Monday, November 26, 2007

If at first something fails catastrophically--throw more money at it

Just in case anyone needed another reason to hate zoos:

Three polar bears have already died due to Buffalo zoo's neglect. This makes me sick to my stomach that the only folks who have voiced any real concern is PETA. Insert gagging noise here. They make a point to say that this is the first time in five years that they have asked that a zoo be shut down. I should be giving credit for their incompetence now? (But hey, look at how many womyn they've managed to objectify in that time!!)

The Buffalo News had a front page story on it the other day with various people defending the zoo (because the previous article detailing all of the zoo's neglect wasn't received well?), and reasoning that; hey this just means we should be giving them more money! I guess now the continued funding of the Iraq war makes perfect sense.

My slow fingers can't find the link right now, but pretty much the only effort being made is to (a) close down the zoo entirely, or (b) simply move the one remaining polar bear to another, "better" place. Which is oh so eerily reminiscent of the helpfulness of closing down Abu Graib, IE one place of torture, and simply rendering everything to another location.

I especially love how this article makes a point to say:

Fields said the zoo does not report every death to the media because animal
deaths are regular occurrences at a zoo.

Which is perfectly true. Other beings dieing for the sake of humyn entertainment does happen all the time. Every day. Nothing to see here folks, just walk away and return to your lives.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Stop thinking, you!

I've now seen the H.R. 1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 bill which just passed in the House of Reps in about every internet reading place I like to go to. And, everyone is super shocked, its dubbed the thought crime bill; many understandable references to 1984. Honestly I'm shocked that so many folks are shocked, though. I parted with my first amendment rights with the Patriot Act, just like everyone else. And I watched as the fear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act would be used to prosecute peaceful AR activists, become a reality as the SHAC 7 and many other good folks found themselves in jail. Putting a web site up has already got people in trouble, this is hardly anything new. It's an essential dictatorships last lingering leap for finger holds into American law. I'm pretty sure it's only going to get worse. Hell, Gravel can't even go to debates now. I don't even like him, but I want him back. Keep the illusion up for folks that anyone can run for president. I do like though, how now all these ultra republican publications are getting worried about this, and totally seem to think that it is aimed at targeting them. That does get me laughing.

P.S: I don't think about any action, or inaction ever, and actually this blog is just random letters that my fingers type from time to time and I'm so a patriot and love our troops. So, you know, I don't and will never do anything this bill says I shouldn't do.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Go smoothie!

5 ice cubes
1 cup frozen grapes
2 cups swiss chard
1 cup alfalfa sprouts
1 cup pea springs
2 small kiwis
1 tablespoon blackstrap molasses
1 tablespoon flax seed
.25 cup water

So this one definitely had a taste. It was sweet, and if "refreshing" was a taste, that would be it. Also it felt like little bubbles in my mouth, and I decided I liked a breakfast that did that. It has a slight bite as an after taste, but I think that’s because a few radish sprouts ended up in there. It was sort of green too! Only a murky one with little multi-colored specks in it. But not to shabby getting the color so on track on the second go. It did yield me two coffee mugs full, and by the end of the second one I was sort of getting tired of it and thinking it was a bit sweet.

Fat: 9, Calories: 655, Carbs: 142, Protein: 17, Vitamin A: 49%, E: 78%, K: 1155%, C: 446%, B-6: 126%, Thiamin: 66%, Riboflavin: 58%, Niacin: 42%, Folate: 63%, Iron: 70%, Zinc: 36%, Selenium: 18%, Calcium: 38%, Phosphorus: 58%, Magnesium: 106%

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Big Bang Theory inspired, very practical Great Green Smoothie Experiment

Recently, because of some of my favorite television shows ending (can you say Gilmore Girls?), and a few old ones I liked ending up not entertaining me this season for whatever reason (Numbers, for one); I've fallen onto a new show that I absolutely love: The Big Bang Theory.

Now, I'm not one to really blog about TV in the past, but it brought me to my newest quest, so an impromptu introduction was needed. The co-op was selling all these greens for unusually cheep price, so I ended up picking up way to many for a normal twenty-two year old to go through left to her own devises. So I was looking at my unusually large amount of chard, kale, dandelion greens, and spinach, watching said show last night trying to incorporate my unusually large collection of greens into dinner with, salad because I'm (1)not too original late at night, (2) generally enjoy salads despite having to constantly answer clichéd remarks about it, (3)figured it was the best way to start making a dent in them (along with chugging down a few quality heirloom tomatoes).

Well Sheldon started a bunch of experiments, and one of them was achieving the best scrambled eggs. Which, eww, but it got me thinking along the lines of kitchen expirements. And, I have a digital camera! One that I haven't fully worked out yet, but what better way to learn. Additionally, I hadn't found any one single green smoothie that I had all the ingredients for or liked all the components, so fueled on by Sheldon, I have decided to pursue The Great Green Smoothie Experiment. Boring for every other person except me.

Ahem, without any further ado:

GGSE #1:
1 cup frozen strawberries
1 cup frozen blueberries
1 cup chopped kale
1.5 cup chopped swiss chard
1.5 tablespoons flax seed
dash of nutmeg (why not)
.5 cup soy milk and .25 cup water
1 tablespoon blackstrap molasses

So, on the positive side: it didn't taste bad. It was also frozen-ish which is how I like my smoothies. And it got rid of some green stuff, but I think I got a bit to happy with the fruit. On the cons: it wasn't green, which was, a huge disappointment. Purple would be a nice description, grey would sort of be more accurate. It didn't really taste like anything, mostly just frozen, however, only faintly like molasses. Maybe if I strained my taste buds a bit of strawberry.

But it was edible, even though I had no clue what I was doing! I just threw stuff into a blender. So, I'm quite satisfied with day one.

I suppose most people if they were not me would be interested in the nutritional information, and this being all "science-y" I guess I'll post an approximation, made by fitday, which is a site I sometimes use when I'm feeling particularly neurotic about nutrients. I'll try posting the pictures when and if I figure out the camera situation.

Calories: 506, Carbs: 109, Fat: 10, Protein: 13, Vitamin A: 132%, B-6: 115%, B-12: 38%, K: 1867%, C: 424%, Thiamin: 48%, Riboflavin: 54%, Calcium: 43%, Niacin: 24%, Folate: 36%, Iron: 64%, Zinc: 23%, Selenium: 15%, Phosphorus: 41%, Magnesium: 85%

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Katrina's accomplices?

I thought, hands down this article would be getting into the failure of the Bush administration, race, class and gender issues...any number of ideas that I'm interested in always reading on. Katrina's accomplices?? I knew the answer to this question...

Unfortunately the author didn't. Instead, he decided to compare a parent leaving their child in a hot car to die; to a parents "decision" not to evacuate. Like folks in the Ninth Ward were like, well, I could save our lives, but I'm just not feeling up to it. He even mentions not having the resources. Only this was answered with, well; saying I'm poor never let parents who leave their children in cars off the hook. Prosecute Katrina victims as well. They lost a child, let's make them "really" pay with some legal consequences.

I'm mind numbingly floored at the inability to grasp class struggles. What it means that the majority(?) of Americans don't understand what it means to live in poverty day in and day out, to not have enough money for dinner or medicine; let alone the finances to back a trip. There was no decision. Folks who were left vulnerable in New Orleans weren't there because they choose it; society and capitalism pushed people there. And this administration did jack shit. How you can analyse the situation and find the victims at fault is really, truly beyond me.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Look at me(!!!): I can talk AR without objectifying womyn!!!

I'm going to preface this rant for just an unexpected moment with: I like Alicia Silverstone, I do. I like how she talks about veganism on popular shows, when asked for an interview, in a way that doesn't seem defensive, or angry; attributes that I inevitably end up producing whenever I'm trying to talk about it.

But seriously: she made awesome, totally articulate arguments for veganism--with her clothes on.

And I'm not to sure with what taking them off had to do with animal rights, especially in a world where this was done without a catch phrase of, "I'd rather go naked then wear fur" (not that this would make it a particularly better argument, but it would at least be a bit more explainable). Just talking about how awesome "vegetarianism" is, (because even though this is one of the rare times PETA uses a celebrity with a consistent advocacy, for some reason it's conveniently[?] left out and reduced to an advocacy that is still pretty down with exploiting animals) without your clothes (and wet!!! because wet naked is soooo much sexier then just naked alone) may, I suppose, somehow makes steps for AR, but a world where animals have rights, yet womyn are reduced to objects, is still a pretty sucky reality for me.

Though this doing things in actuality for animal rights is still a pretty weak argument for me. Naked womyn and PETA is hardly a new concept, surely the "shock" factor of which they claim this advertisement originally was supposed to do, is gone. Indeed, although it is breaking today, it isn't making any huge headlines (though it did warrant a few seconds on The View, but that was mostly so Elisabeth could tell everyone how not mad she is at Alicia, not to actually discuss veganism).

This isn't going to launch a new discussion of ethical discourse in America; it's just another situation where a womyn is being devalued as a person with ideas and feelings, and made into a sexual object where we can judge her physical attributes more accordingly. The fact that it has Alicia's face on it, the fact that she's a "celebrity", the fact that the ad is talking about vegetarianism is all rendered irrelevant when they're trying to accent her sexual attributes at the forefront. The blurb by the video ad on PETA's website by Alicia seems to be the final stamp on this ("I lost the weight" and "I look better now"), seemingly to advocate not to be vegan for any moral implications, but to use veganism as the method and the way to increase your sexuality, a way you too can render yourself fit to serve a male dominated fantasy.

And that fucking sucks.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I lose stuff too, but it's never really been that bad

I can appreciate that it is generally difficult to sometimes keep track of things, particularly when you try and move a lot of stuff at once. I seem to have left a souvenir at every hotel I've stayed at (a little gift to the maids, maybe, if you will). But it is 99 percent of the time, little things that didn't really make it too high on my list of priorities. I have a few things that seem valuable to me, so I make it a point to keep track of them. Cell phone? Check. Ipod? Check. Sunny Care Bear flip-flops I found for less then a buck in LA? Check. If I had a gun, or something with the possibility to kill mass people, that would also totally make that list.

So, it really confuses me when it's revealed that, (a) about two hundred thousand things with the potential to kill people are missing, and (b) it takes about two years for this to really be realized. When this first broke, I figured that I must grossly be underestimating how much weapons are being used in the first place. Several different sources are phrasing it as thirty percent though. We don't know where almost a third of our weapons are?? I need to find a word that means even less then incompetent, because this is so far below that word. Incompetent is the word I use to describe the new waitress's ability to effectively clean dishes. I need something greater when I try and conceptualize what not knowing where this many AK-47s are means.

What makes me even more shocked, is that a lot of folks when they talk about how frustrated it makes them, center an anger not at the damage said weapons could, and probably are, doing; but that their tax dollars are being wasted. I think about money fairly often; a lot of people on tight budgets probably do. But it is a new low of the American egotistical psyche to hear about loss weapons in Iraq, and to be worried about their wallet, not about the people who are most likely being shot because we have so much shit over in Iraq, we can't keep track of it.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Youtube debating makes me want to watch the Republican debate

I thought this was going to be one of those things that I get all excited about, then it turns out phenomenally bad and disappointing (Like when you stay up for days so you can both work and read the entirety of Harry Potter, only for that ending). But I had genuine fun watching the latest instalment of the democratic debates; and what's more I can watch all the replays I want on youtube because they sponsored the whole thing. Or something equivalent-I'm not sure how they really would do that, but I'm fairly certain CNN told me this was a fact several times.

Literally the only negative thing about the whole experience was that my tv guide didn't understand what was going on, and didn't list when and what channel the debate was on, so I literally spent two hours before the debate flipping through all these vaguely looking CNN and fox news channels trying to find it. Luckily, I found it with twenty minutes still left on their countdown--which is another fabulous idea. They had a timer going counting down for the last hour, giving it the anticipation level it justly deserves.

It all started out so spectacularly too, with a Chris from Oregon asking how all the candidates would be any different, with plenty of air quotes to go around. I think I'm officially in the Obama over Clinton camp (but obviously Kucinich over them all) indefinitely. Which I believe is a result of both Clinton looking more politically motivated and sideswiping important issues, and Obama just getting better at saying...the same lines he has been saying. (But really better at it; and seeing as they are good lines anyways...). And it really broke my heart when asked if she would meet with leaders (even and especially ones we are in conflict with) during her first year and office and she gave the most direct 'no' I think I've ever heard her say. Obama on the other hand, said it has been quite a ridiculous policy indeed thinking that we are somehow punishing countries by not talking to them. But, Kucinich is giving reparations for slavery, and its before the primary and he's still in it, so why am I talking about Obama?

Gravel, not to disappoint was as angry as ever, right from the get go; even after humbly thanking his youtube questioner for asking him a question because, "he doesn't get a lot". This was mainly concerning how everybody is getting funding, yes even Obama, from banks, (and well, he's not). I'm also confused how Edwards can say that he's, "on a journey" with an issue, and so therefore doesn't know his personal opinion about it (gay marriage), but he affirms his personal opinions shouldn't reflect policy anyways. Which, 'yeah!', I think; but why then is he answering every other question as per what he believes in?

In all of the funny moments, I think it is tied between the snowman (hmm--I just realized this word is gendered, but I'm not quite sure how to remedy that because snowmyn just looks weird and snowperson seems stupid...) worried about how global warming will affect the little snow...people... and when everybody had to "say a nice thing about the candidate on their left" as a feel-good tacky close to the debate (which, come on, I live for), Kucinich's remark of "hey, I was set up; there is no one to the left of me", was met by an unusually fast and witty reply from Anderson of, "we looked; we couldn't find anyone to the left of you". It doesn't get better then that people.

So I got this shirt now and have totally texted 'peace' to 73223, because that's really all Kucinich wanted to get across the entire debate (the latter, not the shirt-that was totally my idea).

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

That's okay: I didn't want to be paid the same amount as dudes anyways

In an America where you can sue a dry cleaner to the tune of 67 million dollars for a lost pair of pants, I'm finding it impossible to conceive that similar retribution has been made virtually impossible for victims of pay discrimination.

180 days to file a claim relating to such an issue is a joke; and the plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter is the personification of this problem, as it took nineteen years before it was realized she was getting paid forty percent less then the lowest paying male supervisor (see this fantastic article).

Justice Ginsburg puts it correctly in her dissent saying, "In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination...Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores."

The Grossman and Brake article states, "An employer could pay a woman less than her male counterparts for her entire career, and admit that the reason for doing so is because she is female, as long as the decision to set the discriminatory wage happened at least six months earlier. This rule places untenable burdens on employees and circumvents Title VII's substantive protection against pay discrimination."

Will I ever sue because of a pay discrepancy? Probably not. I like to believe, though, when ever I'm in a tough situation that the law "is on my side" and works most of the time (I know, I know; how I manage to sometimes so romanticize 'the law', even baffles me at this point) . But that romanticism is what gave me the strength to tell my boss' supervisor when I worked at the dinning hall, that they couldn't simply change the names of our foreign exchange students to something "American" because my boss couldn't pronounce their real name, and not think I would get fired. (Oh, the good ole days when I knew nothing about 'big corporation' and the ability of an employer to make you want to leave)

This takes so many steps backwards towards getting the pay gap closed. It's something that makes me struggle to find an area where the law is, in fact, "on my side" when they seem to care about an already rich guys pants over low paying workers trying to get through the every day. Yes, these two cases aren't in a direct competition at all, but the fact that the first case can exist while the second is now shut down, is extremely disheartening.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

By a show of hands...

Ah, more debate. With Kucinach still in the race; does it get any better? It could, probably, if the candidates weren't reduced to having to raise their hand every other question. Come on, asking for a show of hands is something you use to decide who wants to go to the Mexican place to eat verses the Chinese one, not to determine who thinks English should be the official language of the United States, and certainly not to discern candidates concerns about the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

How frustrating.

But there were a few gem questions like Wolf Blitzer asking seriously, "what would you do with Bill Clinton?", then looking according uncomfortable, uneasily realizing the flaw of the question as he turned to Hillary Clinton to ask the question again. I admit; I'm easily amused, and still in college and fairly young, so I find it perfectly acceptable to laugh at ill phrased questions such as that. So I giggled again when Bidden explained his disagreement to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy as uniquely as he always manages to with stating about once you're in a hole, your not asking the other guy next to you whether they are gay or not. He meant foxhole, and I'm sure everyone knew it... everyone who has grown up at least.

For a two hour debate without commercials, overall I thought:
  • there was too much Blitzer talking, especially when he insisted on repeating other folks' questions.
  • Blitzer referring to everyone else by their title and last name, and referring to Clinton as Hillary for some of the debate was inexcusable.
  • Gravel was uncomfortably angry the entire time (maybe because he's polling below 1%?), which made me sad and angry because I had totally essentialized all Alaskan folk as basically being cold, but very still very HAPPY versions of hippies (especially with the Men in Trees drama awhile back). So basically, my illusions are shattered; 'plow guy' doesn't exist, and certainly there isn't a sweet and simple Patrick guy waiting for me, and Jack is just a lie. Alaskans are actually apparently even grumpier then we all are.
  • Obama really doesn't know how to talk about policy. And I got out the line ''we need a po-litical solution, not military one" before he did, so score one for me, but probably minus a lot more for him.
  • Clinton starting to answer every "if you were president" question with, "when I'm president" was a phenomenal move on her part. Similarly, her stating for everybody involved which questions they will all answer was exceptional. This was a great technique to try and get us not to focus on how she is claiming that, "if she knew then what she knows now" she would not vote for the war, BUT she somehow still contends that she was fully briefed before she voted, and that she knew all the facts.
  • Bidden impressed me with how he talked about Darfur, and reminding everyone of the urgency to act now ("as we sit here talking, 50,000 will be dead in Darfur"). Similarly, my mouth is still hanging open that Richardson apparently feels intervening with the Beijing Olympics to stop a genocide would be a "disproportionate" action. Seriously??
  • Kucinich admitting he wouldn't kill Bin Laden if given the opportunity (assassination bad, following laws good), probably lost him any long shot he had in this race, but I admire him (yes, some more) for answering honestly, and for sticking with his principles.
And the best part, what does Kucinich want to do during his first 100 days in office? Aww, "reshape the world for peace". I'm getting images of Sandra Bullock, William Shatner, and Heather Burns explaining her favorite "date".

Hey, the republicans are about to go at it now; we shall see if they will make me laugh or cry more.

I'm not quite sure why my last post is so catastrophically weird and hard to read, but hopefully it will never happen again.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Ode to Dennis Kucinich

My eagerness and enthusiasm leading up to the first democratic debate ended up to have so many disappointing moments. I like Obama, in the sense I suppose, that I acknowledge it is probably going to be the best outcome I can reasonably hope for. More so then I even like him, is my want to really like him, which I suppose inevitably starts to complicate things. I like what I saw as an honest enthusiasm for the issues he likes to talk about, and especially his work on disclosing the stuff that the government is doing (ie being able to go online and see where exactly tax dollars are spent).

I've never really heard too many long
speech segments made by him however, and I was really uncomfortable with too many of his answers for me to want to start giving him my one and only vote that I get in this whole thing. I also didn't like (on a more general note) how the candidates went out of their way to seem like they were agreeing with each other, in an attempt to, I can only fathom, try not to step on other folk's toes too early; but that was supposed to be the point of this whole exercise.

This leads to my secret
candidate coming out and saving the day; Dennis Kuchinich. At this point, I'm so biased I almost can't tell people he's number one on my list without smiling. Even pushing aside the awesome work he's done for the AR movement, showing and constantly pointing out the link of how animal cruelty leads to humyn violence, recognizing the crisis our climate is in, and backing up everything he advocates by being vegan, and having a shockingly consistent voting record--breathe, yes, besides all that (the issues that I feel closest too, but understand don't hit very high on other folk's level of importance)-- I think he has an array of innovative and workable answers on many other issues such as immigration, energy, and education.

For anyone silly
enough to have missed the action, you can follow along here-

It will please me
immensely to put my top problems with the candidates (specifically towards Obama in general, only because he is my next "go to" person, so to speak) in list form, with how Kucunich solved the problem for me:
    1. I am uneasy with how Obama seems to answer questions with "run around the issue" answers that makes no clear articulation where he stands. Or attempts to push the topic to a place where he feels more comfortable, or has more solutions.

Senator Obama, on this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

OBAMA: You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy...Now, there is a broader issue, though. And that is can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in the circumstances where they've got to anguish over these decisions.

Those are areas where I think we can all start mobilizing and move forward rather than look backwards.


KUCINICH: But the truth of the matter is, it's possible, I believe, to take a course of action where you can get all the people of America in support of a culture of life which includes prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, universal health care, a living wage, all those things that give support to life.

a) Obama's response that we need to talk about abortion in terms of some ridiculously linking teen pregnancy issue where, "we do agree on" is atrocious. Nothing is going to be solved by side stepping to some ground deemed "safe". Debate needs to happen; there needs to be a discussion in which the harms are out in the open, where we are having a conversation about what it means when abortion is "legal" yet inaccessible to too many people, where the teen-age mothers Obama vaguely references are forced to let their fate fall into the hands of their parents, and what waiting 24 hours and listening to a stereo typed and simplified speech about abortion, really gains (personally, still searching for this last one...)

b)I'm not trying to say that Kucinich really scored too many points exactly on this particular point either, but as many have pointed out in examining the debate (talking unfortunately about other people, not him) , he won it by not losing; in this case, not pretending that it's simply a matter of stopping womyn from being in the position to make this decision in the first place.

2. I'm confused as to what Obama is actually proposing in terms of resolving the war.

OBAMA: ...there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.


MODERATOR: Congressman Kucinich, do you think one can be against the war and yet still fund it?

KUCINICH: No. I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again...Furthermore, I don't think that it's sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we would have voted differently. That information was available to everyone. And, if you made the wrong choice, we're auditioning here for president of the United States. People have to see who had the judgment and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place, and I made the choice not to go to war.

a)What is his political solution? Reading other bits from where he talks about his plan, I've gathered he wants it to obviously end, and there is a bunch of troops being pulled out; but how is troop removal a political solution? According to his web site some troops will remain to "engage in counter-terrorism" ...which sounds suspiciously like what we are doing now, only with a few less people. If he really believes the war is "dumb", why would this still be going on? I am much more ready to listen to Kucinich's 'peacekeepers' without, you know, guns and other weapons that usually make talking harder, to try and resolve things.

3. You've got to be able to defend what you're doing, and why you are doing it; and then stick with it.

You've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren't you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

OBAMA: Well, not all, (emphasis added) we have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior and I have denounced it. But I have a track record of bringing people around this new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature.


MODERATOR: "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?Let's try Congressman Kucinich. Why is your hand not up?

KUCINICH: Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty.

a)Direct questions need direct answers for me to believe what they are saying. I don't like fancy footwork that aims to distract from what is being discussed.

4. Seriously: Edwards spends $400 on his haircuts?
(even Kucinich couldn't resolve this problem, however)

Monday, April 16, 2007

TV Smith

Monday's Music of the Moment::: TV Smith

I like music that tells me stuff; I'll be the first to admit that. Particularly stuff that I think and believe I have already cleverly figured out, and more specifically stuff that falls into the anti big government category or anything at all related to the AR movement. The louder, crazier, more confusing, the better really. Because soft, "clouds, love, and butterflies" music as I call it, with perfect lyrics and some pretty person singing it to you can literally be found everywhere, and so no longer interests me. So it almost seems silly to me that I haven't previously run into this band before.

I'll put lyric tid-bits from two of my favorite songs to make up for it.

Sugar Crash:

They spoon it on because they've worked out that
If life tastes sweet, we don't fight back
Sugar crash

Only one Flavor:

This is how it starts up
A slap and a cry
The slaps keep coming
For the rest of your life
And you don't know who to question
And you don't know how to fight
You just hope that by the end
It turns out alright

Monday, March 26, 2007

Oh, Oklahoma (insert heavy sigh with a hug and cup of vegan cocoa)

I'm probably in poor shape to be attempting to write coherently, but as it was a huge triumph just to make it to Oklahoma because of both personal (i.e; work, school, and generally trying to organize what I'm going to do with my life) and bureaucratic (as in SUNY Buffalo is really not much of a fan of supporting student's interest outside of sports and video game clubs) issues, I simply cannot wait to gush a bit.

In a way it was supper sad because I knew it was my last tournament; my last chance to debate, smile at winning, laugh at dumb cross x questions, feel irrationally (and the occasionally justified)anger at judges when the outcome didn't pop up as expected, and spend countless time waiting for paired rounds while trying to re-hash the entire round with anyone in the vicinity who will listen. It was in all it's entirety a priceless experience though, and somehow worth every single hour of extra shifts, work, and time spent leading into it. I literally couldn't have asked for a better partner to share it with (both as an excellent debater, but also just a phenomenal person), or more enthusiastic for our cause coach (I love you Katie!), or better people in general to be around in every single one of the Rochester folk.

It's also additionally sad because the one thing that Yasin, Shannon, and I originally sat down and set as a goal when we really tried to think about all the things we wanted from the club, never really happened because next year will leave Buffalo without a debate team again as Ben gets to be with a "real" debate team, and I will be off gallivanting in Burlington, and Jeff will

Even in light of all that, and also the day and a half bus ride there (and then correspondingly, back) that has to be considered; it was without enough sufficient words to describe it. The seven rounds leading into the eighth one, held some of the best and most entertaining debates I have ever been a part of. I also picked up a laptop and was literally in awe of how easy my flow could be organized with a few clicks. My last round of my "career", I guess, as a debater I got to go into with a 4-3 record with the entirely tangible possibility of breaking at nationals (especially after the 1AR ), and that's really all I could have ever asked for.

I genuinely heart policy debate forever.