Saturday, May 31, 2008
So, the Clinton representative goes on this diatribe about how Michigan Uncomitted delegates need to remain uncomitted because they are uncommitted. He completely ignores the fact that only Clinton had her name on the ballot and sings praises of the uncomitted delegate position.
Then Carl Levin speaks:
"You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary."
"You can't say that a ballot where you have one candidate named and one not included is reflective."
Friday, May 30, 2008
At some point I will have to stop thinking about this. But in the meantime...
Women Count PAC, a political action committee, is a group created by five women "who had traveled together around the country to campaign for Hillary Clinton [and who] were feeling frustrated about calls for her to withdraw from the race." The purpose of the group, as explained on their website, is to "ensure that the 51 percent of American citizens who are women have their values and votes counted in the political process".
So, just to be clear, Women Count PAC is a group created by women who campaigned for Hillary Clinton whose purpose is to ensure that the votes of women are counted. Not "all of the vote" or "the vote of men and women". No, Women Count PAC is concerned only with the votes of women given what their site says.
Now, here is a quote from a Newsweek Interview with Rosemary Camposano:
So Women Count PAC is a group formed by women whose purpose is to ensure that the votes of women are counted. Women Count will be protesting the May 31st DNC Rules Committee saying, "Hillary needs YOU to stand up for HER just as she always stands up for you." (capitalization theirs) But according to Rosemary Camposano, "supporting Hillary was not about her being a woman".
Newsweek: Was this ever a matter of Hillary Clinton being the first woman to have real shot at the White House?
Rosemary Camposano: We didn't organize around that principle at all. Supporting Hillary was not about her being a woman, although we admire her as a woman. But the underlying gender discrimination has been shocking. I've been disturbed by it. It's so hard for me to understand how we can be so outraged about racism, then allow the same undercurrent of gender bias to happen.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!
Do you honestly expect people to believe you, Rosemary Camposano? A group of women form a group called "Women Count" whose purpose is to ensure that the votes of women are counted and who will protest a DNC rules committee meeting on behalf of a woman candidate...and you're telling me that the candidate's gender is not a factor, a motivating force, the primary reason that you all give a damn? Really?
When voters in West Virginia were interviewed about the Democratic Primary they were asked why they did not vote for Obama. And you know what some of them said? Some voters in West Virginia actually said to reporters, on camera, that they would not vote for Barack Obama because he was black. Knowing full well that they were being bigots and racists when asked a question they told the fucking truth.
Which is more than you can claim, Rosemary Camposano.
Apparently some people noticed that I wasn't around much lately, so this seems like a good place to dump the things I've been working on.
First up is a project I started a couple of weeks ago to keep the old Japanese reading skill sharp (or, you know, sharpen it for the first time). As of right now, there are two modes, one is a review which provides a kanji, its reading(s) and a definition of sorts (all according to the Tuttle Kanji Cards). The second mode is a quiz, which right now just shows a definition and gives five options of which one is the correct answer. Please note that the screenshots in the links are cropped to eliminate the considerable black space that makes up most of the screen, and the "review" shot is actually three screens on top of each other to show the two different styles of romanization for readings, and that there is the option to have the readings displayed in Japanese.
You can try the review mode of this program by downloading this
The other thing I was working on, but not so much lately, is Lisa Green Teaches Texting.
This thing is designed to satisfy mankind's need to practice texting? If you're using DosBox to run this one, make sure your CPU cycles are set to MAX, or else this thing will take forever to load. Also, there are a couple of things that don't quite work right: the text input screen doesn't word wrap to match the prompt, the cursor acts a little funny, and there was at one time a results screen that would rate and comment on your performance, but the formula pretty much praised everyone, so the results screen just gives a few stats.
You can download the mostly functional version of this here
When I read Healing the Wounds of Democratic Sexism I tried to give Geraldine Ferraro the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that the title alone is unsubstantiated rhetorical idiocy crafted to present a baseless, biased position and what follows is more of the same. The Op-Ed is full of delightful little tidbits of idiocy each of which could fuel a rant of their own:
"They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening."
-How is it frightening and how is it less frightening that you are playing the gender card?
"It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment."
-Who the fuck writes that sentence?
"They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid."
-I love this sentence.
But the bigger problem and more significant grievance I have is that after reading the article seven times now I do not understand how the fuck someone like Geraldine Ferraro can write these things and believe them. Here's an example:
"They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate."
Ok, Clinton supporters are unable to identify with Obama due to his schooling and spouse. But, wait, Clinton went to Yale...and Clinton married an adulterer. So Clinton supporters can identify with Yale, but not Harvard...and they identify with spousal infidelity moreso than spousal academic prowess? REALLY? You just said "they're not stupid", Geraldine. Come on!
And then she has to bring up her own part in this parade of comedy:
"Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist."
Ok, Geraldine, you said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." How is that not racist? You said, effectively, that Obama is in this position because of his race. That's the fucking definition of racism you dolt!
And then we have the Pièce de résistance:
In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.Fuck damn it. Ok.
First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate.
"whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism"
How do you define and determine sexist or racist behavior? What is the criteria? And, you know, if they use the criteria you've nonverbally laid out in this Op-Ed? I can already tell you what the results will be.
"whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly"
I adore the notion that the media was unfair to Clinton. Ignoring the fact that no criteria by which "fair" can be assessed has been provided I heart the sandbox-esque mentality of the "you're being unfair!" argument. It's precious.
"whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate"
Ok, um, Geraldine? If you are doing a study? Your question needs to be whether or not any members of the media actually did this rather than baselessly assume they did it and then try to figure out whether the unverified action was ethical or not.
And, by the way, at the moment I'm going to ignore the fact that a group of women financing a study to determine whether or not we all ought to have voted for Hillary Clinton is about as objective as Big Tobacco financing a study on lung cancer.
But what pisses me the fuck off most of all is that when people in West Virgina were interviewed about the election they said they were not voting for Obama because he is black. Yet I've never heard anyone say they were not voting for Clinton because she is a woman. My understanding is that people do not vote for Clinton because they do not like Clinton. Maybe it is based upon their views of her husband. Maybe it is based upon her being an opportunistic, unfeeling cretin clinging desperately to a contest she has already lost. I do not know.
But not liking a woman is not sexist. Not liking a black man is not racist. Liking or not liking an individual because of their gender, because of their race? THAT is sexist, racist.
And that is a fact Geraldine Ferraro has obviously missed.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Here is the most resent updates to the superdelegate count
Name: Elected / SD / Total / Needed
Obama: 1,660.5 / 322.5 / 1,982 / 43
Clinton: 1,499.5 / 281.5 / 1,781 / 244
Remainine: 86 / 193 / 279
Based on The Huffington Post's reporting, the Democratic leadership are urging the uncommitted superdelegates to make up their minds by this time next week.
Posted by Mike Lewis at 7:14 PM
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I would like to have a conversation with a Hillary Clinton supporter. And not a passive "I'll vote for Hillary" supporter but rather a foaming at the mouth "Obama stole the nomination from her" supporter. You know, one of the fun ones.
While I do not have a Hillary Clinton supporter at my disposal I do have access to this article by Hilary Rosen entitled "Why Do We Stick With Her?", which for the purpose of this rant will serve as, at the very least, an indication of why Hilary Rosen still supports Hillary despite, you know, math.
If we had to uncover the source of support for Hillary I'd say we have two options. And if we ignore the blatant racism then we're left with only one option for why someone would still support Hillary at this point:
But Hillary's campaign is still going for every woman who has spoken up in a meeting and was greeted with silence only to have a man say the same thing and be praised. It endures for the mothers who are taking care of their children and their parents and their home and has no time to take care of herself. It endures for women who are so scared to see her fail because of what it may say about their chances in life. And yes folks, it resonates for all the women who have seen the younger guy come along and get the promotion even though she has worked in the company loyally for years.Yey sexism.
I don't know if I have ever posted this on the blog, but one of the observations I have made in my life is that, if we adhere to the rules of tautologies, sexism is sexism. And anyone who embraces the "Hillary is running for women" mindset is being sexist because that's what "sexist" means, damn it; A pro-female stance is just as sexist as a pro-male stance.
If you want to be sexists that is your choice and I honestly don't care. But don't maintain the position that sexism is somehow wrong if you yourself are being sexists. That's just fucking stupid. And, sure, if Hillary wants to maintain her campaign in an effort to give inspiration to women? That's terrific for women.
But I'm pretty sure that at least 50% of the population are not women. And while women certainly need people in positions of power to speak to their issues it might behoove the country if we could elect a president who speaks for everyone regardless of their gender; someone who would work towards bringing the country together despite the differences of race, gender, and politics. You know, someone like Obama.
Sure, we'd all like to see a female president one day. But if your primary reason for supporting Hillary at this point is that she does not have a penis? Well, that's just fucking stupid.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
In an effort to gain some John McCain Action Center Points I'm going to start with an issue that ought to appeal to those Hillary Clinton voters who are threatening to vote for McCain if Blacky Blacky Demon Coon gets the nomination: Overturning Roe V Wade!
John McCain 2008:
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.So remember, ladies: A vote for John McCain is a vote against Roe V Wade!
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
I've been told that Everyone Is A Sith tends to have a "liberal bias" given that we say mean things about stupid people. Until today I was ok with that; I slept comfortably enough on my metal spring mattress knowing that at least 100 people per day visit our site and think to themselves, "God, that _J_ person is an asshole." But today that all changes. From this day on? EOIAS is all McCain all the time. Why? Because I want some fucking John McCain Online Action Center Points:
Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.I adore points; I yearn for points. The entirety of my being fixates upon and cannot live without points. Be it Diablo II, Pokémon, Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, or academia my primary fixation always has been and always will be the pursuit of points. And now John McCain, non-Nubian, is offering me that which I most desire: points.
Obama is not offering me points. Clinton? Bah! Clinton has no points to offer. But John McCain gets me, man. McCain has focus grouped the shit out of my demographic and discovered what we really want, what we truly desire. We do not want an end to the war in Iraq, sound fiscal policy to end the recession, a divorce from the policies of George W. Bush, or change. No. We want points, damn it. Sweet, sustaining, meaningless points.
Think about it. How much time do you invest in meaningless activities for the pursuit of points? Be they Xbox Live achievement points, Ikaruga scores, forum post counts, currency in an online world, a higher level in Crystal Chronicles? These are all fundamentally activities pursued in an effort to amass points, signs of marked progress within a given context. And now John McCain, visionary, is offering you and I another system by which we may amass points with no discernable benefit! And what's more? All we have to do to amass them is troll blogs. And that's something we do anyway!
It is brilliant, really. John McCain doddered his way onto the caffeine fueled pulse of "the internet types" and discovered the way to get we mindless drones to spread his lies. All he had to do was offer us points. We could not resist.
It's all a matter of knowing your audience, really. If you need meat sacks to go overseas and fight your war just offer a vague promise of college wrapped in some shoddy rhetoric. If you need "internet types" to troll for you? Offer points. It's basically two sides of the same coin. Only instead of facing the risk of death and dismemberment we, McCain's Bloggers, risk the chance of getting temp banned on Daily Kos.
And that is a risk I am willing to take...for points.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A British teenage actor playing a minor role in the upcoming "Harry Potter" film was stabbed to death during a brawl in London on Saturday, police said...Knox plays Ravenclaw student Marcus Belby in the upcoming film "Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince,"
Not Marcus Belby!!!