancing is the vertical representation of a horizontal action. Another person once said how you put out on the dance floor is analagous to well...you get the point. I'm not so sure about that. Then again, I don't dance in public since I know I'm lousy at dancing. I'm not going to embarass myself.
As Genesis once sang:
Oh and checking everything is in place
You never know who’s looking on
A perfect body with a perfect face - uh-huh.
No, I can’t dance, I can’t talk.
The only thing about me is the way I walk.
No, I can’t dance, I can’t sing
I’m just standing here selling everything.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Fear and Love
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un. It's time for another not-so-regularly scheduled update after a period of illness. I'm feeling much better, though I'm not fully 100%.
During my sickness, I've had some time on my hands. I was surfing the web and I stumbled onto a blog. The post asked a question that many people have asked (in many forms): "When do you resign yourself to being single?" That is, when do the risks of falling in love (the heartache, the rejection, the pain, etc) outweigh the benefits? How many times do you crash and burn before you put away the wings?
So, thanks to that question and a lot of time on my hands, I have decided to make a stab at an answer. I have no qualifications as an expert on this topic, which makes me perfect. God forbid if someone takes this post seriously. My regular readers, or even those who stumbled onto this blog by some unforseen circumstance or by mistake, please excuse me for this Dr. Phil meets Bartlett's Book of Quotations post.
Those of you who have been in multiple bad relationships, you probably have the "I hate love" mentality. It's best expressed by the following quote by Neil Gaiman, author of The Sandman and Anasazi Boys:
Of course, after such an experience, one probably doesn't want to go though those crappy emotions again. It's quite understandable. Wouldn't it be nice if all relationships were guaranteed to be perfect? That everything about it would be just the way we wanted it? No risk of broken hearts. No risk of being hurt. Sorry to tell you this, but it's just not possible. Inherent in all relationships, especially those involving love, means taking those risks:
It's so easy to say "I love you," but so hard to show it. People can buy flowers and dinners, but in other ways, it's nearly impossible to do.
Anything that can be seen as exposing the inner self--the hopes, the dreams, the more personal details--are seen as a sign of weakness that can be used. This stems from two types of fear that the psychoanalyst Otto Rank termed "life fear" and "death fear." The first is a fear of being an individual, the fear of being abandoned. A person with the fear throws themself so much into the relationshp, trying so hard to please the other person by being a reflection of the other person, that they lose a sense of they they really are. The second fear is the fear of losing one's independence, the complete opposite of the first. People with this fear have secret back doors installed in their relationship so they can run away if things become too serious.
Love requires courage. Courage requires being fully committed, but being all too aware that things might be possibly wrong. We might be wrong in pursuing this. This doubt is healthy. Being absolutely convinced is dangerous and unhealthy. It requires quieting the doubts of others and personal, unconscious doubts as well. That is real courage. To pursue something in spite of doubt.
When do the risks outweigh taking risks? Never. Not being capable of love is abnormal. To purposely hide yourself from love for fear of being hurt is abnormal. With love, you have to take the risks that come along with it. You have to risk being vulnerable. As Jalal ad-Din Rumi said, "Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it."
Well, that was a little too...well...philosophical. More regular posts will come later. That's all for now.
During my sickness, I've had some time on my hands. I was surfing the web and I stumbled onto a blog. The post asked a question that many people have asked (in many forms): "When do you resign yourself to being single?" That is, when do the risks of falling in love (the heartache, the rejection, the pain, etc) outweigh the benefits? How many times do you crash and burn before you put away the wings?
So, thanks to that question and a lot of time on my hands, I have decided to make a stab at an answer. I have no qualifications as an expert on this topic, which makes me perfect. God forbid if someone takes this post seriously. My regular readers, or even those who stumbled onto this blog by some unforseen circumstance or by mistake, please excuse me for this Dr. Phil meets Bartlett's Book of Quotations post.
Those of you who have been in multiple bad relationships, you probably have the "I hate love" mentality. It's best expressed by the following quote by Neil Gaiman, author of The Sandman and Anasazi Boys:
Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn’t it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life… You give them a piece of you. They didn’t ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn’t your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like ‘maybe we should be just friends’ turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It’s a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love.
Of course, after such an experience, one probably doesn't want to go though those crappy emotions again. It's quite understandable. Wouldn't it be nice if all relationships were guaranteed to be perfect? That everything about it would be just the way we wanted it? No risk of broken hearts. No risk of being hurt. Sorry to tell you this, but it's just not possible. Inherent in all relationships, especially those involving love, means taking those risks:
If you don't become vulnerable and accept the risk, your heart will never be broken by another person, but you destroy it yourself. It leads to a kind of apathy to relate to other people. One will lose the capacity to risk one's self in the hope of achieving any kind of meaningful relationship with another person. Risk is unescapable. If one person changes, the other person will change. How much is not known, but the other person will change.Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket--safe, dark, motionless, airless--it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable
-C.S. Lewis
It's so easy to say "I love you," but so hard to show it. People can buy flowers and dinners, but in other ways, it's nearly impossible to do.
Anything that can be seen as exposing the inner self--the hopes, the dreams, the more personal details--are seen as a sign of weakness that can be used. This stems from two types of fear that the psychoanalyst Otto Rank termed "life fear" and "death fear." The first is a fear of being an individual, the fear of being abandoned. A person with the fear throws themself so much into the relationshp, trying so hard to please the other person by being a reflection of the other person, that they lose a sense of they they really are. The second fear is the fear of losing one's independence, the complete opposite of the first. People with this fear have secret back doors installed in their relationship so they can run away if things become too serious.
Love requires courage. Courage requires being fully committed, but being all too aware that things might be possibly wrong. We might be wrong in pursuing this. This doubt is healthy. Being absolutely convinced is dangerous and unhealthy. It requires quieting the doubts of others and personal, unconscious doubts as well. That is real courage. To pursue something in spite of doubt.
When do the risks outweigh taking risks? Never. Not being capable of love is abnormal. To purposely hide yourself from love for fear of being hurt is abnormal. With love, you have to take the risks that come along with it. You have to risk being vulnerable. As Jalal ad-Din Rumi said, "Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it."
Well, that was a little too...well...philosophical. More regular posts will come later. That's all for now.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Weekend Update
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un. This blog has not been updated since Friday. I was going to update it on Saturday, but I was sick and I felt like a ton of bricks was dropped on my head.
Damn. I hate being sick. I haven't had a cold this bad (I think it is a cold) since...well...three years ago. That's how long my immune system has resisted the nearly 200 different types of rhinoviruses that can cause the common cold. Despite being sick, I still retain the "demon editor from hell" that prevents me from making too many grammatical and spelling mistakes. Not that it really matters to you...
I went shopping on Saturday. I made the mistake of driving through campus an hour before the game started. Not a very good idea. I have to admit, there are many enterprising people living in the area. Lots of advertising for cheap parking spaces. In fact, five whole dollars less than what the parking department (and the competitors) charge.
It's pretty cool that they broadcasted the game at an unnamed grocery store that I shopped at for food. It's pretty amusing to hear the announcer scream "Julian Wright leaps up and denies a..." and then immediately hear "Price check on a gallon of Roberts 2% milk." It's even better when you hear the fans at Allen Fieldhouse scream when they revert back to the game. Priceless.
God...I feel lousy. I did the laundry today. In order to get to the washing machine, I have to walk down some stairs. Barely made it without getting dizzy and falling into a nearby wall. In addition to the usual symptoms of a cold, I have a fever that comes and goes plus a pounding headache.
Damn. Looks like I won't be mobbed by women tomorrow...as if that ever happened once in my life. Stay away.
That's all for now.
Damn. I hate being sick. I haven't had a cold this bad (I think it is a cold) since...well...three years ago. That's how long my immune system has resisted the nearly 200 different types of rhinoviruses that can cause the common cold. Despite being sick, I still retain the "demon editor from hell" that prevents me from making too many grammatical and spelling mistakes. Not that it really matters to you...
I went shopping on Saturday. I made the mistake of driving through campus an hour before the game started. Not a very good idea. I have to admit, there are many enterprising people living in the area. Lots of advertising for cheap parking spaces. In fact, five whole dollars less than what the parking department (and the competitors) charge.
It's pretty cool that they broadcasted the game at an unnamed grocery store that I shopped at for food. It's pretty amusing to hear the announcer scream "Julian Wright leaps up and denies a..." and then immediately hear "Price check on a gallon of Roberts 2% milk." It's even better when you hear the fans at Allen Fieldhouse scream when they revert back to the game. Priceless.
God...I feel lousy. I did the laundry today. In order to get to the washing machine, I have to walk down some stairs. Barely made it without getting dizzy and falling into a nearby wall. In addition to the usual symptoms of a cold, I have a fever that comes and goes plus a pounding headache.
Damn. Looks like I won't be mobbed by women tomorrow...as if that ever happened once in my life. Stay away.
That's all for now.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Unprofessional Responsibility
It's that time of the day again...I get to let you know what I'm thinking of at this moment. It's time for a public service announcement that might do you some good.
For all of those readers who are thinking about going to law school or in law school, the following should be an important lesson in how not to act. Hey, it's a good lesson for everyone, especially if you have a job and you use e-mail. Not that I'm assuming you use it for e-mailing dirty jokes to your co-workers. Anyways...I digress.
The following should be an enlightening lesson on the proper use of e-mail, as well as other topics like business etiquette and professional responsibility.
You're a newly minted lawyer for the state of Massachusetts. You go to a law firm and you have a good first interview. Then comes the call from the interviewer that she will be making a little less than expected (due to the hire of a second lawyer), but he was happy to have hired her. He also made the usual arrangements like making new stationary...etc. She said that may have to give it more thought.
After some more thought, she decides to decline the offer. According to her words in a newspaper article (after the mess became a story), she declined the offer because the reduced salary ''might have been realistic for other people to survive on, but I like nicer things. I like the finer things in life." Of course. She calls herself a ''trust fund baby" in the article. Her reason for responding to the job listing because ''I wanted to establish somewhat of a career for myself," she said. ''No one wants to be living off daddy." Her father is a lawyer. So she declines with the following e-mail:
If that wasn't enough, the attorney sends the exchange to a lawyer friend who asks if he can send this to other people. Not good. Not very professional. Neither side did very well.
Then again, this episode isn't as bad as this guy who made a total drunken fool out of himself while a summer associate. Not to insult the legal profession or law schools, but that commonly happens on a Thursday night or a Friday Night or a....you get the picture.
To sum up with very obvious lessons to be learned
1. Do not put anything in an e-mail that you do not want others to know about.
2. Business etiquette is a good thing. This means being polite in e-mail.
3. It is a good thing to act calm and rational about such matters.
4. E-mail spreads faster than most communicable diseases.
5. Lawyers have a bad reputation as being slimy. Please don't reinforce that stereotype.
That's all for now.
For all of those readers who are thinking about going to law school or in law school, the following should be an important lesson in how not to act. Hey, it's a good lesson for everyone, especially if you have a job and you use e-mail. Not that I'm assuming you use it for e-mailing dirty jokes to your co-workers. Anyways...I digress.
The following should be an enlightening lesson on the proper use of e-mail, as well as other topics like business etiquette and professional responsibility.
You're a newly minted lawyer for the state of Massachusetts. You go to a law firm and you have a good first interview. Then comes the call from the interviewer that she will be making a little less than expected (due to the hire of a second lawyer), but he was happy to have hired her. He also made the usual arrangements like making new stationary...etc. She said that may have to give it more thought.
After some more thought, she decides to decline the offer. According to her words in a newspaper article (after the mess became a story), she declined the offer because the reduced salary ''might have been realistic for other people to survive on, but I like nicer things. I like the finer things in life." Of course. She calls herself a ''trust fund baby" in the article. Her reason for responding to the job listing because ''I wanted to establish somewhat of a career for myself," she said. ''No one wants to be living off daddy." Her father is a lawyer. So she declines with the following e-mail:
After that, things went downhill. The reply:"Dear Attorney [BLANK]: At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I (sic) sew. Thank you for the interviews."
The counterpunch and where things go worse:"[BLANK] - Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 p.m. voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional.
Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering (sic) stationary and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors."
The retort to the retort:"A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so. Again, thank you."
The final e-mail and where the prelude to nuclear holocaust begins:"Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really
want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?"
"bla bla bla."
If that wasn't enough, the attorney sends the exchange to a lawyer friend who asks if he can send this to other people. Not good. Not very professional. Neither side did very well.
Then again, this episode isn't as bad as this guy who made a total drunken fool out of himself while a summer associate. Not to insult the legal profession or law schools, but that commonly happens on a Thursday night or a Friday Night or a....you get the picture.
To sum up with very obvious lessons to be learned
1. Do not put anything in an e-mail that you do not want others to know about.
2. Business etiquette is a good thing. This means being polite in e-mail.
3. It is a good thing to act calm and rational about such matters.
4. E-mail spreads faster than most communicable diseases.
5. Lawyers have a bad reputation as being slimy. Please don't reinforce that stereotype.
That's all for now.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Thinking
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site on the Internet devoted to all things related to Un. Or at least stuff that this blogger finds interesting.
I spend a lot of time thinking. You do this a lot when you have several hours to kill between classes and you've already solved the New York Times crossword puzzle in seven minutes and pretty much every other crossword puzzle you can get your hands on. That and you've read the local newspapers, the USA Today, and the Times. And you've done that all before your first class at 8:30 in the morning.
I don't know. It's kind of nice to just sit in a chair and let your mind wander. I've spent many hours in my own little mental fantasy world, which might explain for a lot of things. OK, to be honest, a whole lot of things. But I can change, if I have to, I guess. Maybe not.
I've just come up with the most obvious thing ever. It's one of those things that you finally realize, thinking its the most profound thing ever, but everyone else you know came up with that idea years ago. You're always the last one to find out.
You'll rarely (I hesitate to use the word "never" as "never" could possibly happen) find me ultra-happy. The "what controlled substance have you been taking" type of happy. To put in more cliched terms, the "walking on sunshine," "flying higher than a kite" kind of happy. It's a rare thing. Even rarer, if this happiness is based upon love. You'll rarely find me talking about "really great girl I met" or "dating" or any sort of thing involving relationships.
On a related note, I find it amusingly disturbing that I find it amusing when I think about what it would be like if I were in such a mood. Not that mental illness runs amok in the familial gene pool, but it could be a possibility. Or I just have an odd mind in my head. On another related-yet-unrelated note, it could mean that I'm a genius, as those with superior intellect or talent in an area like music (think Mozart or Van Gogh[yes, Van Gogh is a painter]), tend to exhibit odd quirks. They also tend to have other less-desirable tendencies (depression and the particularly nasty habit of self-extermination [not that I have such tendencies]) which lead to cut their chances at reproduction short.
In other words, I don't need alcohol or drugs to exhibit strange behavior. My mind has the ability to act unpredictably, sometimes at unopportune times. Though when it does happen, the results can be creative, like comedic genius. I could just be manic and I need a trigger to set it off. I digress.
Sorry for another digression. I've lived a life where I've never gotten into trouble of any sort. At least with the law or figures of authority. I now have the urge to raise a commotion or a few ears. Must be the manic side of my mind. I digressed again.
If you ever happen to find me in such a state of over-the-top euphoria, something is terribly wrong. Most likely, I have been taken over by an alien-implanted device. It would be best to have a conversation. If, by any chance, the euphoria is love-related (i.e. "finding a nice girl"), then you can safely assume that the end of the world is coming. Or that's at least what I've been thinking about.
On a totally unrelated topic, something to think about. Economists have written an insightful article on the economics of prostitution. Nothing says "I love you" on Valentines Day than saying "Honey, you're a low cost provider for sex, at least when compared to a prostitute." This is, of course, not my personal opinion, but the opinion of the economists who wrote this article available in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format.
That's all for now.
I spend a lot of time thinking. You do this a lot when you have several hours to kill between classes and you've already solved the New York Times crossword puzzle in seven minutes and pretty much every other crossword puzzle you can get your hands on. That and you've read the local newspapers, the USA Today, and the Times. And you've done that all before your first class at 8:30 in the morning.
I don't know. It's kind of nice to just sit in a chair and let your mind wander. I've spent many hours in my own little mental fantasy world, which might explain for a lot of things. OK, to be honest, a whole lot of things. But I can change, if I have to, I guess. Maybe not.
I've just come up with the most obvious thing ever. It's one of those things that you finally realize, thinking its the most profound thing ever, but everyone else you know came up with that idea years ago. You're always the last one to find out.
You'll rarely (I hesitate to use the word "never" as "never" could possibly happen) find me ultra-happy. The "what controlled substance have you been taking" type of happy. To put in more cliched terms, the "walking on sunshine," "flying higher than a kite" kind of happy. It's a rare thing. Even rarer, if this happiness is based upon love. You'll rarely find me talking about "really great girl I met" or "dating" or any sort of thing involving relationships.
On a related note, I find it amusingly disturbing that I find it amusing when I think about what it would be like if I were in such a mood. Not that mental illness runs amok in the familial gene pool, but it could be a possibility. Or I just have an odd mind in my head. On another related-yet-unrelated note, it could mean that I'm a genius, as those with superior intellect or talent in an area like music (think Mozart or Van Gogh[yes, Van Gogh is a painter]), tend to exhibit odd quirks. They also tend to have other less-desirable tendencies (depression and the particularly nasty habit of self-extermination [not that I have such tendencies]) which lead to cut their chances at reproduction short.
In other words, I don't need alcohol or drugs to exhibit strange behavior. My mind has the ability to act unpredictably, sometimes at unopportune times. Though when it does happen, the results can be creative, like comedic genius. I could just be manic and I need a trigger to set it off. I digress.
Sorry for another digression. I've lived a life where I've never gotten into trouble of any sort. At least with the law or figures of authority. I now have the urge to raise a commotion or a few ears. Must be the manic side of my mind. I digressed again.
If you ever happen to find me in such a state of over-the-top euphoria, something is terribly wrong. Most likely, I have been taken over by an alien-implanted device. It would be best to have a conversation. If, by any chance, the euphoria is love-related (i.e. "finding a nice girl"), then you can safely assume that the end of the world is coming. Or that's at least what I've been thinking about.
On a totally unrelated topic, something to think about. Economists have written an insightful article on the economics of prostitution. Nothing says "I love you" on Valentines Day than saying "Honey, you're a low cost provider for sex, at least when compared to a prostitute." This is, of course, not my personal opinion, but the opinion of the economists who wrote this article available in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Dick Cheney
Forget the usual introduction, but some more stuff on Dick Cheney, thanks to the Smoking Gun website.
The White House may be good at keeping secrets, but not good enough. Sooner or later, someone finds out. With the Cheney hunting accident, one would expect that there would be a police report. Well, The Smoking Gun obtained the official police report on the incident. In addition to the police report on the hunting accident, there are other documents involving the VP like his two DWI convictions.
Or you could just click on this link and have the work done for you.
The White House may be good at keeping secrets, but not good enough. Sooner or later, someone finds out. With the Cheney hunting accident, one would expect that there would be a police report. Well, The Smoking Gun obtained the official police report on the incident. In addition to the police report on the hunting accident, there are other documents involving the VP like his two DWI convictions.
Or you could just click on this link and have the work done for you.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Valentines Day Stuff
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the only site (that I know of at this moment) on the Internet devoted to all thing Un. At least all the stuff that the blogger finds interesting and wishes to share with you.
Love is infectious, but not as much as a cold. I'm feeling particularly lazy today, as it is Valentines Day and as mentioned earlier, I have a cold. I'm single, so this way too overcommercialized holiday has no real appeal to me at this moment. In all honesty, my opinion of this day will not change later in life, even if I have a significant other in my life. Then again, if that ever occurs, I probably would buy flowers or a nice gift or something...I think. Which is probably one of the more honest statements you'll read on this blog. Not that this blog is based upon lies. I'm a pretty honest person.
There are many romantic songs a person can play on Valentines Day. A person can't do wrong with a little Luther Vandross, Barry White, or some other soulful singers. But, after a while, even these classics can get a little stale. So the following is a list of songs (you probably have never heard and in no particular order):
1. "This Strange Effect" Hooverphonics, Blue Wonder Powder Milk
2. "All To Myself" Philosopher Kings, The Philosopher Kings
3. "Charms" Philosopher Kings, The Philosopher Kings
4. "Skin Against Skin" DJ Krush(featuring Deborah Anderson), Milight
5. "I Love You" Sara McLachlan, Surfacing
6. "Gorecki" Lamb, Lamb
7. "Lullaby" Lamb, Fear of Fours
8. "Still Waiting" Big Sugar, 500 Pounds
9. "Temple" Beverly Klass, III
And for those who are bitter about this day, some anti-Valentines Day stuff. If you have a sense of humor or a sense of bitterness, this might somewhat cheer you up, if it is at all possible.
1. Anti-Valentines Day Cards from Worth1000, one of the best sites devoted to the joys of Photoshop
2. A Party Menu for Lonely, Bitter People who dislike Valentines Day
3. A song for those who hate Valentines Day
4. A song for those who hate love in general
That's all for now.
Love is infectious, but not as much as a cold. I'm feeling particularly lazy today, as it is Valentines Day and as mentioned earlier, I have a cold. I'm single, so this way too overcommercialized holiday has no real appeal to me at this moment. In all honesty, my opinion of this day will not change later in life, even if I have a significant other in my life. Then again, if that ever occurs, I probably would buy flowers or a nice gift or something...I think. Which is probably one of the more honest statements you'll read on this blog. Not that this blog is based upon lies. I'm a pretty honest person.
There are many romantic songs a person can play on Valentines Day. A person can't do wrong with a little Luther Vandross, Barry White, or some other soulful singers. But, after a while, even these classics can get a little stale. So the following is a list of songs (you probably have never heard and in no particular order):
1. "This Strange Effect" Hooverphonics, Blue Wonder Powder Milk
2. "All To Myself" Philosopher Kings, The Philosopher Kings
3. "Charms" Philosopher Kings, The Philosopher Kings
4. "Skin Against Skin" DJ Krush(featuring Deborah Anderson), Milight
5. "I Love You" Sara McLachlan, Surfacing
6. "Gorecki" Lamb, Lamb
7. "Lullaby" Lamb, Fear of Fours
8. "Still Waiting" Big Sugar, 500 Pounds
9. "Temple" Beverly Klass, III
And for those who are bitter about this day, some anti-Valentines Day stuff. If you have a sense of humor or a sense of bitterness, this might somewhat cheer you up, if it is at all possible.
1. Anti-Valentines Day Cards from Worth1000, one of the best sites devoted to the joys of Photoshop
2. A Party Menu for Lonely, Bitter People who dislike Valentines Day
3. A song for those who hate Valentines Day
4. A song for those who hate love in general
That's all for now.
No Relations to Aaron Burr...
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site for all things related to Un. Ah...nothing like history in the making. It's been a while since we've had vice presidents shooting at other people while in office. Think Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, 200 years ago. There might have been other Vice Presidents behaving badly, but newspaper coverage was notoriously bad back then. Politicians paid newspapers to keep these things hush-hush...not that I'm trying to insult ethics in newspapers.
Well, now you can add Dick Cheney to this list as he accidentally shot one of his hunting companions while hunting for quail. The incident, according to the story, happened as follows. Items within brackets were added in by the blogger for context:
Not that I find this particularly interesting(actually, I do), but this incident was not reported by the Vice-President's office for nearly 24 hours. It wasn't known until a local newspaper reported this incident on their website.
Some other interesting things that may be noted about this incident and the people involved.
1. The ranch is owned by a longtime friend of VP Cheney and President G.W. Bush. Katharine is the daughter of Tobin Armstrong, a politically connected rancher who has been a guest at the White House and spent 48 years as director of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. Her mother is Anne Armstrong, who was a Halliburton director when that corporation hired Cheney.
2. Mr. Whittington is a regular, too, but it was supposedly the first time the two men hunted together.
3. Mr. Whittington has long been active in Texas Republican politics. He's been appointed to several state boards, including when then-Gov. George W. Bush named him to the Texas Funeral Service Commission. Note the irony about the last statement. Member of the Texas Funeral Service Commission.
One can see the many humorous possibilities one can milk from this story (From BoingBoing.com):
Well, in other news, this is related to the protests about the cartoons. But first, I would like to preface this with a few statements. Most followers of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever belief known in this world, are not violent radicals. They are nice, honest, kind people that you would want to have as friends or neighbors or future spouses. The extremists, those who twist and distort religion and use it for violent means, are not representative of adherents of religion.
Anyways, this imam in England, chose the wrong words and perpetuated the myth that followers of Islam are violent radicals. Basically, to sum up his statements, he praised the suicide bombers as they brought attention to Muslims and their acts were good.
One thing you should not say to a police officer, most likely armed with a weapon: "You ain't the only one with a Glock. If it wasn't for your gun and your badge, I'd kick your ass." Add to this the fact that you've been given probation for a weapons conviction. Not smart at all. Well, if you're a famous Chicago Bears football player, it's something you would say. Go figure.
Yeah. KU plays Oklahoma State in men's college basketball. Go Hawks.
That's all for now.
Well, now you can add Dick Cheney to this list as he accidentally shot one of his hunting companions while hunting for quail. The incident, according to the story, happened as follows. Items within brackets were added in by the blogger for context:
She [Katharine Armstrong] said Whittington went to retrieve a bird he shot. Cheney and the third hunter, whom she would not identify, walked to another spot and discovered a second covey of quail.The victim of this accident, Mr. Harry Whittington, is a 78 year old lawyer in Austin, Texas, is reported to be in stable condition. All the members of the hunting party were wearing the requisite bright-orange hunting vests.
Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," said Armstrong, who was in the car.
"The vice president didn't see him," she said. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."
Not that I find this particularly interesting(actually, I do), but this incident was not reported by the Vice-President's office for nearly 24 hours. It wasn't known until a local newspaper reported this incident on their website.
Some other interesting things that may be noted about this incident and the people involved.
1. The ranch is owned by a longtime friend of VP Cheney and President G.W. Bush. Katharine is the daughter of Tobin Armstrong, a politically connected rancher who has been a guest at the White House and spent 48 years as director of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. Her mother is Anne Armstrong, who was a Halliburton director when that corporation hired Cheney.
2. Mr. Whittington is a regular, too, but it was supposedly the first time the two men hunted together.
3. Mr. Whittington has long been active in Texas Republican politics. He's been appointed to several state boards, including when then-Gov. George W. Bush named him to the Texas Funeral Service Commission. Note the irony about the last statement. Member of the Texas Funeral Service Commission.
One can see the many humorous possibilities one can milk from this story (From BoingBoing.com):
1) *Are* lawyers in season right now?
2) Was the lawyer at least a ]4-point?
3) Was Cheney within his permit limit?
4) Was the Cheney aide misquoted about the lawyer's hunting suit having a target on the back, or that he'd bought it at Target a while back?
5) Will Disney adapt this into a cartoon about a baby lawyer having to adjust to living in the wild without his parent?
6) Is this what you should expect if you don't contribute enough to a political reelection fund in the future?
One more: Or is this the administration's new plan for tort reform, No Lawyer Left Behind?
Well, in other news, this is related to the protests about the cartoons. But first, I would like to preface this with a few statements. Most followers of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever belief known in this world, are not violent radicals. They are nice, honest, kind people that you would want to have as friends or neighbors or future spouses. The extremists, those who twist and distort religion and use it for violent means, are not representative of adherents of religion.
Anyways, this imam in England, chose the wrong words and perpetuated the myth that followers of Islam are violent radicals. Basically, to sum up his statements, he praised the suicide bombers as they brought attention to Muslims and their acts were good.
One thing you should not say to a police officer, most likely armed with a weapon: "You ain't the only one with a Glock. If it wasn't for your gun and your badge, I'd kick your ass." Add to this the fact that you've been given probation for a weapons conviction. Not smart at all. Well, if you're a famous Chicago Bears football player, it's something you would say. Go figure.
Yeah. KU plays Oklahoma State in men's college basketball. Go Hawks.
That's all for now.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Stand Up Comedy
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site to all things related to Un. It's like the huckster tourist trap located in the middle of nowhere, but the really crappy postcards and gifts.
Have you ever done anything on an impulse, just because you wanted to do it? Well, I did. And it involved stand up comedy.
People have told me that I have a pretty good sense of humor. I'm a funny guy with a rapid wit and an acid tongue. People at the law school think my articles for the Brief-Brief (www.ku.edu/~ bbrief) a riot, only because I make fun of the law, law school, and followers of Intelligent Design. Nothing is held back...well...some stuff is held back. If I said everything I wanted to say, it might not be suitable for publication.
When I do get on a roll, I write and say the most outlandish stuff. There is no need for me to get drunk to say crazy stuff. You know, the stuff you want to say, but you don't, only because it would be "politically incorrect." It's like the fine line between being a fool and being creative. If you can't tell the difference, you might as well throw everything you've got into it. Hey, if you do crash and burn, it will be in a blaze of glory or infamy. People will watch a person who sets themself on fire, no matter how bad the situation ends up.
So, it seemed natural that with my love of comedy, the most ideal situation came up. There was a chance, no matter how remote, for me to win a standup comedy competition. If I did win, I would advance to the finals. Winning that meant a gig at The Improv (located in KC) and being the warmup act to a famous comedian performing at KU in April. Not too bad. The only catch...it was on Friday night at 7:00 PM. I found out about it that afternoon. At best, I had oh...four, five hours to prepare something. Plus, I never performed an actual standup comedy routine before. First time ever. OK, I did perform impressions during Pub Night last year, but that was different.
There's a good thing about being a law school student. They train you welll in spouting out a bunch of stuff in little time. It's how lawyers win cases. You can always find something to say, even if you have no chance in hell to win.
So I go up. I managed to make fun of myself and got a bunch of laughs from the audience. I guess the politically incorrect jokes about Asian stereotypes do work, especially if the audience consists mainly of college students.
Nobody expected that one. It's a nice buildup to the "chewy" punchline. Add in some other jokes about being an Asian sellout (You know what the call an Asian who eats Minute Rice? An Uncle Bens) and being pitifully single and you've got a winner. And I pulled all of this stuff off the top of my head. Well, not really. I did think of these jokes earlier, but I never got the chance to actually perform them.
It went pretty well. I did have time management issues, which meant I went over the time limit. Hey, as I said, once I'm on a roll, I'm on a roll. I probably should have cut out the last minute or so when I rambled about law school. But other than for that, I think I held my own as a newbie. I didn't win. The top three performers got to go to the finals. I wasn't in the top three. It would have been nice to make it into the top three, but that's the way life goes. I didn't go in with the expectation of winning, but it would have been nice. Not that it really matters. I just wanted to have fun.
Not that I'll be able to perform the "politically incorrect" version of any stand up routine on Pub Night. You have to keep everything politically correct, PG or lower. Don't want to piss off the alumni or the nice people receiving the profits. Oh well. I probably can come up with not-so-offensive jokes. Or I'll just do impressions just like last year with some new ones added in. And some humor tossed in. I'm sure that Woody Allen can talk about adoption again. I guess I'll have to find some other way of feeding the stand-up comedy bug.
That's all for now.
Have you ever done anything on an impulse, just because you wanted to do it? Well, I did. And it involved stand up comedy.
People have told me that I have a pretty good sense of humor. I'm a funny guy with a rapid wit and an acid tongue. People at the law school think my articles for the Brief-Brief (www.ku.edu/~ bbrief) a riot, only because I make fun of the law, law school, and followers of Intelligent Design. Nothing is held back...well...some stuff is held back. If I said everything I wanted to say, it might not be suitable for publication.
When I do get on a roll, I write and say the most outlandish stuff. There is no need for me to get drunk to say crazy stuff. You know, the stuff you want to say, but you don't, only because it would be "politically incorrect." It's like the fine line between being a fool and being creative. If you can't tell the difference, you might as well throw everything you've got into it. Hey, if you do crash and burn, it will be in a blaze of glory or infamy. People will watch a person who sets themself on fire, no matter how bad the situation ends up.
So, it seemed natural that with my love of comedy, the most ideal situation came up. There was a chance, no matter how remote, for me to win a standup comedy competition. If I did win, I would advance to the finals. Winning that meant a gig at The Improv (located in KC) and being the warmup act to a famous comedian performing at KU in April. Not too bad. The only catch...it was on Friday night at 7:00 PM. I found out about it that afternoon. At best, I had oh...four, five hours to prepare something. Plus, I never performed an actual standup comedy routine before. First time ever. OK, I did perform impressions during Pub Night last year, but that was different.
There's a good thing about being a law school student. They train you welll in spouting out a bunch of stuff in little time. It's how lawyers win cases. You can always find something to say, even if you have no chance in hell to win.
So I go up. I managed to make fun of myself and got a bunch of laughs from the audience. I guess the politically incorrect jokes about Asian stereotypes do work, especially if the audience consists mainly of college students.
EXAMPLE: Everyone I know says, "I know why I'm single. It's because everyone says that I'm a nice guy. I'm so kind, intelligent, and loyal. It makes me sound like a dog. I'm not a damn dog! To add insult to injury, I take an online test and it says I'm a f****** Labrador Retriever. I hate Labrador Retrievers!They're way too chewy."
Nobody expected that one. It's a nice buildup to the "chewy" punchline. Add in some other jokes about being an Asian sellout (You know what the call an Asian who eats Minute Rice? An Uncle Bens) and being pitifully single and you've got a winner. And I pulled all of this stuff off the top of my head. Well, not really. I did think of these jokes earlier, but I never got the chance to actually perform them.
It went pretty well. I did have time management issues, which meant I went over the time limit. Hey, as I said, once I'm on a roll, I'm on a roll. I probably should have cut out the last minute or so when I rambled about law school. But other than for that, I think I held my own as a newbie. I didn't win. The top three performers got to go to the finals. I wasn't in the top three. It would have been nice to make it into the top three, but that's the way life goes. I didn't go in with the expectation of winning, but it would have been nice. Not that it really matters. I just wanted to have fun.
Not that I'll be able to perform the "politically incorrect" version of any stand up routine on Pub Night. You have to keep everything politically correct, PG or lower. Don't want to piss off the alumni or the nice people receiving the profits. Oh well. I probably can come up with not-so-offensive jokes. Or I'll just do impressions just like last year with some new ones added in. And some humor tossed in. I'm sure that Woody Allen can talk about adoption again. I guess I'll have to find some other way of feeding the stand-up comedy bug.
That's all for now.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Technology
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site of nearly all things related to Un.
I am having a really lousy time with technology. At least when it comes to the University of Kansas' e-mail access. Put simply, I hate it. The list of things that have went wrong with technology:
1. I can't send e-mail to the Brief-Brief e-mail address for some reason. The messages keep bouncing back. They're "undeliverable." I tried six times to send one e-mail on both Outlook Exchange and Webmail. Nothing worked at all. Thankfully, the editor saved a copy of the articles I emailed to him.
2. I can't get Outlook Exchange to work properly. Not that it's ever worked properly (actually functioning without lag or error messages or whatever is wrong with Outlook at any give time), but that's a different story. I type in the web address and the page does not exist. Can't find the server. But the nice people working at the library have no problems getting on. Is it just me?
3. Webmail doesn't recognize that I exist. I changed my password (due to the University's new "Secure Password" initiative) yesterday. It should be working by now considering that the webpage said it would take a half-hour. Does not work. Access denied. Over and over again. Last time I checked, 30 minutes and nearly 18 hours is not the same thing. Unless you're in the G. W. Bush administration where everything is relative and redefined. I'm now an "Intruder" and access is now denied for "an hour." That might mean what...a week?
4. I can get e-mail access through the KYou Portal, a website with a bad pun for a name. Ha Ha. KU...K-You? Get it? Not very clever. I wonder how much it cost to come up with that name? Probably less than their new logo which a person with Photoshop could whip up in an hour and for a lot less. I digress.
However, KYou is buggy also. It takes forever to load, gives me error messages, and doesn't recognize commands like "delete mail" or "move mail" if you click on the little icons. Not that the icons are supposed to mean anything and by clicking on them, they're supposed to work. I guess the web designers put them there for decoration. You know, to make the site look pretty.
I had to sign off by clicking on "sign off" (Which functioned correctly the first time unlike the other icons and buttons on the site. I guess they recognized that people want to get off the site and not be trapped there forever, clicking on icons in vain) and logon again just to read three e-mails. Wow, no wonder why KU wants website people so much. They need them to get their webiste running or crawling...
I can only say that I can access my other non-KU e-mail accounts very easily, unlike the KU account. Go figure.
That's all for now.
I am having a really lousy time with technology. At least when it comes to the University of Kansas' e-mail access. Put simply, I hate it. The list of things that have went wrong with technology:
1. I can't send e-mail to the Brief-Brief e-mail address for some reason. The messages keep bouncing back. They're "undeliverable." I tried six times to send one e-mail on both Outlook Exchange and Webmail. Nothing worked at all. Thankfully, the editor saved a copy of the articles I emailed to him.
2. I can't get Outlook Exchange to work properly. Not that it's ever worked properly (actually functioning without lag or error messages or whatever is wrong with Outlook at any give time), but that's a different story. I type in the web address and the page does not exist. Can't find the server. But the nice people working at the library have no problems getting on. Is it just me?
3. Webmail doesn't recognize that I exist. I changed my password (due to the University's new "Secure Password" initiative) yesterday. It should be working by now considering that the webpage said it would take a half-hour. Does not work. Access denied. Over and over again. Last time I checked, 30 minutes and nearly 18 hours is not the same thing. Unless you're in the G. W. Bush administration where everything is relative and redefined. I'm now an "Intruder" and access is now denied for "an hour." That might mean what...a week?
4. I can get e-mail access through the KYou Portal, a website with a bad pun for a name. Ha Ha. KU...K-You? Get it? Not very clever. I wonder how much it cost to come up with that name? Probably less than their new logo which a person with Photoshop could whip up in an hour and for a lot less. I digress.
However, KYou is buggy also. It takes forever to load, gives me error messages, and doesn't recognize commands like "delete mail" or "move mail" if you click on the little icons. Not that the icons are supposed to mean anything and by clicking on them, they're supposed to work. I guess the web designers put them there for decoration. You know, to make the site look pretty.
I had to sign off by clicking on "sign off" (Which functioned correctly the first time unlike the other icons and buttons on the site. I guess they recognized that people want to get off the site and not be trapped there forever, clicking on icons in vain) and logon again just to read three e-mails. Wow, no wonder why KU wants website people so much. They need them to get their webiste running or crawling...
I can only say that I can access my other non-KU e-mail accounts very easily, unlike the KU account. Go figure.
That's all for now.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Random Website Links
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site devoted to all things related to Un.
It's time for random website links that I found amusing.
A judge tells Congress in a legal opinion to stick the new backruptcy law where the Chapter 7 don't shine. He found the new laws to be anti-consumer and pro-big business, which isn't so surprising. Credit card and other financial services companies had complained for years that their costs were increased by people who ran up debts knowing that they could file for bankruptcy and avoid repayment.
Supporters (credit card companies and financial service companies) say the new law was good since Americans would save money on interest rates. It would stop the "bad customers" from making a mockery of the bankruptcy process. Then again, credit card companies like people who don't pay on time because they make most of their money by charging late fees and high interest to the late-paying customers. Where else can you charge up to 24.99% and get away with it? Oh, payday loans.
Yes, there are people who abuse the bankruptcy process, but they are a small minority of the people who make use of it. Anyways...I digress.
A zinger of a quote from his opinion:
You can read the opinion here:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/metro/020506_bankrupt.pdf
After the "scandal" (which means "event that leads to public uproar that leads to business as usual--lie, cheat, steal") in Washington DC over lobbyists like Abramoff, one might (in a delusional state of mind) think that Congress would clean up their act. Not exactly. It's business as usual because very few people want to lose free trips to exotic locales or a round or two at a premium Scottish golf course. It's not like people are going to vote them out of office.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3646212.html
Justice Breyer of the Supreme Court says there are no politics involved on the Supreme Court. In theory, that would be the case, but in real life...theory doesn't work the way one would hope. Can anybody say 5 to 4?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_chicago
President G. W. Bush didn't pitch the plan of privatizing Social Security. Why bother when you will get tossed into a lake of fire? What you do is downplay everything by proposing "bipartisan proposals" and then slippping his own proposal into the budget. It's that old sleight of hand trick that magicians use: "look at this hand while the other hand does something else...like pull out the hidden rabbit in my sleeve."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/from/RSS
That's all for now.
It's time for random website links that I found amusing.
A judge tells Congress in a legal opinion to stick the new backruptcy law where the Chapter 7 don't shine. He found the new laws to be anti-consumer and pro-big business, which isn't so surprising. Credit card and other financial services companies had complained for years that their costs were increased by people who ran up debts knowing that they could file for bankruptcy and avoid repayment.
Supporters (credit card companies and financial service companies) say the new law was good since Americans would save money on interest rates. It would stop the "bad customers" from making a mockery of the bankruptcy process. Then again, credit card companies like people who don't pay on time because they make most of their money by charging late fees and high interest to the late-paying customers. Where else can you charge up to 24.99% and get away with it? Oh, payday loans.
Yes, there are people who abuse the bankruptcy process, but they are a small minority of the people who make use of it. Anyways...I digress.
A zinger of a quote from his opinion:
"Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected."
You can read the opinion here:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/metro/020506_bankrupt.pdf
After the "scandal" (which means "event that leads to public uproar that leads to business as usual--lie, cheat, steal") in Washington DC over lobbyists like Abramoff, one might (in a delusional state of mind) think that Congress would clean up their act. Not exactly. It's business as usual because very few people want to lose free trips to exotic locales or a round or two at a premium Scottish golf course. It's not like people are going to vote them out of office.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3646212.html
Justice Breyer of the Supreme Court says there are no politics involved on the Supreme Court. In theory, that would be the case, but in real life...theory doesn't work the way one would hope. Can anybody say 5 to 4?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_chicago
President G. W. Bush didn't pitch the plan of privatizing Social Security. Why bother when you will get tossed into a lake of fire? What you do is downplay everything by proposing "bipartisan proposals" and then slippping his own proposal into the budget. It's that old sleight of hand trick that magicians use: "look at this hand while the other hand does something else...like pull out the hidden rabbit in my sleeve."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/from/RSS
That's all for now.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Tell Me Sweet Little Lies...
"Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)"
-Fleetwood Mac, Tell Me Lies
"By the time you swear you're his, shivering and sighing--
And he vows his passion is infinite, undying--
Lady make a note of this:
One of you is lying."
-Dorothy Parker
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un or at least stuff that I find interesting. Either one is a valid description of this site for all menaingful intents and purposes. This post is a quasi-return to the semi-philosophical/random thoughts post I had when I first started this blog. Go figure.
Today's post is all about lying, but first, I must preface this with a "little" expository blurb on honesty. My mind works in a strange way, but it makes some sense when everything is written out, or so I hope. One can never be too sure with such things, even when such things are nicely planned out. This might sound like some sort of Dr. Phil-ish post, so please forgive me. Yeah. The opinions expressed in this post are solely the opinions of this blogger and not meant to be taken as actual advice. To begin...the following.
I. Honest Americans
Americans find immense pride in having an honest reputation. For some reason, all of the great leaders in American history were honest. George Washington (according to Parson Weems, a well-known exaggerator of the truth/story teller) was so honest, he could never tell a lie. Hence, the fabricated tale about a little George Washington cutting down a cherry tree. Go figure. The most famous "historical story" about Washington was a lie spread by a liar. OK, not a liar...forget it. Who can forget Abraham Lincoln, our esteemed 16th President? He earned the nickname of "Honest Abe," though his detractors called him "Butcher"(after several nasty Civil War battles like The Wilderness) and "The Great Northern Ape." Then again, nobody wants to be a country whose great leaders were liars, cheaters, and low-down scum. Wait, the founders of the United States were rebels. What's up with that? I digress.
Anyways, today, there seems to be a lack of honest leaders. For example, one can bring up Richard Nixon, or "Tricky Dick." That nickname is wrong on so many levels. "Tricky Dick"? Sounds like something from a porno movie. To add in a little equal-opportunity President bashing, one can also add in Bill Clinton, who had the title of "Slick Willy," another pornographic sounding, yet apt nickname. Monica Lewinsky might call him something else, but that's for another post.
II. The Value of Honesty in Relationships
It sounds so obvious, but it must be said. Honesty plays an important role in the formation of relationships, as well as keeping them stable. Some might disagree and say that deception plays a large role in the formation of relationships, as people stretch the truth when describing themselves and what they do. Or at least lying well enough to get someone naked into their bed. ("Honest, I really love you.") Anyways, as it has been said, honesty in a relationship leads to trust. Logically, if people are honest with eachother, it builds a certain level of trust. Once a certain level of trust has been reached, the relationship will generally stay stable, unless some deep, dark secret rears its ugly head, like that one time in Cancun where you got drunk...you know what I am getting at, I hope. Well, to get to the point, trust is the glue that keeps relationships together. Without trust, things fall apart into a million little pieces. We all know where Mr. Frey went wrong with his "truthful" memoir or lack of truth memoir. It's a lousy metaphor, but it works well enough in this section.
Once a relationship is stable and both sides agreee and other factors fall into place, a serious but casual relationship can evolve into a more serious "till death do us part" type deal. Implicit in the vows of "love, honor, and cherish" is honesty and trust. After all, without the honesty and trust, "till death do us part" might involve a loaded .357 magnum or some other nasty means of death. Which leads to a most strange aspect of relationships: why people lie in relationships.
III. Tell Me Sweet Little Lies
We have all told lies to people. Some people have told more lies than others. If lies were like icing, most people would be able to frost a wedding cake. Not just any ordinary wedding cake(is there such a thing as an "ordinary" wedding cake), but a muli-tiered, extravagant confection replete with many decorations. One that would make any person "ooh" and "aah" at the mere sight of it. Lying is not limited to humans of course. Our closest genetic match, the chimpanzee, is quite adept at deception. It's an evolutionary thing, or so scientists have speculated:
One could argue that we don't per se, love them like those we care about. To use "love" in such a way means to define it in a certain way also. One can "love" their girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband, etc. in one way, but "love" another person in a similar, but different way. This also requires a different definition for "care" between the two classes. One does not have the same emotional and physical attachment with strangers than with those we care for. We could care less about what they think, well most of the times.
For instance, if one gets very drunk in a noisy bar, one might blab about secrets that they have never told anyone. The next morning, one hopes that everyone else was as equally drunk because they recognize what they have done. But while under the stupor of alcohol, one does not really think about what they are saying. In a crowded room, one might say the most shocking things, but since one is in a crowded room, all the conversations blend together. One will, most likely, never see the person again. If one does happen to meet that stranger again, it is highly unlikely anyone will remember anything.
Basically, when things are going down the tubes and when a person is under pressure, the person under pressure will lie. They are willing to lie because it appears to be the only solution to the sticky problem. We lie more to the people we love because we supposedly do not want to hurt them by telling them the truth. A lie that makes them feel better doesn't seem to be bad. Why bother telling them the truth when it could cause serious problems? But there lies the problem.
IV. Truth or Consequences: Conclusion
The main problem with telling a lie is obvious. People can and will find out the truth. Once your "loved one" discovers the deception, even bigger problems happen. The easiest person to deceive is yourself. Once you deceive yourself that telling a lie is the best solution, it becomes easier to tell that lie to the one you love. But "love" is so easy to redefine to suit one's mood.
If one has to resort to lying to keep a relationship together, it's very likely that the relationship really isn't a real relationship but a giant sham based upon deception. Such relationships are not the best ones to be stuck in. Tell the same lie you decieve yourself with to another person and that person will recognize how foolish it seems. Of course, it's easy to say this but hard to put into practice.
The next time you think it's a good time to lie to save a relationship, think hard about that decision. It may sound good, but it may hurt you later. Your "relationship" might be temporarily saved for a while, but once the truth is found out, the resulting breakup might be even worse.
Reference:
Bateson, Gregory (1955). "A Theory of Play and Fantasy." In Psychiatric Research Reports (Vol. 2), pp. 39-51
That's all for now.
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)"
-Fleetwood Mac, Tell Me Lies
"By the time you swear you're his, shivering and sighing--
And he vows his passion is infinite, undying--
Lady make a note of this:
One of you is lying."
-Dorothy Parker
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un or at least stuff that I find interesting. Either one is a valid description of this site for all menaingful intents and purposes. This post is a quasi-return to the semi-philosophical/random thoughts post I had when I first started this blog. Go figure.
Today's post is all about lying, but first, I must preface this with a "little" expository blurb on honesty. My mind works in a strange way, but it makes some sense when everything is written out, or so I hope. One can never be too sure with such things, even when such things are nicely planned out. This might sound like some sort of Dr. Phil-ish post, so please forgive me. Yeah. The opinions expressed in this post are solely the opinions of this blogger and not meant to be taken as actual advice. To begin...the following.
I. Honest Americans
Americans find immense pride in having an honest reputation. For some reason, all of the great leaders in American history were honest. George Washington (according to Parson Weems, a well-known exaggerator of the truth/story teller) was so honest, he could never tell a lie. Hence, the fabricated tale about a little George Washington cutting down a cherry tree. Go figure. The most famous "historical story" about Washington was a lie spread by a liar. OK, not a liar...forget it. Who can forget Abraham Lincoln, our esteemed 16th President? He earned the nickname of "Honest Abe," though his detractors called him "Butcher"(after several nasty Civil War battles like The Wilderness) and "The Great Northern Ape." Then again, nobody wants to be a country whose great leaders were liars, cheaters, and low-down scum. Wait, the founders of the United States were rebels. What's up with that? I digress.
Anyways, today, there seems to be a lack of honest leaders. For example, one can bring up Richard Nixon, or "Tricky Dick." That nickname is wrong on so many levels. "Tricky Dick"? Sounds like something from a porno movie. To add in a little equal-opportunity President bashing, one can also add in Bill Clinton, who had the title of "Slick Willy," another pornographic sounding, yet apt nickname. Monica Lewinsky might call him something else, but that's for another post.
II. The Value of Honesty in Relationships
It sounds so obvious, but it must be said. Honesty plays an important role in the formation of relationships, as well as keeping them stable. Some might disagree and say that deception plays a large role in the formation of relationships, as people stretch the truth when describing themselves and what they do. Or at least lying well enough to get someone naked into their bed. ("Honest, I really love you.") Anyways, as it has been said, honesty in a relationship leads to trust. Logically, if people are honest with eachother, it builds a certain level of trust. Once a certain level of trust has been reached, the relationship will generally stay stable, unless some deep, dark secret rears its ugly head, like that one time in Cancun where you got drunk...you know what I am getting at, I hope. Well, to get to the point, trust is the glue that keeps relationships together. Without trust, things fall apart into a million little pieces. We all know where Mr. Frey went wrong with his "truthful" memoir or lack of truth memoir. It's a lousy metaphor, but it works well enough in this section.
Once a relationship is stable and both sides agreee and other factors fall into place, a serious but casual relationship can evolve into a more serious "till death do us part" type deal. Implicit in the vows of "love, honor, and cherish" is honesty and trust. After all, without the honesty and trust, "till death do us part" might involve a loaded .357 magnum or some other nasty means of death. Which leads to a most strange aspect of relationships: why people lie in relationships.
III. Tell Me Sweet Little Lies
We have all told lies to people. Some people have told more lies than others. If lies were like icing, most people would be able to frost a wedding cake. Not just any ordinary wedding cake(is there such a thing as an "ordinary" wedding cake), but a muli-tiered, extravagant confection replete with many decorations. One that would make any person "ooh" and "aah" at the mere sight of it. Lying is not limited to humans of course. Our closest genetic match, the chimpanzee, is quite adept at deception. It's an evolutionary thing, or so scientists have speculated:
Then again, if deception is part of the evolution of communication and if it is, one could argue, hardwired into animals, then why do people tell the truth to perfect strangers like people we meet on the street, let alone shrinks during therapy sessions?"If we speculate about the evolution of communication, it is evident that a very important stage in this evolution occurs when the organism gradually ceases to respond quite 'automatically' to the mood signs of another and becomes able to recognize the sign as a signal: that is, to recognize that the other individual's and its own signals are only signals, which can be trusted, distrusted, falsified, denied, amplified, corrected, and so forth" (Bateson 1955:40).
One could argue that we don't per se, love them like those we care about. To use "love" in such a way means to define it in a certain way also. One can "love" their girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband, etc. in one way, but "love" another person in a similar, but different way. This also requires a different definition for "care" between the two classes. One does not have the same emotional and physical attachment with strangers than with those we care for. We could care less about what they think, well most of the times.
For instance, if one gets very drunk in a noisy bar, one might blab about secrets that they have never told anyone. The next morning, one hopes that everyone else was as equally drunk because they recognize what they have done. But while under the stupor of alcohol, one does not really think about what they are saying. In a crowded room, one might say the most shocking things, but since one is in a crowded room, all the conversations blend together. One will, most likely, never see the person again. If one does happen to meet that stranger again, it is highly unlikely anyone will remember anything.
Basically, when things are going down the tubes and when a person is under pressure, the person under pressure will lie. They are willing to lie because it appears to be the only solution to the sticky problem. We lie more to the people we love because we supposedly do not want to hurt them by telling them the truth. A lie that makes them feel better doesn't seem to be bad. Why bother telling them the truth when it could cause serious problems? But there lies the problem.
IV. Truth or Consequences: Conclusion
The main problem with telling a lie is obvious. People can and will find out the truth. Once your "loved one" discovers the deception, even bigger problems happen. The easiest person to deceive is yourself. Once you deceive yourself that telling a lie is the best solution, it becomes easier to tell that lie to the one you love. But "love" is so easy to redefine to suit one's mood.
If one has to resort to lying to keep a relationship together, it's very likely that the relationship really isn't a real relationship but a giant sham based upon deception. Such relationships are not the best ones to be stuck in. Tell the same lie you decieve yourself with to another person and that person will recognize how foolish it seems. Of course, it's easy to say this but hard to put into practice.
The next time you think it's a good time to lie to save a relationship, think hard about that decision. It may sound good, but it may hurt you later. Your "relationship" might be temporarily saved for a while, but once the truth is found out, the resulting breakup might be even worse.
Reference:
Bateson, Gregory (1955). "A Theory of Play and Fantasy." In Psychiatric Research Reports (Vol. 2), pp. 39-51
That's all for now.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Bush "Science Initiative"
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the site for all things related to Un. Well, at least stuff that this blogger finds interesting.
President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech, talked about the "American Competitiveness Initiative." One of the goals of this initiative was "giving our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science." Children will learn more math and science courses to make America competitive with other nations that score higher than the US in tests, which normally means nearly everyone else that takes the particular test.
What does that mean for children in the United States when it comes to more rigorous math and science courses? Let's take a look at the facts and see...
One would expect that people in NASA would have a basic grounding in sound science like astronomy, cosmology, etc. But not in the George W. Bush administration. A presidential appointee to NASA had the following background in science: NONE WHAT SO EVER. But he did have the following credentials to his name according to The New York Times:
President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech, talked about the "American Competitiveness Initiative." One of the goals of this initiative was "giving our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science." Children will learn more math and science courses to make America competitive with other nations that score higher than the US in tests, which normally means nearly everyone else that takes the particular test.
What does that mean for children in the United States when it comes to more rigorous math and science courses? Let's take a look at the facts and see...
One would expect that people in NASA would have a basic grounding in sound science like astronomy, cosmology, etc. But not in the George W. Bush administration. A presidential appointee to NASA had the following background in science: NONE WHAT SO EVER. But he did have the following credentials to his name according to The New York Times:
Remember Mr. "Blame Everyone" Brown, the head of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency? No experience, but he was a good friend of the President. That's enough experience. Take a look at what he has to say about the Big Bang Model, one of the basic things learned in an astronomy course (quoted from The New York Times):intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
And this is what me might expect as science? American children will be competitive by learning this stuff? Last time I checked an AP Test, Intelligent Design wasn't part of it. Unless of course, the College Board decides to bow down to the wishes of the President.
President G.W. Bush is a big proponent of Intelligent Design. No big surprise. Supporters of Intelligent Design now believe that they are the intellectual heirs of Gallileo. The same Gallileo who was condemned by the Catholic Church for his support of the heliocentric universe. At this moment, what are the odds that Intelligent Design will be part of the science initiative? Then again, Gallileo, unlike the Intelligent Design proponents, had at least two things going for him. One, he was correct in his views. Two, and more importantly, he performed ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS to test his hypotheses. That included using telescopes and using actual mathematics. Oh, I remember another thing going for Gallileo. He was well-esteemed by his peers and he had a better reputation. He was not a rogue scientist to his peers, but to the Church that believed in the now shown to be wrong ideas of Aristotle. Nothing like the distortion of history to suit facts. But then again, "hard facts" never really mattered to followers of Intelligent Design.
This could be what the new science initiative could look like if President George W. Bush gets his ways. Then again, he might actually stick with actual science and not Intelligent Design or any other weird idea. Consider what's been said in this post while you read the following quote from Donald Tighe:
The only response came from Donald Tighe of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration," he said.
Really? I'm not too sure. That's all for now.
Super Bowl Commercials and Sports
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the site for all things Un.
The KU-Oklahoma basketball game. Wow. They didn't choke horribly for once on national television. Like the Big Monday game vs. Missouri or the Maui Invitational games. The much improved Jayhawks showed up for once. I'm just hoping they bring the A-level performance during the rest of the season. If they make it(most likely...I think) to March Madness, I hope they don't go and repeat the "Bucknell Bomb" and lose in the first round.
The Super Bowl was slow during the first half, but gained some level of excitement in the second half. That's all I can say about the game. The pregame stuff bored me. The "Jerome Bettis was born in Detroit and might retire" stories got really tiring and boring. Just like nearly every one of the Super Bowl commercials. Even the Bud Light commercials weren't as funny this year. Sucky commercials.
One last thing. If you ever have any empty whiskey bottles and have some level of technical expertise, an interesting modification job one can do. A whiskey bottle computer. Go figure.
http://www.metku.net/index.html?sect=view&n=1&path=mods/whiskypc/index_eng
That's all for now. Got to go to Payment Systems. Fun.
The KU-Oklahoma basketball game. Wow. They didn't choke horribly for once on national television. Like the Big Monday game vs. Missouri or the Maui Invitational games. The much improved Jayhawks showed up for once. I'm just hoping they bring the A-level performance during the rest of the season. If they make it(most likely...I think) to March Madness, I hope they don't go and repeat the "Bucknell Bomb" and lose in the first round.
The Super Bowl was slow during the first half, but gained some level of excitement in the second half. That's all I can say about the game. The pregame stuff bored me. The "Jerome Bettis was born in Detroit and might retire" stories got really tiring and boring. Just like nearly every one of the Super Bowl commercials. Even the Bud Light commercials weren't as funny this year. Sucky commercials.
One last thing. If you ever have any empty whiskey bottles and have some level of technical expertise, an interesting modification job one can do. A whiskey bottle computer. Go figure.
http://www.metku.net/index.html?sect=view&n=1&path=mods/whiskypc/index_eng
That's all for now. Got to go to Payment Systems. Fun.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Same Old Run Around
Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site to all things Un plus other stuff this blogger finds of particular interest at the time the post is written.
I wrote an article for the Brief-Brief today in about an hour. It's about how law school and cults share eerily similar behavior. Not that law school is like a cult or anything. If you don't include similarities like long lectures, a lexicon that makes little sense to others, and a large portion of a day spent in one building, etc. Of course, it's meant to be satire. Last year for the February issue, I wrote an article all about Valentine's Day-related cases. I've now progressed in my writing in a strange way.
An unrelated question by the way: How in the world do you have an electric bill of 76 cents? Unless it's some sort of mistake, I don't see how. If you do know, please enlighten me.
And now to the point of this post after a random question, a poem/song. It's a look at the "right track" that people want their kids/themselves to follow. The "do this and do that to get ahead and forget about doing anything else" school that drives people crazy because it's not really right for them. If I only had some skills in composing music. I think this would make for a nice little ditty with some piano and a guitar. Oh well. A person can dream. Enjoy.
"Same Old Run Around"
When you were young you heard people say
The same old message told in a million ways
Go study hard, no time to play
You’ve got to have a four point oh GPA
Follow this track and don’t go astray
Take these classes, in the end it will pay
In lots of money when your hair is gray
Giving a hundred percent is not OK
It’s the same old run around
Dreams are lost and never found
While you look at the sky and touch the ground
Do it all in a single bound
Cause dreams will leave without a sound
Another victim of the run around
You’re dreaming that you’re in a different place
Than stuck in a cubicle called your office space
Your life is moving at an ever-quickening pace
Another discontented soul in the human race
You remember graduating and you’re feeling glad
Dreaming of the memories that you had
That crazy party, that wild drinking game
Your so-called life will never be the same
It’s the same old run around
Dreams are lost and never found
While you look at the sky and touch the ground
Do it all in a single bound
Cause dreams will leave without a sound
Another victim of the run around
It’s the same old run around
You dreams were lost and were never found
Fell from the sky and hit the ground
Did it all in a single bound
And all your dreams left without a sound
In the vicious cycle of the run around
I wrote an article for the Brief-Brief today in about an hour. It's about how law school and cults share eerily similar behavior. Not that law school is like a cult or anything. If you don't include similarities like long lectures, a lexicon that makes little sense to others, and a large portion of a day spent in one building, etc. Of course, it's meant to be satire. Last year for the February issue, I wrote an article all about Valentine's Day-related cases. I've now progressed in my writing in a strange way.
An unrelated question by the way: How in the world do you have an electric bill of 76 cents? Unless it's some sort of mistake, I don't see how. If you do know, please enlighten me.
And now to the point of this post after a random question, a poem/song. It's a look at the "right track" that people want their kids/themselves to follow. The "do this and do that to get ahead and forget about doing anything else" school that drives people crazy because it's not really right for them. If I only had some skills in composing music. I think this would make for a nice little ditty with some piano and a guitar. Oh well. A person can dream. Enjoy.
"Same Old Run Around"
When you were young you heard people say
The same old message told in a million ways
Go study hard, no time to play
You’ve got to have a four point oh GPA
Follow this track and don’t go astray
Take these classes, in the end it will pay
In lots of money when your hair is gray
Giving a hundred percent is not OK
It’s the same old run around
Dreams are lost and never found
While you look at the sky and touch the ground
Do it all in a single bound
Cause dreams will leave without a sound
Another victim of the run around
You’re dreaming that you’re in a different place
Than stuck in a cubicle called your office space
Your life is moving at an ever-quickening pace
Another discontented soul in the human race
You remember graduating and you’re feeling glad
Dreaming of the memories that you had
That crazy party, that wild drinking game
Your so-called life will never be the same
It’s the same old run around
Dreams are lost and never found
While you look at the sky and touch the ground
Do it all in a single bound
Cause dreams will leave without a sound
Another victim of the run around
It’s the same old run around
You dreams were lost and were never found
Fell from the sky and hit the ground
Did it all in a single bound
And all your dreams left without a sound
In the vicious cycle of the run around
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
