I just wanted to point out that making a big deal about this doesn't enhance bloggers credibility when they complain about this . A pile on is tons of fun but getting carried away doesn't help the cause.
The ladies at the Independent Women's Forum linked to this article about a school in the Bay Area that is catering to those who do not want to force small children into strict gender roles. This letter (I'm J.P.) was my reply. My philosophy about gender in child-rearing has always been that most harm is done by making a big deal of things. Children should not be made to think that something is wrong with them because of their preferences. They shouldn't be searching for the answer "what is wrong with me" when absolutely nothing is wrong with them. When I was a child I was completely unaware of what was going on around me. As an adult I found out that some of my classmates were deemed in danger of not being masculine enough or not being feminine enough. The adults, parents and school councilors, were trying to *fix* these kids. The parents of my tomboy neighbor were told to have her spend lots of play time with a girl who was very feminine. She's married,
Well I'm feeling rather smugly smart just now, this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Pete Du Pont says what I've said many times. The electoral college is a *good* thing and direct popular election of the President is a *bad* thing. The problem with democracy is that nothing about majority rule protects the minority. Nothing. At one time I found it baffling that dissident groups in some far away country would boycott elections. What sense did it make for them to complain when they refused to participate? There is nothing baffling about it. They refuse to participate because they don't want to contribute to the illusion that they have representation when they have nothing at all. When our constitution and our laws about the government were being set up the people discussing representation knew this very well indeed. This is why we have severe constitutional limits on the Federal government (not so much as when we started out, but that was the plan) and two houses of
Well, if it's true I'd like to take this opportunity to publically authorize the US government to use my tax money to send the pervert back to Thailand. They were nice enough to cooperate with an extradition. It's only fair that we return the favor.
Ghost in the Shell Ghost in the Shell - stand alone complex : 6 or so DVD's Corrector Yui : 2 DVD's Blue Seed : box collection - I haven't watched this yet My Neighbor Totoro (I'm including Miyazaki movies) A Chinese Ghost Story (probably as good as Miyazaki) Orphen : box collection Nausica (Miyazaki) Castle in the Sky (Miyazaki) Lost Universe : 8ish DVD's Noir : 6 or so DVD's - I haven't watched this yet Gasaraki : complete series Dirty Pair : 3 DVD's Bubble Gum Crisis - Tokyo 2040 : complete series Elhazard : 4 or 5 DVD's Spirited Away (Miyazaki) Tenchi : The movie - Tenchi Universe - one other version Howl's Moving Castle (Miyazaki) Porko Rosso (Miyazaki) The Cat Returns (Miyazaki) Metropolis Ninja Scroll : a couple DVD's Akira Jin-Roh The world brigade : box set Gunsmith Cats - Bulletproof Macross Plus Castle Cagliostro Lodoss War : 2 DVD box Princess Mononoke (Miyazaki) Rahxephon : 6 or so DVD's Kiki's Delivery Service (Mi
Drudge has this article linked. Two scruffy looking Asian men had the gall to terrorize British vacationers by *gasp* speaking a foreign language on an aircraft. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand the article seems to clearly lay the blame for irrationality on the passengers with mention that political opponents blamed the government for failing to reassure people. (You'd think that the opposition could also take some initiative to reassure people but there, like here, scoring political points takes priority.) Why blame people for being scared? Is this actually an *irrational* fear? Are they responsible for the perception that scruffy looking possibly Arab men are dangerous? Or are terrorists responsible and the public response *rational*? On the other hand, I feel a bit like rubbing the sophisticated Euro nose in this unsophisticated behavior. Europe doesn't admit it's racism, and that's on a *good* day. While I agree that airpo
I've said for a while now that fears that Giuliani can't sway the Republican base of conservative Christians is simply not true. This article supports my view though it's not conclusive. It's not skeletons you know, it's skeletons that are IN closets. And dressing up like a girl only matters if people have any reason to expect that you mean it. ;-) The social liberalism matters. The 2nd Ammendment matters. But they aren't going to matter as much as people think they will. I've heard liberal persons explain who OTHER people won't vote for... how do they know? I think it's their own prejudice speaking, either their prejudice ("a black person/woman/Jew can't get elected") or prejudice about other people's supposed prejudice. And people don't like it when those assumptions are made about them. In the last election Kerry and Edwards tried to play on what they *believed* would put off the Republican religious bas
This is a rather interesting article by Josh Manchester. At first I thought that "caveman" was supposed to be insulting but apparently not. I suppose it makes more sense if you've seen the SNL sketch... it seems a take on "I'm a simple person and I don't know much but I do know *this*." Josh gives us this version of the Caveman: Hey, all you elected politicians and media types and academics! I'm just an average guy. I wake up and I go to work and I have a family. I don't know much about Shi'ites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Salafists, Imams, Mullahs, root causes, or the desire for democracy in the Muslim world or whatever. My mind can grasp these concepts just fine, the fact of the matter is I just don't care. I don't know much about all that stuff, but there is one thing I do know: when a bunch of "death-to-america" chanting yahoos want to destroy our culture, attack our cities, down our aircraft, and build nuclear weapons, the
This is my response to yet another comment (this one on neo-neocon's blog) claiming that Bush was the worst president EVER and Condi was a laughingstock in the world. (The Condi bit was somewhat unusual, I will admit. What wasn't all that unusual was that the commenter, IIRC, claimed to be reasonable.) I'm reminded of that saying: Metaphysics - I'll see it when I believe it. The force of WILL displayed is incredible. The belief that Bush is bad-evil-theworstever existed before he ever took the oath of office. The sore feelings that Bush was better at stealing an election than Gore was taken up by people who are professionals when it comes to the ultimate moral authority... outrage. Gore started out by displaying a petulant attitude and it's never let up. And this was in 2000. When there was a limit to the damage that any president could do. The difference between a Dem status quo and a Rep status quo resembled the libertarian refrain "The Democrats and th