That's about all I have to say about that. Hopefully Obama will be a good president...we'll see.
My personal opinion is that this inauguration was no more historical than any other except for the very first one. Calling it "historical" because the President is anything other than a white male is keeping the race debate in everyone's face and therefore keeps us divided as a country.
My issue with Obama, or any of the Democrats who ran for President last year, is their left-liberal Socialist policies, not their race or gender.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I couldn't agree more
Via Jawa:
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
And the vote is in!
Oregon ballots have arrived, and mine goes out in the mail tomorrow. Probably no suprise, given the banner thingy over yonder on the right, but yes, I voted McCain/Palin. :)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Of Trolls
Earlier today, I frequented Kate's main blog, as I try to do daily. She doesn't get trolls very often; usually when she does, they're following the link from one of her Pajamas Media posts, or some other mention of Obama.
Anyway, on this post, the first two comments were both from trolls, although they seemed to be of different varieties, and it got me to thinking. How many kinds of trolls are there? Just like that, as Stephen King says, my Muse shat upon my head, and I had the makings of the sort of deep, insightful witticism that keeps all six of you coming back for more. You know who you are. Here are the major species of Troll - if you know of a subspecies, or you're angry because you're a troll that didn't get mentioned, by all means leave me a comment and contribute.
CAPS LOCK TROLLS
Caps Lock Trolls are a main species of troll one finds frequenting blogs, distinguished primarily by their inability to find the Caps Lock key. They are usually fairly incoherent, and one of the best takedowns I've ever read of this sort of idiot is located here.
Elitist Trolls
These guys are pretty easy to spot. Nearly every arguement they use to try to enlighten you is preceeded by some kind of disclaimer about their own qualifications, and it's often, if not usually, followed by a point they're making after having read a 3-column article in Newsweek, Time, or People magazine in the bathroom and done very little, if any, actual research. They usually have little actual understanding of, well, anything, beyond their own shallow worldview. Arguing with one is fun...and by fun I mean of the yank-his-chain-again-and-see-if-he'll-do-that-again variety. Classic example? Michael Moore.
Pompous Windbag Trolls
PWT's are a little more difficult to deal with, largely because they drone. Speaking to one is impossible, because they never actually stop talking; discussions aren't discussions at all, they're an attempt to bludgeon you into a whimpering, bleeding, quivering ball with mind-numbing boredom. Trolls of this variety actually do often know what they're talking about, but rather than actually make a point, one flows into the next seamlessly, preventing any actual dialogue from taking place. The best (and often, only) successful tactic is to put a mirror up and allow them to talk into it, and exit the room quietly. Usually, the troll will not notice.
Clever Troll
Clever Trolls are often, if not always, impressed first and foremost with their own cleverness, and they nearly always want to tell you about it. (I will confess, this is the side of troll-dom that I am closest to, when I do indulge my trollish instincts.) Clever Trolls usually have a good arguement to make, but tend to trip themselves up by being a bit too clever. An excellent example of this sort of troll is Al Franken, whose very cleverness during his SNL years is making his run for office in Minnesota this year somewhat difficult. Saying clever, but insulting and degrading, things about minorities may make people laugh, but it can come back and bite you in the ass....trolls of this stripe are also deprecatingly referred to as "fucking jerks".
Insane Troll
We've all seen them, or encountered them either online or in person. These guys are the waaaaaaaaaaaay out there bunch, that occasionally wander back into the warm light of civilization. I personally think they exist for no other reason than to make the rest of us feel better about ourselves. Here's a classic example.
Clueless Troll
These poor, poor trolls are the saddest ones of the lot, because they don't really mean to be trolls. They can't really help it. Clueless Trolls are the lemmings of the troll world, following whatever suicidal herd instinct they hear that impels them to hurl themselves with little but enthusiasm into the cause of the moment. They form instant assessments of complex problems, rarely, if ever, have any idea what they're talking about, but are great for spreading memes of one sort or another. Whatever it is, they're excited about it.
Evil Trolls
By way of comparison, trolls of this variety are not enthusiastic about anything. They're bitter, angry, want to simply drag everyone around them down into their own funk. According to one of the candidates running for a political office this year, they're usually religious gun owners living in rural America. I disagree - Evil Trolls are found everywhere, and the root of their evilness is disillusionment. Evil Trolls are one of the usual ends for Clueless Trolls who have lost their mojo - sort of like a caterpillar into a butterfly, but backwards and uglier.
Anyway, on this post, the first two comments were both from trolls, although they seemed to be of different varieties, and it got me to thinking. How many kinds of trolls are there? Just like that, as Stephen King says, my Muse shat upon my head, and I had the makings of the sort of deep, insightful witticism that keeps all six of you coming back for more. You know who you are. Here are the major species of Troll - if you know of a subspecies, or you're angry because you're a troll that didn't get mentioned, by all means leave me a comment and contribute.
A Troll Primer:
CAPS LOCK TROLLS
Caps Lock Trolls are a main species of troll one finds frequenting blogs, distinguished primarily by their inability to find the Caps Lock key. They are usually fairly incoherent, and one of the best takedowns I've ever read of this sort of idiot is located here.
Elitist Trolls
These guys are pretty easy to spot. Nearly every arguement they use to try to enlighten you is preceeded by some kind of disclaimer about their own qualifications, and it's often, if not usually, followed by a point they're making after having read a 3-column article in Newsweek, Time, or People magazine in the bathroom and done very little, if any, actual research. They usually have little actual understanding of, well, anything, beyond their own shallow worldview. Arguing with one is fun...and by fun I mean of the yank-his-chain-again-and-see-if-he'll-do-that-again variety. Classic example? Michael Moore.
Pompous Windbag Trolls
PWT's are a little more difficult to deal with, largely because they drone. Speaking to one is impossible, because they never actually stop talking; discussions aren't discussions at all, they're an attempt to bludgeon you into a whimpering, bleeding, quivering ball with mind-numbing boredom. Trolls of this variety actually do often know what they're talking about, but rather than actually make a point, one flows into the next seamlessly, preventing any actual dialogue from taking place. The best (and often, only) successful tactic is to put a mirror up and allow them to talk into it, and exit the room quietly. Usually, the troll will not notice.
Clever Troll
Clever Trolls are often, if not always, impressed first and foremost with their own cleverness, and they nearly always want to tell you about it. (I will confess, this is the side of troll-dom that I am closest to, when I do indulge my trollish instincts.) Clever Trolls usually have a good arguement to make, but tend to trip themselves up by being a bit too clever. An excellent example of this sort of troll is Al Franken, whose very cleverness during his SNL years is making his run for office in Minnesota this year somewhat difficult. Saying clever, but insulting and degrading, things about minorities may make people laugh, but it can come back and bite you in the ass....trolls of this stripe are also deprecatingly referred to as "fucking jerks".
Insane Troll
We've all seen them, or encountered them either online or in person. These guys are the waaaaaaaaaaaay out there bunch, that occasionally wander back into the warm light of civilization. I personally think they exist for no other reason than to make the rest of us feel better about ourselves. Here's a classic example.
Clueless Troll
These poor, poor trolls are the saddest ones of the lot, because they don't really mean to be trolls. They can't really help it. Clueless Trolls are the lemmings of the troll world, following whatever suicidal herd instinct they hear that impels them to hurl themselves with little but enthusiasm into the cause of the moment. They form instant assessments of complex problems, rarely, if ever, have any idea what they're talking about, but are great for spreading memes of one sort or another. Whatever it is, they're excited about it.
Evil Trolls
By way of comparison, trolls of this variety are not enthusiastic about anything. They're bitter, angry, want to simply drag everyone around them down into their own funk. According to one of the candidates running for a political office this year, they're usually religious gun owners living in rural America. I disagree - Evil Trolls are found everywhere, and the root of their evilness is disillusionment. Evil Trolls are one of the usual ends for Clueless Trolls who have lost their mojo - sort of like a caterpillar into a butterfly, but backwards and uglier.
Friday, September 5, 2008
New button thingy on the right.
I got it from Kate, who got it from the Anchoress, who got it from....you get the idea.
Anyway. I can't tease my coworkers about their liberal leanings, but since this is my place, HA!
McCain hasn't failed to impress me yet. There's a lot I don't agree with the guy on, but I totally respect the fact that he's willing to tangle with just about anybody when he feels it's worth not compromising on, and the fact that he's willing to compromise if it's reasonable. Maybe what this country needs is a centrist. I don't know.
Palin is just freakin' awesome. After watching her for the last week, I'm not suprised she's lasted over a year and a half as the governor of the state producing 20% of this country's energy with approval ratings of 80% or better. WOW.
So. There. You got my pick for Presidential ticket this year, as if any of you who know me didn't already know. lol
Anyway. I can't tease my coworkers about their liberal leanings, but since this is my place, HA!
McCain hasn't failed to impress me yet. There's a lot I don't agree with the guy on, but I totally respect the fact that he's willing to tangle with just about anybody when he feels it's worth not compromising on, and the fact that he's willing to compromise if it's reasonable. Maybe what this country needs is a centrist. I don't know.
Palin is just freakin' awesome. After watching her for the last week, I'm not suprised she's lasted over a year and a half as the governor of the state producing 20% of this country's energy with approval ratings of 80% or better. WOW.
So. There. You got my pick for Presidential ticket this year, as if any of you who know me didn't already know. lol
Friday, July 11, 2008
Obama campaign in violation of CAN-SPAM
I've blogged about this a couple of times, but I finally got pushed past my limit when yet another Obama campaign email begging for money got past my spam filter - this time, it was sent from the Oregon Obama Campaign, so it wasn't pre-flagged. I sent them back this:
I have asked that my email address be removed from your mailing listThis particular email came from a fellow by the name of Rob Hill, who is apparently the director of the Oregon Obama campaign. Here's a copy of my complaint to the FTC, and their response:
twice now; once with an email directly to the campaign from the website, and
once through the "unsubscribe" option that is required to be at the bottom of
all bulk email. I am not a supporter of your candidate, and the only
contact I sent your candidate in the first place was a complaint about your
campaign's use of the Fallen Police Officer's Memorial as a location for the
event's portable toilets.
Your campaign is now in violation of 15 USC 7701 et seq, which final rule took effect 7/7/2008. The first request I sent demanding that you remove me from your mailing list was over ten days ago. You are hereby informed that this matter has been forwarded to the Federal Trade Commission.
I contacted Mr. Obama's campaign to complain about the campaign's
conduct in Oregon, via the complaint form on the campaign's website.
Nowhere on the contact form does it imply or state that email addresses given
will be used in a flood of requests for donations, support, volunteer work, et
al.
Since my complaint on 6/10/08, the campaign has contacted me
eighteen times, despite my request twice to remove me from their mailing
list. The first time, I did so via the contact form on the campaign's
website; this was on 6/15/08. The second time, I followed the link from
one of the campaign's emails, being very clear that I do not want to receive
their mail and never did.
The campaign continues to email me, from a variety of email addresses so that my spam filter does not catch all of it. It is time consuming, offensive, and irritating to deal with. In addition to the above named representatives, I have received sender information from the following persons:
Barack Obama
Al Gore
David Plouffe
Jon Carson
Steve Hildebrand
We have received your complaint. Thank you for contacting the FTC. Your complaint has been entered into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database
available to thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.
Your reference number is: 19530136
Friday, July 4, 2008
Keeping it classy
I posted a while back about Obama's campaign gaffe in Portland. I got a response, of course, as I noted, and thought little more of it - I figure their campaign gets a flood of complaints every time Obama or one of his minions puts a foot in the campaign's mouth, and the way his campaign's been going, I'd bet there's rather a lot of it.
Anyway, so I didn't really complain when I started getting spam from Obama's campaign. I don't really give a rip about Al Gore's endorsement, the incessant pleading of the campaign to "help us beat John McCain" with a hand out every time, and the Very Important Announcements of the campaign that the media rushes to get out there every time the guy opens his mouth. I used my Yahoo throwaway email address for it; Yahoo has an excellent spam filter already, and I dutifully flagged every email that made it through as spam, consigning it to the trash bin with the Nigerian money movers and penis enlargement offers.
Wednesday morning, though, I got this:
I was annoyed. For one thing, as I recall, the "so called 527 groups" were a loophole made for lobbyists largely because in 2002, the McCain-Feingold act closed all of the others, leaving this one because the Democrats in Congress screamed about it. Before 2002, of course, it wasn't an issue since candidates could spend soft money any way they wanted to.
There is a world of difference between groups like the Swift Boaters and groups like MoveOn (which, to be fair, is no longer a 527, citing "new politics from the Obama campaign - the cynical part of me wants to see this as a strong message from the Obama camp that MoveOn has become a liability, not an asset). For one thing, although the Swift Boat Veterans were largely credited with torpedoing Kerry's campaign in 2004 (to make an apropros pun), they were formed for the express purpose of addressing the deficiencies of one candidate for one office. MoveOn was formed in 1997 as a response to the Clinton impeachment proceedings, has been a major player in every election from then until now, and is largely credited with the 2006 Democrat takeover of Congress.
Disavowing 527's is probably a good move, and it's one shared by both candidates; McCain has been very critical of them in the past, and remains so today - he was one of the few prominent Republican senators on the sidelines in 2004 that was openly and vocally critical of the Swift Boat Veterans.
No, it's the characterization of Obama's campaign as being "different", the constant drumbeat of "hope" and "change" that offends me. His campaign is playing no less dirty than any other political election in the history of this country, and to paraphrase a famous quotation, those with respect for politics and sausages should never watch either being produced. I realize that's his platform, and it's a pretty good choice considering that he manages to pivot on just about every issue the campaign comes up with, but still....
Anyway, I decided to try unenrolling - went to the Obama site, wrote a complaint, asked to be disenrolled from their mailing list. why they put me on the mailing list in the first place is beyond me, considering my only contact with the campaign was a complaint about their conduct. How that translates into my being a supporter....whatever.
So I went to check my mail, seeing that there's more spam in there, and guess what? More Obama mail! I'll try disenrolling again in a few days and make it clear that the campaign is now in violation of the federal statutes on unsolicited bulk email.
Anyway, so I didn't really complain when I started getting spam from Obama's campaign. I don't really give a rip about Al Gore's endorsement, the incessant pleading of the campaign to "help us beat John McCain" with a hand out every time, and the Very Important Announcements of the campaign that the media rushes to get out there every time the guy opens his mouth. I used my Yahoo throwaway email address for it; Yahoo has an excellent spam filter already, and I dutifully flagged every email that made it through as spam, consigning it to the trash bin with the Nigerian money movers and penis enlargement offers.
Wednesday morning, though, I got this:
Tonight is the crucial financial reporting deadline for June. Right now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. I need your help to take on John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the shady so-called 527 groups that are dedicated to attacking this campaign using millions of dollars in unregulated contributions. Please support this movement by making a donation of $25 by Midnight tonight: https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune
Together we are setting a new standard for how presidential campaigns will be
organized and funded. For the first time in a generation, a presidential
campaign is putting staff in every single state for the general election. Our
staff and the Obama Organizing Fellows are getting to work right now to build on
grassroots energy in all 50 states. And -- unlike John McCain -- we're going to
do it without contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs
that have held too much power for far too long in this country.By putting our organizational and financial future in your hands, it's clear who will be responsible for our success and who we will be accountable to in the White
https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune
House: the people. But in order to match the resources of our opponents, we're
going to have to do more and get more people involved than ever before. Your
donation of $25 right now will help make that happen:I'm counting on you to take the lead and build this campaign. The stakes couldn't be higher, and every American who hopes for something better from their government is counting on us.
Thank you, Barack
I was annoyed. For one thing, as I recall, the "so called 527 groups" were a loophole made for lobbyists largely because in 2002, the McCain-Feingold act closed all of the others, leaving this one because the Democrats in Congress screamed about it. Before 2002, of course, it wasn't an issue since candidates could spend soft money any way they wanted to.
There is a world of difference between groups like the Swift Boaters and groups like MoveOn (which, to be fair, is no longer a 527, citing "new politics from the Obama campaign - the cynical part of me wants to see this as a strong message from the Obama camp that MoveOn has become a liability, not an asset). For one thing, although the Swift Boat Veterans were largely credited with torpedoing Kerry's campaign in 2004 (to make an apropros pun), they were formed for the express purpose of addressing the deficiencies of one candidate for one office. MoveOn was formed in 1997 as a response to the Clinton impeachment proceedings, has been a major player in every election from then until now, and is largely credited with the 2006 Democrat takeover of Congress.
Disavowing 527's is probably a good move, and it's one shared by both candidates; McCain has been very critical of them in the past, and remains so today - he was one of the few prominent Republican senators on the sidelines in 2004 that was openly and vocally critical of the Swift Boat Veterans.
No, it's the characterization of Obama's campaign as being "different", the constant drumbeat of "hope" and "change" that offends me. His campaign is playing no less dirty than any other political election in the history of this country, and to paraphrase a famous quotation, those with respect for politics and sausages should never watch either being produced. I realize that's his platform, and it's a pretty good choice considering that he manages to pivot on just about every issue the campaign comes up with, but still....
Anyway, I decided to try unenrolling - went to the Obama site, wrote a complaint, asked to be disenrolled from their mailing list. why they put me on the mailing list in the first place is beyond me, considering my only contact with the campaign was a complaint about their conduct. How that translates into my being a supporter....whatever.
So I went to check my mail, seeing that there's more spam in there, and guess what? More Obama mail! I'll try disenrolling again in a few days and make it clear that the campaign is now in violation of the federal statutes on unsolicited bulk email.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The more I see of Obama, the less I like
Okay, I'll grant you that the guy isn't personally responsible for everything done in the areas he represents in Congress. I think it'd be fair to say that he's probably going to be pretty blindsided by this one, although in my opinion a presidential candidate should be well aware of all of his own dirty laundry.
That being said, he does bear a significant amount of responsibility for the flow of money and policies that created this. There are photos here.
This kind of wasteful, willful neglect makes me ill on a level that's hard to really put into words.
That being said, he does bear a significant amount of responsibility for the flow of money and policies that created this. There are photos here.
This kind of wasteful, willful neglect makes me ill on a level that's hard to really put into words.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Obama campaign responds!
Heh.
Dear Friend, (An unwarranted assumption, but understandable given that this is pretty obviously a form letter. I'm not a Friend Of Obama, particularly not now...)
Thank you for contacting us. Senator Obama has the deepest respect for
Law Enforcement Officers and their families, especially those who have
made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their fellow Americans. Wasn't this the same guy that was saying religiouis gun-loving blue collar people are bitter and disillusioned...?
We deeply regret the mistake that was made. I bet you do. Now that people have pointed out that it happened... When we learned about the incident, we immediately reached out to the Portland Police Department and the Portland Police Association and sent a formal letter of apology. Please find the text of that letter below.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Sincerely,
Obama for America
It's not much of an apology, to be honest. I note with some interest that the good Senator's campaign isn't apologizing to me (because, you know, I complained about it, but I'm not a cop, don't have a family member that's a cop, or have had a family member that's a cop who's died in the line of duty). Anyway, here's the rest of the email.
Dear Chief Sizer and President King:
When we learned about the Portland Police Memorial, we shared your
disappointment and concern. We offer our deepest apologies to the Portland
Police Department, the Portland Police Association, and the families
and colleagues of those who have fallen in the line of duty.
We want to assure you and your fellow officers that no disrespect was
intended. An unacceptable error in judgment was made while trying to
accommodate disabled supporters. The Obama campaign takes full
responsibility and apologizes for any pain this incident may have caused.
Senator Obama has the deepest respect for law enforcement officers
across the country who make our streets safer and our families more secure,
and for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. Our
campaign has nothing but respect for Portland’s dedicated police
officers.
We want to be clear -this type of mistake will not be repeated. On
behalf of the Obama for America campaign, we are sorry.If you would like to
discuss further or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Rob Hill
Oregon for Obama State Director
I stand by what I said in my previous post, Senator. Take your boorish, elitist campaign out of my state and stay there. "Honest mistake" doesn't begin to cover it - granted, a candidate can't be held 100% responsible for his subordinates, but ultimately, he's the guy in charge of picking the people around him. So far, I remain wholly unimpressed.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Are you fucking kidding me????
It's not like McCain is in danger of losing my vote, but come ON. Do you really want somebody at the helm of this country with this little sensitivity?
Edit: left this for Obama at his campaign webpage:
Senator Obama,
As a long-time Oregon resident and an independent voter, I want to express my disgust at the lack of tact and sensitivity exhibited by your campaign this last week in Portland. I wasn't seriously considering voting for you anyway, but until recently, I hadn't ruled it out.
How dare you disgrace the memory of our fallen police officers by placing toilets directly in the middle of the memorial to them? I honestly don't know what's worse, the fact that it happened in the first place or the half-assed apology sort-of proffered as justification. Do you honestly expect us to believe that out of the entire city of Portland the only place your campaign organizers could find to place the toilets was in the midst of a memorial to cops killed in the line of duty?
You won't be getting my vote, Senator. Take your elitism and your boorish company out of my state and stay there.
Got this canned response by email. Somehow I have a feeling most of their mail is positive, or at least they try to put a positive spin on it.
Thank you for contacting Obama for America. The volume of messages we’re receiving has gone up since Barack’s victory in Iowa. While we cannot respond individually to over a thousand messages per day, the level of interest and thoughtfulness of the comments reflected in these communications are very gratifying. Your thoughts on our campaign and America's future are greatly appreciated.Individual citizens like you are the foundation of this campaign.
Yep. That's me all right. Takin' my foundation and getting the hell away from this idiot.
PORTLAND, OR – Police officers in Portland, Oregon, are still waiting for an apology from Barack Obama after campaign staffers of his recent rally in Portland, Oregon, setup porta potties directly on top of the Portland Police Memorial, which honors the agency’s 25 fallen police officers...
Edit: left this for Obama at his campaign webpage:
Senator Obama,
As a long-time Oregon resident and an independent voter, I want to express my disgust at the lack of tact and sensitivity exhibited by your campaign this last week in Portland. I wasn't seriously considering voting for you anyway, but until recently, I hadn't ruled it out.
How dare you disgrace the memory of our fallen police officers by placing toilets directly in the middle of the memorial to them? I honestly don't know what's worse, the fact that it happened in the first place or the half-assed apology sort-of proffered as justification. Do you honestly expect us to believe that out of the entire city of Portland the only place your campaign organizers could find to place the toilets was in the midst of a memorial to cops killed in the line of duty?
You won't be getting my vote, Senator. Take your elitism and your boorish company out of my state and stay there.
Got this canned response by email. Somehow I have a feeling most of their mail is positive, or at least they try to put a positive spin on it.
Thank you for contacting Obama for America. The volume of messages we’re receiving has gone up since Barack’s victory in Iowa. While we cannot respond individually to over a thousand messages per day, the level of interest and thoughtfulness of the comments reflected in these communications are very gratifying. Your thoughts on our campaign and America's future are greatly appreciated.Individual citizens like you are the foundation of this campaign.
Yep. That's me all right. Takin' my foundation and getting the hell away from this idiot.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
About that scarf...
I haven't done a political post in a while, probably because so much of it seems like the sort of hysterical doomsday predictions one might expect from a classroom of third graders. That goes for both sides, of course....anyway, about that scarf kerfuffle that some of the hard-core right-wing blogs started having a fit about, well, when even Kate had something to say about it, I kinda felt I had to put in my two cents.
First off, my take on it is much like the Jawa Report's. I don't think it's obviously a kaffiyeh...frankly, it looks like exactly what Ray and Dunkin Donuts said it was, which is a simple scarf purchased for the purpose of the shoot, covered in a paisley pattern, and saying it's a kaffiyeh is silly at best.
Kate is also right to point out that the kaffiyeh, by any of its multiple names, is a functional and traditional part of Arab dress, and some variant of it can be found all over the world in any place where it's hot. She's right that simply wearing one doesn't make one a terrorist, or even a sympathizer with one. I disagree with her on the rest of her post, though, largely because a kaffiyeh with the pattern on it popularized by Arafat and others is not just a piece of cloth, and it's not just a headdress. It's a symbol, and saying otherwise is dangerously simplistic.
When a similar mode of dress, and here I'm talking specifically about the version of the kaffiyeh worn by Arafat, is explicitly worn to identify affiliation with a particular movement, political philosophy, racial identity, etc. the act of doing so creates that connection, whether it was there to begin with or not, as long as one is aware of that connection. The PLO's stated goal since its inception has been to destroy Israel, Arafat's repudiation of that in 1998 notwithstanding; there is an inescapable and very real connection between the violence between the various Arabic and Islamic groups and Israel, and the symbols that the two sides rally around every time things heat up. The kaffiyeh is one of those symbols; Arafat wore one every single time he was in public and became associated with it.
One might just as well say the same of lots of other things, though. In certain parts of Los Angeles, wearing either a blue or a red shirt during the mid-80's was tantamount to a death sentence. Schools these days restrict students from wearing clothing closely associated with gangs as a way of keeping their rivalry off school property - it doesn't always work, but one has to start somewhere. Seventy years ago, one group of people in Europe was forced to wear armbands with a yellow six-pointed star on them shortly before six million of them were hauled off and slaughtered. The color red in Russia, China, and most of Eastern Europe has a particular connotation that the rest of the world doesn't. Take some white stars, and thirteen alternating stripes of red and white, put it on a rectangular piece of cloth, and refuse to take it off the pole it's on because some people are shooting at you, and you have the inspiration for the USA's national anthem. A vehicle with two perpendicular intersecting red bars on a white background on a battlefield has come to be connected with medical attention. The list goes on and on and on, endlessly.
People look for meaning where there might not otherwise be any. We associate shapes, colors, patterns, and textures with particular concepts, it's just how we're wired. Take a kaffiyeh of plain white, hold it in place with a simple black agal, and put it on a blue-eyed Caucasian man, and you evoke Lawrence of Arabia. Take one of white with a black spiderweb pattern on it, or a red and white, and you're possibly associating yourself with the Palestinian intifada. Granted, it's not that simplistic....but the connection is there and either ignoring it or ridiculing those that do make that connection is also simplistic. Granted, there are other associations than the ones we're talking about, but meanings change. Context changes. People change.
As a good example of this kind of connection, let's take it out of the realm of Rachael Ray, Dunkin Donuts, or even Yasser Arafat. Zombietime has done a number of photo essays on this subject, so go have a look at two from this month (and read the comments, which in my opinion are the best part):
Nakba-60 - 4th, 6th, 8th, 11th, and particularly the 17th photo of the banner, masked boys shooting rocks with slingshots, a Merkava tank, et al. There's way more, but you'll get my point, just keep scrolling.
UC Berkely's Palestinian Checkpoint - the one of the students in line, about 5 photos down.
San Francisco isn't arid or that hot. The predominant population there is not Arabic. QED, there is another connotation in mind. Is it as simple as "fashionable scarves"? Maybe. Americans have a tendency to do that sort of thing, else there would be no market at all for Che Guevara or Chairman Mao merchandise (15 seconds with Google found those latter two....you don't have to go far), both of which show a deeply distressing lack of historical knowledge about what those two were all about...or else an equally distressing amount of apathy.
I agree with Kate that the whole thing is a hysterical overreaction on the part of both Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson. I disagree, however, that it's as simple as "kaffiyehs have been around for thousands of years, way before Arafat or the Palestinians, so wearing one doesn't mean diddly." One might say the same of the swastika.
Edit: Kate rightly points out in the comments that I paraphrased her post inaccurately. The part of her post that I read that way was this one:
First off, my take on it is much like the Jawa Report's. I don't think it's obviously a kaffiyeh...frankly, it looks like exactly what Ray and Dunkin Donuts said it was, which is a simple scarf purchased for the purpose of the shoot, covered in a paisley pattern, and saying it's a kaffiyeh is silly at best.
Kate is also right to point out that the kaffiyeh, by any of its multiple names, is a functional and traditional part of Arab dress, and some variant of it can be found all over the world in any place where it's hot. She's right that simply wearing one doesn't make one a terrorist, or even a sympathizer with one. I disagree with her on the rest of her post, though, largely because a kaffiyeh with the pattern on it popularized by Arafat and others is not just a piece of cloth, and it's not just a headdress. It's a symbol, and saying otherwise is dangerously simplistic.
When a similar mode of dress, and here I'm talking specifically about the version of the kaffiyeh worn by Arafat, is explicitly worn to identify affiliation with a particular movement, political philosophy, racial identity, etc. the act of doing so creates that connection, whether it was there to begin with or not, as long as one is aware of that connection. The PLO's stated goal since its inception has been to destroy Israel, Arafat's repudiation of that in 1998 notwithstanding; there is an inescapable and very real connection between the violence between the various Arabic and Islamic groups and Israel, and the symbols that the two sides rally around every time things heat up. The kaffiyeh is one of those symbols; Arafat wore one every single time he was in public and became associated with it.
One might just as well say the same of lots of other things, though. In certain parts of Los Angeles, wearing either a blue or a red shirt during the mid-80's was tantamount to a death sentence. Schools these days restrict students from wearing clothing closely associated with gangs as a way of keeping their rivalry off school property - it doesn't always work, but one has to start somewhere. Seventy years ago, one group of people in Europe was forced to wear armbands with a yellow six-pointed star on them shortly before six million of them were hauled off and slaughtered. The color red in Russia, China, and most of Eastern Europe has a particular connotation that the rest of the world doesn't. Take some white stars, and thirteen alternating stripes of red and white, put it on a rectangular piece of cloth, and refuse to take it off the pole it's on because some people are shooting at you, and you have the inspiration for the USA's national anthem. A vehicle with two perpendicular intersecting red bars on a white background on a battlefield has come to be connected with medical attention. The list goes on and on and on, endlessly.
People look for meaning where there might not otherwise be any. We associate shapes, colors, patterns, and textures with particular concepts, it's just how we're wired. Take a kaffiyeh of plain white, hold it in place with a simple black agal, and put it on a blue-eyed Caucasian man, and you evoke Lawrence of Arabia. Take one of white with a black spiderweb pattern on it, or a red and white, and you're possibly associating yourself with the Palestinian intifada. Granted, it's not that simplistic....but the connection is there and either ignoring it or ridiculing those that do make that connection is also simplistic. Granted, there are other associations than the ones we're talking about, but meanings change. Context changes. People change.
As a good example of this kind of connection, let's take it out of the realm of Rachael Ray, Dunkin Donuts, or even Yasser Arafat. Zombietime has done a number of photo essays on this subject, so go have a look at two from this month (and read the comments, which in my opinion are the best part):
Nakba-60 - 4th, 6th, 8th, 11th, and particularly the 17th photo of the banner, masked boys shooting rocks with slingshots, a Merkava tank, et al. There's way more, but you'll get my point, just keep scrolling.
UC Berkely's Palestinian Checkpoint - the one of the students in line, about 5 photos down.
San Francisco isn't arid or that hot. The predominant population there is not Arabic. QED, there is another connotation in mind. Is it as simple as "fashionable scarves"? Maybe. Americans have a tendency to do that sort of thing, else there would be no market at all for Che Guevara or Chairman Mao merchandise (15 seconds with Google found those latter two....you don't have to go far), both of which show a deeply distressing lack of historical knowledge about what those two were all about...or else an equally distressing amount of apathy.
I agree with Kate that the whole thing is a hysterical overreaction on the part of both Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson. I disagree, however, that it's as simple as "kaffiyehs have been around for thousands of years, way before Arafat or the Palestinians, so wearing one doesn't mean diddly." One might say the same of the swastika.
Edit: Kate rightly points out in the comments that I paraphrased her post inaccurately. The part of her post that I read that way was this one:
What hole do Malkin and Johnson live in that they’re convinced the keffiyeh is, in and of itself, a symbol of terrorism? Or that a woman’s wearing of it means, well, anything?
The keffiyeh (also known as the shmagh, shemagh, ghutra, hatta or mashada), is a traditional Arabic men’s headdress. It’s a functional piece of clothing designed to protect the head and neck from the arid, blistering heat of the Middle East. As such, it’s been around for thousands of years — long before Yasser Arafat, the Taliban or any other Islamic extremists.
To argue that, because terrorists have been seen wearing such clothing, anyone who wears similar items must also be a terrorist is laughable.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Oh, now this is bad news.
Hurricanes? I can deal with that.
Rising seas? Okay, not good, but we can handle that.
Climate change? Definitely not good, but it could be worse.
This is truly bad.
Rising seas? Okay, not good, but we can handle that.
Climate change? Definitely not good, but it could be worse.
This is truly bad.
An Associated Press report details the findings from climate scientist Jim Salinger, who presented his research at the Institute of Brewing and Distilling's annual convention in Wellington, New Zealand. The grim results? Climate change may affect the production of malting barley, an ingredient crucial to the tasty beers we all know and love.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Joy
So I got to see Bill Clinton today.
Four hours of traffic congestion, two hours of a standing line outside my office building by people hoping it wouldn't rain, special treatment of the students on campus, and a great deal of enjoyment seeing a middle-aged manager get giddy and squealy at seeing an ex-President from across the street for approximately eight seconds was had.
The fun bit was hearing about Mr. Clinton's handling of a 20-something heckler inside who kept interrupting him. It went something like, "Young man, I've come a long way, and some of these people here have waited hours outside in the cold to see me. You've been trying to give my speech for me since I got here...now, I'm willing to let you have your say. I'll tell you what. I'll finish my speech, and when I'm done, I'm going to give you a few minutes up here on stage to talk. We'll see if anybody stays to listen to you. K?"
Like him or not, you have to admire the man's ability to handle a crowd. :)
Four hours of traffic congestion, two hours of a standing line outside my office building by people hoping it wouldn't rain, special treatment of the students on campus, and a great deal of enjoyment seeing a middle-aged manager get giddy and squealy at seeing an ex-President from across the street for approximately eight seconds was had.
The fun bit was hearing about Mr. Clinton's handling of a 20-something heckler inside who kept interrupting him. It went something like, "Young man, I've come a long way, and some of these people here have waited hours outside in the cold to see me. You've been trying to give my speech for me since I got here...now, I'm willing to let you have your say. I'll tell you what. I'll finish my speech, and when I'm done, I'm going to give you a few minutes up here on stage to talk. We'll see if anybody stays to listen to you. K?"
Like him or not, you have to admire the man's ability to handle a crowd. :)
Monday, March 17, 2008
Fun with Liberals
There's a joke where I work, told only in certain company, that if you're a) white, b) male, and c) straight, then you don't get to be diverse...diversity only refers to people that aren't one of those, see? I got a graphic illustration of that earlier today, and I had to share, since I'm not one, not two, but (you guessed it) all three.
I got a link to this news story via my official email. It wasn't a press release, or anything from the Director's Office stating that it was to be distributed. It came, in fact, from somebody with a gmail address, via somebody with a Comcast address, and is the sort of thing I ignore as spam. The subject line, though, was "Fwd: US Violates International Human Rights of People of Color" (there's that term again - see people without color don't have those rights...got it?), which was different enough from the usual glurge that I made the mistake of opening it. Mind you, passing along chain letters is a no-no to begin with, but that's a whole separate issue.
If you're a bit conservative, as I am, you might find that article a bit bad for your blood pressure. The "UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination", huh? I didn't hear any outrage from them during any of the half-dozen "ethnic cleansing" purges in various parts of the world, probably because the countries doing the purging and/or in charge of the Human Rights Commission are the self-same countries that have state-sponsored ways of dealing with pesky minorities....Libya, Syria, China....you know. Them.
Anyway, it struck me as amusing that the guy pushing this article is the "diversity" guy for our office, which given the person in question is much like putting lipstick on a pig. I'll call him Clueless Multiculturalist, or CM for the purposes of the rest of this post. I sent him a polite email:
WG: I'd really prefer not to receive this sort of thing. I find it highly offensive; please don't forward me this kind of garbage in the future. Thanks.
Not suprisingly, I got a short reply a bit later:
CM: Not everything in this world is fair, just like I will not take you off any staff list. In the future if you get something from me that you find offensive please just delete it. Any info that is send out to staff is for informatino only so you are empowered to not read it or delete it.
Isn't that sweet? Passing along offensive forwards is okay because the world isn't fair. Mind you, I never asked for him to alter the distribution list (which by the way is the "official" one) - I asked that he not send it to me. But I'm empowered to not read it. This blew my mind. Here's the guy in charge of diversity telling me that if I'm offended by something he says or passes along that he's not supposed to to begin with, then I'm empowered to not be offended by virtue of the fact that I don't have to open his email.
Rather than explain this to him, I wrote him back and attempted to point out one small flaw in his cunning plan.
WG: The fact that you're using a staff list distribution group to distribute content you've been informed is offensive should be a cue of your own; you're empowered to create your own distribution lists.
I'll refer you back to this conversation the next time you ask me why I didn't get the memo.
What the hell, a little Office Space humor never hurt anybody. His reply:
CM Again, WG, do whatever you need to do with the information you get, but I will not take you off ay of my list since you are part of this branch/agency. What ever you do with your email is up to you and it's not my concern. I will not play this silly game with you so drop it.
I love the sound of righteous indignation in the morning. Now he's offended that I was offended! Not only that, my expressing (twice) that I simply didn't want to be included any longer in the distribution of offensive content went sailing right past him - he doesn't have the administrator rights to our email system to make the changes he's insisting he won't make anyway. I suppose I could have continued pummeling him with the clue bat, but he was getting all huffy and indignant on me, and we can't have that. Red refers to him as the "Mayor of Munchkin-land", because he looks like the guy in the Wizard of Oz, and when he gets upset he tends to swell up a bit, huff and puff, and make general unpleasantness for all around him.
I did, however, create an email-handling rule just for him. Now everything he sends that reaches me goes directly to the trash - I'd have set up one to auto-deny everything, thus preventing delivery, but in order to do that I'd have to have set up an auto-reply function, whish is a major no-no. I asked an IT friend of mine what would have happened if I'd forwarded it to the list of known spam addresses from senders, and he said that although he wasn't sure, it might have auto-blacklisted the entire department's email system.
Good thing I didn't do that. >:)
I got a link to this news story via my official email. It wasn't a press release, or anything from the Director's Office stating that it was to be distributed. It came, in fact, from somebody with a gmail address, via somebody with a Comcast address, and is the sort of thing I ignore as spam. The subject line, though, was "Fwd: US Violates International Human Rights of People of Color" (there's that term again - see people without color don't have those rights...got it?), which was different enough from the usual glurge that I made the mistake of opening it. Mind you, passing along chain letters is a no-no to begin with, but that's a whole separate issue.
If you're a bit conservative, as I am, you might find that article a bit bad for your blood pressure. The "UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination", huh? I didn't hear any outrage from them during any of the half-dozen "ethnic cleansing" purges in various parts of the world, probably because the countries doing the purging and/or in charge of the Human Rights Commission are the self-same countries that have state-sponsored ways of dealing with pesky minorities....Libya, Syria, China....you know. Them.
Anyway, it struck me as amusing that the guy pushing this article is the "diversity" guy for our office, which given the person in question is much like putting lipstick on a pig. I'll call him Clueless Multiculturalist, or CM for the purposes of the rest of this post. I sent him a polite email:
WG: I'd really prefer not to receive this sort of thing. I find it highly offensive; please don't forward me this kind of garbage in the future. Thanks.
Not suprisingly, I got a short reply a bit later:
CM: Not everything in this world is fair, just like I will not take you off any staff list. In the future if you get something from me that you find offensive please just delete it. Any info that is send out to staff is for informatino only so you are empowered to not read it or delete it.
Isn't that sweet? Passing along offensive forwards is okay because the world isn't fair. Mind you, I never asked for him to alter the distribution list (which by the way is the "official" one) - I asked that he not send it to me. But I'm empowered to not read it. This blew my mind. Here's the guy in charge of diversity telling me that if I'm offended by something he says or passes along that he's not supposed to to begin with, then I'm empowered to not be offended by virtue of the fact that I don't have to open his email.
Rather than explain this to him, I wrote him back and attempted to point out one small flaw in his cunning plan.
WG: The fact that you're using a staff list distribution group to distribute content you've been informed is offensive should be a cue of your own; you're empowered to create your own distribution lists.
I'll refer you back to this conversation the next time you ask me why I didn't get the memo.
What the hell, a little Office Space humor never hurt anybody. His reply:
CM Again, WG, do whatever you need to do with the information you get, but I will not take you off ay of my list since you are part of this branch/agency. What ever you do with your email is up to you and it's not my concern. I will not play this silly game with you so drop it.
I love the sound of righteous indignation in the morning. Now he's offended that I was offended! Not only that, my expressing (twice) that I simply didn't want to be included any longer in the distribution of offensive content went sailing right past him - he doesn't have the administrator rights to our email system to make the changes he's insisting he won't make anyway. I suppose I could have continued pummeling him with the clue bat, but he was getting all huffy and indignant on me, and we can't have that. Red refers to him as the "Mayor of Munchkin-land", because he looks like the guy in the Wizard of Oz, and when he gets upset he tends to swell up a bit, huff and puff, and make general unpleasantness for all around him.
I did, however, create an email-handling rule just for him. Now everything he sends that reaches me goes directly to the trash - I'd have set up one to auto-deny everything, thus preventing delivery, but in order to do that I'd have to have set up an auto-reply function, whish is a major no-no. I asked an IT friend of mine what would have happened if I'd forwarded it to the list of known spam addresses from senders, and he said that although he wasn't sure, it might have auto-blacklisted the entire department's email system.
Good thing I didn't do that. >:)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Too good not to share
Ran across this at Hot Air. Personal politics aside, isn't it nice to see a pompous ass get what's coming to him? Watch the video, that's some good stuff right there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
