November 26, 2007

Not surprising

I could have predicted the results of this quiz, especially since I answered an emphatic YES to the "Do you like redheads?" question:

Your results:
You are Spider-Man

























Spider-Man
80%
Green Lantern
75%
Superman
65%
The Flash
65%
Supergirl
60%
Hulk
60%
Robin
55%
Catwoman
45%
Iron Man
45%
Wonder Woman
40%
Batman
35%
You are intelligent, witty,
a bit geeky and have great
power and responsibility.


Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 2 kb.

November 13, 2007

Sympathy and well wishes needed

I dropped by Moxie's place today and saw the awful news that Bentley passed away. What I found revolting is that none of her L.A. friends - translation: self-absorbed dickheads- could rouse themselves from their narcissitic stupors long enough to drive Moxie and Bentley to the vet's office for cremation. I did see via Steve that Aaron drove over to help, because Aaron is good people. So it turns out that not Moxie does have some real friends on whom she can depend.

In news that's related only because it deals with one of my furkids, Diego's long incarceration is about to end. Animal control and I are arguing over the release date: they say 6 months, while the health department says 180 days. Regardless of who wins this debate, Diego will be running free no later than November 21, which means that I'll have something extra special for which to be thankful for this Turkey Day.

Now I almost feel guilty celebrating Diego's release because I know how much Moxie is greaving. But I can't deny the happiness that Diego's upcoming release will give to me. I just wish that there was something I could say or do to help Moxie right now and I also know that there isn't.

Take care, Moxie. Bentley knew that he was loved and that's the best thing that can be said about anyone.


Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

November 07, 2007

Some common sense on a touchy subject

Despite the caterwauling from the usual suspects (you don't seriously expect me to link to those douchebags, do you?), I've never favored torture. And though Abu Ghraib provided those yammering nincompoops proof that "the US is just as bad as Saddam, mayb even worse!"™, it remains an isolated incident. Since the military resembles our country in a microcosm, it's no surprise that the occasional evil person manages to slime their way into the armed forces. The fact that no such event has occurred since would lead you to believe that this was, in fact, the reprehensible actions of some people who would probably be pulling the wings off of flies if they hadn't joined the military first. Hopefully, being in the service will give that minority what they sorely lack: a moral center.

Anyway, onto the topic at hand. I've watched with interest for several years the dizzying arguments about people being pro or anti torture. It shouldn't need saying, but I'm willing to bet that almost everyone opposes torture almost all of the time. Where we run into disagreement is over the definition of what constitutes torture. Many people who I respect think that waterboarding is torture; end of story. Others who I respect feel differently. That discussion is worth having. What I find irresponsible and hypocritical are those who refuse to actually define what constitutes torture. More specifically, our beloved elected officials decline to pass into law exactly which acts should be legally considered torture. Why do they fail to act? Because taking a stand for or against a particular action will set them up for abuse as either (a) too eager to pull off fingernails or (b) more than willing to give warm oil massages to terrorists. Instead, failing to put themselves on record for/against a particular activity allows our leaders in DC to pompously preen, strut and moralize at length about anything and everything. So it's not about defining torture. Instead, it's about seizing the political low ground. And to those people I have something to say: fuck you. You think that something is torture? Fine, pass a law against it, as well as any other actions that horrify you. Then enforce those laws. Otherwise, have a Coke and a smile and STFU.

Stay with me, I'm actually going somewhere with this rambling post. J. R. Dunn wrote an article about how many have been "defining torture down". He makes many valid points which, of course, will continue to be ignored. Either that or shrieking ninnies will claim that he's an Evil BushBot. Regardless, here's an excerpt:


"Torture" is one of many current topics of significance that have been abandoned to the left. Leftist commentators have been allowed to set the terms, make the definitions, and generally run the argument without much in the way of serious opposition or debate.
...
"Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.

The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)

Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage.
...
The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody.
...
The most recent uproar concerns waterboarding, a practice that has become a media favorite because it is the only activity approaching torture known to have been carried out under official auspices. Waterboarding has played a large part in Judge Michael Mukasey's bid to become attorney general when he refused to define it as "torture". A number of Democrats, including the party's entire presidential slate, have declined to support Mukasey for this reason.

Waterboarding may be brutal, it may be nasty, it may even be uncalled for. But it's not torture. It does not inflict physical pain or damage. It does not destroy the victim. Its sole purpose is to create a sense of terror by arousing deep instinctive reactions against drowning, instincts shared not only by almost all mammals, but almost all vertebrates who don't happen to be fish. It is effective, it is quick, it leaves no scars and should revolt no one's conscience.

There's plenty more to read. In fact, I suggest that you get busy right now.

Thanks to Mike for the link.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
25kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1398 seconds.
89 queries taking 0.1185 seconds, 221 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.