Ba-dump bump.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Swine Flu Prevention
This just in! The best tip for avoiding the Swine Flu? Don't do this:
Ba-dump bump.
Ba-dump bump.
A Word From Our Sponsor: "You're Stupid!"
One thing I’m sure we here in America have in common is the hatred of TV commercials.
Now I’ll stipulate that there are occasionally cool, interesting commercials that are worth the whole 30 seconds. Unfortunately these are usually clustered into Super Bowl Sunday, which is Network Television’s desperate plot to keep people from going to the bathroom. I think that whenever ad producers come up with a quality idea, they stockpile it for the Super Bowl. No sense wasting it on Biggest Loser. So that leaves the other 364 for commercials meant to creep into your subconscious and cling there until they become an answer on Jeopardy.
“I’ll take Lowest Common Denominator for $100, Alex.”
Let me try to briefly explain something I learned back in my Radio/TV/Film classes back in school. Networks don’t really care what they put on the air. Not in the specific sense. TV programs only exist to entice the public to watch the commercials. Networks may hype their “gripping dramas” and “hilarious comedies”, but the quality of the program is incidental. It’s merely a tool to get more people watching, therefore making them able to charge more for airing commercials. Networks do not endeavor to improve the public’s consciousness in any way; they endeavor to make money. Commercials = money. It’s as simple as that. Why do you think they fought tooth and nail over the VCR back in the ‘80s, and they fought to prevent Tivo in the late 90’s? They’re terrified that we’re finding ways to avoid their commercials. I’m surprised they let the remote control become part of the standard TV package.
So knowing this, there’s a lot of thought that goes into the commercials we see. And that’s why I hate them so much. I don’t like what they think of us. They think we’re morons.
To the Ad Agencies that make these things the American Public can be broken down into these nice little segments:
Men: Brain-dead dipshits trained to salivate uncontrollably at the prospect of more beef, hot chicks and “hemi” engines. And beer… lots and lots of beer. Men shown inside a house are incapable of accomplishing absolutely anything without close oversight by their all-knowing, ever-smiling, boundlessly patient wives.
Women: Shallow harpies who slobber shamelessly over the prospect of their brain-dead dipshit bringing them a shiny trinket from “Jared’s, The Galleria of Jewelry”. (And if I may, what the fuck is a “Galleria”, if not what some yutz though was a fancy way of saying “Gallery?”) If allowed, women will spend every dollar they can get their hands on buying jars of stuff to put on their faces, hair, hips, legs, feet, whatever, if only to coerce their faithful slob to get his ass over to Jared’s. This is in and around hovering over their slacker teens and adorable moppets, to make sure they’re eating reaching their RDA of glutens and preservatives.
Kids: Know-it-all teen slackers and precocious know-it-all tots… If, Heaven forbid Mom is not around to tell Dad what to do, you can count on the kids to bring wise beyond their years insight to the buffoon of the household. That’s only if they can park their skateboards for a second, put down the Mountain Dew, and get off the goddamned cell phone. (That dear old Dad pays for, of course.)
This is us, as seen by the companies from which you buy, well, everything.
I used to work in retail, so I admit that I already have a pretty low perception of John Q. Public. I’ve seen us up close and it’s not pretty. So I admit that there can be bits of truth in all these crass depictions. But I have to wonder, are the advertisers depicting us as we are, or are we acting like what we see on TV?
I hate when they just make shit up and act like it’s something special, like “Drinkability.” Have you ever seen some smug putz in an ugly hat lounging around waxing poetic about the “drinkability” of his beer? Not in any of the bars I’ve hung out at… It would be like, “You know
what pal? If it’s beer, it’s drinkable. It ain’t special. Now let’s consider your ass. It’s got “bootability. Now get the hell out of my face before punt your ass into the bar across the street! And Judge Smails called, he wants his hat back”
I also believe that there is a special place in Hell for ad jingle writers. They have a talent for writing song snippets so banal, yet so self-sustaining that you just want to jam pencils in your ears.
If we want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forget sending more troops. Send loudspeakers, playing the “$5 Footlooooong” jingle. Gah! By the end of the first day, 10,000 terrorists will have blown themselves up. I just typed that and already I can’t get it out of my head. It makes me want to strap a bomb to my chest and run out to Subway right now. The same goes for that McDonalds fish sandwich song. As if that Billy Bass thing wasn’t irritating enough on it’s own…
The commercials that are driving me totally batshit right now are those new Comcast commercials. Those of you in areas not (poorly) serviced by Comcast have been fortunate enough to duck these but here’s an example below:
>
It’s like a graphic artist dropped some acid and got a robot to write the jingle. Then they get these sideways-looking, smirking automatons to ramble this nonsense for an entire minute. It’s like they thought those Free Credit Report.com commercials were just too peppy… “Lets keep the smirking slackers, but just make it more monotone!”
And they think that this will make us want to sign up for Comcast? If I had any alternative here, I’d cancel my Comcast account just to smite them for subjecting me to that idiotic commercial 3 times a night.
I want to leave you with a takeaway. The next time you’re watching TV, pay attention to the commercials a bit. Ask yourself, “What are they telling me here? Why are these people doing the things they’re doing? Why are they acting the way they’re acting? What does the advertiser think of the people in his commercial?”
“And given all that, what does he think of me?”
Now I’ll stipulate that there are occasionally cool, interesting commercials that are worth the whole 30 seconds. Unfortunately these are usually clustered into Super Bowl Sunday, which is Network Television’s desperate plot to keep people from going to the bathroom. I think that whenever ad producers come up with a quality idea, they stockpile it for the Super Bowl. No sense wasting it on Biggest Loser. So that leaves the other 364 for commercials meant to creep into your subconscious and cling there until they become an answer on Jeopardy.
“I’ll take Lowest Common Denominator for $100, Alex.”
Let me try to briefly explain something I learned back in my Radio/TV/Film classes back in school. Networks don’t really care what they put on the air. Not in the specific sense. TV programs only exist to entice the public to watch the commercials. Networks may hype their “gripping dramas” and “hilarious comedies”, but the quality of the program is incidental. It’s merely a tool to get more people watching, therefore making them able to charge more for airing commercials. Networks do not endeavor to improve the public’s consciousness in any way; they endeavor to make money. Commercials = money. It’s as simple as that. Why do you think they fought tooth and nail over the VCR back in the ‘80s, and they fought to prevent Tivo in the late 90’s? They’re terrified that we’re finding ways to avoid their commercials. I’m surprised they let the remote control become part of the standard TV package.So knowing this, there’s a lot of thought that goes into the commercials we see. And that’s why I hate them so much. I don’t like what they think of us. They think we’re morons.
To the Ad Agencies that make these things the American Public can be broken down into these nice little segments:
Men: Brain-dead dipshits trained to salivate uncontrollably at the prospect of more beef, hot chicks and “hemi” engines. And beer… lots and lots of beer. Men shown inside a house are incapable of accomplishing absolutely anything without close oversight by their all-knowing, ever-smiling, boundlessly patient wives.
Women: Shallow harpies who slobber shamelessly over the prospect of their brain-dead dipshit bringing them a shiny trinket from “Jared’s, The Galleria of Jewelry”. (And if I may, what the fuck is a “Galleria”, if not what some yutz though was a fancy way of saying “Gallery?”) If allowed, women will spend every dollar they can get their hands on buying jars of stuff to put on their faces, hair, hips, legs, feet, whatever, if only to coerce their faithful slob to get his ass over to Jared’s. This is in and around hovering over their slacker teens and adorable moppets, to make sure they’re eating reaching their RDA of glutens and preservatives.
Kids: Know-it-all teen slackers and precocious know-it-all tots… If, Heaven forbid Mom is not around to tell Dad what to do, you can count on the kids to bring wise beyond their years insight to the buffoon of the household. That’s only if they can park their skateboards for a second, put down the Mountain Dew, and get off the goddamned cell phone. (That dear old Dad pays for, of course.)
This is us, as seen by the companies from which you buy, well, everything.
I used to work in retail, so I admit that I already have a pretty low perception of John Q. Public. I’ve seen us up close and it’s not pretty. So I admit that there can be bits of truth in all these crass depictions. But I have to wonder, are the advertisers depicting us as we are, or are we acting like what we see on TV?
I hate when they just make shit up and act like it’s something special, like “Drinkability.” Have you ever seen some smug putz in an ugly hat lounging around waxing poetic about the “drinkability” of his beer? Not in any of the bars I’ve hung out at… It would be like, “You know
what pal? If it’s beer, it’s drinkable. It ain’t special. Now let’s consider your ass. It’s got “bootability. Now get the hell out of my face before punt your ass into the bar across the street! And Judge Smails called, he wants his hat back”I also believe that there is a special place in Hell for ad jingle writers. They have a talent for writing song snippets so banal, yet so self-sustaining that you just want to jam pencils in your ears.
If we want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forget sending more troops. Send loudspeakers, playing the “$5 Footlooooong” jingle. Gah! By the end of the first day, 10,000 terrorists will have blown themselves up. I just typed that and already I can’t get it out of my head. It makes me want to strap a bomb to my chest and run out to Subway right now. The same goes for that McDonalds fish sandwich song. As if that Billy Bass thing wasn’t irritating enough on it’s own…
The commercials that are driving me totally batshit right now are those new Comcast commercials. Those of you in areas not (poorly) serviced by Comcast have been fortunate enough to duck these but here’s an example below:
>
It’s like a graphic artist dropped some acid and got a robot to write the jingle. Then they get these sideways-looking, smirking automatons to ramble this nonsense for an entire minute. It’s like they thought those Free Credit Report.com commercials were just too peppy… “Lets keep the smirking slackers, but just make it more monotone!”
And they think that this will make us want to sign up for Comcast? If I had any alternative here, I’d cancel my Comcast account just to smite them for subjecting me to that idiotic commercial 3 times a night.
I want to leave you with a takeaway. The next time you’re watching TV, pay attention to the commercials a bit. Ask yourself, “What are they telling me here? Why are these people doing the things they’re doing? Why are they acting the way they’re acting? What does the advertiser think of the people in his commercial?”
“And given all that, what does he think of me?”
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The “Aha Moment”™
I saw in the news yesterday that there is a dispute now over the rights to the “Aha Moment”™. You may have seen these commercials by Liberty Mutual where people describe pivotal moments in their lives as their “Aha Moments”™.
I’m not terribly clear what the link is to Liberty Mutual, but in using this phrase, they have
incurred the wrath of Oprah. It seems she is claiming she owns the term and wants Liberty Mutual to cease and desist its use.
If they are wise, they will give Oprah what she wants. It is important to remember that she commands an army of minions, willing to do what she wants, buy what she wants, and most importantly boycott whom she wants. Trust me guys, it’s easier this way. You got some commercials on; they got noticed, now run along. No one crosses the Big O and lives to tell the tale.
Except me, of course, because those spots got me thinking about the Aha Moments™ in my own life. And at great risk of personal peril, I dare to bring them to you now.
1) Learning to tell time
I had a devil of time with telling time as a boy. (Remember, this was long before digital clocks and watches became commonplace.) We covered it in class, my parents tried to teach me… nothing worked. I knew the even up o’clocks, but unless it was the top of the hour, I just didn’t get it. They would always asked me if I could count by fives… That was easy! I could rattle off 5-10-15-20… but I just didn’t see how it applied.
Then one day, in 1st grade, I was staring at the clock and bing, I got it. It just sort of clicked into place, making the connection between the numbers and the fives. Been on time ever since.
2) Not giving a shit
It’s always been popular among students to complain that what they’re learning won’t matter outside of school. I used to as well, until I learned one of my life’s basic tenets in junior year English Lit. We were studying Thoreau and Emerson and learning about self-reliance and non-conformism and it really hit home.
I used to be a kid that killed himself trying to please everyone… being everything to all people. It never worked, least of all for me. Suddenly I realized; it didn’t really matter what other people thought. I had a handful of solid friends: I didn’t need anything from anyone else… approval, status, lunch money… I had what I needed, so why give a shit what anyone else thought? Bing!
School (and life) was so much easier once you don’t give a shit. The yoke of conformity was thrown off and I began to really enjoy life, thanks to English Lit class and a brilliant teacher named Roy Williamson. He allowed me to use his blackboard to get into a limerick war with some Neanderthal in an earlier class. (Whom I destroyed, of course.) He let me post a daily pun on the board as well. He gave me encouragement and a sense of place when I had been floating on the periphery for my whole school life.
I went on to join the school newspaper, which gave me an outlet for my wise-ass writing and more importantly, an audience. While I might have joined the paper without Mr. Williamson’s class, I would have spent too much time wondering if anyone would like what I was writing. Instead, I just let it fly and moved on.
Mr. Williamson retired after that year so I didn’t get to take College Composition with him as a senior. Some friends and I visited his house once that year, just to say hi, but I always regret that I never got a chance to thank him for so positively affecting my life. Teachers like that don’t come along every day.
3) Understanding computers
I went through school just ahead of the PC revolution, so to me they were always some kind of inscrutable, mysterious Pandora’s Box, capable of blowing up at a moment’s notice.
I first used a desktop PC in 1992, at the home office of the music retailer I worked for. It was running Lotus and WordPerfect, and a jerry-rigged version of internal email. I learned how to do things bit by bit, usually from the admins in the office. Everything was keyboard oriented… there were no mice.
I never used Windows or even a mouse until I moved to Baltimore in 1997. I picked up some Excel and Word pretty easily, but I really didn’t know much more about how things operated. I still hadn’t even seen the Internet. But the ability to edit what I wrote in-screen was life changing.
Finally one day I was poking around some of the folders on my work PC and it dawned on me that all the information stored on a computer were basically just like a file drawer system… files, in folders, in bigger folders, in drawers. Bing!
I could find things, file things and do some minor troubleshooting. It was in that moment that I realized that I could actually own one of these things. In August of 1998, I bought my first PC… a training PC if you will. It had about 47 gigs of storage and a 15” monitor. Off I went, not looking back.
Now I can’t imagine life without one. I can keep in touch with friends and family all over the country. I’ve met people from all over the country. All my Christmas shopping is done online. Heck, pretty much everything I buy that isn’t groceries comes from an online store. Plane tickets, hotel reservations, photography, news, weather, sports, music, TV, movies, driving directions… everything comes from my computing life.
There was a time that I thought the idea of my owning a computer was preposterous. Now I’m on my 3rd website. Live and learn, baby. No looking back now.
I’m not terribly clear what the link is to Liberty Mutual, but in using this phrase, they have
incurred the wrath of Oprah. It seems she is claiming she owns the term and wants Liberty Mutual to cease and desist its use.If they are wise, they will give Oprah what she wants. It is important to remember that she commands an army of minions, willing to do what she wants, buy what she wants, and most importantly boycott whom she wants. Trust me guys, it’s easier this way. You got some commercials on; they got noticed, now run along. No one crosses the Big O and lives to tell the tale.
Except me, of course, because those spots got me thinking about the Aha Moments™ in my own life. And at great risk of personal peril, I dare to bring them to you now.
1) Learning to tell time
I had a devil of time with telling time as a boy. (Remember, this was long before digital clocks and watches became commonplace.) We covered it in class, my parents tried to teach me… nothing worked. I knew the even up o’clocks, but unless it was the top of the hour, I just didn’t get it. They would always asked me if I could count by fives… That was easy! I could rattle off 5-10-15-20… but I just didn’t see how it applied.
Then one day, in 1st grade, I was staring at the clock and bing, I got it. It just sort of clicked into place, making the connection between the numbers and the fives. Been on time ever since.
2) Not giving a shit
It’s always been popular among students to complain that what they’re learning won’t matter outside of school. I used to as well, until I learned one of my life’s basic tenets in junior year English Lit. We were studying Thoreau and Emerson and learning about self-reliance and non-conformism and it really hit home.
I used to be a kid that killed himself trying to please everyone… being everything to all people. It never worked, least of all for me. Suddenly I realized; it didn’t really matter what other people thought. I had a handful of solid friends: I didn’t need anything from anyone else… approval, status, lunch money… I had what I needed, so why give a shit what anyone else thought? Bing!
School (and life) was so much easier once you don’t give a shit. The yoke of conformity was thrown off and I began to really enjoy life, thanks to English Lit class and a brilliant teacher named Roy Williamson. He allowed me to use his blackboard to get into a limerick war with some Neanderthal in an earlier class. (Whom I destroyed, of course.) He let me post a daily pun on the board as well. He gave me encouragement and a sense of place when I had been floating on the periphery for my whole school life.
I went on to join the school newspaper, which gave me an outlet for my wise-ass writing and more importantly, an audience. While I might have joined the paper without Mr. Williamson’s class, I would have spent too much time wondering if anyone would like what I was writing. Instead, I just let it fly and moved on.
Mr. Williamson retired after that year so I didn’t get to take College Composition with him as a senior. Some friends and I visited his house once that year, just to say hi, but I always regret that I never got a chance to thank him for so positively affecting my life. Teachers like that don’t come along every day.
3) Understanding computers
I went through school just ahead of the PC revolution, so to me they were always some kind of inscrutable, mysterious Pandora’s Box, capable of blowing up at a moment’s notice.
I first used a desktop PC in 1992, at the home office of the music retailer I worked for. It was running Lotus and WordPerfect, and a jerry-rigged version of internal email. I learned how to do things bit by bit, usually from the admins in the office. Everything was keyboard oriented… there were no mice.
I never used Windows or even a mouse until I moved to Baltimore in 1997. I picked up some Excel and Word pretty easily, but I really didn’t know much more about how things operated. I still hadn’t even seen the Internet. But the ability to edit what I wrote in-screen was life changing.
Finally one day I was poking around some of the folders on my work PC and it dawned on me that all the information stored on a computer were basically just like a file drawer system… files, in folders, in bigger folders, in drawers. Bing!
I could find things, file things and do some minor troubleshooting. It was in that moment that I realized that I could actually own one of these things. In August of 1998, I bought my first PC… a training PC if you will. It had about 47 gigs of storage and a 15” monitor. Off I went, not looking back.
Now I can’t imagine life without one. I can keep in touch with friends and family all over the country. I’ve met people from all over the country. All my Christmas shopping is done online. Heck, pretty much everything I buy that isn’t groceries comes from an online store. Plane tickets, hotel reservations, photography, news, weather, sports, music, TV, movies, driving directions… everything comes from my computing life.
There was a time that I thought the idea of my owning a computer was preposterous. Now I’m on my 3rd website. Live and learn, baby. No looking back now.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Odd Bits 3: Torture and Bill Maher
The Interrogator Speaks
An issue eliciting much brouhaha across our country is in right now (besides who’s gotten voted off American Idol) has surfaced with the release of the so-called “Torture Memos”. These memos note the high-level approval to torture as a regular tactic, almost immediately after 9/11.
I understand the nature of this conflict… you have the “Keep Us Safe At All Costs” camp versus the “Thou Shalt Not Torture Lest We Become Our Enemy” camp.
I tend to come in under the latter, though allowing for shades of gray. There are far too many cases where there is not a black and white answer. (Unlike on “24”, where you almost always know what has to be done.)
An issue eliciting much brouhaha across our country is in right now (besides who’s gotten voted off American Idol) has surfaced with the release of the so-called “Torture Memos”. These memos note the high-level approval to torture as a regular tactic, almost immediately after 9/11.
I understand the nature of this conflict… you have the “Keep Us Safe At All Costs” camp versus the “Thou Shalt Not Torture Lest We Become Our Enemy” camp.
I tend to come in under the latter, though allowing for shades of gray. There are far too many cases where there is not a black and white answer. (Unlike on “24”, where you almost always know what has to be done.)
But regardless of the camp, there is one argument that trumps all… “Does it work?”
That shoe seemed to have dropped this week with an Op-Ed in the New York Times by a fellow that was involved with the interrogations. He wrote:
“One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.”
“There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.”
That shoe seemed to have dropped this week with an Op-Ed in the New York Times by a fellow that was involved with the interrogations. He wrote:
“One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.”
“There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.”
Game, set, match. If it doesn’t work and is unnecessary, then it is pointless to dither about the moral points of torturing. End it, and reap the benefits of taking the high road for whatever reason.
Another thing these memos have accomplished is to get the onus off the field-level personnel conducting the dirty work. I bet if these were public a couple years ago, we wouldn’t have convicted the low-level grunts at Abu Ghraib. It’s clear that the orders to torture and humiliate came from the highest levels of the Bush Administration and not just a few “bad apples.” Just like in real life… the rich and powerful skate while those without cash or clout do the time.
I Wish I’d Said That Dept.
Have you ever had something on your mind and spill it out in some silly blog and then someone comes along and says it smarter, funnier and more pointedly? I get that a lot and it happened again when I read this column by Bill Maher in the LA Times. He used part of it on his show “Real Time with Bill Maher” last night, but the whole thing is worth the read.
Some of the chestnuts:
“If conservatives don't want to be seen as bitter people who cling to their guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiments, they should stop being bitter and clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiments.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
“Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending
fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law. And here's the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.Do these sound like the concerns of a healthy, vibrant political party?”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“The GOP base is convinced that Obama is going to raise their taxes, which he just lowered. But, you say, "Bill, that's just the fringe of the Republican Party." No, it's not. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is not afraid to say publicly that thinking out loud about Texas seceding from the Union is appropriate considering that ... Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people? I'm not sure exactly what Perry's independent nation would look like, but I'm pretty sure it would be free of taxes and Planned Parenthood. And I would have to totally rethink my position on a border fence.”
You should read the whole column from the link above. To me, Bill Maher is almost worth the cost of getting HBO by itself.
Note: I'll have another post soon, probably tomorrow. It was orignally part of this one but I'm running long. Sometimes once I start typing, I just can't stop. I may be shaped like a bowling pin, but my fingers are in great shape. I also haven't forgotten about the last installment of my Favorite Villains series. Stay tuned...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Odd Bits, Earl Grey Edition
Texas Tea-bags
Another day, another piss-ant demonstration of feigned outrage from the right.
Have you heard about the tea party demonstrations this week, that Fox News so dunderheadedly referred to as “Teabagging”? I had to laugh, not so much at the tragedy of so many people protesting their getting tax CUT, but at Fox News coming up with a term so rooted in gay porn that no one could possibly take them seriously. Well, no one that doesn’t watch Fox News, that is. The website Gawker has a great rundown on this smirkfest.
.Presiding over his Texas delegation of teabaggers was Governor Rick Perry, who didn’t dismiss the idea over Texas seceding from the Union over this little issue. The funny part is where he seems to think that the right to secede was negotiated into the terms when they were admitted to the Union. Like the rest of his followers on this issue, he’s WRONG.
“He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.”Gail Collins in the New York Times made some hay about how the States yelling the loudest about government spending are also the States that are receiving the most. Further, she wonders how a crowd can stand there waving American flags and be yelling “Secede!”
I know how. Inbreeding.
I say let them secede. Stevie Ray Vaughan is dead, Johnny Winter is almost there, and ZZ Top 
hasn’t made a decent album in years. And by seceding, they will automatically raise the collective IQ and gene pool of rest of the country. They will also spare us from having to watch the Dallas Cowboys every week. In 3 weeks the Cowboys and the Titans can play a home and home series, then meet in the Super Colossal Texas Bowl. They can have Miss Texas Two-Step crown the winner in Jerry Jones’ luxury owner’s box while the ghost of Ann Richards spoils the sheep dip and we won’t have to hear about them for the rest of the football season.
Eat, Drink & Be Harry
The trailer for the new Harry Potter movie came out and I can’t wait to see it. I know I’m a little old to be a Potter fan, but they’re just plain good family fun. Plus I get to giggle at all the religious conservatives that get their shorts in a bunch over “witchcraft” destroying our nation’s youth. After all, that's their job.
Arenas Envy
New blog “Fanhood: For Fans - By Fans” is dedicated to exploring the game experience at various ballparks around the country. On 3/31, they had a wonderful post on attending a game at Heinz Field. They’ve also covered PNC Park and Wrigley Field, which are 2 more places that are near and dear to my heart. I’m looking forward to reading about their further adventures.
Another day, another piss-ant demonstration of feigned outrage from the right.
Have you heard about the tea party demonstrations this week, that Fox News so dunderheadedly referred to as “Teabagging”? I had to laugh, not so much at the tragedy of so many people protesting their getting tax CUT, but at Fox News coming up with a term so rooted in gay porn that no one could possibly take them seriously. Well, no one that doesn’t watch Fox News, that is. The website Gawker has a great rundown on this smirkfest.
.Presiding over his Texas delegation of teabaggers was Governor Rick Perry, who didn’t dismiss the idea over Texas seceding from the Union over this little issue. The funny part is where he seems to think that the right to secede was negotiated into the terms when they were admitted to the Union. Like the rest of his followers on this issue, he’s WRONG.“He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.”Gail Collins in the New York Times made some hay about how the States yelling the loudest about government spending are also the States that are receiving the most. Further, she wonders how a crowd can stand there waving American flags and be yelling “Secede!”
I know how. Inbreeding.
I say let them secede. Stevie Ray Vaughan is dead, Johnny Winter is almost there, and ZZ Top 
hasn’t made a decent album in years. And by seceding, they will automatically raise the collective IQ and gene pool of rest of the country. They will also spare us from having to watch the Dallas Cowboys every week. In 3 weeks the Cowboys and the Titans can play a home and home series, then meet in the Super Colossal Texas Bowl. They can have Miss Texas Two-Step crown the winner in Jerry Jones’ luxury owner’s box while the ghost of Ann Richards spoils the sheep dip and we won’t have to hear about them for the rest of the football season.Eat, Drink & Be Harry
The trailer for the new Harry Potter movie came out and I can’t wait to see it. I know I’m a little old to be a Potter fan, but they’re just plain good family fun. Plus I get to giggle at all the religious conservatives that get their shorts in a bunch over “witchcraft” destroying our nation’s youth. After all, that's their job.
Arenas Envy
New blog “Fanhood: For Fans - By Fans” is dedicated to exploring the game experience at various ballparks around the country. On 3/31, they had a wonderful post on attending a game at Heinz Field. They’ve also covered PNC Park and Wrigley Field, which are 2 more places that are near and dear to my heart. I’m looking forward to reading about their further adventures.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
In Snopes We Trust
My mom forwarded me a very troubling email this morning, no doubt with the intent to ruin my tranquil Saturday morning of newspaper, Internet and Diet Coke.
It was an email she’d received “exposing” my hoax bible, Snopes.com as nothing but a liberal mouthpiece. It was, of course, the usual right-wing smear tactic, mixing truths with innuendo and adding flawed and biased assumptions.
You could see by the forwarding tracks that this had changed hands a number of times, so knowing the actual writer/speaker’s identity is impossible. At least one person added their take as an introduction:
EXACTLY what I have been saying for a long time, liberal democrats; for my trouble - constantly being called wrong. Read this and weep! I am going to have drink! ROFL
Joan
May your path be strewn with flowers,Memories, friends, and happy hours.May blessings come from Heaven above,To fill your life with peace and love.
.....An English Blessing.....
I don’t know who “Joan” is, but from her writing, I can see why she’s always being called wrong. And she should be careful… Friends don’t let friends drink and ROFL. They might spill their drink.
It also cracks me up that “Joan” quotes some pithy saying about flowers, friends and Heaven and then goes on to attach hateful, prejudicial screed. It’s typical hypocrisy of the religious right, if you ask me.
It never fails to amuse me how people will believe anything, no matter how far-fetched or unsubstantiated, as long as it supports their pre-existing opinions.
Here is the text of the original message itself:
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the web site about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticism - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms that the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
(The bolding is from the original… bluz)Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are Jewish - very Democrat (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out that the Mikkelsons' liberalism is revealing itself in their web site findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems
apparent that's all the Mikkelson do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
[Check out the Wikipedia page for yourself: Snopes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
OK, here’s what I have to say about that.
Yes, the Mikkelson's are a small-time operation, no question about that. One doesn’t need to be formally trained in anything in order to do some legwork and make some phone calls. And if, as they quote, they have been doing this for 13 years, that sounds pretty experienced to me.
Now look at the 3 main areas presented here:
1) The State Farm case: If this is not just another fabrication, I suspect this was too small-time an event to elicit real activity and research. The Mikkelsons get a ton of items to research; this might not have been a big enough deal. I just searched Snopes using the words "State Farm Obama" and there were no matches. I doubt whoever wrote this ever actually looked on Snopes. He's also taking his agent's word verbatim. The agent has a dog in this fight, and may not have reason to be completely truthful.
2) Mikkelsons are Jewish: I want to look at the big bolded paragraph line by line, because there is too much bullshit there to cover in a summary.
Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are Jewish - very Democrat (party) and extremely liberal.
First of all, who says? I’ll be the first to say that I have no idea if they’re Jewish or not. Is there some kind of proof, or are they just Jewish the way President Obama is Muslim… because a bunch of idiot keep saying that they are? The kicker is that the question of whether they are Jewish or not really doesn’t matter. This is lazy bigotry at it's best. Because they may be Jewish they're automatically raging Liberals and incapable of researching Internet claims in an unbiased manner? That's just faulty logic wrapped in prejudice, much like so many of the right-wing screeds that Snopes debunks.
Again, if the writer had ever actually used Snopes, he's see that the also debunk misinformation targeting the conservatives. If they were so biased, why would they bother to do that? The Mikkelson's actually research these things... they call the police stations, the newspapers, the town officials, and they reproduce public records and leave references. How much verification do you ever see in the original smears?
As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.
Excuse me, but NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! In an election year especially, liberals try to discredit conservatives and conservatives try to discredit liberals. This proves absolutely nothing, other than the writer is unable to come up with a viable argument. A “purpose agenda?” What the hell does that even mean? I guess you could say that every agenda has a purpose, or else it wouldn’t be an agenda. It kills me how people just throw a couple words together and pretend it makes sense.
There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out that the Mikkelsons' liberalism is revealing itself in their web site findings. Gee, what a shock?
Otherwise known as the Fox News tactic: have all your stations and commentators repeat some ridiculous tidbit and then report that said tidbit is all over the news. This sentence means only one thing: people may be complaining about the Mikkelson’s “liberalism”. You can find people on the Internet complaining about any number of hair-brained things… It has no bearing on whether it is truthful or valid. Yes, “Gee what a shock”, as in “Gee, I can’t believe that conservatives are complaining when their ill-conceived slurs are exposed for what they are.”
3) Wikipedia says so: Shows the complete lack of knowledge of what Wikipedia is. Anyone with an agenda can go on Wikipedia and enter some unsubstantiated bit of gossip. It is a user-generated system. Anyone can post on any topic, truthfully or not. Often times, users that know better can go back and change or delete the information. No one with any sense uses Wikipedia as an absolute source on anything, other than as a pool of opinions. The very thing that makes it great, being generated entirely by “the people”, is also its greatest weakness.
That said; I just went to the Wikipedia page on Snopes to see exactly what they “got to the bottom of”. In short, nothing: just a brief history of the website, what it is that they do, and who relies on them. What this tells me is that the use of Wikipedia in this rant is just so much window dressing. The writer takes a banal factoid cited by a source he considers reputable and then adds his own conclusions. The continued citing of the reference is nothing but an attempt to confuse the reader into thinking that the reference is the source of the conclusion. And they pray to God that no one actually looks it up for themselves, or else the whole house of cards falls to the ground.
Closing ArgumentsIn my opinion, this whole article is just an attempt to smear an organization that has proven adept as ferreting out other biased, exaggerated and untruthful charges so often levied by the right. It's what they do... discredit the messenger. It's Rovian politics at its best. Feel free to pass this on to anyone that has seen the original email.
It was an email she’d received “exposing” my hoax bible, Snopes.com as nothing but a liberal mouthpiece. It was, of course, the usual right-wing smear tactic, mixing truths with innuendo and adding flawed and biased assumptions.
You could see by the forwarding tracks that this had changed hands a number of times, so knowing the actual writer/speaker’s identity is impossible. At least one person added their take as an introduction:
EXACTLY what I have been saying for a long time, liberal democrats; for my trouble - constantly being called wrong. Read this and weep! I am going to have drink! ROFL
Joan
May your path be strewn with flowers,Memories, friends, and happy hours.May blessings come from Heaven above,To fill your life with peace and love.
.....An English Blessing.....
I don’t know who “Joan” is, but from her writing, I can see why she’s always being called wrong. And she should be careful… Friends don’t let friends drink and ROFL. They might spill their drink.
It also cracks me up that “Joan” quotes some pithy saying about flowers, friends and Heaven and then goes on to attach hateful, prejudicial screed. It’s typical hypocrisy of the religious right, if you ask me.
It never fails to amuse me how people will believe anything, no matter how far-fetched or unsubstantiated, as long as it supports their pre-existing opinions.
Here is the text of the original message itself:
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the web site about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticism - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms that the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
(The bolding is from the original… bluz)Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are Jewish - very Democrat (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out that the Mikkelsons' liberalism is revealing itself in their web site findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems
apparent that's all the Mikkelson do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
[Check out the Wikipedia page for yourself: Snopes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
OK, here’s what I have to say about that.
Yes, the Mikkelson's are a small-time operation, no question about that. One doesn’t need to be formally trained in anything in order to do some legwork and make some phone calls. And if, as they quote, they have been doing this for 13 years, that sounds pretty experienced to me.
Now look at the 3 main areas presented here:
1) The State Farm case: If this is not just another fabrication, I suspect this was too small-time an event to elicit real activity and research. The Mikkelsons get a ton of items to research; this might not have been a big enough deal. I just searched Snopes using the words "State Farm Obama" and there were no matches. I doubt whoever wrote this ever actually looked on Snopes. He's also taking his agent's word verbatim. The agent has a dog in this fight, and may not have reason to be completely truthful.
2) Mikkelsons are Jewish: I want to look at the big bolded paragraph line by line, because there is too much bullshit there to cover in a summary.
Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are Jewish - very Democrat (party) and extremely liberal.
First of all, who says? I’ll be the first to say that I have no idea if they’re Jewish or not. Is there some kind of proof, or are they just Jewish the way President Obama is Muslim… because a bunch of idiot keep saying that they are? The kicker is that the question of whether they are Jewish or not really doesn’t matter. This is lazy bigotry at it's best. Because they may be Jewish they're automatically raging Liberals and incapable of researching Internet claims in an unbiased manner? That's just faulty logic wrapped in prejudice, much like so many of the right-wing screeds that Snopes debunks.
Again, if the writer had ever actually used Snopes, he's see that the also debunk misinformation targeting the conservatives. If they were so biased, why would they bother to do that? The Mikkelson's actually research these things... they call the police stations, the newspapers, the town officials, and they reproduce public records and leave references. How much verification do you ever see in the original smears?
As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.
Excuse me, but NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! In an election year especially, liberals try to discredit conservatives and conservatives try to discredit liberals. This proves absolutely nothing, other than the writer is unable to come up with a viable argument. A “purpose agenda?” What the hell does that even mean? I guess you could say that every agenda has a purpose, or else it wouldn’t be an agenda. It kills me how people just throw a couple words together and pretend it makes sense.
There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out that the Mikkelsons' liberalism is revealing itself in their web site findings. Gee, what a shock?
Otherwise known as the Fox News tactic: have all your stations and commentators repeat some ridiculous tidbit and then report that said tidbit is all over the news. This sentence means only one thing: people may be complaining about the Mikkelson’s “liberalism”. You can find people on the Internet complaining about any number of hair-brained things… It has no bearing on whether it is truthful or valid. Yes, “Gee what a shock”, as in “Gee, I can’t believe that conservatives are complaining when their ill-conceived slurs are exposed for what they are.”
3) Wikipedia says so: Shows the complete lack of knowledge of what Wikipedia is. Anyone with an agenda can go on Wikipedia and enter some unsubstantiated bit of gossip. It is a user-generated system. Anyone can post on any topic, truthfully or not. Often times, users that know better can go back and change or delete the information. No one with any sense uses Wikipedia as an absolute source on anything, other than as a pool of opinions. The very thing that makes it great, being generated entirely by “the people”, is also its greatest weakness.
That said; I just went to the Wikipedia page on Snopes to see exactly what they “got to the bottom of”. In short, nothing: just a brief history of the website, what it is that they do, and who relies on them. What this tells me is that the use of Wikipedia in this rant is just so much window dressing. The writer takes a banal factoid cited by a source he considers reputable and then adds his own conclusions. The continued citing of the reference is nothing but an attempt to confuse the reader into thinking that the reference is the source of the conclusion. And they pray to God that no one actually looks it up for themselves, or else the whole house of cards falls to the ground.
Closing ArgumentsIn my opinion, this whole article is just an attempt to smear an organization that has proven adept as ferreting out other biased, exaggerated and untruthful charges so often levied by the right. It's what they do... discredit the messenger. It's Rovian politics at its best. Feel free to pass this on to anyone that has seen the original email.
Of course, then they'd just try to discredit me.
_________________________________________________________
Epilogue
OK, that was going to be the end of this post, but before publishing just for giggles, I did a Google search using “Bud Gregg” and “State Farm”. I assure you that every word above that line was written before I saw these web pages. If only I’d looked this up before spending 2 hours of my Saturday morning on this subject.
First up was Snopes’ posting itself on the whole sign issue, which basically shows the original brouhaha. (OK, I was wrong, they did post the item, but they must not have tagged it with the words I used to search for it.) In a 2008 update, they address the email in question:
“An email circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject. FactCheck.org has verified that the email is false.”
There was a link provided to the page in question on FactCheck.org and I clicked it to find not only a thorough debunking of this particular email but example upon example of the Mikkelson’s diligence in debunking internet rumors, regardless of ideology.
So don’t just take my word for it. Look for yourselves. It’s exactly what the ideologues don’t want you to do. And that goes for the next preposterous email you receive, too, regardless of ideological bent. If Snopes or FactCheck say it's true, that's Word. That's Church. That's da fact, Jack!
OK, that was going to be the end of this post, but before publishing just for giggles, I did a Google search using “Bud Gregg” and “State Farm”. I assure you that every word above that line was written before I saw these web pages. If only I’d looked this up before spending 2 hours of my Saturday morning on this subject.
First up was Snopes’ posting itself on the whole sign issue, which basically shows the original brouhaha. (OK, I was wrong, they did post the item, but they must not have tagged it with the words I used to search for it.) In a 2008 update, they address the email in question:
“An email circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject. FactCheck.org has verified that the email is false.”
There was a link provided to the page in question on FactCheck.org and I clicked it to find not only a thorough debunking of this particular email but example upon example of the Mikkelson’s diligence in debunking internet rumors, regardless of ideology.
So don’t just take my word for it. Look for yourselves. It’s exactly what the ideologues don’t want you to do. And that goes for the next preposterous email you receive, too, regardless of ideological bent. If Snopes or FactCheck say it's true, that's Word. That's Church. That's da fact, Jack!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Today's Caption Contest Winner... Me!
The Baltimore Sun has a blog that does daily caption contests and today I learned that I won for a day last week. This was my 3rd win since I started entering, so I'm pretty happy about it. Yay for me!
The article goes on to talk about how women's sense of smell is superior to men's, but I couldn't argue either reading of that headline.
Considering the subject dealt with clowns, I felt it was a step forward just to point and laugh.
This was the previous win, from January:
And the first, from November 2008:
Now, from the "No Shit" Headline Dept:
The article goes on to talk about how women's sense of smell is superior to men's, but I couldn't argue either reading of that headline.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
I, The Jury
For the first time in my life, I got picked for jury duty and actually had to go in. I know a lot of people try to avoid jury duty at all costs, but I’ve always looked forward to doing it. I’m curious to see how the system actually works. So here’s how my day went:
I start by arriving at the courthouse just after 8:00 and entering the “Disney line” snaking back from the metal detector. Moved pretty fast, compared to the airline security checks, even though there was just one detector and 2 security people. Less luggage to check, I suppose.
I found one of the waiting rooms, got myself my morning Diet Coke and found a seat. Soon, they began the announcements and played the introductory video. In what I’m sure was an attempt to make our jury service seem less burdensome, they pointed out via re-enactment that in the olden days, people used to go through what was called, Trial by Ordeal. No, they didn’t make them go to
football games in Cleveland; they would bind the accused persons hands and feet and chuck them into the water. If they floated, they were guilty and if they sunk, they were innocent. All I could do was think of the witch scene in Holy Grail and giggle.
Ka-chunk!
I start by arriving at the courthouse just after 8:00 and entering the “Disney line” snaking back from the metal detector. Moved pretty fast, compared to the airline security checks, even though there was just one detector and 2 security people. Less luggage to check, I suppose.
I found one of the waiting rooms, got myself my morning Diet Coke and found a seat. Soon, they began the announcements and played the introductory video. In what I’m sure was an attempt to make our jury service seem less burdensome, they pointed out via re-enactment that in the olden days, people used to go through what was called, Trial by Ordeal. No, they didn’t make them go to
football games in Cleveland; they would bind the accused persons hands and feet and chuck them into the water. If they floated, they were guilty and if they sunk, they were innocent. All I could do was think of the witch scene in Holy Grail and giggle.
Also in the video, they gave a special warning for us not to expect someone to confess to the crime five minutes before the top of the 
hour, as had occurred in every episode of Perry Mason ever made. To illustrate, they showed a Perry Mason clip of a guy coming out of the court’s audience to confess to the crime to which they were about to convict his girlfriend. Obviously, Perry Mason was not working in the Baltimore jurisdiction. Here, if a guy’s girlfriend is getting sent up for his crime, he’s not confessing, he’s in the parking lot doing back flips.
They also mentioned that we would not be hearing any “ka-chunk” sound, like you hear with every scene change on “Law and Order.” OK, they didn’t say that, but they should have. I was looking forward to that.
They also pointed out, via announcement, that now we jurors could check in, get our jury summons validated and get our $15 pay in one fell swoop, where in the past that would entail 3 separate call ups. I silently thanked them for eventually taking action on something that should have been painfully obvious. I do like the idea of getting paid before doing your job. Maybe that can be a part of the next Stimulus Package. Oh, and before anyone asks, they emphasized the steep penalties if you skip out after checking in… 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine. They began calling us up in groups to check in. I had a very low juror number; in fact, it was the lowest in the range of people called to appear. So I was in the first group for just about everything that day.
So now we wait until a judge somewhere needs a jury. Lunch is at 12:30, unless we’re called into court. I dig into my crossword puzzle, expecting to spend at least at hour on it, as I usually do on Fridays. Joke’s on me though… I knock it out in 20 minutes. Looks like it’s going to be a long day. I fiddle around with the Sudoku puzzle for a while, but get tired of that. They begin showing the movie Meet The Parents. I dig out my book, “Monty Python and Philosophy” and keep an eye on both.
Random observation: I was surprised at the racial mix in the room. I was expecting a Baltimore City jury pool to be predominantly black. In fact, it looked to be about 60/40.
I noticed that when I took a bathroom break, they have lots signs on the wall about sanitary practices. They do not, however, have a trashcan for your paper towels. I guess they put all their funding into DVDs.
Just about noon, they make the announcement that they need some jurors. Hot damn, time to spring into action! I’m included in the first group of 50, so off we go the courtroom and all I can think is, “but when’s lunch?”
So we get there and have attendance taken to make sure no one got lost on the walk. (We had to change buildings.) Our courtroom accommodations were fairly Spartan… not at all like the high ceilings you see on your average episode of Perry Mason. They had three rows of benches to sit in, which were like church pews without the kneelers. As we were packed in there cheek to cheek, I began to have serious regrets about having chili for dinner the night before. It had been an uncomfortable morning already, but you never want to let anything escape while sitting on a church pew, especially with armed guards nearby. Wouldn’t want them thinking that someone in the jury pool had smuggled in a machine gun.
The judge explained that the charge in this case was “possession of a gun, in violation of parole.” First order of business was the “voir dire” (meaning to “speak the truth”) or in other words, the jury questioning. That’s when the group is asked a number of questions and anyone for whom the answer is yes is to stand up and give their juror number. The questions:
Do you or does anyone in your immediate family know the defendant?
Do you or does anyone in your immediate family know the judge or attorneys?
Are you or anyone in your immediate family working in law enforcement?
No one stood for any of these.
Are you more or less likely to believe testimony from a police officer based on the fact that they’re a police officer?
Just one guy stood, a middle-aged white guy.
Now, a 2-part question: Have you or has anyone in your family been a victim of a crime, OR have you or anyone in your family ever committed a crime?
Just about everyone in the room stood up. I don’t think there were 12 people left sitting, so they couldn’t get rid of all of us…
Last question: Due to moral or religious grounds, are you unable to make a fair decision regarding this trial?
Sounds like the “get out of jail free” card… 2 or 3 women stand up, one of which I already heard muttering about not wanting to be there.
After the questions, each juror that had stood for any question was brought up to the judge to explain. Guess who was first?
I approached the bench, and tried not to look at the defendant. This was not easy… he was about 5’7, 280 pounds, with a wide Mohawk. Looked like a bouncer at a low-class strip bar… a cross between the actor Anthony Anderson and Mr. T. He didn’t seem very menacing, however; in fact he was doing a lot of smiling and bouncing around. He didn’t seem very worried.
The judge asks me to explain my “yes” answer, and tell her about having my car broken into and ignition busted out while it was parked at the subway station last summer. She and the two attorneys ask about the case… was it ever solved? Was I satisfied with the police response? Would I be able to render a fair decision?
I said that I could, and with that, I was allowed to return to my seat. Now I just had to wait for the rest of my peers to do the same. They let us go for lunch about 1:10, (thank you, Your Honor), so I went to Quiznos and then back to my office to take care of off-loading that chili.
I returned from lunch to more waiting, as the rest of the jury pool approached the bench and tried to get out of serving. It took another hour… luckily I had a fresh Sports Illustrated to read
. Since they have the bench and attorney tables miked, whenever people were discussing something at the bench, they turned off the mics and left a static noise, like when the TV is on a non-broadcasting channel. That way, you can’t hear squat, except the white noise. A little bit of that is fine, but after a while, you just want to claw your ears off.
After the attorneys and judge huddled for about 10 minutes, the clerk began calling us up, six at a time, to stand and face the attorney’s table. (Again, guess who’s first?) Each of us has to step forward and then both attorneys are asked if the juror is acceptable. If either says no, the juror is returned to the back seating. If both say yes, the juror takes a seat in the jury box. They took me, and I became Juror #1. Dig it! That’s me, blazing the trail and ready to deal a little justice. At least the seats in the jury box had pads and were fairly comfortable.
After they filled the 12 seats, each attorney was asked if the panel was acceptable. This surprised me… If we were OK a second ago, what’s different now? They ended up pulling two people back off the jury, called up more people from the back of the room, and got us back to 12. For what it’s worth, we were roughly split between men and women, had 8 blacks, 3 whites and an Indian. They also appointed two alternates.
As it was late in the afternoon now, the judge told us to report on Monday afternoon, and the trial was expected to last until Wednesday.
I arrive at the courthouse Monday afternoon at 1:15, anxious to get on with the show. I report to the jury room as instructed and then proceed to WAIT FOR 2 AND A HALF GODDAMN HOURS. Nice people I was in there with, but after a while, we were starting to get punchy. We could hear court stuff going out outside the door, but we were given specific instructions Not To Open the Door. If we had any questions, we had to knock and give the clerk a written question for the judge. Eventually one of the jurors did just that, wanting to know what was going on.
Another 10 minutes went by before the clerk came to get us. Whoo Hoo! Time to do some decidin’ and mete out a little jurisprudence.
Buuuuuut… no. The judge told us that she apologizes for the long wait, but unfortunately, we would not be able to try the case today. We were dismissed as jurors.
Shit.
What a letdown… for me, anyway. Some of my fellow jurors were just fine with that, but I really wanted to see it through. Instead, after all the legal foreplay, I’m left with nothing but a ringing case of judicial blue-balls.
hour, as had occurred in every episode of Perry Mason ever made. To illustrate, they showed a Perry Mason clip of a guy coming out of the court’s audience to confess to the crime to which they were about to convict his girlfriend. Obviously, Perry Mason was not working in the Baltimore jurisdiction. Here, if a guy’s girlfriend is getting sent up for his crime, he’s not confessing, he’s in the parking lot doing back flips.They also mentioned that we would not be hearing any “ka-chunk” sound, like you hear with every scene change on “Law and Order.” OK, they didn’t say that, but they should have. I was looking forward to that.
They also pointed out, via announcement, that now we jurors could check in, get our jury summons validated and get our $15 pay in one fell swoop, where in the past that would entail 3 separate call ups. I silently thanked them for eventually taking action on something that should have been painfully obvious. I do like the idea of getting paid before doing your job. Maybe that can be a part of the next Stimulus Package. Oh, and before anyone asks, they emphasized the steep penalties if you skip out after checking in… 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine. They began calling us up in groups to check in. I had a very low juror number; in fact, it was the lowest in the range of people called to appear. So I was in the first group for just about everything that day.
So now we wait until a judge somewhere needs a jury. Lunch is at 12:30, unless we’re called into court. I dig into my crossword puzzle, expecting to spend at least at hour on it, as I usually do on Fridays. Joke’s on me though… I knock it out in 20 minutes. Looks like it’s going to be a long day. I fiddle around with the Sudoku puzzle for a while, but get tired of that. They begin showing the movie Meet The Parents. I dig out my book, “Monty Python and Philosophy” and keep an eye on both.
Random observation: I was surprised at the racial mix in the room. I was expecting a Baltimore City jury pool to be predominantly black. In fact, it looked to be about 60/40.
I noticed that when I took a bathroom break, they have lots signs on the wall about sanitary practices. They do not, however, have a trashcan for your paper towels. I guess they put all their funding into DVDs.
Just about noon, they make the announcement that they need some jurors. Hot damn, time to spring into action! I’m included in the first group of 50, so off we go the courtroom and all I can think is, “but when’s lunch?”
So we get there and have attendance taken to make sure no one got lost on the walk. (We had to change buildings.) Our courtroom accommodations were fairly Spartan… not at all like the high ceilings you see on your average episode of Perry Mason. They had three rows of benches to sit in, which were like church pews without the kneelers. As we were packed in there cheek to cheek, I began to have serious regrets about having chili for dinner the night before. It had been an uncomfortable morning already, but you never want to let anything escape while sitting on a church pew, especially with armed guards nearby. Wouldn’t want them thinking that someone in the jury pool had smuggled in a machine gun.
The judge explained that the charge in this case was “possession of a gun, in violation of parole.” First order of business was the “voir dire” (meaning to “speak the truth”) or in other words, the jury questioning. That’s when the group is asked a number of questions and anyone for whom the answer is yes is to stand up and give their juror number. The questions:
Do you or does anyone in your immediate family know the defendant?
Do you or does anyone in your immediate family know the judge or attorneys?
Are you or anyone in your immediate family working in law enforcement?
No one stood for any of these.
Are you more or less likely to believe testimony from a police officer based on the fact that they’re a police officer?
Just one guy stood, a middle-aged white guy.
Now, a 2-part question: Have you or has anyone in your family been a victim of a crime, OR have you or anyone in your family ever committed a crime?
Just about everyone in the room stood up. I don’t think there were 12 people left sitting, so they couldn’t get rid of all of us…
Last question: Due to moral or religious grounds, are you unable to make a fair decision regarding this trial?
Sounds like the “get out of jail free” card… 2 or 3 women stand up, one of which I already heard muttering about not wanting to be there.
After the questions, each juror that had stood for any question was brought up to the judge to explain. Guess who was first?
I approached the bench, and tried not to look at the defendant. This was not easy… he was about 5’7, 280 pounds, with a wide Mohawk. Looked like a bouncer at a low-class strip bar… a cross between the actor Anthony Anderson and Mr. T. He didn’t seem very menacing, however; in fact he was doing a lot of smiling and bouncing around. He didn’t seem very worried.
The judge asks me to explain my “yes” answer, and tell her about having my car broken into and ignition busted out while it was parked at the subway station last summer. She and the two attorneys ask about the case… was it ever solved? Was I satisfied with the police response? Would I be able to render a fair decision?
I said that I could, and with that, I was allowed to return to my seat. Now I just had to wait for the rest of my peers to do the same. They let us go for lunch about 1:10, (thank you, Your Honor), so I went to Quiznos and then back to my office to take care of off-loading that chili.
I returned from lunch to more waiting, as the rest of the jury pool approached the bench and tried to get out of serving. It took another hour… luckily I had a fresh Sports Illustrated to read
. Since they have the bench and attorney tables miked, whenever people were discussing something at the bench, they turned off the mics and left a static noise, like when the TV is on a non-broadcasting channel. That way, you can’t hear squat, except the white noise. A little bit of that is fine, but after a while, you just want to claw your ears off.After the attorneys and judge huddled for about 10 minutes, the clerk began calling us up, six at a time, to stand and face the attorney’s table. (Again, guess who’s first?) Each of us has to step forward and then both attorneys are asked if the juror is acceptable. If either says no, the juror is returned to the back seating. If both say yes, the juror takes a seat in the jury box. They took me, and I became Juror #1. Dig it! That’s me, blazing the trail and ready to deal a little justice. At least the seats in the jury box had pads and were fairly comfortable.
After they filled the 12 seats, each attorney was asked if the panel was acceptable. This surprised me… If we were OK a second ago, what’s different now? They ended up pulling two people back off the jury, called up more people from the back of the room, and got us back to 12. For what it’s worth, we were roughly split between men and women, had 8 blacks, 3 whites and an Indian. They also appointed two alternates.
As it was late in the afternoon now, the judge told us to report on Monday afternoon, and the trial was expected to last until Wednesday.
I arrive at the courthouse Monday afternoon at 1:15, anxious to get on with the show. I report to the jury room as instructed and then proceed to WAIT FOR 2 AND A HALF GODDAMN HOURS. Nice people I was in there with, but after a while, we were starting to get punchy. We could hear court stuff going out outside the door, but we were given specific instructions Not To Open the Door. If we had any questions, we had to knock and give the clerk a written question for the judge. Eventually one of the jurors did just that, wanting to know what was going on.
Another 10 minutes went by before the clerk came to get us. Whoo Hoo! Time to do some decidin’ and mete out a little jurisprudence.
Buuuuuut… no. The judge told us that she apologizes for the long wait, but unfortunately, we would not be able to try the case today. We were dismissed as jurors.
Shit.
What a letdown… for me, anyway. Some of my fellow jurors were just fine with that, but I really wanted to see it through. Instead, after all the legal foreplay, I’m left with nothing but a ringing case of judicial blue-balls.
Ka-chunk!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Top Villain Countdown Part 2
Last week I began running down my list of favorite villains, starting with Monsters. This installment will be a little lighter, covering two smaller lists of “Comedic” Villains and “Character” Villains.
Comedic Villains
3. Hedley Lamarr, played by Harvey Korman in “Blazing Saddles
Harvey Korman stepped out from the Carol Burnett show to portray a brilliant comedic villain, foil to Sheriff Bart and confidant of the “Gov” (Mel Brooks). No word if Tim Conway was unavailable.
Key quote: “I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the west. Take this down. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists!!” (See below for full effect.)
2. Kim Jong Il, voiced by Trey Parker in “Team America: World Police”
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the guys that do “South Park” did an action movie that makes fun of the lunkheads that blow up the entire city in pursuit of the bad guys, and the weenie Hollywood establishment that protests their methods. And they did it all with marionettes.
The brains behind this particular bad-guy operation is North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. He is played with a broad Asian accent and he gets most of the good lines. Then after numerous scenes of depraved brutality, he gets the show’s big number, the somber lament, “I’m So Ronery”.
Key quote: I'm… So… Ronery / So ronery / So ronery and sadry arone / There's no one / Just me onry / Sitting on my rittle throne / I work rearry hard and make up great prans / but, nobody ristens, no one understands / Seems rike no one takes me serirousryyyyy / And so, I'm ronery / A rittle ronery / Poor rittle me.
See below for Kim’s assault on UN Inspector Hans Brix… I mean, Hans Blix.
1. The French Taunter, played by John Cleese from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail
In a movie with so many bizarre characters and memorable scenes, this guy is completely stands out with his over-the-top French-accented insults.
Key quotes: (too many to list just one): “I’m French!” Why do you think I have this outrrrrageous accent, you silly king?”
“You don’t frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King; you and all your silly English kennn-iggits!”
“So, you think you can out-clever us French folk with your silly knees-bent-running-about-advancing behavior. I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lover second-hand electric donkey bottom biters”
Both scenes in which the French Taunter appears are in the clip below.
Character Villains
3. Catwoman, played by Julie Newmar on the TV show “Batman”
Oh, my. This “villain” had my little 6-year-old world all screwed up. I know she was always setting deadly traps for Batman, but me-yow, even my tiny elementary-school brain could see she was fiiiiine. Even Batman just wanted to get her up to the Bat Cave. (Nope… no jokes about the Bat Pole… must… resist…)
There have been a number of Catwomen… Eartha Kitt? She predated Julie Newmar but I never saw her play the role. Lee Merriweather played Catwoman in the 1966 movie… she was OK, but something just wasn’t quite right. Michelle Pheiffer? OK, you got me there… she was also fiiiine. But also stone cold crazy. Lastly, Halle Berry in the 2004 movie… Fine, but the movie was so bad it doesn’t really count. No, my heart belongs to Julie Newmar and my mixed up 2nd-grade memories.
Key quote: (Batman) “Oh Catwoman… Catwoman, will you never learn?”
Catwoman comes in at about the 1:20 mark, and makes me want to do things to her of which the ASPCA would not approve.
2. The Joker, played by Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”
“Why so serious?” Because this was a serious role, that’s why. I saw the Dark Knight in the theater last year and you just couldn’t take your eyes off the guy. The role was richly written and brilliantly acted. I used to think that Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the gold standard… he had it way over the TV version. But the thing is, you always knew it was Jack Nic. He never stopped being Jack. I don’t know where Heath Ledger went during the filming of that movie, but he was gone and only insanity was left, along with that lizard tongue.
Key quote: “Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the... little emotions. In... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?”
1. Dolores Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”
This is what you get when you cross a mean, small-minded bureaucrat with unfettered power. The reason she gets this ranking from me is that I know people like this, sans that magic. The shallow veneer of civility can only hide so much. Putting people like this in charge of children is like putting a necrophiliac in charge of the Coroner’s Office.
Key quote: “As I told you, Mr. Potter, naughty children deserve to be punished.”
Coming soon: the “Regular-People” Villains.
Comedic Villains
3. Hedley Lamarr, played by Harvey Korman in “Blazing Saddles
Harvey Korman stepped out from the Carol Burnett show to portray a brilliant comedic villain, foil to Sheriff Bart and confidant of the “Gov” (Mel Brooks). No word if Tim Conway was unavailable.Key quote: “I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the west. Take this down. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists!!” (See below for full effect.)
2. Kim Jong Il, voiced by Trey Parker in “Team America: World Police”
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the guys that do “South Park” did an action movie that makes fun of the lunkheads that blow up the entire city in pursuit of the bad guys, and the weenie Hollywood establishment that protests their methods. And they did it all with marionettes.The brains behind this particular bad-guy operation is North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. He is played with a broad Asian accent and he gets most of the good lines. Then after numerous scenes of depraved brutality, he gets the show’s big number, the somber lament, “I’m So Ronery”.
Key quote: I'm… So… Ronery / So ronery / So ronery and sadry arone / There's no one / Just me onry / Sitting on my rittle throne / I work rearry hard and make up great prans / but, nobody ristens, no one understands / Seems rike no one takes me serirousryyyyy / And so, I'm ronery / A rittle ronery / Poor rittle me.
See below for Kim’s assault on UN Inspector Hans Brix… I mean, Hans Blix.
1. The French Taunter, played by John Cleese from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail
In a movie with so many bizarre characters and memorable scenes, this guy is completely stands out with his over-the-top French-accented insults.Key quotes: (too many to list just one): “I’m French!” Why do you think I have this outrrrrageous accent, you silly king?”
“You don’t frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King; you and all your silly English kennn-iggits!”
“So, you think you can out-clever us French folk with your silly knees-bent-running-about-advancing behavior. I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lover second-hand electric donkey bottom biters”
Both scenes in which the French Taunter appears are in the clip below.
Character Villains
3. Catwoman, played by Julie Newmar on the TV show “Batman”
Oh, my. This “villain” had my little 6-year-old world all screwed up. I know she was always setting deadly traps for Batman, but me-yow, even my tiny elementary-school brain could see she was fiiiiine. Even Batman just wanted to get her up to the Bat Cave. (Nope… no jokes about the Bat Pole… must… resist…)There have been a number of Catwomen… Eartha Kitt? She predated Julie Newmar but I never saw her play the role. Lee Merriweather played Catwoman in the 1966 movie… she was OK, but something just wasn’t quite right. Michelle Pheiffer? OK, you got me there… she was also fiiiine. But also stone cold crazy. Lastly, Halle Berry in the 2004 movie… Fine, but the movie was so bad it doesn’t really count. No, my heart belongs to Julie Newmar and my mixed up 2nd-grade memories.
Key quote: (Batman) “Oh Catwoman… Catwoman, will you never learn?”
Catwoman comes in at about the 1:20 mark, and makes me want to do things to her of which the ASPCA would not approve.
2. The Joker, played by Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”
“Why so serious?” Because this was a serious role, that’s why. I saw the Dark Knight in the theater last year and you just couldn’t take your eyes off the guy. The role was richly written and brilliantly acted. I used to think that Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the gold standard… he had it way over the TV version. But the thing is, you always knew it was Jack Nic. He never stopped being Jack. I don’t know where Heath Ledger went during the filming of that movie, but he was gone and only insanity was left, along with that lizard tongue.Key quote: “Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the... little emotions. In... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?”
1. Dolores Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”
This is what you get when you cross a mean, small-minded bureaucrat with unfettered power. The reason she gets this ranking from me is that I know people like this, sans that magic. The shallow veneer of civility can only hide so much. Putting people like this in charge of children is like putting a necrophiliac in charge of the Coroner’s Office.Key quote: “As I told you, Mr. Potter, naughty children deserve to be punished.”
Coming soon: the “Regular-People” Villains.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Best Laid Plan (B)
In a long overdue ruling, a federal judge ordered the food and drug administration to make the Plan-B morning after birth control pill available without prescription. The major finding was that the Bush administration had placed undue pressure on the FDA to limit the availability to women over 18.
No big surprise there; conservative moralizing finding its way to trump science and dictating the country’s health policies. Here, I find the hypocrisy of the religious conservatives staggering. These are supposed to be the people leading the fight against abortion. Unfortunately, they’re also leading the fight against birth control. (Plus adoptions by gays, but that’s another story.)
You would think that there would be a higher priority placed on preventing the pregnancy in the first place. But the real push was that costly white elephant, the Abstinence Program. Which doesn’t work. So that brings us to the attempted restriction of Plan-B, which was nothing but a thinly veiled punishment of young people that dare to have sex.
Remember that there were numerous delays and objections before getting Plan-B approved at all, for women of any age. Senator Clinton had to stonewall a Bush appointee to run the FDA until they agreed to allow the sale of Plan-B without a prescription. If a woman has had unprotected sex on a Friday night and is seeking Plan-B, what are the odds she’s going to get that doctor’s appointment before it’s too late? Can you say “S.O.L.?” The over-the-counter status for Plan-B was key to its effectiveness, and just getting that far with the conservatives took an all-out effort.
I know the prevailing thought is that the “morning after” pill is akin to abortion. That prevailing thought is wrong. Plan-B is not abortion; it’s no different than the effect of an IUD. Once again, the Christian right, under the guise of the Bush Administration, pushed through a policy that’s based on misinformation, hysteria and holier-than-thou righteousness in place of established science.
I sleep so much better at night now, knowing that science and common sense is once again present in our nation’s highest office.
No big surprise there; conservative moralizing finding its way to trump science and dictating the country’s health policies. Here, I find the hypocrisy of the religious conservatives staggering. These are supposed to be the people leading the fight against abortion. Unfortunately, they’re also leading the fight against birth control. (Plus adoptions by gays, but that’s another story.)You would think that there would be a higher priority placed on preventing the pregnancy in the first place. But the real push was that costly white elephant, the Abstinence Program. Which doesn’t work. So that brings us to the attempted restriction of Plan-B, which was nothing but a thinly veiled punishment of young people that dare to have sex.
Remember that there were numerous delays and objections before getting Plan-B approved at all, for women of any age. Senator Clinton had to stonewall a Bush appointee to run the FDA until they agreed to allow the sale of Plan-B without a prescription. If a woman has had unprotected sex on a Friday night and is seeking Plan-B, what are the odds she’s going to get that doctor’s appointment before it’s too late? Can you say “S.O.L.?” The over-the-counter status for Plan-B was key to its effectiveness, and just getting that far with the conservatives took an all-out effort.
I know the prevailing thought is that the “morning after” pill is akin to abortion. That prevailing thought is wrong. Plan-B is not abortion; it’s no different than the effect of an IUD. Once again, the Christian right, under the guise of the Bush Administration, pushed through a policy that’s based on misinformation, hysteria and holier-than-thou righteousness in place of established science.
I sleep so much better at night now, knowing that science and common sense is once again present in our nation’s highest office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)